[ 12.21.23, 10pm: My apologies, this note was intended for someone else that I had confused with you, but I'm leaving it up anyway, as I think it matters anyway] Oh Dear, I didn't see you were in a class NOW. Ummm. Welllllll... Today, they the chiefs of so many colleges have in all cowardice allowed The Idiotae to trample fact, and Evolutionary Biologist Brett Weinstein was sacked at Evergreen University in WA for merely telling the truth about selectional pressure and the formation of traits (and not even mental ones! ), straight out of Darwinism: that truth got the protest "Biology is elitist." Politics has no place in Science, none, and if Psychology is to remain a Science, which at this rate in the USA it arguably isn't, whether some gosling "is offended" by its theories is irrelevant, and still irrelevant if righteous goslings gather by the thousands and chant against the truth, and more moot still if some vile and craven university administration caves in to the protests.
I struggle with anyone who dilutes the power of introspection...However I really liked what he mentioned about what other's had mentioned regarding teaching. The more the teacher teaches, the less student originality that can take place. I was fixated on a couple of guitarists when I started learning. I had all the chord's for every single song, every lyric memorized. I eventually managed to learn almost ALL of what I wanted to learn. Could not for the life of me play original music in that time period and stopped playing for like 10 years. When I picked it back up, by this time I opened up, didn't really play other's music or learn their songs. WORLD of difference in creativity and originality. I'm not saying don't learn to play other's songs, because it's one of the easiest ways to learn an instrument or understand the basics of music. I have loads of respect for him, however he puts me to sleep! I don't think he practiced hypnosis, but my god he would have been master.
I struggle with anyone who dilutes the power of introspection.... However I really liked what he mentioned about wha others had mentioned regarding teaching.... The more the teacher teaches, the less students originality that can take place. I was fixated on a couple of guitarist when I started learning. I had all the chords for ever single song, ever lyric memorised (this could be Jiu jitsu moves or anything else) I eventually managed to learn almost all of the songs (Jiu jitsu moves, boxing moves, MMA moves, ECT...) I wanted to learn. Could not for the life of me play original music (Jiu jitsu moves, ECT...) In that time period and stopped playing for like 10 years. When I picked it back up, by this time I opened up, didn't really play others original music (Jiu jitsu moves) or learn their songs. WORLD of difference in creativity and originality. I'm not saying don't learn to other songs (or learn any boxing moves, Jiu jitsu moves, ECT...) Because it's one of the easiest ways to learn an instrument (ECT...) Or understand the basics of music (MMA moves, ECT...)
@@RockBrentwood You didn't point out any flaw tho. This was already predicted and explained by Skinner's work. You actually just pointed out that the principles he discovered are always present and always work. When you condition a rat lets say to press a red button in the presence of the word "red" , you are also in a process of getting conditioned yourself to open the food tray at the 'correct' time so you can reinforce the rat's behavior, and your own behavior of opening the food tray gets reinforced as a result of the rat pressing the red button. If you are "the conditioner" the 'theory' doesn't suddenly stop working for you and applies only to someone else, but it works on you too. Like if gravity only applied to some people and not to others, there would be something very wrong with it. It really won't be a theory that has found out some actual regularity in nature. And in the case of Skinner's, he absolutely has. His findings are as objective as you can get, the closest you have to a natural science of behavior of organisms , while a lot of other branches of 'psychology' are very hypothetical with a lot of made up constructs that can never be proven or disproven.
This man is beautiful. Hang all of those people that were afraid of him. People most probably are afraid of him, because his description of the world breaks everyone's premises.
Just makes me want to figure out how to craft my environment to my advantage. If you’re having an emotional reaction to perceived loss of perceived free will, just know… you’re proving Skinner right.
The vocal apparatus is involved. Murray Sidman: Equivalence Relations. However, blind and deaf make new other connections: touch/heard, touch/seen. Notice his reference to suggestion. Read James.
When I close my eyes I think of things which I have no idea why they pooped up in my mind. I must have experienced them once. What am I? I am what the world created of me.
He believed that you could accomplish a lot more if yoi settled down in a small town and had plenty of great literature and resources like the local library ...he was right.
Oh damn, I am blown away by the controversial nature of the philosophical roots of behaviorism. Am I correct in saying he totally denies the existence of agency? We are not responsible for our thoughts or actions, they just occur? Just as the clouds float across the sky and the tides ebb and flow, totally involuntary? Does Skinner perceive beings as philosophical zombies? As mechanistic automatons? I'm not disagreeing I just feel that I wasn't given the full story behind Behaviorism in school.
Essentially we are not machines based on von Neumann architecture. Memory is not stored in some mental closet waiting to be selected like a piece of clothing. Its rather the case that we have an event to go to, and if the event is of the right type, our brains will, within a reasonable degree of reliability, produce the appropriate type of clothing to match. Remembering something thus comes down to being in the right environmental circumstances as opposed to actively choosing from a selection of memories independent of your given environment.
@@Frugoo08 And I would say just the opposite. He seems particularly blinkered, almost retarded, though he was at the same time quite perceptive in a way.
To account for the human reaction to conditioning, behaviorism must either recur to the classic Freudian notion of 'resistance', and thus become unfalsifiable, unscientific, or recur to the American philosophy of pragmatism, which is just as unscientific being a philosophy, and in both cases potentially contradicts itself because both motions might imply the existence of introspection, and in both cases serves to legitimize an essentially authoritarian state of affairs. Skinner's only counter to this is to make space for frivolity, he could have at least said that people learn better by also doing things on their own. It is habit-forming, distraction and servility made an ideology, it is a philosophy of life for death.
@@senpaulo Sorry. I snapped. I'd assumed I was dealing with a troll, as we've all dealt with so many. But it is oddly fitting. I didn't like the question, at the time, it was very human of me
Which branch of psychology studies specifically the sexual behavior, but actual sexual conducts, unlike psychonanalysis (which studies unconcious and gives a sexual explanation)?
DR. Eric Berne is also a good one for understanding people and our government system I learned about him from a RETIRED STATE TROOPER. HERES THE BOOKS IVE READ BY HIM, IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS AUTHOR SLASH BOOK SUGGESTIONS IT WOULD BE GREATLY APRECIATED. BY DR. ERIC BERNE M.D... HE DIED IN 1969, AND WAS ONE OF THE PIONEERS OF GAME THEORY. 1. THE GAMES PEOPLE PLAY-RUclips 2. BEYOND GAMES AND SCRIPTS-PDF 3 SEX IN HUMAN LOVING-PDF 4. TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS IN THE THERUPUTIC SITUATION 5. WHAT DO YOU SAY AFTER YOU SAY HELLO?
I guess he means we are not responsible in the sense that there is not an "ego" or an inner entity that controls the behaviors independently from the external stimulus, hence the responsibility is from the genetics and chemical procedures determined by the history of the organism. But in the cultural system this affirmation wouldn't work in the benefit of the collective, so ethics would be cultural behavior in which we all agree to the believe that we have to take responsibility of the actions that are attributed to us as organisms that act upon the world.
not being responsible for what we do doesn't mean we don't do things, only that the environment (including our history with it) are the ones that dictate what we do
Not responsible in the sense of the moral/legal system's assumptions based on free will and an inner person. They assume that since you are the sole origin of your behavior, no causes extend to the environment, so you personally get punished or rewarded . When YOU do a crime YOU go in prison etc. And since this type of thinking is unable to notice the effects of the environment (it's simply outside of this thinking framework) , that would mean that all ethical and moral issues people are concerned with , will never be solved and only dealt with after the fact , or sometimes attempted to be resolved rather ineffectively . It's kind of ironic that the methods which people use to stop certain things from happening , actually perpetuate said things. While if you understand that the causes of your behavior extend to the rest of the universe as well, you just have to discover the relevant factors and variables that lead to certain outcomes, and you design your society from the ground up so you don't have immoral or unethical behaviors, like what people might call "criminal behavior" for example, in the first place.
@@andresaguero5880radical behaviorism is the philosophy of behavior analysis, which has been scientifically proven over and over again. So, I would love if you could elaborate.
It is completely illogical in almost every sense. It keeps falling apart and contradicting itself with every other sentence he utters, and is awfully unrealistic, impractical, and seems to not understand human nature on the most basic psychological and scientific levels there are. I'm amazed he is considered so influential in the field. The absolute worst I've heard so far. I was going to comment about the whys, but it was too long as it completely falls apart at its very basis. It's like the blueprint to everything that is awful in society and people today and does not work on almost any level.
"You can't serve 2 masters. GOD & mamon". We can only healthfully follow 1 fractal because of the cause of contradicting forked points. What then? Then we are following neither fractal. Like magnetism we have to cause and effect follow fractal patterns for stability/healthy mind, body, which leads to soul. We must follow/pattern something. Because of time and that the world is in constant change. Hence we are always following something if we are not in control. We control not the small nore the large nore the rules nore the endings. The beginnings might be the only thing we control or can manipulate in my opinion. Choice(s).
All the respect, Professor, we have a difference between the behaviour and the comportement of the humaine the behaviour is with the think of éthique and quality and morality and the comportement is with act of seeing and act of hearing and act of touching and act smelting and act of tasteing this the comportement like you say the father of the behaviourisme and doctor they sitell konw how this humaine be comportement and behaviour until the sceince and the all messengers of Allah and philosophie of the grrec come they started by stape by stape to konw this humaine until Sgmond frreud the father of analyse humaine comportement and we a lot of philosophies and a lot of doctors they still konw how the humaine comportement like you>< doctor >< and frome the organisms )[I don't want to say the name ([animals])they leroning frome us frome our comportement they have intelligence of sensibilisation we just want the goodness of leroning and good sceince.
Just like Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" is frightening and depressing, so is Skinner's conclusion about human behavior. But ... don't shoot the messengers 😉.
This is an exhibition of simple-minded traducement of psyche; Skinner's attack on Introspection itself is "unscientific" as no means is ignored in science for the gathering of data and fact. But his critique of the cognitivists is essentially correct, who fundamentally ignore the facts of evolution and instinct.
@@agathagalhardi Which part dear?! ----- and whether ontogenetically or phylogenetically for the evolution part against the "Cognitivists?" ( which I think moot anyway given the reciprocal relationship ). Or Skinny's argument against "Introspection" for being " "unscientific?" Because there are surely ways to make it Verifiable, or acceptable empirically, as some agreement or consensus on any particular Introspection proposition if repeated long enough, with many, many introspectors can be made to abide the scientific method. To say Introspection is outright and unremediablly unscientific is naif, and ignores the value of it in the history of psychology (though perhaps Skinny was reacting to the flurry of mysticism infesting psychology in the 60s and 70s, but who cares about the ruck?) Introspection can provide insight as to how psyche works , Freud used it to establish ---in part---- his theory of Dreams and The Unconscious, and Freud as a neurologist trained by Drs. Charcot and Breuer was very concerned with verification, causality, and method, Charcot being the greatest mind in Neurology at the time. As well, this charge of "unscientific" by Grundbaum against Freud is absurd, and Grundbaum having an Ontological background in Logical Positivism as well as plenty CLINICAL EXPERIENCE as a Professor of Psychiatry should have damn well known better, even if only by the direct observation of examples of Freud 's ideas all around him in the asylums of NYC; but I think he wanted his name blazing up in lights on the marquee, (and he got it for 15 minutes), as nearly every darling theorist in psychology with a parricide complex wants to fell the great Freud. It's now a cottage industry. Behaviorism whether by Skinner or Wittgenstein is barely an explanation at all of the human psyche: it is more a chronic description and often a shallow one at that; at least LW was honest enough to admit that much, with his prohibition on "Inner" causality for what everyone knows to be mental events, as with hypnosis. But Skinner, and worse, nearly all subsequent American Behaviorists ignored the whole topic of Instinct, or the DNA Directive as I call it also, and Instinct's direct causation in the Evolution of Hominid and pre-human psyche. UCLA and most USA schools denied Sexual Selection as an Evolutionary force until roughly 1970. I would suggest calling me on Messenger, I can't type all this, and I don't know of any text with a general theory, uniting the evolutionary causation of traits and development of personality. Really after the early 50s it appears all Psychoanalysis and, later, Psycho-Biology/ Anthropology cowered before the job left to them by Freud, Fenichel, Klein, DeGroot, Roheim, they just quit, which the genius historian at UCLA, Russell Jacoby, points out in his book on Otto Fenichel & The Americanization Of Psychoanalysis, but I think the case is even worse than he depicts in that book and I'll bet he now agrees with me. He is still alive so I should call or write him via UCLA.
@@humptydumpty9406 it's a very subjective comment, but i don't feel inspired when i hear him talking. Regardless of all he brought to the field of psychology, including the basis for some of the most efficient therapy, he appears to completely dismiss any notion of free will and shows no apparent passion for the workings of the human mind.. It's like he's figured it out and all subsequent research is useless. Atheists like Dawkins or Jonathan Haidt who thinks that religion is a product of evolution are still in awe of man. Feels like Skinner is just not interested in the human condition. Wouldn't you agree?
"What is inside is the product of the history....as long as we understand the environmental sources of what we do all day long we don't need to bother how it geels when I am doing it." Bravo! That is a perfect reductionist statement par excellence! It is tautological. Essentially, it says absolutely NOTHING! It is extraordinarily dangerous and misguided as we are essentially reduced to machines! The quintessional opposite of empathy!
By precisely whom? You might just want to qualify that a bit, shal,l eh? He is indeed the most influential 20th Century BEHAVIORIAL PSYCHOLOGIST. As far as real psychology, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, Affect- Developmental based psychology, try for starters, Freud, Bowbly, Winicott, Carl Rogers; Alice Miller, Lev Vygotsky, et al.
Empathy is a deterministic instinctual behaviour as we are social animals. We are here to breed and safety in numbers has probably been important in past environments for survival in order to breed as long as possible, just as it is for many animals today. Psychopaths and the likes can learn how to fake empathy in order to get what they want even if they don't feel anything for the person they are trying to con. So what makes inherent empathy any different than any other behaviour that's passed on through the genes or learnt? it seems you're insecure to the idea of free will being an illusion?
Skinner says we do what we do as humans because we are not a specie like chimps and later on he clearly says we are special as species because of the contingencies of reinforcement that lead us to be what we are today. That doesn't sound like machines at all! and also, what's the problem with that anyway? every life form behaves not very different from how a machine does. John. B Watson considered the human being as a complex machine but the difference the Skinner would be that we aren't very different from machines, except for the fact we explain through verbal behavior what we do, or did and also we asked others why they did what they did.
Where is the tautology? Are you even capable of effective reading behaviour? It say does something, what he just said, can't understand? You may benefit from going back to school or reading a little into his work. His work proves that, that we can effectively and relatively predict behaviour in a reliable manner, and that the more we can control or account for the environmental variables, the more we can do so too, considering a healthy organism of course. And in those cases, we did not need to go into his mind or brain to do so, that's how it is. Don't understand it? Your problem. Are we reduced to machines? No, we were found to be machines, very complex machines as Watson and others would argue, just like all other species, as we are not some sort of organism apart from all the rest anyway, they should have taught you that in Biology classes.
You need to do your research. Functional Analytic Psychotherapy, Acceptance & Commitment Therapy, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and so many others have his experiments and theory as a foundation.
Nothing THAT dead serious is dropped quickly !! See HAARP: "They promised: "okay, we´ve closed it." Nothing whatsoever has been done / closed) ! It just has been continued in csecrecy ! Like 'skinners work too. What do you think why C- G Jung held speeches at Tavistock for ? And what is the FABIAN society for ? As Igor said below: You need to DO research properly !!!
Dropped is a metaphor, so if they were dropped, they were dropped figuratively [not literally.] And they weren't dropped. Otherwise you wouldn't be here commenting on them.
Because free will doesn't exits. It's just a political illusion (bullshit). We are conditioned by multiple variables that lead us to a certain behavior in the future. However it doesn't mean we cannot choose for ourselves. It means we need to look at our own behavior and act better than what we did in the past.
'free will' , so called , is , probably , ultimately , a mystery...i can do this or i can do that and i decide which i am 'going to do'...i'm not doing it until i do it...but, i can do it in 'mind' first...Beyond Freedom and Dignity i read as a kid...great thinking all done 'from the outside' tee....he mentioned liking Bertrand Russell and says , yet , he doesn't 'believe in philosophy' (a way of life)...what is 'belief'...is 'belief' not from the inside....William F. Buckley and Skinner are wonderful at jabberwocky....both can talk their way out of a wet paper bag, what?....so many folks 'develop' a half baked or fully baked philosophy or scheme and then they 'have to' fight and claw and grab onto words to 'support their' original scheme which turns into a very convoluted swirling gable of words upon words...cognitive psychology, behavior psychology, positive, and and on go the 'psychologies'...'psyche' or soul?...what does Skinner say about that....i think , like many , he forces words to support a theory which doesn't hold water...his views are but partially so.....'i don't believe in philosophy'...'philosophy is a way of life and a study of thought, knowledge and experience (ideas)....Skinner probably balks because he has a PhD...Doctorates of Philosophy in Psychology....Psychology is a 'branch' a 'subset' of Philosophy...of course Skinner, or nobody, wants to be a 'subset'...i'd like to hear from Skinner's daughter artist..Jung or other psychotherapists 'dark side' and inner life, and all that jazz. would be explained away by some 'mechanistic', 'mathematical' (Bertie Russell) articulation by Behaviorists...Gestaltists, Behavorists on and on are but a 'part of a whole'....Skinner's ideas are 'part' of the mystery...he, like most of them, get to sounding like 'my way or the highway'.....if his home or apartment are as dull in surroundings as his office, drab...i think Jung's Red Book and office and home etc. reflect his 'rich inner life' whereas Skinner doesn't have on...he said 'thinking' , i think and could never be happier than when i'm thinking....whelp, Jung would say 'wow, how sad'....anyhoo, jabberwocky fun...from my personal experience there is a lot more going on than in Skinner's way of thinking....i do agree we don't have 'choice' per say...we make 'decisions'...in a way i 'fiddle' my way through life but i do so by means of a huge inner life that creates an outer life more than the outer life creating the inner life...ultimately , they are inextricably intertwined...Skinner is a heavy dude...equally as 'heavy' and important as Jung...not as much fun , eh...i can't picture Skinner getting it on with a client or two, getting into dreams and letting 'them' take him on a 'journey' of transformative nature introducing him to 'aspects' or existence, if tapped into, could never be 'explained' by 'behaviorism'...there is a lot more to an 'organism' than 'doing'...there's is more going on than 'doing' or 'contingency''...i understand why he likes Bertrand Russell...verbal masturbation....
Freud is completely outdated and obsolete. Even C.G Jung (of Mr. W. Reich I am NOT so sure 😁). Look after "Osho" and his famous therapists. He tried ANY form of therapy in his legendary ashram in Poona/India . . . And he influenced a whole BUNCH of utterly intelligent, creative and VERY authorative people thru the whole wide world !!!
Freud avoids talking about behavior as it wouldn't make sense for much he said (masochism for example). Instead he hides behind characters inside our head that control what we do, much like a Disney movie.
It’s great to see someone I have learned about actually talk about how he sees the world. Helps make some connections to my psychology class.
Swez
[ 12.21.23, 10pm: My apologies, this note was intended for someone else that I had confused with you, but I'm leaving it up anyway, as I think it matters anyway] Oh Dear, I didn't see you were in a class NOW. Ummm. Welllllll... Today, they the chiefs of so many colleges have in all cowardice allowed The Idiotae to trample fact, and Evolutionary Biologist Brett Weinstein was sacked at Evergreen University in WA for merely telling the truth about selectional pressure and the formation of traits (and not even mental ones! ), straight out of Darwinism: that truth got the protest "Biology is elitist." Politics has no place in Science, none, and if Psychology is to remain a Science, which at this rate in the USA it arguably isn't, whether some gosling "is offended" by its theories is irrelevant, and still irrelevant if righteous goslings gather by the thousands and chant against the truth, and more moot still if some vile and craven university administration caves in to the protests.
"when you are stimulating my eyes in a particular way"
seriously, he really laid it on when he compared her to a spot of red
thinking is the product of history! very succinctly put forward.
I struggle with anyone who dilutes the power of introspection...However I really liked what he mentioned about what other's had mentioned regarding teaching. The more the teacher teaches, the less student originality that can take place. I was fixated on a couple of guitarists when I started learning. I had all the chord's for every single song, every lyric memorized. I eventually managed to learn almost ALL of what I wanted to learn. Could not for the life of me play original music in that time period and stopped playing for like 10 years. When I picked it back up, by this time I opened up, didn't really play other's music or learn their songs. WORLD of difference in creativity and originality. I'm not saying don't learn to play other's songs, because it's one of the easiest ways to learn an instrument or understand the basics of music. I have loads of respect for him, however he puts me to sleep! I don't think he practiced hypnosis, but my god he would have been master.
I struggle with anyone who dilutes the power of introspection.... However I really liked what he mentioned about wha others had mentioned regarding teaching.... The more the teacher teaches, the less students originality that can take place. I was fixated on a couple of guitarist when I started learning. I had all the chords for ever single song, ever lyric memorised (this could be Jiu jitsu moves or anything else) I eventually managed to learn almost all of the songs (Jiu jitsu moves, boxing moves, MMA moves, ECT...) I wanted to learn. Could not for the life of me play original music (Jiu jitsu moves, ECT...) In that time period and stopped playing for like 10 years. When I picked it back up, by this time I opened up, didn't really play others original music (Jiu jitsu moves) or learn their songs. WORLD of difference in creativity and originality. I'm not saying don't learn to other songs (or learn any boxing moves, Jiu jitsu moves, ECT...) Because it's one of the easiest ways to learn an instrument (ECT...) Or understand the basics of music (MMA moves, ECT...)
S
S
S
@@RockBrentwood You didn't point out any flaw tho. This was already predicted and explained by Skinner's work. You actually just pointed out that the principles he discovered are always present and always work.
When you condition a rat lets say to press a red button in the presence of the word "red" , you are also in a process of getting conditioned yourself to open the food tray at the 'correct' time so you can reinforce the rat's behavior, and your own behavior of opening the food tray gets reinforced as a result of the rat pressing the red button.
If you are "the conditioner" the 'theory' doesn't suddenly stop working for you and applies only to someone else, but it works on you too. Like if gravity only applied to some people and not to others, there would be something very wrong with it. It really won't be a theory that has found out some actual regularity in nature. And in the case of Skinner's, he absolutely has. His findings are as objective as you can get, the closest you have to a natural science of behavior of organisms , while a lot of other branches of 'psychology' are very hypothetical with a lot of made up constructs that can never be proven or disproven.
This man is beautiful. Hang all of those people that were afraid of him. People most probably are afraid of him, because his description of the world breaks everyone's premises.
Hang them?
You propose we hang people for being afraid?
We live too long doing basically the same things everyday to become bored and depressed.
take a drink every time Skinner says "rules"
My favorite psychologist . ..the theory regarding society compliance...which we all must do to survive...
I can see why he is. I knew about him in college, but never got around to looking at any of his material closer. This guy REALLY knew his stuff!!
@@_SeaH0rse 🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍YOU BET !!!
My daughter enjoyed his work a lot .
has she passed?
Just makes me want to figure out how to craft my environment to my advantage. If you’re having an emotional reaction to perceived loss of perceived free will, just know… you’re proving Skinner right.
We can directly observe what operating the notions of behavior did to Skinner’s brain. Behold.
Talking to ourselves is thinking. In safe society we have lots of time to think that we talk to ourselves.
The vocal apparatus is involved. Murray Sidman: Equivalence Relations. However, blind and deaf make new other connections: touch/heard, touch/seen. Notice his reference to suggestion. Read James.
When I close my eyes I think of things which I have no idea why they pooped up in my mind. I must have experienced them once. What am I? I am what the world created of me.
I Kant say for sure , but he looks Skinnier here
After he mentioned his age at 84 years old, I then checked and found out that he passed two years after (88) in 1990
hjeheheheheheheheeh
Immanuel KANT ? 😁
He believed that you could accomplish a lot more if yoi settled down in a small town and had plenty of great literature and resources like the local library ...he was right.
What did you mean by that?
What a genius!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!!
Thank you
Autism Behavioral Services nice
Chomsky disliked the video ;)
where is part 2?, thank you.
I don't quite understand (but do not immediately disagree with) his refutation of information retrieval at about 12:45. Anyone care to help me out?
Oh damn, I am blown away by the controversial nature of the philosophical roots of behaviorism. Am I correct in saying he totally denies the existence of agency? We are not responsible for our thoughts or actions, they just occur? Just as the clouds float across the sky and the tides ebb and flow, totally involuntary? Does Skinner perceive beings as philosophical zombies? As mechanistic automatons? I'm not disagreeing I just feel that I wasn't given the full story behind Behaviorism in school.
Wow this is some deep shit! So a complete dismissal of dispositional attributions?
I'll admit he's hard to follow at times
Robert you were correct you don't understand
Essentially we are not machines based on von Neumann architecture. Memory is not stored in some mental closet waiting to be selected like a piece of clothing. Its rather the case that we have an event to go to, and if the event is of the right type, our brains will, within a reasonable degree of reliability, produce the appropriate type of clothing to match. Remembering something thus comes down to being in the right environmental circumstances as opposed to actively choosing from a selection of memories independent of your given environment.
Skinner is the GOAT!
SKINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Superintendent! I was just...uh---just stretching my calves on the windowsill. Isometric exercise! Care to join me?
✨✨✨
19:07 question on choices
*reads title* SKINNER!
bless technology BLESS
Ugh studying his theory is a struggle 😭😭😭
@@Frugoo08 And I would say just the opposite. He seems particularly blinkered, almost retarded, though he was at the same time quite perceptive in a way.
Does anyone know who the interviewer is?
The OG "Clean up your room"
I’m glad someone said it
That is very wrong. He is diametrically opposed to Petersons thinking.
If we are not responsible for our own thinking everybody should to visit the doctor cause our thinking can after our behaviorism.
To account for the human reaction to conditioning, behaviorism must either recur to the classic Freudian notion of 'resistance', and thus become unfalsifiable, unscientific, or recur to the American philosophy of pragmatism, which is just as unscientific being a philosophy, and in both cases potentially contradicts itself because both motions might imply the existence of introspection, and in both cases serves to legitimize an essentially authoritarian state of affairs. Skinner's only counter to this is to make space for frivolity, he could have at least said that people learn better by also doing things on their own.
It is habit-forming, distraction and servility made an ideology, it is a philosophy of life for death.
Cope
Finally a man with the sense and dignity to understand this
what do you mean account for human reaction to conditioning?
@@senpaulo Nobody likes it dumbass.
@@senpaulo Sorry. I snapped. I'd assumed I was dealing with a troll, as we've all dealt with so many. But it is oddly fitting. I didn't like the question, at the time, it was very human of me
I like his argumentation
Which branch of psychology studies specifically the sexual behavior, but actual sexual conducts, unlike psychonanalysis (which studies unconcious and gives a sexual explanation)?
Evolutionary psychology might be what you're looking for. Everything comes down to sex and the propagation of genes.
This man tried to make a pigeon fly a bomb.
I really wonder what this man thought of DR. ERIC BERNE M.D
28:33 - On Verbal Behaviour
And his own students disproved him.
I like the Simpsons character and I like the scientist. Worth reading his books. The scientist’s that is ;-)
Is there a branch of psychology which studies the political behavior of humans?
Political Psychology? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_psychology
Just read GUSTAVE LE BON ! -> classic !!!
DR. Eric Berne is also a good one for understanding people and our government system
I learned about him from a RETIRED STATE TROOPER.
HERES THE BOOKS IVE READ BY HIM, IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS AUTHOR SLASH BOOK SUGGESTIONS IT WOULD BE GREATLY APRECIATED.
BY DR. ERIC BERNE M.D... HE DIED IN 1969, AND WAS ONE OF THE PIONEERS OF GAME THEORY.
1. THE GAMES PEOPLE PLAY-RUclips
2. BEYOND GAMES AND SCRIPTS-PDF
3 SEX IN HUMAN LOVING-PDF
4. TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS IN THE THERUPUTIC SITUATION
5. WHAT DO YOU SAY AFTER YOU SAY HELLO?
"We're not responsible for anything we DO". Uh huh-. Except in the ethical sense that we must take certain steps. Which is not a form of doing?
I guess he means we are not responsible in the sense that there is not an "ego" or an inner entity that controls the behaviors independently from the external stimulus, hence the responsibility is from the genetics and chemical procedures determined by the history of the organism. But in the cultural system this affirmation wouldn't work in the benefit of the collective, so ethics would be cultural behavior in which we all agree to the believe that we have to take responsibility of the actions that are attributed to us as organisms that act upon the world.
not being responsible for what we do doesn't mean we don't do things, only that the environment (including our history with it) are the ones that dictate what we do
Not responsible in the sense of the moral/legal system's assumptions based on free will and an inner person. They assume that since you are the sole origin of your behavior, no causes extend to the environment, so you personally get punished or rewarded . When YOU do a crime YOU go in prison etc. And since this type of thinking is unable to notice the effects of the environment (it's simply outside of this thinking framework) , that would mean that all ethical and moral issues people are concerned with , will never be solved and only dealt with after the fact , or sometimes attempted to be resolved rather ineffectively . It's kind of ironic that the methods which people use to stop certain things from happening , actually perpetuate said things.
While if you understand that the causes of your behavior extend to the rest of the universe as well, you just have to discover the relevant factors and variables that lead to certain outcomes, and you design your society from the ground up so you don't have immoral or unethical behaviors, like what people might call "criminal behavior" for example, in the first place.
His works should be taught in High School. The system would never go for it. It would wake to many people up.
Boss.
You were on to something, pal.
This man is the most brilliant psychologist who has ever lived! No wonder he has such a high forehead. It is necessary to house his gigantic brain! :)
I really like much of what he says but he has no solid ground and very easy to disagree when he says we are not responsible very easy to take down
How ?
very easy? that's a philosophical debate that has been going on forever lmao
@@andresaguero5880radical behaviorism is the philosophy of behavior analysis, which has been scientifically proven over and over again. So, I would love if you could elaborate.
Yeah, he's a radicalist. Completely ignoring internal factors in favor of external.
@@alexxx4434 “radical” in behaviorism means root (finding the roof of the cause), and not radicalism.
This is some OG bad philosophy right here.
It is completely illogical in almost every sense. It keeps falling apart and contradicting itself with every other sentence he utters, and is awfully unrealistic, impractical, and seems to not understand human nature on the most basic psychological and scientific levels there are.
I'm amazed he is considered so influential in the field.
The absolute worst I've heard so far.
I was going to comment about the whys, but it was too long as it completely falls apart at its very basis.
It's like the blueprint to everything that is awful in society and people today and does not work on almost any level.
No, you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what he is talking about.
@@Future_Pheonixsure you were, buddy
"You can't serve 2 masters. GOD & mamon". We can only healthfully follow 1 fractal because of the cause of contradicting forked points. What then? Then we are following neither fractal. Like magnetism we have to cause and effect follow fractal patterns for stability/healthy mind, body, which leads to soul. We must follow/pattern something. Because of time and that the world is in constant change. Hence we are always following something if we are not in control. We control not the small nore the large nore the rules nore the endings. The beginnings might be the only thing we control or can manipulate in my opinion. Choice(s).
Skinner skinner on monte au charbon on est mineur mdrr
All the respect, Professor, we have a difference between the behaviour and the comportement of the humaine the behaviour is with the think of éthique and quality and morality and the comportement is with act of seeing and act of hearing and act of touching and act smelting and act of tasteing this the comportement like you say the father of the behaviourisme and doctor they sitell konw how this humaine be comportement and behaviour until the sceince and the all messengers of Allah and philosophie of the grrec come they started by stape by stape to konw this humaine until Sgmond frreud the father of analyse humaine comportement and we a lot of philosophies and a lot of doctors they still konw how the humaine comportement like you>< doctor >< and frome the organisms )[I don't want to say the name ([animals])they leroning frome us frome our comportement they have intelligence of sensibilisation we just want the goodness of leroning and good sceince.
Just like Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" is frightening and depressing, so is Skinner's conclusion about human behavior. But ... don't shoot the messengers 😉.
This is an exhibition of simple-minded traducement of psyche; Skinner's attack on Introspection itself is "unscientific" as no means is ignored in science for the gathering of data and fact. But his critique of the cognitivists is essentially correct, who fundamentally ignore the facts of evolution and instinct.
Can you articulate?
@@agathagalhardi Which part dear?! ----- and whether ontogenetically or phylogenetically for the evolution part against the "Cognitivists?" ( which I think moot anyway given the reciprocal relationship ). Or Skinny's argument against "Introspection" for being " "unscientific?" Because there are surely ways to make it Verifiable, or acceptable empirically, as some agreement or consensus on any particular Introspection proposition if repeated long enough, with many, many introspectors can be made to abide the scientific method. To say Introspection is outright and unremediablly unscientific is naif, and ignores the value of it in the history of psychology (though perhaps Skinny was reacting to the flurry of mysticism infesting psychology in the 60s and 70s, but who cares about the ruck?) Introspection can provide insight as to how psyche works , Freud used it to establish ---in part---- his theory of Dreams and The Unconscious, and Freud as a neurologist trained by Drs. Charcot and Breuer was very concerned with verification, causality, and method, Charcot being the greatest mind in Neurology at the time. As well, this charge of "unscientific" by Grundbaum against Freud is absurd, and Grundbaum having an Ontological background in Logical Positivism as well as plenty CLINICAL EXPERIENCE as a Professor of Psychiatry should have damn well known better, even if only by the direct observation of examples of Freud 's ideas all around him in the asylums of NYC; but I think he wanted his name blazing up in lights on the marquee, (and he got it for 15 minutes), as nearly every darling theorist in psychology with a parricide complex wants to fell the great Freud. It's now a cottage industry. Behaviorism whether by Skinner or Wittgenstein is barely an explanation at all of the human psyche: it is more a chronic description and often a shallow one at that; at least LW was honest enough to admit that much, with his prohibition on "Inner" causality for what everyone knows to be mental events, as with hypnosis. But Skinner, and worse, nearly all subsequent American Behaviorists ignored the whole topic of Instinct, or the DNA Directive as I call it also, and Instinct's direct causation in the Evolution of Hominid and pre-human psyche. UCLA and most USA schools denied Sexual Selection as an Evolutionary force until roughly 1970. I would suggest calling me on Messenger, I can't type all this, and I don't know of any text with a general theory, uniting the evolutionary causation of traits and development of personality. Really after the early 50s it appears all Psychoanalysis and, later, Psycho-Biology/ Anthropology cowered before the job left to them by Freud, Fenichel, Klein, DeGroot, Roheim, they just quit, which the genius historian at UCLA, Russell Jacoby, points out in his book on Otto Fenichel & The Americanization Of Psychoanalysis, but I think the case is even worse than he depicts in that book and I'll bet he now agrees with me. He is still alive so I should call or write him via UCLA.
Amazing scientist, average mind, small soul!!
he is athiest
What deos that mean?
@@humptydumpty9406 it's a very subjective comment, but i don't feel inspired when i hear him talking. Regardless of all he brought to the field of psychology, including the basis for some of the most efficient therapy, he appears to completely dismiss any notion of free will and shows no apparent passion for the workings of the human mind.. It's like he's figured it out and all subsequent research is useless. Atheists like Dawkins or Jonathan Haidt who thinks that religion is a product of evolution are still in awe of man. Feels like Skinner is just not interested in the human condition. Wouldn't you agree?
Unsonsious.thinking.determ.a.behavour.
"What is inside is the product of the history....as long as we understand the environmental sources of what we do all day long we don't need to bother how it geels when I am doing it."
Bravo! That is a perfect reductionist statement par excellence! It is tautological. Essentially, it says absolutely NOTHING! It is extraordinarily dangerous and misguided as we are essentially reduced to machines! The quintessional opposite of empathy!
he is considered the most influental psychologist in the 20th century, who are you?
By precisely whom? You might just want to qualify that a bit, shal,l eh? He is indeed the most influential 20th Century BEHAVIORIAL PSYCHOLOGIST. As far as real psychology, psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, Affect- Developmental based psychology, try for starters, Freud, Bowbly, Winicott, Carl Rogers; Alice Miller, Lev Vygotsky, et al.
Empathy is a deterministic instinctual behaviour as we are social animals. We are here to breed and safety in numbers has probably been important in past environments for survival in order to breed as long as possible, just as it is for many animals today. Psychopaths and the likes can learn how to fake empathy in order to get what they want even if they don't feel anything for the person they are trying to con. So what makes inherent empathy any different than any other behaviour that's passed on through the genes or learnt? it seems you're insecure to the idea of free will being an illusion?
Skinner says we do what we do as humans because we are not a specie like chimps and later on he clearly says we are special as species because of the contingencies of reinforcement that lead us to be what we are today. That doesn't sound like machines at all! and also, what's the problem with that anyway? every life form behaves not very different from how a machine does. John. B Watson considered the human being as a complex machine but the difference the Skinner would be that we aren't very different from machines, except for the fact we explain through verbal behavior what we do, or did and also we asked others why they did what they did.
Where is the tautology? Are you even capable of effective reading behaviour? It say does something, what he just said, can't understand? You may benefit from going back to school or reading a little into his work. His work proves that, that we can effectively and relatively predict behaviour in a reliable manner, and that the more we can control or account for the environmental variables, the more we can do so too, considering a healthy organism of course. And in those cases, we did not need to go into his mind or brain to do so, that's how it is. Don't understand it? Your problem. Are we reduced to machines? No, we were found to be machines, very complex machines as Watson and others would argue, just like all other species, as we are not some sort of organism apart from all the rest anyway, they should have taught you that in Biology classes.
It’s quite shocking that this guy was [so] influential. His views have been [literally] dropped quickly.
You need to do your research. Functional Analytic Psychotherapy, Acceptance & Commitment Therapy, Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and so many others have his experiments and theory as a foundation.
Nothing THAT dead serious is dropped quickly !! See HAARP: "They promised: "okay, we´ve closed it." Nothing whatsoever has been done / closed) ! It just has been continued in csecrecy ! Like 'skinners work too. What do you think why C- G Jung held speeches at Tavistock for ? And what is the FABIAN society for ? As Igor said below: You need to DO research properly !!!
Dropped is a metaphor, so if they were dropped, they were dropped figuratively [not literally.] And they weren't dropped. Otherwise you wouldn't be here commenting on them.
Behaviorism does not explain or predict free will. Social darwinism is a plague.
Because free will doesn't exits. It's just a political illusion (bullshit). We are conditioned by multiple variables that lead us to a certain behavior in the future. However it doesn't mean we cannot choose for ourselves. It means we need to look at our own behavior and act better than what we did in the past.
Exist*
'free will' , so called , is , probably , ultimately , a mystery...i can do this or i can do that and i decide which i am 'going to do'...i'm not doing it until i do it...but, i can do it in 'mind' first...Beyond Freedom and Dignity i read as a kid...great thinking all done 'from the outside' tee....he mentioned liking Bertrand Russell and says , yet , he doesn't 'believe in philosophy' (a way of life)...what is 'belief'...is 'belief' not from the inside....William F. Buckley and Skinner are wonderful at jabberwocky....both can talk their way out of a wet paper bag, what?....so many folks 'develop' a half baked or fully baked philosophy or scheme and then they 'have to' fight and claw and grab onto words to 'support their' original scheme which turns into a very convoluted swirling gable of words upon words...cognitive psychology, behavior psychology, positive, and and on go the 'psychologies'...'psyche' or soul?...what does Skinner say about that....i think , like many , he forces words to support a theory which doesn't hold water...his views are but partially so.....'i don't believe in philosophy'...'philosophy is a way of life and a study of thought, knowledge and experience (ideas)....Skinner probably balks because he has a PhD...Doctorates of Philosophy in Psychology....Psychology is a 'branch' a 'subset' of Philosophy...of course Skinner, or nobody, wants to be a 'subset'...i'd like to hear from Skinner's daughter artist..Jung or other psychotherapists 'dark side' and inner life, and all that jazz. would be explained away by some 'mechanistic', 'mathematical' (Bertie Russell) articulation by Behaviorists...Gestaltists, Behavorists on and on are but a 'part of a whole'....Skinner's ideas are 'part' of the mystery...he, like most of them, get to sounding like 'my way or the highway'.....if his home or apartment are as dull in surroundings as his office, drab...i think Jung's Red Book and office and home etc. reflect his 'rich inner life' whereas Skinner doesn't have on...he said 'thinking' , i think and could never be happier than when i'm thinking....whelp, Jung would say 'wow, how sad'....anyhoo, jabberwocky fun...from my personal experience there is a lot more going on than in Skinner's way of thinking....i do agree we don't have 'choice' per say...we make 'decisions'...in a way i 'fiddle' my way through life but i do so by means of a huge inner life that creates an outer life more than the outer life creating the inner life...ultimately , they are inextricably intertwined...Skinner is a heavy dude...equally as 'heavy' and important as Jung...not as much fun , eh...i can't picture Skinner getting it on with a client or two, getting into dreams and letting 'them' take him on a 'journey' of transformative nature introducing him to 'aspects' or existence, if tapped into, could never be 'explained' by 'behaviorism'...there is a lot more to an 'organism' than 'doing'...there's is more going on than 'doing' or 'contingency''...i understand why he likes Bertrand Russell...verbal masturbation....
He was a genius. But Freud truly understood human behavior. Good try Dr. Skinner.
Truly, every person is only motivated by their libido... Yea, I don't think so
That's why Freuds theraphy works... ohh wait, It doesn't
Freud is completely outdated and obsolete. Even C.G Jung (of Mr. W. Reich I am NOT so sure 😁).
Look after "Osho" and his famous therapists. He tried ANY form of therapy in his legendary ashram in Poona/India . . . And he influenced a whole BUNCH of utterly intelligent, creative and VERY authorative people thru the whole wide world !!!
Freud avoids talking about behavior as it wouldn't make sense for much he said (masochism for example). Instead he hides behind characters inside our head that control what we do, much like a Disney movie.
"the speaker as locus" is worthy of note: cell theory