Why I am not a cognitive psychologist

Originally posted by Regret
Thought is the description of our perception of neural processing. "Mind" as I am referring to it is something beyond the physical, that you refer to later in your post. It is the clinging to the traditional "spirit" by those that are trying to separate from religion, imo. They have replaced "spirit", or other dualistic concept, with a "mind." I do not state that people do not think, I only state that thinking is merely the physiological process of neural activity, no more. Desires, and other mentalist concepts, are labels used, and once they are used they limit the scope of thought on the subject and possible external influence on the concepts labeled. Desires can be shifted. There are numerous studies in behavior analysis dealing with preference shift due to contingent reinforcement of other preferences.

Please show me the studies where 100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences of a peadophile, rapist, and serial killer.

IF all you can show me is a change in behavior due to containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient, then I will disregard those cases as INVALID, since no sincere change in preference has been made.

Originally posted by Regret
In dealing with others, we have no means of discussing thought. There is no observable thing we can term "thought." When dealing with anyone aside from one's self thought cannot be considered because internal variables are not observable or manipulatable. Now, if I control the contingencies and the individuals behaviors change, then whatever a mentalist termed as thoughts etc. was changed, how could they prove otherwise? All that I can manipulate and alter is behavior, and behavior is the only means of assessment, so where are the assessment of some mental concept? There is none, we assessed a behavior. Where is the treatment of some mental concept? There is none, we treated a behavior. If there is a mind, there is no evidence of change in it, or even an initial state.

So because thought cannot be observed, it does not exist. And then you critisize one's argument that because God's existance cannot be proven, he doesn't exist. 🙄

You can treat a behavior yes. Anyone can. If I lock up my serial killing aunt in my basement, guess what? She wont kill no mo ! 😱

That's not exactly successful treatment in my perspective. Not to constantly bring up homosexuality again, but for the sake of this argument, excuse and regard my next example:

If a homosexual man refuses to have sex with other men because he has been threatened with death, had his penis amputated, is convinced that homosexuality will result in an eternity of torment, or anything which aims to inhibit his natural sexual desire....yet he still finds himself ATTRACTED to other men, he just doesn't engage in sex with them.....

then he was really "cured" was he ? 😬

You may have put an end to his homosexual activity, but he is still homosexual if he has sexual or romantic attractions to other men.

That is not treatment.

Even if the methods are non-violent, or benevolent, if he is still attracted to other men...if he still undulges in homosexual fantasy...then he is not heterosexual.

Originally posted by Regret
I doubt it. All of these are merely behaviors that have been shaped from an early age. Perhaps there was some physiological predisposition that led to one individual being more creative, passionate, artistic, etc. but the behavior was shaped. Levels of creativity has been shown to be controlled by reinforcement contingencies in the literature, the others can also be studied in a similar manner. Consider the terms you described, can any of these be observed or recognized without the behavioral component? Are they actually present with out the behavior? Are we not merely describing a behavior or the rate and propensity of a behavior?

Since when is Creativity strictly a behavior ? If one thought up a masterpeice script in thier head, but never had the chance to turn it into a film production, does that render them non-creative somehow ?

Yes, any one of those things can EXIST without the behavior attached.

Again....I can have sex with all the women in the world. That does not make me "straight". The reasons behind what I did matter JUST AS MUCH as what I did itself...

Do you get it, or no ?

Another non-homo example:

Situation 1: I stab a woman to death, because I think she's ugly.

Situation 2: I stab a woman to death, because she just killed my mother.

Observable Behavior: I stabbed a woman to death.

Do the reasons or motives, desires NOT MATTER ? Are they irrelevant in the diagnosis of my mental/physiological faculties ? Does not one situation render me totally psychotic, while the other renders me temporarily insane ?

Originally posted by Regret
Why would you think man is in some way physiologically superior to an animal or a plant? We do have greater capability and a faster learning curve in most cases, but we are in no manner superior, only different in a manner that we hold of higher value. Free Will is a term used in error. We have the ability to act in a variety of ways at any given time, we have never been entirely "free", the environment and our history of experiences control most of the decisions we make. When two possible reinforcing behaviors are present at the same time, and both have the same degree of value to the individual, a choice is made based on preference, once that choice is made probability of the same choice being made increases, and so the environment gains control. If the choice was never presented, and only one option was available, it will gain preferential status due to that reinforcer gaining in value due to exposure. Free will is only the ability to initially choose between two behaviors that will probably result in equal reinforcers. Choice and freedom begin disappearing with the initial behaviors of the individual.

1) I never said we were superior. I asked you what separates us from animal and plant ? If all we have are electrical impulses, then what makes us human and them animal ?

2) You argue that Free Will is not entirely free here, but in the religion forums you argue that God gave us free will, and reward and punishment is just accordingly because what we do is entirely our own faults....

Contradicting yourself there buddy 😬

Originally posted by Regret
Will and wanting to do anything are not the same thing. My definition of the term will would fit with almost any cognitive psychologist's definition of the term with the absence of mentalist description added.

DESIRE.....what is desire ?

Originally posted by Regret
If you never do something, you did not desire it as much as the thing you did.

Simply Untrue. I never become a professional baseball player..that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I never become a millionaire...that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I didn't become President...that doesn't mean I never desired it.

Desire is NOT just a behavior, and cannot be defined or measured through behavior...but it EXISTS.....

Originally posted by Regret
If you have that initial physiological response that we term desire, the desire existed, you did do something, your neurons fired, you considered the behavior, and the chain was broken by a chain leading to something with a higher probability of reinforcement. I never stated the chain had to complete to have any portion of such a chain be considered desire.

Just because you did not achieve does not mean you did not desire. I want to ask a guy out for example....because of my fear of his reaction, i never get to it...

The desire was still there...

No amount of Behavioral Analysis can determine whether or not I was attracted to him, or whether or not I desired relation with him (or how much or little I wanted it)

Originally posted by Regret
If mind is merely the neural activity, then I can accept such a definition as accurate. Subconscious and unconscious, states that may or may not exist. It is like hypnosis, a change in brain wave pattern occurs, but does the individual do anything they do not want to do? Hypnosis requires a subject that "wants" to be hypnotized, the subject "wants" to participate in the activity that the hypnotist is suggesting. Neural activity during unconcious and subconscious states are merely aspects of neural activity in areas of the brain that do not produce what we term thought.

Dreams come from the Subconcious. I suggest you take a course or two on that... 😉

When you are asleep you are not concious, yet thought processes still occur...

Outer body experiences have been recorded while the person is UNCONCIOUS..... oh boy... this is a whole other ball field now, forgive me for jumping ahead.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe the physical root to be all there is. Referring to the "mind" is typically a reference to something beyond the physical. I do not believe that an extra-physical "mind" exists, only the physical.

So then there is NO SOUL....and no afterlife, and no Heaven or Hell 🙂

You can't have it both ways sonny....Either everything is ONLY physical, or there is more. According to your post, Christianity has to be false, because Christianity teaches there is much much much more than just the physical.

Ah, scientific argument (your own no less) contradicting religion....maybe i should include this in the other thread.

Originally posted by Regret
😆 it is an odd experience 😉

😆 yep....

Now that I understand your point of view I would like to explain mine, and why I do not agree with behaviorism :

Imagine if we create a construct, a exact replica of an human being except that it lacks conscious experience. It is just a machine that gives outputs based on the inputs it receives, there is no conscious experience actually happening. Its like a video camera or any eletronic equipment.

It behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "Ouch!" and so forth), but that is just a program which is doing that. For example, you can couple a pressure sensor with the sound emitter device. It may execute a .wav file producing a sound "Ouch!" when some imput is given to the pressure sensor.

Behaviorism implies that there is no distinction between that replica of an human being that lacks of any conscious experience and an actual human being. The only thing that will make a distinction between them is internal mental states called conscious experience(or mind) that one have and the other don´t. Unless, of course you believe that they are not distinct.

In that case, there is another thought experiment that clarifies why this distinction is necessary in a well done way(in my opinion). It is called chinese room and it was used as an counterargument to the view that AI(consciousness) can be programmed in a computer, but it serves our purpose here well. I will modify it a little to adapt it to the subject being discussed :

Suppose that, many years from now, we have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. In other words, the computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a set of rules (as all computers can be described as doing), correlates them with other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it is indistinguishble from another human being. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the behavior is exactly the same of another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion proponents of behaviorism would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.

Now, Searle(the one that created this argument) asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a rule book, and returns the Chinese characters that the rules dictate. Searle notes that he doesn't, of course, understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, he argues that his lack of understanding goes to show that computers don't understand Chinese either, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols, just as he is — and they don't understand what they're 'saying', just as he doesn't.

That is behaviors are just behaviors, and machines exibit behaviors. But the only thing that distinguishes a human being from a machine when them both behave in exactly the same way are the internal mental states(or mind) that one have and the other do not have.

As it was show - machines are mindless(without conscious experience) manipulators of symbols, and as you know, human beings have conscious experience. What makes them distinct ? In my point of view it is the mind, or the presence of concious experience.

EXACTLY 👆

Behavioralism practically equates human beings with robots...people do NOT always DO what they WANT, nor do they DO what they THINK...the mind and body are symbiotic but separate.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Please show me the studies where 100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences of a peadophile, rapist, and serial killer.

IF all you can show me is a change in behavior due to containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient, then I will disregard those cases as INVALID, since no sincere change in preference has been made.

Behavior Analysis does not use containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient.

Regardless of your claim, before I need to provide evidence of "100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences" or "sincere change in preference" in that pedophile, you must show me evidence of these internal concepts actually existing beyond the observable in said pedophile. On top of that, do it without using exhibited behaviors to show its existence.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So because thought cannot be observed, it does not exist. And then you critisize one's argument that because God's existance cannot be proven, he doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You can treat a behavior yes. Anyone can. If I lock up my serial killing aunt in my basement, guess what? She wont kill no mo !

That's not exactly successful treatment in my perspective.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not to constantly bring up homosexuality again, but for the sake of this argument, excuse and regard my next example:

If a homosexual man refuses to have sex with other men because he has been threatened with death, had his penis amputated, is convinced that homosexuality will result in an eternity of torment, or anything which aims to inhibit his natural sexual desire....yet he still finds himself ATTRACTED to other men, he just doesn't engage in sex with them.....

then he was really "cured" was he ?

You may have put an end to his homosexual activity, but he is still homosexual if he has sexual or romantic attractions to other men.

Now, you have no grasp of how behavior analysis treats problem behaviors. The example you present is in no manner similar to a treatment we would suggest. A behavior analyst will use punishment only as a last resort, and as such punishment is used rarely by any properly trained behavior analyst. Behavioral treatments typically make the chosen problem behavior less desirable while making the proper behaviors more desirable. Effective treatment results in a preference shift, not in coercive force being required for change to occur, coercive force is aversive and if used often results in the behavior being coerced gaining aversive properties through respondant, or classical, conditioning.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is not treatment.

Even if the methods are non-violent, or benevolent, if he is still attracted to other men...if he still undulges in homosexual fantasy...then he is not heterosexual.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Since when is Creativity strictly a behavior ? If one thought up a masterpeice script in thier head, but never had the chance to turn it into a film production, does that render them non-creative somehow ?

Yes, any one of those things can EXIST without the behavior attached.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Again....I can have sex with all the women in the world. That does not make me "straight". The reasons behind what I did matter JUST AS MUCH as what I did itself...

Do you get it, or no ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Another non-homo example:

Situation 1: I stab a woman to death, because I think she's ugly.

Situation 2: I stab a woman to death, because she just killed my mother.

Observable Behavior: I stabbed a woman to death.

Do the reasons or motives, desires NOT MATTER ? Are they irrelevant in the diagnosis of my mental/physiological faculties ? Does not one situation render me totally psychotic, while the other renders me temporarily insane ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) I never said we were superior. I asked you what separates us from animal and plant ? If all we have are electrical impulses, then what makes us human and them animal ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) You argue that Free Will is not entirely free here, but in the religion forums you argue that God gave us free will, and reward and punishment is just accordingly because what we do is entirely our own faults....

Contradicting yourself there buddy

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
DESIRE.....what is desire ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Simply Untrue. I never become a professional baseball player..that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I never become a millionaire...that doesn't mean I didn't desire it.

I didn't become President...that doesn't mean I never desired it.

Desire is NOT just a behavior, and cannot be defined or measured through behavior...but it EXISTS.....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Just because you did not achieve does not mean you did not desire. I want to ask a guy out for example....because of my fear of his reaction, i never get to it...

The desire was still there...

No amount of Behavioral Analysis can determine whether or not I was attracted to him, or whether or not I desired relation with him (or how much or little I wanted it)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Dreams come from the Subconcious. I suggest you take a course or two on that...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
When you are asleep you are not concious, yet thought processes still occur...

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Outer body experiences have been recorded while the person is UNCONCIOUS..... oh boy... this is a whole other ball field now, forgive me for jumping ahead.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So then there is NO SOUL....and no afterlife, and no Heaven or Hell

You can't have it both ways sonny....Either everything is ONLY physical, or there is more. According to your post, Christianity has to be false, because Christianity teaches there is much much much more than just the physical.

Ah, scientific argument (your own no less) contradicting religion....maybe i should include this in the other thread.

Cognitive = changing your take on things to make it better.........I don't find a problem with that if it works for people........cause people are all different.....some need a new point of view in which to view all the things that happened to them and then make a new reference to them when seeing or viewing/feeling what is going on here and now...It does work for many.................what I don't agree with VERY MUCH is the old philosophy of "lets talk about this and that, and you mom and dad and your friend".......oh yes it could shine some light on it, but not to make anyone get beyond it........It only makes them dwell on it all which does nothing but not move on.......At least cognitive puts things in a thought of perceptive though NOT as proactive. even if it may not be a truly a true one......but still it is good for the patient who needs this new view of themselves to move on...It is quite good, but from my studies there is a much better therapy that has been used in holistic therapy............and how I would like to get a degree in it, but as of yet, it is not quite accepted in the general views of the "mind gods" views, though here in Michigan it is now being taught so that it can be used in hospitals.........This is where I would like to get my degree, but seems at this time it doesn't pay well cause it's so new....but I believe in the future it will become the leading take on healing.............

Oh psychologists!

Do not take following as an insult or even an attempt to downplay your roles. I am a sociologist and criminologist - I am not in position to b!tch.

Howeverrrrr... Psychology as just recently become a practice which is looked at as prestigious. Up until 60 years ago, psychology was merely a fringe of psychiatry, and people who called themselves psychologists did not have as much credibility as they do today.

There is a new way of thinking, where psychologists are presented to have the knowledge psychiatrists once were merited with.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Oh psychologists!
Do not take following as an insult or even an attempt to downplay your roles. I am a sociologist and criminologist - I am not in position to b!tch.
Howeverrrrr... Psychology as just recently become a practice which is looked at as prestigious. Up until 60 years ago, psychology was merely a fringe of psychiatry, and people who called themselves psychologists did not have as much credibility as they do today.
There is a new way of thinking, where psychologists are presented to have the knowledge psychiatrists once were merited with.

"Modern Psychology" has gone through various "phases," many inspired by the attempt to render it as rigorous and precise as a hard science; behavioral analysis fits this description very well, as does neuropsychology. The "problem," of course, is that these are empirical attempts to deal with what is essentially a nonempirical phenomena: the mind, ie, one's subjective experience of reality.

As far as psychiatry goes: basically, a psychiatrist is trained first as a medical doctor, second as a therapist, as they generally abide by the medical model. Clinical psychologists, on the other hand, receive more extensive training not only in therapy but also in testing, and many will also strongly consider sociological context, again something psychiatrists generally do not factor into their assessments of a patient.

Our current cultural zeigeist still places psychiatrists above psychologists in the hierarchal scheme of things because the former are medical doctors, which are still held in godly esteem. For what it's worth, it has been my experience that the higher the degree, the more of a rectal orifice that person tends to be, with regard to his/her nonprofessional skills.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Modern Psychology" has gone through various "phases," many inspired by the attempt to render it as rigorous and precise as a hard science; behavioral analysis fits this description very well, as does neuropsychology. The "problem," of course, is that these are empirical attempts to deal with what is essentially a nonempirical phenomena: the mind, ie, one's subjective experience of reality.

As far as psychiatry goes: basically, a psychiatrist is trained first as a medical doctor, second as a therapist, as they generally abide by the medical model. Clinical psychologists, on the other hand, receive more extensive training not only in therapy but also in testing, and many will also strongly consider sociological context, again something psychiatrists generally do not factor into their assessments of a patient.

Our current cultural zeigeist still places psychiatrists above psychologists in the hierarchal scheme of things because the former are medical doctors, which are still held in godly esteem. For what it's worth, it has been my experience that the higher the degree, the more of a rectal orifice that person tends to be, with regard to his/her nonprofessional skills.

Psychiatrist - "Here's a drug to fix your behavioral problems"

Psychoanalist - "Talk to me intensively for 3-5 years 3-5 times weekly and I'll tell you what's wrong with you that causes these behaviors"

Cognitive Psychologist - "I think, therefore, we must change the underlying thoughts if we are to change these behavioral problems."

Behavior Analyst - "You have behavior problems? Let's fix them!"

Originally posted by Mindship
"Modern Psychology" has gone through various "phases," many inspired by the attempt to render it as rigorous and precise as a hard science; behavioral analysis fits this description very well, as does neuropsychology. The "problem," of course, is that these are empirical attempts to deal with what is essentially a nonempirical phenomena: the mind, ie, one's subjective experience of reality.

As far as psychiatry goes: basically, a psychiatrist is trained first as a medical doctor, second as a therapist, as they generally abide by the medical model. Clinical psychologists, on the other hand, receive more extensive training not only in therapy but also in testing, and many will also strongly consider sociological context, again something psychiatrists generally do not factor into their assessments of a patient.

Our current cultural zeigeist still places psychiatrists above psychologists in the hierarchal scheme of things because the former are medical doctors, which are still held in godly esteem. For what it's worth, it has been my experience that the higher the degree, the more of a rectal orifice that person tends to be, with regard to his/her nonprofessional skills.

I am aware.

It is, as established already in your post, a positivist move of the psychologists which has earned them the place where they are now.

Positivist approach is the one which one cannot take in regards to sciences which are not as such, strictly scientific. ie, make an empirical investigations of things in search for results which in nature cannot be empirically obtained.

Having said this of course, today, if you look in any form of media, what one will find is a dominant, distinct and phenomenal glorification of the so called ''scientific proof'', of pretty much anything. Including sociology!! (wtf?)

As long as this view of the ''gospel'' like medical ''proof'' is being put forward as, exactly that, a gospel, psychiatrists will ALWAYS be before psychologist.

Im sure you have read the ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Breggin. It sums up nicely what we as a society believe to be an answer.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am aware.

It is, as established already in your post, a positivist move of the psychologists which has earned them the place where they are now.

Positivist approach is the one which one cannot take in regards to sciences which are not as such, strictly scientific. ie, make an empirical investigations of things in search for results which in nature cannot be empirically obtained.

Having said this of course, today, if you look in any form of media, what one will find is a dominant, distinct and phenomenal glorification of the so called ''scientific proof'', of pretty much anything. Including sociology!! (wtf?)

As long as this view of the ''gospel'' like medical ''proof'' is being put forward as, exactly that, a gospel, psychiatrists will ALWAYS be before psychologist.

Im sure you have read the ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Breggin. It sums up nicely what we as a society believe to be an answer.

Science holds a great amount of value, as long as caution exists when in reference to any "fact" that is any less than 100% fact.

Originally posted by Regret
I believe the real issue is understanding the difference between inference and fact. Inference is valuable and often likely accurate, but the issue is that 99.99999999999% does not equal 100% no matter how many nines are attached. People, even scientists, often ignore or lessen the value of this fact.

Science holds a great amount of value, as long as caution exists when in reference to any "fact" that is any less than 100% fact.

Of course. Unfortunately, great deal of people do not see it that way, and often forget the scientific ''mistakes'' and 'miscalculations'' of the past.

Speaking in strictly psychiatric motives, one remembers the ''scientific'' removal of the piece of the skull of people believed to be clinically insane.

'Scientific empirical investigation' also told us that criminals are unevolved humans with distinct features (refer to Lambrosso), it has scientifically thought us that Irish and Black are ''biologically'' inferior...etc.

It IS important to take into account that 99.9999% is still not 100%.
Psychology sits on the fence of natural and social sciences. But just like social sciences, natural sciences evolve, and discard many things thought up in the past.

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, and I'll add:

Psychiatrist - "Here's a drug to fix your behavioral problems"

Psychoanalist - "Talk to me intensively for 3-5 years 3-5 times weekly and I'll tell you what's wrong with you that causes these behaviors"

Cognitive Psychologist - "I think, therefore, we must change the underlying thoughts if we are to change these behavioral problems."

Behavior Analyst - "You have behavior problems? Let's fix them!"

The problem with Behavior Analysts is that Behavior is all that matters, and thought/desire does not.

The person can be in mental anguish, but as long as the person no longer performs the undesired action, the existance of mental pain matters not.

Originally posted by Regret
Behavior Analysis does not use containment, drugs, threats, or anything that infringes on the will and action of the patient.

Good 👆

So what methods of punishment do you use ?

Originally posted by Regret
Regardless of your claim, before I need to provide evidence of "100% success has been achieved in changing the desires/mentalities/tendencies/preferences" or "sincere change in preference" in that pedophile, you must show me evidence of these internal concepts actually existing beyond the observable in said pedophile. On top of that, do it without using exhibited behaviors to show its existence.

First I want you to define what a Peadophile actually is. Then I can answer your question based on your presented knowledge.

Originally posted by Regret
Thought exists, it is the experience of neural activity.

So then what is Desire if not a type of thought/emotion ?

You earlier defined Desire as a repeated behavior, but I completely disagree. Just because you haven't acted out your desire,or achieved the object of desire, does not mean the desire does not exist.

Any human being on this Earth can vouch for that. If you cannot relate, than you must truly be disconnected from the rest of us.

Originally posted by Regret
It is effective and successful, just not the desired state of affairs. Given that the state of affairs is undesirable, a different approach should be taken. But I would not look for it myself, I am pro life imprisonment or death. I believe serial killers and murderers are at a point where the risks of failed treatment outweigh the possibility of rehabilitation. Unless this man states that he still has these supposed attractions, or in the least exhibits behaviors of homosexual attraction, it makes no difference if they may or may not exist. You make statements to what this other person may or may not actually "feel", with no support for them existing. If the behaviors were considered problem behaviors, and these behaviors no longer occur, it makes no difference whether these supposed "attractions" are present or not.

The problem is you have not truly changed the person from homosexual to heterosexual, if he still has homosexual attractions.

Whether you are aware of his attractions or not does not change the Truth to the situation.

Originally posted by Regret
Now, you have no grasp of how behavior analysis treats problem behaviors. The example you present is in no manner similar to a treatment we would suggest. A behavior analyst will use punishment only as a last resort, and as such punishment is used rarely by any properly trained behavior analyst. Behavioral treatments typically make the chosen problem behavior less desirable while making the proper behaviors more desirable. Effective treatment results in a preference shift, not in coercive force being required for change to occur, coercive force is aversive and if used often results in the behavior being coerced gaining aversive properties through respondant, or classical, conditioning.

I am curious to know more about Behavioral Treatments. How would you help a Homosexual man or woman who wants to become Heterosexual? How affective are those treatments, and how long does the result last ? Any records or links to stats that may show a success rate ?

How do you help a serial killer, with Behavioral Treatment ? What methods are used ? How successful are they, etc....

You keep claiming that I do not know as much about Psychology as you do....no sh*t Regret, I am not a psychology major.

No need to constantly bring it up, Oh holier than thou...

Just correct me on anything I happen to be wrong about.

Originally posted by Regret
If there are no behaviors present, how does anyone know whether or not these fantasies exist? From a treatment perspective, unless the man makes these "feelings" known, treatment was successful, how would the individuals presenting treatment know otherwise?

1) That's the POINT...you DONT KNOW....you cannot claim they are no longer there, just because behavior doesn't reveal it. How affective can Behavioral Treatment BE, when desires still exist, thereby allowing unwanted occurances in the future ?

2) The Treatment Perspective is Wrong then....if he cannot make his "feelings" known, and you conclude he is "cured", even if he still has those feelings, then the claim is a misdiagnosis.

Originally posted by Regret
Prove it.

Do you really want me to ?

Originally posted by Regret
Prove it. If you never say anything leading to a belief that you have homosexual tendencies, and do not exhibit homosexual behaviors, you are unable to prove that these tendencies exist, it is only the behavior that matters when considering anyone beyond oneself. All else is merely speculation.

All Else is mere speculation to a Heterosexual. You cannot fathom what it is like to BE a homosexual or bisexual, since you never dealt with those kind of attractions and emotions (I assume you haven't atleast)

We DO NOT all THINK and FEEL the way you do...please get that through your head. There is no "mental slate" that we all share. We are ALL very very different, as are our perspectives.

There are GAY VIRGINS...do you NOT know this ? There are tons of young boys who masturbate over the thought of other men...there are tons of young women who masturbate over the thought of other women.

Masturbation is a "behavior" or practice that is common and found in both Heterosexuals ANd homosexuals

How could you ever truly know what the person is thinking about when he or she masturbates ? Can you TRULY and SINCERELY conclude the sexual orienation of a VIRGIN through Behavioral means ?

Behavior will not HELP you here. That is my POINT...

Originally posted by Regret
Killing of the mother is observable and must be considered a setting event that initiated the chain of events leading to the woman's murder. Whether or not you killed her due to an ugly appearance is speculation until it is stated, then the behavior of the statement is evidence, at least of the claim.

1) Killing of the mother is not observable is there are no witnesses....

2) I think you misunderstand my point. If I kill a woman because I think she is ugly...or if I kill a woman because she killed my mother first....they are BOTH the SAME ACTIONS being done for DIFFERENT reasons.

Can you disclude the reasons behind them ? Are my ACTIONS all that matter ?Yes or No.....

Originally posted by Regret
You cannot tell the difference between an animal and a human? Complexity of behaviors and behavior chains separate us from other forms of life. Typical behaviors also separate us.

Forget this point, because you are severely misintepretting it, and I failed too word my argument properly more than once.

Originally posted by Regret
No, you misunderstood my use of the term free will, I have never contradicted myself.
I already defined it previously

You contradict yourself a LOT Regret, give me a break....

Explain to me your use of the term Free Will then....

Originally posted by Regret
Prove it.

Do you really want me too ?

Originally posted by Regret
Reread my statement on desire.Scientifically speaking dreams are nothing more than random neural firing during REM sleep. No, random neurons fire, and the associated neural path is then enacted. Not recorded scientifically.
Mainstream Christianity does teach this, not LDS doctrine. Once again you use your understanding of mainstream Christianity and apply their errors to me, when I do not agree with much of their views. Once again reread my previously posted stance on the soul.

Give me the link to your stance on the soul....

I already know your statements on desire as behavior, but I disagree, i already explained why more than once...

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Now that I understand your point of view I would like to explain mine, and why I do not agree with behaviorism :

Imagine if we create a construct, a exact replica of an human being except that it lacks conscious experience. It is just a machine that gives outputs based on the inputs it receives, there is no conscious experience actually happening. Its like a video camera or any eletronic equipment.

It behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "Ouch!" and so forth), but that is just a program which is doing that. For example, you can couple a pressure sensor with the sound emitter device. It may execute a .wav file producing a sound "Ouch!" when some imput is given to the pressure sensor.

Behaviorism implies that there is no distinction between that replica of an human being that lacks of any conscious experience and an actual human being. The only thing that will make a distinction between them is internal mental states called conscious experience(or mind) that one have and the other don´t. Unless, of course you believe that they are not distinct.

In that case, there is another thought experiment that clarifies why this distinction is necessary in a well done way(in my opinion). It is called chinese room and it was used as an counterargument to the view that AI(consciousness) can be programmed in a computer, but it serves our purpose here well. I will modify it a little to adapt it to the subject being discussed :

Suppose that, many years from now, we have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. In other words, the computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a set of rules (as all computers can be described as doing), correlates them with other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it is indistinguishble from another human being. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the behavior is exactly the same of another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion proponents of behaviorism would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.

Now, Searle(the one that created this argument) asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a rule book, and returns the Chinese characters that the rules dictate. Searle notes that he doesn't, of course, understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, he argues that his lack of understanding goes to show that computers don't understand Chinese either, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols, just as he is — and they don't understand what they're 'saying', just as he doesn't.

That is behaviors are just behaviors, and machines exibit behaviors. But the only thing that distinguishes a human being from a machine when them both behave in exactly the same way are the internal mental states(or mind) that one have and the other do not have.

As it was show - machines are mindless(without conscious experience) manipulators of symbols, and as you know, human beings have conscious experience. What makes them distinct ? In my point of view it is the mind, or the presence of concious experience.

Originally posted by Regret
If this machine behaved exactly as a human, responded and reacted exactly as a human, reacted to injury and hurt in the same manner as a human, prove to me it does not have this "conscious experience". For that matter, prove to me that you have this "conscious experience". Your argument assumes the "mind" and "conscious experience" which may or may not exist. Your argument is to the "special" nature of man, it is an arrogant and fallacious stance to take. Such a stance demands a point at which this "conscious experience" must be denied to lower organisms, where is this line? Do dogs have "conscious experience"? Cats? Elephants? Monkeys? worms? And what constitutes this difference? Anything other than physiology? Man is special in that we are different, but not in that we are in any manner better. Your claim is hollow. A robot that independently responds and behaves in the same manner as a human must be assumed to possess the same qualities, no matter the physiology. Perhaps in designing and manufacturing this machine, upon activated it gained this "conscious experience", prove that it did not. Prove that the computer does not understand Chinese in exactly the same manner that a human does, for that matter prove how a human actually understands Chinese. Perhaps man's brain is just a "mindless manipulator" of symbols.

About if a machine that behaves exactly as a human don´t have conscious experience. I think the chinese room argument clarifies this when it is said that you can do the same task of the computer even if you lack any understanding of Chinese.

It is, a computer just associates symbols, conscious experience don´t need to be mentioned to the machine works(I mean, consciousness is not required).
You can emulate a behavior without the conscious experience associated to it. Like a camera that registers image but do not "see", or microphones which cannot "hear".

As if do dogs, elephants or other organism has conscious experience, I think that it is something that we cannot know considering the usual empiric definition of proof. We can just try to guess how they experience the world.

The existence of conscious experience is proved. You are testifying the fact that you have conscious experience. Yet you can´t prove that you have conscious experience to me or another person(just to yourself). It is non-empiric but it is a truth since you can testify your own conscious experience. Unless you are denying your own existence, something that you are constantly verifying all the time.

Its only my view anyway.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am aware.

It is, as established already in your post, a positivist move of the psychologists which has earned them the place where they are now.

Positivist approach is the one which one cannot take in regards to sciences which are not as such, strictly scientific. ie, make an empirical investigations of things in search for results which in nature cannot be empirically obtained.

Having said this of course, today, if you look in any form of media, what one will find is a dominant, distinct and phenomenal glorification of the so called ''scientific proof'', of pretty much anything. Including sociology!! (wtf?)

As long as this view of the ''gospel'' like medical ''proof'' is being put forward as, exactly that, a gospel, psychiatrists will ALWAYS be before psychologist.

Im sure you have read the ''Toxic Psychiatry'' by Breggin. It sums up nicely what we as a society believe to be an answer.

True.

The scientific society likes everything to be formally justified accordingly to the empiricist definition for scientific truth, and consider just scientific knowledge only that which is falsifiable. But they forget that empirism itself is not falsiable. It is just a doctrine to be followed by its adepts, a gospel like you said.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The problem with Behavior Analysts is that Behavior is all that matters, and thought/desire does not.

The person can be in mental anguish, but as long as the person no longer performs the undesired action, the existance of mental pain matters not.

Behavioral analysis is just one approach. Personally, I think the most important factor in any therapeutic success is the efficacy of the therapist/client dyad, which does involve internal/mentalist factors. Again, from a behavioral analysis POV, they are not unimportant. They're just not the focus of the behavioral treatment. Any caring therapist will know that, ultimately, he/she is not dealing with a behavior machine, but with a human being.

(Yes: philosophically/theoretically, a strict behaviorist may think of a human being as a behavior machine, but this may not be a practical approach. A client coming in for help is not going to say, "But first, reinforce trust and cooperation in me, so the therapy focusing on my presenting problem is more effective." Preferably, this mentalist state of trust/cooperation is already present, so the therapist can go on and deal with the Problem, per se.)

Originally posted by Mindship
Behavior is all that matters from the pure/applied treatment POV. But as one human being (the behaviorist) relating to another (the client/patient), thoughts and feelings will always be important insofar as the larger therapeutic context goes. For example, the more the client trusts the therapist (all else being equal), the more effective therapy is likely to be. At least as practiced ethically, behavior analysis still requires the client's cooperation. The results looked for, however, are purely behavioral.

This is a blanket statement that may not be true in all cases. If the source of the client's mental anguish is, say, directly related to behavior (eg, addictive gambling), change in behavior will lead to reduction in mental anguish.

Behavioral analysis is just one approach. Personally, I think the most important factor in any therapeutic success is the efficacy of the therapist/client dyad, which does involve internal/mentalist factors. Again, from a behavioral analysis POV, they are not unimportant. They're just not the focus of the behavioral treatment. Any caring therapist will know that, ultimately, he/she is not dealing with a behavior machine, but with a human being.

(Yes: philosophically/theoretically, a strict behaviorist may think of a human being as a behavior machine, but this may not be a practical approach. A client coming in for help is not going to say, "But first, reinforce trust and cooperation in me, so the therapy focusing on my presenting problem is more effective." Preferably, this mentalist state of trust/cooperation is already present, so the therapist can go on and deal with the Problem, per se.)

Understood, but Regret's point is that Behaviors all that matter. He is explaining why he is not a Cognitive Psychologist, and just flat out admitted that he disregards thoughts and desire, because they mean nothing to him.

I find that approach SEVERELY flawed.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Good 👆

So what methods of punishment do you use ?

Apathy - Punishment can produce apathy in the punished. Not only the punished behavior becomes suppressed, but all behavior in general becomes suppressed.

Escape - The punished will attempt to continue the behavior in a manner that will avoid the punishment, or will attempt avoid the punisher altogether.

Aggression - Aversive stimuli often elicits an aggressive response. This response is not often predictable as there are varying forms of aggression.

Imitation - The punished will punish others, most frequently inappropriately.

Abuse - Punishment by its nature is negatively reinforcing for the punisher. This means that punishment removes an aversive stimulus from the environment of the punisher, and reinforcement increases the probability of the behavior.

Punishing methods vary from subject to subject since in behavior analysis, the subject is always its own control. The typical method of punishment of problem behavior is to observe the behavior and discover the reinforcing consequences of that behavior, and then if possible removing that consequence from the behavior. This is combined with reinforcement of appropriate behaviors, typically the removed reinforcer from the problem behavior is used to reinforce the appropriate behaviors. The alternatives to punishment are very effective, and more appropriate given the fact that often the reinforcers for problem behavior are inherent in the outcome of the behavior.

So, if punishment is used, negative punishment is most effective and results in the best outcome. A better alternative is differential reinforcement of other behaviors, in other words the reinforcer obtained through the problem behavior is given for other behaviors that are appropriate.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
First I want you to define what a [b]Peadophile actually is. Then I can answer your question based on your presented knowledge.[/b]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So then what is [b]Desire if not a type of thought/emotion ?

You earlier defined Desire as a repeated behavior, but I completely disagree. Just because you haven't acted out your desire,or achieved the object of desire, does not mean the desire does not exist.

Any human being on this Earth can vouch for that. If you cannot relate, than you must truly be disconnected from the rest of us. [/b]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The problem is you have not truly changed the person from homosexual to heterosexual, if he still has homosexual attractions.

Whether you are aware of his attractions or not does not change the Truth to the situation.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I am curious to know more about Behavioral Treatments. How would you help a Homosexual man or woman who wants to become Heterosexual? How affective are those treatments, and how long does the result last ? Any records or links to stats that may show a success rate ?

I am unaware of research on the subject of treating sexual tendencies with behavior analysis. Most clinical use of behavior analysis is documented in th Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. I have typically remained in the experimental and organizational areas of the field due to my profession.

Treatment typically works as long as reinforcement of replacement behaviors is available, where you would find statistics I am unsure, although to my understanding behavioral methods typically have the most consistent success rates and typically, when combined with cognitive communication, have the longest lasting impact. Although, research into behavioral momentum is leading towards a better understanding of the functional factors involved in relapse and resurgence of previously treated behaviors, and as such treatment methods are being modified to counter such possibilities.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How do you help a serial killer, with Behavioral Treatment ? What methods are used ? How successful are they, etc....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You keep claiming that I do not know as much about Psychology as you do....no sh*t Regret, I am not a psychology major.

No need to constantly bring it up, Oh holier than thou...

Just correct me on anything I happen to be wrong about.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) That's the POINT...you [b]DONT KNOW....you cannot claim they are no longer there, just because behavior doesn't reveal it. How affective can Behavioral Treatment BE, when desires still exist, thereby allowing unwanted occurances in the future ?[/b]

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) The Treatment Perspective is Wrong then....if he cannot make his "feelings" known, and you conclude he is "cured", even if he still has those feelings, then the claim is a misdiagnosis.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you really want me to ?