# B. F. Skinner and parenting

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-f-skinner-and-parenting/1419>\
**Category:** CSG1999\
**Created:** [December 14, 1999, 8:40am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-f-skinner-and-parenting/1419 "1999-12-14T08:40:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 8:40am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-f-skinner-and-parenting/1419/1 "1999-12-14T08:40:26Z")

</div>

[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/](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](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Abbott_Bruce)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 4:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-f-skinner-and-parenting/1419/2 "1999-12-14T16:05:56Z")

</div>

[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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Abbott\_Bruce](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Abbott_Bruce)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 1999, 6:40pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-f-skinner-and-parenting/1419/3 "1999-12-14T18:40:33Z")

</div>

[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/](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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [December 15, 1999, 6:13am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/b-f-skinner-and-parenting/1419/4 "1999-12-15T06:13:38Z")

</div>

[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/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)