Re: Challenge to the behaviourists #2

From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 09/12/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:38:00 -0400

"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e2f1d09.0409090450.320ee338@posting.google.com...
> AC: David and I talked briefly about this example, but he didn't deal
> with this
> specific challenge, so here it is:
>
> You have Oedipus, who is unknowingly in love with his mother.
> Assuming that we all agree that this is undesirable, and that part of
> "controlling behaviour" is to change such situations, how does the EAB
> stance suggest approaching this issue?
>
> Note that the folk psychological or even Dennett's intentional stance
> would basically insist that you simply tell him that she is his
> mother, and his rational capacities will take over. What is the EAB
> response?
>
> GS: You have been told repeatedly about behavioristic notions like
> rule-governed behavior. You have been told how we learn to manipulate
> some of the variables of which our own behavior is a function. You
> have been told how we have acquired extensive verbal repertoires and
> how we have repertoires that can be described as "speaker" as well as
> "listener." You have been told how we come to observe, and otherwise
> act upon, the world and to "divide it into parts." You have been told
> how we come to observe, and otherwise act upon, our own behavior,
> including elements of it that can be observed only by the behaving
> individual, and you have been told how the verbal community produces
> such "knowing." Behavior involving such processes is behavior that is
> frequently described as "rational," deliberative," etc.

I don't care what you claim "I've been told". You're a behaviourist, this
is a specific example, you've been asked to explain what action behaviourism
says you do to correct such a situation.

>
> Why would the fact that one may alter Oedipus' behavior by speaking to
> him threaten behaviorism in any why?

Well, take it up with David. He was the one who originally ranted -- around
this particular example, in fact -- that verbal behaviour was terribly
ineffective at changing behaviour like this.

Second, you are assuming that I post to provide threats when you were given
an opportunity to prove behaviourism's worth. If this example is identical
to that of the folk psychologist or intentionalist, please provide one from
human behaviour that actually describes a difference between the two
approaches where behaviourism is correct and folk psychology and
intentionalism would fail.

Finally, if in this example behaviourism and folk psychology would easily
report the same solution of his issue, why would you say that behaviourism
is superior in handling human behaviour than the alternatives?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Neural netss (was Re: death of the mind.)
    ... >>We're all a product of our genetic and environmental histories Lester. ... >David, all you want is to horn in on subjects in which you have no ... of our folk psychology, *is* the folk psychological metaphysics which ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... >>them online, but you steadfastly fail to provide any ... > None of what you write is difficult for me to grasp. ... Your own folk psychology limits you; in fact, it is blinding you to your ... > David Longley ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... >>them online, but you steadfastly fail to provide any ... > None of what you write is difficult for me to grasp. ... Your own folk psychology limits you; in fact, it is blinding you to your ... > David Longley ...
    (sci.math)