There is simply not a more concise and accessible overview of the behaviorist's philosophy. So many misconceptions of the general public and beginning student of behaviorism are clarified in a relatively painless manner in this book, and it doesn't require an extensive existing understanding of behaviorism to understand - unlike some of his more technical work such as Verbal Behavior.
People often confuse (radical) behaviorism and behavior analysis with methodological behaviorism, stating that we completely ignore thoughts and behaviors typically considered to have originated in "the mind". This is an outdated characterization (as in, it comes from a time when my grandfather was in elementary school) - what IS eschewed is the concept of the mind and all of its mystique and importance.
This book belongs on the "must read" list for anyone with an interest in human behavior or philosophy of science.

This book should be the primer for all behavior analyst.Nobody does it better than Skinner.Language is simplistic enough for the layman as well as the professional.

A letter to the editor (published in August 1990 in the Los Angeles Times, in response to Skinner's obituary) asked the following disturbing question:



For the all effort and money spent in research in psychology, has there been any progress whatsoever?



The letter-writer asked this question not only of the Skinnerian approach in psychology but of all approaches. He seemed to be rather knowledgable in psychology. (If I remember right, he granted that the effects of intermittent reinforcement may well be something non-obvious that the research has uncovered. His point was that there is not much more.)



I was disturbed by this allegation. However, I couldn't come up with

a smoking gun rebuttal (though my thoughts were along the lines of verbal behavior and programmed instruction.)



Rereading About Behaviorism last week, I feel that Chapter 2 of this book may be pointed to as an unassailable answer to the above question -- Skinner makes some points here that are true advances being made for the first time in the history of human thought. These are Skinner's views on what self-knowledge and introspection is, the special problems posed by them, and how we have "solved" them at least partially. Skinner's views on these may well undergo considerable revision in the future -- however, without his first statement, such an improvement would not have been possible.



According to Skinner, the responses involved in introspection and self-knowledge are nothing more than verbal reports to stimulations inside the body. (In other words, these are not some mysterious non-physical stuff. The mind-body problem is solved neatly.) Skinner points out that primitive nervous systems are involved in these reports (primitive because these nervous systems have evolved not for this purpose but for other purposes). He also points out that those teaching a child to report these accurately are at a loss since they cannot directly feel these stimulations. Skinner's other points are the following:



1. The basic law of effect is what stamps in behavior



2. Unquestionably, changes in the nervous system are involved when behavior is stamped in. However, these do not produce stimulations that the learner can sense, report, and thus know (since no such nervous system has evolved).



3. Thus introspection is useless in order to know when behavior change occurs. (Skinner is not denying the private world. He readily grants even the practial usefulness of it. However, his point is that behavior altering nervous system changes cannot be directly sensed.)



Unquestionably, all these are very difficult to understand. However, one needs to only compare these with what passes in general for psychological theory to appreciate how briliant Skinnerian theory is.



I hope that I have not misunderstood Skinner too badly.

A letter to the editor (published in August 1990 in the Los Angeles Times, in response to Skinner's obituary) asked the following disturbing question:

For the all effort and money spent in research in psychology, has there been any progress whatsoever?

The letter-writer asked this question not only of the Skinnerian approach in psychology but of all approaches. He seemed to be rather knowledgable in psychology. (If I remember right, he granted that the effects of intermittent reinforcement may well be something non-obvious that the research has uncovered. His point was that there is not much more.)

I was disturbed by this allegation. However, I couldn't come up with
a smoking gun rebuttal (though my thoughts were along the lines of verbal behavior and programmed instruction.)

Rereading About Behaviorism last week, I feel that Chapter 2 of this book may be pointed to as an unassailable answer to the above question -- Skinner makes some points here that are true advances being made for the first time in the history of human thought. These are Skinner's views on what self-knowledge and introspection is, the special problems posed by them, and how we have "solved" them at least partially. Skinner's views on these may well undergo considerable revision in the future -- however, without his first statement, such an improvement would not have been possible.

According to Skinner, the responses involved in introspection and self-knowledge are nothing more than verbal reports to stimulations inside the body. (In other words, these are not some mysterious non-physical stuff. The mind-body problem is solved neatly.) Skinner points out that primitive nervous systems are involved in these reports (primitive because these nervous systems have evolved not for this purpose but for other purposes). He also points out that those teaching a child to report these accurately are at a loss since they cannot directly feel these stimulations. Skinner's other points are the following:

1. The basic law of effect is what stamps in behavior

2. Unquestionably, changes in the nervous system are involved when behavior is stamped in. However, these do not produce stimulations that the learner can sense, report, and thus know (since no such nervous system has evolved).

3. Thus introspection is useless in order to know when behavior change occurs. (Skinner is not denying the private world. He readily grants even the practial usefulness of it. However, his point is that behavior altering nervous system changes cannot be directly sensed.)

Unquestionably, all these are very difficult to understand. However, one needs to only compare these with what passes in general for psychological theory to appreciate how briliant Skinnerian theory is.

I hope that I have not misunderstood Skinner too badly.

In Heinlein's classic novel Stranger in a Strange Land, he describes what he calls "fair witnesses," which are people trained to both observe and report what they observe as accurately, objectively, and logically as possible. For instance, ask a fair witness what the color is of the house to the east, and the fair witness will say, "The west wall of the house is blue." Why didn't the fair witness just say that the house is blue? Well, the fair witness cannot see the whole house; s/he can only see the west wall. Skinner, to me, is like the fair witness of psychology. In an interesting assignment, Skinner, after reinforcing successful approximations with food, had students watch a pigeon smoothly rotate counterclockwise and asked them to describe what they saw. They tended to write that the pigeon turned because it expected reinforcement, hoped it would get food, felt it would be rewarded, etc., instead of writing that food was given when the pigeon acted a certain way, or that the pigeon rotated until it was reinforced, etc. Skinner's point in writing about this is that his students failed to write down what they actually observed; they instead wrote about what they expected they themselves would have felt had they been in similar circumstances. Though such inferences are often legitimized by successful predictions and attributions in everyday experience with other people (as opposed to pigeons), and though such inferences are a valuable part of folk psychology, the very fact that such attributions are based on unobservables does pose an interesting dilemma for the methodologist concerned with precise measurement, quantification, control, manipulation, etc. Here, Skinner offers what is the best summary of his arguments. Behaviorism is NOT the science of behavior, but is rather the philosophy of the scientific analysis of behavior. It pertains to methodology, to what can be inferred from what can be observed. This is a landmark book, and all psychology students should have to read it.

Skinner poses an interesting arguement, but it is confined the the operations of the mind. Unfortunately, western education boasts of the intellect and its various processes, while ignoring the most beautiful part of man, the consciousness. The consciousness is REAL not a concept to be tossed about in intellectual conversation, like many beleive. Take not my word on the topic but discover it for yourself. There are many books which address the workings of the consciousness, but I would personally recommend the writings of Samael Aun Weor. Start with Revolutionary Psychology or The Great Rebellion. While reading, be sincere with yourself, otherwise you are wasting your time. If persistent, one may discover the mysteries of the universe, including the other dimensions.

Skinner poses an interesting arguement, but it is confined the the operations of the mind. Unfortunately, western education boasts of the intellect and its various processes, while ignoring the most beautiful part of man, the consciousness. The consciousness is REAL not a concept to be tossed about in intellectual conversation, like many beleive. Take not my word on the topic but discover it for yourself. There are many books which address the workings of the consciousness, but I would personally recommend the writings of Samael Aun Weor. Start with Revolutionary Psychology or The Great Rebellion. While reading, be sincere with yourself, otherwise you are wasting your time. If persistent, one may discover the mysteries of the universe, including the other dimensions.

Skinner is someone that one reading may not be enough, but his concepts are brilliant and it provided great discussion for my Behavior Therapy class.

Skinner is someone that one reading may not be enough, but his concepts are brilliant and it provided great discussion for my Behavior Therapy class.

Written late in Skinner's life, this broadly-scoped statement of Skinner's philosophy is not only an outstanding, clear, and relatively nontechnical primer to Skinner's philosophy, but it is also one of the few places where Skinner undertook to defend his positions against critics, on exactly the same points that are still widely assumed to neatly dismiss not only Skinner, but all of his ideas - and sometimes the entire notion of behavioral science - in one specious swoop.

In mid-century, Skinner became strongly associated with the word 'behaviorism' (so much so that it is now common to see famous, well-published academics confusing him with Watson, the originator of the word 'behaviorism,' whose views and approach were fundamentally different.) Skinner's views are actually called "radical behaviorism" to distinguish them from others like Watsonian S-R behaviorism, Hull's neo-behaviorism, Tolman's purposive behaviorism, and so on. Radical behaviorism, as many prior behaviorisms, held that behavior was caused in ordinary natural ways, and hence that it could be studied just as scientifically as, say, biology was, with just as little unnecessary mystery. What made it 'radical,' however, was not really that it was more behaviorist than other behaviorism, but that it embraced the existence of only-privately-observed events, like one's thoughts and feelings, in such a way that they were also considered behavior. (cf. Skinner's quote, 'The skin is not so important as a boundary.')

Skinner's philosophy had other notable and idiosyncratic properties: Skinner held that behavior was profoundly controlled by the environment (read: that what we do is done with relation to the world - compare this to Pylyshyn's absurdly contrary claim that "human behavior is stimulus free," in other words that we are so stupid that we act without regard, e.g., to what time it is, what the judge just said, or how this restaurant was awful last time.) Skinner emphasized direct application of behavioral study to political problems, was a humanist who hated coercion and punishment, and - perhaps most famously - he was excessively picky about what words were used to describe behavior (going so far as to reject, on principle, virtually any use terminology smacking of 'mentalism,' - e.g., 'thought,' even though he took pains to point out his acceptance of private life). It is the persistent emphasis of environmental influence and the persistent suspicion of anything that smelled like 'mentalism' - appeal to spirits, res cogitae, homunculi, a vis viva, or a virtus dormitiva - that are now the most noted characteristics of Skinner's philosophy.

Skinner's own words will naturally be the most reliable representation of what he thought, and this is the best place to read those words. Whether or not you have any understanding of behavioral science or of Skinner's particular take on it, this book will give you the essential and relatively authoritative philosophical views contained in radical behaviorism - unpolluted by politically motivated revisionism. With an honest reading of an accurate source, one can evaluate each idea on its own merit, without needing to take sides pro or con in order to evaluate the basic plausibility of the many and strident competing claims about radical behaviorism.

(One point is left off because Skinner's philosophy is still somewhat confusingly explained and incomplete, albeit expansive, even at its best).

THEORIES ABOUT ANIMAL BEHAVIOR (INCLUDING HUMAN ANIMALS) COME IN AND OUT OF FASHION IN CYCLES. BFS IS NOT IN FASHION THESE DAYS - MORE'S THE PITY!

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BE AN EDUCATED PERSON IN THE 21ST CENTURY IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A FIRM GRASP OF BFS' BODY OF WORK. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL.

IN THIS VOLUME BFS MAKES A BRAVE STAB AT 'POPULARISING' HIS THEORIES. HE IS NOT ALTOGETHER SUCCESSFUL. FOR ONE THING, HE DOESN'T WRITE NEARLY AS WELL AS, SAY, FREUD; ALTHOUGH HE IS ON A PAR WITH, SAY, JUNG, OR EVEN JAMES.

THE 'HUMANISTS' WHO ARE ON THE RISE THESE HIGH-TECH DAYS - THEY USUALLY PARALLEL THE RELIGIONIST CYCLE - GET PRETTY SHORT SHRIFT FROM BFS, ALTHOUGH IN THIS BOOK HE GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO BE CONCILIATORY. I WONDER IF HE DOESN'T BORDER ON CONDESCENDING?

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT "MAN IS MADE IN THE IMAGE & LIKENESS OF A SANE & LOVING GOD" YOU WON'T ENJOY THIS INFINITELY POLITE BUT UNCOMPROMISING BOOK. IT IS ALL FOR TRAINING MAN OUT OF HIS 'KILLER APS' SO TO SPEAK : YOU KNOW, SLAVERY IN THE SOUTHERN USA (THE READING LIST IS GROWING AT LAST), VIETNAM (A GROWING LIST OF FINE, DEVASTATINGLY REVEALING BOOKS), 1930/40 NAZISM ( A READING LIST AS LONG AS YOUR ARM AND GROWING RAPIDLY), STALINISM (NOT SUCH A GOOD LIST OF READINGS), MAOISM (ALSO A BIT SPARSE), ON AND ON ACROSS A PLANET AWASH IN BLOOD & CARNAGE - RIGHT UP TO THIS VERY HOUR, EVEN AS I WRITE.

BFS DOES NOT ROMANTICISE HUMANKIND, ANY MORE THAN DARWIN DID. IF HE ERRS, LIKE DARWIN, IT IS THROUGH A REALISTIC FEAR OF AROUSING THE HATRED OF A DANGEROUS SPECIES; THIS LEADS TO A TENDENCY TO SKIRT THE REAL ISSUES, HOPING THE READER CAN READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

THIS IS NOT 'LIGHT' READING FOR ALL BFS' EFFORTS TO DUMB DOWN HIS CONCLUSIONS; BUT NEITHER IS IT ESPECIALLY 'HEAVY' GOING. IT IS WELL WORTH THE EFFORT REQUIRED.

WARNING: DON'T EVEN BOTHER, IF YOUR IDEA OF SERIOUS PSYCHOLOGY (MANAGERIAL OR OTHERWISE) IS 'THE ONE MINUTE MANAGER' WHICH, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, DERIVES FROM BFS' RESEARCH.

FROM THE SUBLIME TO THE UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!

...I gave this book a five for its clarity in laying out some Skinnerian basics. It's a very well-written book and clearly presents the often-misunderstood but important distinction between behavioral psychology and behaviorism (its philosophy).

Skinner in this book does what he fails to do in many of his other works, make it readable for the mass audience. B.F. Skinner has made a lasting impression on the field of psychology by his unbelievable attention to detail and the bredth of applicaiton that his work has. This book covers most areas of his analysis, that are more fully described in other places, in a user friendly manner and makes accessible for the lay person his explanations in easy to follow examples. This is an excellent primmer to Skinner.