From: yarvin@highlite.uucp (Curtis Yarvin)
Subject: Re: Partial Legalization
Organization: Gotham Communications Research
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:05:50 GMT

In article <00713509737@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>From article <1992Aug09.025040.14112@highlite.uucp>, by yarvin@highlite.uucp (Curtis Yarvin):
>> In article <1992Aug7.084715.42172@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug06.225844.26790@highlite.uucp>,
>>>yarvin@highlite.uucp (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>>>> A belief is a belief; but the acid test of learning is
>>>> application.  If you can present one constructive
>>>> application of psychological testing in animals, very
>>>> well; until then, I will continue to believe that
>>>> running rats through mazes is about as useful as
>>>> casting tea leaves, if possibly preferable for its
>>>> agitatory effect on animal rights groups.
>
>Actually, most psychologists today feel the same way about running rats
>through mazes. It's not particularly useful -- at the moment.
>
>On the other hand, putting rats into "Skinner boxes" led directly to the
>formulation of schedules of reinforcement, which have proven quite
>applicable in a number of different areas. For example, I, as a teacher,
>use the principles of reinforcement derived from operant conditioning
>research in order to maintain order in my classroom.

Ah.  Well, this is _exactly_ what I'm talking about.

No doubt you believe that behaviorist techniques make you a more
effective teacher.  Fine; it may be so.

But how do you measure effectiveness?  Let's say you're trying to
compare the techniques of behaviorist psychology with the techniques
predicted by another model.  Strictly a gedanken-experiment here;
let's call it "onanist" psychology.  

Now, you can write a paper and say, "Well, gosh, Mr. Editor, I tried
this silly onanist stuff, and it didn't work anywhere near as well
as the Skinner method."

But that isn't science.  There's no way someone can take that result
as a verified fact and build new theoretical structures on it.
At least, not if he's honest.  Because that's no result, that's just
an opinion, and I would quote a very nasty proverb about opinions
but I'm afraid people would take it the wrong way.

No, for a proper scientific comparison you need a number.  So your
paper can read more like this: "Using onanist techniques, average
classroom disorder was 5.6 on the Green Index; whereas behaviorist
methods held it to only 2.3.  Therefore it can be concluded that
behaviorism is neato keen, but onanism is a lot of horse puckey."

But where do you get that number?  It ain't easy to scale the complex
pathology of classroom disorder down to a single number on a one-
dimensional scale.  It ain't easy at all.  This is a gedanken-
experiment, though, so let's forget about that for a minute and
assume that you _can_ actually come up with a "Green Index," that
precisely measures the disruptiveness of an unruly class and can
be objectively applied by anyone.

And even then you're screwed.  Because there's no way you can do a
double-blind trial - no way you can be sure that your success in the
classroom is due to behaviorism and not your dapper mien at the
chalkboard, that the failure of onanism is due to its inherent
scientific bogosity and not your distaste at teaching by such an
obviously bogus theory.  And, more importantly, no way you can
precisely define the classroom techniques of behaviorism and onanism,
to ensure that anyone who does the experiment over - to make sure that
you didn't diddle the figures before publishing - comes up with the
same results.

Until you can do that, you're not doing science.  You're not proving
anything - not even establishing it beyond a reasonable doubt -
and the acceptance of your theories is dependent only on the loquacity
of the arguments behind them and the fickle fads of academia.

>> Aye.  And what have Pavlov's experiments with dogs done for you or
>> me? (Aside, of course, of the getting of grants.)
>
>Pavlov's experiments with dogs led to the "stimulus-response" school of
>behaviorism, which in turn led to the "operant" school of behaviorism
>(where the organism is an active participant in choosing those activities
>which gain it the most reward), which in turn led to effective methods of
>behavior management in the classroom and psychiatric institution (methods
>which you would not have encountered, because it was not until the early
>70's that such techniques started to be used outside of the laboratory).

Well, I do admit never having been in a psychiatric institution, but I
was in the classroom in the 1970s.  Maybe my teachers weren't using the
correct & approved behaviorist management techniques, but I'll tell you
this - it sure didn't work too well at controlling _me_.

Fortunately, your claims are put vaguely enough that this doesn't
constitute disproof by contradiction; but I can't see proof being
any easier.

>In addition, Pavlov's experiments with dogs led to the concept of
>"stimulus fading", which provides a method for memorizing material
>which has proven to be more effective than the old "read and re-read
>until you get it" school of thought. (Don't tell me that memorization
>should not be so highly used in education -- you know that, I know
>that, but certain things like the spelling of "demon words" simply
>MUST be memorized).

Despite that wonderfully authoritative 'MUST,' I again doubt I can
serve as disproof; but in grade school I took only one year of
'spelling,' was never forced to memorize words, and (if you'll
trust me on this) I have perfect spelling.

>And finally, the principles of operant conditioning and positive
>reinforcement have revolutionized animal training, thereby allowing us
>much more entertainment from animals than was previously possible
>through the "beat them until they do it" school of training (which
>had, well, a bad mortality rate).  Entertainment may not be what you
>had in mind. But let's face it, surely Sea World is as worthwhile as,
>say, Madonna?

I agree that this is a worthwhile & provable result, and will have to
retract my claims; I should have limited them to human subjects.

>> It's easy to prove that dogs start salivating after food-associated
>> stimuli; it's a lot harder to prove anything much about a dog's mind
>> from that; and it takes an extremely flexible attitude toward the
>> truth to reach any conclusions about the _human_ mind after a
>> simplistic experiment like that.
>
>You are assuming that there exists such a thing as a "mind". I prefer to
>think of what we call "mind" to be a series of internal covert behaviors
>related to verbalization, perception, and reperception. "Cognitive
>behaviors" if you will. Or as Mr. Skinner said in _Beyond Freedom and
>Dignity_, "Intelligence appears to be a product of a verbal society."

Call it what you will; it may get your rocks off, but I have no
interest in bandying jargon.  English is bad enough as it is without
having to invent more ill-defined words to confusticate conversation.

>If you are talking BEHAVIOR, now -- the observations that we got from Mr.
>Skinner's rat boxes were tested on human beings, and, lo and behold, IT
>WORKED.

Indeedy.  When you have humans in controlled experimental conditions,
it's very easy to isolate variables and test them.

Unfortunately, the real world is not a controlled experimental
condition.  Humans in real situations react in an extraordinary
variety of complex responses, and it's ridiculous to suppose that
all the variables combine linearly.

You can put humans through the equivalent of Skinner boxes, and
measure their responses in well-defined quantitative terms - 
and that is science.  Perfectly good science.  But it's teacup
science - ivory-tower science.  It can't be applied to real
problems without making gratuitous generalizations.  Proving
that people can be conditioned to press a button is a damned
far cry from proving that people can be conditioned to obey
the law - and it is _not good science_ to prove the first
and blithely assert that you've proven the second along with it.

>> Unfortunately, a lot of people in the business have extremely
>> flexible attitudes toward the truth.
>
>Define "truth".
>
>Personally, I define "truth" to be "that which can be confirmed via the
>scientific method".

Odd; I have exactly the same definition.  Things, as the crocodile said
to the helicopter, are looking up.

Perhaps, though, we have different definitions of the scientific
method.  See above.

>There's a whole lot of the field of psychology which cannot be called
>"truth" by any means. But when you state that the entire field is bunk

I do not state that the entire field of psychology is bunk.

Large parts are certainly bunk.  But modern psychologists have
retreated from the simplistic, broad conclusions of the past and are
busy doing their best to study the few things that can be studied:
perceptual cognition, simple cases of learning, and so forth.
Their work may not have proven very useful, but it is certainly not
bunk.

c
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs