Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

135715[evol-psych] Re: RFT and IQ

Expand Messages
  • Maarten
    Jun 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      "Those who teach a crucial role for operant conditioning should try to
      explain why the role is crucial."
      Jim, I gather that for you "crucial" is identical to "causal"?And given
      that in your model only classical conditioning, the way you define it
      (which differs from how almost all behaviorists define it), is
      considered causal, for you that question is answered, if I understand
      you right. If I don't, please let me know.
      On the other hand, can you allow for the necessity of operant
      conditioning in the acquisition of a decent use of language?

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...>
      > To further simplify, can we all agree that theories of 'g' or anything
      else have no explanatory power when compared to biological facts? That's
      what I've learned about the biology of adaptive evolution. Those who
      teach a crucial role for operant conditioning should try to explain why
      the role is crucial. People are struggling to understand unconscious
      affects at a time when theorists and practitioners are telling them
      "Here, try this!" Or that. Or whatever else they have theorized into
      their practice.
      > James V. Kohl
      > Medical laboratory scientist
      > --- On Sat, 6/30/12, Maarten m.aalberse@... wrote:
      > Robert's crucial point can maybe be (over)simplified and generalized
      > The difference between "what we have" (eg genes, IQ) and "what we do
      with what we have",
      > and how important the latter is when we're talking about real-life
      > It is the latter that gives us much more room to manoeuver, too, and
      that is the basis of, as DS Wilson for instance likes to highlight,
      "evolution is happening right now".
      > It's also where IMO operant conditioning has such crucial a role to
      > And to come back to the study that started this all: maybe training in
      Relational Framing doesn't change what a person has (eg "g") but what he
      can do with what he has. If he can do more or better with what he has,
      his scores on an IQ test can be expected to improve. Which does not mean
      that his (presumed) "g" improves...
      > Maarten
    • Show all 204 messages in this topic