All of MikeSamsa's Comments + Replies

MikeSamsa100

Part of the problem here is that even if testosterone had absolutely no effect on aggression at all, we would still see people taking testosterone injections acting more aggressive. Why? Because the common belief is that testosterone will make you more aggressive. Give them saline and tell them it's testosterone and they'll start bumping people in the street as well.

To test whether there is an actual effect going on here, they'd need to look at what how two different groups of FtM transsexuals respond when one is placed on a placebo, and one given testoste... (read more)

Then "human behaviour is predictable" doesn't apply to life in general.

Yes it does since we know that human behavior is predictable. Scientists don't need to add "in controlled environments" because that's necessarily the case. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is predictable in uncontrolled environments. So if you're saying that human behavior is unpredictable because it can't be predicted in uncontrolled environments, then you've simply defined human behavior (and everything) as being unpredictable. How did you describe this kind of arg... (read more)

-1Peterdjones
No it isn't necessarily the case We can imagine Foundation style wide range prediction. (Un)predictability due to large numbers of variable is a contingent issue: it depends on how much computation you throw at it, as in weather forecasting. Not even the examples of real life prediction of human behaviour you mentioned? Not even the positions of the planets in the solar system? Not analogous: an uncontrolled environment is not a special environment that is designed to force unpredictable behaviour. It is a general environment that is not designed for anything. Behavioral scientists saying human behavior is predictable is akin to physicists saying physics is predictable. Physicsts saying that the movement of a falling object is predictable.is akin to behavioural scientists saying the behaviour of road users or game players is predictable. "falling objects" are predictable because they are falling--to fall is to be under the control of one force. Yes there can. Physical indeterminism that effects humans is logically possible. If it's not predictable in the free range, that doesn't mean much. Or, rather, it doens't mean what it seems to mean. For some value of "predictability". Weaker claims are easier to defend, but they mean less. Indeterminism means even Laplace's Demon can't predict. That's definitional That you don't look for the unpredictable means you get what you look for. I don't think that. I think that if you asked someone to write a story with rewards for originality. you would get unpredictable results. What I object to is the sweeping, uncontextualised nature of "behaviour is predictable" That's ambiguous too. Some of the time?All the time? And all the other variable are being held constant. Which they never are in "free range" situations. In a sense, there are no causes in free range situations, as there are in controlled environments, because the "other variables held constant" clause doesn't apply. It is a mistake to think that you can sum

It ipredicts where it predicts and doesn't where it doesn't. If you are going to ask whether something is predictable without adding any riders about to what extent,and under what circumstances , the quesiton would reasonably be taken to apply in the raw, to "free range" behaviour. I would not be taken to mean "under controlled circumsrtances"

All science only makes predictions within controlled circumstances. If you booby-trapped a billiards table, so there were unknown valleys and crests on the surface of the table, you wouldn't dis... (read more)

-2Peterdjones
Then "human behaviour is predictable" doesn't apply to life in general. Predictability in controlled experiments isn't taken by physicists to prove a sweeping statement like "the universe is predictable". Some physical system are well known to be unpredictable. Or some other reason. Which is to say that some real situation have straightforward rules and rewards, allowing predictability. Oh we know that, They are. No, it doesn't necessarily mean that. That, again, is getting what you are looking for. No physicist would say physics is successful in predicting without specifying a system. What does "human behaviour is predictable" mean? We already knew you could predict behaviour in some situations, so that isnt a discovery. And we don't know that it is predictable by and large, because it isn't.

Your example is a bit absurd - why would the prediction of human behavior necessarily entail the prediction of behavior in a completely uncontrolled environment, with near-to-zero information on any relevant variables?

Your question is comparable to asking: If physics was so good at predicting the movement of physical bodies, then why can't it predict earthquakes? If it can't predict when an earthquake will occur, then it is not successful at predicting the movement of physical bodies.

The point is that we know that humans are incredibly predictable. The re... (read more)

-3Peterdjones
It ipredicts where it predicts and doesn't where it doesn't. If you are going to ask whether something is predictable without adding any riders about to what extent,and under what circumstances , the quesiton would reasonably be taken to apply in the raw, to "free range" behaviour. I would not be taken to mean "under controlled circumsrtances",Of course controlled behaviour is predictable, that is what "controlled" means. And 11 fingered people have 11 fingers. You don't know that. To know it. you would have to exclude basic physical indeterminism, and the jury is still out on that. You get what you are looking for. Ask them to write a story or paint a picture, you do not know what you are going to get.. No it doesn't. It predicts the behaviour of controlled individuals. You have no idea what the people around you in the office or street are going to do next.

Why do you say that behaviorism has not been successful at predicting human behavior? Its most popular models of choice behavior consistently account for around 95% of the variance in experimental settings (e.g. the matching law, or the contingency discriminability model). Behaviorist accounts have disproved naive conceptualisations of the "rational agent", and have developed models of self control which not only accurately predict at what point an individual will choose the smaller-sooner reward over the larger-delayed reward, but they also pred... (read more)

-3Peterdjones
No form of psychology has been successful at predicting human behaviour. Where are the predictions of election outcomes, or which product will be successful ion the market place?