At the APA convention in 1984 in Toronto I had the pleasure of a one on one meet and greet. What an enormous opportunity for any 19 yr old Psychology major ever.
This is great. It’s been years since I read it, but “The Power of Positive Parenting” is a book that helped me a lot in raising my children. It was very effective and contains a lot of great advice for using positive reinforcement with children of all ages.
i think you are projecting there. you arrived thinking psychologists desire control and you've created a narrative to fit that. try to think in his terms instead of yours. consider why would he be thinking in those terms in the first place. he probably just has people on a payroll, perhaps family. his books sold well and he was working at harvard for years, he could of been picturing his control over his students or staff. he talked about his daughter being an artist, perhaps he supports her. also, consider skinners writing on fantasy utopia (his novel Walden Two), his idea of 'control' isn't how you might imagine. he wants to create conditions which allow us to be actually free. free of coercion and free of our current conceptions of 'work'. he's basically a utopian socialist. he wants to create truly 'free' conditions which allow the species to properly realilse their innate tendency to be social, to co-operate and to be creative (18:30)
@@Dannzzx of course, I do not mean to paint him as maleficent, and understand that there are conditions that would predispose his language. Nevertheless, his word choice does reflect his perspective, at least in part.
@@1withmyself that's the point i'm making, his word choice reflects his perspective. your observation seemed to imply malintent. what was significant about 'work for' in your eyes? is it not easily explained by the high likelihood of him being someones boss?
Us, as in people. Making people work for you, us, her, him. When i pay a plumber to fix my plumbing we are not working "together". He is paid to work for me. Monetary system works this way. Also, his perspective and intentions do not matter. It's a scientist that studies a certain field and is summarizing a few topics in an interview. He is not saying "working for us" because he has a secretary and he is the boss and means to imply that his studies ought to be used for a specific purpose. If it's valid science, that's what it is. You are both projecting instead of just listening. Trying to explain why he said what he said and what the other person thought when he said what he said... This is an unsane way to communicate.
Snitching children from their parents and make them heartless, soulless workers for the society. I really gotta ask this question: Whose society is this, really? Skinner....What a perfect name for himself. God bless the world. "People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively."
Inevitable that the line of thinking ends up leading to the act of thinking for other people. I recall a movie that addresses this. "The Zero Theorem" by Terry Gilliam. Collectivist terminology that beckons Freud into the room. She doesn't even realize that she's doing it. To ignore the shadow is to give it power over you. She would visit that "sin" onto her children. "Think for yourself, question authority Think for yourself, question authority Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening Terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in This ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the Religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by Giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their View of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and Learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; Chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself Think for yourself Question authority"
One of the last great truthsayers. (Yes, what he's saying about humans and free will is unpleasant and frightening (same with Freud) ... but don't shoot the messenger 😉.)
Hey! I'm an OCD therapist. To my knowledge BF skinner didn't do direct clinical work himself. The dominant theory of understanding OCD is rooted in operant conditioning though and specifically interrupting the reinforcement cycle of the compulsions until that desire to engage in the compulsions extinguishes.
@@terriblycleverchannelname5620 Do you address diet? I found this interesting. Something worth looking into is vitamin deficiencies. I read that some people with OCD may be lacking with these vitamins. Vitamin D, Vitamin B12 and Zinc.
Hm… anthropology can give us different approaches that different cultures have tried, but it doesn’t seem that anthropology alone could tell us which would be the best choice, presuming that one had the power to play God over the organization of a society.
When he says in a matter of two minutes he teaches the pigeon to turn, he neglect to inform you that he keeps the pigeons at 3/4 healthy weight, It takes time to starve a pigeon and achieve this. So it takes more than 2 minutes, a lot more.
Also when you starve an organism and then give it food, that is negative reinforcement by definition. Removing unwanted feeling(hunger) with food. Suck it BF
"You reinforce that child to curb his behavior" This is fundamentally incorrect. Reinforcement is used to increase behavior. Punishment is used to decrease behavior. If you reinforce undesirable behavior, it will increase. If you punish desirable behavior, it will decrease in the future. The goal is to reinforce desirable behavior and when necessary, extinguish or punish undesirable behavior.
U can decrease behavior by reinforcing alternative or incompatible behavior. If they are reinforced after time intervals where they didnt engage in the target bx, the target bx will decrease
I've seen DRO (differential reinforcement of other behavior) decrease aggressive behaviors, eloping behaviors, and escape behaviors when paired with teaching appropriate alternative behaviors that serve the same functions as the original target bx
Controlling and managing external contingencies (operant conditioning, antecedent, behavior, consequence) has always been a form of abracadabra for the naive, the stupid and the simplistic. Basic mammalian and human communication and understanding is NOT a form of conditioning but empathic insight, perspective-taking and emotional engagement.
Assuming your comment is scientifically valid; I understand that a person can be conditioned to understand a phenomenon in a certain way to form a viable value system as an outcome to ensure social standing. I also realize how this would apply to the way in which a person would intent to communicate to another. I don't understand what you mean by basic human communication. "Empathic insight, perspective-taking and emotional engagement." Are these terms an inherent part of psychology and behavior science that ARE NOT subject to environmental interference ? (As in being verifiable scientific terms) Are there constants like this that we should be referring to as human nature after all ? If they are then shouldn't they apply if the engagement in understanding or communication is basic or advanced ? And how do we quantify basic and advanced communication, understanding and mammalian communication ?
@@IcanSeeMyselfOutThanks Yes, "I can see for myself" spoken out of the mouth of a divine idiot! You retrograde imbecile moron. Attach yourself to the 1970's and whilst at it do, if you will, indulge in some self-administered electro-shock therapy and added slaps!
@@ezbo1883 "'Empathic insight, perspective-taking and emotional engagement'. Are these terms an inherent part of psychology and behavior science that ARE NOT subject to environmental interference?" No, but why are you insistent on behavioral science, which is not science but not many decades hence discarded by Affective Neuroscience, Cognitive Neuroscience, Infant and Child development; Attachment/Inter-regulation Theory, Interpersonal Neurobiology and Polyvagal Theory as well as developmental psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, as the arbiter of anything objective? It is not about quantification of the successful training of surface reinforcement contingencies of declarative or semantic responses on cue. Rather it is about implicit or procedural memory. It is not about stimulus-response conditioning. Rather about Stimulus-organism-response. By leaving out the organism you might as well indulge in reading Tarot cards or Phrenology. It is how the child feels/affectively responds, how his/her organism is interpreting the diverse array of stimuli and transforming it interoceptively and exteroceptively with respect to his/her organism. Autonomic nervous system,, associated hormones (LHPA axis into the autonomic sympathetic and two parasympathetic nervous system and associated hormonal responses, dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, nor-epinephrine, cortisol, oxytocin, vasopressin, bi-directionally). The latter is neuroscientifically evidence based driven, measurable with respect to how neuronal connections are made. infared spectroscopy; measurement of RSA (respiratory sinus arrhythmia). How gene expression through the epigenetic mechanism turns on, turns off or silences above neurotransmitter, hormonal responses. There is an enormous amount of neuroplasticity. These change are rendered not through reinforcement of selective environmental contingencies in order to produce certain surface respondent behaviors (declarative and semantic memory) which merely traumatizes and abuses the child or older (as it reinforces, if you will a physiology that is in a constant state of heightened sympathetic-adrenal fight/flight or parasympathetic withdrawal and/or shutdown behaviors. This happens through emotional/empathic reciprocal engagement, which then in turn allows the underlying foundational functional-emotional developmental capacities, shared joint attention, two-way reciprocal problem solving, symbolic ideation and social-pragmatic communication/language to meaningfully emerge.
@@Neilgs Are these things you listed not also potentially a product of behaviorism? The neuroscience I am aware of actually strongly reinforces the evidentiary basis of behaviorist techniques. Though honestly it looks more like you either chat GPT'd an answer or just smashed together a bunch of words in some places in an attempt to sound smarter than you are and distract from the argument. Then again it sounds like you actually lean more towards a form of Dualism by your original comment. Attempting to engage at all is probably a waste of my time.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/1.gif)
At the APA convention in 1984 in Toronto I had the pleasure of a one on one meet and greet. What an enormous opportunity for any 19 yr old Psychology major ever.
This is great. It’s been years since I read it, but “The Power of Positive Parenting” is a book that helped me a lot in raising my children. It was very effective and contains a lot of great advice for using positive reinforcement with children of all ages.
I recommend you the book Tiny Habits by BJ Fogg. It's great too
Dude. He tortured and killed so many animals with shocks and did it to his own kids lol.
. . . but only til 2020. See what a kind of mess "they" spread around the world ? Children are DOOMED !!!
All Skinner’s books are a must for all psychology and education enthusiasts.
Beautiful research and lessons for us all. What a great mind. 🙏🏾
Self control of any excess the environment provides for your conditioning behavior.
Thank you for posting B.F Skinner documentary. 🤝👶👦👧📚🌎🕊
@ 23:00 It’s amazing that this still holds true today.
All this time and not much has changed. Crazy bro.. crazy
Лучшее что сейчас есть о бихевиоризме. So much appreciate. Awesome information
Criminally underviewed
love the scanimate intro. wish i could get my hand on one. very nice
This is awesome
Thanks for posting
Great work posting this! Please post more of these Education in the air series
Woow this is so interesting to see old video . 😀❤️🇮🇳I was read about his theory but it's interesting to listen his thoughts orally.
2023 watchers like or reply. Curious to see how many of us will stumble upon true enlightenment
👍
Is there any possibility you could put subtitles to this?
I'm I the only one watching this in the year of 2020?
Only to debunk it and unlearn a fundamental error in modern science
Nope, you are NOT. The time after 2020 is 100 % ripe to harvest all the eugenicists . . . . 😉
Great job!👍
I wish there is a 720p or better resolution version of this program available.
It’s from 1977. I don’t think that’s possible LOL.
Nah this is so trippy and funny to watch
@@nosightgaming722 PAL or NTSC (480p) lol
I actually like the quality of the video, very retro.
@10:15 Interesting that, as a psychologist, he used the language "working FOR us" and not "working TOGETHER".
i think you are projecting there. you arrived thinking psychologists desire control and you've created a narrative to fit that. try to think in his terms instead of yours. consider why would he be thinking in those terms in the first place. he probably just has people on a payroll, perhaps family. his books sold well and he was working at harvard for years, he could of been picturing his control over his students or staff. he talked about his daughter being an artist, perhaps he supports her. also, consider skinners writing on fantasy utopia (his novel Walden Two), his idea of 'control' isn't how you might imagine. he wants to create conditions which allow us to be actually free. free of coercion and free of our current conceptions of 'work'. he's basically a utopian socialist. he wants to create truly 'free' conditions which allow the species to properly realilse their innate tendency to be social, to co-operate and to be creative (18:30)
@@Dannzzx of course, I do not mean to paint him as maleficent, and understand that there are conditions that would predispose his language. Nevertheless, his word choice does reflect his perspective, at least in part.
@@1withmyself that's the point i'm making, his word choice reflects his perspective. your observation seemed to imply malintent. what was significant about 'work for' in your eyes? is it not easily explained by the high likelihood of him being someones boss?
Us, as in people. Making people work for you, us, her, him. When i pay a plumber to fix my plumbing we are not working "together". He is paid to work for me. Monetary system works this way.
Also, his perspective and intentions do not matter. It's a scientist that studies a certain field and is summarizing a few topics in an interview. He is not saying "working for us" because he has a secretary and he is the boss and means to imply that his studies ought to be used for a specific purpose. If it's valid science, that's what it is. You are both projecting instead of just listening. Trying to explain why he said what he said and what the other person thought when he said what he said... This is an unsane way to communicate.
The Venus Project brought me here. And to many other places.
man that intro music is funky tho
The military loves this kind of thinking...
Snitching children from their parents and make them heartless, soulless workers for the society. I really gotta ask this question: Whose society is this, really? Skinner....What a perfect name for himself. God bless the world.
"People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively."
Who's we? The best question asked in this video.
Inevitable that the line of thinking ends up leading to the act of thinking for other people. I recall a movie that addresses this. "The Zero Theorem" by Terry Gilliam. Collectivist terminology that beckons Freud into the room. She doesn't even realize that she's doing it. To ignore the shadow is to give it power over you. She would visit that "sin" onto her children.
"Think for yourself, question authority
Think for yourself, question authority
Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening
Terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in
This ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the
Religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by
Giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their
View of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and
Learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness;
Chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself
Think for yourself
Question authority"
8:45 does he say "how are we going to get people to stop reading so much" ???
I think he said “breed” lol.
Nice
Here referred by the breakfast club🤝.
💓
please fix the tracking on the vhs player
Was Social Learning Theory an expansion on Behaviorism? If so,in what ways did it expand on Behaviorism?
no it is other way around. behavioursm was expanded from learning theory
@@batlefieldproes
I thought Albert Bandura had studied Skinner's work?
@@CrowdPleeza i mean it all come from the russian physiologist ivan pavlov
One of the last great truthsayers. (Yes, what he's saying about humans and free will is unpleasant and frightening (same with Freud) ... but don't shoot the messenger 😉.)
They had great eye glasses back then. That's my takeaway.
😂😂😂😂
@@clementineslaughter6904 Whoa. That's a very strong reaction for a just-ok joke. Have you checked if you have Mania?
Did Skinner ever treat people with OCD? If so,is it known how he treated them?
Hey! I'm an OCD therapist. To my knowledge BF skinner didn't do direct clinical work himself. The dominant theory of understanding OCD is rooted in operant conditioning though and specifically interrupting the reinforcement cycle of the compulsions until that desire to engage in the compulsions extinguishes.
@@terriblycleverchannelname5620
Do you address diet?
I found this interesting.
Something worth looking into is vitamin deficiencies. I read that some people with OCD may be lacking with these vitamins. Vitamin D, Vitamin B12 and Zinc.
@@CrowdPleeza I'm not a psychiatrist but one of the really good psychiatrists I collaborate with looks for vitamin deficiencies in OCD.
The interviewer can get it
00:00:35
Guy at the end had no idea he had an elementary question that could've easily been solved by an anthropological explanation. That was sad to see
Hm… anthropology can give us different approaches that different cultures have tried, but it doesn’t seem that anthropology alone could tell us which would be the best choice, presuming that one had the power to play God over the organization of a society.
When he says in a matter of two minutes he teaches the pigeon to turn, he neglect to inform you that he keeps the pigeons at 3/4 healthy weight, It takes time to starve a pigeon and achieve this. So it takes more than 2 minutes, a lot more.
Also when you starve an organism and then give it food, that is negative reinforcement by definition. Removing unwanted feeling(hunger) with food. Suck it BF
@@Dadlife20s How would you call that then?
The chances of food shortages are good.
So r u telling me ur a fat person who’s scarred of the gym and food rations?🤣
Everyone looked so dweeby in the 70s
I dig the dweeb look.
The 70s was great. It was a better time compared to now in some ways.
2020 baby don’t bend the knee
"You reinforce that child to curb his behavior" This is fundamentally incorrect. Reinforcement is used to increase behavior. Punishment is used to decrease behavior. If you reinforce undesirable behavior, it will increase. If you punish desirable behavior, it will decrease in the future. The goal is to reinforce desirable behavior and when necessary, extinguish or punish undesirable behavior.
U can decrease behavior by reinforcing alternative or incompatible behavior. If they are reinforced after time intervals where they didnt engage in the target bx, the target bx will decrease
I've seen DRO (differential reinforcement of other behavior) decrease aggressive behaviors, eloping behaviors, and escape behaviors when paired with teaching appropriate alternative behaviors that serve the same functions as the original target bx
His daughter should have been taken away from him and raised by 'the community'.
What happened with his daughter
You can condition someone to behave a certain way, but sooner or later the genes will dictate. Someone tell me if I am wrong.
Genes have been shown to be altered through behavioural modification
garageredzone great, can you post that study, please ?
@@marcoaslan great researchers have no barriers, nevertheless with the proporties that the internet provides us
@@eduardovalle8432 Your statement makes little sense. It's not well written.
The gene create reflexes and tell to neurons what's good or bad, so yes.
Controlling and managing external contingencies (operant conditioning, antecedent, behavior, consequence) has always been a form of abracadabra for the naive, the stupid and the simplistic. Basic mammalian and human communication and understanding is NOT a form of conditioning but empathic insight, perspective-taking and emotional engagement.
Assuming your comment is scientifically valid;
I understand that a person can be conditioned to understand a phenomenon in a certain way to form a viable value system as an outcome to ensure social standing. I also realize how this would apply to the way in which a person would intent to communicate to another.
I don't understand what you mean by basic human communication. "Empathic insight, perspective-taking and emotional engagement." Are these terms an inherent part of psychology and behavior science that ARE NOT subject to environmental interference ? (As in being verifiable scientific terms) Are there constants like this that we should be referring to as human nature after all ? If they are then shouldn't they apply if the engagement in understanding or communication is basic or advanced ? And how do we quantify basic and advanced communication, understanding and mammalian communication ?
Yeah. You are a floor time play teacher. Your opinion is noted, but practicality worthless.
@@IcanSeeMyselfOutThanks Yes, "I can see for myself" spoken out of the mouth of a divine idiot! You retrograde imbecile moron. Attach yourself to the 1970's and whilst at it do, if you will, indulge in some self-administered electro-shock therapy and added slaps!
@@ezbo1883 "'Empathic insight, perspective-taking and emotional engagement'. Are these terms an inherent part of psychology and behavior science that ARE NOT subject to environmental interference?"
No, but why are you insistent on behavioral science, which is not science but not many decades hence discarded by Affective Neuroscience, Cognitive Neuroscience, Infant and Child development; Attachment/Inter-regulation Theory, Interpersonal Neurobiology and Polyvagal Theory as well as developmental psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, as the arbiter of anything objective?
It is not about quantification of the successful training of surface reinforcement contingencies of declarative or semantic responses on cue. Rather it is about implicit or procedural memory. It is not about stimulus-response conditioning. Rather about Stimulus-organism-response. By leaving out the organism you might as well indulge in reading Tarot cards or Phrenology. It is how the child feels/affectively responds, how his/her organism is interpreting the diverse array of stimuli and transforming it interoceptively and exteroceptively with respect to his/her organism.
Autonomic nervous system,, associated hormones (LHPA axis into the autonomic sympathetic and two parasympathetic nervous system and associated hormonal responses, dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, nor-epinephrine, cortisol, oxytocin, vasopressin, bi-directionally). The latter is neuroscientifically evidence based driven, measurable with respect to how neuronal connections are made. infared spectroscopy; measurement of RSA (respiratory sinus arrhythmia). How gene expression through the epigenetic mechanism turns on, turns off or silences above neurotransmitter, hormonal responses.
There is an enormous amount of neuroplasticity. These change are rendered not through reinforcement of selective environmental contingencies in order to produce certain surface respondent behaviors (declarative and semantic memory) which merely traumatizes and abuses the child or older (as it reinforces, if you will a physiology that is in a constant state of heightened sympathetic-adrenal fight/flight or parasympathetic withdrawal and/or shutdown behaviors. This happens through emotional/empathic reciprocal engagement, which then in turn allows the underlying foundational functional-emotional developmental capacities, shared joint attention, two-way reciprocal problem solving, symbolic ideation and social-pragmatic communication/language to meaningfully emerge.
@@Neilgs Are these things you listed not also potentially a product of behaviorism? The neuroscience I am aware of actually strongly reinforces the evidentiary basis of behaviorist techniques. Though honestly it looks more like you either chat GPT'd an answer or just smashed together a bunch of words in some places in an attempt to sound smarter than you are and distract from the argument.
Then again it sounds like you actually lean more towards a form of Dualism by your original comment. Attempting to engage at all is probably a waste of my time.
His forehead is huge...
he's just smart ;)
I have a huge forehead too! Maybe I'm smart 😂
It’s quite shocking that this guy was [so] influential. His views have been [literally] dropped quickly.
How so?
@@docholiday8315 😁
@@docholiday8315lol. Three years later and nothing. Behaviorism is alive and thriving today