After the class, all I could think of is, "oh how I do NOT like Skinner..."
I don't like Skinner world, the world full of reinforcements and the belief that the human behavior can fully be explained by reinforcements. But because I can't prove it, I'm more frustrated (and as Jennifer said, I don't want to believe in what Skinner said.).
Anyway, I really like how this class is going especially the fact that we are deciding the next week's reading as we go on. At the mention of Freud and psych, I thought again, if one has a chance to choose among many different options, then wouldn't that ability to choose lie in the person's mind, by his/her preferences? I know Skinner and Glassman will think even making that choice is reinforced. But in that case, nothing is not reinforced! I mean, when we are growing up, being socialized, we may be much more dependent on reinforcements, but now, we are fully-grown adults (hopefully), who can choose even if there's not enough reward or lack of chance of avoiding negative reinforcements. (but as i'm writing this, i can hear the words, "there should be some reinforcements... so I will stop here!)
Yet, I liked the part where Glassman made the distinction between conditioning and learning. And I also still remember the Bandura's article, that there is something else going on between the stimuli and the response (maybe I should go back to that article and read it again.) Much expectation for Freud next week!
But Rachel, isn't saying you are making a choice just really a claim, one that allows those who develop in better circumstances not to feel bad about those who were reinforced in their lives to do more destructive things. Is choice itself something we talk about because if we are negatively reinforced to give up the idea of choice in our lives because we would feel too guilty about how others lives have turned out. We say, well it was their choice.
ReplyDeleteBut then as we move in to Freud and then Erikson choice takes on a very different meaning. Choice goes from being non-existent to being everything. But the trouble is we don't want to admit to ourselves why we make those choices. For example if a person makes the choice to stay up all night and study - are they simply making a choice about how they are spending twenty-four hours or are they making a choice about how they release your energy of your id - their sexual and aggressive energy. Studying I think to Freud is one of the safest ways to do this. But why does a person make this choice? Doesn't it have a great deal to do with the superego and the amount of control the superego has over activtieis. And then is there really a choice at all?
I read a web-cartoon where people try to go up the "TOP" in order to achieve something they want. Going all the levels of the Top and reaching the top means that one can get anything he/she wants. But in order to go up a level, they need to pass tests that the people in the Top give.
ReplyDeleteIn a battle in the first and second level, one of the characters ask, why do we need to give this test to them? Then the person who gives the test answers, "To eliminate the ones that might be dangerous to the people living in the Top." The tests have nothing to do with finding the strongest warrior, it's just a way of getting rid of people that may not fit the Top.
I thought of how the society can "make believe" people that they are living for something, when actually the society is making them live for what the society wants. (sounds like conspiracy...)
Anyway, so the dicussion on the presence of "choice" seems simliar to me. But still, let me argue, by saying, isn't it the Ego that makes the choice struggling between Id and Superego? Some people have stronger ID and some people have stronger Superego, but if one learns to use Ego to make balance between ID and Superego, wouldn't that be the person's choice-making agent?