You are not logged in.
Scientocracy sounds too much like Scientology! The Soviet Union was originally supposed to be a Scientocracy, the problem is, they supposed scientists that would be running the place would not be objective in their conclusions about what works, because the power we would give them would corrupt them, and they would always bias towards conclusions that keep themselves in power. Beware of too much innovation in government, the innovators often want power for themselves, and their ideas are little more than snake oil to fool a gullible public into putting them in power.
Offline
Scientocracy sounds too much like Scientology! The Soviet Union was originally supposed to be a Scientocracy, the problem is, they supposed scientists that would be running the place would not be objective in their conclusions about what works, because the power we would give them would corrupt them, and they would always bias towards conclusions that keep themselves in power.
Scientology is a religion and a scam. Yes, Soviet "scientists" perverted their science to acquire money and power. Fortunately, their silly lies have self-destructed.
I regard Comunidad de los Horcones (Community of the Bifurcated Wooden Pillars) as a scientocracy. They tell their children that the behavior of an organism is a function of its physiology, its history of reinforcement and punishment, and its current environment. Then children can go into the "Behaviorology Laboratory" and put a small critter into an Operant Conditioning Chamber (a "Skinner box"). They apply behavior shaping procedures to the critter and see that the procedures work. They learn to apply similar procedures to themselves (behavioral engineering) and they participate in politically coordinated efforts to maintain or modify the culture of their community (cultural engineering). They are not asked to believe the theory and practices of behaviorology. They learn for themselves that the theory is true and that the practices work.
Behaviorology is a science, not a religion. No one is asked to believe in behaviorology on the faith that it is true. They believe in behaviorology because they have proven it to be true in their Behaviorology Laboratory and in their Cultural Laboratory (i.e., their community).
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
I included in my “Charter of the Government of Mars” the idea of a “Mars Secretariat” (per Bruhns and Haqq-Misra). However, I did not specify how the “chief administrative officer” of the Mars Secretariat would be chosen. In that regard, I propose the following:
The first chief administrative officer of the Mars Secretariat (the “Secretary of State of the Government of Mars”) might be elected by the United Nations General Assembly immediately after the General Assembly adopts the Charter of the Government of Mars.
Three to six months prior to the scheduled date of that vote, the General Assembly might invite the Mars Society to nominate three to five persons who are qualified and willing to serve as the Secretary. The General Assembly might elect one of those persons.
After the Parliament of Mars becomes functional (i.e., after the establishment of 10 permanent settlements on Mars), the Secretary would be elected by the Parliament. The Secretary would continue to issue permits to establish new settlements but would be doing so in accordance with laws enacted by the Parliament.
Eventually, the General Assembly would repeal the Charter of the Government of Mars and invite that Government to become a full, voting member of the United Nations.
Mars would, in essence, become a Trust Territory of the United Nations with the expectation that Mars would eventually become a mature, self-governing nation and a member of the U.N.
Please feel free to propose alternative processes.
Last edited by Scott Beach (2017-03-13 08:33:16)
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Secularity. The Government of Mars shall be a secular government. The Government may establish a corporation that owns places where associations of religious Citizens may temporarily display religious scenes and symbols. The members of the corporation’s governing body shall be appointed or elected in accordance with laws enacted by the Government.
Atheists more likely to hide beliefs if they're women, Republicans, southerners or were previously religious
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-atheists- … icans.html
Offline
Dear 2017, thank you for allowing dumb suggestions. "Scientocracy" deserves a vacuum death.
Offline
Behaviourism was discredited a long time ago, and good riddance to it.
No, behaviorism has not been discredited. Behavior-shaping techniques based on behaviorism are working very well. The members of Comunidad Los Horcones use behavior-shaping techniques to help children who have Down's syndrome, autism, and other developmentally disabilities. Please see the living proof at...
A DAY AT COMUNIDAD LOS HORCONES BEHAVIORAL CENTER, produced by Comunidad Los Horcones (a Walden Two community);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnAz_bF0D2I
Founded in 1973, Comunidad Los Horcones is in its 49th year of operation.
Brief Introduction Los Horcones 2008;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVRU1VEGE1M
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Mars_B4_Moon,
I'm an atheist and Republican and make no bones about it to anyone. However, I define myself by what I believe rather than what I don't believe. The labels are only there so others with different beliefs can be dismissive of each other and completely incurious. Ask people what they believe in, not what they don't believe in. Even atheists believe in something, and sometimes it's worse than the traditional religions in actual practice. I don't feel the least bit threatened by people who believe something different. I've visited or lived in places where beliefs were very different from my own, both inside and outside of the military.
I think throwing away all of our history, traditions, and the nuclear family is an absolutely terrible idea, and that is what I wish to conserve as a Republican and conservative. If the Republican Party decides to part ways with the good aspects of our traditions, then I will part ways with it. I will never be a good tribesman, because I detest the end results of tribalism. I do not wish to live in a "never-ending now", with no sense of proportion or history or deference given to results achieved and sacrifices made. I do not wish to live in a society where government exists to "take care of its patrons", because I don't wish to be patronized. I'd much prefer that government be narrowly defined and applied to the minimal degree necessary for society to function smoothly.
I see no virtue in infantilizing grown men and women, nor fixating on "the tribe", to the complete detriment of the individual. Humans are not cattle, and should not require cattle herders to shepherd them through life. Any government that "gives me what I want", is almost certainly taking something away from someone else who doesn't want what I want. To the degree tolerable for maintaining a civilized society, I don't want to impose my will or the will of others on anyone. Since all government is coercive force, it should be judiciously used and the results of past decisions reviewed by a circumspect people. Government is the tool of final resort, much like the military, never the first. All legitimacy embodied within any form of government is derived from the consent of the governed, not the coercion of the governed. There should be no bribes offered to the people for an elected official to attain office, nor should good governance become a popularity contest.
I think our American system is still the best and has the right basic ideas, no matter our past or ongoing mistakes, and there have been many. There is always room for improvement, provided that's what we're actually doing. If I didn't think that, then I'd figure out how to go live somewhere else that did have the right ideas.
You can't become Spanish or German or Japanese, but you can become an American. Another country can obviously grant citizenship, but it's not the same thing. You can't "become" Japanese, you're born Japanese- it's an immutable physical identity. Being an American is a choice. Americans are not defined by where they came from or who their parents were, but rather where they're headed and what they can do with their ingenuity and hard work. Our nation-state is not the first to hold that view and hopefully won't be the last, but it's still pretty unique.
Scott Beach,
Is it possible that other scientists would pervert science for money or other privileges, assuming that wasn't some sort of "uniquely Soviet" problem and is more of a "human problem"?
Is it also possible that privation under Soviet rule caused people to "dramatically over-adjust" in the opposite direction under capitalism?
My wife is from Viet Nam. She lived under communist rule for the first 12 years of her life, and had very little despite the fact that her father was a very wealthy land owner before the Viet Nam War.
Let's examine the foundation of "behaviorism":
Children subjected to this "behavioral modification" scheme take an animal out of its natural environment, imprison it in a box, then reward or punish the poor creature based upon whether or not it behaves the way they want it to. In short, what the children have learned is that under completely contrived living conditions with forcible coercion, they can get an otherwise helpless animal to behave the way they want it to. There is nothing "natural" nor "scientific" about the experiment.
Behaviorology may still be called "a science", in much the same way that Dr. Josef Mengele was called "a scientist", but placing a human in a box and then forcing that person to do what you want, in order to survive, sounds an awful lot like what the various organized religions of the world have done and are doing, and of course, the nazis and the communists.
Making a belief system seem "really sciencey" to people who have no greater understanding of what you're doing to them or why, almost always children, the natural prey of unscrupulous people who have bad ideas, is pretty disgusting if you ask me.
Didn't we already run those "prisoners and guards" anti-social experiments within our university system?
Offline
Scott Beach, Is it possible that other scientists would pervert science for money or other privileges...?
Yes, look at what Big Pharma did recently. The clinical trials of COVID injections killed more than 1,200 people and that result was withheld from the public. Then the U.S.G. told us over and over that the injections are "safe and effective". So I do not trust the government to tell me that two plus two is four or anything else.
Scott
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Let's examine the foundation of "behaviorism": Children subjected to this "behavioral modification" scheme take an animal out of its natural environment, imprison it in a box, then reward or punish the poor creature
No, the children of Los Horcones are not allowed to punish the creatures (most often rats).
There is a very broad consensus in the academic community that it is now unethical to use punishment in behavioral experiments. Each university usually has an "animal care committee" that monitors how animals are used in university research programs. The committees will not approve the use of punishment in behavioral experiments.
Punishment experiments were carried out in the 1940s. And then the punishment experiments were stopped. B.F. Skinner and other university researchers publicly stated that doing additional punishment experiments would be scientifically unproductive and unethical. So behavioral scientists have been relying on punishment data that was collected more than 50 years ago.
Scott
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Scott,
My Uncle, a man with a PhD in statistics who's worked for UT for longer than I've been alive, volunteered to be one of the guinea pigs in the human trials. His reasoning was that he's already old, his children are grown and one even has a PhD of his own, he's done about as much as he can (for his university students, EPA, NASA, DoD), and he doesn't want young people to die or be killed if the vaccine experiment doesn't work. He was given a placebo and then infected with the virus. He was then given the option of getting the vaccine after the trials were complete, which he took.
His brother, my Uncle Larry, died of COVID, as did Larry's daughter, Pat. Larry was a farmer and retired from Staples after making a lot of money for the company and himself as a salesman. Larry's wife survived, as if nothing much happened. The husband of Pat's daughter also died from COVID, but Pat's daughter managed to hang on by a thread and didn't die, albeit with serious lingering health issues now, otherwise their baby girl wouldn't have any parents and now she has no Grandma or Great Grandfather. My father's sister, Mary Ann, died from Lupus and blood cancer, IIRC, after a bunch of needle sticks from working as a nurse in Fort Worth, 20 some odd years ago while I was still in the Navy. My mother and father took care of her during her final months. My father was also a RN, but at Brackenridge in Austin where I grew up. Like his sister, he also contracted some really nasty diseases from the people he took care of. He worked in neuro and took care of a lot of Hepatitis and AIDS patients back in the 80s, along with drugs, suicide attempts, knife & gun club, and car accidents. I went to work with him a few times and visited with his patients, at least the ones who were not in comas, which made me appreciate how fragile and fleeting life truly is. Speaking of guinea pigs for new vaccines, I was used as one for the Anthrax vaccines while I was in the Navy. I almost forgot about that.
My step-son, who is almost a RN now, has been working in a COVID ward here in Houston while he's been in nursing school. Lately, he's been working in ICU. I think he's either #1 or #2 in his class. I just found out the other day that when he graduates, thanks to the father of one of his friends who he helped move into a new place, not sure if from high school or from nursing school, may have just landed a job at Ben Taub. And all the parents out there go wild! Because your kid finally has a job!!! Good grief it's been a long time coming, but I'm happy for him.
Anyway... Back to the point:
Yes, we killed some people testing the new drugs. As ugly as that is, I'll wager it happens during most new drug trials, albeit not on the same scale.
How many people were dying of COVID before we had the vaccines?
In terms of deaths, we lost the entire population of Austin and counting. Even if half of those were some form of over-counting, then we still lost more people than in all the wars we've fought over the past century. If the number is accurate, then we lost more people than every war we've ever fought, period. Short of a nuclear war or planet killer asteroid or aliens landing, I can't think of too many more catastrophic single events. If COVID had been as effective as Ebola, the world would be a very different place today. Thankfully for all of humanity, the morons in that lab in China, that our tax dollars funded, were playing with a relatively benign virus.
In war, you take calculated risks, but sometimes those risks don't pay off. I know it sucks, but them's the breaks. They did the best they could with imperfect data and understanding. Humans aren't perfect, especially in a crisis situation.
Safe?
There's no such thing as "safe". You're safe when you're dead, because that's the only time nothing can ever hurt you. You can inject a small proportion of the total population with saline solution and kill them.
Effective?
Almost nobody's keeling over from Alpha and Delta anymore. Coming down with a bad case of the flu vs having lungs that look like Swiss cheese are two very different outcomes, even if you feel like crap for a few days.
Two of my kin are gone now. They're "safe", because they're dead. Another two more almost died in the hospital and may never be the same as they were before. Effective is relative. Compare the number of people who died from COVID before and after the vaccines. There is no comparison.
Do I trust my government or large corporations to never lie to me?
Well, I may have been born in the dark, but it wasn't yesterday.
Asking that politicians know basic math is, apparently, asking for way too much. That's how we wound up with $600 toilet seats. Someone obviously sucked at math, because no toilet seat purchased on tax payer dime should ever be allowed to cost that much.
Offline
Other ideas might be to follow some kind of Corporate anarcho military capitalist system which in itself sounds like an Oxymoron but Mars and space colonization could be a radical place, Technocracy and Meritocracy systems have also been discussed in science fiction.
Mars_B4_Moon,
I'm an atheist and Republican and make no bones about it to anyone.
Kbd512 I'll give you a little insight to how I personally think at times, when I do some of those personality politics quizzes I'm very centrist but independent. I'm peaceful and I'm Agnostic and both at times Atheist, because some of the world is chaotic and flux I do not give myself concrete boots and chain myself to one single position. Looking at US politics there are both US Traditional Democrat values and US Libertarian Republican values that I respect. I do not have a problem with people who need something of faith to 'believe', there are people who feel 'empty' or a religion group to escape to for guidance or need some kind of higher power or comfort or meditation to pray to. I was not there during the time of Moses or Buddha or Jesus so I can not prove they were meeting some 'higher up power' or were not visited by some divine enlightened UFO godly power, I think religions are mostly 'stories' however. I was not there to film their life, maybe a power came that gave them instruction for example some power from another dimension or outerspace enlightened them with the 'Ten Commandments' for example, there might be some social truths in religion but personally I think it a collection of folklore, myth and fables but I am not Atheist enough to call everything fake or deny their teachings. However what is perhaps unique to the way I or others might use a mind is it can be both very rigid and very flexible, I do not know where this comes from in me perhaps it was even beaten into me, maybe it goes back to my early kid years training with a big German guy who would toss me around and he would literally lift me off my feet with a Reverse Spinning Back Kick. I began to see a structured wave his movement, it was a little chaotic but there was some kind of pattern to it, it was best not to over think but refine reaction and in order to stay with this guy I need to have many tools, I could not always grab with the left hand or jab with the right or kick off the left foot I had to be able to evolve and adapt. I believe a changing evolving world is something people must adapt to, there might be a reason I do not identify as 'Atheist' for example there could be people of benign Christianity or Buddhism or some Hindu Jainism or Pagan Shaman Folk religions or Judaism Jewish faith that I would be able to live alongside, not their extreme version but the more mild benign religions. However I could never tolerate an islamist theocratic jihadi system, I will always be peaceful until but it is possible I would go into a rage of Atheist logic and build some kind of DirtyBomb to see an invader islamo religion utterly destroyed. The best thing that might happen to a muslim is for the islamism that oppresses them to be utterly destroyed, perhaps this could be done by 'peace' since I support non violence maybe it could be done better by dropping funny cartoons rather than bombs but that's not how the US or Russia would sell guns, that is not how the military industrial complexes work. I do support many traditional values but I'm not sure I would ever call myself a Conservative because I think sometimes that is like a Luddite trying to hold onto a small field while the rest of the world evolves around you. I'm not sure if I would call myself a humanist because I think people have potential for both good and bad. One suspicion I have of Atheism is it seems to have both a loose affiliation and direct link with Marxist Bolsevik Communism, the Marxist Bolsevik Communist movements have killed millions, there might eb an arrogance to say our generation knowns best while generations of civilizations have thrived and survived for thousands of years without us fully learning their lessons. Religions can be old and the so called prophet moohammad is more recent guy with a religion than Moses or Buddha or Jesus or other peoples of other faiths, his life can be studied from more recent history, he was no doubt a pedophile, he liked to abuse and marry little girls and sucked the tongue of little boys, he was a slaver a warlord, it seems he raped animals and even had sex with his dead aunt, how humans can call this man a 'prophet' made me have less faith in humanity. The United States of America is not my country, its people can do as it wishes but I believe the USA should classify islam as a subversive cult rather than a 'religion'.
In terms of deaths, we lost the entire population of Austin and counting.
I agree that humanity might have dodged a bullet, if it was 'The Black Death' the world would have seen terrible loss on a whole other leevl.
However I would not be shocked to early some months or years in the future that some deaths were 'over counted' perhaps he had lung cancer, a store, she was dying of cancer, then coughed a few times and then officially 'Died of Covid' how many died with underlying conditions?
Some of the world places for Number Cases seem to have been nations that suffered from some level of 'Covid Denial'
People were also encouraged to go out and protest and riot for the dead George Floyd in the middle of a Global Lockdown.
India began Lockdowns but then reversed as it wanted to run elections.
Cases
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countriesUSA 88,777,558
India 43,391,331
Brazil 32,061,959
Per Million people South America and Eastern Europe are showing the worst levels of Death with Peru, Czech, Bulgaria, Hungary, Bosnia,
North Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia, Slovakia, I don't know why Peru is so bad but the people I talked to from Eastern Europe who lived through their own Communist times are big believers in Conspiracy and were very paranoid against their own government and suspected any restrictions to be a return to some form of 'Communism'.
This sort of behavior would not happen on Mars if children are taught how to interact with each other by employing science-based techniques that work irrespective of a person’s religious beliefs.
Like I wrote above Communism a non-religion also killed millions, it lay grounds for Socialist Empire building so how can you prove some form of Communism can be born from a Constitution of Mar; Scientocracy?
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-07-01 11:24:11)
Offline
Scott,
One last note on B.F. Skinner's "black box" insanity masquerading as "science". After that nitwit conducted those experiments on his own daughter, he was sued into the poor house by his own daughter due to the mental health problems she suffered from the psychotic torture experiments conducted on her by her father. Again, I don't know why you've bought into this nonsense, but it is nonsense and there is nothing whatsoever that is natural about putting someone or some little critter in a black box. In the military, we use that form of torture, and it is considered to be torture, to "break" spies and criminals. It leaves no physical marks, but rest assured that they are never the same again.
Offline
Mars_B4_Moon:
You asked, "...how can you prove some form of Communism can be born from a Constitution of Mar; Scientocracy?"
Hunting and gathering is not likely to work on Mars. Swidden (slash and burn agriculture) is also not likely to be a viable subsistence strategy on Mars.
People need air, at or above a particular pressure, in order to live. So Martians will probably spend the majority of their lives inside of pressurized buildings. We have to anticipate that, on a comparative basis, there will be more "socialism" on Mars. There will be government divisions that tightly regulate the operation of facilities that produce air. Some of those facilities might be privately owned and publicly regulated utilities, while other air suppliers might be government agencies or municipal corporations. Either way, the Government of Mars is likely to be larger than the governments of terrestrial societies. I predict that there will be more "socialism" on Mars.
I am not suggesting that the Government of Mars build Hutterite colonies on Mars. However, the constitution of Mars might, for example, authorize the enactment of laws that will encourage Hutterites to form communities on Mars. The laws of Mars could also accommodate the construction of single-family residences and apartment buildings.
Comunidad de los Horcones is a secular community and it is, legally, a producer cooperative corporation. Los Horcones operates several businesses. For example, they use their Caterpillar D-9 dozer to create roads and ponds for the farmers and ranchers of nearby lands. They also provide behavioral therapy, on a contract basis, to children whose parents live in Hermosillo and other nearby cities. They keep bees and sell jars of honey. They keep cattle and sell yogurt. They grow fruits and vegetables, which they eat and sometimes sell. They host international behavioral science conferences in facilities that they have built for that purpose. A daughter colony of Los Horcones might be built on Mars if Martian laws permit the establishment and operation of secular producer cooperative corporations.
The laws of Mars might also authorize the construction of cohousing communities and ecovillages. https://www.cohousing.org https://ecovillageithaca.org
Scott
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Scott, One last note on B.F. Skinner's "black box"...
These accusations have been refuted by Deborah Skinner Buzan.
See https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 … ucation.uk
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Scott,
White torture, often referred to as “white room torture,” is a type of psychological torture[1][2] technique aimed at complete sensory deprivation and isolation. A prisoner is held in a cell that deprives them of all senses and identity.[2][3][4] It is particularly used in Iran; however, there is also evidence of its use by the Venezuelan and the United States intelligence services.
Visually, the prisoner is deprived of all colour.[2] Their cell is completely white: the walls, floor and ceiling, as well as their clothes and food.[7][better source needed] Neon tubes are positioned above the occupant in such a way that no shadows appear.[7]
Auditorily, the cell is soundproof, and void of any sound, voices or social interaction.[7] Guards stand in silence, wearing padded shoes to avoid making any noise.[1] Prisoners cannot hear anything but themselves.[8]
In terms of taste and smell, the prisoner is fed white food—classically, unseasoned rice—to deprive them of these senses. Further, all surfaces are smooth, robbing them of the sensation of touch.[7]
Detainees are often held for months, or even years.[7] The effects of white torture are well-documented in a number of testimonials.[7] Typically, prisoners will become depersonalized by losing personal identity for extended periods of isolation; causing hallucinations, or even psychotic breaks.[7][9][10]
The Centers for Victims of Torture
Sensory Deprivation, including Isolation (Solitary Confinement)
Sensory deprivation includes removing stimuli from one or more of the senses for long periods of time. Isolation denies a detainee contact with other human beings, including other prisoners and prison guards. All forms of sensory deprivation can have profound and long-lasting psychological consequences, including severe anxiety and hallucinations. Effects of isolation (or solitary confinement) include depression, anxiety, difficulty with concentration and memory, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucinations, perception distortions, paranoia and problems with impulse control.
Abstract
Our cognitive system has adapted to support goal-directed behaviour within a normal environment. An abnormal environment is one to which we are not optimally adapted but can accommodate through the development of coping strategies. These abnormal environments can be ‘exceptional’, e.g., polar base, space station, submarine, prison, intensive care unit, isolation ward etc.; ‘extreme’, marked by more intense environmental stimuli and a real or perceived lack of control over the situation, e.g., surviving at sea in a life-raft, harsh prison camp etc.; or ‘tortuous’, when specific environmental stimuli are used deliberately against a person in an attempt to undermine his will or resistance. The main factors in an abnormal environment are: psychological (isolation, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep deprivation, temporal disorientation); psychophysiological (thermal, stress positions), and psychosocial (cultural humiliation, sexual degradation). Each single factor may not be considered tortuous, however, if deliberately structured into a systemic cluster may constitute torture under legal definition. The individual experience of extremis can be pathogenic or salutogenic and attempts are being made to capitalise on these positive experiences whilst ameliorating the more negative aspects of living in an abnormal environment.
Putting someone, especially a very young and developing child, into a completely artificial environment of your own choosing, such as a "white box" or a "black box" or any other type of box for that matter, for non-medical purposes (nothing to do with trying to prevent them from dying, merely manipulating someone else simply because you have the physical ability to do so), in order to get them to behave the way you want them to, is no different than torture. We can split hairs over the degree to which someone was tortured and whether or not the captive has developed Stockholm Syndrome or other coping mechanisms to deal with something very unnatural, but the end result is the same and it is indeed criminal in nature when done to someone who can't consent or by force (definitionally non-consensual, even if that person later says they don't have a problem with what you did to them).
These new-age religions, masquerading as "science", are every bit as nutty and harmful as the old ones, arguably more so in many cases since the old ones were based on belief or faith and the new ones assert that they are objectively true after some set of entirely contrived conditions are created for the "safety and security" of the cult participants. David Koresh is "god", and god can't rape your children or tell them to stand there and burn to death after some other horrid group of evil clowns from the government has a pissing contest with "god" to show the rest of the world who is more profoundly manipulative, based upon the amount of evil they can do unto others in the name of a belief system.
Nobody from the Catholic Church came after me for "opting out". Whereupon I was a legal adult, I no longer attended any church, because that was done at the behest of, and to please my parents. I thought doing so was without value from about the age of 6 or 7 onwards. It had zero / zip / zilch / nada / nothing to do with caring or not caring about spending 1 hour a week in church, but everything to do with their treatment of others, their lack of adherence to their own beliefs (yes, everybody does this to some degree, but there are limits beyond which I couldn't accurately call someone a "Christian"), and their inability to express their reasoning behind believing x / y / z. From a very young age, I committed the cardinal sin of questioning the beliefs of others (both the teachers in my Catholic school and the priests, in front of adult and children alike) and asking them "why", as well as why so many of their beliefs were so wildly incongruent. This is very unpopular with the "true believers" of any religion, because it forces examination of core beliefs. Whenever you look inward, you might not like what you find. That's why so few people actually do it. I didn't even ask for any personal or dogmatic justification at first, it was merely a young child desperately trying to understand the very conflicting views of "god" and science being taught.
"I was not a labrat!" Yeah, no kiddin lady. You were merely treated like one before developing the cognitive skills to know what a labrat was or how such animals are treated. The rats we kept as pets in the classroom weren't "labrats", either, by such a narrow definition, but they also weren't permitted to leave their cages without a teacher's permission. Call that whatever you wish, but we called them "labrats". They were fortunate that their captors were kind enough to feed them, but even most slaves and prisoners could make the same claim.
If I accidentally leave the door to our house open, then my German Shepherd may run out for a brief moment before figuring out that leaving a well-air-conditioned building filled with soft beds and couches, for the heat of a Texas summer, is not a particularly good plan when you're wearing a fur coat. Oddly enough, he always come sprinting back to me whenever he sees me closing the door. As much as I'd like to AC the daylights out of all of Texas, my power company says that's a hard "no". The point is, my dog is not my prisoner, nor is my wife, nor are my children. I don't keep my dog in a cage and cannot fathom raising a child within a cage, because that is not a natural environment for the family hound or children (who is not labrats, nor circus animals). My dog does no "tricks", either. He may or may not come when you call his name, although he follows me around so much that my wife calls him "velcro". I do not look with favor upon the idea of having a trained monkey on staff. Kilo is a good dog, which is all he ever needs to be, and that's why he's on the payroll. I figure we owe him after my wife accidentally hit him with her Escalade after he ran out into the street during a monsoon. He wasn't too fond of my wife at first, which was understandable, but has since warmed up to her good nature and love of dogs. He sleeps next to my wife and I on our bed, and eats the same food that we eat, so long as it's something he can eat without making him sick. I don't punish him if he does run off after something, because that's a waste of my time and our relationship. When he's sick or injured, I provide medical care. I think he understands now that giant black SUVs are not to be trifled with, and won't be stopped by any amount of "woof" or "ruff", even if he had to learn that the hard way.
Most importantly, I provide companionship. While my wife / children / dogs are with me, I will treat them as my companions, not as my personal science experiments intended to reinforce some errant quirk of my personality or beliefs. They don't exist to reinforce my beliefs or ideas, nor to "please me". Heck, even my Catholic parents taught me that, meaning you have to believe something based upon the evidence and/or strength of your conviction, not because something was manipulated in such a way as to get yourself and others to believe it. Real scientists, rather than charlatans to their own cause, would call that "confirmation bias". When you try to concoct an experiment with an outcome intended to support your hypothesis, and any result you don't like is discarded because it disagrees with your hypothesis, that is no longer science. We already have plenty of religions to choose from and I'll wager more options won't add much value.
More to the point, experiments have to generate reproducible results that hold true under a wide variety of conditions or scenarios. Take your kid or critter outside of the box you imprisoned them within and then see if they still behave the way you theorized that they would. If they don't, then theory only holds up under prison-like conditions. Even if it works precisely as theorized after you grossly manipulate the subjects in your experiments, what about everywhere else?
To the extent that my children and dogs can or do exercise freedom of choice, they choose to remain with me and to do the very few things that I ask of them. To wit, don't intentionally hurt others or yourself. If you wouldn't want it done to you, then don't do it to other people. Think about the consequences of your actions before you act. Be like yourself, not like your mother and I, and not simply because "we told you so". You derive your own meaning and value. Your value is not based upon the say-so or beliefs of anyone else. You do have to live with those other people, though, so there are real limits to acceptable behavior. However, you're ultimately free to choose for yourself, so long as you're willing to accept the consequences.
My mission as a parent is not to decide for my children, but to prepare them to make choices for themselves that result in outcomes they find acceptable. I want them to thrive in a world that is both potentially dangerous yet stunningly beautiful and full of potential, all at the same time. I need my children, and all others, to learn how to think for themselves. They cannot blindly follow the manipulations of others. Even if no harm was ever intended, results matter far more than intent. It does not suit my purpose to teach anyone what to think, nor to indoctrinate them through gross manipulation to think or believe exactly as I do, because that removes personal responsibility for choices made, as well as careful evaluation of all useful options. What does it matter if I get to choose the professions that my children pursue if they find their jobs to be miserable or are not good at their jobs? Why would I waste time, money, and effort manipulating them to become medical doctors if they'd make fantastic nurses or computer programmers?
The best ultimate outcome I can think of, is to arrive at a society wherein the citizenry actually follow a code of morality that is not capricious or manipulative, nor self-destructive, and is applied as equally as it can be (both conditionally and situationally appropriate), without regard for immutable physical characteristics, while respecting personal boundaries. All governance is reflective of what society values most, since all government is force used to achieve a specific outcome. Basically, government is a reflection of societal values, not a source, unlike morality / ethics / culture / relationships.
It is of utmost importance that the citizenry be educated to the point of broadly being capable of thinking for themselves and evaluating claims based upon merit and available evidence. The society must be ethical in its treatment of others, even those who are not a part of the society, and the people must demonstrate personal responsibility in decision making. This is especially true when it comes to short-term or potentially unscrupulous gains, at the expense of others, that are of no lasting value to society or the individual. The people must cherish and defend both each other and their guiding principles from the subversion and perversion of those who wish to exploit the freedoms and personal liberties society grants unto its members, for criminal or nihilistic purposes. Purposefully manipulating or intentionally hurting others for personal gain is a form of nihilism because of what the ultimate result will be when the practice becomes broadly accepted or pervasive.
I realize that you will probably not recognize the folly of grossly manipulating others or removing personal choice and therefore acceptance of personal responsibility stemming from individual decision making processes that demonstrate an accounting for the concepts I outlined. Maybe you see no value to those concepts. You most likely believe that there is some level of manipulation capable of causing an outcome you want, and that may actually work, but for how many and for how long? What if putting people in boxes doesn't work out? Is there a backup theory of plan if that doesn't work? Where are the checks-and-balances if the experiment goes sideways? This response is primarily intended to illustrate to others that there are less contrived ways of achieving outcomes that are broadly agreeable to most people without resorting to "controlling" every aspect of their individual behavior. Humans are not ants. Trying to force all of them to exist in a type of hive is both counter-productive and unlikely to create outcomes that most of them would find desirable.
Offline
kbd512:
Behaviorism (also known as behavior analysis) "is a systematic approach to understanding the behavior of humans and other animals".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
At Los Horcones, children are taught how to use an "operant conditioning chamber" to shape the behavior of rats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_c … ng_chamber
The point of teaching children about "operant conditioning" is to show children that they can learn how to control their own behavior.
The most prevalent alternative to this kind of teaching is to tell children that they are inhabited by a metaphysical mind or a supernatural soul that has "free will" and that the government is therefore justified in using force against people who violate laws.
Free will is a political ideology. It is educational malpractice to tell children that free will is a scientific theory.
The children of Mars should not be lied to and brainwashed with free will.
Just tell them the truth.
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Scott,
Repeating your beliefs at me won't change the validity of your argument. Recitation of dogma is what religious people do whenever you tell them that they have no non-manipulated evidence supporting their claims of divinity or omnipotence, or that they simply started "making things up" to justify what they're doing to themselves and other people.
Religious Dogmatic: "Look a tree exists over there and provides shade for me to enjoy, more evidence that my god exists."
Me: "Umm, okay, but what about all those areas without trees?"
Religious Dogmatic: "Oh, that's the work of the devil."
Me: "Okay, bert."
Take said animal, whether human or other critter, out of your "special operant conditioning chamber", which is nothing more than word salad used to describe false imprisonment and torture, and then see if your behavioral experiments yield consistent results. If they do not, then back to the drawing board you go.
John raped Jane. John took Jane some place she never intended to go and then forced her to have sex with him.
definition of "rape" - forcing someone to perform a sexual act against their consent (to perform such an act)
definition of "kidnapping" - forcing someone to go some place they never intended to go (not the same thing at all as yanking someone out of the path of an oncoming bus, except in places like Singapore)
John ooga-booga'd Jane.
definition of "ooga-booga'd" - a happy happy joy joy time for a man when he makes a woman have sex with him
In both cases, John literally forced Jane to have sex with him. John changing the words used to describe what John did or asserting that the definition of what John did is materially different because John made some unfounded assertion while using different words to describe what he did, doesn't actually change what John actually did to Jane in the real objective world.
I can see John's argument before the Judge and Jury now. "I'm not a sex criminal your Honor, I'm a sex scientist. I was merely performing special operant conditioning experiments on random women walking down the street. I only took them to my special operant conditioning chamber, in order to study how they reacted to the choice between having sex with me and getting their next meal."
Similarly, I can already see the response of a Judge and Jury who have some sliver of morality that they actually follow. "Yeah, okay John, believe whatever you wish, but we're still sending you to prison for kidnapping and rape. What you personally believe about what you did, doesn't change what you actually did."
Asserting that Jane wasn't forced to have sex against her consent, because John used different words or substituted his own definitions to describe what he did, is actual legal malpractice, resulting in zero objective difference over what John did to Jane.
Beyond Freedom & Dignity - by B.F. Skinner
In this profound and profoundly controversial work, a landmark of 20th-century thought originally published in 1971, B. F. Skinner makes his definitive statement about humankind and society.
Insisting that the problems of the world today can be solved only by dealing much more effectively with human behavior, Skinner argues that our traditional concepts of freedom and dignity must be sharply revised. They have played an important historical role in our struggle against many kinds of tyranny, he acknowledges, but they are now responsible for the futile defense of a presumed free and autonomous individual; they are perpetuating our use of punishment and blocking the development of more effective cultural practices. Basing his arguments on the massive results of the experimental analysis of behavior he pioneered, Skinner rejects traditional explanations of behavior in terms of states of mind, feelings, and other mental attributes in favor of explanations to be sought in the interaction between genetic endowment and personal history. He argues that instead of promoting freedom and dignity as personal attributes, we should direct our attention to the physical and social environments in which people live. It is the environment rather than humankind itself that must be changed if the traditional goals of the struggle for freedom and dignity are to be reached.
Beyond Freedom and Dignity urges us to reexamine the ideals we have taken for granted and to consider the possibility of a radically behaviorist approach to human problems--one that has appeared to some incompatible with those ideals, but which envisions the building of a world in which humankind can attain its greatest possible achievements.
Yeah, Skinner rejects the idea that emotions / belief / ideation affect human behavior and instead asserts that if we put people in the most carefully controlled environment imaginable, somehow we''ll get better results. The rest of us call those places "prisons", and I've yet to see them produce better results more often than not.
Genetic endowment affects behavior? Yeah, okay, that was the same false argument that the slave masters and nazis used to justify what they did. We still have people arguing that black people were better off as slaves. What a steaming pile of putrid brain excrement that was. You can't adapt and overcome, it's all a function of immutable physical characteristics and where you grew up. Neeeeeext.
Freedom and dignity can only ever be personal attributes, built into the personality of people who value freedom and dignity. Nobody can take freedom or dignity away from the "physical environment" or "social environment", because those are either inanimate object with no ability to cogitate or entirely human brain constructs (social environment). The Jews probably thought nazi Germany was hell on Earth, whereas the nazis probably thought it was heaven until we bombed them back to before the Stone Age, which is where their ideology belongs and good riddance. Also... Holy reification, Batman!
The physical environment "controls" your dignity as a human being with intrinsic worth, who should be treated with dignity by all others. Does it really, or does it merely "exist" and become something you, as a human, have to adapt to or overcome? The "physical environment" produced the "Black Death" during the Middle Ages. Did that mean humans were incapable of displaying compassion for others and to treat them as if their lives mattered, even as many of them were dying from something that none of them had the understanding to change or "fix"?
I think not.
Does the "social environment" really "control" people? Again, let's go back and refer to all the Germans, some of them wearing nazi uniforms, who either tried to shield the Jews from persecution by the evil cretins within their own governments, or to kill the person or people directing the genocidal carnage at everyone else.
This is what happens whenever you use force to entrap people in completely artificial and grotesque environments, or allow the twisted imaginations of the highly intelligent but morally bankrupt to run wild. You wind up with absolutely horrid ideas that permeate human civilization and run roughshod over the individual in service to some morally bankrupt ideology professing to be looking out for the "greater good" of humanity. Well, Scott, you can't arrive at that "greater good" through mental gymnastics and physical manipulation.
Every attempt at communism results in "that wasn't true communism" from the other dopes who haven't (yet) "tried to be true communists". Well, bubbas, I'll put it to you like this: That was "actual communism" as practiced by actual people claiming to be actual communists, so if the people making the claims can't make it work, then maybe that's because it doesn't work, not because absolutely everyone is "too stupid" to know how to be a true communist.
As for governments (small groups of people lording their physical / military power over much larger groups of people) feeling "justified" in using force to obtain whatever they want, that issue is timeless and doesn't have bo diddly to do with physical or social environment. All government is force, because by definition and in actual practice that is how law and punishment for crimes works, and the only people who don't feel justified in using force are the ones who haven't used coercive force to obtain what they want.
The more people we can generally "appease" or "satiate", for lack of a better description for what we're actually doing, through material security (food / water / shelter / human companionship), the better off society will be. The vast majority of people who have their basic needs met and need not worry about meeting them won't even entertain the idea of lifting a finger to hurt anyone else. However, the need to be met is a product of the environment, not the environment itself. The natural environment is almost unlivable in most place and for most people, we simply manipulated it to the point where we find it personally enjoyable.
Have you ever seen or heard of a millionaire shooting a liquor store clerk, in order to make off with a bottle of wine or case of beer? No? Me, neither. There will always be some twerp who makes life miserable for others via criminality or by anti-social personality, but the incidence of that happening in a society where food and drink are so plentiful has almost nothing to do with the environment itself and almost everything to do with culture, which only comes from the public behavior of other people, and the fact that we're all still animals living on "the farm", however over-glorified that farm has become.
Want to reduce the incidence of violence and get away from government punishment for anti-social behavior?
Make sure the child has a mother and father, because there is no effective substitute for two committed (to ensuring that their children are minimally functional in their society) parents (notice I did not say "loving", because love to one person may be abhorrent behavior to the next), stop exposing them to immersive media that glorifies / popularizes grotesque violence, keep them away from mind-altering drugs while their brains are still developing, graduate from primary school, and then for some "strange reason" the rest of it seems to largely take care of itself. You don't need to put them in cages or treat them like circus animals. I don't need a "scientific theory" for why this works, it has nothing to do with religion, and I don't have to grossly manipulate them. Sometimes, "less is more".
Free will is not science, nor is the will of a master manipulator any form of science. Similarly, neither is morality. However, social principles that act as glue to keep a society together are embodied in free will and morality. You can try to manipulate people or their environment as much as you like, but in the end people will do what they want to do. That's why we have an entire generation of spoiled and entitled children who think it's perfectly okay to burn down an entire neighborhood or loot stores and then burn them to the ground because they're upset at what some specific Police Officer did. It's nonsense because they've been taught nonsense. The choices they make always have consequences to themselves and others, but if they don't care about the consequences then they will do whatever pleases them. That is objectively evident from casual observation of human behavior.
The probability that you can successfully manipulate 7 billion people, and at all times, to act in a manner that is congruent with both what they want and what other people want, is pretty close to absolute zero. Maybe you can change what they want, but if you can't, then again, back to the drawing board you go. That makes "behaviorism" a first cousin to communism and nazism. If only I can manipulate others into thinking and reacting the way I want them to, then society will be "perfect". What utter BS. If this is what they're teaching in psychology schools these days, then it explains a lot.
Offline
kbd512, In post #66 I wrote:
"At Los Horcones, children are taught how to use an "operant conditioning chamber" to shape the behavior of rats. The point of teaching children about "operant conditioning" is to show children that they can learn how to control their own behavior".
Los Horcones has a state-accredited school. School inspectors (employees of the State of Sonora) periodically give standardized academic tests to the students of the Los Horcones school. Those students, on average, make test scores which show that they are 2 years ahead of their peers at other schools. This excellent result is due, in part, to Los Horcones students applying their behavior-shaping skills to the goal of becoming highly proficient scholars. The teachers at the Los Horcones school emphasize the importance of acquiring good study habits and they do everything they can to help their students to become excellent "behavioral engineers", who earn excellent grades.
Applied behavior analysis (ABA), also called behavioral engineering, is a scientific discipline that applies empirical approaches based upon the principles of respondent and operant conditioning to change behavior of social significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis
Applied behavior analysis works very well. The Constitution of Mars should require the teaching of behavior analysis and applied behavior analysis at accredited primary and secondary schools.
Scott
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
Scott,
So... No real answers to the questions posed or issues I pointed out. That's pretty much what I figured.
The nazis also ran state-accredited schools. They produced some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever known, some of which resulted in humans landing on the moon. They also produced people who mass-murdered their fellow humans in service to nazi ideology. In the end, they were still teaching a trash ideology that resulted in trashy people doing trashy things to other people. Changing the words used, substituting euphemisms for the sheer ugliness of what they were up to, and forcing people to adapt to a completely unnatural social / political / physical environment, didn't change the end results.
Answer the questions posed or I'll presume that you can't because you don't have any answers.
The questions are not rhetorical in nature.
The questions are a form of "Yeah, I've seen this movie before and I already know how it ended the last time it was played-out, so why will this time be different?"
Start your thought process, as it pertains to such subjects, with the following premise:
If this belief system, no matter what it purports to be or do, nor how "perfect" I believe it to be, was contorted by unscrupulous people for evil purposes, then what's the worst that they could do to humanity by perverting it into something it was never intended to be?
Offline
In the good old day's behavior was corrected as a function of discipline which was not just instruction, setting of rules but collectively punishment as well. At some point phycological babble of sparing the punish was in the best interest as it harmed the child that could not behave.
These days the parents can go to jail for even thinking of punishing a misbehaving child.
Offline
kbd512, You wrote,
If this belief system, no matter what it purports to be or do, nor how "perfect" I believe it to be, was contorted by unscrupulous people for evil purposes, then what's the worst that they could do to humanity by perverting it into something it was never intended to be?
If "this belief system" (i.e., behaviorism) was intentionally "contorted" then what's the worst that they could do to humanity?
Here is my answer: If a behaviorologist discovered that false behavioral data was included in an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that behaviorologist could ask the editor of the journal to retract the article. If the person who created the false data is employed by a research institute or by a university then the person's employment might be terminated.
Fortunately, science is self-correcting.
Scott
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
At some point phycological babble of sparing the punish was in the best interest as it harmed the child that could not behave.
"Children Who Are Spanked Have Lower IQs, New Research Finds"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 231749.htm
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline
For Scott Beach re #72
This comment is not intended as a criticism .... I note that you've been advocating against spanking for many years...
However, please be aware that your brief statement in post #72 can be interpreted in two ways ...
One interpretation is that children with low IQ's are most likely to be spanked, because they have difficulty following social norms/expectations.
The other is that the IQ's of children who are spanked have lower IQ's than they might have had if they had not been spanked.
I have not taken the time to study the matter as you have done, and do not have time to do so now.
However, if ** you ** are willing to think about the question I have posed, please take this opportunity to let ** yourself ** think about the matter.
If you were raising a low IQ child, and you wanted to keep the child from doing destructive things, how would ** you ** go about it?
Since this is a topic about a possible set of rules for living on Mars, there is another question that occurs to me .... how can a community best influence it's citizens to follow whatever rules are put in place, if they are determined to ignore them, because they don't like rules of any kind, and don't think rules apply to them.
There are humans like that, so this is not a trivial question.
Our solutions on Earth seem imperfect to me.
(th)
Offline
I have had some experience raising an unruly child with serious behavioral problems linked to Autism and ADHD. A child like that is naturally anti-social, both violent and self-loathing. They can be very frustrating and difficult to like. They will do things that will embarras you. They will beat up their brothers, vandalise things and show a complete lack of empathy. It is all too easy to give in to that frustration by beating the hell out of them. It will happen at least once unless you have the patience of a saint. Children do not come with instruction manuals and a difficult child will push you past the limits of your self control at some point. My wife and I quickly learned that spanking him was an ineffective way of controlling him. It would push him into furious rages, that would go on for hours. And it taught him to use the same behaviour against his brothers. It didn't take long for us to learn better ways of doing things. When he behaved badly, he was socially ostracised and privilages were removed. No sweets. No computer games, etc. When he behaved well, rewards were in place to reinforce good behaviour. Fishing trips. His favourite food, etc.
It mostly worked. He is a fully grown man now. He still has bad days. He has had more than a few brushes with the law. But his life is starting to come together. The violent rages are less frequent. His brothers want nothing to do with him, but I hope they will be more understanding as they get older.
This sort of push and pull social conditioning is really the only way of teaching social norms. Beating a child with already violent tendencies will turn him into a violent thug. My son has those tendencies anyway. The worst thing to do was reinforce them. But my wife and I were in our early 20s when he was born and it was it some time before we understood how best to deal with his problems. And this is the problem with being a parent. You aren't trained to do it. And often your first child arrives before you are properly grown up yourself. It is easy to say from the outside that you shouldn t do this and shoukd do that. The reality is that you will deal with the situation imperfectly, because there will be times when you just aren't strong enough.
I don't think my eldest son will ever be a model citizen. But I am hopeful that he will settle down into a normal life. He has calmed down a lot now he is out of his teens. He is settling into an apprenticeship. He has a girlfriend and a small circle of freinds. His drug and alcohol problems appear to be under control. He has some hobbies. My wife and I finally feel that we have something like a loving relationship with him. I just hope things continue getting better. I do worry what will happen to him when my wife and I are no longer around. I doubt he will ever be able to move out and deal with the outside world. He can face it a little bit at time.
Last edited by Calliban (2022-07-04 07:33:41)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Thomas:
The "brief statement" that you are referring to is not a statement by me; those words are the title of an article published by "Science Daily". That article is posted on the Internet at the following address; https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 231749.htm That article contains the following quote:
"The worldwide trend away from corporal punishment is most clearly reflected in the 24 nations that legally banned corporal punishment by 2009. Both the European Union and the United Nations have called on all member nations to prohibit corporal punishment by parents. Some of the 24 nations that prohibit corporal punishment by parents have made vigorous efforts to inform the public and assist parents in managing their children. In others little has been done to implement the prohibition," Straus says.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 231749.htm
Is it appropriate to include in the Constitution of Mars a prohibition against "corporal punishment"?
Journal Reference: Straus, Murray A. and Mallie J. Paschall. Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Development of Children's Cognitive Ability: A Longitudinal Study of Two Nationally Representative Age Cohorts. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 2009; 18 (5): 459 DOI: 10.1080/10926770903035168
"It is possible to build a rational and humane culture completely free from the threat of supernatural restraints." Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth
Offline