Body With Operants

"Just as man is governed in religion by the products of his own brain, so, in capitalist production, he is governed by the products of his own hand." Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation (pg. 772, Penguin)

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure So– no formal reply to Mccorquodale as my original point stated? Remarkable. And at risk of making yourself look any more foolish than you already are, maybe don't pretend I'm asking you to give me an APA 7th ed citation when I want you to support your claims

My god. You already mentioned one of them, which it seems you barely read. I assume you’re aware of the other one, the 1959 review. Twitter isn’t a scholarly journal. People don’t have to “properly cite” things on Twitter. Unless the person is irredeemably lazy (i.e., you), they should know how to find articles on JSTOR. But okay, since you don’t know where to look, here: read the article by Laurence and Margolis on the poverty of the stimulus argument. That’s one of hundreds. It’s just an absolute joke to take behaviorism seriously after generations of cognitive science. Have you read a single book on cognitive science? Evidently not.

PSA: Wittgenstein is not a behaviorist and he does not deny the reality of inner experience.

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure No, you didn't mention the two Chomsky essays. You vaguely alluded to their existence and have refused to properly cite them. If you're this averse to academic discourse, maybe you should grow up.

@BehavioralMarx @DevinGoure Grow up. I mentioned the two Chomsky essays. Go reread them. And read the other stuff I mentioned. Stop living (intellectually) in the 1950s.

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure "I won't support the specific claim I made about Chomsky's reply to Mccorquodale but I will vaguely gesture at other cognitivists and the poverty of the stimulus argument"

It isnt my job to educate you. Go back and read the two Chomsky essays. Also the many scholarly articles giving evidence for Chomsky’s poverty of the stimulus argument. Henry Plotkin has some decent writings. Kripke refuted certain behaviorist ideas. The whole behaviorist framework is thoroughly bankrupt compared to the vast output in cognitive science since the 1950s. Behaviorism is nothing but a part of intellectual history. It’s dead—which isn’t to say there aren’t still misguided people who believe in it. But there are flat earthers too. There are always thousands of people out there who believe in dead and unscientific ideas.

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure That doesn't make it fringe or incorrect. You're aware that by your own conception, Marxism is "fringe" too, right? You should really support your claims. I'm still waiting on that Chomsky citation and anything that refutes behaviorism apart from your allusions to the mainstream

@BehavioralMarx @DevinGoure It’s on the fringe. The mainstream of the relevant disciplines, from psychology to neuroscience, believes in cognitive science.

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure And saying that behaviorism is "fringe" is honestly a bit silly, considering ABAI has over 9,000 members while the CSS has around 4,000and APA div.3 is one of the smallest

@BehavioralMarx @DevinGoure As I recall, it was more than a footnote. And that essay made many excellent points against Skinner. Many scientists and philosophers have refuted the behaviorist perspective, not only Chomsky. It simply isn’t taken very seriously anymore except on the fringe.

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure Would love a citation stronger than your recollection

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure And to be clear, your claim is he directly replied to Maccorcudale? or made another comment about Skinner?

@BehavioralMarx @DevinGoure He wrote an essay in 70 or 71. It was published in an early political book of his.

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure The footnote in his review of Beyond Freedom and Dignity? What book?

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure Besides that, I would love to hear anything actually salient about how radical behaviorism is "undefendable"

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Chomsky never wrote a formal rebuttal of MacCorquodale, only ever mentioning it in an interview and a footnote. Secondly, see the second article Palmer (2006)

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure See MacCorquodale (1970) On Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior and Palmer (2006) On Chomsky's Appraisal of Skinner's Verbal Behavior: A Half Century of Misunderstanding

@BehavioralMarx @DevinGoure Wrong.

@ChrisCWright1 @DevinGoure The assertion that the cognitive turn just completely left behaviorism behind is absurdly unfounded, especially by using Chomsky to make this point when he couldn't accurately reply to Skinner's Verbal Behavior and repeatedly misidentifies it as S-R psychology

The fascination with Wittgenstein has become embarrassing and is played out. He was a product of the behaviorist moment in intellectual life. Even he wasn’t literally a behaviorist, he was strongly influenced by that school of thought. Chomsky and the cognitive science revolution moved past all this long ago.

@drumm_colin And if you are only concerned with what Marx himself thought, then fine we can leave it at that. But in no way can your campaign against "Marxists" be helped by solely focusing on the explicit statements of Marx when many Marxists have provided theories of control based on Marx

@drumm_colin My point is that, based on what Marx *does* explicitly say, regardless of whether he is clear enough for you on this, it is completely reasonable to "assume" he did consider how the bourgeoisie maintains control, if that's how you want to consider it

not a single sentence in what you've posted addresses my point, in any way. just completely extraneous.

@drumm_colin K

@BehavioralMarx "Do these "tactics" need to be stated explicitly for you to recognize Marx considered them?" i mean yeah that is what "consider" means.

@drumm_colin I think a concrete "theory of control" emerges later, sure. But the germ is here in primitive accumulation and Marx is very clear about the tendencies of Capital that drive that behavior. Do these "tactics" need to be stated explicitly for you to recognize Marx considered them?

i mean yeah totally man i'm sure it was gnarly. but it's not a theory of control you see

@DevinGoure @untimelysalts I'm not quite saying W *is* a radical behaviorist, just that it's not incompatible with radical behaviorism. Although, in some sense, I do actually think there's certainly baggage there. Would be very interested in your thoughts on that at greater length some time!

@BehavioralMarx @untimelysalts The issue is definitely complicated and worth addressing at greater length but the upshot would be: no, Wittgenstein is not a radical behaviorist unless you think that even our ordinary concept of consciousness presupposes unacceptable metaphysical baggage.

@drumm_colin Don't be facetious. You're familiar with these chapters of Capital and their description of the expropriation of mofp from laborers and the consolidation of the capitalist class. How is this not directly addressing your point?

@BehavioralMarx im tired of looking up passages for people. you need to find a couple paragraphs that you think illustrates the point and post it, then ill engage that.

The question is not WHO. The question is HOW. If you think the HOW question is exhausted by the WHO question youre missing the point

@drumm_colin Specifically, like my initial response suggested, chapter 26 describing the separation of direct producers from the means of production would be exactly what you're discussing about the "how" no? And additionally, chapter 28 is a specific historical example of this process

@BehavioralMarx no, not at all. give an example that you think illustrates this.