You are on page 1of 40

Skinner's Behaviorism

I. Behaviorism as a version of
Physicalism
II. Implications for Education and
Government
III. Skinner's Theory of Value

Three Theories of the Mind


Hylomorphism (Aristotle, Aquinas)
Dualism (Descartes)
Physicalism (Hobbes, Skinner)

Eliminationism
Reductionism

Problems with Reduction: #3

3. The problem of multiple realizability.


The

same mental state could be realized


by infinitely many different physical
states.
The same belief can be shared by people
whose brains are quite different, even by
creatures of different species.
Even -- aliens who are silicon-based, or
androids with electronic brains.

Connection between #1 & #3


This is a characteristic feature of
teleological states: the same end
can be achieved by infinitely many
different means.
Screwdrivers can be made of many
different materials, in many different
shapes or forms (power vs. manual).
More than 30 different kinds of eyes
in nature.

Problem #4: Qualities of


Conscious Experience
Consciousness seems to involve certain
qualities (called qualia, singular
quale), like the feeling of pain or the
appearance of colors, that cannot be
reduced to physical properties.
Possibility of zombies, color-spectrum
inversions. Undetectable by behavior,
interaction with environment, brain
states.

Behaviorism as a Version of
Physicalism
Early version of physicalism:
stimulus response model.
Build a simple, 2-column table:

inputs in first column, outputs in


second.

Operant conditioning
Includes a kind of "memory" of past
experience.
Possibility of positive and negative
reinforcement.
X is a positive reinforcement of
behavior Y if and only if the
association of X with Y makes the
repetition of Y more likely.

Human beings are finite


automata.

Represent by a more complicated


table.
Rows:

possible inputs (environmental


conditions).
Columns: possible internal states.

In each square, we put two things:


1.

The output, behavior produced.


2. The new internal state into which the
subject is transformed.

Everything is finite
finitely many inputs (conditions to
which the subject is potentially
sensitive)
finitely many internal states
finitely many possible behaviors.

III. Implications of Behaviorism for


Education and Government

A. Education -- especially moral,


character education.
Classical

(teleological) view: there is


a fundamental distinction between
manipulation and education.

Education (on classical view)


Assists and nurtures natural
development of moral sense,
character
Goal: teachers initiate learners
into a state to which they have
already attained (maturity,
wisdom).

Manipulation (on classical


view)
Circumvents or overrides natural
functions, development.
Goal: to modify students' behavior
for the good of society, without
reference to the current state of
the teachers.

Education vs. Manipulation


On the behaviorist view: this
distinction is empty. All so-called
education is merely a form of
manipulation (behavior control).
There is no natural development,
"no unfolding of a pre-determined
pattern" (p. 89)

Government
On classical view, individual liberty
is an important goal:
In order to attain happiness, each
individual needs opportunities to
exercise and develop virtue &
practical wisdom.
This necessitates a sphere of
private sovereignty.

Distinction: liberty & license


One has no right to do what is
inherently vicious -- e.g., to
murder, enslave or dominate
another.
When law prohibits such vicious
acts, no liberty is lost.

Contrast: Hobbes & Rousseau


Held that every law is a restriction
of liberty.
Perfect liberty is possible only in
the state of nature (anarchy).

Skinner: there is no such thing


as liberty
So, no law, regulation or social
control involves a loss of "liberty".
Liberty is not an intelligible social
goal.
Why not? Skinner denies the
existence of choice, and of virtue.
These are mythical components of
happiness.

Persuasion vs. Manipulation

On the classical view, the state is a


partnership, based on mutual
respect, and the use of persuasion,
not coercion or manipulation.

Persuasion: speech that engages the


faculties of the rational mind, assisting
them to function properly in reaching a
reasonable conclusion.
Manipulation (misuse of rhetoric): speech
that seeks to circumvent or override the
faculties of the rational mind (through
the exploitation of weaknesses and
biases), causing them to function
improperly and form an unreasonable
conclusion.

Skinners rejection of this


contrast
Skinner denies the validity of the
persuasion/manipulation
distinction.
He denies the existence of such
inner faculties, and of the
distinction of proper/improper
functioning.

Who controls the controllers?


Skinner argues that there "should" be
reciprocity between controllers and
controlled, effective measures of
"counter-conntrol". (p. 169)
However, he gives no reason why this
should be so. Nor does he explain when
efforts at counter-control are proper and
when they are merely the result of
neurotic attachment to "freedom".

If the controller has the proper goals,


why shouldn't his power be absolute?
Can there be effective
countercontrol, when the controller is
acting benevolently? No rational
basis for objection. Result: the
nanny state. (Hillaire Belloc, The
Servile State).

Skinner's Theory of Value

Definition:
Good

things are positive reinforcers.

A positive reinforcer is a
consequence of behavior that
makes the behavior more likely to
recur.

Relativism
Immediate consequence: radical
relativism.
What is good for you may not be
good for me.
What reinforces us depends not
only on genetic endowment, but
also on "training" by environment.
Both vary from person to person.

Optimism?
The best things are those consequences
that most effectively reinforce behavior.
In the long run and for the most part,
the most effective reinforcers must
succeed in reinforcing.
Consequently, most people behave so
as to produce the most effective
reinforcers.

Absurd consequences?
This means that most people enjoy
the best possible life (given
Skinner's definition of the best).
E.g., addicts enjoy the life that is
best for them, since their behavior
is under the control of the most
powerful reinforcers.

Ditto for serial killers, who are


most effectively reinforced by the
thrill of violence.
Consequence: fatalism or quietism.
This is already the best possible
world.

Can Skinner respond?


We want to say at most: that
people enjoy the best possible life,
given their circumstances.
But, what reinforces whom is
always relative to circumstances.
So, can Skinner give an account of
which circumstances are best?

Skinner and Survival Value


Skinner adopts survival value as
the ultimate value.
The survival of one's "culture".

Raises two questions:


1. The survival of what exactly?
2. What makes survival of the
culture/species an especially
gripping value, given behaviorism?

1. The survival of what?

If we modify our culture radically


through behavior modification our
genes through genetic engineering,
what survives the process?
Analogy:

in Vietnam, "to save the village,


we had to destroy it."

Are we ensuring the survival of our


culture, or are we ensuring its extinction
and replacement? Ditto for our species.

2. Is survival value especially


gripping, given behaviorism?

Apparently not -- depends on what


happens to reinforce Skinner, due
to historical accidents.

Possible confusion
We might think the following:
If natural selection is the ultimate
cause of human morality, then the
survival of the species (or one's
"culture") is the highest moral
value.

Two problems:
1. This depends on a very dubious theory
of group selection.
According to the consensus of biologists,
natural selection does not favor behavior
that benefits the whole species at the
expense of the individual's genes.
So, natural selection would not tend to
give human beings an overriding concern
for the welfare of the species (or of any
other large group, like the culture).

2. Confuses the relationship between


natural selection and moral values.
Any concern for the welfare of humanity
is a product of a "high" morality (in
Darwin's sense), which is in turn the byproduct of other, more fundamental
adaptations.
But, within the sphere of "high" morality,
a concern for the welfare of humanity
depends on a belief that humanity is
worthy, deserving of survival.

From the perspective of


morality:

Mere survival of the species is not


the ultimate end -- it is merely a
means to the perpetuation of other
values, such as the perpetuation of
love, dignity, friendship, science,
art, etc.

The Cognitive Revolution


Two scientific challenges to
behaviorism:
Chaos theory
Chomskys linguistics

Chaos theory
The physical attributes of the human
body are capable of infinite variation:
vary continuously along a spectrum.
To represent the body as a finite
automaton, we must assume that
states that vary only slightly differ
only slightly in their effects.
This is true only for linear (nonchaotic) systems.

The body is a non-linear, chaotic


system.
The Butterfly Effect: small,
imperceptible differences in input can
make massive differences in output.
It's not surprising that it's easier to
put a man on the moon than to teach
a classroom full of children to read.

Chomsky's linguistics
Representing human beings as
computers (Turing machines), not
finite automata.
Potentially infinite memories -idealization.
Performance vs. competence.

Equivalent

to: efficient vs. final

causation.
Competence: what the mind is
supposed to do.

You might also like