[Guest]

I love pyschology. My favroite psychologist is B. F. Skinner. He is most famous for his very conterversial report "BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY". In this article Skinner tells us that we do not have the real freedom to choose. All of our choices in life are affected by different variables(i.e events, people, peers...). Because of these variables, we really don't have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Here's an example of what SKINNER IS TALKING ABOUT: IF YOU ARE WALKING IN A FEILD, AND THERE IS A DIRT PATH GOING THROUGH IT, MOST PEOPLE WOULD WALK ON THE PATH BECAUSE IT IS THERE. The path affected everyones choice to walk on it or not.

This is probally one of the MOST conterversial articles written in the 1900's. I am quite certain that this will also bring up much controversy amoung this forum. I want people to take this discussion seriously.

Edited April 23, 2008 by giterdone

[Guest]

I love pyschology. My favroite psychologist is B. F. Skinner. He is most famous for his very conterversial report "BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY". In this article Skinner tells us that we do not have the real freedom to choose. All of our choices in life are affected by different variables(i.e events, people, peers...). Because of these variables, we really don't have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Here's an example of what SKINNER IS TALKING ABOUT: IF YOU ARE WALKING IN A FEILD, AND THERE IS A DIRT PATH GOING THROUGH IT, MOST PEOPLE WOULD WALK ON THE PATH BECAUSE IT IS THERE. The path affected everyones choice to walk on it or not.

This is probally one of the MOST conterversial articles written in the 1900's. I am quite certain that this will also bring up much controversy amoung this forum. I want people to take this discussion seriously.

I beleive we do have freedom of choice, its the fear of consequence that stops us from doing what ever it is. Take the "dirt path" we can chose to use it or not, most will chose the path freely due to the ease of traveling the pre-existing path. They will not chose to go off the path because it my be rockey, and the fear of falling and breaking an ankle will lead them to freely chose the path.

[Guest]

I beleive we do have freedom of choice, its the fear of consequence that stops us from doing what ever it is. Take the "dirt path" we can chose to use it or not, most will chose the path freely due to the ease of traveling the pre-existing path. They will not chose to go off the path because it my be rockey, and the fear of falling and breaking an ankle will lead them to freely chose the path.

The fear is what alters our choices. Just so everyone knows, I am on the side of Skinner.

[Guest]

The fear is what alters our choices. Just so everyone knows, I am on the side of Skinner.

i am in control of my fear, my fear does not control me, therefore i am still capable of free choice.

[Guest]

i am in control of my fear, my fear does not control me, therefore i am still capable of free choice.

That is where you are wrong. Take psychologist John Watson for example. He adopted an orphan and made him afraid of white mice through a process called classical conditioning. I will not go into ths topic on this forum, but if anyone is interested they could look it up online.

[Guest]

That is where you are wrong. Take psychologist John Watson for example. He adopted an orphan and made him afraid of white mice through a process called classical conditioning. I will not go into ths topic on this forum, but if anyone is interested they could look it up online.

I know little albert from my abnormal psyc classes in college. They messed that kid up from an early age. those were irational fears. Given the proper tools and help later in age he could have had his problems reversed and been normal again. I will take an example from my life. I love working with wood as a hobby. I have injured myself several times requiring stitches etc, this can make a person fear pain and injury. I chose to carry on with the same hobby knowing the consequesces.

[itachi-san]

I've studied a lot of psych so I'd be happy to have a discussion about certain topics, but what are trying to get at with this Skinner example? That we are conditioned to walk on paths that are laid out for us? I have actually conditioned myself to do the opposite - I'm not joking. If there's a path through a field on my way to a class for example, I purposely walk over the grass. I also love j-walking. It's fun on a college campus or in a regular town or city. In New York, no one cares though, and will easily just run you over, so I was forced to start using crosswalks there =)

[Guest]

I've studied a lot of psych so I'd be happy to have a discussion about certain topics, but what are trying to get at with this Skinner example? That we are conditioned to walk on paths that are laid out for us? I have actually conditioned myself to do the opposite - I'm not joking. If there's a path through a field on my way to a class for example, I purposely walk over the grass. I also love j-walking. It's fun on a college campus or in a regular town or city. In New York, no one cares though, and will easily just run you over, so I was forced to start using crosswalks there =)

you werent forced to use the crosswalk, you chose to, nobody twisted your arm.

[Guest]

I beleive we do have freedom of choice, its the fear of consequence that stops us from doing what ever it is. Take the "dirt path" we can chose to use it or not, most will chose the path freely due to the ease of traveling the pre-existing path. They will not chose to go off the path because it my be rockey, and the fear of falling and breaking an ankle will lead them to freely chose the path.

also the fact that everyone is at an advantage from learning from mistakes due to consiquences abides to our freedom, honestly we can do whatever we want, experience and teachings keep us away from that.

[itachi-san]

you werent forced to use the crosswalk, you chose to, nobody twisted your arm.

The point of the discussion is conditioning. Not forcing. Skinner would say we are conditioned to walk on paths that are already made in this case. I don't buy much of what Skinner thought though. Take explorers for example.

[Guest]

I love pyschology. SKINNER IS TALKING ABOUT: IF YOU ARE WALKING IN A FEILD, AND THERE IS A DIRT PATH GOING THROUGH IT, MOST PEOPLE WOULD WALK ON THE PATH BECAUSE IT IS THERE. The path affected everyones choice to walk on it or not.

.

Because as adults we loose the exploration, and go with safe!

[Guest]

Here's a great example. Im Unrealities ELIPSON, we have to condition the people to explore. They won't have to explore by themselves, so we have to make them make the choice to explore. If it's we who are making them choose, then it's our choice and not theirs.

also itachi....You choose to wealk on grass because the path is there. The path is what makes you rebel and walk on the grass.

I won multiple debates on this topic. YOU CAN'T BEAT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited April 23, 2008 by giterdone

[itachi-san]

Here's a great example. Im Unrealities ELIPSON, we have to condition the people to explore. They won't have to explore by themselves, so we have to make them make the choice to explore. If it's we who are making them choose, then it's our choice and not theirs.

also itachi....You choose to wealk on grass because the path is there. The path is what makes you rebel and walk on the grass.

I won multiple debates on this topic. YOU CAN'T BEAT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is why Skinner has mostly faded away... sorry, but I'm not a fan of the behaviorists. I can easily notice the path as part of my environment and ignore it totally, like a leaf that I will step on. Therefore it is removed from the variables requisite for that decision of where to walk. Take the leaf for example. I do not care whether I walk on it or not and therefore it does not factor into how and where I should walk.

[Guest]

I won multiple debates on this topic. YOU CAN'T BEAT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Impressive bravado, but such a declaration seems a surefire way to kill the debate. Are we guaranteed to lose because your reasoning is ironclad and irrefutable, or because you will stubbornly adhere to your controversial position, regardless of the arguments presented? Based on your comments so far, I would lean towards the latter, but either way I have little incentive to try and prove you wrong.

[Guest]

also itachi....You choose to wealk on grass because the path is there. The path is what makes you rebel and walk on the grass.

Essentially what you're saying is that itachi has no choice but to do things the way he does them, based on prior conditioning and present circumstances:

Most people: PRIOR CONDITIONING + PRESENCE OF PATH >>>>> WALK ON PATH

itachi-san: PRIOR CONDITIONING + PRESENCE OF PATH >>>>> WALK ON GRASS

What difference does it make if itachi has no choice? If you can't predict what he will do, what use is your theory? You cannot know the finer details of his prior conditioning (or of his perception of the present situation) so in general you cannot predict his actions. Of course you can contrive a situation where people will tend to behave predictably, but in general you have nothing more or less to say about what people will do than if you just use common sense. It is common sense that most people will walk on a path, because that's the easiest way and that's what a path is for. It is equally obvious that a minority will choose not to.

[Guest]

I won multiple debates on this topic. YOU CAN'T BEAT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think you won, many have given up reasoning with the unreasonable!

Congrats on your many wins by the way. looks like we are not free to conclude any way but your way!

[Guest]

You think you won, many have given up reasoning with the unreasonable!

Congrats on your many wins by the way. looks like we are not free to conclude any way but your way!

Chill out, I didn't mean it like that. I want to see everyone's imput on this topic. I'm not trying to change the way everyone thinks.

[Brandonb]

I love pyschology. My favroite psychologist is B. F. Skinner. He is most famous for his very conterversial report "BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY". In this article Skinner tells us that we do not have the real freedom to choose. All of our choices in life are affected by different variables(i.e events, people, peers...). Because of these variables, we really don't have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Here's an example of what SKINNER IS TALKING ABOUT: IF YOU ARE WALKING IN A FEILD, AND THERE IS A DIRT PATH GOING THROUGH IT, MOST PEOPLE WOULD WALK ON THE PATH BECAUSE IT IS THERE. The path affected everyones choice to walk on it or not.

-My refutation, in two cents or less...

"...we do not have the real freedom to choose" is contradictory to "All of our choices in life are affected by different variables..."

Allow me to explain:

It is a false statement to say "Because of these variables, we really don't have the freedom to choose for ourselves."

In reality, the variables actually ALLOW us to choose. They do not hinder choice at all, they do the exact opposite and enhance our choices.

Now, with that clarified, if you are making the argument that variable effect the things that we do... That statement is nothing move than a complex restatement of "If you get hit in the head with a baseball going 40mph, there is no way that you can ignore it. You will flinch and it will hurt." This in itself is not a theory, it is not ground breaking, it is not controversial and is actually just an affirmation of perceived reality, nothing more. Skinner was nothing more than a quack trying to put his name on the discovery of the people needing to breathe to live. (not a discovery)

Thank you.

[Guest]

Chill out, I didn't mean it like that. I want to see everyone's imput on this topic. I'm not trying to change the way everyone thinks.

Okay I've chilled.......... We are free to make certain choices - take the dialogue here for instance. I or you makea statemant and there is a knee jurk reaction (somewhat muffled), we can't help certain thoughts due to conditioning, either from parents or experience.

Nb. Only my wife is right all the time.

Even when she's wrong she's right, and she is EVEN more right when she's wrong- LIS aka Phil O'Sophy

[Guest]

I'm surprised that no one has brought a gun into this yet.

Simple example:

Person A has a gun to the head of Person B

Person A gives 2 choices to Person B

1. I shoot you

2. I shoot Person C, who is in some way related to Person B, whether through blood, marriage, friendship, etc.

Person B has 3 choices in reality. The third choice is to choose neither. But, no matter what, Person B will be making a choice, through action or inaction of speaking.

There is always the freedom of choice, even if in the most dire of circmstances, beyond any sort of conditioning, or lack thereof. The fact that an outside influence (the gun) has been introduced to the situation makes no difference. It all comes down to choice.

[itachi-san]

I'm surprised that no one has brought a gun into this yet.

Simple example:

Person A has a gun to the head of Person B

Person A gives 2 choices to Person B

1. I shoot you

2. I shoot Person C, who is in some way related to Person B, whether through blood, marriage, friendship, etc.

Person B has 3 choices in reality. The third choice is to choose neither. But, no matter what, Person B will be making a choice, through action or inaction of speaking.

There is always the freedom of choice, even if in the most dire of circmstances, beyond any sort of conditioning, or lack thereof. The fact that an outside influence (the gun) has been introduced to the situation makes no difference. It all comes down to choice.

Since you didn't mention person A being bound up in any way, he could also try to disarm person B. That would make for a 4th choice. Not that this improves your argument much, but this 4th choice is even more different than the originally posed choices since it involves action on person A's part.

[Guest]

in the path scenario, I would simply go whichever way was the shortest way to get to where I was going, whether it was on the same path as what others had made, or whether it was to make my own new path.

in the rest of the debate, I choose not to decide, and thus, I have still made a choice (in the words of the great band "Rush")....and by choosing not to decide and wanting the shortcut path of least resistance, I now choose to shut my mouth (or fingers, as the case may be) and stop debating.

(BTW, I have a masters in psychology and believe that behaviorism in "open-minded" adults is a bunch of crock, I subscribe more to the psychodynamic view of therapy).

Edited April 30, 2008 by carlosn27

[itachi-san]

(BTW, I have a masters in psychology and believe that behaviorism in "open-minded" adults is a bunch of crock, I subscribe more to the psychodynamic view of therapy).

Psychology is almost ALL a bunch of crock. It's the king of the fake sciences. Behaviorism leads the pack, or at least ties, as far as nonsensical and wrong psychological theories go though. The only psychology worth studying is Neural Psychology (neural transmitters, hormones, synapses, ...all that good stuff) which actually is mostly Chemistry and Biology.

[Guest]

Psychology is almost ALL a bunch of crock. It's the king of the fake sciences.

Sorry. That honour definitely goes to theology. No contest.

[Guest]

Among them is Oology they call it an eggact science