Note: like the previous article "occupy inhumanity" this will soon be blended with the empathy model.
In terms of humanity and in-humaneness, behaviorist psychology is equivalent to "experimental" psychology, and is what it sounds like: sadistic experiments using animals and, in important cases, children. BF Skinner is the best-know "experimental" name, and his contribution was pretty much that if you jab an animal, it jumps, and if you jab, shock, or otherwise traumatize an animal you can malign and, importantly, rationally reduce, its behaviors. He raised his child in a "Skinner box," which was a large experimental animal box, which pretty much says it all; though his child seemed to survive the experience.
A singly important experiment on a child was the "Little Albert" experiment by Watson. He was able, through traumatization using loud and frightening noises, make a child afraid of a piece of fur. Today, he would instantly go to prison where he would immediately be beaten in "general population" as nearly all prisoners where abused thus as children.
A second important fact about Watson is that he was tossed out of psychology and went on to establish the behaviorist nature of advertising on "Madison Avenue." All advertising is pure behaviorist modification, but really only appeals to watchers who are susceptible to suggestion, meaning that they are impulsive in the ways pathological gamblers are, as are narcotics addicts. In other words, thanks to "advertising human engineering," television (and other media such as the Internet) does not apply to normal people. Normal people (technically) can "inhibit" impulses, meaning normal people have inhibitory neural constructs to save themselves from Watson's monster advertising).
However, the World in heavily invested in experimental, behaviorist psychology as an explanation for behavior for a simple reason (especially from the empathy perspective): those who seek and are driven to control others do not have normal neural constructs, and are fully aware of their deficiencies. To admit this would be to resign power, and, as it happens, normal people don't seek power, they seek to collaborate in groups of more or less equal status with elders a little higher, and children a little lower--but not much. With absolute certainty, the financial pyramids would collapse -- the ancient empires, such as the Egyptian that build massive monuments to their control structures, would indeed be things of history and not fear.
These structures are the oligarchies, and are not actually differentiated from ancient empires, which are technically aristocratic; a catch-all term for oligarchy (like Plato who invented Western Civilization) and aristocratic family (like Heinz Ketchup that patronized BF Skinner) is plutocracy, but that is weak for various reasons. Far better for explaining the phenomena of human decline that comes from empire growth (especially as a result of empirical experimentation) is neurology and evolutionary decay. Ironically, the decaying portion of humanity does not actually deny an "evolutionary fork." Instead, they say that there has been an improvement (which is described by evolutionist Dawkins as the "selfish gene." The argument becomes moot when this (apparently mutant) faction is presented with the facts of environment destruction, they they often attempt to deny it or suggest it improves things somehow, such as with global warming--they call it "climate change."
The "mutants" do have a good argument in one area, medicine, and successfully "occupy" it as a monopoly; they always send one offspring to medical school--just in case normal people figure things out. Medicine is the one thing we cannot live without, and it is easily argued that current medication (which can be good stuff) could not exist without capital--period. Without doubt (and this I got from a political competition) medicine and education costs are the two biggest problems we have, and as it happens they are closely related through academics, which is the creation of Socrates and Plato. Interestingly it was "wrangled" from Hypocrites' school for the original academy by Aristotle who attempted to manualize Hypocrites' odd "bile" ideas by putting them in a 4X4 table; this "oddity" survived until the mid-70s under Eysenck (who is a mutant story unto himself).
The question is obvious then, we are kind of stuck with the oligarchy through medicine unless we can replace academic structure created by the oligarchy. Asian is in the same boat, as Confucius is near exact copy of Socrates down to the same-sex student sexual abuse--it's phenomenological, or "phenomic." Going with this lase word, phenomena, we can segue here to the "new world" leaders who are the experiential humanistics such as Carl Rogers (client-oriented psych), Ruth Benedict (aboriginal-inspired Synergy), Abe Maslow (self-actualization), and Buckminster Fuller (who adapted Synergy to engineering and architecture). The best word for the solution is "constructivism" which is the educational process of constructing knowledge from experience where the knowledge is constructed into logical structures such as we see in wiki pages. This, if you fully comprehend it solution, would in fact fix everything as both factions could be one happy family--but, not so quick. Oligarchs as mutants exist as they do for a reason; this is phenomenological (or phenomic) requirement. They would not be so mean unless there is a reason for it, and the reason happens to be that they cannot think in terms of conceptual structures. As some constructivists would say, they lack a "frame of reference" to be updated by experience. My view is that they can think only sequentially as a continual fluent stream, such as a poem, and cannot hence cannot abstract knowledge with structures. They are out of the picture, and, ironically, the ranks of construcitivist s would be thinned, as constructivism is taught academically (and hence didactially).
With experimental, constructivist, and Synergistic success is the obvious: halt the oligarchic gene, that is, make sure they cannot pass it along to future generations--which is something they obsess about. The difficulty is not so much that the oligarch is established in the "first world" (Occupy's supposed 1%), but that it may be breeding out of control in the "third world" at the "behest" of the 1% of the first world. (The third world is the supposed beneficiary of Occupy as well as globalism and multi-culturalist feminism). The world population is exploding because the (formerly colonial) third world is dedicated to providing "bodies" that oligarchic economic growth (first and foremost) requires, or population growth (because average first world families will not). This shows oligarchy's obsolescence because, obviously, a few machines now do the work of many--we barely have to work in the first world, and the World should be a vast summer camp.
Perhaps more important than the (deprecated) population need for labor are the actual "bodies" to fill the structures created by oligarchic capital's most indicative trait and its primary purpose: capital construction. Capital, all agree, is capital construction. The rise in population necessary to "push up the top of the pyramids" (which are real, physical structures) results in a smaller portion of capital benefits for each individual, except those in the higher layers of the oligarchic structure. Thus, Plato made the second layer of his "republican" pyramid "the cops," or guardians. However, today's oligarchs pull them up into the top layer as an "executive function" (which is an interesting choice of words from the psychological perspective).
If the malignant of the third world by all of the oligarchy ranging from cruel "Austrian" economic school to the multicultural feminists, who self-describe as warm, then an obvious place to start is the restoration of third world aboriginals, and the continuing restoration of first world aboriginals which includes the "going native" of many of the better-off as we saw with the hippies of the 60s (who failed because of synthetic drugs such as LSD).
What we will find in aboriginal culture is, in fact, constructivist structure. Think about it; we are all decedent from aboriginals, and aboriginal culture brought us to the point were the modern oligarchic mutants could begin to destroy it with capital construction (while, in fairness, making contributions to medicine). So, it is all good, and we can come to a place where no one gets hurt, only those with limited capabilities "self-actualize" in the context of their abilities, and occasionally have to be put on medication if they become dangerous. As a final aside, aboriginal reconstruction should not include the restoration of problems they faced, be they natural as in disease, or internal oligarchic problems, which must have existed, but to a lesser degree as they are closer to natural "wild" life, which has no such problem as we know from Darwin.