NationStates Jolt Archive

I am halfway through Burrhus Frederic Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity (http://books.google.com/books?id=CtF6FDfUcQoC&dq=beyond+freedom+and+dignity&pg=PP1&ots=xHNbOIoM3b&sig=FZ2YDL4GzqH9NcEQcVdZHnno5hg&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dbeyond%2Bfreedom%2Band%2Bdignity%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail). (For some reason, Skinner is usually referred to as just "B.F." I don't know why. If my first name were "Burrhus," I'd use it as often as I could.)
So far, Skinner's basic argument is this: while the rest of the sciences have progressed, the study of human behavior has not gotten past Aristotle. We continue to believe in intent in humans (that is, free will) the same way we once believed in the intent of rocks to explain their movement, or the planets to explain their orbit. People respond to their environment instinctively, and concepts of freedom and human dignity are preventing societies from the social engineering necessary to improve the world.

On one hand, it's a little refreshing to read a viewpoint I never hear in the press, and I agree that the world, the U.S. in particular, is held back by sticking to 18th-century ideas such as natural rights. On the other hand, I like to think I have a free will, and while I can see Skinner's plan working on a large scale, still cannot believe that individuals are as predictable as he believes. There's at least a degree of randomness to what we do, even if we don't consciously choose. I also haven't finished the book; maybe it will all be explained at the end.

What do people here think? What are your feelings on Skinner, free will, and his plan for improving human behavior by controlling the environment and casting away concepts of human dignity and freedom?

I am halfway through Burrhus Frederic Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity (http://books.google.com/books?id=CtF6FDfUcQoC&dq=beyond+freedom+and+dignity&pg=PP1&ots=xHNbOIoM3b&sig=FZ2YDL4GzqH9NcEQcVdZHnno5hg&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dbeyond%2Bfreedom%2Band%2Bdignity%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail). (For some reason, Skinner is usually referred to as just "B.F." I don't know why. If my first name were "Burrhus," I'd use it as often as I could.)
So far, Skinner's basic argument is this: while the rest of the sciences have progressed, the study of human behavior has not gotten past Aristotle. We continue to believe in intent in humans (that is, free will) the same way we once believed in the intent of rocks to explain their movement, or the planets to explain their orbit. People respond to their environment instinctively, and concepts of freedom and human dignity are preventing societies from the social engineering necessary to improve the world.

On one hand, it's a little refreshing to read a viewpoint I never hear in the press, and I agree that the world, the U.S. in particular, is held back by sticking to 18th-century ideas such as natural rights. On the other hand, I like to think I have a free will, and while I can see Skinner's plan working on a large scale, still cannot believe that individuals are as predictable as he believes. There's at least a degree of randomness to what we do, even if we don't consciously choose. I also haven't finished the book; maybe it will all be explained at the end.

What do people here think? What are your feelings on Skinner, free will, and his plan for improving human behavior by controlling the environment and casting away concepts of human dignity and freedom?
Desmond Morris attempted to jump-start a zoological examination of humanity back in the 70's (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/desmond_morris.html).

Asimov's Foundation (http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_home_page.html) trilogy was based on the premise that humanity must be shielded from too much knowledge of its own functionality, to keep from destroying itself in a self-referential infinite loop.

And I've always wanted to roll a WoW toon named "BF," so he could be a skinner ;) I wonder if I could name one, "Burrhus Frederic" . . .

Desmond Morris attempted to jump-start a zoological examination of humanity back in the 70's (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/desmond_morris.html).

Morris's books sound a lot like The Third Chimpanzee and other stuff by Jared Diamond. Are they related? (The books, not the men.)

well every one likes to think they have their own free will, but I do agree that we would act different in different environments, like if you lived in a woods with no contact then the instincts would kick in. but in life in the city you don't really use instincts very much.

Morris's books sound a lot like The Third Chimpanzee and other stuff by Jared Diamond. Are they related? (The books, not the men.)

Unsure. I have no exposure to Mr. Diamond. Do you have a clicky-linky-thingie?

Unsure. I have no exposure to Mr. Diamond. Do you have a clicky-linky-thingie?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond)
Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Jared+Diamond&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en)
UCLA (http://www.geog.ucla.edu/people/faculty.php?lid=3078&display_one=1&modify=1)
I recommend any of his books, but especially Guns, Germs, and Steel, where he explains his theory of how geography affects civilization. The Third Chimpanzee is the one that sounds closest in tone to Morris, though.

well every one likes to think they have their own free will, but I do agree that we would act different in different environments, like if you lived in a woods with no contact then the instincts would kick in. but in life in the city you don't really use instincts very much.

But those instincts have to be there. I think that after a while, people don't ahve the instincts after being in a city. There has to be knowledge to back up the instincts as well

It's hard to learn about human psychology when you can't study it's development because experimentation on human children is unethical.

Also, Asimov is a crappy writer, because he writes like a scientist, not like a writer.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond)
Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Jared+Diamond&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en)
UCLA (http://www.geog.ucla.edu/people/faculty.php?lid=3078&display_one=1&modify=1)
I recommend any of his books, but especially Guns, Germs, and Steel, where he explains his theory of how geography affects civilization. The Third Chimpanzee is the one that sounds closest in tone to Morris, though.
Thank you for the links! And thank you for a citation besides Wikipedia. I refuse to use them since they removed the Noob (http://www.clichequest.com/index.php).

eta: It looks like 3rd Chimp was published 20 years after Naked Ape. I would be surprised if Diamond were unaware of Morris's work.

Also, Asimov is a crappy writer, because he writes like a scientist, not like a writer.

Ah. Well, my major complaint with most writers is that they don't write more like scientists :p

The rigidity of Skinner's absolute behaviorism remains, after years of study, mostly unappetizing to me, and retrospectively, scientifically incorrect. While our environment does, indeed, mold us in many ways, it is not the sole influencing factor. Rather, a useful and applicable understanding of human behavior is derived from a synthesis of Skinner, Freud, Maslow (Ohio State, FTW!!!!!), and the developing neurological-genetic field. I have little doubt that our behaviors can be shaped by our environment, but I do not think that it is merely as simple as that.

The rigidity of Skinner, though, cannot be correct, given the historical and empirical evidence I have seen, as well as the personal experiences I have accumulated.

Ah. Well, my major complaint with most writers is that they don't write more like scientists :p

I cannot believe that anyone cares that much about what will happen several tens of thousands of years in the future, much less be able to predict it accurately, especially when the very act of predicting it can change it.

Asimov's science comes at the expense of good plot.

Gregory Benford is a pretty good mix if you like hard SF. Look for "Tides of Light" and the prequels and sequels. I actually don't know how that series goes, as I read them mostly out of order, beginning with Tides of Light (and honestly, ToL to the end is the best part of the series, from my experience).

I cannot believe that anyone cares that much about what will happen several tens of thousands of years in the future, much less be able to predict it accurately, especially when the very act of predicting it can change it.

Asimov's science comes at the expense of good plot.

Gregory Benford is a pretty good mix if you like hard SF. Look for "Tides of Light" and the prequels and sequels. I actually don't know how that series goes, as I read them mostly out of order, beginning with Tides of Light (and honestly, ToL to the end is the best part of the series, from my experience).

Thanks for the tips! And, yes, I must admit that I find Heinlein and Herbert much more palatable as an adult than Asimov. Still, what an imagination! I can't deny his impact on me as a youth.

What do people here think? What are your feelings on Skinner, free will, and his plan for improving human behavior by controlling the environment and casting away concepts of human dignity and freedom?

The most important lesson to be taken from Skinner and the other early behaviorists is that meaning can be created at will by anyone, for any purpose. That's far more interesting and important than any debate over free will, to my mind. As to Skinner in particular, I haven't read him, beyond portions of Walden II about 10 years back.

The rigidity of Skinner's absolute behaviorism remains, after years of study, mostly unappetizing to me, and retrospectively, scientifically incorrect. While our environment does, indeed, mold us in many ways, it is not the sole influencing factor. Rather, a useful and applicable understanding of human behavior is derived from a synthesis of Skinner, Freud, Maslow (Ohio State, FTW!!!!!), and the developing neurological-genetic field. I have little doubt that our behaviors can be shaped by our environment, but I do not think that it is merely as simple as that.

The rigidity of Skinner, though, cannot be correct, given the historical and empirical evidence I have seen, as well as the personal experiences I have accumulated.

Thank you for such an informed and informative response! Ever since I first learned of the nature vs. nurture debate, I've felt a synthesis of both was most likely closest to the truth.

What do people here think? What are your feelings on Skinner, free will, and his plan for improving human behavior by controlling the environment and casting away concepts of human dignity and freedom?
When one gets caught up trying to argue thinking is no more than a propensity to behave in a certain fashion, one also gets caught up in some funny notions of 'improving behaviour' through 'controlling the environment'.

Skinner and other behaviourists were important in pushing the fields of cognitive science, psychology and philosophy of the mind forward, but in their keenness to discard unscientific (and religious) ideas of the 'Mind', they went on to deny a number of important aspects of ourselves; qualia in particular.

Thanks for the tips! And, yes, I must admit that I find Heinlein and Herbert much more palatable as an adult than Asimov. Still, what an imagination! I can't deny his impact on me as a youth.

Robert Reed is mostly unimpressive, but Sister Alice is fantastic. I prefer, not soft SF, but not hard SF either.

You've been TG'd.

When one gets caught up trying to argue thinking is no more than a propensity to behave in a certain fashion, one also gets caught up in some funny notions of 'improving behaviour' through 'controlling the environment'.

Skinner and other behaviourists were important in pushing the fields of cognitive science, psychology and philosophy of the mind forward, but in their keenness to discard unscientific (and religious) ideas of the 'Mind', they went on to deny a number of important aspects of ourselves; qualia in particular.

It's no error to disregard unscientific explanations of the mind. I've never been convinced by any. :) Skinner and his pals have been helpful in establishing scientifically what has been known since Epictetus - qualia can mean any damned thing you like.

Skinner and his pals have been helpful in establishing scientifically what has been known since Epictetus - qualia can mean any damned thing you like.
Sure, but Skinner and his lot get to the point where they're denying conciousness, even while they're using it to practice science.

Studying human life purely on the basis of outward behaviour, not referencing thoughts, emotions and motivations, is not going to get us anywhere.

Sure, but Skinner and his lot get to the point where they're denying conciousness, even while they're using it to practice science.

Studying human life purely on the basis of outward behaviour, not referencing thoughts, emotions and motivations, is not going to get us anywhere.
Probably one of the biggest issues in cognitive science is "what is consciousness?" Until we have an emirical model, we cannot truly study human life, except anecdotally, which makes for weak science.

Probably one of the biggest issues in cognitive science is "what is consciousness?" Until we have an emirical model, we cannot truly study human life, except anecdotally, which makes for weak science.
You're straying into the mistaken area that Skinner and many others got into, of presuming that:

Only what science studies is real.
Conciousness cannot be studied by science.
Therefore, conciousness is not real.

Without having a fully realised notion of what conciousness is, we can still do much good by studying what we do know, and debating, testing out and deliberating what we don't. Science isn't the be-all and end-all of rigorous academic study. Probably one of the biggest issues in mathematics is "what are numbers?" But we can still practice mathematics, and debate what numbers are, without knowing a definitive answer.

I may be missing the point of this book, never having read it, but if his point is that human rights and freedoms are an outdated concept, then I want none of it.

As far as free will is concerned, perhaps it doesn't exist, and all our actions are determined by natural laws. But even if that is true, the processes involved are far to complex to claim that we understand them.

You're straying into the mistaken area that Skinner and many others got into, of presuming that:

Only what science studies is real.
Conciousness cannot be studied by science.
Therefore, conciousness is not real.
Without having a fully realised notion of what conciousness is, we can still do much good by studying what we do know, and debating, testing out and deliberating what we don't. Science isn't the be-all and end-all of rigorous academic study. Probably one of the biggest issues in mathematics is "what are numbers?" But we can still practice mathematics, and debate what numbers are, without knowing a definitive answer.
I never said I don't believe in consciousness. I said (or at least meant) I want an empirical elucidation of the phoenomenon we call, "consciousness." Science, by virtue of its method, excludes metaphysics. To say you can "study" it the way you "study" say, light waves, is to admit heresay into evidence. It is not reproducible under controlled conditions.
As for mathematics, it is invented, a part of language used to describe an absract quality of objects called, "quantity." The mystery is "Why does math seem to describe Nature?" To this, I have no answer. But I dont mind saying "I don't know." What I mind is someone saying they do know, when they obviously cannot.

I'm not a big fan of B.F. Skinner. But then again I read Noam Chomsky's critique of his work, not Skinner specifically.

If what Chomsky argues is anywhere close to the mark, I would consider Skinner a great opponent of human happiness.

But according to Chomsky, the US is already full of "social engineering" everywhere you look.

As far as free will goes, it's quite clear that both environment and genetic plays a part in our decision making. Although propaganda can only control the learning aspect of things, it should still be enough to shift the view of the majority by either acceptance or learn helplessness. The acceptance part should be pretty self explanatory, you accept whatever message is told to you. While the learn helplessness kicks in when a person does not accept. Rather than activism, the person feels isolated and thinks that there's nothing he/she can do. Living in the US, I am sure I am not the only person who heard people say "voting is useless", "there's nothing we can do, both parties are equally corrupted", or my favorite "most people are stupid and believes anything they see in the news".

So while behaviorism might be out of date, social engineering is still a very effective method of mass control. Although Skinner fail to see that those who have the power to control the board casting of social engineering will always be able to abuse that power. In a capitalistic society, we must leave space for freedom and free thinking to combat this form of corruption. Otherwise people will turn into nothing more than profit producing mindless machines with the only benefiters being the few elites sitting at the top of the system.

On one hand, it's a little refreshing to read a viewpoint I never hear in the press, and I agree that the world, the U.S. in particular, is held back by sticking to 18th-century ideas such as natural rights. On the other hand, I like to think I have a free will, and while I can see Skinner's plan working on a large scale, still cannot believe that individuals are as predictable as he believes. There's at least a degree of randomness to what we do, even if we don't consciously choose. I also haven't finished the book; maybe it will all be explained at the end.

What do people here think? What are your feelings on Skinner, free will, and his plan for improving human behavior by controlling the environment and casting away concepts of human dignity and freedom?

Skinner and behaviourist of his era did have a dramatic impact on psychology leading the field away from the horrifically unscientific theories of Freud and towards more empirical research.

However, psychology has moved on, with more advanced and elegant experimentation techniques to allow us to study cognitive processes and the underlying neurological structures (PET, MRI, fMRI...). The nature v nurture debate was solved years ago by the concept of gene x environment correlations and interactions, the concept that our genetic and neurological predispositions both affect our environment and interact with different environments to produce individual outcomes.

Scientific differentiation has been made between cognitive processes that are automatic and those that require conscious processing. The distinction is, as ever, more complex. But we have long since shown that we are far more than just the product of environmental forces and stimulus-response conditioning, although these do play a significant role. Skinner is nice but it's over simplistic.

Do we have free will though? Well that's one we've not managed to effectively answer yet and really depends on what you mean by free will. A lot of our behaviour is determined by a wide range of environmental factors, past experience and biological predispositions but the multitude of influences are so complex in their interactions it's difficult to tease them apart. Proving free will would essentially be proving a negative, proving that what is influencing our actions is one of a hundred preceding environmental or biological factors and that is (very very difficult) impossible.

Edit: point taken Soheran

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Yeah, what he said.

Also:

A lot of our behaviour is determined by a wide range of environmental factors, past experience and biological predispositions but the multitude of influences are so complex in their interactions it's difficult to tease them apart. Proving free will would essentially be proving a negative, proving that what is influencing our actions is one of a hundred preceding environmental or biological factors and that is very very difficult.

It's not "very very difficult", it's impossible--for any given action we can provide a potential environmental, genetic, or otherwise causal explanation. It's always going to ambiguous what caused and didn't cause what, because there could always be some variable we haven't identified.

But while we cannot prove free will, by the same token we cannot disprove it: you can show that a given factor may have caused our decision, but you can't prove that it actually did.

...concepts of freedom and human dignity are preventing societies from the social engineering necessary to improve the world.
What a shame.

My opinion on Skinner is that he is a transitional figure in history. I mean that he did his work at a time that the study of human behavior was shifting from an older model to a newer one. His studies opened new territory. Like many explorers into new territories, though, he is most valuable to us today for his mistakes -- as an early example of what not to do and where not to go and what doesn't work, while the one thing he discovered of true value is simply the fact that there is something out there to explore and study.

Skinner's results on their own are really not all that valuable to researchers today because so much work has been done since then. To read only Skinner would give you an incomplete and outdated education on the subject. Personally, I believe he should only be read in the context of all the research before and since him.

Plus, Skinner's methods were unethical. In fact, he serves for many as a text-book example of unethical science. This is unfortunate, because it undermines his credibility and, thus, the credibility of all the better research that was done in response to him but is seen as stemming from him. His name is still bandied about by those who seek to reject science in favor of religion as the explanation of human nature. Another way Skinner serves as a lesson of what not to do -- as well as an example of one of the reasons why ethics matter. Rather than a pioneer who advanced the science, Skinner is seen more as a burden that human behavioral science must overcome.

In all, Skinner failed to apply his theories to himself and, thus, allowed his human flaws to influence his work. It's fine to be a flawed human, but he is also a flawed scientist. He should be read critically because of that.

In all, Skinner failed to apply his theories to himself and, thus, allowed his human flaws to influence his work. It's fine to be a flawed human, but he is also a flawed scientist. He should be read critically because of that.

You might find this interesting - I don't really subscribe to the idea that one's personal life detracts from one's work but by the by...

Interesting purely as an interesting article, not a comment on your post, merely clicked my memory.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2283220,00.html

I never said I don't believe in consciousness. I said (or at least meant) I want an empirical elucidation of the phoenomenon we call, "consciousness."
I'm not saying you're denying conciousness at the moment, I'm saying you're straying into the area that Skinner and his friends strayed into of demanding only scientific explanations of consciousness, when they may not be forthcoming.

To say you can "study" it the way you "study" say, light waves, is to admit heresay into evidence. It is not reproducible under controlled conditions.
Neither is the study of politics, philosophy, art, music and many other fields, but we do not dismiss them outright.

As for mathematics, it is invented, a part of language used to describe an absract quality of objects called, "quantity."
Says you.

Mathematical realists would disagree.

well every one likes to think they have their own free will, but I do agree that we would act different in different environments, like if you lived in a woods with no contact then the instincts would kick in. but in life in the city you don't really use instincts very much.

True. Those city folks don't tend to have all that instinctual junk. You know, emotions and stuff.

If what Chomsky argues is anywhere close to the mark, I would consider Skinner a great opponent of human happiness.


How d'you figure?

Sure, but Skinner and his lot get to the point where they're denying conciousness, even while they're using it to practice science.

Studying human life purely on the basis of outward behaviour, not referencing thoughts, emotions and motivations, is not going to get us anywhere.

That's the biggest part that made me doubtful. While Skinner says that there isn't really an interior mind, that people just respond and then rationalize those responses, he never says how he knows all this when "knowing" isn't real!

Skinner met a colleague in the hall and said, "You're fine! How am I?"