Article

2005-03-29 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-03-29 10:04|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 As 95% behaviorist, I don't know where to begin. I know where to end, however - by thanking him for the rousing affirmation of Skinner's solid (though unconventional and frightening, to some, work). He never makes his own dissenting points stick, but he gives Skinner due credit - and that made it an interesting read for me. Indeed, it has been 3 decades since I read Beyond Freedom and Dignity. It was nice to recall it's breadth in such a small volume.

Posted by .com 2005-03-29 10:29:41 AM|| 2005-03-29 10:29:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Thanks for linking this, Tipper.

Posted by Dishman 2005-03-29 11:14:01 AM|| 2005-03-29 11:14:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I got my PhD at West Virginia University in psychology. Skinner's daughter, Julie, and other well known behaviorists were (and still are) on faculty there. Indeed, Skinner came to our school quite often. The program prided itself on being exclusively and purely behavior analytic (behavior analysis the technical name of the science "behaviorists" subscribe to). It's the only school I wanted to attend. So put me squarely in the behaviorist camp.

Skinner always believed that organisms (human and otherwise) were born with predisposed behavior. He was an evolutionist at heart, and considered behavior (and learning new behavior) a mechanism by which organisms adapt to their environment. Indeed, he factored the notion of variations in behavior between species and within species into his thinking.

One of the problems Skinner faced was as a result of the way he explained his ideas. Often, they were provocative and difficult for lay people to understand.

In a famous ongoing debate which distorted many of Skinner's views, Noam Chomsky (yes, THAT Chomsky) appealed to people's fears and biases to make his own points. This only served to draw Skinner in a mean light - strange and out of touch.

The fact of the matter is that in the ensuing years, Skinner's ideas have sparked real advances in applied psychology. Even those who reject Skinner unknowingly embrace the scion of his ideas.

Psychotherapy with real, measurable results lasts 8-12 sessions instead of years of questionable psychoanalytic navel-pondering.

Once considered the fringe of Human Resources because of it's touchy-feely patina, my own field of organizational development (building effective leaders, organizations and organizational processes that drive execution) has made great strides in being a force for competitive advantage.

So, I echo Dishman's comment, Tipper. Thanks.

Posted by PlanetDan 2005-03-29 11:51:34 AM|| 2005-03-29 11:51:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Speaking as someone firmly on the nature side of the 'nature nurture' debate and who thinks Skinner and the Behaviourists were mostly wrong in their emphasis on learning (the tabula rasa kind) as the primary determinant of behaviour, I recognize Skinner was a giant in the field - one of the great minds of the 20th century.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-29 2:17:27 PM|| 2005-03-29 2:17:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Does this mean I'd don't have to apologize to the steps?

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-29 7:27:06 PM|| 2005-03-29 7:27:06 PM|| Front Page Top

10:24 Choicemaker Jim
10:21 Choicemaker Jim
10:16 Choicemaker Jim
10:13 Choicemaker Jim
10:10 Choicemaker Jim
10:05 Choicemaker Jim
09:56 Choicemaker Jim
09:48 Choicemaker Jim
23:48 Charles
22:56 Sobiesky
22:45 Frank G
22:42 jackal
22:41 .com
22:39 jackal
22:35 .com
22:28 Barbara Skolaut
22:25 .com
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:18 Frank G
22:12 .com
22:12 mhw
22:07 Thraing Hupoluper1864
21:44 CrazyFool
21:43 Frank G