“3. Mental processes such as thoughts and feelings should be excluded from scientific psychology.” Doesn’t that characterize _methodological_ behaviorism? B.F. Skinner, who was obviously a behaviorist-perhaps _the_ leading proponent of behaviorism in the latter half of the 20th century-was very clear that “private events,” those “within the skin”-e.g., thoughts and feelings-were within the province of behaviorism. He rejected labeling them as “mental processes,” characterizing thoughts as “covert verbal behavior”-and, therefore, simply more behavior to be accounted for-and feelings as behavior or bodily states.
You're correct about Skinner's stance here. However, I meant this as a summary statement about what behaviourism came to represent for most of the 20th century. Watson clearly advocated that thoughts and feelings had no place in scientific psychology, which caused people like the Gestalt Psychologists to reply with their principles of perception, insight learning, etc. as counter-examples. Similarly, research on emotion slowed down for several decades until the 1970s, when it was "safe" to study feelings again. Skinner's distinction between methodological behaviourism and its philosophical implications for psychology seemed even blurry in his final years. I saw him speak a week before he died and he was still complaining about cognitive psychology even then. :)
@@socialneuro Thank you for your response. “I meant this as a summary statement about what behaviourism came to represent for most of the 20th century.” Well, socialism “came to represent” the state running all enterprises “for most of the 20th century” because of the Soviet Union’s version of socialism during that time but a summary statement that says “Socialism calls for the state running all enterprises” would be highly misleading, even as a summary. In fact, the point about thoughts and feelings is the _very first thing_ that Skinner mentions in his book _About Behaviorism_ in a list of misconceptions of behaviorism. There’s no reason to give primacy to what Watson said in the early part of the 20th century over what Skinner said in the second half, especially when many, if not most, psychologists who would call themselves behaviorist today would much more likely ascribe to something closer to what Skinner said than to what Watson said. If your video is giving an overview of a school of thought, behaviorism, in psychology that is “highly relevant today,” it’s better, I think, to not exclude in a summary statement what that school of thought largely holds _today._ I have no doubt that Skinner was complaining about cognitive psychologists a week before he died but he wasn’t complaining about them because they included at least some private events (i.e., thoughts and feelings) that he did not-he complained about them because they (in his view) gave those events explanatory power that he did not. Even if there was a blurry line between his view and methodological behaviorism in his later years, I’d still give more weight to what he said explicitly over the preceding 45 years, because that is what influenced the current state of behaviorism. I’m not trying to give you a hard time. But there’s enough misrepresentation of behaviorism on RU-vid and elsewhere that says, without qualification, as this video does, that behaviorism excludes thoughts and feelings. This video appears to be a good faith effort to give an overview of behaviorism but it doesn’t clarify any of that-it perpetuates it.
All fair comments, @Jeff W. Thanks so much for elaborating on them. I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. I did intend this as a brief history lecture, and, in fact, I talk much more about misconceptions of behaviorism from Skinner's point-of-view in a much longer lecture (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WhNm3wm5AaI.html). I have often had my students read "About Behaviorism" over the years. I hope that people see your comments above and keep them in mind. I should probably make a video on "Behaviorism Today", as most of my content is about the way it was 50-60 years ago. Cheers, Eric
@@socialneuro "In fact, I talk much more about misconceptions of behaviorism from Skinner's point-of-view in a much longer lecture…I should probably make a video on ’Behaviorism Today’" Oh, that's great! I wasn’t aware of the longer video and will definitely watch that. And I would look forward to a "Behaviorism Today" video (which might be a first for RU-vid). I'm not sure how many methodological behaviorists are still around or how many _admit_ to being methodological behaviorists (William Baum, maybe?)-I’m not an expert on these things-so I’d be very interested in what you have to say. Thanks so much for your thoughtful and helpful response! ☺️
2021 marks the 50-year anniversary of the original publication of Skinner’s book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (BFD). Celebrating this anniversary, today we switch to publishing quotes from BFD for the next several weeks. (We resume quoting from Cumulative Record after completing our quotes from BFD.) Beyond Freedom and Dignity is probably Skinner’s most well-known title. According to the author, the book stayed on the New York Times best-seller list for 20 weeks, and he became “for the moment an embarrassed VIP.” As Skinner also wrote in a new preface to the book in 1988, the reviews were mixed but, as Skinner pointed out, few questioned the importance of the problems discussed in the book. He started by describing some “terrifying problems” facing the world today, such as the population explosion, nuclear holocaust, world famine, problems of the ghettos, and pollution of the environment. In short, Skinner argued that “almost all our major problems involve human behavior, and they cannot be solved by physical and biological technology alone. What is needed is a technology of behavior, . . .” (p. 24). In BFD, Skinner explained how the traditional conceptions of ‘freedom,’ ‘dignity,’ and ‘values’ have stood in the way of an effective science of human behavior and its applications to improve human lives. Originally, Skinner had called the book just Freedom and Dignity. However, the Knopf editor claimed that following Skinner’s treatment of the traditional concepts, there was not much left of either of them. Skinner himself then suggested putting “Beyond” in front of his original title, but later realized that it was misleading: “As a scientist, I did not think of people as free initiating agents to be credited with their achievements, but I was proposing changes in social practices which should make them feel freer than ever before and accomplish more” (From A Matter of Consequences, pp. 310-311). We hope that you will enjoy the quotations from Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
Behaviorism as an “-ism” often, in fact usually, gets more than a bit cultish. There is a place for it methodologically for sure. Excluding representational and other internal states of all kinds from “science” is an old argument but it’s not reasonable and has been shown to not be. For example, not believing in something like mental states famously implies belief is a meaningful mental construct. And there are huge problems with language viewed strictly and dogmatically as conditioned verbal behavior. Moreover operant behaviorism has to include something of a self to manage. And lots of tortured stuff to decide that the science of behavior is this or that has been worked through. It is not “settled law” regarding mind and behavior of course, but for sure the dogmatism of being the most extreme sort of doctrinal Skinnerian has been put to rest. Good to revisit BFS in a serious theories of behavior or theories of learning course and learn what it is in the context of where it sits among other directions of thought. Behaviorism and operant Skinner versions of behaviorism, are not sitting alone at the table.
