<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: More than simply Stimulus-Response psychology
Review: Anyone who accuses B. F. Skinner of championing a mechanistic, stimulus-response psychology needs to read this book! In it, Skinner takes the reader on an exercise in looking at the world and our place in it through the lenses of personal learning history and the cultural context influencing what is important (primarily Euro-American---but one can only handle so many things at once.) Although, as other reviews have written, some of the terms and circumstances date the book, the themes contained within remain valid.
Rating:
Summary: More than simply Stimulus-Response psychology
Review: Anyone who accuses B. F. Skinner of championing a mechanistic, stimulus-response psychology needs to read this book! In it, Skinner takes the reader on an exercise in looking at the world and our place in it through the lenses of personal learning history and the cultural context influencing what is important (primarily Euro-American---but one can only handle so many things at once.) Although, as other reviews have written, some of the terms and circumstances date the book, the themes contained within remain valid.
Rating:
Summary: Does man have a permanent soul?
Review: As far science has been able to determine, man has no permanent self; therefore man has no inherent, or intrinsic, moral character. I agree with Skinner in that regard. Buddah, Alan Watts, and J. Krishnamurti said essentially the same thing. For man to have a permanent self, that self would have to be a spiritual entity, a soul, or spirit. Probably most of you believe that you are spiritual beings inhabiting physical bodies. Skinner, the scientist, couldn't accept that. To him, and I think he was right, consciousness arises on the "razor's edge of time." Consciousness has no moral character. Morality, character, etc, are learned behaviors. An interesting note: the judicial system and capital punishment are predicated on the belief that man has a permanent self--i.e., a preexisting and transendent soul. We are living under a theocratic form of government. Capital punishment crosses the line that separates church and state. "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" is a must read.
Rating:
Summary: Very "Reinforcing"
Review: In the United States, we witness the cult of the individual to the extreme. Inmates are executed while crime flourishes. People of low economic status are designated as "losers." Drug usage is seen as an issue of individual "responsibility." When it comes to school shootings, the media hints to individual flaws. Millions are tossed in jails as the U.S. becomes a police state. Banalities such as "where are the parents" and "random acts of kindness" abound. Despite the substantial drop in crime rates under Reno's justice department, many social issues, such as race riots to school shootings, just won't go away.What's the problem? Global, deterministic "Human nature?" It turns out humans are more pliant than archaic "original sin" perceptions of humanity. This is a nifty work, written in people-speak. Skinner does a great job dissecting the ideas of freedom and dignity, presenting what they mean in behaviorist terms. He advocates a design of a culture to create a more humane reality. As we adopt a scientific worldview of the human being, we should be able to troubleshoot many problems. Or create them -- as seen by corporations who can train humans to smoke cancer sticks and other crazy behaviors. A devastating critique of libertarianism from one of the greatest psychologists of the 20th century. Very cool.
Rating: 
Summary: Where's The Beef?
Review: Let me start off by saying Skinner does have an idea of what he is saying. Of course, his idea is presumptuous, narrow, and biased, but under circumstances of absolute control (which is what he argues for) I believe that his ideas may work. That said, I believe he is wrong to ever believe that a culture's survival should ever supercede the rights of the individual; though the culture may survive 1000 years, the inhabitants of the culture could never be human. And what is the point of a human culture that lacks the human originality and individuality? We would be robots. Actually, more like Christians. I feel that this is a good read so long as it is followed by Chomsky's essay "Psychology and Ideology" (may be found in the "Chomsky Reader"). Chomsky only touches a few complaints I had on the book. Skinner's examples within the chapters 2 & 3 are simplistic and unexplored (his explanations for examples are atrocious at best). His point is just as unexplored as well as vacuous in specifics or examples. But I must say, I marked up my copy with a pencil so much; I may not agree, but I certainly appreciate a different view. I feel that to any Anarchist this is a must-read as I feel Proudhon is a must-read to any Capitalist, for if you're going to know anything in life, it should be the arguments of your opponents. So to sum up things: Read this... like it or don't like it, but most importantly, know why.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful departure from ridiculous psychology
Review: Skinner begins his book at the end - near the end at any rate: "As Darlington has said, 'Every new source from which man has increased his power on earth has been used to diminish the prospects of his successors. All his progress has been made at the expense of damage to his environment which he cannot repair and could not foresee.'" Skinner cites a litany of woes: "population ... nuclear holocaust ... pollution ... the revolt of the young." So, the end is at hand and the physical sciences by themselves accelerate doomsday rather than forestall it. What do we need? "What we need is a technology of behavior. ... Physics and biology have come a long way, but there has been no comparable development of anything like a science of human behavior." So why do we not have such a technology? "almost everyone attributes human behavior to intentions, purposes, aims, and goals. ... Unable to understand how or why the person we see behaves as he does, we attribute his behavior to a person we cannot see ... The function of this inner man is to provide an explanation which will not be explained in turn ... We say he is autonomous - and, so far as science is concerned, the miraculous." So, what we must not do, if we are to save ourselves, is to place our hopes in the "inner" man, the "autonomous" man, the "miraculous" man - far from being the solution, our belief in him prevents us from solving our problems. But what is the correct view of man? "We can follow the path taken by physics and biology by turning directly to the relation between behavior and the environment and neglecting supposed mediating states of mind. ... Behavior ... can be studied by arranging environments in which specific consequences are contingent upon it. The contingencies under investigation have become steadily more complex, and one by one they are taking over the explanatory functions previously assigned to personalities, states of mind, traits of character, purposes, and intentions. The ... result is practical: the environment can be manipulated." So, once we abandon the idea of an autonomous, inner, miraculous man, then, and only then can we make progress. But are we wrong in doing so? Can we be sure that he doesn't exist? "Personal exemption from a complete determinism is revoked as scientific analysis progresses, particularly in accounting for the behavior of the individual." So, we can be confident. Science demonstrates that there is no inner man, no autonomous man, no miraculous man. He doesn't exist. Our problems, however, are large. They require changes to the behavior of large numbers of people. How can they be effected? "Most .. contingencies are arranged by other people. They are, in fact, what is called a culture. ... It shapes and maintains the behavior of those who live in it. ... A culture which for any reason induces its members to work for its survival is more likely to survive. ... Explicit design promotes that good by accelerating the evolutionary process." Thus, we learn that the solution is the design of a culture, which is made possible by the knowledge that inner, autonomous, miraculous man does not exist. Behavior is determined by the environment, the most important aspect of which is culture. To design the culture is the key. To be sure, it won't be easy: "A complete break with the past is impossible. The designer of a new culture will always be culture-bound, since he will not be able to free himself entirely from the predispositions which have been engendered by the social environment in which he has lived." But wait, what is this? In order for the designer to do what needs to be done, he needs to "free himself" from his environment. But what can this mean? The behavior of the designer, the outer man, the man we can see, is scientifically known to be the product of his environment - he can no more "free himself" from his environment than water could decide to run uphill. If he is to be freed from the control of his environment, it could only be through the agency of an inner, autonomous, miraculous man. What a sad and miserable end to our hopes! After so much build-up telling us how we can save ourselves through disdaining religion and embracing science, in the end it all depends on an inner, autonomous man, a man whose existence Skinner unhesitatingly characterizes as - a miracle.
Rating: 
Summary: Contra Bowen
Review: The reviewer from Sunnyvale, CA, does a competent job summarizing the work and commends it up to a point, only to conclude that, because Skinner's enviornmental re-evaluater is himself conditioned by the enviornment, re-evaluation is somehow an impossibility. The assumption here being that everyone within a given culture is subject to the same enviornment, when, in truth, we all come from different walks of life within any given culture. Skinner is saying that the enviormental re-evaluator is in the minority and so will have to face the opposition of the majority. It is because of his enviornment (the love he has recieved, the education, the more liberal nature of his upbringing, etc.) that he is in a position to recognize the shortcomings of his culture as a whole. I thought it necessary to point this out since, without this glaring oversight, the above-mentioned reviewer might have given this book a much better rating.
Rating:
Summary: Toward Knowledge and Usefulness
Review: This is a great book. It argues that: 1) the human race faces great and urgent problems, such as overpopulation and habitat destruction. 2) we don't behave all that well: we're having difficulty addressing the urgent problems. 3) a scientific approach may be able to help. 4) indeed, a "technology of behavior" is being developed and shows promise. This includes Skinner's experimental findings and conclusions, for example, the role of operant conditioning and the limitations of punishment. 5) Using this emerging technology of behavior, individuals can manage themselves better (as Skinner demonstrated with himself). As a race, we should also be able to use this technology to manage ourselves collectively better. 6) We are being managed (i.e. controlled) anyway, often by forces we either aren't aware of or don't grasp the impact of. 7) If we took control of this technology of behavior, applying it as it is and developing it further, we might be able to save ourselves from the urgent problems that confront us. 8) A key obstacle to the application and further development of this technology is our belief that we are somehow ultimately free of external causes. We believe in free will (freedom or autonomy) and consequently we take credit ( feel dignity) for things we really don't have much or any control over. 9) If we look at the explanations we offer on the basis of our freedom and dignity, we may see that they cover up huge areas of ignorance we have as to why we behave as we do. And if we look at our behavior, we see that we don't control it as much as we think we can (consider the problem people have with obesity or addiction) and we take credit for things we aren't responsible for (including what now appear to be genetic endowments). 10) By attributing things to our "free will", we tend to ignore the real events that influence us, and by so doing we fail to learn from them. 11) If we worked together to look at what really is influencing us and at how we do and can influence others, we might be able to shift ourselves toward being more altruistic and more effective, i.e. we might be able to overcome the big problems that we are currently creating. Better ways of managing ourselves may mean better ways to manipulate others, but it may also mean that people will be better informed so as to counter manipulations and join, where appropriate, in managing themselves better. At least with an open, scientific process, we have a chance of learning and improving the process ourselves, instead of floundering into disasters due to half-baked concepts about ourselves. It may make no sense to you to chuck your "autonomous person" yet, but there's no need to. The important thing is to take a little time to learn what Skinner and other behaviorists have learned and try to apply it to help yourself ... and others. You may find yourself stepping beyond freedom and dignity toward knowledge and usefulness ... and that may feel like a good thing.
Rating:
Summary: Toward Knowledge and Usefulness
Review: This is a great book. It argues that: 1) the human race faces great and urgent problems, such as overpopulation and habitat destruction. 2) we don't behave all that well: we're having difficulty addressing the urgent problems. 3) a scientific approach may be able to help. 4) indeed, a "technology of behavior" is being developed and shows promise. This includes Skinner's experimental findings and conclusions, for example, the role of operant conditioning and the limitations of punishment. 5) Using this emerging technology of behavior, individuals can manage themselves better (as Skinner demonstrated with himself). As a race, we should also be able to use this technology to manage ourselves collectively better. 6) We are being managed (i.e. controlled) anyway, often by forces we either aren't aware of or don't grasp the impact of. 7) If we took control of this technology of behavior, applying it as it is and developing it further, we might be able to save ourselves from the urgent problems that confront us. 8) A key obstacle to the application and further development of this technology is our belief that we are somehow ultimately free of external causes. We believe in free will (freedom or autonomy) and consequently we take credit ( feel dignity) for things we really don't have much or any control over. 9) If we look at the explanations we offer on the basis of our freedom and dignity, we may see that they cover up huge areas of ignorance we have as to why we behave as we do. And if we look at our behavior, we see that we don't control it as much as we think we can (consider the problem people have with obesity or addiction) and we take credit for things we aren't responsible for (including what now appear to be genetic endowments). 10) By attributing things to our "free will", we tend to ignore the real events that influence us, and by so doing we fail to learn from them. 11) If we worked together to look at what really is influencing us and at how we do and can influence others, we might be able to shift ourselves toward being more altruistic and more effective, i.e. we might be able to overcome the big problems that we are currently creating. Better ways of managing ourselves may mean better ways to manipulate others, but it may also mean that people will be better informed so as to counter manipulations and join, where appropriate, in managing themselves better. At least with an open, scientific process, we have a chance of learning and improving the process ourselves, instead of floundering into disasters due to half-baked concepts about ourselves. It may make no sense to you to chuck your "autonomous person" yet, but there's no need to. The important thing is to take a little time to learn what Skinner and other behaviorists have learned and try to apply it to help yourself ... and others. You may find yourself stepping beyond freedom and dignity toward knowledge and usefulness ... and that may feel like a good thing.
Rating:
Summary: Imperfect but still a Classic
Review: This is an extremely important book whose central thesis is that people prefer to be controlled by forces they cannot directly observe rather than by forces they can directly observe. When someone makes you do something, you feel controlled and are likely to rebel. If you are controlled by things that don't seem to be controlling you, though, like your education or the norms of your society, then you don't feel coerced and do not rebel. His point, however, is that you are still being controlled even if you don't see the hand of the person controlling you. Although most people are horrified by Skinner's assertion that they are being controlled by forces they don't know about, Skinner himself did not mean the book to be pessimistic. Instead, he hoped that by alerting people to what controls them that they would be able to examine those controls and change them through a science of behavior.
<< 1 >>
| 
