Here's a definition of behavior from a prominent behaviorist:

Begin forwarded message:

> Date: July 21, 2009 9:14:03 AM CDT
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [TBA] Definition of behavior
> Reply-To: Teaching Behavior Analysis <[email protected]>
>
> Dick Malott has famously argued that behavior is "anything a dead man
> can't do," and in many cases that seems to be a useful touchstone, but
> I prefer my own definition, which is discussed in a paper on
> "cognition" in Latall & Chase's book, Behavior Theory and Philosophy.
> I propose that we define behavior as any activity that is sensitive to
> contingencies of operant or classical conditioning.  If it responds to
> behavioral principles, those that have emerged under controlled
> conditions in the laboratory, then it can be usefully called
> "behavior."  Therefore it need not be observable, peripheral, or
> muscular.
>
> This definition necessarily means that some examples will be
> tentative, since we cannot perform the experimental manipulations to
> demonstrate such sensitivity to contingencies.  When I visualize an
> orange, reminisce about my childhood, or "look ahead" in a chess game,
> are such activities sensitive to reinforcement?  Can they come under
> stimulus control?  Can they be extinguished?  All that any scientist
> can do, in the absence of experimental control, is to offer plausible
> interpretations that are compatible with those few facts that are at
> hand.  The interpretive work of Skinner and others on "cognitive
> processes" depends on the plausible but not demonstrable claim that
> "thought," "imagery," "recall," etc. are behavior.  The tentative
> nature of such claims should not be cause for despair, because the
> problem cannot be escaped by fleeing to another paradigm.
>
> But technology evolves, and the boundary of what can be observed and
> manipulated changes.  Recent experiments on both monkeys and humans
> have shown that both arbitrary individual neurons and arrays of
> neurons in the motor cortex can be operantly conditioned.  Such
> experiments offer hope that those with spinal injuries might be able
> to recover some functions by by-passing the spinal cord.  But they
> also serve as an excellent test case for a definition of behavior.
> According to my definition, such neural activity is "behavior," for
> sensitivity to contingencies has been demonstrated, and I see no
> drawback to the claim.  Unusual findings of this sort help us stake
> out the boundaries of the concept of "behavior" and lend some indirect
> support to our interpretive work.
>
> Dave Palmer

Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
[email protected]


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([email protected])

Reply via email to