4 ms·

Behaviorialism is bunk. >we could simply test if shouting has any effect on performance Maybe we are using different definitions of performance, but what you

Behaviorialism is bunk. >we could simply test if shouting has any effect on performance Maybe we are using different definitions of performance, but what you want to test is essentially untestable. You'd have to be able to observe the exact same situation twice, once with shouting and once without. This is impossible.

tertius 11y ago
To get 100% certainty, yes. But this isn't generally required to show close to certain probability. If the same is large enough (doesn't have to be very large) and controlled for possible bias, then the test should reveal the effect of the difference between sets.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Perhaps. I'd say that each individual situation is highly context dependent. I doubt the sergeant yells the exact same thing to everyone. The problem is really that "improved performance" can't really be defined (someone could attempt to), therefore there is no test to detect.
  - tertius 11y ago
    > "improved performance" can't really be defined If performance cannot be measured then the sergeant shouldn't be yelling in the first place. Performance is set at a very clear standard, if you underperform consistently and you then perform at the standard or above, you've improved your performance.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      I don't advocate for yelling. I'm only pointing out that yelling must have some effect on future outcomes. You may not be measuring all future outcomes, however.
      - tertius 11y ago
        The desired outcome is a change in performance relative to a standard that has been set. That's all that needs to be measured. And I agree it may have other effects, but what we're interested in is the desired result of the sergeant. And yelling may be effective, but without testing it we shouldn't advocate either way.
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
Behavioralism might be, but behaviorism isn't. My mistake.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  I assumed you meant behaviorism, but used your words. Behaviorism is bunk.

tertius 11y ago

To get 100% certainty, yes. But this isn't generally required to show close to certain probability. If the same is large enough (doesn't have to be very large) and controlled for possible bias, then the test should reveal the effect of the difference between sets.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Perhaps. I'd say that each individual situation is highly context dependent. I doubt the sergeant yells the exact same thing to everyone. The problem is really that "improved performance" can't really be defined (someone could attempt to), therefore there is no test to detect.
- tertius 11y ago
  > "improved performance" can't really be defined If performance cannot be measured then the sergeant shouldn't be yelling in the first place. Performance is set at a very clear standard, if you underperform consistently and you then perform at the standard or above, you've improved your performance.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I don't advocate for yelling. I'm only pointing out that yelling must have some effect on future outcomes. You may not be measuring all future outcomes, however.
    - tertius 11y ago
      The desired outcome is a change in performance relative to a standard that has been set. That's all that needs to be measured. And I agree it may have other effects, but what we're interested in is the desired result of the sergeant. And yelling may be effective, but without testing it we shouldn't advocate either way.

fucking_tragedy 11y ago

Behavioralism might be, but behaviorism isn't. My mistake.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
I assumed you meant behaviorism, but used your words. Behaviorism is bunk.