126 messages over 16 pages: << Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 ... 15 16 Next >>
slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6674 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 65 of 126 29 November 2008 at 4:30am | IP Logged |
Cainntear wrote:
Quote:
On the other hand, everybody know that Scottish speak English very bad. :O) |
|
|
Hahahahahaha.
You are very clever.
|
|
|
Thank you. My mother agrees and my wife thinks I am very handsome as well :O)
1 person has voted this message useful
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6674 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 66 of 126 29 November 2008 at 5:09am | IP Logged |
Cainntear wrote:
slucido wrote:
Reinforcement occurs when an event following a response causes an increase in the probability of that response occurring in the future. Reinforcement is measured by the results, but NOT our intention.
For example, some people here attack my English and some of them are asking me to shut up. Apparently they try to use punishment to decrease my behavior. |
|
|
No, we would like you to think, but if you're a behaviourist, I understand why you can't: behaviourists don't believe in the importance of thoughts, only the importants of acts.
|
|
|
Please, it's not "importants" is "importance". :O)
If you want to work with real and scientific evidence, you need measurements. If not, you are talking about angels' sex.
Thoughts can be understood like behaviors and you can work indirectly with them.
Some behaviorists think they are not psychologists and they think these are different sciences. Maybe closely related, but different.
Cainntear wrote:
While a rational human being will entertain thoughts for their own sake, a behaviourist will only engage in thoughts that help change action.
|
|
|
Thoughts can be understood like behaviors chains and they follow the very same learning laws.
Cainntear wrote:
Consider:
The purpose of thought is to change behaviour.
So only thoughts that provide a desired change of behaviour should be entertained.
Thoughts that you disagree with can only provide an undesired change of behaviour (in terms of opinion).
Therefore you should never entertain the thoughts of someone who disagrees with you as they can only harm.
|
|
|
As I said before, aversive stimulus can be a positive reinforcer.
Some people get high with arguments. Strong arguments with other people are a powerful reinforcer for them. They like to fight, like boxers, martial artists, mercenaries and so on.
Sometimes we look for honest opinions and disagreement is welcome, because it's a good feedback.
Sometimes we look for other opinions, because we want to reinforce our own opinions.
It depends on circumstances.
Cainntear wrote:
Ergo:
The behaviourist is the most closed-minded person on the planet.
|
|
|
Your premises are all wrong.
Ergo: your conclusion is wrong.
It's a good thing to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain falls on the floor... :O)
Cainntear wrote:
Except that this is all nonsense -- behaviourism is an experimental framework, not a life philosophy. |
|
|
Your incredible logic is...evidence based medicine is an experimental framework, not a life philosophy...so evidence based medicine should be avoided and we should go with witch doctors...and their open minded life philosophy...:-)))
Cainntear wrote:
Behaviourism says that we have to judge psychology by experimentally observed actions, not by theory and conjecture.
And in fact that is what all learning methods do: that's what an exam is. |
|
|
Very interesting.
Cainntear wrote:
The quality of the language is the "behaviour" under observation. Sometimes this quality is measured against subjective terms, but sometimes it's measured against real data for how people speak.
It is far more behaviourist to take the latter approach -- normal speech patterns can be statistically derived using corpus studies, and behaviourists love cold hard figures. |
|
|
Very interesting, but it's very important to measure subjetive data as well. You need data about subjetive client feelings. This very important if you want to earn money.
Cainntear wrote:
Your English has not been "attacked" -- I have simply demonstrated how it deviates from the statistical norm in some of the language features statistically determined as most common.
If you're a behaviourist, you should be thanking me for it! |
|
|
Thank you. I like to be a statistical deviation of the norm. I like to be special. It's very reinforcing for me...:O)))
Cainntear wrote:
Quote:
You can use a teacher, but I think it's better to think they are tools you use towards your goal. As you said before, it's your own responsibility to learn the language.
Furthermore, if you want to use this kind of behaviorist management, you will need a teacher with applied behaviorist training. It's true as well that good teachers use unconsciously methods similar to this.
I don't like English teachers, because I rather spending money in my children. |
|
|
Yes, well, in that case you should thank us for pointing out your mistakes, because we're teaching you for free.
|
|
|
Thank you, but your intention isn't helping me. You act like you do, because it's very reinforcing FOR YOU and it's not in a altruistic sense, but in a egotistical one :-)
Edited by slucido on 29 November 2008 at 5:23am
1 person has voted this message useful
| Leopejo Bilingual Triglot Senior Member Italy Joined 6108 days ago 675 posts - 724 votes Speaks: Italian*, Finnish*, English Studies: French, Russian
| Message 67 of 126 29 November 2008 at 5:24am | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
Thank you. My mother agrees and my wife thinks I am very handsome as well :O) |
|
|
Who guesses what "language" is the following quote? ;-)
Ogni scarrafone è bello 'a mamma soja
1 person has voted this message useful
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6674 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 68 of 126 29 November 2008 at 6:04am | IP Logged |
Leopejo wrote:
slucido wrote:
Thank you. My mother agrees and my wife thinks I am very handsome as well :O) |
|
|
Who guesses what "language" is the following quote? ;-)
Ogni scarrafone è bello 'a mamma soja |
|
|
Il detto é napoletano
Tradotto "Ogni scarafaggio è bello per sua madre"
1 person has voted this message useful
| Leopejo Bilingual Triglot Senior Member Italy Joined 6108 days ago 675 posts - 724 votes Speaks: Italian*, Finnish*, English Studies: French, Russian
| Message 70 of 126 29 November 2008 at 7:08am | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
Leopejo wrote:
slucido wrote:
Thank you. My mother agrees and my wife thinks I am very handsome as well :O) |
|
|
Who guesses what "language" is the following quote? ;-)
Ogni scarrafone è bello 'a mamma soja |
|
|
Il detto é napoletano
Tradotto "Ogni scarafaggio è bello per sua madre"
|
|
|
Bravo! I'd translate "ogni scarafaggio sembra bello a sua madre", but yours is good too.
1 person has voted this message useful
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 6010 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh
| Message 71 of 126 29 November 2008 at 7:42am | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
Please, it's not "importants" is "importance". :O) |
|
|
This is a "slip", and does not demonstrate any underlying flaw in my understanding of the language. As you can see, it is not a consistent error - I spelt it right the first time.
Quote:
If you want to work with real and scientific evidence, you need measurements. If not, you are talking about angels' sex. |
|
|
Where's your scientific evidence?
Or are you talking about angel pr0n too?
slucido wrote:
Cainntear wrote:
Except that this is all nonsense -- behaviourism is an experimental framework, not a life philosophy. |
|
|
Your incredible logic is...evidence based medicine is an experimental framework, not a life philosophy...so evidence based medicine should be avoided and we should go with witch doctors...and their open minded life philosophy...:-))) |
|
|
De todo no.
My point is that you are trying to make a life philosophy and a grand unifying theory out of what's nothing more than an experimental framework.
slucido wrote:
Very interesting, but it's very important to measure subjetive data as well. You need data about subjetive client feelings. This very important if you want to earn money. |
|
|
The you are not a behaviourist.
The whole point of behaviourism is that it rejects subjective evidence as scientifically unreliable. Thoughts are unobservable, hence unmeasurable, so irrelevant to the experimenter.
Behaviourism rejects the idea of hypothesising unmeasurable processes as unscientific.
The notion of internal thought processes as analogous to behaviours is a hypothetical construct, and has no place in behaviourism.
slucido wrote:
Thank you. I like to be a statistical deviation of the norm. I like to be special. It's very reinforcing for me...:O))) |
|
|
This is starting to become like a religious debate. The term "reinforcing" has become a catch-all for "good". Being different "reinforces"... but what does it reinforce.
It cannot reinforce the correct behaviour, because your behaviour is statistically verifiably incorrect!!
slucido wrote:
Thank you, but your intention isn't helping me. You act like you do, because it's very reinforcing FOR YOU and it's not in a altruistic sense, but in a egotistical one :-) |
|
|
Behaviourism says that my intention is irrelevant, only the outcomes in the form of my exhibited behaviours. Particularly given that my intention is unmeasurable by you or anyone else.
As an aside, why would it do my ego any good for me to speak better English than a non-native? There's nothing new there.
So in summary, no-one can argue with you because:
* You claim to ascribe to behaviourism, but you've really just picked the bits you like and extended them absurdly.
* Consequently, any argument against you isn't valid as it only exists outside of your chosen framework.
* In your framework there is no "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong"; there is only "reinforcing" and "non-reinforcing" and these mean whatever you want.
* If anyone disagrees with you, it is because they do not understand you, and this isn't because you refuse to use meaningful terminology, oh no no, dearie me no.
* Your personally-invented framework has never been experimentally measured, which means that no-one can have statistical evidence against it, and you reject all criticism that has no statistical evidence, even though your standpoint is similarly without statistical evidence.
1 person has voted this message useful
| slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6674 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 72 of 126 29 November 2008 at 8:06am | IP Logged |
namida wrote:
slucido wrote:
Your premises are all wrong.
Ergo: your conclusion is wrong. |
|
|
Some logic! You seem to have never studied elementary mathematics:
Check>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication
Look for:
The truth table associated with this operation is as follows: |
|
|
Enchanté, Semierotteku.
Si les prémisses sont fausses, les conclusions sont fausses. Tu n'as pas besoin de cours de mathématiques ou de logique.
À propos, ta méthode de lire et d'écouter est très intéressante.
Zdaje mi się że on wola mieć który czynić jeden tłumaczenie przy ten eapańol.
:O)))
Edited by slucido on 29 November 2008 at 8:19am
1 person has voted this message useful
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.6406 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|