conforming as a nonconformist?

[feral chile]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/famous-milgram-electric-shocks-experiment-drew-wrong-conclusions-about-evil-say-psychologists-9712600.html

The famous Milgram experiment revisited once again.

This time, the argument is that there are no evil people, just people prepared to do evil for the greater good.

I can relate to this argument, it's easy to see how scapegoating works, and this also fits in with that, and cognitive dissonance theories - which is, that if you think you're a good person, and you do something nasty to someone, you tend to rationalise it by saying they deserved it.

I would temper this, though - I don't think of humans in terms of good and evil, rather as social animals with differing degrees of aggression, and in a socially conditioned environment, that aggression will be channelled to where it can be safely released - both socially and in keeping with your individual psyche.

my aggression trigger is bullies. I hate them with a pathological passion, and I seriously have to restrain myself because my inhibitions disappear when confronted by one. I have to reason with myself, that it's the behaviour I hate, which would include my own bullying behaviour, and I don't want to become the bully.

I think that's what we do - we give ourselves permission to behave badly when we feel justified. By turning the person into an object - a bully, thief, paedophile, whatever.

That's why I don't like labels/nouns to describe people, instead of adverbs to describe actions.

And that's why I'm a behaviourist.

Edited September 5, 2014 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I found this interesting. It's about peer pressure, something that I find very uncomfortable, and very obvious, and can never understand why people seem oblivious to it.

Turns out that conforming/non conforming activates different areas of your brain, and alters your perception of reality.

Conformists have heightened activity in the spatial perception areas of the brain, a part of my brain that's pretty much inactive, I have no sense of direction and great difficulty scanning quickly and absorbing visual information that isn't verbal. I don't see in 3d because of a lazy eye.

Non conformists have heightened activity in the part of the brain relating to emotional salience, so that would explain why I can recognise peer pressure and find it disturbing.

So, it appears that having a manky eye has helped me to be an independent thinker!

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-right/201404/the-astonishing-power-social-pressure?tr=MostViewed

While I don't doubt that different attitudes causes different perceptions of reality, I can guarantee that that psychological research is limited in scope and wrong. And rather amusingly, the most conformist bit of thinking in existence.

[eFestivals]

You still have to conform to a group though, it's difficult not to.

only if non-conformism is a myth. Anything else is literally illogical.

[feral chile]

While I don't doubt that different attitudes causes different perceptions of reality, I can guarantee that that psychological research is limited in scope and wrong. And rather amusingly, the most conformist bit of thinking in existence.

I'd agree with this, apart from actual physiological research, anything else will necessarily be tainted by methodological restrictions and culture bias. Controlled experiments, necessary for scientific objectivity, tend to lose that objectivity by their very nature, in that they take place in lab conditions, and we don't live in a lab. Which is why the Milgram experiment is constantly being challenged. Fascinating though it is (for people like me who like this sort of stuff) all you can really say is that groups of people will tend to administer electric shocks if instructed by a man in a white coat. Every other conclusion is an interpretation of the data, and this will always be where psychology can never compare with the hard sciences, because they don't have to worry why copper expands when heated, and what it's learnt, or thinks, or is intending. It just does.

It's why I tend to stay on the more behaviourist/biological side of things.

Edited September 5, 2014 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

It's why I tend to stay on the conformist-thinking side of things.

corrected for you.

[feral chile]

corrected for you.

Deterministic, yes.

I'm conflicted here, you see. I have a scientific, materialistic frame of mind, therefore I want things to follow some kind of natural law.

We are physical animals, therefore we must follow physical law. Our brains must operate in a deterministic manner, they act as information processors including decision making and motor function.

At the same time, we're all unique, no one living organism has exactly the same data input, and I can't rid myself of the human belief that there's an 'I' who is making decisions and acting on them.

But for someone who always speaks in favour of science, I'm surprised you're not on the side of determinism, and conformity, if you interpret behaviourism as conformity (which is the philosophical concept of behaviourism, by the way, rather than the psychological one).

Psychological definition of operant conditioning looks at antecedent - behaviour - consequence, and looks at the schedules of reinforcement involved, all with functional definitions, in the exact same way as science does.

it's specifically designed to avoid assumptions and spurious interpretations. Which is why it's condemned as reductionist as it ignores subjective experience and higher level thinking:

http://jadesmg.hubpages.com/hub/Brief-evaluation-of-the-Behaviourist-approach-in-Psychology

[eFestivals]

But for someone who always speaks in favour of science, I'm surprised you're not on the side of determinism, and conformity, if you interpret behaviourism as conformity

I see people banging their heads against a brick wall when claiming they're milking the cow.

I think the only cow they're milking is one of the cash kind.

[feral chile]

I see people banging their heads against a brick wall when claiming they're milking the cow.

I think the only cow they're milking is one of the cash kind.

is this because you don't think human behaviour can be studied scientifically?

(in principle I mean - I already know what you think of psychologists)

Edited September 5, 2014 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

is this because you don't think human behaviour can be studied scientifically?

(in principle I mean - I already know what you think of psychologists)

I don't think it's beyond a scientific approach, I just believe that it doesn't currently get one.

It has a basis in blind faith and is mostly a crock of shit - tho you already know that's what I think.

[eFestivals]

A great example of where 'science' rejects (real) science is currently quite topical, tho in a slightly different discipline - and that's the sudden huge reduction in crime rates all around the world.

Sociologists have spent the last 40-ish years telling the world the reasons why the crime rates have gone up, and what actions are needed to make them go down again.

Without those remedial actions being applied in any meaningful way (and certainly not worldwide) the crime rates have dropped hugely.

And sociologists barely nod, and carry on unchanged. Some even try to claim the credit.

[feral chile]

Operant conditioning DOES work, though, it works so well that we don't notice it and treat it as a choice. The sticker system used in schools is operant reinforcement in action, as is any reward or punishment system, such as piecerate in particular, or wages in general, though money s a secondary reinforcer, because it's what money buys that is the primary reinforcer.

The difficulty with behaviourism was that, because psychology was trying so hard to be scientific, it ignored non observable events. You know, like thinking (which Skinner tried to show was rule-governed behaviour in the form of language.) or emotion, or the biology that affects what we do - emotions, hormones, genetics etc.

if you accept thinking as behaviour, it makes all those reward-based motivational techniques meaningful as schedules of reinforcement. Take the following article as an a=]example of changing the schedules of reinforcement - long-term goals are weak reinforcers, especially if the physiological causal link is too vague. This article is ALL about changing the reinforcer.

The interesting thing for me, is that consciousness of the way reinforcers shape behaviour allows us to play around with them.

But how can we do that if everything is a product of reinforcement? Only by accepting that understanding the rules of conditioned behaviour also provides the tools for changing it. So comprehension to me is the locus of free will.

ain't consciousness grand?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/workout-motivation-science_n_5752594.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[eFestivals]

what do you think of scientologists Neil?

Fruitcakes.

Not that different from psycologists in a lot of cases.

[feral chile]

Neil, do you think psychologists in particular are talking through their arse, or academics in general?

And if it's specifically psychologists, have you any suggestions as to where they're going wrong, and how they could improve their success rates?

It's an evidence based discipline, but designing adequate tests is really difficult, given the complex nature of the human mind and society.

You've either got narrow experiments that seem divorced from real life, or assertions from therapists, such as the following:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-is-he-thinking/201409/why-we-cry-the-movies

If you read through that one, it suggests that we react emotionally when it's safe to do so, after the crisis has passed. That feels true to me, and especially in relation to dreams. The scientific view on dreams is that they are meaningless fragments of data, though I personally feel that if you assign significance to them when you wake, then they are significant - not in a mumbo jumbo way, such as a particular symbol means the same thing to everyone, but as a safe way of expressing repressed emotion. After all, dreams are like watching a movie.

Is there a particular approach that you mistrust more than others, or a reason why you think all of it is horseshit?

[kaosmark2]

It's an evidence based discipline, but designing adequate tests is really difficult, given the complex nature of the human mind and society.

This is my issue with psychology, although I have far less criticism of it than Neil. I think you can find some overall trends that are useful and interesting, but there is no possible way to eliminate other variables. You can't show that any correlation is actually meaningful.

[feral chile]

This is my issue with psychology, although I have far less criticism of it than Neil. I think you can find some overall trends that are useful and interesting, but there is no possible way to eliminate other variables. You can't show that any correlation is actually meaningful.

Yes, it's my issue with it too. I'm fascinated with people, and therefore lap up all of it, along with philosophy, sociology, and literature, which also offer to me insights into the human condition, but when you look at the experiments that get conducted, and the extrapolations that are made afterwards...

You can only accept some of them if they ring true for you, and that's not particularly objective. But very human.

[kaosmark2]

Yes, it's my issue with it too. I'm fascinated with people, and therefore lap up all of it, along with philosophy, sociology, and literature, which also offer to me insights into the human condition, but when you look at the experiments that get conducted, and the extrapolations that are made afterwards...

You can only accept some of them if they ring true for you, and that's not particularly objective. But very human.

It's definitely interesting, and I certainly wouldn't say it's meaningless waffle, the problems come when people try to turn the data gathered into some sort of definitive conclusion. You look at virtually every conclusion and can see some level of confirmation bias at best and fairly often an agenda.

[wee_insomniac]

I think that the recent ice bucket challenge craze was an interesting observation on conformity. Personally, I couldn't wait for someone to nominate me, so it meant that I could join in with the masses, but I thought it was interesting to see the reaction of Alex Salmond, Alistair Darling and David Cameron.

Once Alistair Darling completed the challenge, there was no way that Alex Salmond could not do it in order to not seem inferior to the public, but when he nominated David Cameron, he decided to conform with Obama's approach (who has previously been up for a bit of fun) and say he wouldn't do it... So, in this case I would say that DC was conforming as a non-conformist and not succumbing to peer pressure.

Out of the 3 UK politicians, who came off best in this instance?

[feral chile]

I think that the recent ice bucket challenge craze was an interesting observation on conformity. Personally, I couldn't wait for someone to nominate me, so it meant that I could join in with the masses, but I thought it was interesting to see the reaction of Alex Salmond, Alistair Darling and David Cameron.

Once Alistair Darling completed the challenge, there was no way that Alex Salmond could not do it in order to not seem inferior to the public, but when he nominated David Cameron, he decided to conform with Obama's approach (who has previously been up for a bit of fun) and say he wouldn't do it... So, in this case I would say that DC was conforming as a non-conformist and not succumbing to peer pressure.

Out of the 3 UK politicians, who came off best in this instance?

Well, I wouldn't have done it, it felt like a chain letter. And I had someone who didn't want to do it, and felt obliged, and didn't want to dump it on someone else, so I said they could nominate me, and that particular 'chain' would stop there.

But I'm a grumpy cantankerous old sod anyway, I hate crowd participation, especially at gigs with an American performer 'arms up make this sign jump when I say so - good little trained chimps now you're one of my pets'.

Just donate if you want to, you shouldn't need to prove it to all your 'friends'.

[eFestivals]

Neil, do you think psychologists in particular are talking through their arse, or academics in general?

All academics are perfectly able to talk out of their arse, because academia is firstly about power and control.

But psychologists are particularly good at it.

And if it's specifically psychologists, have you any suggestions as to where they're going wrong

With their starting premises. Blind faith.

, and how they could improve their success rates?

not particularly, tho a little bit more self-doubt would go a huge way.

[feral chile]

All academics are perfectly able to talk out of their arse, because academia is firstly about power and control.

But psychologists are particularly good at it.

With their starting premises. Blind faith.

not particularly, tho a little bit more self-doubt would go a huge way.

There was quite a bit of self doubt on the course I did, we were trained to think that there was no objective truth, but perspectives (the course title was perspectives in psychology)

it was made very clear that psychology was trying to be a science, we knew it was mocked by hard science, and more vulnerable to interpretation. And all we could ever prove was statistical significance.

The old blind men and the elephant analogy was used quite often:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

I didn't see any arrogance, but maybe I was lucky that the head of our department was very open minded and relatively young for his position.

Psychology is still a relatively new discipline.

I'm cynical about any kind of funded research, however. You have to bid for the funding, and the funding source isn't neutral.

Edited September 7, 2014 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

There was quite a bit of self doubt on the course I did, we were trained to think that there was no objective truth, but perspectives (the course title was perspectives in psychology)

PMSL

Lots of self-doubt expressed just there, eh?

We know that there ARE objective truths, because the science that you say psychology is recognises them.

Instead, psychology has invented itself a god structure with unchallengeable blind faiths.

[feral chile]

PMSL

Lots of self-doubt expressed just there, eh?

We know that there ARE objective truths, because the science that you say psychology is recognises them.

Instead, psychology has invented itself a god structure with unchallengeable blind faiths.

Sorry, should have been more precise, in psychology, or human perception itself,

science was never ever dissed, psychology wanted to be accepted as scientific, all its aspirations led that way.

We were taught to question everything, though. Including the human tendency to accept without thinking, which is the whole thing about conformity, peer pressure, conditioning etc.

You can't resist the tendency for self fulfilling prophesy unless you're aware it exists.

I don't think psychologists thought they were somehow immune from subjective bias, they tried hard to avoid it, someone would notice where an experiment had failed, they'd try again...

Psychiatrists seem to be the ones who are more certain, and are actually responsible for diagnosis/labelling, I'm far more concerned about the power they yield.

How would you analyse a football match? Physiologically, game theory, social dynamics, rules analysis, statistics? - what is the objective truth of a football match, or any other area of human behaviour?

Edited September 7, 2014 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Anyway neil, you're splitting hairs now. First you criticise psychologists for being too certain, then when I counter it by saying they say nothing is certain, you criticise them for that.

Reminds me of the old philosophical pisstake of the logical positivists' verification principle - tha\t the principle itself didn't meet their criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism

I think, also, the media twists psychological research, and leaps to conclusions that the researchers themselves have cautiously avoided in most cases.

I don't think your blind faith in science is fair to science, either. Science strives to be objective, and you can only be objective if you accept that in principle you might be wrong. All the sciences do this, including the social sciences, and I think there's an acknowledgement that there's more scope for error in the soft sciences, by their very nature.

see below for a discussion on the relationship between physics and truth:

http://theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000116.html

Edited September 7, 2014 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Sorry, should have been more precise, in psychology, or human perception itself,

science was never ever dissed, psychology wanted to be accepted as scientific, all its aspirations led that way.

That's just not true.

It's the equivalent of looking at why the distance between an apple and the ground decreases when an apple is released in the air, whilst saying that theories which suggest the apple moves nearer to the ground (as opposed to the ground moving nearer the apple) are not allowed to be considered.

I don't doubt that one day there will be a valid psychology, in exactly the same way as there's now a valid physics, and chemistry, and biology, etc, etc, etc.

But right now, it's the equivalent of alchemy and not chemistry. And that won't change until some of the dogma is thrown off to allow free investigation.

Edited September 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

That's just not true.

It's the equivalent of looking at why the distance between an apple and the ground decreases when an apple is released in the air, whilst saying that theories which suggest the apple moves nearer to the ground (as opposed to the ground moving nearer the apple) are not allowed to be considered.

I don't doubt that one day there will be a valid psychology, in exactly the same way as there's now a valid physics, and chemistry, and biology, etc, etc, etc.

But right now, it's the equivalent of alchemy and not chemistry. And that won't change until some of the dogma is thrown off to allow free investigation.

What's not true? If anything it used to be too dogmatic in favour of science. My son has more up to date academic experience, and from what he says, there's a social emphasis now, so that depression, for instance, is considered in context, rather than as an individual's symptom.

So, say, you've got a single mum living in a tower block on benefits with graffiti on the walls and no working lift, and she's depressed, they'd look at the social background as the cause of the depression, rather than a chemical imbalance.

But back in my day, everything unscientific was treated with scepticism and labelled fringe psychology.

Now that used to drive us mad, because it meant that any subjective experience that was considered flaky was not researched - belief in the paranormal and mysticism, for instance.

I would temper that, though, because attitudes will vary between universities, depending on the research interests there.

Edited September 8, 2014 by feral chile