Well, I'll pass having some eye syncing device. I don't think so, I smoke too much weed and knowing that the government can see what I see would make me far too paranoid. Plus during intercourse, showers etc, this idea seems like it wasn't very thought out when he perceived it as a future device.
| |
Hell no. That guy is trying to turn the world into a behaviourist's wet dream. I hate achievements, and I'll do fine without them, thank you very much.
| |
Well, I'll pass having some eye syncing device. I imagine it'd come bundled with the device. Easy enough to probably just cover it up and I can't imagine they'd make that illegal or at least I'd hope people would fight enforcing it legally you'd just be exempt from any rewards it might yield you. However some thing may end up being harder to avoid. Already you have games integrating into steam requiring you to use it with no options to disable them. I think Modern Warfare 2 pretty much forces the tracking stuff on you if you play a legitimate copy. It may seem like a big jump now but if people don't start boycotting this type of BS now and just remain apathetic it'll just slowly grow until we're eventually there and it's common place. | |
Hell no. That guy is trying to turn the world into a behaviourist's wet dream. I hate achievements, and I'll do fine without them, thank you very much. I totally agree however the more people are willing to agree with this and go along or be apathetic about it the more and more common place it'll become and the harder it'll be to avoid. A slightly unrelated example is the fact that I hate phones and have never owned a cell phone and don't have a personal land line. Which makes things difficult as it's entirely expected that everyone has a phone number by now and as such it's a required field for just about any form that needs personal information so I have to make up crap to get through them. If stuff like this becomes common place and ubiquitous it'll probably end up being similarly required for most things by virtue of the fact that mostly everyone has it. | |
Toadfish wrote:
Hell no. That guy is trying to turn the world into a behaviourist's wet dream. I hate achievements, and I'll do fine without them, thank you very much. A real behaviourist wouldn't put any stock in dreams. They're epiphenomena, unrelated to your actual behaviour. :P (PS: Behaviourism is about the most scientific - and not incidentally, most accurate - psychology has ever been) | |
(PS: Behaviourism is about the most scientific - and not incidentally, most accurate - psychology has ever been) What we call "modern behaviourism", maybe. But strictly speaking, it is not only one of the most controversial, but also the most inaccurate (read: utterly wrong) schools of psychology, although I wouldn't deny the most scientific part. The post-skinnerian biological school is probably the closest thing to behaviourism in its classical sense that we have today, but even there there's plenty of leeway for non-behaviouristic methodology and theories. | |
Toadfish wrote:
(PS: Behaviourism is about the most scientific - and not incidentally, most accurate - psychology has ever been) Sure, controversial. But that's just because psychologists aren't scientists, and don't like the idea that all the towering crystal palaces they've constructed on air are utterly meaningless and unnecessary when so much behaviour can be explained solely via observable behaviour and the scientific method. I'm having issues coming up with any other psychological hypothesis as far-reaching, powerful, and accurate as classical and operant conditioning. | |
Operant conditioning in the classical, Skinnerian sense (and yes, I am aware "classical operant conditioning" usually refers to another method) , is inaccurate, as several studies have shown (I'll come back to you on that one when I find some old articles). There are variations of operant conditioning which have proven more successful, but these are actually the most unbehaviouristic ones (for example, ones that speculate what happens in the "black box"). Cognitive psychology, which in many respects is a sister school to behaviourism, is a much more likely candidate for the "most accurate" school of psychology, although it still lacks a unifying explanation for many of our higher cognitive functions.
As for the validity of other, less scientific schools of psychology, well, recent neurobiological studies have indicated psychoanalytical treatment changes the brain much in the same way certain neuroplastical treatments do. I'm not sure what to think of this. | |
I think people already demonstrate this constantly with stuff like Safeway cards where you allow a company to track what you buy in excahnge for discounts. Or at casinos they link everything you do to you with a card and a unique identifier on it which links to you personally. Stuff like the new Ubisoft DRM where you're forced to make an account and be logged on constantly to play a single player game. Hardware profiles for windows activation. Anti cheat systems that you agree to let monitor what you're running. Google tracks a whole bunch and you agree to give up information to use any of their services. And the list could go on and on. So I think we've already passed that hurdle in that people are completely willing to give up information or are totally oblivious about it.