Threats to Behavior Analysis w/ Hank Schlinger 

Text Me: +1 (562) 275-7360 - I'm expanding my address book to include everyone passionate about Behavior Analysis. Have a question? Need a resource? Need advice? This is how you and I can chat! Text +1 (562) 275-7360 or click here to start the process thedailyba.superphone.io/

Below I a reply to some of the commenters. I am doing so in the interest of having a public discussion about these issues, and to correct what I view as misunderstandings and misconceptions of what I said. After this, I will leave it to others to pick up and carry the mantle. At the very beginning of the interview, I stated that if I was wrong about any of my assumptions that I was open to be corrected. None of the replies did so by citing specific articles or experiments that either carried out an analysis or by identifying basic behavioral mechanisms responsible for the phenomena that have been studied. Relatedly, I also offered the disclaimer that I wasn’t intimately familiar with the research in all of the areas I listed, although I got taken to task by James Moore who compared me to Chomsky and his apparent failure to read Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (VB). Ouch! I also couched my concerns in the context of a narrow definition of the pragmatic approach initially described by Skinner, several characteristics of which I listed, most importantly the prediction and control of behavior that has defined the field of behavior analysis ever since, that is, until fairly recently. With respect to the RFT movement as one of the threats I cited, I asked several questions, such as why does it take so many (hundreds in some cases) trials to get DRR and why don’t all participants show it, and when they don’t, why not? Relatedly, why do the ones who show DRR do so? In other words, what are the relevant behavioral mechanisms? I also wondered why so many RF theorists reject a mediational explanation, that what is really being conditioned by the MET is some ongoing-usually, but not necessarily-covert (verbal) behavior, and why such an explanation is somehow not parsimonious if it appeals to established principles of behavior. I was waiting until the traffic on the site slowed down a bit before deciding to respond to some of the critics of what I was saying, but it has now hit 2580 views. So here goes.. After you read my replies to these select commenters, my conclusion is below. In conclusion, I have argued for critically thinking about some of what is being passed off as behavior analysis these days. Maybe that is why some prefer the term behavior science to behavior analysis. Until I have been convinced otherwise, I stand by my claims that based on what I know-and I’ve admitted that my knowledge is limited-these trends have strayed from or abandoned the pragmatic approach first described by Skinner and adopted by hundreds of experimental, theoretical and applied behavior analysts (not necessarily BCBAs) ever since. Once again, I’m not saying that they may not be useful in some ways or, in the case of ACT don’t benefit the clients. The conflict in a nutshell, I think, is between Skinner’s philosophy of science and whatever philosophy underlies the trends away from our science of behavior analysis. In other words, it’s not the methods of science and the practices themselves that are at issue, it's the criteria for selecting the methods and practices. It boils down to a conflict between Skinner’s pragmatic truth criteria and the same-old criteria that continue to dominate psychology. Maybe the short-term goal for some in the RFT/ACT movement, or some who conduct delayed discounting research that uses questionnaires and hypothesis-testing designs, is to reach a wider audience outside of behavior analysis-a laudable goal. Maybe there are other incentives (e.g., social or financial reinforcers). As Skinner noted, the behavior of the scientist is a function of the same types of variables as the behavior of the subject. This allows for scientific activity to become non-scientific activity when it’s maintained by social or other non-scientific reinforcers that are not tied to accurate prediction and effective control. I also said that these trends may be a good thing for our field, even though I personally don’t think so. Maybe I and my ilk are behavior-analytic dinosaurs and we should step aside to allow the post-Skinnerians to take over. Or, maybe not.” -

This is why I am a Patreon. Thank you for being brave and putting content like this out there. Great interview. Thank you to Dr. Schlinger for presenting his talk, and having this conversation. People may agree, they may disagree. And that’s ok. But it’s an important conversation in our field and one that needs to be had. It’s also vital that analysts be able to be independent, informed, and critical thinkers. That’s how we further each other, our science, our field, our practice.

REFERENCES. ABA - applied behavior analysis ABAI - association for behavior analysis international RFT - relational frame theory ACT - acceptance and commitment therapy BACB - behavior analysis certification board PBS - positive behavior support DD - delayed discounting

Yes, Dr. Schlinger explained behavior analysis thoroughly! He is one of the legendary behavior analysts!

Ryan, congratulations for uploading the discussion with such a man!! Considering that you are for RFT and ACT, I admire you for inviting someone who openly criticizes them (as well as BACB and ABAI).. I find a lot of merit to his points and hope things will change for the better..

Love your vids, Bro. I had Dr. Schlinger for two classes in Grad school. He is simply brilliant. I'm so happy to have had him as a professor.

If a science (defined as a way of knowing) is pragmatic, practitioners will discover more effective explanations and procedures. These may very well deviate from previously discovered explanations, but what does not change is the pragmatic scientific methods which produced the more useful explanations and procedures. Pragmatism is a philosophy of science which provides a truth criterion called "effective working," or usefulness. Skinner's pragmatic approach was to evaluate the usefulness explanations and procedures, specifically the extent to which they allowed more accurate prediction and more effective control of behavior. The scientific methods that he adopted, such as evaluating the effects of experimental manipulation of environmental variables on the changes in each subject's behavior (rather than the average of a group), the inductive approach (rather than the hypothetical-deductive), practical rather statistical significance of effects, changes in the rate of behavior rather than percent, repeated, sensitive measures of behavior change over time instead of a insensitive , inacccurate measures such as number objectives mastered or trials to criterion, demonstrated experimental control over the behavior of interest or as Pavlov advised, "Control your conditions as you will see order," replication both within and across (not between) individuals which is until criterion for discovering useful explanations and procedures, and parsimony, always parsimony, in how we talk. This is what Hank meant by Skinner's pragmatic approach. And this is the concern that he and other speakers in my ABAI symposium share. To repeat, more useful explanations and procedures will produced by pragmatic scientific methods. That type of deviation is what we want. But returning to the non-pragmatic methods that Skinner rejected because they were not useful is not scientific progress, even if it provides other types of benefits for those researchers and practitioners. To be blunt, I have yet seen useful explanations and procedures produced by these non-pragmatic approaches, and there has been plenty of time for them to produce such. Useful means prediction and control of each subject's behavior or interventions that are effective with every client. And when experiments or interventions don't produce that, the pragmatic researcher or practitioner uses the pragmatic approach to discover explanations and procedures that do. That means more work, of course. I applaud Dr. Schlinger for pointing out the dangers of abandoning a pragmatic approach to research and practice, because he is willing to take the criticism from those whose reinforcers may be threatened. Hank is a true pragmatism, always focused on what's most useful in the prediction and control of behavior, rather than what might be most useful in producing fame and fortune. Let's keep what works and abandon the rest.

Congratulations on the video, Ryan! It has so many relevant discussions! I would highlight the points about What's - actually - a Behavior Analyst, the Fragmentation of Behavior Analysis. It certainly has to do with my own preferences, but I mean, the entire video has some really good points. So congratulations again on making this whole 51-minute video available to everybody!

This talk is very interesting I agree with it. I am a BCBA but I thibk they didn't teach me how to do the analysing in practise. Fortunately I know my boundaries and I try to find mentors and learn more and never stop. But sometimes it frustrating that they didn't teach us what it the essenseof our profession.

This was a killer interview, and to echo some of the other comments, it was both courageous and well-executed. Having differing points of view in behaviour analysis is a necessary part of our evolution, and perhaps Schlinger is simply describing a shift in our field that Skinner might see as an example of 'selection by consequences'. Schlinger doesn't appear to be dogmatic about any particular viewpoint, always leaving room for debate. Perhaps ABAI 2020 needs such an event?

Thank you for posting. As someone who is currently in the process of developing graduate coursework, I particularly valued hearing Dr. Schlinger's perspective on teaching skepticism in our training programs. Though I am interested in the clinical applications of RFT, I appreciated Dr. Schlinger's analogy of the reification of the term 'relational frame' how it is analogous to cognitive psychology's constructs of information processing and memory. A thought-provoking talk and I will be bookmarking and refering my students to it next year.

Thank you Ryan for this interview. I am also concerned for our field. More and more, as I interact with BCBAs, both new and old, I am disheartened by the absence of scientific analysis, especially in our schools. It is absolutely saddening for the mere fact that it can actually do the opposite of what we are here to do and why we do what we do.

He made some very good points, worthy of discussion.

In trying to understand RFT I find it convoluted and difficult to understand and explain, or even see how it is applied or why it is/isn’t effective. It is one of several reasons why I dropped my bcaba. My supervisor was pushing me to RFT and I wanted VB/ABA - which I studied, understood, and successfully applied and could explain. No supervisor, no continued certification. Then it came to finding a vb supervisor that I knew and trusted to be competent and that became pretty difficult. So the camp thing is real (at least for me).

It's important to cast a skeptical eye toward our own field - we should always be our field's harshest critics. But standards of evaluation must be clear. Dr. Schlinger's approach is largely that of affirming the consequent, i.e.: (1) Anything that deviates from "classical" (1950s-1970s) behavior analysis is bad; (2) Several recent trends in the field deviate from "classical" behavior analysis; (3) Therefore those trends are bad. What's not demonstrated, in most cases, is that these trends are really harmful. Are they leading to our field addressing fewer practical domains? Making peoples' lives worse? Revealing fewer interesting effects? Construing phenomena as something different than they have objectively been demonstrated to be? We're empiricists, so let's see the evidence! Interestingly, LOTS of objective, peer-reviewed evidence documents progress fueled by some of the heretical practices Dr. Schlinger dislikes; that is conveniently overlooked here. I wonder what it says about our field when we place abstract definitions of purity ahead of the heuristic value of method and theory.

Thanks Ryan! very interesting video! it made me want to explore more about the group vs individual experimental approach, their advantages and disadvantages in order to see clearer the perspective of Dr. Schlinger and to critically look for "good and bad" research. I´m on the optimistic side i think, behavior analysis is so important for human living that it will be selected (if we don´t die because of climate change etc etc), i think it will be a valuable tool for artificial intelligence researchers and more funds can be gain from that, and that is only one branch.

I liked the position that behavior analysis is expanding into new areas-- I guess that would be optimistic as Dr. Schlinger said he was. So I got confused with the dilution comments. Looks like no one thinks ABA is staying the same, but I guess it is logically possible.

To answer Ryan's question, 2) this piggybacks off the other, and I’ve had some backchannel questions made of this: where’s the line on being dogmatic to skinner’s pragmatism? Are some crossing it? Are people okay with that? (Admit some of this is rhetorical!): "Dogmatism" can be defined as "a foolish consistency," an idea inspired by the Emerson quote, "A foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds." Skinner's pragmatism and pragmatism in general is the practice of constantly testing explanations and procedure and evaluating their usefulness by examining their consequences. Skinner's pragmatism has been called "scientific pragmatism" because the consequences of explanations and procedures of interest is the extent to which explanations and procedures allow for accurate prediction and effective control. Therefore "the line on being dogmatic to Skinner's pragmatism" is that such a proposition is impossible. I think the confusion between pragmatism and dogmatism is a confusion between explanations and procedures, which are the PRODUCTS of a pragmatic approach and scientific pragmatism, which is the set of the assumptions and methods that have produced explanations and procedures that have allowed for more accurate prediction and more effective control of the subject of study, in Skinner's case, behavior. It's possible to be dogmatic with respect to explanations and procedures, if one to continue to promote those that do not allow for the most accurate prediction and control OR to adopt new explanations and procedures when they have not been show to allow for more accurate prediction and control. Skinner rejected methods that were not useful because they had NOT produced explanations that allowed for accurate prediction and effective control. Those who follow Skinner's pragmatism will continue to reject such methods for the same reason. In the history of psychology, "everything old is new again." Skinnerian pragmatists are not dogmatic in rejecting methods that have NOT produced explanations and procedures that allow for accurate prediction and control.

I’m five minutes in. He says, “I’m not intimately familiar with the research in these areas.” He also says, “I’m not thoroughly familiar with the research in these areas.” Wasn’t this the very reason Skinner dismissed Chomsky’s criticisms of behavior analysis? I have seen videos of interviews with Skinner where he said that, because Chomsky wasn’t throughly versed in our science, he really didn’t have a base of authority from which to offer valid criticism. Granted, I will watch the remainder of this video, and with all due respect to Dr. Schlinger, who has published infinitely more than I could ever hope to produce, but how does the same reasoning not apply here? If Skinner believed he should dismiss Chomsky, then why should we not dismiss this? Also, it is not as if most of the research, at least with regard to RFT and discounting was published in The Journal of Soft Mentalism. No, but rather JEAB, JABA, TAVB, The Psychological Record, and Perspectives on Behavioral Science. But for you, Ryan, I applaud you for your courage in approaching all sides of the various debates in our field. Keep it up

Ryan youre so smart and cool!!!

Love the introduction. The cloud with the sound of the wind gave me the chills. The music adds an excellent touch as well. I also think Hank is a bit restrictive in his definition. Question is if we can allow the definition of analysis as defined by the EAB, which stems from skinners pragmatic approach, to be extended to ABA. The former focuses on attaining knowledge about nature while the latter is concerned with human affairs.This is relevant because we are touching upon the domain of human values when doing ABA. So if we do allow the definition to be extended then what is the standard that will satisfy an "analytic" approach in ABA that is consistent with Skinners pragmatic approach yet does not violate morality? Hank says behavior analyst analyze behavior wherever they go, no matter what. He says analysis is synonymous with experimentation. But what is the standard precisely? This is a somewhat optimistic point of view given that conducting rigorous experimentation in a typical applied behavior analytic setting is far from feasible. No doubt applied behavior analyst analyze, at least they tend to use their judgement in most of the situations they encounter on a daily basis. Sometimes that is just the best they can do.But to not call that analysis, I think shows a lack of comprehensiveness that I think is needed. We can think about it like this. Fundamentally, what Skinner really wanted was to ameliorate the human condition. So perhaps we can say that it is a part of the Skinnerian spirit to analyze behavior at the necessary level needed to accomplish that task. This is a lot more open approach but does leave us open to a very simple causal model and human behavior is more complex than that, I think. I do agree about the lack of scientific skepticism in ABA. Perhaps a cheap shot, but this might be evident by referencing the Cooper book as the "white bible". An easy way to refute that is well, the Bible is considered an unerring document. Yet, the Cooper book is on its third edition. To avoid this kind of incantation, skepticism is needed about everything. Even claims such as "if you have a thorough understanding of EAB and radical behaviorism, you can solve any behavioral problem, anywhere. This extraordinary claim lacks the extraordinary evidence, in my estimation. There is just something about claiming omniscient knowledge of human nature that is very troublesome. Reading a bit of history I think provides the remedy for uttering such words. Long comment but I like the conversation.

michael commons' "enemies of behaviorism" talk was fantastic and wasn't just "gee Skinner sure was swell." commons called out the claim that BA is the best treatment for ASD because so few clinicians publish their data or techniques. he chastised the anti-math culture in modern ABA as uneducated and intellectually weak. his talk was generally about how most BAs are so unprepared to interact with the larger community that they should really just be quiet. it was such a good talk that he got booed. schlinger and his ilk never get booed and i think we all know why if we dig deep. i much prefer the old guard - mark branch, aubrey daniels, hank pennypacker, susan schneider, etc. these people ARE intimately familiar with the research AND the theoretical approaches outside of within subject visual analysis.

I liked it.

Ironically, dogmatic adherence to dated ideas about science is a more likely threat to behavior analysis. Also, the elephant in the room. If between group designs aren't analytic or pragmatic, then shouldn't we dismiss almost all advances in modern medicine? Or, any other applied subfield for that matter.

Maybe someone can help me out here, but my understanding of AARRing is that it can be thought of much like a generalized imitative repertoire. Its a behavior not an underlying process. The behavior is the result of reinforcement for responding in a particular manner in a given context, so I am a little lost as to how that's deviating from pragmatism. Its takes time and many trials to learn a generalized imitative repertoire just like it does to AARR. And yes, just like arrangements to teach imitation some participants may not show AARRing.

I'll take a stab at one of his questions: At around the 18" mark, Schlinger asks, "if it's such a powerful theory, why does it take so many trials to get it (derived relational responding)?" That's like asking, "if reinforcement is so powerful, how come reinforcers never work when we present them before the behavior?" So the answer is: because that's how long it takes! That it takes several trial blocks (sometimes) for people to show derived relational responding with novel stimuli doesn't have anything to do with a) whether or not AARR happens and b) whether RFT is a decent model for organizing and understanding those phenomena. Seriously, it's like asking, "if the theory of gravity is so powerful, how come it takes a whole year for the earth to go around the sun? Why doesn't it move faster?"