From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Behaviorism (was: Hats off to Meggy)
Date: 16 Aug 92 00:21:27 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Aug15.194512.718@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mb2p@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Marco  Bertamini) writes:

> In article <Aug.13.18.39.52.1992.26625@pilot.njin.net> hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey) writes:

> I wasn't arguing that violence cannot bring solutions. I was
> arguing that violence does not bring real, stable solutions.

"Stability" ? Another control-theoretic concept. And how do we
stabilize ? 

Let me repeat; Positive feedback is not only insufficient
but also unnecessary. Negative feedback is not only sufficient
but also necessary.

> The concept itself of solution implies value judgments, so please
> do not pretend to be so "scientific".

What is morality based on ? Some principles; let's consider them
axioms. And how do we create these principles/axioms. In the olden
and not so golden days, for the western part of the world, it
was as simple as "God says so." These days the process is more
refined but neither illogical nor unscientific.

> However, I agree that killing everybody may solve the war. In other 
> words you are saying that we need a genocide to stop a genocide. Very
> interesting.

No, you said so. What I said was about negative/positive feedback.
Please reread. You are getting trivially argumentative.


> you statment that reversing a trend is possible ONLY with negative
> feedback is incorrect. 

Please reread positive/negative feedback stuff above. It says it is
sufficient. And it says that positive feedback is insufficient
and unnecessary. You are rephrasing incorrectly.

It's as clear as crystal as stated.

>Moreover, you cannot equate the behavior of
> an individual with that of a whole population. 

First, I am doing no such thing.
Second, if this is a paraphrasel of the often heard refrain; "You
cannot generalize.", it is humbug. Science is generalization. You
have to do it correctly. F=ma is a very general statement.

A human organism is a system. So is a society. 

Analogies hold only as far as they are intended.


> Let's face it, Behaviorism in its popular form does not explain 
> everything. Not every form of behavior will change with the same 
> kind of feedback. And there are behaviors that will simply not 
> be changed. In other words you will kill the animal before changing it. 
> This is again the proposal of a genocide.

Let's not belabor the point. I stated what I wrote as clearly
as possible. It's possible to make humans killers or peaceful.

Any poor draftee given a gun and sent to war can become a killer.
He has to. And it is santioned. This is positive feedback. Murder
on the other hand has lots of societal negative feedback.


> right, and that's because human behavior is not as simple as you 
> want to paint it.

Neither is classical or quantum or relativistic physics. As I wrote
above, when you generalize, you have to do it correctly. I don't
want to give lectures on philosophy of science  but abstraction
is an inherent part of science. When we consider applying F=ma
we don't consider the electrical, magnetic, metallurgical, or
quantum-mechanical properties of matter. We abstract a quantity
called mass and use that. When we consider the probability of
a one coming up on a die, we abstract a property and use that
just like a physical property. When I make references to
system-theory/control-theory I've only abstracted certain
properties of systems. It's not necessary to consider peoples
weights, heights, religions, occupations, only the role of
positive/negative feedback on behavior. I've given plenty of
examples. The similarities of all human societies, laws,
police forces etc is sufficent enough evidence. I've said my
piece. Let those who read it decide. I don't really have
intentions of discussing pros/cons of Freudian/Jungian/Skinnerian
viewpoints. System theoretic view is much more basic than any
of these. In fact Skinner hit upon a part of this but
apparently was not aware of mathematical aspects of control
theory. I did not know that there already existed someone
who thought about things this way until about a year ago and
thought that I was being original. Since then I know that
there is person whose doing this; Powers. I never read any
of his works but it seems to me it's something that'll
make itself better known in future centuries.

Email is fine with me.
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu