merits of behaviorism?

[cab21]

so how valid is behaviorism in bringing about moral behavior

 

with positive and negative reinforcement and punishment tools, what kind of examples could there be?

 

say rape vs no sex vs consenting sex.

 

could a person say there is positive reinforcement for "not raping" and that "not raping is in itself a behavior, or would the positive reinforcement have to be "for having consenting sexual relationships"?

[LovePrevails]

it's a terrible approach, it doesn't affect peoples underlying values at all it just bullies them into appearing as who you want them to be and their dysfunction tends to come out in other ways

[Sal9000]

What kind of Behaviorism are we talking about? The classical one with operant conditiong or the newer one that focuses on higher cognition? I think the latter one has some merits. The main proponent of the 'second wave'  of Behaviorism was crucial for developing Acceptance and Commitment therapy which can hardly be seen as a dangerous movement. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_C._Hayeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_Frame_Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_and_Commitment_Therapy

[dsayers]

so how valid is behaviorism in bringing about moral behavior

 

The way I see it, to qualify for moral consideration, you need choice and other people. Behaviorism takes the choice out of the equation. Teaching somebody to say 2+2=4 isn't the same as teaching somebody how to add.

[labmath2]

The way I see it, to qualify for moral consideration, you need choice and other people. Behaviorism takes the choice out of the equation. Teaching somebody to say 2+2=4 isn't the same as teaching somebody how to add.

 

The distinction is an internal one. This is where intention comes into play. We can only measure how someone acts, we cannot measure why they act.

[dsayers]

we cannot measure why they act.

 

Perhaps you mean we cannot quantify why they act. We can surely qualify why they act. This is why things like self-knowledge, peaceful parenting, and family histories are so important.

[cab21]

it's a terrible approach, it doesn't affect peoples underlying values at all it just bullies them into appearing as who you want them to be and their dysfunction tends to come out in other ways

 

 

what is a approach that does affect people's underlying values and does not bully into a false appearance?

 

What kind of Behaviorism are we talking about? The classical one with operant conditiong or the newer one that focuses on higher cognition? I think the latter one has some merits. The main proponent of the 'second wave'  of Behaviorism was crucial for developing Acceptance and Commitment therapy which can hardly be seen as a dangerous movement. See: http://en.wikipedia....Steven_C._Hayeshttp://en.wikipedia....al_Frame_Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia....mitment_Therapy

 

 

this would be something i'm into exploring. right now i think i have just read some of operant conditioning.

 

the goal that i would be looking for is that people engage in the behavior because of a genuine value for the behavior.

 

watching the wife swap show, one of the ways one mom dealt with issues was through a sticker task chart with a reward at the end of of filling out all the stickers. it made me wonder about how that effects the actual value the child would have for the tasks if there were no longer stickers? to actually have the child intrinsically value each of the task as their own reward seems better

 

ill look up stevan hayes stuff 

 

The way I see it, to qualify for moral consideration, you need choice and other people. Behaviorism takes the choice out of the equation. Teaching somebody to say 2+2=4 isn't the same as teaching somebody how to add

 

i thought behaviorism keeps the choice in the equation?

the person can choose to do the behavior and get a reward or punishment.

 

some reward for learning how to add, and lack of reward for not learning how to add, still keeps the choice of learning how to add on the person who may or not get a reward for learning how to add i would think

 

a store owner who has no accounting system will likely see results of a worse of financial situation than a store owner with a good accounting system. now there's to accounting for values here but there is still a choice in which route to take right?

 

The distinction is an internal one. This is where intention comes into play. We can only measure how someone acts, we cannot measure why they act.

 

can communication help this, deep honesty or can people not even measure why they themselves act?

[labmath2]

When we get into why people act one way or the other, apart from direct cause and effect, we still have a long way to go to understand the way human minds work. Sometimes even people do not know why they do one thing or the other. Take the Milgram experiment or the asch conformity experiment where people placed in certain environments behave in a way that is different from their normal behaviors. Of course self-knowledge helps, but it can only help so much since we have instinct and compulsions that generally affect our actions.

[LovePrevails]

 Teaching somebody to say 2+2=4 isn't the same as teaching somebody how to add.

 

well put!

[Lians]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4Qe1yL04JS4C&pg=PA109

 

Associationism or behaviourism is no longer as dominant a force in psychology as it was in the mid-1960s. Nevertheless, its contributions can still be seen in areas such as special education, animal science and clinical psychology. Applications in education and clinical settings include concepts such as precision or target teaching, classroom management, elimination or reduction of undesirable behaviour, and so on. 

 

Behaviourism fails to account for a number of important phenomena such as relative behaviour reinforcement (difficult or impossible to measure), complex abstract associations (such as market behaviour), and learned helplessness (control over events as a reinforcer).

 

These shortcomings combined with the development of information theory in computer science gave rise to the information processing model of learning. Have a look at this course if you want a more detailed presentation.

[dsayers]

lack of reward for not learning how to add

 

Conditioning isn't passive. You have to inflict punishment to discourage the unwanted behavior. This is coercion, which is the definition of lack of choice.

[cab21]

Conditioning isn't passive. You have to inflict punishment to discourage the unwanted behavior. This is coercion, which is the definition of lack of choice.

 

 

i think i need to redo the example

 

say a person gets a loan, has bad math and can't pay off the loan, having to pay a fee for missing the payment would be the punishment. that way the person is breaking the contract if the person does not pay the fee, rather than there being any coercion.

[dsayers]

That's not behaviorism. That's a voluntary contract.

[FriendlyHacker]

There is no single idea that can fully explain animal behavior, human or otherwise, but if you have been watching Stefan's shows about childhood, that is a good explanation about how school and parents can shape a child's behavior throughout their adult life, and how bad negative reinforcement turns out to be.I highly recommend Skinner's books, might be dated now but are amazingly well written and full of useful information.

 

What Skinner basically says about negative reinforcement, is that it's very effective... until the person doing the negative reinforcement leaves the room and the curbed behavior is done over and over again out of spite. That is, if you model someone to only respond to negative reinforcement, you're modeling the behavior that it's ok to cheat as long as no one catches you.

 

Now for answering the original question about how being good in itself is a reinforced behavior, read Dawkins' The selfish Gene and see how good guys actually finish first.

[cab21]

There is no single idea that can fully explain animal behavior, human or otherwise, but if you have been watching Stefan's shows about childhood, that is a good explanation about how school and parents can shape a child's behavior throughout their adult life, and how bad negative reinforcement turns out to be.I highly recommend Skinner's books, might be dated now but are amazingly well written and full of useful information.

 

What Skinner basically says about negative reinforcement, is that it's very effective... until the person doing the negative reinforcement leaves the room and the curbed behavior is done over and over again out of spite. That is, if you model someone to only respond to negative reinforcement, you're modeling the behavior that it's ok to cheat as long as no one catches you.

 

Now for answering the original question about how being good in itself is a reinforced behavior, read Dawkins' The selfish Gene and see how good guys actually finish first.

 

im still trying to get clear on the terms

do you mean positive punishment instead of negative reinforcement?

 

i thought negative reinforcement was taking something away to encourage the person does the behavior?

positive punishment would be something like spanking, adding something to try and discourage the behavior?

 

http://psychology.about.com/od/operantconditioning/f/positive-punishment.htm

this article has a note from skinner calling spanking positive punishment

 

it looks like spanking it not even always a positive punishment, when it's done way after the fact and the person does not know what the spanking was for. i think it says the spanking would need to be when the behavior the spanking is trying to stop is happening.

[FriendlyHacker]

Negative reinforcement is modeling behavior by the use of punishment, positive reinforcement is modeling behavior by the use of encouragement, recognition, compliments and other positive attitudes.About the article above, it's just wrong. Don't trust anyone though, read things by yourself. Most people are quite incompetent at their jobs, regardless of titles, and I don't even have a title I can cling to, so don't believe me either.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Human-Behaviour-B-Skinner/dp/0029290406

[Wesley]

Negative reinforcement is modeling behavior by the use of punishment, positive reinforcement is modeling behavior by the use of encouragement, recognition, compliments and other positive attitudes.

It probably doesn't matter to your argument, I just wanted to say that this isn't exactly true.

 

Positive Reinforcement: Give someone something they want for doing an action. ie: Here is a tax break for supporting our political campaign.

 

Negative Reinforcement: Take something negative away (or the threat of something negative away) for doing an action. ie: I will take away a giant increase on taxes for your firm since you supported our political campaign.

 

Positive Punishment: Add something negative to discourage the behavior. ie: Since you supported my opponent, I am going to raise the taxes for your business

 

Negative Punishment: Take away something positive in order to discourage the behavior. ie: Since you supported my opponent, I am going to take away the subsidy from you that the other businesses in your industry enjoy.

 

 

Here is a chart from wiki if that helps more:

 

The vocab terms at the bottom here are the most helpful in discussing this topic, I think.

[FriendlyHacker]

It probably doesn't matter to your argument, I just wanted to say that this isn't exactly true.

 

Positive Reinforcement: Give someone something they want for doing an action. ie: Here is a tax break for supporting our political campaign.

 

Negative Reinforcement: Take something negative away (or the threat of something negative away) for doing an action. ie: I will take away a giant increase on taxes for your firm since you supported our political campaign.

 

Positive Punishment: Add something negative to discourage the behavior. ie: Since you supported my opponent, I am going to raise the taxes for your business

 

Negative Punishment: Take away something positive in order to discourage the behavior. ie: Since you supported my opponent, I am going to take away the subsidy from you that the other businesses in your industry enjoy.

 

 

Here is a chart from wiki if that helps more:

 

The vocab terms at the bottom here are the most helpful in discussing this topic, I think.

 

Thank you for the info.

[cynicist]

Well my main problem with behaviorism is that in its desire to be as empirical as the physical sciences it completely ignores the inner world. This includes an individual's conscience. We are not the same as less intelligent animals and being treated that way is degrading. In terms of morality, it's just plain useless. (the conscience is an internal stimulus, external stimulus like punishment/reward has nothing to do with being moral)

[FriendlyHacker]

Why would being compared to other animals considered degrading? Some alien life form is probably laughing their asses off every time humans call themselves intelligent.

 

Imagine you're some highly advanced alien life form visiting Earth for the first time, would you be able to tell the difference between a chimp, a bonobo and a human? Would you even dare to say that humans are the dominant life form in the planet, when bacteria is a way more successful life form?

 

The issue with behaviorism is not that it puts humans and non human animals into the same bag, or that it denies the existence of human nature or consciousness, the major issue with it is that it was invented before neuroimagining was actually possible, so people were trying to measure behavior while having no idea about what is actually going on in the brain. But hey, same can be said about Freud, Jung and co.

[cynicist]

Why would being compared to other animals considered degrading? Some alien life form is probably laughing their asses off every time humans call themselves intelligent.

 

Because our intelligence is so much greater? Unfortunately as a species we have used it in a self-destructive manner too, but empirically there is no other species on the planet that is as capable or self-aware as we are.

 

The issue with behaviorism is not that it puts humans and non human animals into the same bag, or that it denies the existence of human nature or consciousness, the major issue with it is that it was invented before neuroimagining was actually possible, so people were trying to measure behavior while having no idea about what is actually going on in the brain. But hey, same can be said about Freud, Jung and co.

 

No, the issue is that they said nothing besides behavior was relevant because anything else couldn't be considered empirical. Even neuroimaging doesn't tell us exactly how those neurons map to behavior, so that doesn't change anything on its own. From what I understand, behaviorism has been abandoned in modern day psychology as too limited, even if there were some valid contributions in the past.

 

[FriendlyHacker]

What I basically said above, is that any kind of psychology is fundamentally flawed, and not actually a science, when it does not take into account the biology of the brain.Read this book, and you might be surprised by the amount of insight neuroscience has to offer, which never crossed the mind of Freud, Jung or Skinner.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Brain-Tomorrows-Neuroscience/dp/B004JZWYA6

[cynicist]

What I basically said above, is that any kind of psychology is fundamentally flawed, and not actually a science, when it does not take into account the biology of the brain.Read this book, and you might be surprised by the amount of insight neuroscience has to offer, which never crossed the mind of Freud, Jung or Skinner.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Brain-Tomorrows-Neuroscience/dp/B004JZWYA6

 

I don't agree with that, but thanks for the link. I'm definitely interested in the subject.

[pnelson]

Hi everyone, I know this thread has gone quiet but I felt I had to weigh in. 

 

I'm a behavioural psychologist so I'm acutely aware of behaviourism as a philosophy of science and a psychological theory. I think there are a lot of misunderstandings about what it is (and isn't) and were it comes from. I don't want to go into a big literature review but if anyone has any questions about it I'd be happy to offer a contemporary view from a behavioural perspective.