>Quite an interesting thread . . . > >Subject: Re: Rosalie Raynor >From: "Stephen Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:27:09 -0500 >X-Message-Number: 10 > >On 15 Oct 2002, Rick Stevens wrote: > > > And, since Watson and Rayner, "...were prepared to present the > > fear-inducing white rat and stimulate Albert's genitals at the same > > time so as to attach pleasurable feelings to the rat.", (Barker, 2001) > > the Little Albert study was almost the little peter study, as > > suggested in the first post of this series. > > > > Barker, L. M. (2001). Learning and Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: > > Prentice Hall. > > >Rick: > >Are you sure you're not making this up? They were going to >_masturbate_ Little Albert?????!!! Where in the world did Barker get >that from? I've gotta see the original before I believe this one. >There've been some strange allegations concerning Watson (such as >that he and Rosalie engaged in sex experiments with each other while >she was still his student) but I've never heard this one before. > >-Stephen >______________________________________________________________ >Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 >Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 >Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 >Canada > >Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy >TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at >http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips >_________________________________________________________ > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >Subject: Watson & Rayner >From: "Richard R. McKnight]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:22:17 -0600 >X-Message-Number: 12 > >Those interested in the original "Little Albert" paper can find it at >http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/ . The paper does indeed mention a >plan to use genital stimulation of the child. Also, the "Little >Peter" paper by Mary Cover Jones is available at the same location. > >******************************* >Richard McKnight (Rick) >Department of Psychology >Nicholls State University >Thibodaux, LA 70310 >(504) 448-4359 >FAX (504) 448-4926 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >******************************* > > > > > >>The Freudians twenty years from now, unless their hypotheses change, > when they >come to analyze Albert's fear of a seal skin coat - assuming that he comes >to analysis at that age - will probably tease from him the recital of a >dream which upon their analysis will show that Albert at three years of age >attempted to play with the pubic hair of the mother and was scolded >violently for it. (We are by no means denying that this might in some other >case condition it). If the analyst has sufficiently prepared Albert to >accept such a dream when found as an explanation of his avoiding tendencies, >and if the analyst has the authority and personality to put it over, Albert >may be fully convinced that the dream was a true revealer of the factors >which brought about the fear. > > >>It is probable that many of the phobias in psychopathology are true >conditioned emotional reactions either of the direct or the transferred >type. One may possibly have to believe that such persistence of early >conditioned responses will be found only in persons who are constitutionally >inferior. Our argument is meant to be constructive. Emotional disturbances >in adults cannot be traced back to sex alone. They must be retraced along at >least three collateral lines - to conditioned and transferred responses set >up in infancy and early youth in all three of the fundamental human >emotions. (Watson & Rayner, 1920) > >Beth Benoit >University Systems of New Hampshire > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >It is not as unusual as one might think to use genital stimulation with an >infant. Genital stimulation is practiced in a number of cultures as a way to >calm babies and show affection. For example, among the Philippine Agta >hunter-gatherers: > >"The infant is eagerly passed from person to person until all in attendance >have had an opportunity to snuggle, nuzzle, sniff, and admire the >new-born...A child's first experience, then involves a community of >relatives and friends. Thereafter he enjoys constant cuddling, carrying, >loving, sniffing and affectionate genital stimulation." > >Hewlett, B. S. (u.d.). Diverse contexts of human infancy. Retrieved from >http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/hewlett/infantcare.html > >It is unusual, however, that Watson & Raynor considered using it. I imagine >that genital stimulation was not an accepted practice in Baltimore during >the early 20th century. > >Jeff > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. >Chair, Behavioral Sciences >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Scottsdale Community College >9000 E. Chaparral Road >Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 >Phone (480) 423-6213 >Fax (480) 423-6298 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >PESTS (Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically) >http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/ > >The Psychology Student: Learning About the Science of Psychology >http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/psychscience/index.html >
There are a couple of pieces to address here that are, I think, really interesting. The discussion about "false memories" is very timely, I think. But I think that their snide comments about analytic interpretations of it are pretty unfair, I think. While it's possible that his (alleged) future analyst might interpret the episode that way because he or she thought that the memory was a dream, a well trained analyst would never try to 'get' something like that out of a client. Whether you're an analyst or not you have to admit that Freud was careful, and tried to tell everyone else to be careful - not to ever have an opinion about what they wanted to hear. Also, the analyst was only part of the interpretation process. The interpretation of the unconscious was supposed to be done by the analysand - with the assistance of the analyst, perhaps, but never BY the analyst. This is the whole idea behind transference and counter-transference and the reason why everyone had to have their own analysis before they could be an analyst. Freud's position was that getting rid of - or at least exposing - your own shit was the only way to keep yourself from contaminating your client with it and preventing your client from contaminating you and then you dump it back on them, and so on and so on . . . When this is done consciously it's manipulative, untethical, and all the rest. It's just as bad and more pernicious when it's done unconsciously. I'm not an analyst, or even a clinical psychologist, but that is an issue that is barely discussed in training programs now, I guess. It's too bad because I think that Freud was exactly on target with that one - that's also why I felt the need to defend analytic position from the Rayner, Ranor, RaynOR? and Watson comment . . . it's based on an assumption that is untrue, or perhaps it's a deliberate attempt to make people think that that's what well-trained analysts do, or it's easy to criticize a profession when the examples you use are of those who don't practice it correctly . . . I don't know what their motivation was for the comment. But I'm also tickled because if the conditioning was such a neutral experience why would it ever come up in analysis? And it's also ironic that they pooh-pooh the influence of sexuality on phobias (time has show that they were right on that one), but then realize that sex is the most powerful unconditioned stimulus. It's another argument that really reinforces Freud's position. Because I'm pretty sure that he didn't maintain the notion all his life that sex was the sole etiology of any neurosis - didn't he change his mind after his experiences with war veterans and shell shock? - his real position - that sex is IT, the most important drive of all, is strengthened by their use of genital stimulation as a fail safe if they couldn't condition any other way. Does anyone else see the irony of this? >Whatever happened to little Albert? > >ABSTRACT Examines J. B. Watson and R. Rayner's 1920 conditioning of the >infant Albert B. Using published sources, the present article reviews the >study's actual procedures and its relationship to Watson's career and work. >A history of psychologists' accounts of the Albert study is also presented, >focusing on the study's distortion by Watson himself, general textbook >authors, behavior therapists, and most recently, a prominent learning >theorist. The author proposes possible causes for these distortions and >analyzes the Albert study as an example of myth making in the history of >psychology. (98 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2002 APA, all rights >reserved) > >AUTHOR Harris, Ben > >AFFILIATION Harris, B.: Vassar Coll > >SOURCE American Psychologist. 1979 Feb Vol 34(2) 151-160 > >Hope that helps, >Larry > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McKinley, Marcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 11:24 AM > > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > > Subject: RE: Rosalie Raynor > > > > > > I'll try to find this article. But I swear that I saw him being interviewed in some slice of video once . . . He was a young adult and he said that he didn't remember anything about the conditioning experiments at all. He also said that he wasn't afraid of white rats, Santa Clause, seal skin coats, pubic hair - just kidding - and had no emotional problems at all. It seems to me that he said that he found out about the experiments when he took intro psych in college and it piqued his interest because he knew that his family had lived near Watson and knew either John or Ropsalie or maybe James - I'm fuzzy on this part. But he knew that he had known the Watsons a long time ago (bad sentence, I know), and sort of remembered that he had been to their lab a bunch of times when he was a kid. His mother or father - some relative - confirmed that there had been something about a rat or rabbit, or something . . . they weren't quite sure . . . Well, later all the evidence was assembled it it was established with reasonable certainty that he had been little Albert. I can't remember this film, where I saw it, or anything about how to find it. Has anyone else ever heard of this film? I'd like to use it with my intro students because I remember how big an impression it made on me. I hope someone has seen or heard of this because the unpleasant alternative is that it was a dream - the fulfillment of an unconscious wish to have sex with John B. Watson . . . On a more serious note, sexual sensation in babies can be observed in less rarified settings too. I've changed enough diapers as a babysitter and childcare provider to have any strange ideas that babies can't feel sexual pleasure. If you've ever put diaper rash ointment on a baby and seen him or her get the giggles from it you know exactly what I mean. I use this example all the time when people point to his - really, very clinical description - of child sexual pleasure and say that this is a sign that Freud was mentally ill, bizarre, sick, maybe even a pedophile. . . If you don't leave me check out Dr. Spock - even the edition that I bought before my oldest daughter was born in 1996 mentions it. Better yet, read Victorian marriage and child-rearing guides for a really salacious discussion of the issue. Then you really get where Freud was coming from. (So there!) I also have another more serious question - if anyone got through the previous diatribe, which I doubt . . . When I was explaining about the structure of the nervous system, sympathetic/parasympathetic, fight/flight, etc., a student asked me if the way that a deer turns his side to a deer he's about to fight to show how big he is - is this behavior part of that same spectrum as pyloerection, pupilary dilation, inc. heart rate, and the rest of the fight or flight responses? Does anyone even know what I'm talking about? I'm not totally sure that I'm asking this the right way because I know so little about deer. But when I thought about the question right there in class, it seemed to me that I'd seen cats and dogs do the same kind of thing. If I thought about that behavior at all I guess I either wondered why my cat would risk the possibility that he might lose line of sight for even an instant, or perhaps I assumed that moving a little bit continually was probably going to help his acceleration when he did decide to spring and beat up the other cat. Naturally I would stop the fight if I could, but you know how that goes . . . Anyway, I told the student that I wasn't sure, but that he was probably correct in linking that behavior to the general fight or flight process. Was I on the right track? Oh my Gosh. Has anyone read this far???? I do the same thing with voice mail . . .I promise I will never call any of you . . . Thanks, Cindy M. Cynthia Bainbridge Mullis, Ph.D. Asstistant Professor of Psychology University of Wisconsin - Whitewater 800 West Main Street Whitewater, WI 53190 (262) 472-3037 Office (262) 472-1863 Office Hours - Fall 2002 Mon 10:00-12:00 Tues/Thurs 12:30-2:00 Or by appointment --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
