Re: The fun with the "categorization"

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:26:06 +0100

In article <J9yHc.14705$Cr5.7867@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, MrPat
<mrpat@blue-g46.?.invalid> writes
>
>"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:mTvy7kKWxp7AFwWf@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <WkvHc.13257$Cr5.10923@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, MrPat
>> <mrpat@blue-g46.?.invalid> writes
>> >
>> >"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:ingzGHBrNP7AFw13@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> >> Has it occurred to you that it might suffice just to look more closely
>> >> at what the experimenters are actually doing, ie their methods?
>> >> --
>> >> David Longley
>> >
>> >Well the extracts from the essay only give a brief overview of the
>method;
>> >they don't go into details.
>> >
>> >If you haven't read the second extract (quote) from the essay about
>> >unconcious thought have a look, it is a short quote: how come people may
>not
>> >be consciously able to solve the triad of words, but they can state
>whether
>> >it is soluble or not. It would appear that this is only possible because
>> >they are dealing with the semantics of the problem at some other level
>than
>> >concsious thought and this is how they know the problem is soluble or
>not.
>> >Otherwise explain how you think they know.
>> >
>> >I'm open to learn more about this and your viewpoint, if you aware of the
>> >details of the method in this experiment or similar priming type
>experiments
>> >where the presence of unconcious 'processes' are infered by the
>> >experimenters, how would you criticize them? Please don't lauch into a
>> >generalised statement about intensional language and lack of control of
>> >variables using language that is too technical for me. See if you can
>start
>> >with simple primitive concepts that I understand and build on from
>there-I'm
>> >not an expert.
>> >
>> >It maybe that to do that is too onerous for you to attempt, but it would
>> >help me to further understand these type of experiments and your
>viewpoint.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
>
>I've had a look at this before; I got the gist of it, but it was very
>technical.
>
>>
>> Let's see if you can understand how this is related to the work outlined
>> in the articles in the May 2002 issue of the JEAB entitled: A Tribute to
>> the Harvard Pigeon Lab (1948-1998).
>
>OK, I found the entry. I will take my time having a look at it, and think
>about it, and then maybe get back to you about it. But, I hope it is not a
>load of idelogically motivated speel about behaviourism and includes
>perspectives other than radical behaviourism about what went on in the
>Harvard Pigion lab.
>
>>
>> <http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jeab/articles_selected/index.html>
>>
>> If you're not an expert, what makes you so arrogant?
>
>I'm not, but I think this is one of the problems you and Glen Sizemore have,
>and this is why most of your posts result in slanging matches. All you seem
>to be capable of doing is stroking people who agree with you and slanging
>off anyone who you think does not totally agree with your position and
>Sizemore is the same. Is this some sort of behaviourist experiment on
>Usenet?
>
> What makes you
>> think there's a way of talking about matters outside of familiar folk
>> psychology which isn't "technical* other than your ignorance?
>
>This technical language you talk about is based on the refinement and
>elaboration of basic primitive concepts which most people share which are
>derived from what you call common intensional understandings that people
>have about the world, which are then elaborated and refined as specific
>meanings within the discourse of radical behaviourism. How else did you
>learn all the technical language in your subject; you were not born with it.
>
>All I'm saying is that you should try and be more adaptable, and in
>explaining your position to non experts and even other experts not immersed
>in the behaviourist discourse, you should try and establish some common
>understanding and then build on that. In other words reverse engineer the
>process you went through in aquring all your technical words.

Then perhaps you should look into this:

http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Cropwood.pdf
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/CatA1990.pdf
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Regimes.pdf

http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Sm-97apr.pdf
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Workj97.pdf

and *then* see:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r161.pdf

(and more recently):

<http://www.renewal.net/Documents/Research/Understandingwhataccredited.pd
f>

See press and parliamentary coverage

<http://society.guardian.co.uk/mentalhealth/comment/0,8146,1047852,00.htm
l>
<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/c
m031110/text/31110w25.htm>

>
>If you don't see that this is the only way to persuade people as to the
>merit of your position then you are completely ignorant concerning how to
>communicate your knowledge to others, so that they can understand you.
>
>
>
>
> It seems
>> to me that what you should be doing is acquiring some expertise in a
>> field that you currently have little grasp of, and the way to do that is
>> to master some of the "technical" language!).
>
>Right so unless someone speaks in exactly the code you use they don't
>understand anything, don't be such an arogant idiot.
>

I'll let someone else enlighten you on that and some of the rest of your
nonsense. 

-- 
David Longley