Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism

From: Glen M. Sizemore (gmsizemore2_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:19:08 -0400

1.) Behaviorism and the experimental analysis of behavior are not about
simple observation - they are about manipulating their subject matter.

2.) In many cases it is only the very wealthy that can afford behavior
analysts - as in cases where wealthy people hire behavior analysts to work 8
hours a day establishing verbal behavior in their autistic kid. And, it is
usually only the educated parents that know that behavior analysis is the
only thing that works.

I have heard of simple observation being called "behavioralism," though.
This has nothing to do with behaviorism, which is what you think you are
talking about.

"alan jones" <ob2@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:Skegd.244$he4.90@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> "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 that 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 of. Here
> under the rule of economics, its unlikely to be used as one-to-one
> thearapy, but instead used to create bureaucrasy.
>
> 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 obsevers.
> Behavioralism suits a simple idea of simple people, the great unwashed,
> the poor. I would say wherever the poorest are to be found, you'll find
> them as guinea pigs for the behaviouralist, promising big things, in order
> to exercise his knowledge.
>
> [Behaviour in this setting is a curious thing, particularly when the same
> behaviour can have many preconceptions attached to it. Appropriate
> behaviour then because 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 arena for this bureaucracy would be the prison
> services. [insert appropriate public founded service here ]
> And yet there's no real reason to suppose this could operate beyond
> the level of a pointed stick. Inducing pain for an observed modification
> of behaviour, at last only for as long as this sharp stick were present.
> If one allowed criminals a modicum of 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. 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 threadmills.
>
> 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 remit of this science, but my
> concern is also for action of this science on culture. What happens as
> this ethos is followed and copied because its seen as successful,
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, behavior 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 behavior modification among their members.
> >
> > However the scientific basis on which behaviorism is founded is
> > flawed and leads to an intellectual superstructure offering people
> > methods for behavior 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 responces. 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 behavior 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 behavioral 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 behavioral 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 behavioral modification for their own
> > purposes. And those are the ones I see attracted to the prospect
> > of categorical behavioral manipulation offered by behaviorism.
> >
> > Regards - Lester
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism
    ... There are many therapists trained in the ... In the mean time this science continues with little regard for circumstance ... And, frankly, behavior modification through training ... and I know that scientologists use them ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism
    ... There are many therapists trained in the ... And, frankly, behavior modification through training ... and I know that scientologists use them ... > break their own bad habits through retraining and manipulation. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism
    ... There are many therapists trained in the ... And, frankly, behavior modification through training ... and I know that scientologists use them ... >> break their own bad habits through retraining and manipulation. ...
    (sci.cognitive)