🚀 go-pugleaf

"DKleinecke" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1189134694.968893.257520@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 6, 3:16 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for remaining polite under stress.



Well, I wouldn't want to go to Hell, or anything.


>
>> "DKleinecke" <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> On Sep 6, 1:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >> > > Since language is "the social art," the study of the use of 
>> >> > > language
>> >> > > in society is a rather important part of the study of language.
>>
>> >> > Yeah, but it is largely orthogonal to the behavior of individuals. 
>> >> > Not
>> >> > irrelevant - just orthogonal.
>>
>> >> Exactly.
>>
>> >> You're not interested in the purpose and function of language (viz.,
>> >> solidarity and communication), so you can offer little insight into
>> >> language.
>>
>> > I snipped the rest because this seems to be an excellent little
>> > summary of the problem. Unless I misunderstand the current behaviorist
>> > position
>>
>> You do.
>>
>> (which I believe Skinner did not share)
>>
>> Most of the behaviorists left are, in fact Skinnerisns.
>
> As in the case of Christ - was Skinner a Skinnerian?



Yes, Skinner was a Skinnerian. He spent a fair amount of time clarifying - 
and defending - what he had already published. I doubt that this could be 
said of Christ, who was more of a guerilla leader than anything else. There 
is a further difference - Skinnerians don't generally seek to portray at 
least half of what he said as something else. They may say that half of it 
is wrong (and still be "Skinnerian") but, as I said, they do not generally 
practice Orwellian Doublespeak.




> Personally I doubt it.  But I admit most of my case is based on
> "Walden Two".

Not sure if what you are saying above is supposed to be in reference to my 
statement that most behaviorists left are "Skinnerians" or your own question 
about Skinner being a "Skinnerian." In any event, the whole issue strikes me 
as more a distraction than anything else.


>
> I intend to ignore the rest of your response and open a new question:
>
> Are you familiar with object-oriented programming?



Vaguely.



>The notion that
> reality (or at least the reality that computer software exists in)
> consists of "objects" that communicate by sending "messages".  To me
> this sounds exactly like classical behaviorist thinking yet, so far as
> I know, it is an entirely independent invention.



Well, you would have to say more than this because, on the surface of it, it 
strikes me as somewhat, err, whimsical. Watson's behaviorism was largely a 
reaction to th psychology of Wundt and Titchner, and the so-called 
"structuralism" movement. It tended to be influenced greatly by reflexes and 
conditioned reflexes. I suppose you could say something like "the stimulus 
sends a message to the animal" and that is the basis of your comparison. But 
this, itself, would be quite silly.




> If I can use object-oriented programming as a model for behaviorist
> psychology I think I can conclude that linguists have more (but still
> very little) to learn from computer science than from psychology (or
> at least its behaviorist branch).
>
> Sorry about that.



What you say seems just plain silly. As is commonly said in Usenet, "what 
you say is so far off it is not even wrong." Sorry about that.



With the Utmost Cordiality and Best Regards,

Glen