It's a school of thought, one of 5 main approaches to psychology.
I prefer humanism (depending on who I'm dealing with, obviously. Humanism doesn't work with PD'd individuals.)
https://ivyduck.net/essay-samples/behaviorism-and-ivan-pavlov-and-b-f-skinner
Behaviorism works reasonably well when training pets and very young children, apparently. Adults and older children will often find it mildly insulting, especially if they're intelligent. It depends on who is doing the assessing/rewarding and how, tho.
BF Skinner's subjects seemed to adore him. And his face lit up when he worked with them, as well. I think the love was more important to his experiments than the system of rewards. I've seen those experiments fail miserably for some people. I suspect they were mean or apathetic about the animals and/or people they worked with.
Some of Pavlov's methodology was downright cruel. I believe much of it has been banned iirc.
Some of these experiments opened a new chapter in "learned helplessness" studies in the...
Help me out, TC... was that the early 1970s? Around Zimbardo's heyday?
Adults and older children will often find it mildly insulting, especially if they're intelligent.
Odd, I haven't seen people find it insulting so much as a bit grim and dry. While media does like to portray this study somewhat through characters like Lilith from Cheers and Dr Amy from Big Bang Theory, most people I've discussed it with tend to find it fascinating if you discuss it over people in general.
Rather than claiming people do shit because of their dreams or some deep rooted subconscious issues that are difficult to prove, Behaviorism is the closest Psychology gets to being a legitimate science over how it's more concerned with cause and effect at a fairly surface level, allowing it to avoid unfalsifiability in ways other aspects of the field tend to suffer. It shows people to be in many ways the same sorts of robots or animals as other forms of life, in spite of how much we tend to complicate the process through sublimation.
I can't imagine them taking it any worse than hearing Sociology statistics, unless they are really an at-risk type of constant self-direction. Even Google just defines it as "the theory that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings, and that psychological disorders are best treated by altering behavior patterns", which I personally haven't had much trouble talking to people about when it comes to feeling insulted.
It depends on who is doing the assessing/rewarding and how, tho.
BF Skinner's subjects seemed to adore him. And his face lit up when he worked with them, as well.
Could it perhaps be that they adored him over being conditioned to? 🤣
I think the love was more important to his experiments than the system of rewards. I've seen those experiments fail miserably for some people. I suspect they were mean or apathetic about the animals and/or people they worked with.
You kind of have to be for these studies, there's no nice way to, for example, tweak a rat's brain so that they will eat themselves to death.
Some of Pavlov's methodology was downright cruel. I believe much of it has been banned iirc.
Once the cruelty is done, though, data is data and can be used to prevent worse things in the future.
Some of these experiments opened a new chapter in "learned helplessness" studies in the...
Help me out, TC... was that the early 1970s? Around Zimbardo's heyday?
I don't know the years, but the 70s in general was a hotbed of some pretty strange experiments over the exploration of the mind.
"The Problem of Induction" haunts empiricism. What is interesting with Behaviorism, perhaps, is that this problem sort of goes away when one is studying humans. We can study behavior, the effects of conditioning, with so-called objective data to infer things, but it is with the added benefit of bona fide experience of being profoundly similar to the subject. It is safer to generalize through experimentation/observation. One can even use oneself as a test subject or reference, though we get into some strange tautological places there.
Adults and older children will often find it mildly insulting, especially if they're intelligent.
Odd, I haven't seen people find it insulting so much as a bit grim and dry. While media does like to portray this study somewhat through characters like Lilith from Cheers and Dr Amy from Big Bang Theory, most people I've discussed it with tend to find it fascinating if you discuss it over people in general.
Ha. Kelsey Grammar's character was Freudian. Movie shrinks usually are.
Freudian and Jungian theories lend themselves well to analyzing film, and also to good storytelling for the film makers.
Name any classic film, and I could do a Jungian analysis and show you the Aristotelean arc.
So ofc, writers who create psychologist characters always make them Freudian.
There are very few Freudians working with patients, nowadays.
Psychologists/psychiatrists give people tests to write, and usually prescribe drugs.
Sometimes they'll put them in a group where they can talk about their problems (grief, trauma, etc.)
Meatloaf's boobs in Fight Club totally ruined group therapy for me for life lol
Even if Pooptin nukes us all and I live through WW3 and I end up traumatized af I will never do doctor prescribed group therapy.
I can't imagine them taking it any worse than hearing Sociology statistics, unless they are really an at-risk type of constant self-direction. Even Google just defines it as "the theory that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings, and that psychological disorders are best treated by altering behavior patterns", which I personally haven't had much trouble talking to people about when it comes to feeling insulted.
I'm talking about people who are put on behaviour programs. The patients. Not students who want to be doctors.
I think the love was more important to his experiments than the system of rewards. I've seen those experiments fail miserably for some people. I suspect they were mean or apathetic about the animals and/or people they worked with.
You kind of have to be for these studies, there's no nice way to, for example, tweak a rat's brain so that they will eat themselves to death.
That's clinical neuropsychiatry. Not behaviorism.
Some of Pavlov's methodology was downright cruel. I believe much of it has been banned iirc.
Some of these experiments opened a new chapter in "learned helplessness" studies in the...
Help me out, TC... was that the early 1970s? Around Zimbardo's heyday?
I don't know the years, but the 70s in general was a hotbed of some pretty strange experiments over the exploration of the mind.
No, it wasn't a weird one. It was an outgrowth of classical conditioning theories.
Pavlovian.
Horrible.
They took these beautiful dogs, golden labs, and traumatized them with electric shocks until they didn't want to move.
I think the laws started to change after that.
Not enough. It's still not enough, but that was the start of more rights for research animals.
"The Problem of Induction" haunts empiricism. What is interesting with Behaviorism, perhaps, is that this problem sort of goes away when one is studying humans. We can study behavior, the effects of conditioning, with so-called objective data to infer things, but it is with the added benefit of bona fide experience of being profoundly similar to the subject. It is safer to generalize through experimentation/observation. One can even use oneself as a test subject or reference, though we get into some strange tautological places there.
lol my profs used to hate it when I framed a question about a lesson as an anecdote.
So I guess you could say Skinner was right about those exchanges. Awkward af.
I discovered quickly that a lot of kids would start psych classes, and then tryta dx some weird problem they had, and a good percentage of them were sexual lol
I figured out how to word those questions more like "Well the textbook says behaviour x is often due to such and such, but I'm not sure I'm clear on precisely what that means because I can't rlly relate personally. I do smthg different in that situation. I know, I know I'm not everybody. There's a curve. But because I can't relate, I just want to make sure I understand that group y does this and precisely this. Is that on the test? Do I need to beat my brains off it?"
"The Problem of Induction" haunts empiricism. What is interesting with Behaviorism, perhaps, is that this problem sort of goes away when one is studying humans. We can study behavior, the effects of conditioning, with so-called objective data to infer things, but it is with the added benefit of bona fide experience of being profoundly similar to the subject. It is safer to generalize through experimentation/observation. One can even use oneself as a test subject or reference, though we get into some strange tautological places there.
lol my profs used to hate it when I framed a question about a lesson as an anecdote.
So I guess you could say Skinner was right about those exchanges. Awkward af.
I discovered quickly that a lot of kids would start psych classes, and then tryta dx some weird problem they had, and a good percentage of them were sexual lol
I figured out how to word those questions more like "Well the textbook says behaviour x is often due to such and such, but I'm not sure I'm clear on precisely what that means because I can't rlly relate personally. I do smthg different in that situation. I know, I know I'm not everybody. There's a curve. But because I can't relate, I just want to make sure I understand that group y does this and precisely this. Is that on the test? Do I need to beat my brains off it?"
I'm not really meaning the curbing of language and taking a more statistical mentality. While that certainly is some way to combat the idea of subjectivity and trying to be objective in a scientific way. What I'm trying to say is that there is the unique opportunity for subjectivity to matter in an empirical sense as far as study goes into phenomena of behavior.
Weirdly, I know this is a common critique of Behaviorism is the ruling out of "free will" or the "mental activity" of a subject. Something "nonobservable". Yet, being human, studying humans, there's the unique ability to peer into that subjective realm and have observable qualia to bring to bear on phenomena.
Adults and older children will often find it mildly insulting, especially if they're intelligent.
Odd, I haven't seen people find it insulting so much as a bit grim and dry. While media does like to portray this study somewhat through characters like Lilith from Cheers and Dr Amy from Big Bang Theory, most people I've discussed it with tend to find it fascinating if you discuss it over people in general.
Ha. Kelsey Grammar's character was Freudian. Movie shrinks usually are.
It's a byproduct of older styles of media. Considering it was an 80s show that introduced the character, they spend a good deal of time debating if Freud has any place in the modern sphere:
Freudian and Jungian theories lend themselves well to analyzing film, and also to good storytelling for the film makers.
Only if the writers themselves believe in it or have otherwise been exposed to it, otherwise it tends to just be an excuse to bring up someone's mother.
Name any classic film, and I could do a Jungian analysis and show you the Aristotelean arc.
Holy Mountain.
Psychologists/psychiatrists give people tests to write, and usually prescribe drugs.
Only the latter can actually write med scripts, the former if their patient refuses to is (typically) stuck finding other solutions.
Often what I see as the problem for therapists isn't over an inability to find the issues plaguing patients (even with how easy it is to misdiagnose people in the field lending to a reluctance over labeling too quickly), but rather how to package the solution in such a way that the patient will benefit from the knowledge. To go even further, save for placebo cures it could easily be seen as malpractice to outright groom and steer people without their knowledge through tricking them.
Sometimes they'll put them in a group where they can talk about their problems (grief, trauma, etc.)
Meatloaf's boobs in Fight Club totally ruined group therapy for me for life lol
In general, having peers with the same problems makes it easier to relate their stories to themselves and is largely why even flawed programs like AA turn out some level of success, but it also invites the room to meet people with the same vices and, in turn, can end up being how to find other people to 'party' with.
I liked Breaking Bad's portrayal of recovery programs, the character of Jane Margolis was very well written and performed.
I can't imagine them taking it any worse than hearing Sociology statistics, unless they are really an at-risk type of constant self-direction. Even Google just defines it as "the theory that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings, and that psychological disorders are best treated by altering behavior patterns", which I personally haven't had much trouble talking to people about when it comes to feeling insulted.
I'm talking about people who are put on behaviour programs. The patients. Not students who want to be doctors.
I wasn't meaning students either, I was meaning the average layman.
Patients in general though tend to be defensive if it's not presented with a faith component, so that has been an obstacle for Behaviorist themes, yet when you talk about how it is for other people suddenly it's a lot more palatable.
I think the love was more important to his experiments than the system of rewards. I've seen those experiments fail miserably for some people. I suspect they were mean or apathetic about the animals and/or people they worked with.
You kind of have to be for these studies, there's no nice way to, for example, tweak a rat's brain so that they will eat themselves to death.
That's clinical neuropsychiatry. Not behaviorism.
The two are practically married when all that really separates them is the manner of tampering.
When you look at the sorts of people it appeals to there's a lot of crossover compared to something like Jung.
Pavlovian.
Horrible.
They took these beautiful dogs, golden labs, and traumatized them with electric shocks until they didn't want to move.
I think the laws started to change after that.
Not enough. It's still not enough, but that was the start of more rights for research animals.
I have mixed views on it over how some of our most groundbreaking data comes from cruelty. I'd prefer that they do these tests on prisoners or something but data is data, and what we learn from it if established rigorously enough can remove the need to ever do the same tests again.
Imagine where we'd be with psychotherapy if there was no World War II, for example, or for a more recent example something like the Stanford Prison Experiment.
@BT:
It can, but like I was saying, statistical curves often showed me that I'm not like other girls :&
It helped me a lot with norms and group think, and what not to say in front of mondo conservative types, tho. I had no idea. I mean no idea how much ppl were judging me on certain statements. My life got a lot easier after I learned to tighten up my brain-to-mouth filters.
It helped me a lot with norms and group think, and what not to say in front of mondo conservative types, tho. I had no idea. I mean no idea how much ppl were judging me on certain statements. My life got a lot easier after I learned to tighten up my brain-to-mouth filters.
You mean by learning how to be fake like the conservatives are learning how to do? 😞
