Hoping to Interest People in Behavior Analysis

amd2003

Let me see if I can interest people in behavior analysis, the approach to psychology Skinner developed.

Here are the facts as I see them (the numbers are guesses, intended to give a general idea; a few points one way or another will NOT change conclusions at all)

1. 98% of psychology (including cognitive psychology) uses something called mentalism. It is also very similar to folk psychology. Steve Pinker says in one of his books (something like) his aunt knows as much psychology as professors of psychology do. Folk psychology hopelessly miscasts some basic things as the following quote from Malone says;

Quote:
Traditional psychology carries the burden of basic assumptions that agree with folk psychology and, therefore, lend popular appeal to its theories (cf., Baum, 1994). Needless to say, these assumptions also feature primitive ways of casting some important questions. For example, the assumption that “we” are minds
“inside” bodies agrees with millennia of popular opinion, but it is neither a necessary nor a wise psychology. Similarly, the facts of sensation and perception do not require that we take in copies of the world around us. Whatever the popular
appeal, radical behaviorism does not accept such folk psychology.

2. Behavior analysis/operant psychology/radical behaviorism/Skinnerian psychology/the experimental analysis of behavior is the remaining 2%. It is not dead as most people think. There is actually a 1994 book trying to understand its "anomalous survival", as the author calls it.

3. I see a lot of hope in this approach.

4. This is not exactly thriving either. I hope that it is more the eclipse that Darwinism went through in the 1900's.

5. There about 12 very active journals.

6. The field seems to be in the throes of a turmoil at the moment. Perhaps this is inevitable and the problems will sort themselves out.

7. Let me end on a lighter note. About a month ago, I was taking my son to the airport. He is a humanities major in college. We say a billboard for something called Chautauqua Airlines. I asked son whether he knew what a Chautauqua was. When he didn't know, I explained to him that it meant an outdoor meeting popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Son wanted to know how I knew this. I said, "How do I know anything else? From B.F. Skinner of course".

amd

Edited by: amd2003 at: 10/9/04 8:30 am

Niall001

Personally, I feel that it's a bit dated. Useful but dated. I thought that Chomsky, technological progress, Dennet and co. demolished Skinner long ago.

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

amd2003

: I thought that Chomsky, technological progress, Dennet and co. demolished Skinner long ago.

This is another myth that persists. It is true that 98% of psychology is still mentalistic, i.e., non-Skinnerian. However, the remaining 2% is very active and vibrant. (I have made this point in my original post.)

Kluwer Academic Publishers has a series called Studies in Cognitive Systems. Volume 16 of this is called Behavior and Its Causes: Philosophical Foundations of Operant Psychology (1994) This book started with the author Terry Smith's following 1980 expectation:

"Cognitive psychology clearly was on the rise, so I inferred that the Skinnerian program must be on the decline. Indeed, I thought it must have just about disappeared by now."

A Professor Shapere "implied that this outcome was not a foregone conclusion .. He suggested this might be worth looking into. That proved to be a fruitful suggestion. What I discovered was that during the 1960's, the Skinnerian program had actually grown at an accelerating rate."

Smith's book was published in 1994. The "Introduction" chapter of this book is subtitled "The Anomalous Survival of Operant Psychology". The following quotes are from this chapter:

"In 1954 when Verplanck compared B.F.Skinner's operant theory with other learning theories of the day, he found it had 'uncovered a wide new range of phenomenoa, involving variables not at all considered by others'"

"In 1959--ironically, the very year in which Chomsky allegedly refuted behaviorism-- the number of articles published by operant psychologists actually began to show a dramatic increase. During the following decade, as cognitive psychology rose to its current prominence, operant psychology was also experiencing rapid growth. This growth can be documented by almost any measure one might choose-- number of research articles, expansion of professional organizations, or influence on the field as judged by the peers".

"It would take the rest of us a decade or so to notice that there was less to the idea of a cognitive revolution than at first me the eye."

"(Leahey) furthermore says that if one had to identify a genuine paradigm in psychology, the operant tradition is 'without doubt the closest' thing to it. None of this is to say that Leahey endorses radical behaviorism. He does not."

PS: Dudley Shapere (the guy who asked Smith not to jump to conclusions) retired 1n 2002 as Reynolds Professor of Philosophy and History of Science from Wake Forest.

Edited by: amd2003 at: 10/18/04 7:34 am

amd2003

: But it ignores what can be of great use to psychologists and people who hope to understand human behaviour.

What are some of the things it ignores?

: Behaviourism is one tool of the psychologist, but like all schools of thought within psychology, it is not enough in itself.

Would you similarly say the following?

"the theory of evolution is one tool but like all schools of thought, it is not enough in itself; we need other tools such as creation science"

Also, how can you believe

"I thought that Chomsky, technological progress, Dennet and co. demolished Skinner long ago."

and

"And there's no denying that it's very useful and should be utilised."

at the same time?

Edited by: amd2003 at: 10/18/04 7:43 am

amd2003

Behavior Analysis is being studied in several countries. National University of Ireland, Maynooth is a strong center. (Dermot Barnes-Holmes and colleagues.)

The next ABA international conference is being held in Beijing.

Niall001

I'm actually taking A.B.A. at the moment. And there's no denying that it's very useful and should be utilised.

But it ignores what can be of great use to psychologists and people who hope to understand human behaviour.

Behaviourism is one tool of the psychologist, but like all schools of thought within psychology, it is not enough in itself.

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

Niall001

I'll make a post that outlines my views sometime in the next few days.

But for now, I'll just say that in my opinion, there are serious flaws in Skinner's theories, but that does not mean that there is a great deal that is of tremendous value in behaviourism. He may have been wrong about certain things, but that does not mean that he wasn't right about a whole lot more.

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

amd2003

: there are serious flaws in Skinner's theories

: He may have been wrong about certain things

Chomsky never understood Skinner's theory. What he criticized was a strawman (what he thought Skinner's theory was). He was convinced a priori that any such (determinist) theory has to be wrong and didn't even give it a chance.

There have been several effective replies to Chomsky but alas nobody reads them. People in BA consider Chomsky a very naive critic and don't bother with him.

amd2003

From Smith's book:

"Behaviorim, as we know it, will eventually die -- not because it is a failure but because it is a success. it will necessarily change. current issues may be wholly resolved. The basic question is the usefulness of mentalistic concepts."

(Skinner, 1969)

Niall001

Would you see cognitive behaviourism as a successor to behaviourism?

Let us agree, there is no one single reality. Not upon this stage, not in this world, all is in the mind... imagination is the only truth. Because it cannot be contradicted except by other imaginations - Richard Matheson

There are no conclusive indications by which waking life can be distinguished from sleep - Rene Descartes

amd2003

: Would you see cognitive behaviourism as a successor to behaviourism?

I don't know what cognitive behaviourism is or who some of the people working in this field are. The behaviorism that I see a lot promise in is the philosophy adhered to by the people who write/read in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. By no means, there is a single unified position within this group. There is psuh and shove of competing viewpoints. If I have to name a single individual I would pick David Palmer of Smith College.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT