About Behaviorism [Mass Market Paperback]

In mid-century, Skinner became strongly associated with the word 'behaviorism' (so much so that it is now common to see famous, well-published academics confusing him with Watson, the originator of the word 'behaviorism,' whose views and approach were fundamentally different.) Skinner's views are actually called "radical behaviorism" to distinguish them from others like Watsonian S-R behaviorism, Hull's neo-behaviorism, Tolman's purposive behaviorism, and so on. Radical behaviorism, as many prior behaviorisms, held that behavior was caused in ordinary natural ways, and hence that it could be studied just as scientifically as, say, biology was, with just as little unnecessary mystery. What made it 'radical,' however, was not really that it was more behaviorist than other behaviorism, but that it embraced the existence of only-privately-observed events, like one's thoughts and feelings, in such a way that they were also considered behavior. (cf. Skinner's quote, 'The skin is not so important as a boundary.')

Skinner's philosophy had other notable and idiosyncratic properties: Skinner held that behavior was profoundly controlled by the environment (read: that what we do is done with relation to the world - compare this to Pylyshyn's absurdly contrary claim that "human behavior is stimulus free," in other words that we are so stupid that we act without regard, e.g., to what time it is, what the judge just said, or how this restaurant was awful last time.) Skinner emphasized direct application of behavioral study to political problems, was a humanist who hated coercion and punishment, and - perhaps most famously - he was excessively picky about what words were used to describe behavior (going so far as to reject, on principle, virtually any use terminology smacking of 'mentalism,' - e.g., 'thought,' even though he took pains to point out his acceptance of private life). It is the persistent emphasis of environmental influence and the persistent suspicion of anything that smelled like 'mentalism' - appeal to spirits, res cogitae, homunculi, a vis viva, or a virtus dormitiva - that are now the most noted characteristics of Skinner's philosophy.

Skinner's own words will naturally be the most reliable representation of what he thought, and this is the best place to read those words. Whether or not you have any understanding of behavioral science or of Skinner's particular take on it, this book will give you the essential and relatively authoritative philosophical views contained in radical behaviorism - unpolluted by politically motivated revisionism. With an honest reading of an accurate source, one can evaluate each idea on its own merit, without needing to take sides pro or con in order to evaluate the basic plausibility of the many and strident competing claims about radical behaviorism.

(One point is left off because Skinner's philosophy is still somewhat confusingly explained and incomplete, albeit expansive, even at its best).

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BE AN EDUCATED PERSON IN THE 21ST CENTURY IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A FIRM GRASP OF BFS' BODY OF WORK. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL.

IN THIS VOLUME BFS MAKES A BRAVE STAB AT 'POPULARISING' HIS THEORIES. HE IS NOT ALTOGETHER SUCCESSFUL. FOR ONE THING, HE DOESN'T WRITE NEARLY AS WELL AS, SAY, FREUD; ALTHOUGH HE IS ON A PAR WITH, SAY, JUNG, OR EVEN JAMES.

THE 'HUMANISTS' WHO ARE ON THE RISE THESE HIGH-TECH DAYS - THEY USUALLY PARALLEL THE RELIGIONIST CYCLE - GET PRETTY SHORT SHRIFT FROM BFS, ALTHOUGH IN THIS BOOK HE GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO BE CONCILIATORY. I WONDER IF HE DOESN'T BORDER ON CONDESCENDING?

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT "MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE & LIKENESS OF A SANE & LOVING GOD" YOU WON'T ENJOY THIS INFINITELY POLITE BUT UNCOMPROMISING BOOK. IT IS ALL FOR TRAINING MAN OUT OF HIS 'KILLER APS' SO TO SPEAK : YOU KNOW, SLAVERY IN THE SOUTHERN USA (THE READING LIST IS GROWING AT LAST), VIETNAM (A GROWING LIST OF FINE, DEVASTATINGLY REVEALING BOOKS), 1930/40 NAZISM ( A READING LIST AS LONG AS YOUR ARM AND GROWING RAPIDLY), STALINISM (NOT SUCH A GOOD LIST OF READINGS), MAOISM (ALSO A BIT SPARSE), ON AND ON ACROSS A PLANET AWASH IN BLOOD & CARNAGE - RIGHT UP TO THIS VERY HOUR, EVEN AS I WRITE.

BFS DOES NOT ROMANTICISE HUMANKIND, ANY MORE THAN DARWIN DID. IF HE ERRS, LIKE DARWIN, IT IS THROUGH A REALISTIC FEAR OF AROUSING THE HATRED OF A DANGEROUS SPECIES; THIS LEADS TO A TENDENCY TO SKIRT THE REAL ISSUES, HOPING THE READER CAN READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

THIS IS NOT 'LIGHT' READING FOR ALL BFS' EFFORTS TO DUMB DOWN HIS CONCLUSIONS; BUT NEITHER IS IT ESPECIALLY 'HEAVY' GOING. IT IS WELL WORTH THE EFFORT REQUIRED.

WARNING: DON'T EVEN BOTHER, IF YOUR IDEA OF SERIOUS PSYCHOLOGY (MANAGERIAL OR OTHERWISE) IS 'THE ONE MINUTE MANAGER' WHICH, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, DERIVES FROM BFS' RESEARCH.

FROM THE SUBLIME TO THE UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!