tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post7328949591273046816..comments2024-03-18T20:55:07.632-07:00Comments on The Last Behaviorist: Misunderstanding BehaviorismTheLastBehavioristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02766452615397498148noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-15500260940327622592024-03-18T20:55:07.632-07:002024-03-18T20:55:07.632-07:00Behaviorism is often misunderstood as merely rewar...Behaviorism is often misunderstood as merely rewarding or punishing behavior. It's more about understanding how environment shapes actions. A deeper dive reveals its complexity.<a href="https://hidft.com/" rel="nofollow">Dynamic Family Therapy LLC</a>Dynamic Family Therapy LLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09763915328802637914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-79796396964714718482020-11-24T18:46:58.544-08:002020-11-24T18:46:58.544-08:00Having read this I thought it was rather informati...Having read this I thought it was rather informative. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to put this informative article together. I once again find myself personally spending way too much time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worth it!ed pillshttps://besterectiledysfunctionpills.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-67820902323278344782020-11-24T18:42:09.633-08:002020-11-24T18:42:09.633-08:00Peculiar article, totally what I wanted to find.Peculiar article, totally what I wanted to find.impotencehttps://besterectiledysfunctionpills.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-19803354966609460442017-08-14T19:18:55.353-07:002017-08-14T19:18:55.353-07:00This is really interesting. Have you considered po...This is really interesting. Have you considered posting to WordPress.com? I would totally follow you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16655475644891565931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-71241768215206280402016-04-11T22:23:19.821-07:002016-04-11T22:23:19.821-07:00Thanks for your reply Mike. From what you describe...Thanks for your reply Mike. From what you describe you understand, but you do not yet experience what I mean with the distinction between SVB and NVB. Indeed, the difference between SVB and NVB can be viewed as simply just the difference in function. However, after many years of experimenting it has become clear to me as well as to everyone who has become familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction that SVB is the only intelligent way of communicating and that NVB is a blunt, dumb, unintelligent and deeply problematic way of talking. This fact can and should be verified. NVB keeps us unconscious, it impairs our relationships and it creates psychopathology. In the process of discriminating between SVB and NVB the question of understanding always arises in the absence of experience. If we were to have some real conversation with each other it would be crystal clear that experience of SVB comes before one can understand it. We can skype with each other and explore and this will make writing about it very different. I would really appreciate if you would also respond to my blog. I look forward to explain more and hope we can put this crucially important distinction on the map. Sound greetings, Maximus <br />Maximus Peperkamp, MS, MA https://www.blogger.com/profile/01973854736467986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-71228948415988598402016-04-01T00:37:30.066-07:002016-04-01T00:37:30.066-07:00Hi Maximus, sorry for the slow reply. I'll be ...Hi Maximus, sorry for the slow reply. I'll be honest, I only have a basic understanding of research in verbal behavior so I'm not sure how much I could add to your ideas, but feel free to email me if you wanted to talk at length: thelastbehaviorist@gmail.com<br /><br />Your distinction between NVB and SVB sounds interesting, and on your blog I see that the distinction to you seems to carry a lot of value judgements, but I wonder if it could be viewed more simply as just a difference in function. So NVB is controlled by variables that reinforce things like "dominating" a conversation, or "winning" a debate I guess, whereas SVB is reinforced by a perception that there's a mutual understanding occurring or that the other person has come to a genuine understanding of the subject matter being discussed.<br /><br />But maybe I'm misunderstanding what your argument is and I'll have to read your blog more.TheLastBehavioristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02766452615397498148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-38428405519978800722016-03-16T21:35:34.605-07:002016-03-16T21:35:34.605-07:00Dear Mike,
Thank you for your blog. The biggest ...Dear Mike,<br /> <br />Thank you for your blog. The biggest misunderstanding regarding behaviorism is in my opinion the fact that what is written cannot bridge the gap between what is written and what is said. Only what is said can bridge this gap, but only when it is Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). In SVB, the speaker's voice is perceived by the listener as an appetitive stimulus. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), by contrast, the speaker's voice is experienced as an aversive stimulus by the listener. I would very much like to talk with you about this. You can also go to my blog and read about it on: www.soundverbalbehavior.blogspot.com <br />Let me know what you think of my writing. Thanks. Kind greetings, Maximus Maximus Peperkamp, MS, MA https://www.blogger.com/profile/01973854736467986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-34881434114499896112016-02-12T15:16:52.669-08:002016-02-12T15:16:52.669-08:00Hi Anon,
Thanks for your response. On the 'cl...Hi Anon,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. On the 'classical conditioning' point, you're definitely right. I was simplifying to try to keep terms consistent and avoid the typical problem of learners being introduced to multiple terms for the same ideas but it is misleading to suggest that he specifically termed it that.<br /><br />You're right that Skinner rejected the concept of mind but I don't think he rejects the concept that most people mean by mind, which is the point I'm trying to emphasise. If by "mind" somebody means a discrete entity, like a kind of homunculus then Skinner obviously didn't support that.<br /><br />But I think Skinner's understanding and acceptance of cognitive processes is consistent with Gilbert Ryles' concept of mind, where it is just a label for a set of mental states and cognitive processes.<br /><br />I understand that I'm using terms slightly differently to how Skinner would understand them on a surface level, but when discussing these issues I find that people struggle to accept behaviorist arguments because there is so much complexity involved in the terminology that misunderstandings arise when they're not aware of the arguments behind the choice of terminology.<br /><br />So even though you're right that Skinner didn't accept "the mind" in the way you describe it, people interpret this as meaning that Skinner rejected inner states or cognitive processes, which is not only untrue but was in fact the basis of his radical behaviorism.TheLastBehavioristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02766452615397498148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-12141445203092478162016-02-07T12:35:03.559-08:002016-02-07T12:35:03.559-08:00Cont. Although, if you really wanted to, there wou...Cont. Although, if you really wanted to, there would be nothing wrong with saying "minds exist", if by that you mean "people think/feel/sense", but this seems somewhat Superfluous, because this isn't really how people use the word.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-56741183121946366892016-02-07T12:29:00.546-08:002016-02-07T12:29:00.546-08:00I don't think Pavlov called Respondant conditi...I don't think Pavlov called Respondant conditioning "Classical Conditioning". I think the Russian word he used was closer in meaning to the word "respondent".<br /><br />Second, it is misleading to say that Radical Behaviourists accept the existence of minds- Skinner was pretty explicit in his rejection of them in "About behaviorism" (1974).<br /><br />The reason being that people make a distinction between "the mind" and what it supposedly does. For example, a person might say that they "see a thing in their mind", but the only evidence of the mind is the "seeing". The only evidence a person who says they have a mind can have is that they sense things, feel, and think.<br /><br />Skinner's argument was that these things are things people do, and as such are behaviour of people/animals, and not things minds do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-16995846468969510802015-10-11T17:15:21.249-07:002015-10-11T17:15:21.249-07:00Surely the thing about nature & nurture is tha...Surely the thing about nature & nurture is that (a) they can easilly be conceived as separate inputs (to a mechanism-development process) but (b) the outputs of that process (the mechanism and the behavior produced by that mechanism) are such that different features of those outputs cannot easilly be ascribed to nature or nurture. The outputs are not simply mixed but cooked. A simple analogy is a cake (output) produced by a mix of eggs and flour (inputs). We cannot point to different parts of the cake and say this bit is 20% due to egg and 80% due to flour. Actually in some cases we can separate the effects of different contributions in the output e.g. nature: children have an innate ability to learn to speak but nurture: children raised in France mostly speak French. And a similar thing can occur with songbirds - innate song pattern is modulated by a local (learned) dialect.steveowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496089289452879722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-43881215743224896852014-05-13T23:01:42.940-07:002014-05-13T23:01:42.940-07:00"seems to violate this and resultingly become...<b>"seems to violate this and resultingly becomes more of a mentalistic account. </b><br /><br />Which would only be a problem if the 'mentalistic' account is mentalistic in the sense that behaviorists rejected. Skinner's description of "mentalism" referred to processes that existed outside of the empirical and natural world, accounts and explanations of behavior which (by definition) were self-caused and supernatural. In other words, he rejected accounts of behavior that relied on substance dualism.<br /><br />I see no reason to think that an inclusion of inner processes requires an acceptance of dualism, and Skinner didn't think so either.<br /><br /><b>"(I am aware I am equating innate behavior with inner processes - perhaps you will disagree with me on this but I feel at the very least the two are heavily intertwined)."</b><br /><br />I have to say that I'm sure quite sure how the two are intertwined at all but maybe we're using different definitions. "Inner processes" to me usually refers to things like cognition (thoughts, emotions, etc) and sometimes physiological processes underpinning them.<br /><br />Cognition, I think, is surely undeniably a distinct concept from innate. Most thoughts that we have are not innate in any meaningful sense. The physiological processes of the brain may have more innate components but it's still heavily affected by environment and learning so again it's still distinct from innate. <br /><br /><b>"I think the bigger problem for me can be explained by the nature/nurture distinction, or rather the complete rejection of it by the scientific community due to their inseparabilty."</b><br /><br />Agreed! And this was one of the main points that Skinner makes in most of his work - you cannot separate nature from nurture, and to attempt to do so is a fool's errand. He repeated it so often and so consistently that I personally consider it to be a core belief of RB.<br /><br /><b>"This is because Skinner needs them to be separate in order to behavior on the one hand and 'innate behaviors' (which can be left to the neuroscientists, child psychologists etc.) on the other."</b><br /><br />This isn't true at all. Even if we ignore behaviorism for now and just focus on science in general, we see that it is overwhelmingly accepted that nature and nurture are inextricably intertwined. And yet we also see that geneticists study genes and sociologists study society. <br /><br />There are valid fields of study that exist that investigate the same broad empirical questions but we don't <b>need</b> to mix them for either one to be "scientific". That was all Skinner was arguing. He was absolutely not opposed to mixing them, especially when the investigation required it, and instead he was simply arguing that it is scientific to study learning as a field in itself, in the same way that it is scientific to study chemistry without referencing physics in every paper.<br /><br /><b>"I was taught that RB is essentially a congruent mix of psychological, methodological and analytical behaviorism."</b><br /><br />That's very strange as RB and analytical behaviorism are not compatible. Ryle essentially developed analytical behaviorism as a reaction to what Skinner argued for, and he rejected Skinner's position. <br /><br />And I'll be honest, I only heard about "psychological behaviorism" a few months ago and I still don't really understand what it is. It seems to just refer to behaviorism as applied to psychology but I don't see how that differs from behaviorism as a whole.<br /><br /><b>"End picture being anthithesis of start (i.e. start with non-mentalistic acc, add some facts, throw in reflex, drive and other innate things that can't be explained by behavior and suddenly you have something that looks remarkably like a mentalistic acc.)"</b><br /><br />Just a quick note on this - did you know that Skinner was one of the earliest researchers in reflex and drive theories? They were largely developed and studied by behaviorists, like Pavlov and Watson. TheLastBehavioristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02766452615397498148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-23253079357482550572014-05-13T22:56:12.682-07:002014-05-13T22:56:12.682-07:00"Unfortunately the relevant article was the o...<b>"Unfortunately the relevant article was the only article I couldn't access."</b><br /><br />That's a shame as it succinctly counters the myth that behaviorism rejects innate behaviors. He discusses these concepts in all of his works, including "Selection by Consequences" but I'll copy a few excerpts from the article here:<br /><br /><i>"Yet [Watson] is probably responsible for the<br />persistent myth of what has been called "behaviorism's<br />counterfactual dogma" (Hirsch 1963). And it is a myth. No<br />reputable student of animal behavior has ever taken the<br />position "that the animal comes to the laboratory as a<br />virtual tabula rasa, that species' differences are insignificant,<br />and that all responses are about equally conditionable<br />to all stimuli" (Breland & Breland 1961)."</i><br /><br /><i>"Another kind of innate endowment, particularly likely<br />to appear in explanations of human behavior, takes the<br />form of "traits" or "abilities." Though often measured<br />quantitatively, their dimensions are meaningful only in<br />placing the individual in a population. The behavior<br />measured is almost always obviously learned. To say that<br />intelligence is inherited is not to say that specific forms<br />of behavior are inherited. Phylogenic contingencies conceivably<br />responsible for "the selection of intelligence"<br />do not specify responses. What has been selected appears<br />to be a susceptibility to ontogenic contingencies,<br />leading particularly to greater speed of conditioning and<br />the capacity to maintain a larger repertoire without<br />confusion."</i><br /><br /><i>"More specific characteristics of behavior seem to be<br />common products of phylogenic and ontogenic contingencies.<br />Imitation is an example. If we define imitation<br />as behaving in a way which resembles the observed<br />behavior of another organism, the term will describe both<br />phylogenic and ontogenic behavior. But important distinctions<br />need to be made. Phylogenic contingencies are<br />presumably responsible for well-defined responses released<br />by similar behavior (or its products) on the part of<br />others. A warning cry is taken up and passed along by<br />others; one bird in a flock flies off, and the others fly off;<br />one member of a herd starts to run, and the others start to<br />run. A stimulus acting upon only one member of a group<br />thus quickly affects other members, with plausible phylogenic<br />advantages."</i><br /><br />He also discusses the myth that Watson was a blank slatist based on the quotemining of his 12 infants quote, and praises him for his work on instinctual behaviors as an ethologist.<br /><br />But the basic summary of the article, as Skinner puts it, is that it is often unwise to talk of any behavior as being either inherited or acquired, as usually there is a significant influence from both directions. <br /><br /><b>"although the first was so scathing that I thought it was on the verge of falling into the combative style he was so heavily criticising."</b><br /><br />Sure, but I love the snark in it! I think the difference, however, is that Pinker has set up his book as basically an introduction for laymen and advertises it as a balanced overview of an academic topic. As such, he absolutely should be challenged on his obvious polemics.<br /><br />Schlinger, on the other hand, is simply rebutting Pinker within his academic circle and so there's no need to wear kiddy gloves.<br /><br /><b>"Namely the eliminability of inner process laws i.e. if there are inner processes describable by laws, the inner processes themselves would be the result of patterns of external stimuli."</b><br /><br />I'm not aware of any radical behaviorist objection to inner processes though, and Skinner argued at length that they should be understood and studied in the same way we study any other kind of behavior. So I don't see how this could be an incompatibility when the existence and importance of inner processes is one of the central tenets of radical behaviorism. The existence of private and covert behaviors is precisely why Skinner's behaviorism was "radical".TheLastBehavioristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02766452615397498148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-79625527130426613712014-05-12T12:15:35.528-07:002014-05-12T12:15:35.528-07:00EDIT to paragraph 3:
Uncontestable facts (e.g. co...EDIT to paragraph 3: <br />Uncontestable facts (e.g. congenital traits).<br />End picture being anthithesis of start (i.e. start with non-mentalistic acc, add some facts, throw in reflex, drive and other innate things that can't be explained by behavior and suddenly you have something that looks remarkably like a mentalistic acc.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-18212196956321333942014-05-12T12:10:51.053-07:002014-05-12T12:10:51.053-07:00I guess I was hoping for some more information on ...I guess I was hoping for some more information on Skinner's views on phylogenic patterns of behaviour. Unfortunately the relevant article was the only article I couldn't access. The others were very informative though so thanks for those - although the first was so scathing that I thought it was on the verge of falling into the combative style he was so heavily criticising.<br /><br />The problem I see with Skinner accepting innate behaviors is that it isn't compatible with some of the original tenets of RB. Namely the eliminability of inner process laws i.e. if there are inner processes describable by laws, the inner processes themselves would be the result of patterns of external stimuli. Going on to then accept that sexual attraction has both behavioral and innate components (which Skinner describes as sexual reflex acc. to Schlinger) seems to violate this and resultingly becomes more of a mentalistic account. (I am aware I am equating innate behavior with inner processes - perhaps you will disagree with me on this but I feel at the very least the two are heavily intertwined).<br /><br />I can see how it is necessary to 'update' RB to incorporate uncontestable facts but not if the picture you end up with is the antithesis of what you started with. I think the bigger problem for me can be explained by the nature/nurture distinction, or rather the complete rejection of it by the scientific community due to their inseparabilty. A great analogy is that of Newtonian space and time as oppose to Einsteinian space-time. I can't help but feel that the two being so inextricably linked does not bode well for RB. This is because Skinner needs them to be separate in order to behavior on the one hand and 'innate behaviors' (which can be left to the neuroscientists, child psychologists etc.) on the other.<br /><br />That said, this could all be due to a fundamental flaw in my understanding of RB. It's funny that you mention that analytical behaviorism is a completely different beast because I was taught that RB is essentially a congruent mix of psychological, methodological and analytical behaviorism.<br /><br />(Please excuse any typos, grammatical mistakes as this is now the third time I have typed this out - blogspot REALLY doesn't like mobile devices.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-66669344296356659292014-05-11T23:38:13.399-07:002014-05-11T23:38:13.399-07:00Hi there, thanks for commenting and I'm glad y...Hi there, thanks for commenting and I'm glad you like my blog!<br /><br />The idea that Skinner (or any behaviorist) was anti-nativist is a misunderstanding that comes about as a result of multiple myths and misreadings of the people involved. I give some examples above of how this can't be true (like Watson originally being an ethologist studying innate behaviors, even dedicating the final chapters of his book "Behaviorism" to instinctual behaviors) and Skinner regularly discussed the existence (and importance) of innate behaviors, like in his article: <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6724552" rel="nofollow">The Phylogeny and Ontogeny of Behavior</a>. There's also a good overview here: <a href="http://web.calstatela.edu/academic/psych/html/Graduate/ABA/PDF%20articles/NotSoFastMrPinker.pdf" rel="nofollow">Not so fast, Mr Pinker.</a>.<br /><br />The confusion generally comes from two basic sources. The first is that behaviorists led the fight against the problematic use of the term "instinct": "<a href="http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/psyc3031/Behaviorism%20Behavior%20and%20Philosophy/1972%20-%20Vol%201%20No%201/04%20Nature%20as%20Nurture%20Behaviorism%20and%20the%20Instinct%20Doctrine.pdf" rel="nofollow">Nature as Nurture: Behaviorism and the Instinct Doctrine</a>'. But, as you can see from the linked article there, the complaint that behaviorists had wasn't against the concept of innate behaviors, but with the concept of "instinct". It was so vaguely defined and had been applied to a large array of (often conflicting) behaviors that it had become a meaningless term. At a glance, however, it's possible for an outsider to see the behaviorist fight against instinct as a fight against innate behaviors entirely.<br /><br />The second problem comes as a result of Skinner's regular comments on the levels of explanation. He would often remark that the study of behavior is a scientific field in its own right and can thus be explained without recourse to things like neuroscience or physiology. The confusion here is that he explicitly wasn't saying that those things don't affect behavior (like in the case of innate behaviors) but rather that they aren't needed to explain behavior at the level of behavior. As a comparison, chemistry is a scientific field even if they don't always appeal to physics to explain their results. Their non-use of physics in their everyday study isn't an indication that they reject physics or the fact that chemistry is based on lower order processes but rather they're happy to leave the physics to physicists and the chemists can stick to chemistry. In the same way, behavioral psychologists are happy to leave innate behaviors to the geneticists and ethologists whilst they study learnt behavior.<br /><br />As for the SEP entry on behaviorism, it is a web of misinformation that I need to tackle one day but I fear that if I start then I'll never finish. It might help though if you keep in mind that it's written by a philosopher and in academic philosophy the main behaviorist influence that they've been exposed to is logical/analytical behaviorism, which is a completely different beast to the behaviorism used in psychology.<br /><br />I hope that helps but feel free to ask follow-up questions if I haven't answered what you were asking. TheLastBehavioristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02766452615397498148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-16420693411591505982014-05-11T14:23:20.265-07:002014-05-11T14:23:20.265-07:00Fantastic Blog. I look forward to reading more of ...Fantastic Blog. I look forward to reading more of your posts.<br /><br />I was wondering if you could elborate on this point:<br /><br />This "middle-ground" position was continued by B.F. Skinner, Watson's successor, who argued that it is impossible to understand behavior without looking at both the phylogenetic (over the course of the development of a species) and ontogenic (over the course of the development of an individual) components of behavior.<br /><br />It was my understanding that Skinner (and Radical Behaviorism) was very much anti-nativist. From stanford encyclopedia: 'For a behaviorist an organism learns, as it were, from its successes and mistakes. “Rules,” says Skinner (1984a), “are derived from contingencies, which specify discriminative stimuli, responses, and consequences” (p. 583)'<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/behaviorism/<br /><br />As such, while I love the idea of marrying the notions introspection with behaviorism by pointing to neural behavioral patterns, the two seem incompatible if one notion rejects innate predispositions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-25373995698294991052013-01-13T08:33:37.887-08:002013-01-13T08:33:37.887-08:00See continuing discussion here: http://fixingpsych...See continuing discussion here: <a href="http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2013/01/defending-john-watson-asshole.html" rel="nofollow">http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2013/01/defending-john-watson-asshole.html</a>Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-26906529542267757992012-11-26T00:54:40.562-08:002012-11-26T00:54:40.562-08:00Hey Eric, thanks for the comments.
I agree that h...Hey Eric, thanks for the comments.<br /><br />I agree that his comment could be interpreted as a weaker claim where proficiency in the profession is not necessary, and that even this would be a strong claim for the beliefs of his time. I think it's hard to interpret it this way given that he suggests that he can make a child into "<b>any</b> specialist" but I also think it's useful to interpret it in the most extreme way possible and mount a defence against that - as it's less likely that I'd be accused of dodging the "true" issue, or redefining his position.<br /><br />Your last paragraph, I believe, sums up the problem most people have with getting their heads around behaviorism. Watson's claim (especially when interpreted in the way you suggest) is spectacularly uncontroversial within our current framework of knowledge and this seems to be true of a lot of the core assumptions of behaviorism. The problem arises when we, looking back on their arguments, fully accept what they seem to be saying but assume that <i>they must have meant something else</i>, otherwise why would people oppose it? As such, we end up ascribing ridiculous positions to the behaviorists and the misunderstanding continues.<br /><br />On your posts about behaviorism, I think I have read over some of them a while ago but I'll check over them again later and make comments if something stands out to me. <br /><br />Cheers!Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08801634278850835168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-78749837323532445832012-11-25T20:36:59.408-08:002012-11-25T20:36:59.408-08:00oooooh... much to think about and comment on!
As ...oooooh... much to think about and comment on!<br /><br />As it is getting late, I'll start with the maximum defense of Watson that I can give (I really don't like the guy). I will only mention that I think Watson's claim regarding transforming children into doctors or thief's at will is not an overstatement. Surely parents do that to their children all the time. I think the confusion comes from reading far more into the quote than what Watson actually said. All Watson claimed was that he could take a baby and produce an adult with a particular profession. He didn't claim the person would be particularly good at the profession, he didn't claim they would be happy at the profession, he didn't claim he could do it with an older child, and he certainly didn't claim he would have control over all aspects of the person's life. He also picked a list of professions that do not require particular physical endowments (e.g. he did not include professional gymnast). <br /><br />At a time when folks believed much more strongly than today that a person's race limited their abilities to succeed in certain professions, and folks believed much more strongly than today that some people were born with built in moral compasses that would exclude other professions, this was a strikingly bold claim. <br /><br />However, I think in today's environment it is pretty mundane. Most folks believe that any normally functioning child can grow up to be any of those things. If they <i>can</i> become that, then you can manipulate the environment to make them <i>more likely</i> to become that. Thus, today the issue is about how high a probability you could achieve, not an issue of racial limitation, etc.<br /><br />Alright, no more defending Watson. Other stuff later. <br /><br />P.S. Have you seen my earlier posts on behaviorism, <a href="http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/02/notes-towards-better-radical.html" rel="nofollow">like this one</a>?Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-27090327150436020472012-11-24T18:40:27.420-08:002012-11-24T18:40:27.420-08:00Hey Anon - thanks for the info about engines. I...Hey Anon - thanks for the info about engines. I'll admit that it's not exactly my subject area so I'll take your word for it. Despite the factual inaccuracies of the actual comparison, I hope that the point I was making is still understandable.<br /><br /><b>Anon says: "I think that the evolutionary "thrust" provided by our complex brains requires a species specific focus to best understand complex human behavior."</b><br /><br />I'm not so sure about that. What we do know from behavioral science is that there is very little difference, behaviorally, between humans, rats, pigeons, insects, etc. We have discovered so many universal laws that it's really undeniable that working our way from the bottom up is a valuable/productive approach. <br /><br />Evolutionary psychology can be a useful approach to studying psychology as well, of course, but currently I don't think there are any results that could justify suggesting that there have been any evolutionary spurts that have caused a significant difference between humans and animals. Not to say that there hasn't been, but just that at the moment we haven't faced any difficulties in explaining most complex human behavior through universal and general laws.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08801634278850835168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7182111939035703155.post-64609742478138793042012-11-24T08:36:28.639-08:002012-11-24T08:36:28.639-08:00The difference between a turbine based engine for ...The difference between a turbine based engine for a 747 and a piston based engine for a lawnmower is enormous. So enormous that my uncles, one in aviation and the other in trucking, do not share many "principles that are common" when discussing their work.<br />I think that the evolutionary "thrust" provided by our complex brains requires a species specific focus to best understand complex human behavior.<br />leocauchon@netscape.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com