Burrhus Frederic Skinner was an American scientist and author who is credited for his ideals that helped develop various fields including psychology, behaviourism, social philosophy, invention and fiction. One of his major theories revolved around the principle of reinforcement whereby he intimated that individual actions depend on the outcome of their prior actions. Positive reinforcement, he noted, was crucial in shaping behaviour. This essay aims at undertaking a critical analysis of his address to the ‘big’ questions as highlighted in his psychology works. The essay will also study his experiences that would have served in shaping his school of thought.
It should be noted that Skinner was at the prime of his psychological research in the wake of the Second World War (Zuriff, 2003). While indulging in the study of human behaviour, he embarked on pigeon training in the hope that the American troops would use then as bomb guides while attacking enemy ships. As a scientist then, he appears to be in touch with the world around him when he suspends his researches to attend to the war issue that was immediate. Unfortunately, his ideas are not applied and when his pigeon project is cancelled he embarks on training them to play table tennis. This further highlights that although he may have been disappointed by the rejection, it did not stop him from honing his scientific skills. He is later presented taking his research to a domestic level when he embarks on building a crib where a baby would sleep without the need of a blanket. Indeed this presents him as a scientist of all seasons who was ready to lend his knowledge in solving the diverse global concerns.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In his discussion of the nature of human nature, Skinner proposes an objective observation of human behaviour. He, therefore, campaigns for an understanding of human behaviour for what it is to enable an adoption of a plausible action course (Cecil, 2008). He noted that there were certain philosophies of human nature that recognised an internal “will” that is responsible for the interference of casual relationships making speculation and management of human behaviour unattainable. He challenged their views by idealising that their suggestions were a threat to many highly held beliefs and would destabilise how people fruitfully conceive human nature. By further insisting that the society is yet to adopt an unreserved scientific point of view on human nature while on the other hand, it has not completely shunned the traditional philosophy of human nature, Skinner observes that humans were still in the learning process and a transition was underway. While the theories would apply on paper, in the practical sense, they were implausible. The scientific conception contradicts the philosophy of human freedom when both are put in practice, and this prompts for the adoption of a consistent viewpoint.
While expounding on the relationship between mind and body, Skinner posits that there are certain ways that the mind will affect the body. Strong emotional temperaments may sometimes alter the behavioural patterns that are productive (Skinner, n.d.). The altered behaviour may be enhanced by the emotional status to bring about negative results in the body. He, therefore, notes that a troubled state of mind may pose a risk to the body of an individual. Unpleasant emotional conditions such as stress, anxiety, anger and fear have been connected to physical medical conditions such as ulcers and allergies. This confirms that indeed there is a big relationship between the mind and the body whereby a mind in bad condition will have adverse effects on the human body.
Skinner further describes the mind as the inner agent that cannot be defined in physical dimensions but is capable of deciding what the body does. He likens the act of the mind driving the body to the driving of a vehicle by intimating that the body executes the wills of the inner man (Cecil, 2008). Impulses such as loss of appetite are mental while refraining from eating is a physical action of the body. His observation of mind control over the body which he also refers to as the psychic control is explained through primitive observation of the immobile nature of the body after death. This informs that the mind is always in control of what the body does and the body may either respond consciously or subconsciously.
Skinner further studied the rational and irrational aspects of human nature with respect to behaviour and concluded that they had the same sort of distinction (Zuriff, 2003). He observed that the behavior of a rational individual is governed by “reasons” that are descriptive of the relations between the occasions of their behaviour, the behaviour itself and the arising consequences. Rationality, therefore, attempts to elevate individuals who act spontaneously as opposed to those that abide by the regulations. On the contrary, Skinner observes that the irrational individual is prone to err and thus advocating for the impulsive rational human.
In his observation of how individuals get to acquire a language, Noam Chomsky (1971) argued that the children are born without any knowledge and get to learn from their ingenuity the words they speak while growing up. This is the nativist point of view that argues that the human child is born intelligent enough to learn a language by itself. Skinner, in his vitalist ideals, intimates that the child is born with a blank mind only to acquire the language later from the experiences within the child’s environment. The two observations on human behaviour tend to contradict although scholars have found both to be equally applicable to specific conditions.
Skinner makes the observation that there are dualistic distinctions between objective and subjective reality. While the objective reality is assumed to exist in complete independence of the conscious individual observation, the subjective reality, on the other hand, argues that our perceptions are the guiding factor in ascertaining what is real. Subjective reality, therefore, informs that there can be various versions of reality depending on individual perceptions. Skinner dismisses these ideals by noting that the inference of the properties objective reality can only be achieved through observation. Since observations are subjective, Skinner suggests that there is a need for more elaboration of the two.
In conclusion, Skinner comes from the early twentieth century with various scientifically backed ideals that are aimed at solving the conspicuous problems plaguing everyday lives. He is an avid thinker who goes ahead to put his thoughts in practice. Although there are various challenges and criticisms of his ideals, where other thinkers have provided alternative lines of thought, it is noted that Skinner’s works are still applicable in certain fields. He is also noted to have enthusiastically engaged in the study of both human and animal behaviour where his studies have helped in the understanding of human nature. He is thus one of the greatest scientists who has given plausible responses to the ‘big questions’ that plague human nature and individual behaviour.
References
Cecil, D. P. (2008). Cognitive and behavioral approaches: To blend or not to blend. Blending Cognitive and Behavioral Approaches, 1 (1), 1-21.
Chomsky, N. (1971). The case against B. F. Skinner. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from http://www.ehu.eus/HEB/KEPA/The%20Case%20Against%20B.F.%20Skinner.pdf
Skinner B. F. (n.d.). Science and human behavior. Pearson Education, Inc.
Skinner, B. F. (1988). The selection of behavior: the operant behaviorism of B. F. Skinner: Comments and consequences. CUP Archive.
Zuriff, G. E. (2003). Science and human behavior, dualism, and conceptual modification. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80 (3), 345-352.
