-----Original Message----- From: David Epstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:53 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Re: Fwd: Great books of science (top 25 anyway)
If Skinner had said only that, I'd have nothing to criticize. "Contingencies work" has been my bread and butter (I help to run clinical trials that use contingency management for drug abuse). But he said far more: as you pointed out, he criticized "inner agents." He said, flat out, that thoughts and feelings are not causes of behavior. That assertion can't be logically derived from any amount of data that say "contingencies work." It appears to derive from no source at all. Yet Skinner strongly implied that he had data to back it up. I don't know how to make it any plainer! --David Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would say, as before, that there are data-based claims and there are logical/conceptual claims, for Skinner's system as for any other. Skinner did discuss the role of thoughts, feelings, etc. in his system (e.g., "private events"). From his point of view, this is what separated his radical behaviorism from the methodological behaviorism of others. To say that thoughts/feelings are irrelevant is too extreme, as has already been pointed out by Paul. Irrelevant to what? To understanding the human condition? To controlling behavior? They are links in the chain (Skinner, 1953) and therefore relevant. But to control behavior, we go back to the environment, as I _think_ every psychologist must. David Epstein wants data that inner agents aren't important (to what? -- see previous paragraph). They are involved, according to Skinner. But for every successful environmental intervention, for every behavior that is successfully controlled via contingencies, without consideration of the inner agents, that's evidence that they need not be the focus (as in "autonomous man"). I mentioned inner agents and there's an important distinction to be made. Skinner regarded some inner agents (e.g., physiological changes) as real and part of the story. Other agents were probably seen as no more than convenient fictions, e.g., Freud's id. -Bryan M. --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=engl ish --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
