🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1309@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes:
>In article <52019@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
>> 
>> A better strategy is to empower a system to become self-regulating.
>> To do this, one abandons the notion of control in favor of the notion
>> of reliable observer.  The observer doesn't direct the system, it
>> merely reports actual behavior relative to a goal.  While this idea
...
>> To summarize, in order to empower ourselves to achieve high levels
>> of autonomous self-control, we have to pay close attention to each
>> other.  Another word for that is Caring.
>>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Another word for that is not *caring.*  The word is *manipulation.* 
>It depends entirely on whether the *victim* of this *observation*
>perceives the attempted behavior modification as in the victim's own
>interest or not, and on the victim's personal reaction to
>manipulation attempts.

One of the classic arguments against Behaviorism is that it is
essentially a fascistic philosophy.  That is, it is a system for
controlling the behavior of the many by an elite few.

The problem I have with this description is that it implies that the 
controllers are not being controlled.  

The fundamental basis of Behaviorism is that we are material beings.
There is no evidence that there are any other causes for our behavior
other than genetics, experience (biological and psychological), and 
current environment.  That's it! ... nothing else!  

Why should our ablility to describe the behavior relationship for 
things in a human skin be different than anything else?

I think there are only two reasons for arguing


>The problem with your approach is that it assumes a rational
>victim. There are those who will react negatively to any attempt to
>manipulate them without their prior permission (or even with it) and
>who will not just simply hide from the _observer_ or _witness_, but
>execute revenge against being controlled (even if the control is in
>their own interest, and even if the revenge is against their own
>interest).
>
>You cannot assume that agreement about the desirability of achieving
>a goal will be sufficient for acceptance of a witness. The actual
>presence of the witness may invoke negative reactions that will
>subvert the achievement. In short, there are some people who cannot
>be controlled. There are some people who will react violently
>to attempts to control them regardless of your reasons for doing
>so. There are some people who will cooperate with you unless you
>attempt to control them.

The assumption that one can will to react negatively is incorrect.

*ALL* people with an **percise** configuration of genectics, previous
history and current environment will *always* react negatively.

The closer a particular person's configuration matches this 
the higher the probablitiy for a negative reaction.

A simplistic formulation of the radical behaviorist's description of 
how feedback (although I don't think it really is feedback) control:

Behavior followed by a Reinforcer of that Behavior 
will 
increase the probablity of that behavior's occurence.

There are some modifications to this description depending on 
if one is interested in a antecedent stimulus or negative
reinforcement but, this is essentially it.

My question is why would any one think that 
1) we are more than materialistic beings ... what valid evidence is there? 
Valid in the sense of observable, reliable and well constructed measures.

2) is the Behaviorist explanation of behavior accurate... that is, it works 
so often that we can call it accurate.

I question the frequency of the explanation working only conceding that 
genetic/biological explanations may be more powerful than the
Behavioristic ones.

3) if 1 and 2 are true is it immoral to not apply these explanations
in ways that can help people?   e.g. Teach people lots of info in non-
coercive environments, help the mentally ill... help people work
better ... airline maintenance, air traffic controllers etc.

Also, I would be very interested in corresponding with other
behaviorists about topics beyond defending behaviorism... please
contact me via any of the methods below:


=============================================================================
Brian  | UC San Francisco        | E-mail: USENET, Internet, BITNET
Colfer | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  |..!{ucbvax,uunet}!daedalus.ucsf.edu!brianc
       | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | brianc@daedalus.ucsf.edu 
       | PH. 415-476-2325        | BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET
=============================================================================