gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) (06/08/89)
In article <255@gollum.UUCP> rolandi@gollum.UUCP (Walter G. Rolandi) writes: >What are you saying? If you mean to imply that one's behavior cannot >or will not be subject to modification without the awareness of the >"patient" (a medical term--not in use among behavioral folks), then you >are wrong. No am I not - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) Can we have some evidence for this please? Preferably in the type of clinical setting to which I was referring. > The thrust of behaviorism is simply that behavior is caused. ... by very very simple S-R Rules. And it is wrong - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) > >Your terms "the narrow reinforcement repertoire of behaviorism" and "active >involvement of the patient's 'will'" imply a thoroughly confounded >understanding of terminology and issues associated with the experimental >analysis of behavior. No they don't - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) Why I can't I use these terms? What's the official kosher line? Why didn't my psychology supervisors pull me up on these terms? (Answer: because they weren't so second rate as to have to base their work on something as crude as behaviourism). I accept that for some experiments, behaviour can be changed without the subject knowing fully what is going on (e.g. Bandura's agression experiments with children, Asch's conformity experiments). But we are not talking about temporary 'tricks' in the laboratory with adults, or the exploitation of a child's natural imitative behaviour. We are talking about long term, effective therapy in a clinical setting where controlled experimental conditions are impossible. >What are you talking about here? What could I be talking about? Are you really that confused? If you were genuine on this, you could have emailed me with specific problems. This leaves this semi-flame as a limp and empty rhetorical gambit - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) >NCR Advanced Systems Development A hot-house of behaviorist science? -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert
dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) (06/09/89)
In article <3077@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >No am I not - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) [...] >And it is wrong - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) [...] >No they don't - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) [...] >gambit - neah, neah, neah, neah, neah :-) In article <3078@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes >Intelligence is dead outside of AI. Clearly. :-)