Thanks Mike for your comments. First of all Skinner did not raise her daughter in a "box." Read the Guardian article she wrote about her father and debunking all those fake news. She did not commit suicide. Read the Guardian article. His daughter Deborah Skinner Buzan wrote a very comprehensive approach to lies people have propagated about Skinner primarily about his scientific and deterministic well established discoveries as to what are the real variables that influence behavior. So your views of Skinner are based on fake news. Second, determinism of behavior does not contradict having a soul or being a believer. I am a Christian, Catholic and believe in God and try to do my best to be prosocial, but also believe that we should take delight in scientifically discovering the laws of nature since they represent God's creation. You need to become better informed about Skinner and the science of behavior. In our view, it is time that we look at the natural science of behavior as a scientific approach to shaping prosocial behavior. We are evolving culturally unguided towards a catastrophic end like Skinner predicted 50 years ago and David Sloan Wilson also predicts - the ugly negative consequences of an unguided cultural evolution. Appreciate your input but please get your information from reliable and credible sources. Best and warm embrace, Francisco Perez.
Snopes says that Skinner did not raise his firsts daughter in an unusual device. Apparently, he raised his second daughter for two years in an "air crib". The air crib has become confused with "the Skinner box".
This 1960 video indicates an important effort by Behaviorism that was called the Skinner box:
Mike, what happened to your posting form 2010 Psychological Science? Can't find it to reply. The YouTube posting was liked by more than 350 people with no dislikes. Maybe that tells us something. Skinner was a purist and a scientist. His studies with his children were an effort to evaluate the principles of free operant conditioning with young children. Did not go far but it is groundbreaking! Best, Francisco
Mike I plan to take each of your seven arguments when I find some time. But now 19 essays later I question Where have you been? Did you actually read each of our postings. They were gradually leading to this point. Maybe we did not do a good job presenting the arguments and points and we can all try better! Thanks for your comments. They help us shape our message. Francisco
I would say that from the perspective of the individual organism, we choose. If it is not escape or avoidance from aversive events, then that choice is “free” in the sense of not being coerced. So it is perfectly understandable, and actually has utility, that people encourage one another to choose, emphasize the “freedom” of choice, and so on.
But from the perspective of the whole system, in which the individual is — according to Skinner — a “locus of events” in which environmental history and genetic endowment come together to produce an effect (“Me”), behavior is lawful, and therefore determined, not in the mechanical stimulus-response way that the old time conditioning people modeled, but in the probabilistic way that Skinner’s use of rate of response measure made clear and Herrnstein’s work on choice quantified.
It seems clear that the free will/determinism “debate” need not be a debate at all. It is simply observation from different perspectives. Not unlike someone viewing the Cascade mountains from the peak of Mt. Rainier (which is generally higher) viewing the Cascades as “low” vs. someone viewing Mt. Rainier from a lower vantage point and describing it as “high.”
First, in my view, people with learning, mental, emotional, and brain disabilities may not have free will at any point in their lives. And any of us temporarily in a state of fear, high anxiety. or panic may not have free will while in that state.
Second, B.F. Skinner raised his child in a box. So not someone I hold in esteem or consider credible.
Third, Behaviorism is just a set of assumptions. I see no reason to value those assumptions. In my view, Behaviorist assumptions are valid only for people who believe in there is only a natural level of reality. In my view, Behaviorism is a philosophy, not science. Those of who believe in three levels of reality -- the Divine, the spiritual, and the natural -- don't have to accept any of the assumptions of Behaviorism. We can reject as many of them as we wish and still be science-respecting people.
Fourth, of course neuroscience has something to say on this matter. In my view, neuroscience is science and Behaviorism is not. I trust neuroscience much more than I trust Behaviorism.
Fifth, I believe we have a soul: a spiritual will (and spiritual mind) and a natural will (and natural mind). And I believe every human and animal has a consciousness. So what you're saying doesn't resonate with me at all because it feels more limited than my view of the human being. It feels flat.
Sixth, I think that those of us who are theists and who believe in the soul and in consciousness should be welcomed in a movement for social behavior. I think you should have kept your school and movement for social behavior a widely inclusive one. I think it would be best for you to have kept your Behaviorist materialist determinist philosophy to yourself, and not place it at the center of your school and movement for prosocial behavior. I feel both disappointed and alienated.
And seventh, if we don't have free will, why think about social behavior at all, since we have no capacity to engage in prosocial behavior? In my view, a materialistic deterministic philosophical stance -- which I utterly reject -- ultimately undermines everything else you've been advocating for in your previous writings.
Thanks Mike for your comments. First of all Skinner did not raise her daughter in a "box." Read the Guardian article she wrote about her father and debunking all those fake news. She did not commit suicide. Read the Guardian article. His daughter Deborah Skinner Buzan wrote a very comprehensive approach to lies people have propagated about Skinner primarily about his scientific and deterministic well established discoveries as to what are the real variables that influence behavior. So your views of Skinner are based on fake news. Second, determinism of behavior does not contradict having a soul or being a believer. I am a Christian, Catholic and believe in God and try to do my best to be prosocial, but also believe that we should take delight in scientifically discovering the laws of nature since they represent God's creation. You need to become better informed about Skinner and the science of behavior. In our view, it is time that we look at the natural science of behavior as a scientific approach to shaping prosocial behavior. We are evolving culturally unguided towards a catastrophic end like Skinner predicted 50 years ago and David Sloan Wilson also predicts - the ugly negative consequences of an unguided cultural evolution. Appreciate your input but please get your information from reliable and credible sources. Best and warm embrace, Francisco Perez.
However, I think my "Skinner box" argument was the least important of my seven counter-arguments. And I hope to rebuttal arguments to the other six.
Snopes says that Skinner did not raise his firsts daughter in an unusual device. Apparently, he raised his second daughter for two years in an "air crib". The air crib has become confused with "the Skinner box".
This 1960 video indicates an important effort by Behaviorism that was called the Skinner box:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuObgM9zPGc
Mike, what happened to your posting form 2010 Psychological Science? Can't find it to reply. The YouTube posting was liked by more than 350 people with no dislikes. Maybe that tells us something. Skinner was a purist and a scientist. His studies with his children were an effort to evaluate the principles of free operant conditioning with young children. Did not go far but it is groundbreaking! Best, Francisco
Mike I plan to take each of your seven arguments when I find some time. But now 19 essays later I question Where have you been? Did you actually read each of our postings. They were gradually leading to this point. Maybe we did not do a good job presenting the arguments and points and we can all try better! Thanks for your comments. They help us shape our message. Francisco
I would say that from the perspective of the individual organism, we choose. If it is not escape or avoidance from aversive events, then that choice is “free” in the sense of not being coerced. So it is perfectly understandable, and actually has utility, that people encourage one another to choose, emphasize the “freedom” of choice, and so on.
But from the perspective of the whole system, in which the individual is — according to Skinner — a “locus of events” in which environmental history and genetic endowment come together to produce an effect (“Me”), behavior is lawful, and therefore determined, not in the mechanical stimulus-response way that the old time conditioning people modeled, but in the probabilistic way that Skinner’s use of rate of response measure made clear and Herrnstein’s work on choice quantified.
It seems clear that the free will/determinism “debate” need not be a debate at all. It is simply observation from different perspectives. Not unlike someone viewing the Cascade mountains from the peak of Mt. Rainier (which is generally higher) viewing the Cascades as “low” vs. someone viewing Mt. Rainier from a lower vantage point and describing it as “high.”
That’s my two cents.
First, in my view, people with learning, mental, emotional, and brain disabilities may not have free will at any point in their lives. And any of us temporarily in a state of fear, high anxiety. or panic may not have free will while in that state.
Second, B.F. Skinner raised his child in a box. So not someone I hold in esteem or consider credible.
Third, Behaviorism is just a set of assumptions. I see no reason to value those assumptions. In my view, Behaviorist assumptions are valid only for people who believe in there is only a natural level of reality. In my view, Behaviorism is a philosophy, not science. Those of who believe in three levels of reality -- the Divine, the spiritual, and the natural -- don't have to accept any of the assumptions of Behaviorism. We can reject as many of them as we wish and still be science-respecting people.
Fourth, of course neuroscience has something to say on this matter. In my view, neuroscience is science and Behaviorism is not. I trust neuroscience much more than I trust Behaviorism.
Fifth, I believe we have a soul: a spiritual will (and spiritual mind) and a natural will (and natural mind). And I believe every human and animal has a consciousness. So what you're saying doesn't resonate with me at all because it feels more limited than my view of the human being. It feels flat.
Sixth, I think that those of us who are theists and who believe in the soul and in consciousness should be welcomed in a movement for social behavior. I think you should have kept your school and movement for social behavior a widely inclusive one. I think it would be best for you to have kept your Behaviorist materialist determinist philosophy to yourself, and not place it at the center of your school and movement for prosocial behavior. I feel both disappointed and alienated.
And seventh, if we don't have free will, why think about social behavior at all, since we have no capacity to engage in prosocial behavior? In my view, a materialistic deterministic philosophical stance -- which I utterly reject -- ultimately undermines everything else you've been advocating for in your previous writings.