Your videos are the only thing that made me understand the theories of language acquisition. Not boring and very clear explanations! I've read a lot of papers only to find out that your videos are way clearer and easier to comprehend. Thank you so much! You're the BEST! Helped me in writing my paper.
Thank you for making your exam review videos so clear. I am a Psychology student and as soon as we were assigned to support or dispute Chompsky's linguistic theory I needed to go directly to your videos and you did not disappoint. Thank you!!
Operant conditioning by Skinner is one of the first theories I remember on my first year of studying psychology. It was a life changer. So much time saved on learning more effectively!
Thumbs up for this, there should be more videos like this on youtube. What are your thoughts on Relational Frame Theory? I think it helps understand language learning from a behaviorist approach
Thanks Pablo, hearing that helps keep me motivated to make more videos! To be honest, I'm not really knowledgeable enough about Relational Frame Theory to have clear thoughts on it though it does seem to address several important criticisms of Skinner's approach. Most of my knowledge of it comes from this review paper, which provides a good summary of the main ideas as well as the criticisms: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779078/
That was really helpful, it really helped me to distinguish between the two of them! I just wanted to ask about the third theory, the interactionist appreach I think .. Any info about it ?? thank u
I'm glad to hear that. Here's a video I made on the interactionist approach that might be helpful: th-cam.com/video/KF-B3-evNJs/w-d-xo.html&list=PLkKvotUGCyLchrXdVSumXAEDDIlwZUoib&index=6
Hello there! Please let me respectfully disagree. I can see your point of view and I respect it. However, it is evident that you have not read Skinner, 1957 - let alone the abound behaviorist literature since then. Even Chomsky himself did not bother reading Skinner's book, otherwise it is so curious that he accused Skinner for so many things Skinner did not say. This skipping of reading about Skinner's radical behaviorism is a most widesrpead practice within psychology. Don't you find it better to first read and understand what an intellectual "opponent" says before criticizing it? Maybe you find something interesting there.
Unfortunately, it seems these suppositions are part of many English language syllabi, so in framing it this way he is actually doing a better job at educating and preparing students for their exams, which I think is the purpose here. Very interesting point though, I'll read up on it when I can.
@@amakepeace8280 thanks for this response. The behaviorist interpretation seems weird and alien to our way of thinking, and that's one of the main reasons that many so readily disregard it. But it's a selectionist view of language acquisition. Chomsky's view that we are born with some kind of a device attribute the undoubt complexity of language to a creative mind, just like some believers attribute the complexity of our world to a god creator. Skinner's interpretation resembles Darwin's natural selection in that it views the extraordinary complexity of the subject matter as the result of gradual and accumulated changes. Many have responded to Chomsky and especially David C. Palmer has done an incredible job.
He presents a really limited view of modern behavior analysis. To say behavior analysis can not explain observational learning shows how little he knows about it. A quick search of observational learning in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis will show he’s missed the mark. Searching the literature for relational frame theory and derived relational responding will also show how limited his knowledge of language and behavior analysis really is.
Just to clarify, this video is referring to the state of behaviorist research in the late 1950's when Skinner wrote Verbal Behavior, not modern behavior analysis and is meant to provide context for the cognitive revolution which began around this time. This occurred in part because of the accumulation of examples that couldn't be fully explained with the behaviorist principles of the time. Certainly there has been greater development as well as integration of behaviorist and cognitive principles since that time and this would be reflected in more modern research.
@@PsychExamReview Replying super late because I just came across this, but the problem some will have is that if you're going to talk about this stuff in a historical context, it would be refreshing to modern behaviorists (there are still a bunch of us) if you would frame it that way, instead of saying things like, "we saw situations in which the behaviorist viewpoint didn't quite work," because that's just not really true. Some of the topics you discuss, such as latent learning and cognitive maps, are ones that behaviorists who have a proper conceptualization of reinforcement don't have much of a problem explaining. The fact that Tolman's study is still cited in every intro psych book as a nail in the coffin of behaviorism is just poor scholarship, as the issue was never really proven or disproven, it just kind of fizzled out in the early 1950s after 30 or so years of debate between researchers like Tolman and S-R psychologists like Clark Hull (not radical behaviorists, like Skinner). What Tolman misses, is that reinforcement isn't limited to programmed introductions of food; reinforcers include any consequence, natural or programmed, that results in the increased likelihood of a behavior occurring. There are no doubt contingencies, as Skinner describes, in the maze that weren't being accounted for, such as punishment for turning down the wrong alley, leading to all the groups' errors decreasing at similar rates earlier on. Sure, acquiring food at the end might of the 11th trial may have increased their likelihood of traversing the maze faster, and with fewer errors, but in more controlled studies, edible reinforcers have been shown to be pretty potent compared to other reinforcing consequences, and there's actually some neurological research to suggest the same. As far as language goes, it would take forever to discuss in detail, but you're looking at fundamentally different philosophical viewpoints, so there's not much of a point in arguing against the other, because they have different assumptions (structure vs function), but at the end of the day, the point is that it would be cool if intro psych books and people who make this type of potentially valuable content would do a little bit more research and represent things accurately.
And yeah, check out RFT; it's difficult, so a firm understanding of behavioral principles and phenomena like generalization and stimulus equivalence helps, but it's pretty promising; you just have to make sure not to get lost in how deep it is conceptually and remember that the relational responding is behavior that is learned through reinforcement.
This man is a monster, has spent his entire life manipulating the way people understand socialism. He divorces it from actually existing socialism, and you know what type of "actually existing socialism" he has supported? The Khmer Rouge, during their genocide. He claimed that it would benefit the imperial forces that just retreated from their genocidal bombing campaign to criticize the genocidal government. His type of "freedom of speech" that we hear so much in the west is particularly the type to defend French holocaust denies and frame them as 'liberal academics' in the case of Faurrison. He manipulated the ideas of linguistics going back to Skinner's ideas of positive reinforcement that were very popular at the time, to shape how people view language and behavour. Skinner believed that people learn these things at a young age which teaches them through reinforcement. Chomsky thought that it was inherent to people, not necessarily something taught through reinforcement. When people bring up criticism to Chomsky, Chomsky basically ignores them. He'll explain briefly why he's ignoring them to convey the rationale behind ignoring the criticism, which is that they don't understand what Chomsky's position is, but this is funny to me because it's what Skinner did in response to Chomsky's criticism of him. He explained, politely, that Chomsky didn't understand him, and it didn't seem productive to try to explain to him why. I think it's obvious why Skinner said this, because Chomsky wasn't making a geniune criticism of his work. In what sense can something be inherent to people if not for evolutionary repetition? Arguments in favour of Chomsky sometime go that our thoughts are abstract and arbitrary, not related to our behavour, so behavour can't explain this type of language or way of thinking, but every bit of criticism of Skinner from Chomsky's perspective always misses the key point, as is evident by the way I described one of the typical arguments. So why was Chomsky taken more serious and a progression over Skinner? Because he was directly serving the interests of those in power. When you read Skinner's work, a picture becomes clear. If a society is birthed in a chaotic, abusive environment where trauma is passed down to the following generation, that generation and society will not succeed in opposing their oppressors until acted on by an outside society. If the world is birthed in a chaotic, abusive environment, we can expect the Earth to continue to be chaotic and abusive. Since this is our only Earth, we as individuals, organizers, should look to outside societies that do not have the same oppressive structure as we do, instead of expecting change to come from an internal desire or will. Chomsky confused the idea of socialism infinitely better than Hitler did. The socialist nations are authoritarian and the capitalist ones are democratic. Hitler joked about calling themselves liberals instead of national socialists, well Chomsky took it a step further and instead of calling ourselves national socialists, or even liberal zionist, he calls himself a "libertarian international socialist". No one comes close to this type of propaganda, it's like the man invented it.
Your videos are the only thing that made me understand the theories of language acquisition. Not boring and very clear explanations! I've read a lot of papers only to find out that your videos are way clearer and easier to comprehend. Thank you so much! You're the BEST! Helped me in writing my paper.
I'm glad to hear that these videos are helpful, thanks for commenting!
Thank you for making your exam review videos so clear. I am a Psychology student and as soon as we were assigned to support or dispute Chompsky's linguistic theory I needed to go directly to your videos and you did not disappoint. Thank you!!
Glad I could help, thanks for commenting!
same here I am doing the assignment today for Psychology class.
Operant conditioning by Skinner is one of the first theories I remember on my first year of studying psychology. It was a life changer. So much time saved on learning more effectively!
Man you saved my life , thank you
You're welcome, I'm glad I could help!
Short but very helpful
Thank you
Tmrw is my exam and now I'm here to know about these theories
Best of luck!
Very nice introduction sir.......
Thumbs up for this, there should be more videos like this on youtube. What are your thoughts on Relational Frame Theory? I think it helps understand language learning from a behaviorist approach
Thanks Pablo, hearing that helps keep me motivated to make more videos! To be honest, I'm not really knowledgeable enough about Relational Frame Theory to have clear thoughts on it though it does seem to address several important criticisms of Skinner's approach. Most of my knowledge of it comes from this review paper, which provides a good summary of the main ideas as well as the criticisms: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779078/
That was really helpful, it really helped me to distinguish between the two of them! I just wanted to ask about the third theory, the interactionist appreach I think .. Any info about it ?? thank u
I'm glad to hear that. Here's a video I made on the interactionist approach that might be helpful: th-cam.com/video/KF-B3-evNJs/w-d-xo.html&list=PLkKvotUGCyLchrXdVSumXAEDDIlwZUoib&index=6
Thank you.🙏this video will help me in my teaching exams...from India🙏🙏
You're welcome!
Hello there!
Please let me respectfully disagree. I can see your point of view and I respect it.
However, it is evident that you have not read Skinner, 1957 - let alone the abound behaviorist literature since then. Even Chomsky himself did not bother reading Skinner's book, otherwise it is so curious that he accused Skinner for so many things Skinner did not say. This skipping of reading about Skinner's radical behaviorism is a most widesrpead practice within psychology.
Don't you find it better to first read and understand what an intellectual "opponent" says before criticizing it? Maybe you find something interesting there.
Unfortunately, it seems these suppositions are part of many English language syllabi, so in framing it this way he is actually doing a better job at educating and preparing students for their exams, which I think is the purpose here. Very interesting point though, I'll read up on it when I can.
@@amakepeace8280 thanks for this response. The behaviorist interpretation seems weird and alien to our way of thinking, and that's one of the main reasons that many so readily disregard it.
But it's a selectionist view of language acquisition. Chomsky's view that we are born with some kind of a device attribute the undoubt complexity of language to a creative mind, just like some believers attribute the complexity of our world to a god creator. Skinner's interpretation resembles Darwin's natural selection in that it views the extraordinary complexity of the subject matter as the result of gradual and accumulated changes.
Many have responded to Chomsky and especially David C. Palmer has done an incredible job.
He presents a really limited view of modern behavior analysis. To say behavior analysis can not explain observational learning shows how little he knows about it. A quick search of observational learning in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis will show he’s missed the mark. Searching the literature for relational frame theory and derived relational responding will also show how limited his knowledge of language and behavior analysis really is.
Just to clarify, this video is referring to the state of behaviorist research in the late 1950's when Skinner wrote Verbal Behavior, not modern behavior analysis and is meant to provide context for the cognitive revolution which began around this time. This occurred in part because of the accumulation of examples that couldn't be fully explained with the behaviorist principles of the time. Certainly there has been greater development as well as integration of behaviorist and cognitive principles since that time and this would be reflected in more modern research.
@@PsychExamReview Replying super late because I just came across this, but the problem some will have is that if you're going to talk about this stuff in a historical context, it would be refreshing to modern behaviorists (there are still a bunch of us) if you would frame it that way, instead of saying things like, "we saw situations in which the behaviorist viewpoint didn't quite work," because that's just not really true. Some of the topics you discuss, such as latent learning and cognitive maps, are ones that behaviorists who have a proper conceptualization of reinforcement don't have much of a problem explaining. The fact that Tolman's study is still cited in every intro psych book as a nail in the coffin of behaviorism is just poor scholarship, as the issue was never really proven or disproven, it just kind of fizzled out in the early 1950s after 30 or so years of debate between researchers like Tolman and S-R psychologists like Clark Hull (not radical behaviorists, like Skinner). What Tolman misses, is that reinforcement isn't limited to programmed introductions of food; reinforcers include any consequence, natural or programmed, that results in the increased likelihood of a behavior occurring. There are no doubt contingencies, as Skinner describes, in the maze that weren't being accounted for, such as punishment for turning down the wrong alley, leading to all the groups' errors decreasing at similar rates earlier on. Sure, acquiring food at the end might of the 11th trial may have increased their likelihood of traversing the maze faster, and with fewer errors, but in more controlled studies, edible reinforcers have been shown to be pretty potent compared to other reinforcing consequences, and there's actually some neurological research to suggest the same. As far as language goes, it would take forever to discuss in detail, but you're looking at fundamentally different philosophical viewpoints, so there's not much of a point in arguing against the other, because they have different assumptions (structure vs function), but at the end of the day, the point is that it would be cool if intro psych books and people who make this type of potentially valuable content would do a little bit more research and represent things accurately.
And yeah, check out RFT; it's difficult, so a firm understanding of behavioral principles and phenomena like generalization and stimulus equivalence helps, but it's pretty promising; you just have to make sure not to get lost in how deep it is conceptually and remember that the relational responding is behavior that is learned through reinforcement.
This man is a monster, has spent his entire life manipulating the way people understand socialism. He divorces it from actually existing socialism, and you know what type of "actually existing socialism" he has supported? The Khmer Rouge, during their genocide. He claimed that it would benefit the imperial forces that just retreated from their genocidal bombing campaign to criticize the genocidal government. His type of "freedom of speech" that we hear so much in the west is particularly the type to defend French holocaust denies and frame them as 'liberal academics' in the case of Faurrison. He manipulated the ideas of linguistics going back to Skinner's ideas of positive reinforcement that were very popular at the time, to shape how people view language and behavour. Skinner believed that people learn these things at a young age which teaches them through reinforcement. Chomsky thought that it was inherent to people, not necessarily something taught through reinforcement.
When people bring up criticism to Chomsky, Chomsky basically ignores them. He'll explain briefly why he's ignoring them to convey the rationale behind ignoring the criticism, which is that they don't understand what Chomsky's position is, but this is funny to me because it's what Skinner did in response to Chomsky's criticism of him. He explained, politely, that Chomsky didn't understand him, and it didn't seem productive to try to explain to him why. I think it's obvious why Skinner said this, because Chomsky wasn't making a geniune criticism of his work. In what sense can something be inherent to people if not for evolutionary repetition? Arguments in favour of Chomsky sometime go that our thoughts are abstract and arbitrary, not related to our behavour, so behavour can't explain this type of language or way of thinking, but every bit of criticism of Skinner from Chomsky's perspective always misses the key point, as is evident by the way I described one of the typical arguments. So why was Chomsky taken more serious and a progression over Skinner? Because he was directly serving the interests of those in power. When you read Skinner's work, a picture becomes clear. If a society is birthed in a chaotic, abusive environment where trauma is passed down to the following generation, that generation and society will not succeed in opposing their oppressors until acted on by an outside society. If the world is birthed in a chaotic, abusive environment, we can expect the Earth to continue to be chaotic and abusive. Since this is our only Earth, we as individuals, organizers, should look to outside societies that do not have the same oppressive structure as we do, instead of expecting change to come from an internal desire or will.
Chomsky confused the idea of socialism infinitely better than Hitler did. The socialist nations are authoritarian and the capitalist ones are democratic. Hitler joked about calling themselves liberals instead of national socialists, well Chomsky took it a step further and instead of calling ourselves national socialists, or even liberal zionist, he calls himself a "libertarian international socialist". No one comes close to this type of propaganda, it's like the man invented it.
Exam help