/lit/ - Literature

>>14721650
Psychology is fake.

>>14721650
No . Erikson and Piaget

Yes. He ended psychology and his theories explain everything. Homosexuals and trannies HATE him because he proves that their aberration is a product of prior conditioning, rather than innate. The Christians and religious hate him. Liberals hate him. The right hates him because he debunks spooks like muh individual responsibility. Chumpsky never refuted Skinner's theories on language, and all his criticism was already admitted well in advance in Verbal Behavior. Skinner was a genius and the only reason people do not want to touch him because it will shatter their illusions about life and make them see themselves for the thinking-machines they really are.

>>14721650
No that was Jung.

>>14722983
Refuted by Skinner.

>>14721650
literally the worst psychologist

>>14722907
hey boomer, whats it like in the 60s?

>>14723023
Notice how nobody has a single argument against him, thus proving my post >>14722907

>>14723031
Boomers hate him because he proves humans are a product of experience, society and their enviroment.

>>14722990
Refuted by Jung.

>>14723033
>>14723035
>propose no sincere or thorough arguments
>feign superiority when others mimic your lack of arguments

>>14723033
he's irrelevant today. good luck adoring an obsolete nobody.

>>14723052
He was canceled. Not politically correct.

>>14723049
>>14723052
Non-arguments abound.

>>14723059
uh no. hes very pc. "its nurture, man".

>>14723064
>He ended psychology and his theories explain everything

Start proving this then. It's on you.

>>14723068
You're wrong, Skinner thought behavior boiled down to early experience but never denied the influence of genes and heritability and even thought behavioral idiosyncrasies were inheritable.

Try saying that homosexuals and transsexuals were not born that way and were conditioned into it by their enviroment and upbringing. You'll be exiled from academia and will be criticized by LGBT and their various lobbies.

psychology as a discipline has contributed nothing to advance the human condition

>>14723091
>even thought behavioral idiosyncrasies were inheritable

Oh that part where adherents retcon his Lamarckism by saying its "epigenetics".

>>14723075
Humans are the product of prior conditioning whose actions are the product of various rewards and stimulation on complex scales, shaped largely by their enviroment. I only asserted that all his theories are correct. You recoil and deny it, yet cannot fault what, which shows you either have not read him or what he implies is so offensive that you would never consider reading him.
>>14723107
>epigenetics does not exist
Brainlet

>>14721650
He and Pavlov did one of the most important things since freud. He said that the mind was a black box and based his work on OBSERVABLE relationships. I'd argue that he set the stage for psychology, hell even theory of mind, to eventually become a hard science as we find tools to shrink that black box. The greatest? Not at all. Important? Extremely.

>>14723118
holy shit a based poster on /lit/. read it if you haven't

>>14723118
oh, it exists. but the quot. marks are there to say that actually what theyre doing is all bullshit reconning

>>14723122
Y-you can't just orchestrate experimental studies on human psychology, that's unethical. We're not flipping rats either, dude, so you can't like make observations from putting them in cages about me. Who the FUCK are you to say these things?

Aaah - Skinner with his crazy explanations
The superintendent's gonna need his medication
When he hears Skinner's lame exaggerations
There'll be trouble in town tonight!

>>14723118
>Humans are the product of prior conditioning
do you really believe that wild assumption?

>>14723146
Yes. It's not a wild assumption, either, the evidence strongly suggests it to be so.

>>14723118
I like Skinner but he's not 100% right. Mental states and mental representations exist. Start with o'keefe and nadel's hippocampus as a cognitive map.

>>14723152
and there i thought for a while that humans could self-reflect and change their ways. oh well. back to the simple and ez 60s i guess

>>14723163
They can't, which is why society needs fundamental change and the state should do it's best to root out the causes of maladaptive behaviors that serve no benefit.

>>14723163
Look around. They can't. People are animals.

>>14723163
>>14723178
so rally against the ingrained status quo, you say?

>>14721650
>behaviorism
american invention

>>14723252
>behaviorism
russian invention

>>14723252
>>14723254
it's an observation of a pattern that can be replicated in any country at any point in history. get off this board for a while and you'll get it.

>>14723052
>he's irrelevant today
CBT is easily the most predominant branch of psychology in the world.

>>14723160
>Mental states and mental representations exist
If I'm not mistaken, Skinner never denied the existence of these mental processes. He just somewhat subdued them as an a posteriori consequence of behavioral conditioning, which is an assumption that's neither completely right nor completely wrong.
Is there a psychology theory that manages to concile the two, by the way? Phenomenology kinda does that but I'm interested in alternatives.

>>14723279
This.

>>14723279
Lacan does that.

>>14721650
>Psychology
>Greatest
Come on, everyone knows psychoanalysis is fake.

>>14725291
Skinner isn't anything to do with psychoanalysis. His field is behaviourism

>>14721650
wrekt by the chomsker

>>14721650
>
Skinner's behaviorism theory was vastly overblown and I'm glad that it isn't the biggest thing anymore. He basically thought that people were almost like robots in that s certain stimulus would create a certain response, or almost guaranteed that. Read someone else in psych besides skinner.

>>14721650
No. Thanks to him, marketers and videogame companies managed to make digital skinner boxes of their own and made the population addicted

>>14725397
Except he wasn't. Skinner laid out ALL of Chompsky's counter arguments in Verbal Behavior, preemptively anticipating such criticisms. It's as if someone took Aquinas's objections, put them in a book, then claimed to have "wreckt" him and his Summa Theologiae.

>>14725398
>He basically thought that people were almost like robots in that s certain stimulus would create a certain response, or almost guaranteed that.
They are and it does.

>>14725501

But he posited his theory as an almost certainty that was only slightly below a law of nature. That's what I mean by overblown. He never acknowledged the uncertainty that real life brings.

>>14725538
>He never acknowledged the uncertainty that real life brings.
Prove it. He's not as dogmatic and rigid as people claim. I see people saying this yet provide no quotes, no references to his books, or anything.

>>14725542
This. He actually fits very well in the postkantian view of philosophy. Humans operate probably deterministicly and you thinking about it is also determined, ones thoughts are not outside the sphere of causality. Of course, probable in most practical applications is equivalent to the common conception of truth.

>>14725495
He never refuted Chomsky's arguments.

>>14725607
>refute arguments that you've already laid out and refuted

>>14725640
False.

>>14721650
Neither know nor care who 'the greatest' was or is but my favorite's J.M. Baldwin, especially in his later works Thought and Things and- The Individual and Society. For me then, it's Baldwin.

>>14723265
CBT is the mosy soulless branch

>>14726366
>Finally, MacCorquodale (1970) observed that Chomsky either misrepresented or misunderstood the complexity of Skinner's analysis. Chomsky appeared to think that when Skinner identified a putative controlling variable, he was asserting that it was the only relevant variable and always a sufficient one, as though speech were a collection of reflexes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223153/

It's pretty obvious that Chumpsky didn't read it and his review was a dexedrine fueled polemic against the central thesis rather than any detailed explanation or research on the part of Skinner.


Neurolinguistics and neuroscience have vindicated Skinner, and refuted Chomsky's counter.


https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-44679-005.html

>>14722907
So you're convinced that your belief in behaviorism is, just like everything else, solely the product of operant conditioning as well, right? In this case, there'd be no reason to believe that it's true.

>>14727545
Lol okay

isnt skinner—and to a larger extent, behaviorism—largely irrelevant in psychology today?

>>14721650
>Is BF Skinner the greatest psychologist of all time?
No.

>>14727884
Yes. Noam Chomsky (of all people) refuted him utterly and unequivocally.

>>14726882
MacCorquodale was a Skinner lackey. The reality is, there is no way to do linguistics without innate structures. Everyone understands that today, including neuroscientists. Only fringe crackpots think Chomsky was wrong.

>>14727893
Noam Chomsky btfo himself

>>14727884
No. It's just applied to a much smaller domain than Skinner's radical behaviorism. For instance it has applications in the study of addiction.

>>14723163
Some can, most can't. That's pretty obvious just form observation. If anybody and everybody had the same psychology and capacity for self-reflection... don't you think they might do that?

>>14727884
Only within academic psychology. In the real world, it's still doing well, e.g. in the treatment of autism or addiction. It should tell you something about its theoretical underpinnings, however, that it's only really effective with people who lack the capability of self-reflection (autists) or whose free will is severely impaired (addicts). Still more useful than the trash that is academic psychology though.

>>14729083
>Still more useful than the trash that is academic psychology though.
What so bad about academic psychology?

>>14727884
Only within academic psychology. In the real world, it's still doing well, e.g. in the treatment of autism or addiction. It should tell you something about its theoretical underpinnings, however, that it's only really effective with people who lack the capability either of self-reflection (autists) or free choice (addicts). Still more useful than the trash that is academic psychology though.

>>14729124
>he thinks artists and addicts are the only ones who lack capability and self agency

>>14727545

>>14723178

Wouldn't the state also require conditioning to do so?

>>14729176
At least it appears to be so considering that behaviorism, based on the assumption that everyone lacks these characteristics, only works with those demographics really well. Although, to be precise, I don't think that autists and addicts lack these qualities completely, rather they're seriously impaired.

Behaviorism is absolutely incredible. I used behaviorism to fix autistic kids for about a year and it's remarkable the impact it can have on them. Extremely high functioning kids too, not just drooling knuckle draggers. I worked with one kid in particular with profound social deficits who was otherwise a genius, much more intelligent than the average person and his progress was astounding. People are just afraid to acknowledge that they could be so easily influenced by simple reinforcement. Anyone in marketing knows better.

>>14729351
Are you a certified ABA?

>>14729377
Honestly I can't recall if I was ever certified, I was a psych major and worked under a BCBA who would conduct a FA on children who I would then use ABA therapy with in accordance to their individualized treatment plan. I imagine I probably was certified in order to do that work since we had continuing education workshops.

>>14729425
Funny, I'm gonna do the exact same thing under the same circumstances beginning in March. What's your job now? Is it psych related?

>>14729584
No, since then I died of literal cancer, became an EMT, and now I'm currently working as a technician at a large ophthalmic practice and about to start a 2 year degree program for radiography in May.

Have fun anon, working with children with autism can be taxing but also very rewarding. It's one of the best things I ever did desu.

Thx for reading my blog btw.

>>14722907
based, and redpilled

>>14721650
>>14722907
No, his methods only address problems individuals have with specific norms, and do nothing to address ow any individual fits in a society. Skinner would use behavioral therapy to change a soldier ant to behave as a worker ant because workers are more efficient and there has been no conflict for several generations, he would nueter the soldiers ability to defend the nest, and endanger the entire nests future should things change.

Bump

>>14728011
>ad hominem
>ad populum
Is this the intellectual power of Chompfags?

>>14729250
> based on the assumption that everyone lacks these characteristics
You’ll have to explain to me why people do the things they do, if you wouldn’t mind. I’m curious as to how you determine the reasoning behind a persons decision aka what motivates them to action? Is it spontaneity and a supernatural act of God or something?

>>14729989
It’s probably butterfly with his trip. He always sucks of Chomsky.

When Skinner fags address Chomsky they only ever claim that his tone was too polemic and never engage with the arguments

>>14730914
You're right, the post reads just like one of his tantrums.
>Everyone understands
>Only fringe crackpots

>>14730897
I don't know, but apparently it's not strictly conditioning, at least I don't see any compelling evidence that suggests that every human action can be accounted for solely in terms of classical and operant conditioning. I don't contest, however, that conditioning may be a strong influence on human behavior.

>>14732717
>I don't know
Exactly. Fucking faggot.

If conditioning was the only factor in animal behavior our species would still be in the neolithic.

Purist Skinnerism doesn't take into account imagination and the ability to change thought patterns and modes of living through acts of will.

>>14733097
The observation of feral children shatters these illusions as well as Chomsky's innate language theories. Read Verbal Behavior and Jaynes's Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

>>14733115
Jaynes and Chomsky were both wrong, but at least Jaynes wasn't a jew.