🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2492@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu> Michael N. Nitabach writes:
 
>... I don't understand the undercurrent of fear regarding the
>potential sinister uses of behaviorist techniques for purposes of
>social control.  This concern is founded on a belief that behaviorist
>techniques *are*, in fact, successful in drastically altering the
>social and private behaviors of human beings, including unwilling and
>unknowing objects of these methods.  I submit that there is no evidence
>to support this supposition, and that this fear is unfounded.

I think that this depends upon what degree of control you are seeking
verification for. Association, for example, is exploited to considerable
effect in advertising (e.g. that's what the blonde lounging on the
convertible is for). Equally, fines for undesirable social activity
and praise for exemplary behaviour are forms of punishment and reward
behaviour modification techniques (as people become generally richer,
just make the fines larger - e.g. the tiing of insurance rates to the
number of tickets one has recieved, regardless of accidents). Perhaps
the most dramatic (peace-time) example of this sort of behaviour manipulation
has been the switch, in a span of about 10 years, from a society wherein
most were smokers to one wherein those who smoke are forcibly ostracized.
While one may argue that the `facts' of its cancer-promoting tendencies
are more solid, equal arguments could be given for alcohol (1000(?) brain
cells dead/ounce): the biggest change has occurred in what is socially
acceptable behaviour. Smoking no longer is - due to a very thorough propaganda
campaign (its adherent, of course, use the term `information dissemination').
Clearly, the time was ripe for this particular effect (increasing paranoia
over health, etc.), but that too has had (and still has) its strong lobby
over the airwaves.

Neither of these effects concerns me very much - other than as examples
of just how successful propaganda can be. Modern psychologists are becoming
increasingly aware of this not-so-latent potential, however, and (according
to one psychology of education text I've seen) were advocating using their
knowledge for `moral education'. Again, not especially troublesome since this
is what educators have been doing for centuries; what I DO find troublesome
is that we may even have enough knowledge (and resources) to actually be
successful.

My apologies for cluttering up comp.ai with this stuff, please direct any
responses to talk.philosophy.misc .

							R.
-- 
Ray Tigg                          |  Cognos Incorporated
                                  |  P.O. Box 9707
(613) 738-1338 x5013              |  3755 Riverside Dr.
UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp            |  Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4