Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@florian You don't need to be a "believer" to recognize the evidence that Behavior Analysis is one of the most important scientific developments in history, and that it's applications can be used to help people the world over.
[singing] I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky . . .
Gosh when you said you were radical, I did not get this sense of the word . . . You remind me of some 'radical' Buddhists, equally fervent. Well good luck with saving the world, we need people of passionate certainty to change the worlds behaviour . . . maybe the Middle Way will enable your efforts What do you think of Rudolph Steiners approach? Was a fringe interest when I was involved in this field.
Steiner's belief that thought is a form of sense -- along the same vein as taste, sight, etc. -- is one of the areas where my behaviorist colleagues are in conflict with me, because I strongly believe that to be true, particularly since the Buddha defined thought as one of the 6 sense medias. Once I'm in graduate school, I plan on using my lab opportunities to study the existence and importance of covert behavior and the thought sense media. As well as how those functions serve to assist humans in rule-governed behavior and complex verbal behaviors.
@Lobster - Yes you're right. And I expect I was wrong to assume that Behaviour Analysis is the same as Behaviourism. Never any harm in analysis, it's only the leaping to giant philosophical conclusions that bothers me.
"It cannot explain why we bother behaving in the first place, or why we care whether we receive a reward or a punishment. "
This statement is so incredibly false, it shocks me that you would say it with such flippancy. Behavior Analysis, as a scientific field of study, is flourishing more today than it ever has. This ridiculous demonizing of ABA is why so many parents in this country and throughout the world are unable to receive necessary early behavioral intervention for their children suffering from autism and other developmental disabilities.
You don't need to be a "believer" to recognize the evidence that Behavior Analysis is one of the most important scientific developments in history, and that it's applications can be used to help people the world over.
Analysisng behaviour doesn't seem like a new idea, but I assume it has been taken to new heights. Is this just a method then, and not a philosophical position like Behaviourism?
Once I'm in graduate school, I plan on using my lab opportunities to study the existence and importance of covert behavior and the thought sense media. As well as how those functions serve to assist humans in rule-governed behavior and complex verbal behaviors.
Good luck. You may already be looking at multiple levels of meaning in for example Nasrudin tales or Sufi poetry. What will be interesting is if these covert processes are to an extent something we can become aware of in ourselves and during interactions with those operating from such a position. I have a feeling you will have to confine your efforts to pathology as the inner dimension is still often a fringe science area . . .
What giant philosophical conclusions are you talking about?
Behavior Analysis involves scientific inspection of the conditions prior to and following a response in order to determine how that behavior developed and is maintained. Applied Behavior Analysis involves the construction and implementation of behavioral contingencies to teach a person new skills, maintain appropriate behaviors, and decrease the frequency of inappropriate behaviors.
Behavior Analysis is a very new idea in the grand scheme of things, particularly since it has been frequently demonized by the proponents of traditional, mentalistic, clinical psychology. The concept of applying the principles of behavior, through operant and repondent conditioning, is an even newer idea. The clinical psychologists are attached to their false views regarding the existence of a personality which precedes human behavior, whether that personality is defined as a mind, soul, cognitive structure, etc.
The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a "personality." There are just the behaviors that an organism exhibits. The functions of form, sensation, perception, mental fabrication, and cognition can all be explained using the principles of behavior. The Buddha calls these functions the 5 clinging aggregates and they are the entire package from which arises the illusion of an abiding self.
@Talisman, what does ABA say about love. Such qualities as the brahmaviras and any other loving energies? Is love real? Do we feel love or is it just oxytocin and dopamine? I am curious about your opinion and hope you will look over negative posting back and forth between us? Or that's what I recall of discussions being negative.
Okay, so with many questions similar to this, I turn to the Buddhas teaching on the two truths doctrine. That is the conventional truth and the absolute truth. The conventional truth about love is that I absolutely believe in it and it's necessity in living a skillful life. The conventional truth is that love is love is love is love is love.
The absolute truth is that love is an incredibly vague term and includes an incredibly large and complex variation of behaviors. What ABA (APPLIED behavior analysis) would address in regards to "love" is how to implement strategies for increasing "loving behaviors" while at the same time implementing strategies for decreasing "malicious behaviors".
Love is absolutely a chemically respondent behavior as well as an operantly conditioned behavior. However, that in no way detracts from the necessity of loving behavior in living skillfully for the betterment of yourself and others.
Okay, so with many questions similar to this, I turn to the Buddhas teaching on the two truths doctrine. That is the conventional truth and the absolute truth. The conventional truth about love is that I absolutely believe in it and it's necessity in living a skillful life. The conventional truth is that love is love is love is love is love.
The absolute truth is that love is an incredibly vague term and includes an incredibly large and complex variation of behaviors. What ABA (APPLIED behavior analysis) would address in regards to "love" is how to implement strategies for increasing "loving behaviors" while at the same time implementing strategies for decreasing "malicious behaviors".
Love is absolutely a chemically respondent behavior as well as an operantly conditioned behavior. However, that in no way detracts from the necessity of loving behavior in living skillfully for the betterment of yourself and others.
It seems that Behaviorism is alive and well after all. This is a surprise to me. Has it been modified since Watson and Skinner, or is it the same old story?
Its been considerably modified. And that includes a reappraisal of the limits of its usefulness. Its practical application when dealing with learned behaviours is undeniable..including much of what is popularly termed 'mental illness'...phobias, obsessional states, some forms of depression etc.
As an explanation of the whole range of human experience however it is woefully inadequate.
But..the 'zeal of the convert' is not restricted to religious phenomena.
As an explanation of the whole range of human experience however it is woefully inadequate.
Indeed - it doesn't set out to be an all unifying theory - it has brought a great deal of objectivity to psychology but these 'answered' questions aren't designed to be universal in application. Very much like Newtonian physics - great for local work, not so great over larger distances.
In order to demonstrate many of the principles the organism needs to be in a state of deprivation. This level of control is not usually the case in the real world, nor should it be.
A "state of deprivation" is a very vague description. Deprivation is a very important motivating operation when it comes to determining effective reinforcing stimuli.
When I work with a kid, and her favorite reinforcer is M&Ms, we just make sure her parents don't let her eat M&Ms while she is away from school, so that when she comes to school the motivating operation on the M&Ms will be very strong. Because she has been deprived of the M&Ms, that "state of deprivation" will act as a motivating operation for making the M&Ms a very strong reinforcing stimulus. When there is a strong MO there is a higher likelihood for correct responding. When there is a high frequency of correct responding, then the child is more frequently reinforced. When a child is frequently reinforced, the reinforcment is paired with other stimuli in the child's environment, including the tutor, the classroom, the booth, the procedure materials, and the school itself. Because of the pairing, these secondary neutral stimuli become learned reinforcers. When the child is away from school, she is being deprived of these learned reinforcers in the same way that she is deprived of M&Ms when she is away from school. Because of the deprivation, there is a strong motivating reinforcer for going to school, which results in the presentation of the new learned reinforcing stimuli like the tutor, the classroom, etc. and attentive performance in the booth leads to the presentation of the M&Ms.
Not only does ABA and deprivation help to motivate behavior in the discrete trial training, but also improves the child's "demeanor and enthusiasm" about going to school to learn. These simple principles can be applied to analyze and understand absolutely all forms of human behavior.
Sounds like you have a learning history that makes you behave suspiciously about any statement regarding absolutes. Sounds like you are an inquisitive fellow who prefers to come to your own conclusions. Sounds like there's nothing wrong with that to me.
I just worry that we might regress to a situation where more is being claimed for behaviourism than is justified by the evidence, as was the case when it dominated the consciousness debate. As an approach to treatment I have no problem with it. It either works or it doesn't,
If one had the discipline to completely control every aspect of behavior and make their basis something of their choosing...like refined morality, would that be considered a transcendence of automatic, response based behavior? Am I correct in assuming that the topic of the thread implies that most or all behavior is not or cannot be an act of will? Btw I didn't bump this thread, it ghost bumped itself like they sometimes do.
I guess the question for me, is what about all of the human behavior that is not explained by conditioning. There are countless examples of people behaving in ways that could not possibly be explained by a purely behavioral approach.
Well, look at being mindful for example. Internal thoughts allowed to come and go without response. It is an example of purposely removing response so that it does not cause behavior.
One might say that stopping a response is a response, but to what end? Is it a cause and effect relationship, or is the result simply awareness with no desire to control or manipulate the outcome?
Mindfulness is a response dimension. It means that while the response is occurring, the behaver is performing the simultaneous response of attending to the behavior as it is being performed.
Tristen lifts apple to lips and bites = Simultaneously = Tristen attends to the sensations associated with lifting the apple to her lips and biting. This is mindfulness.
Meditation might be considered by some to be an absence of a response, but the response being performed is called attendance. Specifically it is attendance upon one single stimulus. That stimulus begins as an overt bodily activity, namely the sensation of air passing by the entrance of the nostrils. As the person becomes more skilled, she or he learns to attend not to the physical sensation of the breath but instead she attends only to the covert mental stimuli associated with the sensation of breath. At greater levels of skill, there is no longer a necessity for the production or attendance upon any stimuli and the behavior of attendance itself is maintained by the overwhelmingly reinforcing states of meditative bliss.
When you are meditating and thoughts "come and go", those comings and goings ARE a form of response produced by the human brain. You are taught not to punish the response but instead to return attention gently back to the sensation of breath. Attendance upon one's breath is an incompatible response and cannot be performed at the same time as attendance upon another mental or physical stimulus. By "returning to your breath" you extinguish the behavior of thoughts coming and going while shaping the target skill, attendance only upon one's breath.
I don't see mindfulness only as a response to a stimulus. In fact, it can be and often is, a passive acceptance of events that arise within, with no external stimulation.
From my perspective, the thing about behaviorism that runs counter to Buddhist thought, is that to the pure behaviourist, all internal events can be explained by external stimuli. It can be observed and measured and explains motivation. There is a scientific explanation for everything. A very western way to look at things and consequently, most psychological thought that emanates from it, often assumes if you can't measure it, it is of no consequence.
How do you measure love in behaviouristic terms? And as a consequence, how could compassion be of any earthly use when considering these internal events such as depression or anxiety?
Comments
Gosh when you said you were radical, I did not get this sense of the word . . . You remind me of some 'radical' Buddhists, equally fervent.
Well good luck with saving the world, we need people of passionate certainty to change the worlds behaviour . . . maybe the Middle Way will enable your efforts
What do you think of Rudolph Steiners approach? Was a fringe interest when I was involved in this field.
[and now backing to the singing] . . .
Steiner's belief that thought is a form of sense -- along the same vein as taste, sight, etc. -- is one of the areas where my behaviorist colleagues are in conflict with me, because I strongly believe that to be true, particularly since the Buddha defined thought as one of the 6 sense medias. Once I'm in graduate school, I plan on using my lab opportunities to study the existence and importance of covert behavior and the thought sense media. As well as how those functions serve to assist humans in rule-governed behavior and complex verbal behaviors.
You may already be looking at multiple levels of meaning in for example Nasrudin tales or Sufi poetry. What will be interesting is if these covert processes are to an extent something we can become aware of in ourselves and during interactions with those operating from such a position. I have a feeling you will have to confine your efforts to pathology as the inner dimension is still often a fringe science area . . .
What giant philosophical conclusions are you talking about?
Behavior Analysis involves scientific inspection of the conditions prior to and following a response in order to determine how that behavior developed and is maintained. Applied Behavior Analysis involves the construction and implementation of behavioral contingencies to teach a person new skills, maintain appropriate behaviors, and decrease the frequency of inappropriate behaviors.
Behavior Analysis is a very new idea in the grand scheme of things, particularly since it has been frequently demonized by the proponents of traditional, mentalistic, clinical psychology. The concept of applying the principles of behavior, through operant and repondent conditioning, is an even newer idea. The clinical psychologists are attached to their false views regarding the existence of a personality which precedes human behavior, whether that personality is defined as a mind, soul, cognitive structure, etc.
The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a "personality." There are just the behaviors that an organism exhibits. The functions of form, sensation, perception, mental fabrication, and cognition can all be explained using the principles of behavior. The Buddha calls these functions the 5 clinging aggregates and they are the entire package from which arises the illusion of an abiding self.
Okay, so with many questions similar to this, I turn to the Buddhas teaching on the two truths doctrine. That is the conventional truth and the absolute truth. The conventional truth about love is that I absolutely believe in it and it's necessity in living a skillful life. The conventional truth is that love is love is love is love is love.
The absolute truth is that love is an incredibly vague term and includes an incredibly large and complex variation of behaviors. What ABA (APPLIED behavior analysis) would address in regards to "love" is how to implement strategies for increasing "loving behaviors" while at the same time implementing strategies for decreasing "malicious behaviors".
Love is absolutely a chemically respondent behavior as well as an operantly conditioned behavior. However, that in no way detracts from the necessity of loving behavior in living skillfully for the betterment of yourself and others.
From your perspective what is the role of intent, 'tough love' and ’non arising' metta/bodhicitta.
Are you aware of any behaviour independent of causation?
_/\_
Its practical application when dealing with learned behaviours is undeniable..including much of what is popularly termed 'mental illness'...phobias, obsessional states, some forms of depression etc.
As an explanation of the whole range of human experience however it is woefully inadequate.
But..the 'zeal of the convert' is not restricted to religious phenomena.
Very much like Newtonian physics - great for local work, not so great over larger distances.
There's the rub.
What are you talking about?
When I work with a kid, and her favorite reinforcer is M&Ms, we just make sure her parents don't let her eat M&Ms while she is away from school, so that when she comes to school the motivating operation on the M&Ms will be very strong. Because she has been deprived of the M&Ms, that "state of deprivation" will act as a motivating operation for making the M&Ms a very strong reinforcing stimulus. When there is a strong MO there is a higher likelihood for correct responding. When there is a high frequency of correct responding, then the child is more frequently reinforced. When a child is frequently reinforced, the reinforcment is paired with other stimuli in the child's environment, including the tutor, the classroom, the booth, the procedure materials, and the school itself. Because of the pairing, these secondary neutral stimuli become learned reinforcers. When the child is away from school, she is being deprived of these learned reinforcers in the same way that she is deprived of M&Ms when she is away from school. Because of the deprivation, there is a strong motivating reinforcer for going to school, which results in the presentation of the new learned reinforcing stimuli like the tutor, the classroom, etc. and attentive performance in the booth leads to the presentation of the M&Ms.
Not only does ABA and deprivation help to motivate behavior in the discrete trial training, but also improves the child's "demeanor and enthusiasm" about going to school to learn. These simple principles can be applied to analyze and understand absolutely all forms of human behavior.
Sounds like you have a learning history that makes you behave suspiciously about any statement regarding absolutes. Sounds like you are an inquisitive fellow who prefers to come to your own conclusions. Sounds like there's nothing wrong with that to me.
Btw I didn't bump this thread, it ghost bumped itself like they sometimes do.
Is all human behavior linked with goals however?
What countless examples specifically?
One might say that stopping a response is a response, but to what end? Is it a cause and effect relationship, or is the result simply awareness with no desire to control or manipulate the outcome?
Mindfulness is a response dimension. It means that while the response is occurring, the behaver is performing the simultaneous response of attending to the behavior as it is being performed.
Tristen lifts apple to lips and bites = Simultaneously = Tristen attends to the sensations associated with lifting the apple to her lips and biting. This is mindfulness.
Meditation might be considered by some to be an absence of a response, but the response being performed is called attendance. Specifically it is attendance upon one single stimulus. That stimulus begins as an overt bodily activity, namely the sensation of air passing by the entrance of the nostrils. As the person becomes more skilled, she or he learns to attend not to the physical sensation of the breath but instead she attends only to the covert mental stimuli associated with the sensation of breath. At greater levels of skill, there is no longer a necessity for the production or attendance upon any stimuli and the behavior of attendance itself is maintained by the overwhelmingly reinforcing states of meditative bliss.
When you are meditating and thoughts "come and go", those comings and goings ARE a form of response produced by the human brain. You are taught not to punish the response but instead to return attention gently back to the sensation of breath. Attendance upon one's breath is an incompatible response and cannot be performed at the same time as attendance upon another mental or physical stimulus. By "returning to your breath" you extinguish the behavior of thoughts coming and going while shaping the target skill, attendance only upon one's breath.
I don't see mindfulness only as a response to a stimulus. In fact, it can be and often is, a passive acceptance of events that arise within, with no external stimulation.
From my perspective, the thing about behaviorism that runs counter to Buddhist thought, is that to the pure behaviourist, all internal events can be explained by external stimuli. It can be observed and measured and explains motivation. There is a scientific explanation for everything. A very western way to look at things and consequently, most psychological thought that emanates from it, often assumes if you can't measure it, it is of no consequence.
How do you measure love in behaviouristic terms? And as a consequence, how could compassion be of any earthly use when considering these internal events such as depression or anxiety?
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/on-enlightenment-an-interview-with-shinzen-young/
be interested to hear their understanding.