Chronicle of a journey from youthful
Know-It-All to old-fart astonishment.
You CAN'T be "So fed up with James Dobson you could shit!" my late mother The Shrinkette would say [but Mommie Dearest never ever said "shit"]."You're just jealous, Mister Ph.D!!!" First, while
Mommie was alive I didn't know Jimbo nor care enough about him to be jealous - which is the way it is now. That "Mister Ph.D!" is how she'd get her general
disdain for everyone and everything off her chest. Survive 'mommie' and you have nothing left to fear. FDR told a broken nation in 1933 much the same thing a few years before I was born
. Any of my three kids can and will enumerate
Poppa's faults. Among their big breaks [aside from not doping nor boozing] was never having met Gramma Dearest. Her memory is
a Michelin Guide for how not to be.
Bright woman, big waste, nuf said.
Back to Author/Psychologist James Dobson.
A good e-mail friend, Betsy Shaw, sent a response by theologian Jim Wallis to Dobson's screed this week about Barack Obama's "fruit-cake interpretation of the US Constitution" among much else.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=2008-6-24 What up Dobs? (as we say in the 'hood). I was goofing off at USC grad school during obligatory Constitutional-Law-For-Future-Shrinks? Was Barack
woofing all those years while he taught Constitutional Law at U. of Chicago? Gawd! Maybe I'll plead "dumb-ass" and return all my awards. Nah - I'm a born show-off. Let's get on with it!
James Dobson's act is 100% based upon AMBIGUITY. I'll base the premise on Nobel Prize Winner Ivan Pavlov's work on the effects of Perceptual Ambiguity. Dobson, like any psychology graduate student at top flight graduate schools, is familiar with Pavlovian Learning Theory. This is especially true in "child psychology," Dobson's professed specialty. Pavlov
, a 19th and 20th c. Russian physiologist, founded what became the cornerstone of all learning theories in all experimental psychology. From the 1930s through the 1970s Muzafer Sherif used Pavlov's pioneering experiments work to expand upon
woofing all those years while he taught Constitutional Law at U. of Chicago? Gawd! Maybe I'll plead "dumb-ass" and return all my awards. Nah - I'm a born show-off. Let's get on with it!
James Dobson's act is 100% based upon AMBIGUITY. I'll base the premise on Nobel Prize Winner Ivan Pavlov's work on the effects of Perceptual Ambiguity. Dobson, like any psychology graduate student at top flight graduate schools, is familiar with Pavlovian Learning Theory. This is especially true in "child psychology," Dobson's professed specialty. Pavlov
, a 19th and 20th c. Russian physiologist, founded what became the cornerstone of all learning theories in all experimental psychology. From the 1930s through the 1970s Muzafer Sherif used Pavlov's pioneering experiments work to expand uponcauses of individual and group dispute and resolution/agreement by use of "Perceptual
Ambiguities. While Pavlov's methodology used dogs, Sherif's research utilized individual men and women plus groups of people. See Pavlov
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/sherif.htm.
gs think Dobson IS a Theologian despite"Aw shucks!" denials. The folksy act works every time.
Dobson learned the same Ivan Pavlov I did. We learned Experimental Ambiguity made Dr. Pavlov's dogs so neurotic they REFUSED FRESH MEAT PLACED IN PLAIN SIGHT AND SCENT! How?
One group of dogs was Conditioned ("Rewarded") with meat for choosing a path marked by a SQUARE. The other group was Conditioned to choose a path marked by a CIRCLE. Both groups had been given a very mild electric shock for making incorrect choices IN ADDITION TO NO "MEAT REWARD."
Pavlov began to gradually make the SQUARES more CIRCULAR. Pavlov also made the CIRCLES more SQUARE. There was no choice difficulty for either group at first. Both CIRCLE and SQUARE dogs learned equally well. Pavlov gradually made the square more circular and gradually made the circle more square. He thus increased the "choice difficulty" for both groups. As SQUARE and CIRCLES became more similar, dog from both groups whined, barked and hesitated more. Choice-Of-Path Errors increased. So did the frequency of electric shocks (or Aversive Consequences) from the floor. Both Square-conditioned and Circle-conditioned dog groups became hungry (or food-deprived.)
Once visual cues were indistinguishable from each other, Pavlov removed all the experimental apparatus, placed fresh meat in front of each dog and left the room. But the dogs were now so "neurotic" that ALL refused food in order to avoid the electric shock. Hungry as each dog was for food all fought and snapped at their trainers when forcibly dragged toward the meat! Both groups of dogs eventually ate only when returned to their familiar kennels
The inference should be obvious: Everyday life gives enough "aversive experience" without Dr. Pavlov around to oversee everything. Groups of otherwise bright people will trust an avuncular Psychologist who quotes Scripture. When the same Shrink says he's no theologian but is merely "following the Word of God," who cares if he's not ordained? Dobson's advice, wrong-headed or not, is comforting. To paraphrase Gimme That Old-Time Religion, whatever Dobson says is plenty good enough for the Focus On The Family flock. Speaking from a multitude of pulpits increases its effectiveness. It's great theater. Think 1935 Nuremberg Rally. Dr. Phil's not half so slick.
In a message dated 06/26/08 23:48:49 Pacific Daylight Time, Treetops38 writes:
Butwhy should America care about how a child psychologist votes?
gs think Dobson IS a Theologian despite"Aw shucks!" denials. The folksy act works every time.
Dobson learned the same Ivan Pavlov I did. We learned Experimental Ambiguity made Dr. Pavlov's dogs so neurotic they REFUSED FRESH MEAT PLACED IN PLAIN SIGHT AND SCENT! How?
One group of dogs was Conditioned ("Rewarded") with meat for choosing a path marked by a SQUARE. The other group was Conditioned to choose a path marked by a CIRCLE. Both groups had been given a very mild electric shock for making incorrect choices IN ADDITION TO NO "MEAT REWARD."
Pavlov began to gradually make the SQUARES more CIRCULAR. Pavlov also made the CIRCLES more SQUARE. There was no choice difficulty for either group at first. Both CIRCLE and SQUARE dogs learned equally well. Pavlov gradually made the square more circular and gradually made the circle more square. He thus increased the "choice difficulty" for both groups. As SQUARE and CIRCLES became more similar, dog from both groups whined, barked and hesitated more. Choice-Of-Path Errors increased. So did the frequency of electric shocks (or Aversive Consequences) from the floor. Both Square-conditioned and Circle-conditioned dog groups became hungry (or food-deprived.)
Once visual cues were indistinguishable from each other, Pavlov removed all the experimental apparatus, placed fresh meat in front of each dog and left the room. But the dogs were now so "neurotic" that ALL refused food in order to avoid the electric shock. Hungry as each dog was for food all fought and snapped at their trainers when forcibly dragged toward the meat! Both groups of dogs eventually ate only when returned to their familiar kennels
The inference should be obvious: Everyday life gives enough "aversive experience" without Dr. Pavlov around to oversee everything. Groups of otherwise bright people will trust an avuncular Psychologist who quotes Scripture. When the same Shrink says he's no theologian but is merely "following the Word of God," who cares if he's not ordained? Dobson's advice, wrong-headed or not, is comforting. To paraphrase Gimme That Old-Time Religion, whatever Dobson says is plenty good enough for the Focus On The Family flock. Speaking from a multitude of pulpits increases its effectiveness. It's great theater. Think 1935 Nuremberg Rally. Dr. Phil's not half so slick.
In a message dated 06/26/08 23:48:49 Pacific Daylight Time, Treetops38 writes:
Butwhy should America care about how a child psychologist votes?
No comments:
Post a Comment