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.
I don´t think that this is true. Firstly his operant conditioning works at least on animals. Secondly it works to some extent on humans too. It is used for instance in behavioral therapy. And it have success in many cases.
I don´t understand where is the problem. I´ll give one example. If I learn and then see that I got good grade, I would learn again because my behavior was reinforced (i.e. I see that learning leads to the good grade). It can work both consciously as in my example or subconsciously.
On the other hand I don´t agree with his determinism - but it does not inevitably deny his theory of operant conditioning.
I don´t think that this is true. Firstly his operant conditioning works at least on animals. Secondly it works to some extent on humans too. It is used for instance in behavioral therapy. And it have success in many cases.
I don´t understand where is the problem. I´ll give one example. If I learn and then see that I got good grade, I would learn again because my behavior was reinforced (i.e. I see that learning leads to the good grade). It can work both consciously as in my example or subconsciously.
On the other hand I don´t agree with his determinism - but it does not inevitably deny his theory of operant conditioning.
And a stopped clock works twice a day.
The entire theory of operant conditioning is based on man as mindless; as a stimulus/response organism. When you say that you learn “because your behavior was reinforced,” you are throwing the entirety of epistemology out the window. You don’t have knowledge anymore, you simply do something because it was “reinforced.” You’re describing yourself - a conceptually conscious human - with the language fit only to explain mindless automatons. You’re not a Pavlovian dog, who reacts mindlessly to stimuli; you’re a conscious human being… and even your subconscious is programmed by your conscious decisions… NOT directly from stimuli.
To answer your example directly, you don’t learn again because your behavior was reinforced. You learn again because your conscious mind analyzed the situation and decided that learning again was the beneficial course of action.
You’re reading Skinner like his terminology is a simplification, that just so happens not to mention the mind. It isn’t. He actually means that the mind doesn’t exist; that we are all just a bunch of robots, being programmed by the operant conditioning of the stimuli we are exposed to.
A big mistake when reading Skinner is to think, “Oh, he couldn’t possibly mean that.” But he does.
even your subconscious is programmed by your conscious decisions… NOT directly from stimuli.
This seems to be very substantive to the argument. But to expand on this, I think it is important to keep in mind that being concious means being concious of something. Free will can’t exist in a vacuum for the same reason god can’t. The decisions one makes can only be in regard to that which exists-and whats more, that which exists for them. If you raised a child from infancy forward in an empty, spherical room, you can’t be surprised that he won’t choose to develop good language skills, let alone conclude that capitalism is the only moral economic system. He might retain the ability of choice but there would be nothing to choose. Nothing to be concious of. This is why montessori education is so successful for young children. It allows them to keep their freewill and controls the outcome of their choices by strictly controlling the environment rather then the child.
I am wondering if the reason that operant conditioning seems to work well is because many people operate on that whim based level where they respond to things without much(if any) thought. Free will being the choice to be in focus(which I take to mean ‘think deliberately’); when they choose to not be in focus, the default response system seems to be very similiar to behaviorant conditioning.
I don´t think that this is true. Firstly his operant conditioning works at least on animals.
Didn’t Pavlov demonstrate that decades before Skinner? I’m still not sure why Skinner should be regarded as such a revolutionary. I wouldn’t go so far as to say his work is “100% worthless,” though. Some things he discovered through expirements, etc, are valuable-- it’s just that you have to give it a way different interpretation than he did.
Freud had lots of valuable theories, even though his philosophy was totally vacant. Skinner was no Freud, but he had at least a couple of decent things to say. For example, he was able to show with expirements that rewards are a much better motivator than punishment. That makes total sense, but for completely different reasons than he hypothesized. In his language, “conditioning” does imply determinism. If you reject his language, you don’t have to reject every experiment or observation he ever made, but you have rejected him and his theory, since it really all hinges on that.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
