If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
One of the differences between TheSite and military.com... Over there, to attack a real world friend/significant other/family member (not involved in the discussion at hand) would bring an instant termination of posting privileges, while here, it is SOP... as long as you include in your every post the secret handshake passwords... like Bush-bot or neo-con...:rolleyes:
And be forewarned... REGARDLESS of your own dislike for GWB, even YOU will be refered to as a "Bush-bot neo-con"... unless you become a card carrying member of the Hate America First Club...
As for the clandestine-collaborator... it prefers to pigeon-hole me as a ignernt jarhaid android, because then it might dismiss EVERYTHING without consideration of perspective, much less feel compelled to address issues.
This you will experience first hand, when it is YOU who are dismissed so easily because you do not toe the requisite ideological line... (H.A.F.C.)
And? Bleeding heart liberal which I know you to be... you will be aligned on the same side of the fence with us "reprobate" "extremist" military veterans, because you will not join in on the gratuitous attacks...
Now, behave baby...
(or the red 'x' will get you... (damn
Eek, tell me I'm not looking at the business end of a 'Humans are/aren't animals' debate :eek:
Define 'work' and 'money'. Still, at least we agree that Rand is a pillock. There's common ground
Yeah, that why, when Michituck said he's had my mother, his privileges were immediately suspended... wait, that didn't happen, even though when someone said the same thing to Bunkerhill, he threw a major hissy fit, and the guy did get a ban... Hypocrisy and Mil.com... bullet and cartridge.
And don't forget the password 'Nazi'. As in 'Nazis would dehumanise their victims as a precursor to killing them, because they wouldn't be killing people then'. Something to remember next time you feel minded to refer to the 'Clinton-collaborator' as 'it'.
Have a great day!
Oh dear, is someone endorsing behaviourism as a way of understanding humans?
Not a very credible theory I'm afraid. You seem to be 50 years behind the rest of pyschological theory there.
Try again.
We are animals. But behaviorism is not a good way of describing how animals behave, not the higher primates anyway.
You are going to educate her on psychology?
ROTFLMMFAO!
We are discussing TrQ, perhaps one of the least offensive posters ever at mil.com...
And she attacked you... when?
We are discussing YOUR definitive lack of moral ethic, in attacking her, to get at me. You may obfuscate all you wish, but the issue remains... YOU, and YOUR hypocrisy.
You constantly suggest that the US should be held to a higher moral standard than its enemies, and shout your HAFC rhetoric when it does not to YOUR self-possessed satisfaction, but demonstrate YOUR hypocrisy on a personal basis.
Jim V has stated that what takes place at mil.com should STAY in that place. What is of concern is what happens in THIS place...
And in THIS place? YOUR hypocrisy is prima facie.
Yep. Anyone who still regards behaviourism as a good way of explaining human behaviour is a fool.
I can see that...
And she attacked you... when?
Y'all come back now, and tell me some more about hypocrisy...
I'll respond to you later in more depth, since I'm busy right now. Your opinions about behaviorism show a severe lack of understanding about psychology TODAY, given that behavioral principles underly almost every effective treatment for psychological disorders today, except perhaps pharmacotherapy (psychiatric medicine).
One more thing before I go out to eat. There are a list of what are called "empirically validated" treatments for psychological disorders that are listed by the APA (American Psychological Association). This means that they are a preponderance of scientific evidence that supports that they are effective for reducing the symptoms associated with the disorder. Ex: Cognitive-BEHAVIORAL treatment for depression, Exposure therapy for PTSD (A behaviorally oriented treatment), exposure therapy for Panic Disorder and simple phobias, and the list goes on and on. Many of these are based on Classical Conditioning, which is different than Operant conditioning. However, operant conditioning is used extensively for treating child behavior disorders and problems associated with developmental disabilities in severely impaired kids. Most treatments for autistic children today are based on operant conditioning principles.
Ok. I gotta go. Be back later.
But I have to admit its been a while since I studied psychology. But I have some knowledge of counselling techniques, and I base my opinions on that.
The idea of socialist economy is contradictio in abjesto, and the claim that socialism represents a higher, more efficient mode of social production is absurd. In order to reach one’s own ends efficiently and without waste within the framework of an exchange economy based on division of labour, it is necessary that one engage in monetary calculation ( cost-accounting). Everywhere outside the system of a primitive self-sufficient single household economy, monetary calculation is the sole tool of rational and efficient action. Only by being able to compare inputs and outputs arithmetically in terms of a common medium of exchange (money) can a person determine whether his actions are successful or not. In distinct contrast, socialism means to have no economy, no economising at all, because under these conditions monetary calculation and cost-accounting is impossible by definition. If no private property in the factors of production exist, then no prices for any production factors exist; hence, it is impossible to determine whether or not they are employed economically. Accordingly, socialism is not a higher mode of production but rather economic chaos and regression to primitivism.
History gives excellent examples of this truth. The most socialist economies, i.e. countries with the highest level of socialisation of means of production were Lenin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. You all know the consequences of their policy.
Communism being a system where socialisation of means of production is absolute would be absolute disaster, poverty and starvation. The end of humankind. Fortunately Communism is impossible.
"Depends on what you choose to believe and what works for you I guess."
Well, personally? I tend to put most of my belief in types of therapy that have evidence behind them and have been demonstrated to be effective across clinical trials for a number of years. Case in point, Beck's cognitive-behavioral therapy for Major Depression.
Originally posted by Blagsta:
"I have a problem with behavourism 'cos it seems to discount the reality of people's inner mental states."
The issue of Skinner's views on internal states is much to in-depth of an issue to address via these forums, both philosophically as well as empirically. Actually, Skinner never did discount internal states, which he considered to be covert/behavior (simply a difference in semantics, but still the same thing----that is, thought, emotions and other internal states). But basically, he did not ascribe them causal status. Other modern behavioral people like Staats have embraced the concept of internal states in a less qualified way.
And very clearly cognitive-behavioral therapists embrace the concept of internal states since they work on changing BOTH behavior (via behavioral techniques based on classical and operant principles) AND thought (which is clearly an internal state).
Originally posted by Blagsta:
"But I have to admit its been a while since I studied psychology. But I have some knowledge of counselling techniques, and I base my opinions on that."
I understand this. Each person chooses what they feel works best for them personally. For me? I utilize what has empirical evidence behind it. And I would suggest, from my own personal perspective, that anyone who wants "state of the art" in psychology may want to do a "consumer's report" type investigation of what has been shown to work as opposed to the approaches that have NOT been put to the test of scientific scrutiny. That "consumer's report" investigation should start with what is recommended by the American Psychological Association (that is, those techniques mentioned on the list of empirically validated treatments, MANY of which include behavioral and/or cognitive behavioral therapies). In fact, the list of empirically validated treatments is probably disproportiantely composed of cognitive-behavioral and medicine-oriented treatments as opposed to types of treatments that are PURELY based on exploring one's internal states, such as psychoanalystic approaches- although a selected few of these have some evidence- and Humanistic approaches. Psychodanalytic therapies and Humanistic therapies, do not nearly have as much scientific evidence behind them.)
Ok...I think I've made my point in response to the comment regarding Behaviorism and it invalidity, unless anyone has more questions on the topic. In other word, behaviorism is critical to Modern psychology and is the foundation for many of the most scientifically based treatments available for a wide array of porblems today. But maybe further discussion of psychology should be another thread.
So back to the topic of Communism.
Who rattled your cage?
I love the way that all of your politics are from obscure dead people that no one's ever heard of. Brilliant.
"History gives excellent examples of this truth. The most socialist economies, i.e. countries with the highest level of socialisation of means of production were Lenin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. You all know the consequences of their policy."
I can't say that I agree on all of the points made in your prior post, but I certainly do think that many examples of Communism have indeed fared poorly. Pol Pot and old Russia, being prime examples. And actually, if you think about it, Vietnam's more prosperous cities have a grain of Capitalism in them. Ho Chi Minh City (i.e., Old Saigon) has been allowed to have Capitalistic elements in order to maintain it's financial benefits. Funny how allowance of self-interest has the collateral effect of creating collective wealth, while government controlled money (as in Cold War Russia) produced poverty.
Again, people work for rewards (having money and being able to dispense of it at will), and they work to avoid punishments. When you are denied the full fruits of your labor? That is not going to produce a high level of motivation nor job satisfaction.
Bottom line. We are selfish and work for self-gratification and there is NOTHING wrong with taking that position. From an evolutionary standpoint, it helps the species survive to be self-interested to some level.
This is my objection to the pure behavourist view of psychology. Its far too simplistic a view.
People have many different motivations for doing things, some conscious, some unconscious, some good, some bad. People are complex ambivalent creatures.
To put the massive variety of human behaviour down to simple reward/punishment is really really daft.
This is also not true. We are capable of co-operation, altruism and mutual interest. People do it all the time. Society would fall apart without it.
"This is my objection to the pure behavourist view of psychology. Its far too simplistic a view."
My comment:
Behaviorism seems simplistic to you because
1) I doubt that you understand the theory in enough depth to see the intricacies involved, as evidenced by your assertion that behaviorists deny the existence of internal states.
2) I have boiled the ideas involved down to basic points in order to avoid giving everbody a massively long dissertation on behavioral theory.
Originally posted by Blagsta:
"People have many different motivations for doing things, some conscious, some unconscious, some good, some bad. People are complex ambivalent creatures."
My comments:
I can agree with this statement about ambivalence, at least.
Originally posted by Blagsta:
"To put the massive variety of human behaviour down to simple reward/punishment is really really daft."
My comments:
And this is because I doubt that you've ever sat down and thought about exactly HOW it is that humans learn about anything from a micro perspective.
Let me ask....Do you use an umbrella in the rain Blagsta? If you do, guess what? That is an example of negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the termination of an aversive stimulus. In that respect, it is a reinforcing (rewarding) behavior. You pop open the umbrella, and suddenly you are rewarded with terminating the rain that soaks you head to toe. The result is that you will consistently use an umbrella to keep dry (increased responding, that is).
You have sex... What for? Physical pleasure... a positive reinforcer. In other words, you receive a reward (as opposed to take away a negative, as is the case with negative reinforcement). You will continue to engage in sexual activity in order to gain the reward.
Babies are shaped via rewards to learn language. Mom laughs and smiles and pets and hugs the baby who gets closer and closer to pronouncing a word correctly. The receipt of such rewards of course, interacts with physical changes that are "hard-wired" into the baby's brain as the child matures. Babies that are severely sensory deprived and receive no rewards may not learn language, despite the "hard-wired" aspect of their genetics. That is, nature (genetics) interacts with nurture (that is, the system of rewards that help us to learn new sets of behaviors).
I could go on and on, and analyze the time that you wake up in the morning until the time you go to bed at night, and point out a chain of responses that are occurring because they have been rewarded in the past.
These principles are the root of MUCH of human learning. And you would deny that they play a LARGE role in human behavior?
No, it is not "ALL" about rewards/punishments; however, a HUGE amount of our behavior is based on some simple principles.
"We are capable of co-operation, altruism and mutual interest. People do it all the time. Society would fall apart without it."
Yes, but why are we altruistic? As I said, because it produces a "reward." That is, we feel good about ourselves and feel we are being good citizens. That is a reward.
However, if you take the choice away from a person, and force them to be charitable, then for some people it becomes much less "rewarding" and more of a punishment.
And also, you make my point when you say that people are cooperative and altruistic in order to prevent society from falling apart. Again, there is a REASON for those behaviors that have a root in self-interest. That is, citizens are alruistic for a purpose, which is the self-interested survival of their fellow citizens. After all? You are gonna die if your whole society is killed off. Thus, cooperation and altruism are still not purely charitable. They STILL have an element of self-interest.
Simplistic rubbish. I do know a little bit about human behaviour. Both from my own observations and from my profession. And simple reward/punishment doesn't work when trying to change or influence behaviour. If it did, the prison system would work, it would be easy to get people off drugs etc. Its not, its hard.
Its a typical right wing view though, assuming people have simple motivations. They don't.
Again waaaay too simplistic. Hopefully you'll learn about people at some point, not just parrot stuff out of books.
Your profession?
If it has anything to do with psychology you may want to attempt to update your knowledge with regards to the topic.
As far as simplicity goes, as I said, there is neither time nor space to devote to trying to explain behavioral theory or its associated animal study findings, or the applications that are now being used with humans, which are based partly on those findings.
Your terse accusations that it is "too simple" basically suggests that you can't address the topic in any more than cursory terms because you don't have an in-depth enough understanding to do so.
That is not unusual for most people, by the way, since they've not studied the issue in depth.