Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism
From: alan jones (ob2_at_freeuk.com)
Date: 10/28/04
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism"
- Next in thread: John Hasenkam: "Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:43:48 GMT
"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:41808b45.58249779@netnews.att.net...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:21:19 -0400, "zerkanX" <zerkanX@nospam.net> in
> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:42:25 +0000, Lester Zick wrote:
> >
> >>>Behaviouralism in my view has less to do with science, as the ethos
> >>>of superficial judgement which follows its acceptance. Because this
> >>>is accepted as science, it is accepted in life.
> >>
> >> I couldn't agree more. An intellectual superstructure built on sand.
> >
> >First of all I must pick my jaw up off the floor in finding myself as an
> >apologist for 'behaviorism' or worse yet, posting ANYTHING about
> >it which infers knowledge. However, it does have a history in my life
> >because of, and only because of, the fact that I have hung around the
> >therapeutic wing of social work a lot.
> >
> >Given all this, behavioralism, as it seemed to me, was or is more of an
> >attempt to change very destrucAn intellectual superstructure built on
> >sandtive behavior very fast. It was not that practitioners were incapable
> >of considering anything else but because 'drastic times call for drastic
> >measures' as it were and cutting to the behavioral chase was the most
> >direct way to alleviate an immediate danger. All of this was done inside
> >the context of sever abnormality, usually. I do say 'usually' because it
> >seemed to also spawn a sort of emotional-power mongering among
> >those that moved from direct intervention social work into more broad
> >based applications.
> >
> >The finish line for me was when I was involved in a workshop put on
> >by the business college at a liberal arts (!) university for local ad
> >executives. It was run by a behavioral psychologist. The techniques he
> >introduced for behavioral conditioning/manipulation inside of a sales
> >situation were as mind bending as they were repulsive. Here I saw not
> >an 'intellectual superstructure built on sand' but a intellectual substructure
> >upon which to build extremely self-serving power and control.
>
> Hi zerkanX -
>
> I'm of mixed feelings here. There are many therapists trained in the
> behavioral modification approaches offered by behaviorism. And most
> are sincere and provide effective therapy to a lot of very sick
> people. So I don't consider my remarks as directed at behaviorists in
> general just because they happened to have been trained in one set of
> techniques or another. Therapeutic techniques have to be evaluated
> strictly in terms of efficacy.
If behaviourism was practiced on the basis of individual modification,
it could well produce results, tailored to the needs of the individual.
Unlike psychiatry or psychoanalysis, with its general clientele amongst
the middle classes, behaviouralism seems destined for the poorest of
the poor, those for whom the elite are already contemptuous. Here
against the rule of economics, its unlikely to be used as one-to-one
thearapy, but instead to create bureaucrasy. Systematised behaviour
for those whose freedoms we don't much care for.
Behaviourism with its practice in observation, suits those who are
not expected do answer back. Its suits a bureaucratic system, of ticked
boxes and rubber stamps. It would be simple enough to have lay people
operating [i.e. observing behaviour] at this level, supervised by the
occasional professional. A system checking for sought behaviour, collating
people on mass, with little regard for their circumstance or motives. At its
heart is the idea that people only operate at an instinctual level. Without
awareness, without savvy, without comprehension of their observers.
Behavioralism suits a simple idea of simple people, the great unwashed,
the unsophisticated, the poor. I would say wherever the poorest are to
be found, you'll find them as human guinea pigs for the behaviouralist,
promising big things, just so he might exercise his idea of knowledge.
[ Behaviour in this setting is a curious thing, particularly when the same
behaviour can have many preconceptions attached to it. Appropriate
behaviour then becomes a test of the observer and his diligence. In a
bureaucratic system there would be little regard for appropriate
behaviour. It would be enough to say, it looked like the described
[sample] behaviour, and so it would just be another tick, by these
lesser judges of behaviour. ]
The most obvious arenas for this bureaucracy would be the prison
services or education. [insert appropriate public founded service here ]
And yet there's no real reason to suppose this science could operate
beyond the level of a pointed stick. Inducing pain for an observed
modification of behaviour, at least for as long as this sharp stick were
present. If one allowed for the criminal's will, one might see them as also
practiced in their own street-wise understanding of human behaviour,
and thus perfectly capable of adapting before the professionals, for
the duration of their incarceration, but with no telling effect to their
character or long term behaviour. As far as the behaviouralist is
concerned, any observed modification of behaviour would be judged
a success. Then you might as well bring back stone breaking, or
treadmills. At this point I am reminded of that idea of the inner
police, a palatable form of words for what is in effect a form of
madness. The inner police, reads well enough on paper but what
would it be in biological terms... I digress.
In the mean time this science continues with little regard for circumstance
or environmental cues. Observation is suppose to reveal all. This might
indeed, be all that's required within the limited remit of this science, but
my concern is also for action of this science on culture. What happens as
this ethos is followed, then copied because its seen as successful, and
justified by the behavioralist. Superficial judgment, making its way
throughout the fabric of society because there's a science which say this
stance is justified. Justified for the poor, its justification is found cheaply
in the rest of society.
.......The behavioralist might as well observe the behaviour of a tree,
for all the thought they allow their subjects. I wonder what this science
would make of the person with visual problems? What would mere
observation say of his behaviour? What if this person was observed
reacting to something he eat, or reacting to something he alone could
smell, what would mere observations convey about circumstance.......
> Attempts to comprehend, control, and direct the mind hold an age
> old fascination. And, frankly, behaviour modification through training
> represents an effective therapeutic strategy in many cases. For
> example I believe Japanese police use variations of such techniques
> for dealing with criminals, and I know that scientologists use them
> for behaviour modification among their members.
>
> However the scientific basis on which behaviourism is founded is
> flawed and leads to an intellectual superstructure offering people
> methods for behaviour modification which may or may not work in
> all cases because people don't understand what exactly is being
> modified or how.
The flaw at its most obvious is this recourse to instincts, as the
thoughts and circumstance of the subject was not a factor on
behaviour. Other flaws are the limits it makes no attempts to look
beyond. Ignorance isn't an issue as the science only considers what
it can observe, the universe starts and ends with the observer.
Then there's the element of culture, which we share and can be
counted upon to underpin behavioural responses. Culture is far
from an objective measure of behaviour yet it would be taken
blindly as such. Attachment to culture, measured in lieu of the
actual behaviour.... easily done.
> My own take on behaviour modification in healthy people is that it
> is not the role of psychology to break peoples' habits but to get
> them to understand the source of a behavioural problem and then
> to get them to break their own bad habits through retraining and
> manipulation.
>
> That's the approach I see used in scientology although Japanese
> police obviously use behavioural manipulation directly to avoid
> recidivism in criminals. (I would like to add that I am neither
> Japanese nor a scientologist.) Yet there are many people out there
> who wouldn't mind using behavioural modification for their own
> purposes. And those are the ones I see attracted to the prospect
> of categorical behavioural manipulation offered by behaviourism.
>
> Regards - Lester
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism"
- Next in thread: John Hasenkam: "Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
