[From Bill Powers (2003.12.30.0839 MST)]
Bill Williams 30 December 2003 9:40 AM CST--
As I understand it the physical environment around us is either this way
or that way, or whatever, but it isn't an agency that actually "offers" us
anything. This may be purely a matter of nominclature, and if so I'm
sorry I brought it up. But, wouldn't it be better to avoid the use of
verbs in connection with the environment?
I agree with the motive here, but I think we do have legitimate uses for
action words in relation to the environment. The dynamite "exploded" for
example, or the meteorite "fell."
I think that we need to avoid the use of purposive terms (like "offer") in
speaking technically of non-purposive systems.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Williams 30 December 2003 10:30 AM CST]
Bill,
I agree with the motive here, but I think we do have legitimate uses for
action words in relation to the environment. The dynamite "exploded" for
example, or the meteorite "fell."
I think that we need to avoid the use of purposive terms (like "offer") in
speaking technically of non-purposive systems.
This is what I intended to say.
Maybe the thing to do is explain, how it is that eating the first peanut, or even better taking the first drink, becomes the occassion for many more peanuts and drinks. Many people wouldn't have any difficulty saying that, "The situation was 'inviting.' " And, many of them would, I think, attribute something amounting to agency to the environment.
Bill W8illiams
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1213 MST)]
Bill Williams 30 December 2003 10:30 AM CST--
Maybe the thing to do is explain, how it is that eating the first peanut,
or even better taking the first drink, becomes the occassion for many more
peanuts and drinks. Many people wouldn't have any difficulty saying that,
"The situation was 'inviting.' " And, many of them would, I think,
attribute something amounting to agency to the environment.
I agree that this is how it seems, though we wouldn't attribute nonphysical
properties to the nonliving world, I hope.
I can imagine ways in which the desire or liking could get out of conscious
control. As in the case of the first drink, the appearance is that there is
a little autonomous agent in there, independent of the rest of the
hierarchy, that is roused by the first drink and then proceeds to demand
the next ones. It looks like an accidental positive feedback situation,
doesn't it? The drink that is supposed to slake the thirst instead makes it
greater. Same for cigarettes: the lungful of calming smoke that abates the
feeling of emptiness creates an even bigger feeling of emptiness a minute
or two later, and in fact is the cause of that feeling in the first place.
Could this sort of thing be at the root of all these cases we've been
considering? Even things that are neutral or good for you could entail a
positive feedback loop, so you'd consume an abnormal amount of them. What
about all these people walking around with their bottles of water? Don't
they have to pee all the time? And could it be that drinking so much water
results in an increase in thirst? All kinds of interesting possibilities.
Best,
Bill P.'
[From Bill Williams 30 December 2003 2:20 PM CST]
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1213 MST)]
Bill Williams 30 December 2003 10:30 AM CST--
Maybe the thing to do is explain, how it is that eating the first peanut,
or even better taking the first drink, becomes the occassion for many more
peanuts and drinks. Many people wouldn't have any difficulty saying that,
"The situation was 'inviting.' " And, many of them would, I think,
attribute something amounting to agency to the environment.
I agree that this is how it seems, though we wouldn't attribute nonphysical
properties to the nonliving world, I hope.
Maybe you remember the study that was published years ago in Physics Today. At least I think it was Physics Today-- the one in which students in introductory physics classes were asked some elementary questions about what would happen under various conditions-- like a shot being fired from a gun that was rotating. The answers the study reported were wildly more improbable and implausible than I would have expected. So, with that study in mind I tend to think that _not_ attributing agency like properties to non-living things is an unusual way of thinking about the world.
Non-Animistic thought is a way of thinking that seems to be characteristic of physicists and a comparatively few members of strange cults. If something like an animistic mode of attribution isn't true, then how would explain the numbers of people who believed, or at least didn't protest Behaviorism. Or, did I get it somewhat confused. Didn't the original behavorists say _all_ of the agency-- the stimulus -- was out there?
Behaviorism may be in the process of going away, but I don't think that the mode of thinking that allowed it to triumph has changed all that much.
Bill Willims
[From Bruce gregory (2003.12.30.1541)]
Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1213 MST)
Could this sort of thing be at the root of all these cases we've been
considering? Even things that are neutral or good for you could entail
a
positive feedback loop, so you'd consume an abnormal amount of them.
What
about all these people walking around with their bottles of water?
Don't
they have to pee all the time?
Yes!
And could it be that drinking so much water
results in an increase in thirst?
Not that i've noticed. The problem is that we don't feel thirsty enough
usually. Also thirst sometimes appears as hunger (try it). In any case
all that water is good for the liver and kidneys and has done wonders
for a sinus condition I had for over forty years!
Bruce Gregory
"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."
Andre Gide
···
On Dec 30, 2003, at 2:26 PM, Bill Powers wrote:
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1517 MST)]
Bill Williams 30 December 2003 2:20 PM CST --
Behaviorism may be in the process of going away, but I don't think that
the mode of thinking that allowed it to triumph has changed all that much.
Sometimes I think it may be a battle simply to keep from losing ground.
There seems to be a much greater supply of ignorance than of its antidote.
Besty,
Bill P.
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.30.2235)]
[From Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1517 MST)]
Bill Williams 30 December 2003 2:20 PM CST --
>Behaviorism may be in the process of going away, but I don't think that
>the mode of thinking that allowed it to triumph has changed all that
much.
Sometimes I think it may be a battle simply to keep from losing ground.
There seems to be a much greater supply of ignorance than of its antidote.
'Behaviorism' existed long before it was formalized at the end of the 19th
century into a working 'scientific' theory, and it will be here for
eternity. Most people will never move beyond the 'folk' psych mentality of
the cause and effect model. That is, something just happened, now what is it
in the environment that has just caused it?
Why won't it go away? Because it 'works'. Most people actually don't care
why things happen the way they actually do, they are only interested in a
story that _seems_ to work and places the blame on anything or anyone but
themselves, (i.e. it's something out there) they are content with just-so
stories.
Cynical? Hardly, Argyris's work slaps you in the face with this kind of
stuff.
Marc
From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.30.2235)]
> [From Bill Powers (2003.12.30.1517 MST)]
>
> Bill Williams 30 December 2003 2:20 PM CST --
>
> >Behaviorism may be in the process of going away, but I don't
think that
> >the mode of thinking that allowed it to triumph has changed all
thatmuch.
>
> Sometimes I think it may be a battle simply to keep from losing
ground.> There seems to be a much greater supply of ignorance than
of its antidote.
'Behaviorism' existed long before it was formalized at the end of
the 19th
century into a working 'scientific' theory, and it will be here for
eternity. Most people will never move beyond the 'folk' psych
mentality of
the cause and effect model. That is, something just happened, now
what is it
in the environment that has just caused it?
Why won't
it go away? Because it 'works'. Most people actually
don't care
why things happen the way they actually do, they are only
interested in a
story that _seems_ to work and places the blame on anything or
anyone but
themselves, (i.e. it's something out there) they are content with
just-so
stories.
Cynical? Hardly, Argyris's work slaps you in the face with this
kind of
stuff.
Marc
2003.12.31.09.00 PST
Marc, I think that much of the blame for the public's acceptance of behaviorism lies with an education system that fosters passive learning/memorization and textbooks in "subject" areas to be mastered for multiple choice exams. Where a more self-directed, experiential "brain-based" approach is implemented, students may be more amenable to control theory. Anybody out there want to join me in seeking to change education systems?
David
···
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Abrams <mabrams@NVBB.NET>
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: Likes and Goals
from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.31.1230)]
from David Wolsk
> Marc
>
2003.12.31.09.00 PST
Marc, I think that much of the blame for the public's acceptance of
behaviorism lies with an education system that >fosters passive
learning/memorization and textbooks in "subject" areas to be mastered for
multiple choice exams. >Where a more self-directed, experiential
"brain-based" approach is implemented, students may be more >amenable to
control theory. Anybody out there want to join me in seeking to change
education systems?
I certainly don't disagree with your assessment of our educational system,
experiencing it again first hand after a number of years. This past semster
was very interesting because I actually split my semester between 2
different schools. One was an on-line course from a SUNY (State University
of New York) school and I took two courses at Brooklyn College, in a
classroom setting. I actually found the on-line course more stimulating and
interactive than the classes at school. But I don't see any connection from
this to our beliefs in behaviorism. I think our beliefs have to do with a
_deeply_ ingrained view and conviction of how the world works. Have you seen
the science educational tapes produced by Bruce Gregory? It's amazing what
people walk around 'believing' in, even after 'learning' things differently.
Marc.
ps. Although highly noble, I fear you are on a Don Quixote type of quest.
If you're in the classroom the most you can hope for is to provide your
students with a unique experience. If your in a management position you can
help insure your teachers get the necessary tools, equipment and education
to do their jobs well. Everything else is out of your hands. I wish you luck
though.
Marc