Apparently, though, the gut has a brain which communicates with our head brain, to give us instinct and inklings. I believe this was verified in the field of molecular biology.
Seems that these criticisms are more inclined towards methodological Behaviorism rather than radical behaviorism and more recent models we consider the importance of private events (thoughts, emotions, etc) and behavior not to mention the fact that the behavioral approach has brought effective results. Neuroscience is definitely a great advancement but we can’t say behaviorism is wrong when it’s been proven time after time. In any case we have Psychoanalysis to blame as a pseudoscientific deterrent doctrine that was wrong.
Click bait title, lame talk. "Rational fear"? What the hack is that? The guy treats the behaviorism as it is 30's - 50s when, indeed, it was super famous. Now it is much more refined and integrated many theories from other fields such as medicine and biology. You will not really find just behavioral psychology but psychology associated with behaviorism because... oh well... we cannot really talk about psychology without behavior. So, we did not learn wrongly about psychology but he did.
Yep, we need them to be good shallow extroverted drones who don't think about things. Thinking is a bad thing for the rich people who own the world, we need useful idiots.
So if you had an Autistic Lion (pack animal), and that somehow gave him an evolutionary advantage, could he not spawn, or play a pivotal role, in the evolution of the Tiger - a solitary animal? Could a monkey with lets call it "hyper neural activity disorder" (a bigger more active mind) not be scientific Adam? If an Alien group behaves X way and 1 in a group of 20 behaves Y way, and an Alien with glasses says "he has ploople nerf disorder" is that an objective truth? If not, then isn't psychology completely subjective? And if it is, isn't it radically different from say Physics, which when followed by Scientific Method, gives an entirely objective result? Meaning if anyone on earth throws a ball up it comes down - but one man's psychopath can be another's Messiah - right?
Psychology is about concepts and about naming certain aspects of those. The naming is subjective, yes. But the concept works as either a model for predicting purposes, or used to explain certain variation in social and psychological phenomena. These concepts are most of the time concluded from inductive reasoning just like the way it works with physics. So in that way both branches of science are very similar.
Almost all of what he says about radical behaviourism is actually incorrect. Setting up a straw man to justify your own branch of psychology is intellectually weak and only perpetuates simple stereotypes which does nothing for the discipline of psychology
His first line is fundamentally wrong.
Apparently, though, the gut has a brain which communicates with our head brain, to give us instinct and inklings. I believe this was verified in the field of molecular biology.
Most people are wrong...😮😮 True dat...
Seems that these criticisms are more inclined towards methodological Behaviorism rather than radical behaviorism and more recent models we consider the importance of private events (thoughts, emotions, etc) and behavior not to mention the fact that the behavioral approach has brought effective results. Neuroscience is definitely a great advancement but we can’t say behaviorism is wrong when it’s been proven time after time. In any case we have Psychoanalysis to blame as a pseudoscientific deterrent doctrine that was wrong.
Psychology just isn’t candid enough.
totally agree - to much brain Mombo jumbo
It's just a bourgeois pseudoscience as chinese like to call it 🙌
Psychology should be illegal.
So how should we see Psychology?
We must avoid it, since it was a pseudo-science & science-wannabe
@@Minerva578this tbh
TBH, that is probably the worst Ted talk I ever watched.
Click bait title, lame talk. "Rational fear"? What the hack is that? The guy treats the behaviorism as it is 30's - 50s when, indeed, it was super famous. Now it is much more refined and integrated many theories from other fields such as medicine and biology. You will not really find just behavioral psychology but psychology associated with behaviorism because... oh well... we cannot really talk about psychology without behavior. So, we did not learn wrongly about psychology but he did.
11:37 Maybe the researchers can find a proper cure and treatment for introversion? Introversion is often lumped in and described as being anti-social.
Yep, we need them to be good shallow extroverted drones who don't think about things. Thinking is a bad thing for the rich people who own the world, we need useful idiots.
So if you had an Autistic Lion (pack animal), and that somehow gave him an evolutionary advantage, could he not spawn, or play a pivotal role, in the evolution of the Tiger - a solitary animal? Could a monkey with lets call it "hyper neural activity disorder" (a bigger more active mind) not be scientific Adam? If an Alien group behaves X way and 1 in a group of 20 behaves Y way, and an Alien with glasses says "he has ploople nerf disorder" is that an objective truth? If not, then isn't psychology completely subjective? And if it is, isn't it radically different from say Physics, which when followed by Scientific Method, gives an entirely objective result? Meaning if anyone on earth throws a ball up it comes down - but one man's psychopath can be another's Messiah - right?
Psychology is about concepts and about naming certain aspects of those. The naming is subjective, yes. But the concept works as either a model for predicting purposes, or used to explain certain variation in social and psychological phenomena. These concepts are most of the time concluded from inductive reasoning just like the way it works with physics. So in that way both branches of science are very similar.
Almost all of what he says about radical behaviourism is actually incorrect. Setting up a straw man to justify your own branch of psychology is intellectually weak and only perpetuates simple stereotypes which does nothing for the discipline of psychology
he isnt