I think that we’re going around in circles here. When we argue about exactly where in Lower Manhattan the Bowery was relative to the Village… I’ll defer to your superior experience there — I grew up in the Bronx in the ’40’s. Just note that Skinner lived there around 1930, not in the 60’s.
Skinner’s point about the concepts of freedom and dignity was not that he felt that they were undesirable. He simply concluded on the basis of his philosophy of science and what he and his colleagues were finding out about behavior that talking about freedom and dignity were not productive courses of action for bettering human lives. Saying that the world would be a nicer place if it were different doesn’t change it, particularly where laws of nature are involved. The only support that Halliday provides for his statements is that he and a lot of other people disagree with Skinner. So what else is new? On Skinner’s philosophy of science and its relationship to Peirce’s pragmatism, Roy Moxley has a good article at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731605/ And using terms like ‘slap in the face’ seems to be bring the discussion down to an ad hominem level: anything that I disagree with must be meant as a personal insult. On Jan 11, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 08:23:25 -0800,Paul Brandon wrote: >>> On Jan 10, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (1) I didn't include the article because it was a rigorous refutation >>> of Skinner's position -- that would be comparable to trying to >>> settle the debate "Why My God Is Greater Than Your God" -- >>> but because it provides a fairly common interpretation of Skinner's >>> BFD and popular understanding of his philosophical positions, at >>> least with respect to the "image of man" and it's implications for >>> social policy. You know, the opinions that your students are likely >>> to hold. >> >> I would disagree on the rigor. >> Detail does not equal rigor; many of his arguments are of the form >> 'you don't agree with my basic assumptions so you're wrong'. > > This is one of those situations where providing supporting quotes > would be most useful in understanding/evaluating the point that Paul > is asserting. > > Consider the following quote from the website we are discussing: > http://nazihomelessholocaust.blogspot.com/2012/06/beyond-freedom-and-dignity-bf-skinner.html > > |The title of this provocative book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, is a > |slap in the face to libertarians, and each page of it stuns the reader > |with more unsettling ideas. > | > |Skinner writes about "the literature of freedom," which includes John > |Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and other writings opposed to tyranny > |and despotism. This literature, says Skinner, was useful in its day but > |is now obsolete. We know now that regimentation is a bad way to run > |a society. Diversity is important, and any society without it is poorly > |designed. The literature of freedom was helpful in getting people to > |realize this fact, but, says Skinner, this literature fosters other ideas > |that act as barriers to further advances in the technology of controlling > |human behavior. These barriers are individual autonomy, free will, > |volition, and consciousness itself. All of these concepts are supposed > |to have been fostered and made popular by the literature of freedom, > |and all of them, according to B. F. Skinner, are myths. > > Now, this does not sound like the author, Roy Halliday, is saying > "you don't agree with me, so nyah-nyah-nyah!", rather, he is making > the point that Skinner is claiming a position that is at variance with > an established philosophical/theoretical/social perspective, the > so-called "literature of freedom".. > > Consider the following quote from Skinner and examine his > statement's relationship to what is quoted above and further in > Halliday's article: > > |A proper recognition of the selective > |action of the environment means a > |change in our conception of the origin of > |behavior which is possibly as extensive > |as that of the origin of species. So long as > |we cling to the view that a person is an > |initiating doer, actor, or causer of behavior, > |we shall probably continue to neglect > |the conditions which must be > |changed if we are to solve our problems > |(5). > > The quote is the final paragraph in the Science article that Paul > references below and the endnote (5) refers to Skinner's BFD. > But don't take my word for it, see for yourself: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7244649 > or (PDF available) > http://www.direncsakarya.com/?s=selection+by+consequences > >>> (2) Though Skinner wrote BFD for a popular audience, the common >>> interpretation of it seems to indicate that he failed to adequately make >>> his points clear and convincing. If he tried to make his points clearer >>> in subsequent writings, he hasn't done such a good job either. >>> I think that this shows that asking "What would Skinner Say/Do" >>> requires one to be very specific about what time and which Skinner >>> one is referring to instead of implying that is a single, definitive >>> interpretation of Skinner. If there is, I'd appreciate a cite. >> >> One possibility is the collection of papers in >> Cumulative Record: A Selection of Papers: Definitive Edition (1999) > > It's times like this that makes me want to find out where the hell my copy > of this book is. A quick search (i.e., 10-15 minutes) does not turn it up > but I do know I have a copy (indeed, I think bought a second copy after > having a hard time finding my first copy which eventually turned up). > >> For a single statement: >> . Selection by consequences. Science, 1981, 213, 501-504. > > Well, I guess the only question that remains is whether Michael Britt > had this article in mind when he wrote the first post "What Would > Skinner Do?" I'd bet that he did not. > >> There's a reasonable complete bibliography at >> http://www.bfskinner.org/publications/full-bibliography/ >> Most of my comments have been my own synthesis based on my readings and >> listenings over the past 50+ years of most of his major works. > > When I was young and foolish, I was read a lot of Skinner's writing. > True Story: I read "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" the summer before > I started college and it convinced me to become a psychology major. > It was presented in reduced form in two issues of "Psychology Today". > But like other bad habits in my youth, I outgrew this infatuation. ;-) > >>> Homelessness has been a problem for societies throughout history >>> whenever people have been marginalized and relegated to a state >>> of poverty that prevents them from moving out of their situation. >>> In the U.S., hobos, vagrants, and a fair number of mentally ill represented >>> the homeless. The onset of the Great Depression made people >>> homeless on a massive scale. After WW2, with the development of >>> a new middle class, homelessness was seen less as a social condition >>> and more due to individual failures, such as alcoholics on "Skid Row" >>> (a real place in Los Angeles; see: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row,_Los_Angeles ) and the >> >> The difference may be in what the economists would call 'structural >> homelessness'. > > I'm not sure that you want to go there. Consider the following article > which points out some of the problems in defining "structural > unemployment" (in contrast to "cyclical unemployment") which > is likely to be a driver of "structural homelessness". > http://www.palgrave-journals.com/imfer/journal/v61/n3/full/imfer201313a.html > The "Daily Show" bit showed that homelessness can be easily > solved:by providing affordable housing. I think economic factors are > less relevant than psychological factors, such as the Fundamental > Attribution Error explanation of homelessness as displayed > by the Daily Show's correspondent. > >> In some ways people were more optimistic in the Depression; >> they believed that things would get better and that they would >> spend most of their lives employed. >> My parents were in their teens in the Depression; that was >> certainly their attitude. > > Okay, I'll be nice and won't say that "anecdotes about one's family's > attitudes constitute data" ;-) but I think that it would be hard to determine > whether there is support for the assertion that "people were more > optimistic in the Depression". I do not think there are surveys relevant > to this but there are studies of how "relief" programs helped to > ameliorate the poverty and homelessness associated with the > Great Depression, as represented in the program developed and > implemented in NY State and reported here: > https://books.google.com/books?id=9VIo8eK-GeUC&pg=PA23&dq=optimism+attitude+%22great+depression%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vb6yVIjnGciOsQTJtoCQDQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=optimism%20&f=false > > It has to be noted that during the Great Depression being poor and > homeless was probably less stigmatized than it is today simply > because so many people were poor. Today, when a person's > worth and value is often evaluated in terms of how much money > they make or their net worth, the poor are to be despised and > to be avoided like lepers lest their "taint" infect the "good" people. > >> Now we're locked into steadily increasing proportions of structural >> unemployment, and minimum wages that have not increased in the >> last eight years (actually, they're down slightly in real dollar terms). >> So we've reached the point where we have people who are both employed >> and homeless. > > There has always been a working poor underclass in the U.S., with > the distinction becoming clearer after the second World War when the > U.S. developed a strong middle class. However, since Reagan, there > has been an assault on the middle class that reduced their ranks > (the Clinton years may have something of an exception but the > W Bush years did away with any of that -- remember the recession > associated with the bursting of the "Dot com" internet stock bubble > in 2000 which destroyed a lot of wealth and retirement accounts, > the 2008 just repeated this but now, we have the top 10% winning > the race to riches while the rest tries to hold onto what they have > or are new members of the lower classes/castes). > >>> Did Skinner know about Skid Row or the Bowery or the homeless? >>> I certainly don't know but I'd bet that he didn't nor do I think he was >>> aware of the homeless in Boston when he was alive (I don't remember >>> Skinner as being all much into charity work, especially for the poor). >> >> After he did his undergraduate work as an English major, Skinner spend two >> years in Greenwich Village trying to be a writer. It's hard to believe that >> he >> never made it below Canal Street. > > Wrong direction. Canal St is SOUTH of Greenwich Village (by a > good deal) while the Bowery is to the EAST of Greenwich Village. > Broadway below 14th St in Manhattan serves to demarcate > Greenwich Village (West of Broadway) from the East Village/Lower > East Side (East of Broadway). The Lower East Side has historically > been associated with housing the newest immigrants to the > U.S., hence, the poorest people -- see Jacob Riis' "How the > Other Half Lives" available for free on books.google.com; see: > https://books.google.com/books?id=3cFIAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22how+the+other+half+lives%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fMSyVKG0AbePsQSei4GIDA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22how%20the%20other%20half%20lives%22&f=false > > True Story: I grew up in the East Village and was still living there > when I started college. The new NYU Bobst Library was about > five blocks west of where I lived and I wondered whether I could > get library access as (a) a CUNY student and (b) living in the > neighborhood. I was informed that it didn't matter that I was > a CUNY student, they weren't allowed in, and I lived too far > east, past Broadway, and was not considered a "member of > the neighborhood". Today, NYU has several buildings in the > East Village and it is no longer considered not part of its > neighborhood. > > It is possible that Skinner may have gone East past Broadway > on occasion: sections of the Bowery were well known for their > prostitution, both straight and gay (in Martin Scorcese's "Mean > Streets", the prostitutes hang out on 13th St and 3rd Avenue, > which is what the Bowery becomes north of 8th St/St Marks > Place; a classmate of mine lived down the block from there > and we both thought it was cool that the nabe was in a movie ;-). > Second Avenue also has a history of supporting the Yiddish > Theatre, with several theaters providing venues for performances > during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If Skinner was > a fan of Yiddish theatre, it is possible that he may have taken > in a show. But maybe not. In the 1960s, most of the Yiddish > theaters had closed or were converted in to movie houses > or for other purposes (e.g., burlesque/strip joints). The Loews > Commodore on 6th St and Second Ave was a movie theatre > from the beginning but in the 1960 the Loews people gave it > up and it subsequently became a strip joint, indie movie house, > and then the Fillmore East, the music venue that some might > remember. Along with the influx of hippies (i.e., middle class > kids from the suburbs who found it a drag to be at home > and wanted to drop out, at least for a little while) who found > cheap rents, and an environment that provided a lot of > "freedom". And then gentrification came, the poor had to > move elsewhere (except for the very old who had nowhere to > go, could not afford to leave their rent-controlled apartments > where they would ultimately die), and the Yuppies and their offspring > would take over the nabe. Now, we have a cast member from > the TV show Friends coming in and doing their own form of > urban renewal; see: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/david-schwimmer-east-village-demolition_n_1257496.html > But he's been a good neighbor, especially with his security cameras: > http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/man-arrested-slashing-david-schwimmer-block-held-20-000-bail-article-1.1806904 > In the first article, the yellow building is the original building, in the > second article is it replaced with a brown brick facade -- NOTE: > no metal fire escape steps in the front. > > What a long strange trip it's been. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=41504 > or send a blank email to > leave-41504-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu Paul Brandon 10 Crown Hill Lane Mankato, MN 56001 [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=41508 or send a blank email to leave-41508-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
