I believe the proper term is 'behaviourism'. On a personal basis, I am not a behaviourist as I think that school undermines the true significance of the human mind and are treating humans as beings that respond and react rather than observe and hypothesize. Human behaviour is something very interesting, very unique, and no matter how many patterns, classes or trait fields that can be derived from the censuses, every individual takes up thought and there is no definte textbook to create a law. There are no constants, no rules and no boundaries in the ways human act or react to whatsoever instance.

From the branch of behaviourism, there are many other twigs that cling to its concept while having its own assumptions of the style of human behaviour and its action in purpose. I will not go into technical terms, but rather I shall speak on a few forms of behaviouristic intepretations:

One, the school that partakes an analogy of a computer, i.e. the human is controlled by an OS (operating system) Humans used to have instinct, but we had lost it over time. It jumps off the view by observation of human movement and action. The thing to carry out, is to observe a single person very carefully at a particular moment and take note of his actions. Every instance of movement shows that he controls himself, sometimes mechinically and other times conciously, through an unknown awareness of being able to move. This brings in the idea of motor-skills (riding a bike, typing etc.) Therefore, the human is just like any other animal, but operates on a more complex OS.

Two, the school that feeds on the idea of a 'cause then effect' response system. This system falls back on methodolgical psychology, and is futher broken up into modules of sequences; the classic experiment of the rat pulling onto the bar for food is probaly the main driver for this idea. The logic is simple, a cause, be it negetive or postive and then a reaction to the cause, be it postive or negetive. Experimental psychology has explored this by the 'pulling bar' method, providing a different pay-off, although it is done in animals, some do believe the concept holds true for humans as well. On a larger scale, it builds a law that humans will keep doing something if it benefits them and humans will stop doing something if it does not benefit them, (rat stop pulling bar when it gets hit with pain or sees a fellow rat get hit with pain, but rat pulls bar when he gets food from it, or see a fellow rat eat food from it) this demostrates a few ideas that brings interesting debates, i.e. 'do humans find religion something that is good and therefore keep pulling onto its bar?' and even topics like 'One is fat becuase he wants to be fat, being fat is beneficial to him sub-conciously'. There is an interesting variation to the experiment; psychologist used the same rat that habitually pulled the bar for food for about a week and changed the effect of the bar-pulling to be an infliction of pain to the rat. If I remember correctly, the rat still continued pulling onto the bar even though it knew that there was pain. It had expected food. If this is brought on to the large scale of humans, why personal beliefs and opinions cannot be broken could have this reason.

-- Update: I'll stop this.

Because.

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---