Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 09/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:04:41 +0100

In article <414197c2$0$62374$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
Verhey <matterDELminds@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6e2f1d09.0409100317.2d5bf771@posting.google.com...
>> C'mon Vern, this is just that simplistic conditioning stuff and a few
>> drug effects on simplistic conditioning stuff. Why, with your
>> sophisticated knowledge of the really complex stuff, this should be a
>> breeze.
>
>So I must assume that the behaviorist elite needed perform all those
>experiments to find out, just because they are too stupid to predict the
>obvious right away. Maybe that's why their status has declined ever
>since. But I'm interested in the results of those particular pigeoneqsue
>experiments and their conclusions.
>
>
This could teach you something useful and paradoxical about the
attribution (use of) the terms "stupid" and "intelligent". But once
again, you just show us that the prospect of doing so is just far too
scary for you. 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2
    ... > C'mon Vern, this is just that simplistic conditioning stuff and a few ... > drug effects on simplistic conditioning stuff. ... But I'm interested in the results of those particular pigeoneqsue ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2
    ... this is just that simplistic conditioning stuff and a few ... > drug effects on simplistic conditioning stuff. ... the scant attention paid by many to behaviorism is very much ... What are the outcomes, and how would you predict them? ...
    (sci.cognitive)