Book reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 7-8

Chapter 7

I'm unsurprised that rats in a nice environment were less addicted to drugs than those in a bad one; who wouldn't want to escape a bad environment? The various experiments had very interesting results--even with sugar, the happy rats didn't want the drugs.

Computer scientists can use this information to help develop technologies to assists addicts in ending their addictions (like quitting smoking). These technologies could include reward systems for avoiding the substance or simply a tracker for how long they have gone without the substance. Additionally, computer scientists could also use this poChapter 8wer for evil (a poetic exaggeration): they can make their products addictive by providing an escape from the current environment or situation. Many Second Life users used it as an alternate reality as opposed to a game because their Second Lives were better than their real ones.

Chapter 8

The whole memory implantation thing is scary to me. It makes me wonder how much of my childhood is fabricated or dream fragments, and it makes it seem like the entire movie Inception was unnecessary (they could have just mentioned the idea to the target, but I suppose the dream thing was more dramatic. And more awesome). How interesting that people fabricated details of their "memories", like a blue flannel shirt. I know that I am prone to remembering small details if I am told, but am often so belligerent about my own memories that I'm sometimes wrong.

I'm not sure how computer scientists could use this information. It seems a little...evil. Maybe memory recording? Repressed memory depository? I really don't know.

Book reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 5-6

Chapter 5

Well, that's a bummer of a chapter. I feel horribly sad for Linda and Audrey, and I'm surprised by the definition of dissonance and how common it really is; how fascinating that East Asians feel this less (allegedly). It's almost sad that religion is described here as merely dissonance, but I understand the meaning behind it. More and more, I think Lauren Slater may be a little off, but I suppose delving into the details of various psychological experiments might cause a little...off-ness. I wish I had more to say, but in a few words: this chapter made me sad and I didn't like it. So there.

Chapter 6
Wow, Harlow seems cruel. An interesting research topic, yes, and it seems to have made a large contribution to present-day psychology, but it seems so harsh. Poor, poor monkeys. Moreover, I don't appreciate his opinion of women ("...they knew a man was more important than anything else.") At any rate, I am once again fascinated but not surprised by the preliminary results of this experiment. I know I am more attached to the stuffed animal I received when I was a baby than to anything else I received as a child, like music boxes; a poor example, perhaps, but my point stands.

Yikes, it gets worse. A rape rack? Really? Mothers killing their infants, monkeys eating their fingers off, and he continues? Sounds like a sadist to me. This chapter has me very close to becoming a card-carrying member of PETA. Let's think--how do I find products that aren't tested on animals first...?

Book Reading: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 3-4

Chapter 3
To me, Rosenhan's experiment did not reveal problems with psychiatry itself, but rather problems with preconception; almost everything that (apparently) happened to him was based entirely on the assumption that he was, in fact, mentally ill. It does not surprise me that the patients recognized him as "normal". After all, "It takes one to know one," is a common expression for a reason. It's tragic that the alleged caretakers of the mentally ill at that time were completely indifferent, and I certainly hope care has drastically increased in quality since then.

"The Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition", while a very interesting and worthwhile experiment, makes me sad for the poor children that weren't given solid opportunities to succeed. 

I don't know if I'd have the courage to repeat Rosenhan's experiment, but kudos to Slater. Again, though, I'm not surprised about the results--as time has marched on, we've distanced ourselves from mental institutions. How sweet that she wanted to share her results with him.

Chapter 4
Darley and Latane's experiment is just as fascinating as Milgram's. Though it's not a study in obedience, it's an interesting view of human tendencies when others are in danger. Quite frankly, the results of this study and Milgram's study are seriously affecting my belief in the inherent good of humanity. It's no secret that we doubt ourselves, yet I wonder: at what point are we okay with making a fool of ourselves in case the situation isn't serious?

This entire chapter (and, I'm sure, a vast number of experiments like the one described) makes me consider exactly how intelligent we are as a species--we certainly act like pack animals, disregarding our own instincts for the behavior of the group. Odd and terrifying. 

Assignment 10: Opening Skinner's Box, ch. 1-2

Chapter 1
One page in and I'm cringing at Skinner--how could he torture his own daughter like that? On the other hand, though, we must consider the time he lived in and the "appropriate" treatments of the day. However, the contributions he made to the field of psychology are apparently vast. When we consider Skinner, we cannot only consider his scientific contributions, but the moral implications of his experiments as well, which undoubtedly will turn this whole book into various shades of gray. (difficult to process for someone as binary as I am)

After reading the author's exchange with Julie, the "unboxed" daughter, I find myself more sympathetic to Skinner. His book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (or at least Slater's summary of it) makes sense and makes me wonder about the stigma attached to Skinner. As a side note: I think it's odd that she took a bite of the really old chocolate.

Chapter 2
Ah, a familiar subject! Back to Milgram. I didn't really need this second-person rehash; I was already made uncomfortable by imagining myself in the subjects' shoes while reading Obedience to Authority. His mentor's work (tendency to conform) factors into his experiments well, especially in one of the variations discussed in Milgram's book. However, Milgram's desire to do something more socially significant led to his experiment, and the results are still relevant and shocking forty years later. His minor experiments are interesting as well; funny how little people in general change in forty or fifty years. His later personality analyses, though inconclusive, do shed more light on the subject: anyone can be obedient, and anyone can be defiant.

Finding Joshua Chaffin must have been an accomplishment for Slater--how many people would really talk to her about the experiment? Interesting that he broke it off for his own reasons, not because he was hurting another man. Slater describes him as complex, but who isn't complex? Who doesn't have a hard time finding the right moral ground?

How sad that Jacob felt compelled to shock all the way to the end, how his shame converted into obedience. It's good, though, and it solidifies my opinion that the experiment was not immoral; he used the information about himself to become a stronger, better person. Comparing Joshua (the defiant one who led a more obedient life) and Jacob (the obedient one who used that information to become defiant) is fascinating. It makes me wonder about the human mind, but I suppose that's a mystery we've yet to solve.