0.16 Learning theory and personality development  (Page 3/24)

As a child, Skinner had always been interested in the behavior of animals and kept many wild pets. In high school he was very interested in philosophy, and in college a professor had introduced him to comparative psychology and Pavlov’s work on classical conditioning. He began reading Pavlov and Watson while living in Greenwich Village, and eventually went to Harvard University to study psychology. At Harvard Skinner developed the rigorous work schedule that was to become one of his personal hallmarks. After leaving Harvard he taught at the University of Minnesota, where, during World War II, he conducted research on using pigeons as the guidance system for missiles. He then moved on for a brief period as the chairman of the psychology department at Indiana University. In 1948 he was asked to return to Harvard, where he worked for the remainder of his career (Bjork, 1997; Skinner, 1970).

Throughout the rest of his career, Skinner attempted to apply aspects of his radical behaviorism to a variety of issues, including child care, education, and the very nature of society itself. His influence has been substantial, particularly with regard for his emphasis on psychology as a science. However, his views on scientific methodology and other fields of psychology have been controversial. For example:

…I suppose it was only my extraordinary luck which kept me from becoming a Gestalt or (so help me) a cognitive psychologist. (pg. 8; Skinner, 1970)

The Freudian mental apparatus doesn’t make much sense to me…I don’t believe that he devised a useful conceptual system… (pp. 5-7; Evans, 1968)

Dreaming…is almost always weak behavior and hence determined by trivia. (pg. 193; Epstein, 1980)

New, deep, real, growth, harmony, understanding potential, unfoldment - an opiate soothing syrup for humanistic psychologists, hashish for the searchers for identity. (an informal review of a new journal for transpersonal psychology; pg. 291; Epstein, 1980)

I’m not at all impressed by the model builders, the information theory analysts, the systems analysts, and so on. They still haven’t shown me that they can do anything important. (pg. 82; Evans, 1968)

In general, scientific methodology is not an accurate reflection of what the scientist really does…it doesn’t reflect the actual behavior of the scientist. Fortunately for science, scientific method and statistics weren’t formulated until the middle of the nineteenth century. (pg. 89; Evans, 1968)

In Skinner’s defense, however, he often felt that his position was misunderstood. One of the most important approaches to the study of behavior that he emphasized was to focus on individuals, not on average measures of behavior that show “none of the characteristic individuality of the organism you’re studying” (pg. 92; Evans, 1968). Despite harsh criticism, Skinner did not take attacks on his scientific perspectives personally. As he described it, he simply reported the facts that arose from his research, and chose not to debate those who disagreed. One exception, however, was Carl Rogers. On several occasions he debated Rogers, whom he described as a friend, about the dignity of man and the control of men (Bjork, 1997; Evans, 1968). He also sent a letter to E. L. Thorndike, who described the Law of Effect after studying cats escaping from puzzle-boxes well before Skinner was born (published in 1898; see Bower&Hilgard, 1981), apologizing for perhaps having failed to give Thorndike proper recognition for establishing the basic concepts that led to the study of operant conditioning . Thorndike replied that he was more honored to have been of service to new scientists than if he were to have received credit for founding a new “school” of psychology (Skinner, 1970).