So how do we "convince" in pomo scholarship. Bribery? Threats? If not logic, what legitimate inducements to agreement are available?
Nick From: geniegia...@gmail.com [mailto:geniegia...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Genie Giaimo Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:57 AM To: kitc...@lists.clarku.edu; James Cordova Cc: James Laird; Vincent Hevern; ForwNThompson; friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: Chomsky Supports Thompson Hey all, Think this is problematic simply because with the introduction of post modernism (and arguably other earlier movements) authors are not always looking for logical conclusions for why people are the way they are. Think about A Clockwork Orange for example. In po-mo form and content sometimes break down and people do things for reasons that seem beyond a logical "oh it was their childhood or x y and z experience that did it"--I really am convinced that we are working within two different frameworks that overlap but in a problematic way because of the difference in outcome that is expected in the two. Genie On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:28 AM, James Cordova <jcord...@clarku.edu> wrote: >From Skinner's "Science and Human Behavior" "Social stimuli are important to those to whom social reinforcement is important. The salesman, the courtier, the entertainer...-- all are likely to be affected by subtle properties of human behavior, associated with favor or disapproval, which are overlooked by many people. It is significant that the novelist, as a specialist in the description of human behavior, often shows an early history in which social reinforcement has been especially important." And of course Skinner was also a novelist. Best, James James V. Cordova, Ph.D. Associate Professor Director of Clinical Training Department of Psychology Clark University (508) 793-7268 -----Original Message----- From: James Laird [mailto:jla...@clarku.edu] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:07 AM To: kitc...@lists.clarku.edu; 'Vincent Hevern'; ForwNThompson Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: RE: Chomsky Supports Thompson Vinnie, Nice to see you chiming in. Chomsky doesn't impress me, since he isn't very empirical. Now if it was Skinner, who was both an empiricist and a novelist, that would be impressive. Actually, since Skinner is dead, that would be really, really impressive. Isn't this all about the feeling of knowing and how that differs (or not) from actual knowing? And there is lots of empirical research demonstrating how easy it is to deceive people's feeling of knowing, so that they feel they know something that they clearly don't. and whatever skepticism we might feel about the existential state of "real" knowledge, we can at least agree, I would think, that knowing and feeling of knowing are different. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Hevern [mailto:hev...@lemoyne.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:49 PM To: ForwNThompson Cc: kitc...@lists.clarku.edu; friam@redfish.com Subject: Chomsky Supports Thompson Just to add to the mix: Noam Chomsky (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge: "It is quite possible -- overwhelmingly probable one might guess -- that we will always learn more about human life and human personality from novels than from scientific psychology." [quoted in Peter Watson (2000). The Modern Mind. New York: Harper Perennial, pp. 755-56] I just read this and had to send it along. Vinny -- ---------------------------------------------- Vincent W. Hevern, SJ, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Le Moyne College 1419 Salt Springs Rd. Syracuse, NY 13214 USA hev...@lemoyne.edu (315) 445-4342 (Office) (315) 445-4722 (FAX) ---------------------------------------------- Web: www.hevern.com Narrative Psychology: www.narrativepsych.com IJDS: www.dialogical.org ----------------------------------------------
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
