free will and psychology

[The Wrath]

Well, Freud pretty much originated the idea of the subconscious. Unpopular though it may be, I also like his idea of the id, ego, and superego. If you want to rail on me for that one, then start a new thread about it, because Freud was quite different than Skinner, and we're not talking about Freud right now.

Back to Skinner, why does operant theory require that humans be mindless automatons? Go to Las Vegas. Go to the slot machines in any casino and you will see Skinner's theory in action. Slot machines are based on the fact that reinforcement occurs at a variable interval, in exactly the same way that it occured when Skinner reinforced his rats for pulling the lever. And, just like the rats, human beings will sit there and play the slot machine thinking "maybe this will be the time I win big." Give them a few tokens once in a while, and they'll never want to leave.

It does not assume that we are mindless automatons. It assumes that our minds often function in ways of which we are not consciously aware. If you don't believe in a subconscious mind, consider the idea of a child who gets repeatedly stung by bees when he is 2 years old. By the time he's 15, he won't remember this incident, but he will probably still retain a paralyzing fear of bees, wasps, etc. He is not consciously aware of why this fear exists, because the incident that caused it is locked away in his subconscious.

You cannot throw Skinner's psychology completely out the window just because he had some bad ideas, philosophically speaking. If you have children and if you ever punish them or reward them, you are expecting those consequences to work based on Skinnerian principles. True, children were punished and rewarded long before Skinner, but the principles remain the same. You may draw different conclusions about why it works, but the fact is that it works and Skinner showed how.

[DavidOdden]

Back to Skinner, why does operant theory require that humans be mindless automatons?

What to you mean by "operant conditioning"? Please state the defining characteristics, and tell us how we distinguish "operant conditioning" from known forms of learning that humans are capable of.

[Bold Standard]

Care to name a few? Did you mean the one where man is essentially a pervert grubbing for feces, perhaps? Fraud... *ahem* Freud was a total creep and his theories are junk.

Sure-- repression, projection, conversion, various defense mechanisms and potential (except he thought they were inevitable) neurotic devices of consciousness were all his ideas. I think Leibniz gets the credit for inventing the idea of the subconscious mind, though. [edit: Freud's pervert determinist stuff is useless. But he's also one of the first scientists to experiment with psychotherapy, which is pretty valuable.]

And, just like the rats, human beings will sit there and play the slot machine thinking "maybe this will be the time I win big." Give them a few tokens once in a while, and they'll never want to leave.

What kind of rats are these who think in complete sentences? The Rats of NIMH? The differences between rats and humans are the exact ones that Skinner overlooked, which puts some serious flaws in his whole theory, as it applies to humans. But I don't doubt that operant conditioning works good on rats. And I do think that's worth something.. (Animal psychology is interesting, too.)

Edited July 4, 2006 by Bold Standard

[JMeganSnow]

You know, I can say just from my own personal experience that attempts to "condition" human beings are bunk; I've been exposed to various attempts at it all my life, and they've pretty much universally failed. Why? Because I formed some independent conclusions about the intent of my would-be conditioners that completely invalidated anything they had to offer me.

Even very young children are not stupid. Spank them when they do something wrong? They don't "associate" the pain with what they did, they realize that they need to endeavor not to get caught. Reward them when they "behave"? If they're remotely like me, they soon reject the reward as a hideous fake.

You may be able to influence how someone will feel about particular actions, but not, ultimately, how they act.

[The Wrath]

People seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we are the same as rats. I'm not saying that we just automatically respond to stimuli. That is why Skinner believed that his operant conditioning worked. If you want to say that people learn from conditioning, I agree. I think that that learning can be both conscious and subconscious, in that we don't always consciously think about our motivations behind doing something. So, it's like I keep saying, you are disagreeing with why Skinner thought that operant conditioning worked, but no one seems to be denying that it works.

Megan, consider a child who cries because he wants a piece of candy in the grocery aisle. If you buy it, he learns that he can get candy by crying and, thus, will be more likely to do it in the future. If you ignore him, or punish him for crying, he will be less likely to do it in the future. That's the type of conditioning we're talking about. It won't apply in all circumstances because, as you said, kids just learn how to do stuff without getting caught. But there are plenty of circumstances, such as the above, where that is simply not an option.

And people's feelings do often affect how they act. Not always. But if you affect feelings, you could also affect their actions. If you condition someone to be deathly afraid of snakes, they probably won't want to go with you on a vacation to Costa Rica. How people act is ultimately a matter of free will, but their tendencies to prefer certain courses of action will be affected by many factors.

Edited July 4, 2006 by Moose

[mrocktor]

If you want to say that people learn from conditioning, I agree.

What she is saying is: people learn.

mrocktor

[Felix]

Fraud... *ahem* Freud

I've heard someone refer to Sigmund Freud as "sick man fraud."

Just wanted to let you know that.

[Inspector]

If you have children and if you ever punish them or reward them, you are expecting those consequences to work based on Skinnerian principles.

No, because Skinnerian principles say it works because they are mindless automatons. I would use no such principle; I would reason with the children and not just punish them. Skinner would just punish them. I've spoken with Objectivist parents who have confirmed emphatically that you must reason with children, and not just punish them. They must understand why they are being punished.

You may draw different conclusions about why it works, but the fact is that it works and Skinner showed how.

No, he didn't. His idea of how it works is just as wrong as his idea of why it "works."

[Inspector]

Skinner thought that operant conditioning worked, but no one seems to be denying that it works.

I deny that it works. For exactly the reasons Megan gave. It might appear to work with people who just-so-happen to come to the same conclusions consciously as you expect them to come to with your "conditioning." But the whole thing goes off the rails when the conscious mind visibly asserts itself.

In other words, the only time it even appears to work is when it is a coincidence.

[aequalsa]

You may be able to influence how someone will feel about particular actions, but not, ultimately, how they act.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Many people act on their feelings, so if you can control what they feel, shouldn't you also be able to control how they act through their feelings?

In other words, the only time it even appears to work is when it is a coincidence.

Is it coincidence or related to the way the individual person's mind operates? Waiting for some folks' minds to 'conciously assert itself' can be a dreadfully long wait

[Inspector]

Is it coincidence or related to the way the individual person's mind operates? Waiting for some folks' minds to 'conciously assert itself' can be a dreadfully long wait

Speculate if you will about "missing links," but psychology is meant to deal with humans.

[aequalsa]

Speculate if you will about "missing links," but psychology is meant to deal with humans.

By 'humans' I take it that you mean only the ones who choose to live by reason?

[Inspector]

By 'humans' I take it that you mean only the ones who choose to live by reason?

Aye, it was a reference to Chapter 4 of Philosophy: Who Needs It, which is entitled "The Missing Link."

[Bold Standard]

I'm not saying that we just automatically respond to stimuli. That is why Skinner believed that his operant conditioning worked.

That's not just how operant conditioning works for Skinner, it's what operant conditioning is. It's an automatic response-- that's what "conditioning" means. The conditions (the stimuli) cause a predictable response.

Like I said before, though-- that doesn't mean that none of Skinners expirements apply to humans. Operant conditioning is the perceptual level associative mechanism at work in animals. Humans have a conceptual level mechanism, so some of the same principles apply-- but, at Megan illustrated, not all of them.

One principle that Skinner pointed out that seems to work for humans as well as animals is that rewards are a much better motivator than punishments. It makes sense that this would work on a conceptual mind, also-- pain makes it very hard to think clearly.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Bold Standard