# Purpose and Behavior

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/purpose-and-behavior/9285>\
**Category:** CSG1992\
**Created:** [December 28, 1992, 4:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/purpose-and-behavior/9285 "1992-12-28T16:34:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marken\_Richard\_S1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Marken\_Richard\_S1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Marken_Richard_S1)\
**Post date:** [December 28, 1992, 4:34pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/purpose-and-behavior/9285/1 "1992-12-28T16:34:11Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (921228.0800)]

Here is a little gem I found this morning in the PSYCHOLOQUY  
Newsletter. The Newsletter comes out at what appears to be random  
times (Poisson distribution of intervals between posts?) with news of  
interest to psychologists (like myself, before I stopped understanding  
it). This is one news item from the current edition of the  
Newsletter ( posted Fri, 25 Dec 1992). I think it speaks for itself:

> **···**
>
> ------------
> 
> From: CATANIA@UMBC2.UMBC.EDU (A. Charles Catania)  
> Subject: (7) Query Response: Quotable Quotes
> 
> I am submitting the material below in response to R. Allen Gardner's  
> request for a quotation. Ordinarily, I expect that such things would  
> go directly to the requester, but this case seemed to me to have  
> sufficient intrinsic interest that I thought it might be more  
> appropriate to distribute it more widely through PSYCOLOQUY. I have  
> not yet sent a copy to Gardner, but plan to do so as soon as I hear  
> from you as to whether or not this seems appropriate for PSYCOLOQUY. I  
> have tried to set this reply up in a format similar to Gardner's.
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Quotation on Describing Behavior in Terms  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;of Purposes, Intentions, or Goals
> 
> R. Allen Gardner has requested a quotable quote to the effect that it  
> is necessary or correct to describe behavior in terms of purposes,  
> intentions, or goals. The material offered below fits the suggested  
> time frame (since 1960, and preferably later), it is by a prominant  
> psychologist (though I will make no claim about respect by cognitive  
> psychologists), and it seems clearly relevant. It is among my  
> favorites, mainly because it so clearly makes the point that events  
> that have not occurred yet cannot affect current behavior. Consistent  
> with its author's concern with the origins of our self-descriptive  
> language, its purpose (sic) was not to eliminate the language of  
> purposes, intentions, and goals, but rather to suggest constraints on  
> the functions of that language within a scientific account. Whatever  
> Gardner's final choice of quotable quote, I hope it will be one that is  
> consistent with what follows, in the sense that it would be  
> inappropriate for cognitive psychologists to rally around a quote that  
> espoused a teleological and therefore scientifically untenable  
> characterization of these important human concepts.
> 
> "An attempt has been made to solve the problem by creating a  
> prior surrogate of a given effect. A quality or property of  
> purpose is assigned to behavior to bring 'what the organism is  
> behaving for' into the effective present; or the organism is said  
> to behave in a given way because it intends to achieve, or  
> expects to have, a given effect; or its behavior is characterized  
> as possessing utility to the extent that it maximizes or  
> minimizes certain effects. The teleological problem is, of  
> course, not solved until we have answered certain questions: what  
> gives an action its purpose, what leads an organism to expect to  
> have an effect, how is utility represented in behavior. The  
> answers to such questions are eventually to be found in past  
> instances in which similar behavior has been effective."
> 
> p. 105 in B. F. Skinner, CONTINGENCIES OF REINFORCEMENT, New  
> York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969. Other material that may be  
> appropriate for quotation appears on pp. 125-126, 193-194, and  
> 289-290.
> 
> A. Charles Catania  
> University of Maryland Baltimore County  
> CATANIA@UMBC4.UMBC.EDU  
> ---------
> 
> I think we might be able to help Catania (and R. Allen Gardner) out by  
> providing some other "quotable quotes to the effect that it  
> is necessary or correct to describe behavior in terms of purposes,  
> intentions, or goals". Here's one by another prominent psychologist:
> 
> Psychology, which bills itself as the study of behavior, has yet to provide  
> a universally accepted definition of its subject matter. The term  
> "behavior" typically refers to some observable result of an organism's  
> actions, such as a "level press". But actions produce many results, any  
> one of which could be considered the organism's behavior (Powers, 1973).  
> The actions that produce a lever press also move a limb, close an electric  
> circuit, move air molecules near the level and produce a food pellet. Which  
> result should count as behaviors of the organism? Some have argued that  
> only intentionally produced results should count as behavior, other results  
> being accidental side effects of actions (Powers, 1973; Searle, 1981).  
> This approach to defining behavior is rejected by many psychologists  
> who consider intentions both unnecessary and unobservable (Schwartz, 1978).  
> This report shows how intentions can be observed and why the concept  
> of intention is necessary in order to know WHAT AN ORGANISM IS  
> DOING.
> 
> R. Marken, Psychological Reports, 1982, 50, 647-650
> 
> Happy Holidays
> 
> Rick