Is how we understand experience a byproduct of our hierarchical world?

We've finally moved beyond just mere behaviorism, and added the layer of human experience to our discussions. Now, I think that this makes the discussion both a lot more cloudy, and a little clearer too in some ways. We spoke about how in a classroom setting, getting students to do something that we want them to as teachers isn't as simple as a knee-jerk response, like a puppy salivating when you ring a bell, or playing fetch for a treat. When what we want someone to do aligns with the holistic sum of their experiences, their self-efficacy to agree with what is being told to them is probably a bit higher. The notion of cognitive experience based on one's history that Bandura bases his arguments on teaches us that unlike dogs, the applications of behaviorism and operant learning on human beings are far more layered. Does this make Amy Sutherland's ramblings on the 'shamuing' of human beings a little too brash? I think that this is something definitely worth discussing.

The notion of the Ascending Reticular Activating System and heightened level of arousal do a lot to explain the power of experience in shaping our agreeability to do certain things, as well as the way in which we model our relationships with those who are considered to have a certain level of power. We need to understand that people do things not to drive us nuts on purpose. It's probably because they've experienced something in their lives that make them behave a certain way. Going back to my examples about being chastised for my hair and wearing uniform everyday to school, it probably explains my desire to constantly play around with the way I look, and my obsession with retail therapy. Just like Robin said in class, we try to understand other people's experiences, but we will always judge them in some way, because its hard to be objective. That's why she judges freshmen, just like I do. As someone who's studied psychology and is constantly told things like 'oh, you must be super neutral because you understand how all attributions come from somewhere', what I have to say to that is, well, it's hard to be completely objective, unless you detach yourself from everyone and everything. The life of an ascetic is super boring though.

Going forward from these arguments on neutrality, I recall the discussions about dynamic priorities that we had with Michael in our class last semester. Adults judge kids because of their capricious doings, but why? They had the same priorities when they were little, they just happened to grow up. The magnitude of their experience doesn't make them any better than their children. It's just the nature of their experiences that makes them think differently. This probably explains why my nan wouldn't take us seriously. She was quantifying experience rather than understanding that experience isn't about hierarchies, but rather about constant change and individuality. Maybe if we inculcate this notion of evaluating rather than quantifying experience in our children from an early age, it could combat the imbalance of power that pervades through society today. This is definitely something that is extremely hard to do, but one can hope. The internet definitely paves the way for such a world, where 'experts' don't exist, and everyone has free agency based on the nature of their experience.