Paul Brandon
> >> I don't think that Psychology was ever dominated by
> >>_radical_ behaviorism. NeoHullian behaviorism maybe, but that's a very
different beast.
> >>
> >Paul:
> >
> >Will this point ever be understood by even a large minority of
> >teaching psychologists? :-(
>
> One can only hope!
> Maybe if we think hard enough .... ;-)
Or perhaps if you'd write us a nice clear article for Teaching of
Psychology. As one of the many teaching psychologists who does NOT
understand the point, I know I'd eat it up. I'm sick of telling students
that I honestly don't understand the behaviorists' position on the status of
thinking and beliefs and their status (or lack thereof) in explanations of
behavior. Alternatively, you might suggest a behaviorist to be interviewed
about what it is that he or she would like teaching psychologists to say
about behaviorism, and I'll suggest that as a topic for the "Generalist's
Corner" section of ToP. Or of course you could put together a presentation
to take around to the teaching conferences. I know I'd be there if it came
to one of the conferences I attend.
I currently use Skinner's "Can Psychology be a Science of Mind?"
(American Psychologist, 45, 1206-1210) and Todd and Morris' "Case Histories
in the Great Power of Steady Misrepresentation" (American Psychologist, 47,
1441-1453), but they don't seem that helpful with respect to the status of
thinking and beliefs in explanations. On the other side, I use Dennett's
"Skinner Skinned" (in Brainstorms), so a piece that responded to his
critique of Skinner would be very helpful. I'm trying to pick that out of
William Uttal's "The War Between Mentalism and Behaviorism : On the
Accessibility of Mental Processes", but I've just started, and that book is
certainly above the level of my students.
I'd think that an article or presentation aimed at the casual
teacher of intro. psych. or even the high school psychology teacher would do
a world of good in heading off the misrepresentations of behaviorism.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
