|
Chris: I think you misread Debbie's comments. She said she was in the
=
Baby box as an alternative to a crib which is what Skinner repeatedly
=
said.
Best Wishes. Dr. C. Eugene Walker
University of
Oklahoma
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:41
AM
Subject: Skinner's two boxes
Re: Deborah
Skinner's reply to the feview of Slater's book. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1167653,00.html
It sounds like the same old stuff --
primarily confusing the "Skinner box" with Skinner's "other" box, the
"baby box" (which had no conditioning element). The latter box did indeed
exist. Skinner even tried to market it (unsuccessfully) and it was written up
in one of America's major magazines (Look or Life, I think. I can't recall at
present). There is a recent article by Alexandra Rutherford on the "baby box,"
probably in _History of Psychology_, though I am not certain.
I would
be surprised if Deborah were *never* placed into the "baby box," but I have no
reason to disbelieve her (except that she would have been a baby and
presumably have no recollection of it). The primary confusion really has to do
with whether Skinner "theories" (he rejected the term) were ever "tested" on
her in the baby box. Since it was intended mainly as a comfortable place for
baby to nap while Mom (this was the 1950s, after all) got on with other
things, her interests would probably be better served by explaining (again)
the distinction between the two boxes than by getting on her defensive high
horse about it.
Regards,
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
