: quotes from "Punished by Rewards" Alfie Kohn (1993): Well, if I can interpret this, it suggests that environment is the illiciter or cause of specific behavioral evolution. That is, that behavior is modified by environment.
That¹s how Owen put it (in 1812). Skinner's radical behaviorism, in contrast, is concerned with the individual's influence upon the environment (that, in turn, influences the probability of specific behavior recurring). The order of the action is significant.
: In one sense this seems obvious - but I feel it ignores certain evolutionary constraints imposed by internal factors not as yet thoroughly understood.
'Internal factors not as yet thoroughly understood.' Sorry, that is truly a straw man. 'Internal factors' (emotions) certainly accompany behavior (as a narrator accompanies the plot in a book), but they do not initiate the action. Behavior is initiated by histories of reinforcement. 'Thinking' follows these histories every step of the way, and thinking certainly is (weak, or covert) behavior, i.e. 'deciding to do something' (governed by histories of reinforcement expressed as probabilities), but thinking does not cause behavior. As Skinner put it:
'[T]hought is simply behavior---verbal or nonverbal, covert or overt. It is not some mysterious process responsible for behavior but the very behavior itself in all the complexity of its controlling relations, with respect to both man the behaver and the environment in which he lives.'(1)
: (It would be difficult to conceive of an environment that would transform a pidgeon's behavior into a falcon's)
Skinner always took great pains to differentiate inter-species' mode of interacting with environment, concluding nonetheless: '[O]nce you have allowed for differences in the ways in which they make contact with the environment, what remains of their behavior shows astonishingly similar properties.'(2) For example, rats will peck keys and pigeons will press bars in experimental spaces, neither act attributable to phylogenic disposition...
: I have some reservations regarding behaviorism (which have found a home with many defenders of capitalist ideology).
The Schwartz & Lacey's 'factory psychology' thesis. The popular undergraduate textbook Behaviorism, Science, and Human Nature makes the case for operant conditioning as a new form of Taylorism. Unfortunately, this text has been most people¹s introduction to Skinner since the early 1980's (including Kahn?), and serves to omit the anti-capitalist conclusions of behaviorism. The thesis fails to differentiate between contrived and natural reinforcers, for example, the latter a very important component of Skinner's philosophy:
'Modern industry is all too aware of its faults. Contrived reinforcers are seldom sharply contingent on the topography of the behavior. Artisans are more likely to work industriously and skillfully because certain features of what they make are naturally contingent upon the making, whereas the wages paid for production-line work are much less closely related to what the worker does. A supervisor with the power to discharge is needed to offset this weakness. Pay by the day or week is often mistakenly called reinforcement; its real function is to establish a standard of living from which the worker can be cut off.'(3)
Skinner dismissed 'wages' as aversive control as early as 1953.(4) His repudiation of aversive control hopefully requires no documentation...
I am amazed to hear that behaviorism has any ideological defenders in the business world. Walden Two was far from a business.
: Contained within the operant conditioning and the behaviorist approach is an underlying idea of behavior modification with its implication of manipulation. This can appeal to those with a totalitarian disposition and frame of mind.
The Chomsky thesis. Rejects the possibility of accidental control in an unmediated yet significant environment. Embraces the mentalistic notions of individual free will. Spiro Agnew, amongst others, was impressed by this argument...
Totalitarians are much more interested in designing environments in which people believe in free will, individual liberty, and mentalism and, thus, never question their environment...
: [B]ehaviorism is actually a profoundly conservative doctrine posing as a value free technique.
The 'Value' argument (favored amongst all Freudians). Skinner, contrary to popular misconception, did adumbrate a short list of values to start with.(5) These values, explicated over his work, included: positive reinforcement (no coercion or withdrawal of reinforcers), equal education, equal healthcare, equal participation in governance, collectivism, reduced dependence upon commodities...
: Essentially the idea seems to be - control the environment and you control people.
To deny that people are presently controlled (by biological necessity, for example) is to retreat into the superstition of mentalism. Such superstitious ideology is encouraged by 'libertarian' capitalists. For example, free markets respond to individual choice (buy only what you want), implying that all commodities (food, for example) have equal 'elasticity.' The point of behaviorism is to design an environment where all members participate equally in the design (and the control) of the contingencies that influence them. (John Rawls' 'original position' is a useful guide to such a design.)
: Studies of rewards and reinforcements have been shown to fail at one essential level - while they may produce compliance, they fail to transform attitude or emotional commitments.
Again, the Schwartz & Lacey thesis. The fault here is that the very emotions that accompany behavior (in mentalistic accounts: initiate behavior) inexplicably stop accompanying behavior in order to make the point. Is all behavior the same? Only when it is (erroneously) presumed that all reinforcers are the same.
: It has been said that the core of behaviorism is the assumption that people are no more than what they do. Thus more attention is paid to extrinsic motivation (does the job pay well) than intrinsic motivation (is the job interesting).
Alienation was a big topic with Skinner. His chief complaint of Marx¹s later work was that Marx emphasized exploitation instead of staying with alienation.(6) The problem with exploitation as agit-prop was that promising (or supplying) more commodities (contrived reinforcers) did not address the behavior required to produce them. Skinner was clear in saying that although receiving goods was satisfying, what ultimately satisfied was the action that produced them (interesting work).(7)
: [Behaviorism] is American Capitalism today.
Punitive, aversive control coupled with negative reinforcement is American Capitalism today. Behaviorism offers a tangible alternative to it. (Comunidad Los Horcones.)
* * *
: Well, this may not be the place for such give and take, but so what. I've enjoyed busting my mind.
Ditto. Thanks for responding, I enjoyed your thoughtful remarks.
* * *
Sources:
1. Verbal Behavior (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957), p. 449.
2. 'A Case History in Scientific Method,' Cumulative Record, 3rd ed. (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972), p. 118.
3. 'The Contrived Reinforcer,' Upon Further Reflection (Prentice-Hall, 1987), pp. 177-78.
4. Science and Human Behavior (Macmillan, 1953), p. 388.
5. 'Freedom and the Control of Men' [1950], Cumulative Record, 3rd ed., p. 6.
6. 'News From Nowhere, 1984,' Upon Further Reflection, pp. 37-38.
7. 'Can We Profit from Our Discovery of Behavioral Science?,' Reflections on Behaviorism and Society (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1978), p. 93.
None.
