At 8:56 AM -0500 11/2/00, John W. Kulig wrote:
>Paul Brandon wrote:
>> >Btw,was Skinner a democrat,a republican or a behaviorist?
>>
>> A radical behaviorist.
>> If he was a member of any organized political party (as opposed to
>> Democrats ;-) I'm not aware of it.
>
> That sounds reasonable. Interestingly, you can find things to please the
>left and the right in his writings . In his 1986 American Psychologist
>article "What is wrong with daily life in the western world?" (page 568-574)
>he claims "Five cultural practices have eroded the contingencies of
>reinforcement under which the human species evolved by promoting the pleasing
>effects of the consequences of behavior at the expense of the strengthening
>effects. These practices are (a) alientating workers from the consequences of
>their work ..". That's leftist lingo, and socialists say the same thing
>(socialists - contrary to stereotype, do not claim all workers should earn he
>same, rather that what they earn should be _more_ closely tied work).
>Further, his dabbling in utopian vision (Walden II, for instance) is a
>leftist idea. The left claims mankind is perfectable, and government can play
>a role perfecting people. The kibbutz and the kolholtz (russian collective)
>were all founded around this key idea.
But see Skinner's philosphy of science (William Baum, 1994 is a good source).
He was a Machian pragmatist who believed that there is no absolute truth
(as opposed to a Platonic realist).
That people are capable of improvement, and that government (or anyone else
in a position to manage contingencies) an effect that improvement, yes.
Perfection -- no.
Walden II was written as a draft for discussion -- the start of a process.
> On the other hand, in his 1986 article, the second cultural practice he
>criticizes is "(b) helping those who could help themselves .." Welfare,
>obviously, is like giving a rat a food pellet for doing nothing.
> I like to think he was a leftist (perhaps a borderline Marxist) who
>avoided kee-jerk ideology in favor of discovering those practices that
>actually work to improve the collective.
A leftist in some senses maybe; a Marxist not.
While he would (I suspect -- I never asked him) that there is something
inherently behavioral about the labor theory of value, the basic socialist
creed
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"
is a direct contradiction of the principle of reinforcement. People don't
work that way. I once pointed this out to Paul Meehl when he accused
Skinner of Communism.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
