bf skinner on reinforcement - general psychology

Bf skinner on reinforcement - general psychology

Añadido por: bpolnariev
Descripción:
bf skinner on reinforcement - general psychology

Tags para este video: - bf general on psychology reinforcement skinner

Más videos en la categoría "People"
Ver más videos añadidos por bpolnariev

Related Videos

B. F. Skinner - -	B. F. Skinner -	Use of Reinforcement and Punishment in Shaping a Child's Beh

Skinner Rat	The Bobo Doll Experiment	B.F skinner research video

Share This Video:

Comentarios: Ver || ocultar

CComentarios a este video en YouTube

Thank you for ... ( 3 months ago by jmjmichael2008)

Thank you for posting. I thought Skinner is more radical behaviourist but actually his posture and tone of voices more silent and humanitarian. I like this film very much.

Welp, too bad ... ( 3 months ago by kidkitna)

Welp, too bad Chomsky had to go on and ruin all of Skinner's work with just one lit. review.

You're an idiot and ... ( 1 month ago by biglmac)

You're an idiot and know nothing about the scientific community. One literature will never, indeed can never, prove or disprove, anything.
Go back to intro psych.

He was a radical ... ( 1 month ago by biglmac)

He was a radical behaviourist. Radical, people often believe, means "extremist." That's not the radical that radical psychologists are. Radical refers to the usage of fundamental principles.

Yeah I don't what ... ( 1 month ago by kidkitna)

Yeah I don't what you're background you have, but I have a BA in psychology with my concentration in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. If you look at the history of psychology after Chomsky's lit review you will see that it was very damaging to the Behaviorist Theory and it pretty much did ruin any vision of Behaviorism becoming the main focus of researching psychologist. The only field in psychology that I know that still adheres to it is neuroscience research based on learning.

I'm not taking ... ( 1 month ago by kidkitna)

I'm not taking anything away from Skinner's work by pointing out the lit review at all. My post is about the fact that this one review is regarded in my field as the most influential review in psychology and it did have damaging effects. Regardless of what you want to believe, Behaviorism is not the forefront of psychology and won't be. You're claim isn't an educated claim. It's based more on preference and emotion than anything. I can back Chomsky up with research.

tthis is so racist ... ( 1 month ago by hepner)

tthis is so racist y'all

Skinner didn't ... ( 1 month ago by RandomBehaviorist)

Skinner didn't respond to Chomsky's review ... not because it was "devestating", but because it was obvious that Chomsky had grossly misunderstood the basic tenets of Skinners work. Skinner choose not to respond to it because it was so off base.

Off base? Are you ... ( 1 month ago by thesumofparts)

Off base? Are you serious? I'm a big fan of Skinner's work, but it's obvious Chomsky's review was very accurate and very damaging to behaviorism. It really was the final blow. And the beginning of the cognitive revolution.

"Chomsky did not ... ( 4 weeks ago by RandomBehaviorist)

"Chomsky did not grasp the differences between Skinnerian and Watsonian-Hullian behaviorism, and his criticisms, although stylistically effective, were mostly irrelevant to Verbal Behavior." (MacCorquodale, 1970). "Verbal Behavior is certainly one of the two or three most significant contributions to this field in our time ... full of insights into human behavior." (Osgood, 1958, p. 212) Get past the dogma my friend, and do the research.

Yes, I've read ... ( 3 weeks ago by thesumofparts)

Yes, I've read MacCorquodale's response... I still think it's unfair to say that about Chomsky. MacCorquodale has been criticized too you know (eg. by Edward Erwin) and many authors believe that he's the one that's off-base.

I'm sure there are ... ( 3 weeks ago by RandomBehaviorist)

I'm sure there are as many people who think MacCorquodale is "off-base" as their are supporters of Chomsky's review. As a "big fan" of Skinner I assume you appreciate critical thinking, skepticism, and evidenced based statements. Your statement that Chomsky's review was "very accurate" is not based in fact. Ex., he left out the whole notion of multiple stimulus control and instead focused on an incorrect notion of Watsonian stimulus-response. Definitely enjoying the dialogue though, Thanks!

You're right, it's ... ( 3 weeks ago by thesumofparts)

You're right, it's just my opinion, not a fact. By the way, Skinner's view wasn't evidence-based at all. He offers no empirical evidence in Verbal Behavior. So I think Chomsky was accurate and you think he wasn't. One of us is right but your opinion is not more factual than mine.I really don't see why you think Chomsky's notion of s-r was incorrect.
Enjoying the dialogue too... i think it's a rare thing these days, especially in YouTube.

Well couple of ... ( 3 weeks ago by RandomBehaviorist)

Well couple of things I guess. Skinner's Verbal Analysis was not based in labratory evidence, no doubt. It was an extrapolation of years of evidence gathered and reported in "Science and Human Behavior" and other work. The thinking was that behavior is lawful, language is a type of behavior, therefore, those laws are applicable to verbal behavior as it is with all behavior. But, operant conditioning is not s-r. S-R would include respondent behavior, not operant behavior.

Chomsky thinks that ... ( 1 week ago by ABAisSCIENCE)

Chomsky thinks that grammar is innate relative to its acquisition. Children seem to learn grammatical rules with no specific training on a particular rule. Palmer (2000) writes about Chomsky saying, His arguments, which are detailed, polemical, & persuasive, are evidently inspiring to a thriving school of linguists & to many laymen with an interest in language & philosophy.
Palmer, D. C. (2000). Chomsky's Nativism: A Critical Review. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Vol. 17, 39-50.
PT 2 NXT

PT 2: "It's ... ( 1 week ago by ABAisSCIENCE)

PT 2: "It's important to assess his (Chomsky's) position carefully, not only because he concludes that little is to be gained by pursuing the analysis of verbal behavior with the assumptions & methodology of radical behaviorism but because he claims to have achieved considerable success with very different assumptions & methodology."
PT 3 NXT

PT 3: "Success in ... ( 1 week ago by ABAisSCIENCE)

PT 3: "Success in explaining complex behavior deserves our attention whatever the approach. When we examine Chomskys position, however, we find that, not only are his objections to other approaches weak, but the success of which he speaks has been achieved by rendering other problems more difficult, if not completely insoluble.
THE END or is it?

Palmer (2000) ... ( 1 week ago by ABAisSCIENCE)

Palmer (2000) states, The choice of a unit of analysis in behavior is critical. The orderly relationship between behavior & its controlling variables deteriorates if we consider units that are too broad, too long, or too narrowly specified (Skinner, 1935)."
Palmer, D. C. (2000). Chomskys Nativism Reconsidered. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, Vol. 17, 51-56.
Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40-65.

"If one defines ... ( 1 week ago by ABAisSCIENCE)

"If one defines ones units a priori rather than empirically, it is possible that behavior will appear to be infinitely variable & to bear little relationship to environmental events. Chomsky commits this error by choosing the sentence as a unit of analysis. Palmer (2000) points out that, By misrepresenting the power of behavioral interpretations, Chomsky persuaded a generation of linguists to dismiss the law of effect as an important variable in the interpretation of grammar.
IDIOT

Chomsky ... ( 1 week ago by ABAisSCIENCE)

Chomsky distinguishes E-language (external, or language as behavior) & I-language (internal, an essential, innate asset), I-language is central notion; E-language is derivative, remote from mechanisms & of no particular significance (Chomsky, 1991, p. 10). Moreover, a strong antipathy to behaviorism still pervades field of linguistics.
Chomsky, N. (1991). Linguistics & related fields: A personal view. In A. Kasher (Ed.), The Chomskyan turn (p. 5-23). Oxford: Blackwell.
IDIOTS ALL

Skinner's right ... ( 1 week ago by ABAisSCIENCE)

Skinner's right about morals & freedom. Wrong only on philosophy. Man is not a "caged ape," but rather able to condition more fully by thought then by action in environment. Still thought is controlled by external stimulus, but thought conditions more. Hence your free will is merely a sharpened discriminative control.
Ray, B. (1969) Selective attention: the effects of combining stimuli which control incompatible behavior. J. of the Exp. Analysis of Beh., 12, 539-550.

Nice work ... ( 1 week ago by RandomBehaviorist)

Nice work ABAisSCIENCE! Your citations are good and useful in critiquing "Chomsky's" arguments; thorough and meaningful! The only thing I'd encourage is to be careful about the use of inflammatory words (ex. "IDIOTS"). We want to engage meaningful discourse with everyone. The science of ABA stands on its own. It despretaly needs ambassadors! But Good JOB on all this!

Skinner's ... ( 2 days ago by mitohistoriador)

Skinner's derangement is all too thinly veiled by his scientistic belief in causality--showing he knows nothing about MODERN science and the relative status causality assumes there under the Principle of Uncertainty and the limitations of the quantum of action; he obviously has little to no philosophical trainning, not a shread of epistemology and ludicrous extrapolation of results from pigeons to human beings-in a word, all the ingredients of an ideologically motivated pseudo-science.

I think Khon nailed ... ( 2 days ago by mitohistoriador)

I think Khon nailed it on the head when he said "The one real insight about Skinner that came to me after talking with him for a while was that he was less a theorist than a technician. The man was fascinated-indeed almost obsessed-with practical problems of design" Khon PUNISHED BY REWARDS 280). Because he was a technocrat his half-baked theory gives itself airs of scientificity, much as a "computer scientist" does, although they're both no more than technicians.

Recomienda este video a un amigo:

URL
Embed Code