4 ms·

Are you saying that talking about what goes on in the mind is unscientific and should not be done?

• travjones 11y ago
  "What goes on in the mind" is behavior. It can be studied scientifically but one can run into the "private event" problem. That is, what goes on in the mind is a private event only observable to the subject. In many psychological experiments, what goes on in the mind is inferred from observable behavior. This is problematic. In behavior analysis all behavior is considered the subject matter, including private events. So the answer to your question is: No, I'm not saying that.
  • gress 11y ago
    It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind. I wish you luck in persuading people to accept this philosophy. You may have an uphill struggle convincing people that it is comprehensive enough to replace all the other ways humans have thought about their experiences to date.
    • travjones 11y ago
      >"It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind." That's not what I think. See the difficulty in inferring someone else's thoughts? ;) If we are just theorizing or talking about what the mind is and so on, then this belongs in the realm of philosophy. Behavior analysis is alive and well on the psychological scene. APA's lifetime achievement award this year went to an applied behavior analyst. If behaving is doing and behavior is the subject matter of behavior analysis, that's pretty comprehensive.
      • gress 11y ago
        It may not be what you think, but you continue to argue (condescendingly) that behavior analysis is the only valid approach to any topic concerning human behavior. Now you do so by an appeal to authority. Have you considered the possibility that some philosophy might actually be useful in this domain? [incidentally: I have nothing against behavioral analysis in itself - just the claim that thinking about what goes on in the mind should be excluded in its favor]
        • travjones 11y ago
          My bad for coming off as condescending. That wasn't my intention. Philosophy is useful when talking about or discussing things. The problem with philosophy though is it doesn't allow one to predict and control behavior. Thus, if practical behavior change is your goal then behavior analysis is appropriate.
          • gress 11y ago
            Prediction and control is not the only paradigm for causing behavior change, indeed it may frequently be the least appropriate one.
            • travjones 11y ago
              Prediction and control is what science rests on whether we're talking about behavior or physics. You can't prove that an independent variable (IV) caused a change in a dependent variable (e.g., behavior) unless you can predict and control it by systematically manipulating the IV while observing changes in the DV. However, this is way beyond the scope of the original blog post or my original comment. In my first comment, I offered an alternative description of a phenomenon that the author described. You suggested that I was advocating for "strict behaviorism." That wasn't the case, so I clarified. At this point, I'm not sure what the purpose of this discussion is.
              • gress 11y ago
                The purpose is to point out that people sharing information about how they think about things is a valid a way of influencing behavior. You are simply wrong to dismiss that. I agree that humans influencing each other through talking about how they think about things is a hard phenomenon to reduce to the kind of science that you are advocating, but that is a limitation of your preferred methods, and it's inappropriate to dismiss phenomena just because you don't have a good way to understand them.
                • travjones 11y ago
      • deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]