Re:[tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:39:53 -0600 (CST), Joan Warmbold wrote: Carol--consider contacting the Skinner foundation via his daughter, Julie Vargas at opera...@bfskinner.org. Folks who knew Skinner have told me that he had a wonderful sense of humor so bet he would have had an opinion. Certainly ones life experiences and reference systems play an important role, which could explain why ones culture and the time era so influence perception of humor. For example, many of students think Family Guy is a riot whereas I think it's plain stupid. Whatever, love your question. A point I tried to make in an earlier post which seem to have have overlooked/ignored is that defining humor from a behaviorist perspective focuses is on behavior. Clearly, some humor is physical humor (the silent films of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Loyd, and so on clearly give examples of this) while some humor is based on language (e.g., jokes, puns, etc.) and situations (e.g., sketches). When we get to aspects of humor that involve interpretation of words or situations, purely behavioral (or radical behaviorist) accounts *should be silent* because these positions do not work in these areas. I can imagine Tolman speculating about humor as a scientific subject but I cannot imagine Skinner doing so in any meaningful way (this does not mean he might not have re-framed humor into behaviorist terms but this, like his account of language, would probably not work very well). This does not mean that Skinner was a Scrooge or humorless, rather, because Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and neuroscience processes, he would not be interested these components of humor. By implication, students of Skinner and believers in radical behaviorism would hold similar views. Freudian interpretations (no matter how much one disagrees with them and I do tend to disagree with them) it should be noted that in the arts, Freud is a major influence while Skinner is a minor influence (the onely instance I can think of Skinnerian influence is in Young Frankenstein when Dr. Frankenstein gives the Monster a reinforcer for doing a dance routine correctly).provide a better framework for thinking about certain aspects of humor. Consider: why is the following funny: Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. And updated version of this statement that focuses on alleged intrusive nature of male-oriented sex is and the weapon-like nature of male sex organs:: Sometime a penis is only a penis. The humor in these statements involves (a) a certain set of concepts, (b) an understanding of certain theories about people and events, and (c) some knowledge of Freudian theory. How would a behavioral account explain why these statements are funny. Finally, I know that the word humor was originally left vague which, in my opinion, is generally a bad idea -- better to be more specific about what aspects of humor one is concerned with given the wide variety of events that can be considered humorous from slapstick to satire. A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu Carol DeVolder wrote: Thanks, Mike and Paul (Paul responded back channel as he had already squandered his posts yesterday :) ) Mike, I have read many of the things you mentioned and I'm familiar with Darwin's take on it, as well as the changes through the centuries *vis a vis *the various philosophers. I have not found anything specifically behaviorist that addresses my question, except for the link that Paul sent me, which I enjoyed very much (thanks again, Paul). I find it interesting that, given the amount of time we spend engaging in things that make us laugh, invoke a feeling of mirth, or both, there isn't more from a behaviorist perspective. I don't believe that behaviorists are grim by nature (I consider myself a behaviorist, and I don't think I'm grim), but I haven't found much literature that addresses humor and its associated constructs from a behaviorist perspective. It just seems like something's missing, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something of which I should be aware. I'm definitely not as well-read as some TIPSters, so I turn to you all for ideas. Thanks, Carol On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) A few points to consider: (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting overview of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ The early negative
RE: Re:[tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
From: Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 8:36 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Michael Palij Subject: Re:[tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner ... A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu -- LOL Bill Scott --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32831 or send a blank email to leave-32831-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
Reread my Catania quote on multiple determination of (verbal) behavior. On Jan 17, 2014, at 9:08 AM, William Scott wrote: From: Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 8:36 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Michael Palij Subject: Re:[tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner ... A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?). Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32833 or send a blank email to leave-32833-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
It appeared fine here. Enjoyed the reference too...and the picture. G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Jan 17, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. jeff.ric...@scottsdalecc.edu wrote: I'm going to try this again because it seems that my email consisted of a bunch of mish-mosh. The joke already is ruined. I just want to see if the same thing happens again. Jeff Hi again, I just finished reading one of the papers referred to in this thread (Epstein Joker, 2007), in which the authors quoted Skinner's opening remarks at a 1962 debate between Rogers and Skinner: I was just reminded of a story that I once heard about Carl Rogers, and I will tell it now in hope to confirm or have him deny it Carl Rogers was never much of a duck hunter, but he was persuaded upon one occasion to go duck hunting. He and some friends went into a blind and sat through a dreary cold early dawn, and no ducks arrived until the very end of the time when shooting was possible. Finally, one lone duck came in, and his friends allowed him to shoot, and he did. At the same time, along the shore a few hundred yards away, another man shot at the same duck. The duck fell, plop. Dr. Rogers got out of the blind and started toward the duck. The other man got out of his blind and started toward the same duck. They arrived at the same moment. Dr. Rogers turned to him and said, ‘‘You feel that this is your duck.’’ [Much laughter] The reason that I was reminded of that story was that the end of it is that Dr. Rogers brought the duck home. [Much laughter] (pp. 49-50) Quite an amusing anecdote, I think. Not so amusing was what happened just moments after Skinner finished his story, when Rogers beat the crap out of Skinner (see picture): fight.png REFERENCE Epstein, R., Joker, V. R. (2007). A threshold theory of the humor response. The Behavior Analyst, 30, 49-58. -- - Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology http://sccpsy101.com/curriculum-vitae/ - Scottsdale Community College 9000 E. Chaparral Road Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 Office: SB-123 Phone: (480) 423-6213 Fax: (480) 423-6298 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94bn=Tl=tipso=32835 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-32835-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32836 or send a blank email to leave-32836-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Gerald Peterson wrote: It appeared fine here. Enjoyed the reference too...and the picture. Thanks. Perhaps it's a problem with our email system. I'll check into it. Best, Jeff -- - Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology - Scottsdale Community College 9000 E. Chaparral Road Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 Office: SB-123 Phone: (480) 423-6213 Fax: (480) 423-6298 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32838 or send a blank email to leave-32838-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
From a behavioral viewpoint verbal behavior IS behavior and obeys the same basic laws. The -situations- in which it occurs are unique, leading to unique analyses (there are journals filled with these). And it's an oversimplification to say that Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and neuroscience processes He talking much about private events, and was interested in their study (remember, he started out with biological leanings). He considered them part of a different science that was interesting in its own right; he chose to let other people study them. He also did not think that at his time it was productive to look for the causes of specific behaviors (control and prediction, remember) in physiological processes. He did say that eventually the fields would converge and useful physiological explanations would become available. We're certainly closer to that than we were 50 years ago, although one might question whether applied cognitive science is currently as effective in dealing with real world problems (as opposed to existential angst) as behavior science is. Again, your examples of humor are very similar the my quote from Charles Catania about humor. Finally, have you actually read 'Verbal Behavior'? Any issues of the journal Analysis of Verbal Behavior? In what sense does Skinner's account of language not work very well? By what criteria? Are we back to Chomsky (he clearly did not read 'Verbal Behavior' before criticizing it; he just 'knew' it couldn't be right because he disagreed with it's basic assumption that language was an acquired behavior. Finally, as far as the arts are concerned, I'm not sure this is an important criterion for the validity of a science. Certainly psychodynamic psychology is far richer in metaphor (this reliance on metaphor might be a scientific weakness) than behavioral psychology, making it a better lode for the arts. On the other hand, the concept of the reinforcement of behavior (more generally, selection by consequences) may have become so embedded in our language that it's effects are not as obvious as Freudian slips (another example of humor through the incongruity of multiple determination). It seems to be the the liberal arts are the ONLY area where classic psychodynamics (as opposed to psychoceramics) are still common. On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Mike Palij wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:39:53 -0600 (CST), Joan Warmbold wrote: Carol--consider contacting the Skinner foundation via his daughter, Julie Vargas at opera...@bfskinner.org. Folks who knew Skinner have told me that he had a wonderful sense of humor so bet he would have had an opinion. Certainly ones life experiences and reference systems play an important role, which could explain why ones culture and the time era so influence perception of humor. For example, many of students think Family Guy is a riot whereas I think it's plain stupid. Whatever, love your question. A point I tried to make in an earlier post which seem to have have overlooked/ignored is that defining humor from a behaviorist perspective focuses is on behavior. Clearly, some humor is physical humor (the silent films of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Loyd, and so on clearly give examples of this) while some humor is based on language (e.g., jokes, puns, etc.) and situations (e.g., sketches). When we get to aspects of humor that involve interpretation of words or situations, purely behavioral (or radical behaviorist) accounts *should be silent* because these positions do not work in these areas. I can imagine Tolman speculating about humor as a scientific subject but I cannot imagine Skinner doing so in any meaningful way (this does not mean he might not have re-framed humor into behaviorist terms but this, like his account of language, would probably not work very well). This does not mean that Skinner was a Scrooge or humorless, rather, because Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and neuroscience processes, he would not be interested these components of humor. By implication, students of Skinner and believers in radical behaviorism would hold similar views. Freudian interpretations (no matter how much one disagrees with them and I do tend to disagree with them) it should be noted that in the arts, Freud is a major influence while Skinner is a minor influence (the onely instance I can think of Skinnerian influence is in Young Frankenstein when Dr. Frankenstein gives the Monster a reinforcer for doing a dance routine correctly).provide a better framework for thinking about certain aspects of humor. Consider: why is the following funny: Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. And updated version of this statement that focuses on alleged intrusive nature of male-oriented sex is and the weapon-like nature of male sex organs:: Sometime a penis is only a penis. The humor in these statements involves (a) a certain
RE: Re:[tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
-Original Message- From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu -- I think, without discussing Skinner's specific take on it, a behaviorist would study language, humor and satire in terms of the overt behavior produced and the consequence it has. Using the framework of operant conditioning, a behavior (either a bodily action or a verbalization) is produced in a particular situation and it has a consequence. That consequence may act to reinforce the behavior marked by an increase in the behavior in the future in similar circumstances or to punish the behavior marked by a decrease in that behavior in the future in those circumstances. Of course, many behaviors also occur without consequence in certain situations and such behaviors are also less likely to occur in the future. This operant explanation of verbal behavior is easily seen in the behavior of infants and young children in which case many verbalizations are obviously shaped by their consequences to occur again or (if they are unsuccessful) not to recur. It becomes more complicated as we get older but I have occasionally asked my students to see their daily verbal behavior through a behavioral lens. It isn't something you can keep up for long without becoming very self-conscious about every word you say but what I suggest is that they examine their utterances and the utterances of others throughout the day from a behavioral framework. What consequence maintains these verbalizations? It is easy in cases like please pass the salt but it becomes almost painfully self-revelatory when you get to what you say to friends. The use of humor also often has predictable consequences, given particular environmental situations, which will clearly have an effect on the use of humor in these situations in the future. Analyzing the use of humor in this way can be especially dispiriting but is sometimes quite revealing (although, in some cases, ignorance is bliss). If you want to avoid painful self-realizations, you may also want to refrain from thinking too deeply about what reinforces posts to TIPS. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3519 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479) 524-7295 http://bit.ly/DrFroman --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32840 or send a blank email to leave-32840-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
A followup to Rick's comments. Skinner once described the following situation. (I am blanking on the source.) He had made an off-the-cuff joke which produced a strong reaction in his audience. He describes going back to his office and trying to remember the words and intonation he used so he could reproduce the effect at some future occasion. You can see similar effects if you look at early and late career routines by comics such as George Carlin and Bob Newhart. Ken Kenneth M. Steele, Ph. D.steel...@appstate.edu Professor Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA On 1/17/2014 11:17 AM, rfro...@jbu.edu wrote: -Original Message- From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu -- I think, without discussing Skinner's specific take on it, a behaviorist would study language, humor and satire in terms of the overt behavior produced and the consequence it has. Using the framework of operant conditioning, a behavior (either a bodily action or a verbalization) is produced in a particular situation and it has a consequence. That consequence may act to reinforce the behavior marked by an increase in the behavior in the future in similar circumstances or to punish the behavior marked by a decrease in that behavior in the future in those circumstances. Of course, many behaviors also occur without consequence in certain situations and such behaviors are also less likely to occur in the future. This operant explanation of verbal behavior is easily seen in the behavior of infants and young children in which case many verbalizations are obviously shaped by their consequences to occur again or (if they are unsuccessful) not to recur. It becomes more complicated as we get older but I have occasionally asked my students to see their daily verbal behavior through a behavioral lens. It isn't something you can keep up for long without becoming very self-conscious about every word you say but what I suggest is that they examine their utterances and the utterances of others throughout the day from a behavioral framework. What consequence maintains these verbalizations? It is easy in cases like please pass the salt but it becomes almost painfully self-revelatory when you get to what you say to friends. The use of humor also often has predictable consequences, given particular environmental situations, which will clearly have an effect on the use of humor in these situations in the future. Analyzing the use of humor in this way can be especially dispiriting but is sometimes quite revealing (although, in some cases, ignorance is bliss). If you want to avoid painful self-realizations, you may also want to refrain from thinking too deeply about what reinforces posts to TIPS. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3519 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479) 524-7295 http://bit.ly/DrFroman --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32841 or send a blank email to leave-32841-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
And remember the 'Two Freds' (Skinner and Keller) presentations at ABA (Association for Behavior Analysis) meetings! On Jan 17, 2014, at 11:04 AM, Ken Steele wrote: A followup to Rick's comments. Skinner once described the following situation. (I am blanking on the source.) He had made an off-the-cuff joke which produced a strong reaction in his audience. He describes going back to his office and trying to remember the words and intonation he used so he could reproduce the effect at some future occasion. You can see similar effects if you look at early and late career routines by comics such as George Carlin and Bob Newhart. Ken Kenneth M. Steele, Ph. D.steel...@appstate.edu Professor Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA On 1/17/2014 11:17 AM, rfro...@jbu.edu wrote: -Original Message- From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] A behavioral account might be relevant to certain situations but are unlikely in others (e.g., how would a behaviorist explain satire?). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu -- I think, without discussing Skinner's specific take on it, a behaviorist would study language, humor and satire in terms of the overt behavior produced and the consequence it has. Using the framework of operant conditioning, a behavior (either a bodily action or a verbalization) is produced in a particular situation and it has a consequence. That consequence may act to reinforce the behavior marked by an increase in the behavior in the future in similar circumstances or to punish the behavior marked by a decrease in that behavior in the future in those circumstances. Of course, many behaviors also occur without consequence in certain situations and such behaviors are also less likely to occur in the future. This operant explanation of verbal behavior is easily seen in the behavior of infants and young children in which case many verbalizations are obviously shaped by their consequences to occur again or (if they are unsuccessful) not to recur. It becomes more complicated as we get older but I have occasionally asked my students to see their daily verbal behavior through a behavioral lens. It isn't something you can keep up for long without becoming very self-conscious about every word you say but what I suggest is that they examine their utterances and the utterances of others throughout the day from a behavioral framework. What consequence maintains these verbalizations? It is easy in cases like please pass the salt but it becomes almost painfully self-revelatory when you get to what you say to friends. The use of humor also often has predictable consequences, given particular environmental situations, which will clearly have an effect on the use of humor in these situations in the future. Analyzing the use of humor in this way can be especially dispiriting but is sometimes quite revealing (although, in some cases, ignorance is bliss). If you want to avoid painful self-realizations, you may also want to refrain from thinking too deeply about what reinforces posts to TIPS. Rick Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32842 or send a blank email to leave-32842-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
Paul, You've written two posts and I'll try to answer your points. I will snip some of your statements below in order to save space and make the text more readable. I will number my points in order to make them easier to refer to in subsequent posts. Consider the following points: (1) I don't have a copy of Catania's text (any edition) but a search of the contents on books.google.com using Catania's full name and jokes, humor, satire, and irony turn up only one hit: a blog entry on the Rachel Madow MSNBC website: https://www.google.com/search?num=100safe=offtbm=bksq=%22a.+charles+catania%22+jokes++humor+satire+ironyoq=%22a.+charles+catania%22+jokes++humor+satire+ironygs_l=serp.12...16926.17456.0.21578.2.2.0.0.0.0.60.115.2.2.00...1c.1.32.serp..2.0.0.76cLK1yrux0 No, it's not a behavior analysis of humor/jokes/satire/irony/whatever. If you know a specific example of where Catania provides a behavioral account of these concepts, especially irony (what is the behavioral process that causes one to ignore the literal meaning of a sentence and assume that the opposite meaning is being communicated; how does one discriminate when to make a literal reading or an opposite reading?). (2) Yes, I did read Skinner's Verbal Behavior or at least parts of it when I was an undergraduate close to 40 years ago. I have not had reason to go back to read it. This does not mean that I agree with Chomsky (I don't) but I do find trying to understand language and world knowledge in terms of rule and symbol cognitive architectures and connectionist architectures and hybrid systems more satisfying. Of course, language occurs in an environmental or sociocultural contexts but contemporary sociolinguistcs provide, IMO, better explanatory accounts and frameworks than Skinner's approach. More below. On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 08:10:07 -0800, Paul Brandon wrote: From a behavioral viewpoint verbal behavior IS behavior and obeys the same basic laws. The -situations- in which it occurs are unique, leading to unique analyses (there are journals filled with these). (3) I actually don't understand what you are saying here. I have no doubt that there are journal that take a behavioral approach to certain aspects of language use, I just don't think a radical behaviorist approach is very informative. I think that most cognitive psychologists would consider themselves methodological behaviorists, connecting models of internal processing to external behavior, but I think that today they would view such a term a quaint or out of date. Sociolinguists who study how speech varies as a function of familial relationship (one speaks differently to one's grandmother than to one's sibling), job status (one speaks to one's boss differently than to one friends), gender/sex (one speaks to members of one's sex differently than to members of the opposite sex), race (one speaks to members one's race differently than to members of other races), and so on, all without the kind of behavioral conceptions that I think a behaviorist would use. And it's an oversimplification to say that Skinner did not believe in the study of cognitive and neuroscience processes He talking much about private events, and was interested in their study (remember, he started out with biological leanings). He considered them part of a different science that was interesting in its own right; he chose to let other people study them. [snip] (4) I quote from Skinner (1990) speech which was delivered at APA the day before he died. It was published in the American Psychologist: |Cognitive psychology was left as the scientific companion of a profession |and as the scientific underpinning of educational, clinical, developmental, |social, and many other fields of psychology. The help it has given them |has not been conspicuous. A version of the vernacular refined for the |study of mental life is scarcely more helpful than the lay version, especially |when theory began to replace introspection. I break the quote to note that I interpret Skinner to be saying that cognitive psychology as he understood it was little better than the everyday descriptions of folk psychology. This does not sound like a ringing endorsement of research in cognitive psychology. The quote continues: |Much more useful would have been behavior analysis. It would have |helped in two ways, by clarifying the contingencies of reinforcement to |which the vernacular alludes, and by making it possible to design better |environments-personal environments that would solve existing problems |and larger environments or cultures in which there would be fewer problems. |A better understanding of variation and selection will mean a more successful |profession, but whether behavior analysis will be called psychology is a |matter for the future to decide. (page 1210) This is a curious statement because there is nothing in cognitive psychology that precludes the type of analysis the Skinner
re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) A few points to consider: (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting overview of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ The early negative view of humor is captured in Umberto Eco's book and movie The Name of the Rose where a book by Aristotle on humor plays a significant, if deadly, role. For the book, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_rose For the movie, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29 In recent centuries, alternative philosophical interpretations of humor have developed though these may not be directly relevant to psychological theories of humor. (2) I think that there are two opposing perspectives on humor within the behaviorist tradition and perspective: (a) Darwin's work on the expression of emotion in animals and humans suggest that all species experience a core of similar emotions, which serves as a justification for the psychological studies of animals as surrogates for humans and (b) the tendency against anthropomorphizing, that is, interpreting the behavior and internal states of animals/other species (including AI creations like Her) in terms of personal human experiences. One source on this is the Wikipedia entry on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism But, I believe that behaviorists have developed a more specific and sophisticated view of this position, one such view I think is expressed here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006496 The fundamental question is whether behavior in animals that appear similar to human behavior is best described in human terms or in more neutral terms. For example, smiling or laughing in human may be interpreted as the internal experience of humor but does baring one's teeth in a nonthreatening manner and making vocalization of certain types equivalent counterparts in animals? If one believe this to be true, then one can study animals to determine what laws of behavior apply to the behaviors that constitute the experience of humor. If one does not believe in this position, especially if one thinks that language plays a critical role in the experience of humor, then studying animal behavior will tell us little if anything about the experience of humor. If one only limits consideration of humor to humans, I suspect that one can reduce the joke situation or comedic situation (i.e., humor that is primarily physical; consider slapstick humor in silent films) to a simple set of relations: Stimulus(joke/comedy) - Response(Laugh/etc) - Stimulus(Positive/Negative/Null). Given the above, we laugh at a joke, especially ones we have experienced before or ones similar to jokes we have been reinforced for before. We may fail to respond because we were punished for our response (e.g., laughing to racist/sexist/etc jokes) or received no reinforcement for a response (stimuli might be required to indicate that a response should be made like an applause or laugh track to indicate that laughter/etc should be emitted; TV studio audience have an applause sign go as a reminder that they need to clap). This does leave unanswered why certain classes of jokes (e.g., fart jokes) are considered HILARIOUS by some people but disgusting by others; I guess peoples reactions to bodily sounds and functions play a role but that's too Freudian for me. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32792 or send a blank email to leave-32792-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
Skinner discusses humor on pages 285ff and 395 of Verbal Behavior (1957). For a more contemporary account see Catania's LEARNING text (p264 in the 4th edition (1999) -- there should be a similar analysis in the 5th, but I've lent it to someone): Any verbal topography potentially can take on any verbal function. Furthermore, probably no instance of verbal behavior is ever uniquely determined by just one variable. For example, when a child says milk in the presence of mil, this verbal response may function simultaneously as a mand and a tact (especially if the child is already naming)). When two or more events act together to produce a behavior, we speak of their combined effect as 'multiple causation'. Humor often depends on multiple causation. For example, if the end of this paragraph is funny, that's mainly because of how it combines two different vocabularies with which we talk about things that we value. Let.s change the subject to the Olympics. Is there any truth to the rumor that there was once an olympic team whose members were so proud of their gold medals that they had them bronzed? Finally, for a more detailed examination of the some of the parameters of humor, see: You might look at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223159/ On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Mike Palij wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) A few points to consider: (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting overview of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ The early negative view of humor is captured in Umberto Eco's book and movie The Name of the Rose where a book by Aristotle on humor plays a significant, if deadly, role. For the book, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_rose For the movie, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29 In recent centuries, alternative philosophical interpretations of humor have developed though these may not be directly relevant to psychological theories of humor. An evolutionary approach is often interesting to behaviorists (it can help to account for WHY people act the way they do), but it is a parallel analysis; not part of behaviorism. (2) I think that there are two opposing perspectives on humor within the behaviorist tradition and perspective: (a) Darwin's work on the expression of emotion in animals and humans suggest that all species experience a core of similar emotions, which serves as a justification for the psychological studies of animals as surrogates for humans and (b) the tendency against anthropomorphizing, that is, interpreting the behavior and internal states of animals/other species (including AI creations like Her) in terms of personal human experiences. One source on this is the Wikipedia entry on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism But, I believe that behaviorists have developed a more specific and sophisticated view of this position, one such view I think is expressed here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006496 The journal is Behavior and Philosophy. This particular author is a philosopher. A behaviorist might talk about the act of thinking, but not of an entity called 'the mind'. The fundamental question is whether behavior in animals that appear similar to human behavior is best described in human terms or in more neutral terms. For example, smiling or laughing in human may be interpreted as the internal experience of humor but does baring one's teeth in a nonthreatening manner and making vocalization of certain types equivalent counterparts in animals? If one believe this to be true, then one can study animals to determine what laws of behavior apply to the behaviors that constitute the experience of humor. If one does not believe in this position, especially if one thinks that language plays a critical role in the experience of humor, then studying animal behavior will tell us little if anything about the experience of humor. If one only limits consideration of humor to humans, I suspect that one can reduce the joke situation or comedic situation (i.e., humor that is primarily physical; consider slapstick humor in silent films) to a simple set of relations: Stimulus(joke/comedy) - Response(Laugh/etc) - Stimulus(Positive/Negative/Null). Given the above, we laugh at a joke, especially ones we have experienced before or ones similar to jokes we have been reinforced for before. We may fail to respond because we were punished for our response (e.g., laughing to racist/sexist/etc jokes) or received no
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
Thanks, Mike and Paul (Paul responded back channel as he had already squandered his posts yesterday :) ) Mike, I have read many of the things you mentioned and I'm familiar with Darwin's take on it, as well as the changes through the centuries *vis a vis *the various philosophers. I have not found anything specifically behaviorist that addresses my question, except for the link that Paul sent me, which I enjoyed very much (thanks again, Paul). I find it interesting that, given the amount of time we spend engaging in things that make us laugh, invoke a feeling of mirth, or both, there isn't more from a behaviorist perspective. I don't believe that behaviorists are grim by nature (I consider myself a behaviorist, and I don't think I'm grim), but I haven't found much literature that addresses humor and its associated constructs from a behaviorist perspective. It just seems like something's missing, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something of which I should be aware. I'm definitely not as well-read as some TIPSters, so I turn to you all for ideas. Thanks, Carol On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) A few points to consider: (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting overview of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ The early negative view of humor is captured in Umberto Eco's book and movie The Name of the Rose where a book by Aristotle on humor plays a significant, if deadly, role. For the book, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_rose For the movie, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29 In recent centuries, alternative philosophical interpretations of humor have developed though these may not be directly relevant to psychological theories of humor. (2) I think that there are two opposing perspectives on humor within the behaviorist tradition and perspective: (a) Darwin's work on the expression of emotion in animals and humans suggest that all species experience a core of similar emotions, which serves as a justification for the psychological studies of animals as surrogates for humans and (b) the tendency against anthropomorphizing, that is, interpreting the behavior and internal states of animals/other species (including AI creations like Her) in terms of personal human experiences. One source on this is the Wikipedia entry on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism But, I believe that behaviorists have developed a more specific and sophisticated view of this position, one such view I think is expressed here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006496 The fundamental question is whether behavior in animals that appear similar to human behavior is best described in human terms or in more neutral terms. For example, smiling or laughing in human may be interpreted as the internal experience of humor but does baring one's teeth in a nonthreatening manner and making vocalization of certain types equivalent counterparts in animals? If one believe this to be true, then one can study animals to determine what laws of behavior apply to the behaviors that constitute the experience of humor. If one does not believe in this position, especially if one thinks that language plays a critical role in the experience of humor, then studying animal behavior will tell us little if anything about the experience of humor. If one only limits consideration of humor to humans, I suspect that one can reduce the joke situation or comedic situation (i.e., humor that is primarily physical; consider slapstick humor in silent films) to a simple set of relations: Stimulus(joke/comedy) - Response(Laugh/etc) - Stimulus(Positive/Negative/Null). Given the above, we laugh at a joke, especially ones we have experienced before or ones similar to jokes we have been reinforced for before. We may fail to respond because we were punished for our response (e.g., laughing to racist/sexist/etc jokes) or received no reinforcement for a response (stimuli might be required to indicate that a response should be made like an applause or laugh track to indicate that laughter/etc should be emitted; TV studio audience have an applause sign go as a reminder that they need to clap). This does leave unanswered why certain classes of jokes (e.g., fart jokes) are considered HILARIOUS by some people but disgusting by others; I guess peoples reactions to bodily sounds and functions play a role but that's too Freudian for me. ;-) -Mike Palij New York
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
Carol--consider contacting the Skinner foundation via his daughter, Julie Vargas at opera...@bfskinner.org. Folks who knew Skinner have told me that he had a wonderful sense of humor so bet he would have had an opinion. Certainly ones life experiences and reference systems play an important role, which could explain why ones culture and the time era so influence perception of humor. For example, many of students think Family Guy is a riot whereas I think it's plain stupid. Whatever, love your question. Joan Thanks, Mike and Paul (Paul responded back channel as he had already squandered his posts yesterday :) ) Mike, I have read many of the things you mentioned and I'm familiar with Darwin's take on it, as well as the changes through the centuries *vis a vis *the various philosophers. I have not found anything specifically behaviorist that addresses my question, except for the link that Paul sent me, which I enjoyed very much (thanks again, Paul). I find it interesting that, given the amount of time we spend engaging in things that make us laugh, invoke a feeling of mirth, or both, there isn't more from a behaviorist perspective. I don't believe that behaviorists are grim by nature (I consider myself a behaviorist, and I don't think I'm grim), but I haven't found much literature that addresses humor and its associated constructs from a behaviorist perspective. It just seems like something's missing, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something of which I should be aware. I'm definitely not as well-read as some TIPSters, so I turn to you all for ideas. Thanks, Carol On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:40:38 -0800, Carol DeVolder wrote: What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) A few points to consider: (1) If you have not examined the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on humor, I suggest that you do since it gives an interesting overview of the philosophical/religious opinions concerning the nature of humor and whether engaging in humor should be considered socially acceptable. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/ The early negative view of humor is captured in Umberto Eco's book and movie The Name of the Rose where a book by Aristotle on humor plays a significant, if deadly, role. For the book, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_the_rose For the movie, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Name_of_the_Rose_%28film%29 In recent centuries, alternative philosophical interpretations of humor have developed though these may not be directly relevant to psychological theories of humor. (2) I think that there are two opposing perspectives on humor within the behaviorist tradition and perspective: (a) Darwin's work on the expression of emotion in animals and humans suggest that all species experience a core of similar emotions, which serves as a justification for the psychological studies of animals as surrogates for humans and (b) the tendency against anthropomorphizing, that is, interpreting the behavior and internal states of animals/other species (including AI creations like Her) in terms of personal human experiences. One source on this is the Wikipedia entry on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism But, I believe that behaviorists have developed a more specific and sophisticated view of this position, one such view I think is expressed here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006496 The fundamental question is whether behavior in animals that appear similar to human behavior is best described in human terms or in more neutral terms. For example, smiling or laughing in human may be interpreted as the internal experience of humor but does baring one's teeth in a nonthreatening manner and making vocalization of certain types equivalent counterparts in animals? If one believe this to be true, then one can study animals to determine what laws of behavior apply to the behaviors that constitute the experience of humor. If one does not believe in this position, especially if one thinks that language plays a critical role in the experience of humor, then studying animal behavior will tell us little if anything about the experience of humor. If one only limits consideration of humor to humans, I suspect that one can reduce the joke situation or comedic situation (i.e., humor that is primarily physical; consider slapstick humor in silent films) to a simple set of relations: Stimulus(joke/comedy) - Response(Laugh/etc) - Stimulus(Positive/Negative/Null). Given the above, we laugh at a joke, especially ones we have experienced before or ones similar to jokes we have been reinforced for before. We may fail to respond because we were punished for our response (e.g., laughing to racist/sexist/etc jokes) or received no
[tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) Thanks, Carol -- Carol DeVolder, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology St. Ambrose University 518 West Locust Street Davenport, Iowa 52803 563-333-6482 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32771 or send a blank email to leave-32771-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] While we are on the topic of Skinner
An interesting question! A quick browse through the contents of a few behavioral journals didn't turn up anything; behaviorists usually either examine basic processes, or practical solutions to problems. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something in Skinner's Verbal Behavior (he had something to say about just about everything); I'll have to take a look. On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Carol DeVolder wrote: What sources should I look at to find a behaviorist view of laughter, mirth, and humor? I realize I'm being vague--that's on purpose. :) Thanks, Carol Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=32772 or send a blank email to leave-32772-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
