B. F. Skinner and parenting

[From Rick Marken (991214.0840)]

Bruce Abbott (991214.1105)--

Unlike most people's ideas about behavior, Skinner's were
based on replicable experimental data, so I hardly think
that the term "ignorant" applies.

The behavioral illusion is quite replicable (see http://
home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Illusion.html).
Skinner was taken in by a version of this illusion (see
"The reinforcement view" at http://home.earthlink.net/
~rmarken/blind.html). So, like all conventional
psychologists, he was replicating experiments while
maintaining his complete ignorance of the objective
existence of wants and needs in the form of controlled
variables.

Please show me where Skinner recommended depriving people
of what they need until they did what you want.

Nowhere. He actually believed that "reinforcers" were
objective things out there in the world. So he was not
just ignorant.

I wonder whether you have read what Skinner actually did
write

Yes. I've read Skinner. I just didn't find the wisdom you
found.

But statements such as yours usually reveal more about the
ignorance of the critic than about the ignorance of Skinner.

That's fine. I'm ignorant. Caught me.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Abbott (991214.1105)]

Rick Marken (991213.2100) --

Bruce Abbott (991213.2155 EST)

I've read quite a bit of Skinner's work, and I can't recall
him stating _any_ ideas about parenting that could be
characterized as "ignorant and cruel." So please, don't
leave me in ignorance. Show me the evidence in Skinner's
writing to back up this astonishing (not to mention libelous)
assertion.

Skinner's ideas about all behavior (parenting is one kind of
behavior) were ignorant because he had no idea that human
behavior is aimed at satisfying internal wants and needs.

Unlike most people's ideas about behavior, Skinner's were based on
replicable experimental data, so I hardly think that the term "ignorant"
applies. He was aware that behavior tends to get organized in such a way as
to satisfy internal wants and needs, but he believed that progress could be
made in making life better for people by focusing on creating environments
for people in which they would learn to function in ways that led to
personal satisfaction and happiness. That is, he thought that the problem
could be solved by providing individually tailored environments in which
learning (reorganization) would produce this outcome.

I don't think there can be any doubt that the environment of the individual
is an important factor in reorganization -- what works in a given
environment strongly affects which organizations will persist and which will
be reorganized away. So Skinner's emphasis of the importance of the
individual's environment is anything but ignorant.

Your original statement, however, was not that Skinner was ignorant of
control theory but that his ideas about parenting were ignorant. So again,
I would like to see some evidence that Skinner offered some ideas about
parenting that could be characterized as "ignorant and cruel."

His
ideas were cruel because he recommended depriving people
(unnecessarily) of what they want or need ("reinforcers")
until they did what you want.

Please show me where Skinner recommended depriving people of what they need
until they did what you want. In particular, please show me where he
recommended that parents deprive their children of what they want until they
do what the parent wants. From what I've read, he did not recommend
depriving anyone of anything, and was staunchly opposed to the use of
punishment.

I wonder whether you have read what Skinner actually did write, or are
simply extrapolating from your vastly oversimplified view of behavior
analysis. For example, have you read _Beyond Freedom and Dignitity_?
_Walden II_? _About Behaviorism_? Or is your "knowledge" of Skinner based
on purely on hearsay?

Don't get me wrong -- I certainly find plenty to disagree with in Skinner's
writings. But statements such as yours usually reveal more about the
ignorance of the critic than about the ignorance of Skinner. So I am asking
you to back up your statements with data. A few illustrative passages
giving his parenting recommendations will do. Since you are such an expert
on Skinner's parenting advice, you shouldn't have any trouble complying.

Regards,

Bruce A.

[From Bruce Abbott (991214.1340 EST)]

Rick Marken (991214.0840) --

Bruce Abbott (991214.1105)

Unlike most people's ideas about behavior, Skinner's were
based on replicable experimental data, so I hardly think
that the term "ignorant" applies.

The behavioral illusion is quite replicable (see http://
home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/ControlDemo/Illusion.html).
Skinner was taken in by a version of this illusion (see
"The reinforcement view" at http://home.earthlink.net/
~rmarken/blind.html).

Skinner's insights were not based on the behavioral illusion, they were
based on observing how organisms reorganize when their behavior produces
certain specifiable consequences, under certain specifiable environmental
conditions.

Please show me where Skinner recommended depriving people
of what they need until they did what you want.

Nowhere.

Interesting. So your previous assertion was without empirical foundation.

He actually believed that "reinforcers" were
objective things out there in the world. So he was not
just ignorant.

Skinner recognized that events like receiving food served as reinforcers
because of the organism's internal organization and state, not because these
events had magical properties in and of themselves. But those inner
organizations and states are not observable, he said, and for this reason
Skinner was only interested in determining the relationship between
observable environment and behavior.

Skinner was well aware that whether a certain event functioned as a
so-called reinforcer depended on the state of the organism -- e.g., whether
it was currently food deprived. Clearly that ability also depended on
certain properties of the event, in interaction with the organism's state
and organization (e.g., the food had have a taste that was acceptible to the
organism). Thus, for Skinner, a "reinforcer" could not possibly be
"objective things out there in the world." He knew that the ability to
reinforce represented an interaction between the properties of the organism
and the event. For that reason, to identify what was "reinforcing" for an
individual, and under what conditions, required empirical testing. In
behavior analysis, this is the equivalent to PCT's Testing for the
controlled variable. (In current clinical parlance, the process of
identifying what is sustaining a given activity in a given individual is
called "functional analysis.")

I'm going to have to close for now as I have a ton of other work I need to
get done by week's end. Happy Hollidays everyone!

Regards,

Bruce A.

[From Rick Marken (991214.2210)]

Bruce Abbott (991214.1340 EST)--

[Skinner] knew that... [identification of] what was "reinforcing"
for an individual, and under what conditions, required empirical
testing. In behavior analysis, this is the equivalent to PCT's
Testing for the controlled variable.

Can you describe one controlled variable Skinner identified
using the empirical testing method of behavior analysis?

(In current clinical parlance, the process of identifying
what is sustaining a given activity in a given individual is
called "functional analysis.")

How can a controlled variable be sustained by a given activity
when any given activity that influences a controlled variable
will stop (no longer be sustained), if necessary, in order to
sustain the controlled variable (keep it at the reference level)?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/