free will and psychology

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

This is one of the few topics on which I have been unable to reconcile my own beliefs with the principles of Objectivism.

Why does Objectivism seem to hold that nothing can influence human behavior? In Galt’s speech, he states that the idea of humans having a “tendency” towards one form of behavior is irrational. To which I ask, why? If individual humans do not have different behavioral tendencies, then all of psychology is false.

Skinnerian conditioning would not work. In reality, however, Skinnerian conditioning works quite well if done properly, as is demonstrable by any parent with small children. Whatever Skinner’s philosophical flaws (and there are many), I believe his work on conditioning to be one of the greatest scientific revolutions of the past 100 years.

If humans cannot have a “tendency” to choose to act one way or the other based on prior conditioning, what is the purpose of punishing your children or raising them to be the kinds of people you want them to be?

If there is no tendency to act a certain way based on conditioning, why are people on this board so adamant about “punishing” terrorism, such that terrorists will recognize they cannot win and, therefore, stop committing terrorist acts?

If there is no tendency to act a certain way based on cultural upbringing, how do you explain that the Middle East is predominantly Muslim and the West predominantly Christian?

If there is no tendency to act a certain way based on genetics, how do you explain the fact that children, separated from the criminal parents at birth, are more likely to become criminals than biological children of non-criminals in the same situation?

I believe firmly in free will. I believe that every human being makes choices to commit certain acts. I also believe, based on the mounds of evidence, that different people lean towards different behaviors, based on a number of factors, including conditioning, cultural upbringing, and genetics. I don’t see that this is at odds with free will. If I were a kleptomaniac, I would have a very strong urge to steal, but I would still have to make the conscious choice to do it. Some people have to exercise greater restraint than others, in any kind of action, be it criminal, sexual, or just about anything else. I believe everyone should exert as much moral effort as is necessary to avoid doing something immoral, but I am willing to grant that the amount of moral effort required will vary from person to person. Am I wrong or am I misunderstanding the stance of Objectivism?

2

Why does Objectivism seem to hold that nothing can influence human behavior? In Galt’s speech, he states that the idea of humans having a “tendency” towards one form of behavior is irrational. To which I ask, why? If individual humans do not have different behavioral tendencies, then all of psychology is false.

Objectivism can’t seem to hold that nothing can influence human behavior, since clearly that would be false (plus, it simply doesn’t). I think you are confusing “influence” with “immutably determine”. For example, knowledge of what advances your life will, if you are rational, influence your behavior. Now about “tendencies”. If you mean “pre-determined courses of action”, they I would agree with your conclusion that all of psychology is false (except, of course, I know that not all of psychology is neo-Skinnerian determininsm). If, on the other hand, you mean that each person acts according to his nature, if he acts rationally, and that not all men are entirely identical, then I would chose to agree (though I would not “have to” agree). In short, you are imputing contradictory things to the concept of “tendency”, I would guess.

In reality, however, Skinnerian conditioning works quite well if done properly, as is demonstrable by any parent with small children.

I cannot imagine what you could possibly mean by that; empirically, I dispute the claim, since nothing marginally Skinnerian is true of humans.

Whatever Skinner’s philosophical flaws (and there are many), I believe his work on conditioning to be one of the greatest scientific revolutions of the past 100 years.

Holy Crap! You are serious?!? I would agree with everything in the last sentence except for your selection of the work “revolution” rather than “sham”. I think this is such a stunning position that the only important thing left now is to try to get you to see how that is a fully erroneous belief.

3

Moose, have you read Ayn Rand’s book review of Skinner?

4

Moose, have you read Skinner? :glare:

In reality, however, Skinnerian conditioning works quite well if done properly, as is demonstrable by any parent with small children. …If humans cannot have a “tendency” to choose to act one way or the other based on prior conditioning, what is the purpose of punishing your children or raising them to be the kinds of people you want them to be?

This is about motivation, not operant conditioning!!

If there is no tendency to act a certain way based on conditioning, why are people on this board so adamant about “punishing” terrorism, such that terrorists will recognize they cannot win and, therefore, stop committing terrorist acts?

This is about justice, and self defence. I.e., stopping the terrorists however we can-- usually by force, not operant conditioning.

Am I wrong or am I misunderstanding the stance of Objectivism?

You seem to be confusing the Objectivist stance with the notion that volition implies consciousness with no identity. Although some younger students of Objectivism might subscribe to this view, it was not Ayn Rand’s position. She said that the essential choice is to think or not to think. Once that choice is made, many factors come into play-- including knowledge, intelligence (which is probably related to genetics), psychology etc.

5

Whatever Skinner’s philosophical flaws (and there are many), I believe his work on conditioning to be one of the greatest scientific revolutions of the past 100 years.

I don´t think that Skinner did so much in psychology - he just invented operant conditioning. Actually he maybe didn´t do that too, because Thorndike had done similar experiments as Skinner many years before.

6

I should clarify my thoughts on Skinner. Yes, I have read Skinner, and I am not talking about his philosophical determinism, a stance with which I greatly disagree. I am talking only about his work on operant conditioning. Perhaps the word “revolution” was too strong, but his work made great advances in behavioral psychology. He identified the importance of schedules of reinforcement, intervals of reinforcement (which explain a gambler’s behavior, by the way), and numerous other aspects of reinforcement/punishment. If you spank your child when he has misbehaved, you are utilizing Skinnerian conditioning. If you reward your child for proper behavior, you are using Skinnerian conditioning. I have read Miss Rand’s opinions of him, but, to my knowledge, she challenged only his philosophical determinism, not his operant conditioning psychology.

This is about justice, and self defence. I.e., stopping the terrorists however we can-- usually by force, not operant conditioning.

This is obviously the most important part, but we are also fond of talking about the reinforcement of terror. i.e. people on here believe that Israel reinforced terror by pulling out of the Gaza Strip.

I understand the difference between “influence” and “immutably determine,” but I don’t think that Miss Rand made that distinction, as evidenced by the passage in Galt’s speech. She clearly spoke against the idea that human beings can have “tendencies.”

I would also like someone to address my last paragraph, please.

7

I would also like someone to address my last paragraph, please.

Just to be sure I understand your last paragraph, is this a reasonable paraphrase of what you were saying:

‘Every human being uses his knowledge to make choices, and people have different knowledge, based on what they have observed frequently versus rarely versus never. There may even be profound organically-caused failures of a man’s faculty of reason which results in his chosing irrational behavior, which for some individuals may blur the distinction between man and animal (though usually such people are institutionalized). Some people have learned to focus on what constitutes rational behavior and have chosen to act on the basis of reason; others do not fully understand the nature of reason and its role in man’s identity, and have not chosen to act based on reason. We don’t really understand why some people are like that, and can only say “they have not yet chosen to live as humans”.’

8

I’m not sure I understand what you just said. I’m saying that some people have to exert more moral effort, than other people, in order to avoid immoral behavior. How much moral effort you have to exert is affected by upbringing and genetics.

9

How much moral effort you have to exert is affected by upbringing and genetics.

As long as you don’t mean that those are the only two factors affecting how much effort is required to act rationally, then I would agree. (By “upbringing”, I assume you mean something like “the nature of your home environment especially in the first 16 or so years of life, with particular emphasis on the contribution of your elders”)

10

What other factors would there be? For these purposes, assume that “upbringing” encompasses everything that happens to you while you grow up.

11

What other factors would there be? For these purposes, assume that “upbringing” encompasses everything that happens to you while you grow up.

Well, there would be everything that happened to you after you grew up, plus everything that you chose to do (before and after). For example, a bee might sting me when I’m 22, or I may recognise that justice is a virtue (which isn’t something that “happens to me”). I may consciously chose to pursue a rational life (and that wouldn’t be a “happenstance”).

12

But “recognizing that justice is a virtue” and “pursuing a rational life” are both things that require moral effort. After you have made both decisinos, they will further affect how much moral effort your life requires, but they are still ultimately your decision. I’m talking purely about things beyond your control that influence how much moral effort you will have to exert.

For instance, I was not raised in the Mafia. Therefore, leading a law-abiding life does not take nearly as much moral effort from me, as it would from someone whose father was a mob boss. There are former mobsters who have changed their ways and now lead productive, moral lives. But I imagine it was more difficult for them to become moral people than it is for me.

13

I have read Miss Rand’s opinions of him,

Yes, but have you read the article where she tears his book apart, or no?

14

There may even be profound organically-caused failures of a man’s faculty of reason which results in his chosing irrational behavior, which for some individuals may blur the distinction between man and animal (though usually such people are institutionalized).

I think there are many biological or neurological afflictions which can hinder a person’s ability to reason, and that these can range from the profound to the relatively mundane. And I think even in the profound cases, the majority of people suffering from this type of disease are not or do not remain institutionalized.

There are a lot of really mentally ill people on the streets. Even if these people do pose a threat to themselves or others because of their mental condition, it’s legally difficult for institutions to keep them locked up-- especially against their will. But even if they want to stay in a hospital, because of the high cost of treatment etc, sometimes they will be released even though completely insane.

Even if you were to argue that “usually such people should be institutionalized,” I don’t know if that would be true. As long as they’re don’t show any signs of becoming violent, and they are able either to support themselves somehow, or they have family or friends or insurance supporting them, such people can exist and sometimes even acheive a degree of productivity within normal society. (I can search for some more specific, concrete examples if I need to..)

15

Yes, but have you read the article where she tears his book apart, or no?

Yes. And, for the fourth time, she addresses only his determinism, not his work on operant conditioning. Nothing about operant conditioning requires the kind of hard determinism to which Skinner subscribed.

16

Yes. And, for the fourth time, she addresses only his determinism, not his work on operant conditioning. Nothing about operant conditioning requires the kind of hard determinism to which Skinner subscribed.

Is there anything about the concept of operant conditioning, sans determinism, that doesn’t simply reduce to inductive learning?

17

We’re talking about things learned subconsciously. If your baby cries because it wants attention, and you respond by picking him up and holding him, it is reinforcing. He will be more likely to cry in the future, just so he can get attention. When he does so, he will not be thinking “crying will get me attention,” in part because he does not yet have a language in which he can form thoughts. Quite often, if not most of the time, people are not consciously aware of how they have been reinforced/punished. But their prior experiences still affect their tendencies.

18

. If your baby cries because it wants attention, and you respond by picking him up and holding him, it is reinforcing. He will be more likely to cry in the future, just so he can get attention. When he does so, he will not be thinking “crying will get me attention,” in part because he does not yet have a language in which he can form thoughts.

The baby is communicating in the only way it knows how, the only way in which it is capable and it’s level of knowledge does not lend it to a variety of choices to satisfy it’s needs. This doesn’t mean that it is being conditioned because it can be learning instead unless you consider all learning (and subsequent knowledge) to be conditioning. Later when the baby (or soon child) learns more accurate and effective means of communicating it’s needs, it uses those instead. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that learning what actions gets favorable results necessarily amounts to conditioning. I also don’t think it’s safe to assume that the baby doesn’t consciously associate crying with getting a desireable result (attention, food, diaper change, whatever…) and as such makes a conscious effort to take the only action it understands will achieve a desired result.

19

We’re talking about things learned subconsciously. If your baby cries because it wants attention, and you respond by picking him up and holding him, it is reinforcing.

I don’t see how that’s not a variety of inductive learning. Not all learning is by explicit instruction or careful thinking. All of language acquisition is inductive, where a child hears people around him saying “What is that?” and not “What that is?”, so inductively he forms the right generalization about making certain kinds of questions in English. The same goes with crying babies, crying 5 year olds, or crying teenagers. Don’t confuse induction with explicit verbal reasoning: they are separate things.

20

Yes. And, for the fourth time, she addresses only his determinism, not his work on operant conditioning. Nothing about operant conditioning requires the kind of hard determinism to which Skinner subscribed.

Then you need to read it again. Have you read the thread here that talks about Objectivist epistemology and the stopped clock? She invalidates his entire approach, his entire concept of psychology. His whole theory, operant conditioning included, assumes humans as mindless automatons. He was a total nutcase and his work is 100% rubbish.