In article <9G9od.127804$HA.50352 at attbi_s01>, patty
<pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>David Longley wrote:
>> In article <3D4od.63513$V41.25162 at attbi_s52>, patty
>><pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>>>>> David Longley wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <%pTnd.123466$HA.25882 at attbi_s01>, patty
>>>><pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>>>>>>>>> David Longley wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ideas are intensions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a fine example of Longley using this word "intension" like
>>>>>it was a suitcase; and it tells us all we need to know about his
>>>>>dismal view of what it means to be human. What would the world be
>>>>>like if we avoided ideas? It is because he makes statements like
>>>>>this that i have lost respect for this man and his pogrom against being human.
>>>>>>>>>> patty
>>>>>>>> You've lost your respect for "science". We can see that.
>>>>>>>>> I am talking about *your* behavior and you are *not* doing science
>>>here. You are doing politics, and you are doing it badly. The effect
>>>of your verbal behavior has been to condition readers of c.a.p.
>>>against your message.
>> No, it's highlighted how people behave.
>>Point is you are not *not* practicing science. As communication, it's
>not meeting its purpose. Prove me wrong: get people to testify that
>your highlighting has informed them of anything new.
>>patty
People tend to react rather oddly in response to anything "new". I told
you about the rats and naloxone (an opiate antagonist - note, naloxone
didn't cause that behaviour - it's an UCR (or "FAP", or "SSDR" or class
of fundamental operantsd in my view, shaped by its consequences) the
experiments just served as a microscope into normal mammalian behaviour
as part of an investigation into the role of monoamines and
neuropeptides in the control of operant behaviour). It was one of the
most dramatic behaviours I've ever seen next to ICSS (and that was
pretty dramatic). Look up the abstract "naloxone enhances neophobia"
which has been posted here many times before and consider some of the
context (e.g
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=857070727snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
or
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ntzS0zCJ1lgAFwN2@longley.demon.co.uk>
or
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=799261326snz@longley.demon.co.uk>.
Note that it doesn't "enhance", it actually retards the habituation of
neophobia. The title was a tabloid headliner which I had serious qualms
about. You might then look into the other work which "Fragments"
pertains to and see if you can make the connections.
You don't seem to have held onto what you read in the Nisbett & Wilson
1977 paper, or anything else that you have been told about behaviour
management ("politics") by environmental contingencies and the
(un)reliability of self-report. You should read "Beyond Freedom and
Dignity" 1971, and perhaps "Walden II". You should think long and hard
about the words in the titles too perhaps as they are very carefully
chosen (both books have precedents - the first is less obvious than the
second).
I suggest you re-read "Fragments" paying attention to the section on
"Attitude change".
PS. Which people did you have in mind? The rare smart ones, or the
plethora of dopey idiot ones? Perhaps you should also re-read the
section on actuarial vs. clinical judgement and the nature of
intensional heuristics too. I suggest you reconsider - radically.
--
David Longley
http://www.longley.demon.co.uk
--
David Longley
