B. F. Skinner - Behavior Control, Freedom, and Morality (1972)

A discussion between B. F. Skinner and Geoffrey Warnock. Hosted by Godfrey Vesey. 1972

[@vigyanta94]

Found a goldmine of a channel at the end of 2023

[@morrisettfamily6955]

I admire this civilize professional conversation

[@petersantospago1966]

Yes...agreed...but if they were naked...well....

[@jaat5810]

Hlo

[@stevestone935]

some of bf skinners ideas, can be logical, yet somehow quite simplistic, in such a complex world.

[@braydenprice109]

yes, these people are quoted as if they are supreme authorities? deities? but these gods only live a few short years, as do their theories and because of this they are immature as are their theories? they would have been good men if they possessed humility? but as you can see they are high on their positions and ability to talk sophisticated like proud babies. because people, humans are short lived? they lack the time to mature even to the point of controlling their senses? let alone mature realization? I'd say today if we sat these two down with someone like Jordan Peterson or Stefan moleneux they would be students. also because of our isolation from many other cultures we have been brainwashed that our modern thinkers are the only intelligentsia that has ever lived due to their utilization by the conquering culture of the multinational parasites who fund and own the universities these clones represent and promote.

[@igorcarvalho3087]

I know it's been a year since your comment, but it's not simplistic. B.F. Skinner was influenced by pragmatism, which implies that a scientific principle has to be useful to manipulate variables and it needs to be as simple as it can be. But the thing is, every principle has experimental data and a lot of theory behind it. You can say "he responds like this and then it's reinforced by that", but "response" and "reinforcement" are principles by themselves and can have an explanation if required. Using those principles as tools to describe the events not only can help us understand the world, but can help us manipulate the variables which control the events. That means it's pragmatic, but not simplistic in any away. Sorry if I can't make myself clear, my english's not that good.

[@seanfothergill4039]

@@igorcarvalho3087 It looks like you've pointed out that the OG comment stating that Skinners ideas are "somehow quite simplistic" is due to his influence in Pragmatism? I actually don't see how anything in this world is regarded as "simple". Something has either taken a considerable amount of thought, or a lack of. Both are two sides of the same coin. Im just going to post this response in the hope ive made some sense of my own.

[@alexxx4434]

The problem with such theories is that they pretend to explain the whole complex system, by extrapolating a facet of it.

[@zayed4675]

I'm reading Beyond freedom and dignity at the moment and there's something extremely powerful about the explanatory power of behaviorism. I am beginning to think that 'emotions' are simply organic messages from our unconscious, and much more powerful, motor brain to influence one's behavior. All emotions have been conditioned into us, either evolutionarily or in our own lifetime. You feel pain, guilt, anxiety etc as an aversive stimulus ie a message telling you to 'STAY AWAY' We all think we are more autonomous than we really are, but skinner's work really put a big dent in that theory.

[@degla232]

at the end of the day empathy is learned

[@yoteski6345]

That made no sense at all

[@patxielosegi]

If you like behavioral determinism, read Sapolsky’s Behave. He supports biological determinism with genetic and neuroscientific data

[@pisstakecentral]

@@degla232 speak for yourself, a small number of us aren't like that and never had to be taught something so human.

[@degla232]

@@pisstakecentral lmao its a psychological fact.

[@magiccb]

Ok I found this fantastic and you can get an idea of where Skinner stands with regards to mentalistic explanations of behavior. Thanks for putting this up!

[@petertvp8039]

Great video

[@spencernace5714]

That was rather drab for the first several minutes, but I think once I really began to understand what they were debating and I was able to engage with their somewhat high-class diction, then this was a really fun thing to listen to. Worthwhile and engaging debate.

[@marshacreary2442]

Boystown loves this

[@ParthRachchh]

The man was way ahead of his time

[@henriqueb8538]

a head of his time*

[@TheColdplay200]

@@henriqueb8538 Nice

[@AL_THOMAS_777]

-> FABIAN society /Tavistock - for sure !!!

[@ramkartv8253]

I am Fan of Skinner

[@braydenprice109]

really Monu? swami insinuates you can control your tongue? And have some realization of the reality of things? but being a fan? of a multinational puppet? makes you a slave not only to the string pullers? but the very delusion these people suffer? just because the west is rich? doesn't mean they are right? the only reason all this technology and wealth didn't exist in the past? is because ancients had such high morals compared to moderns? Arjuna for instance may well have gone to the heavens and back? but he never would have flown or invented a contraption that pollutes the air and offends Vayu? similarly all of modern technology is implicated in world-wide pollution and destruction? unfortunately because they reject all ancient realities as myth they compare themselves only to post flood kaliyuga populations and are proud to be more advanced than the ape? try to read Vedavyas's books Srimad bhagavatam! and be a real Swami?:)

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@braydenprice109 I can't tell whether the comment is ironic or not.

[@anapaulasilvapereira1872]

I absolutely admire Skinner, but he could settle to say that any kind of knowledge and technology can be used for bad purposes, but that doesn't mean that we should reject knowledge or technology. Besides, once this knowledge is accessible, people are able to monitor themselves as well, which leads to self knowledge and it gives them more control of what they let to affect them. Geoffrey Warnock raised relevant topics, Skinner shouldn't have treated the morality issue as obvious or worthless of discussion. He wrote an entire book on the topic, so he knew it was a complex matter. Anyway, thank you for posting the video, it was a great pleasure to watch!

[@knabellaks]

There has been written tons of books on different topics. They are not always complex just because of this. Morality, in Skinners eyes, is not so complex as the books want it to be. And I agree. Morality is evolutionary trait for survival, and some mechanisms will be more beneficial than others

[@yp77738yp77739]

We are in a terminal and accelerating decline in the west. Comparing the quality of this nationally broadcast conversation with that broadcast today brings me to despair. The BBC has given up its core mission of educating the masses, indeed I would argue that the state education system no longer educates in any meaningful manner.

[@jambtsa1999]

B.F. Skinner, a real objective scientist and creator of a revolutionary theory of human behaviour!

[@Mr.Jasaw13]

and the one to dehumanise humans in politics by his scientism's presuppositions (empiricism over rationalism) ... remember that science can't prove itself

[@degla232]

@@Mr.Jasaw13 "throws a ball on the ground"

[@evenflow509]

Love how Skinnier says “Environment”. So many of us skip the ‘on’

[@tracevicente]

This resonates during this pandemic soooo much

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

Why?

[@AL_THOMAS_777]

YOU BET ! ! !

[@tracevicente]

@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 maybe you have a better answer now?

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@tracevicente No I don't.

[@spr1ngcactu5]

Lots of magical thinking philosophers in these comments...

[@ronin5614]

Was this before the Lombardo experiment which was influenced largely by behaviorist theory?

[@knabellaks]

Great to see the principal miss so extremely on his interpretation of plants.... "Talking as if plants have thoughts and intentions, which they just don't". Now we know plants even communicate about locations and they can even release chemicals to affect their local environment. Pine trees for example. So little respect and curiosity from a person who should be the most curious and most willing to admit that we don't know.

[@mitkoogrozev]

Communication is not related with whether you have thoughts and intentions. Computers communicate too. The electrical signal when you press the light switch , leading to the light bulb is "communication" for the light bulb to start glowing. Plants are living organisms and as such they can react as a result from a stimuli in the environment. But they obviously don't have a brain and a nervous system, and don't move away from damage, since those physical features and the behaviors associated with pain, fear, thoughts etc. have evolved only in animals. ''Communication'' and ''intelligence'' are very very generic terms and they apply to literally everything in the Universe. Machines can be said to be intelligent. Doesn't mean a rock is equivalent to a human (or a plant , since this is the current subject). In other words, if something can communicate that doesn't automatically mean that it can do 'all' the other things (like 'feel' pain etc. ).

[@lucaroland7689]

It was quite painful for me to listen what Geoffrey Warnock is saying. Skinner handled it like a true champ scientist.

[@JamieLaing1]

Agreed. Skinner gently turned Warnock like a kung-fu master. In the end Warnock was smiling and agreeing.

[@fos8789]

I like how at 21:16 Skinner start losing his shit and say well I will do it anyways because fuck you all and I will do it so good that I will control even your behavior so you start beliveing me.

[@michaels4255]

Just look at the size of that professor's cranium! I'm impressed. Still not sold on determinism though.

[@BrucknerMotet]

How does the deterministic behaviorism explanation deal with situations where the individual has zero experience in the specific thing that is under consideration as a thing to be done? Say, friends at a party suggest that (let's call him) a "Skinner" person join them in a card game that the Skinner person has never played before and has no clue about. And let's go one step further and say that this person has never even played cards in his entire life and does not understand the differences between suits and card values etc. Skinner's inflexible iron rule is that a person may have any intention or even understanding of an action only if that person has done that exact same action at least once before. Given that people do so many new (i.e., never before experienced) things every day, would Skinner argue that none of these new experiences can neither be the result of human decision-making or even instinct, and that the person will not be able to have any understanding of that action/experience unless and until the person repeats it at least once in future? (kind of a long question, I know. Sorry)

[@mitkoogrozev]

Well let me ask you this. Wouldn't you say that the person who has never played cards, will in fact NOT be able to play cards and only sit there and watch , until at the least he's been given instructions by the people who already know how to play (thus giving him his first experience) ?

[@nicarao11]

22:44 final answer

[@nerdacademico5042]

Quem quiser estudar Skinner só chamar

[@michaelwright8896]

This is sarcasm, right...? right...? :/

[@MadScientist72]

Notice the high forehead on B.F. Skinner. This was necessary to house his gigantic brain! :D

[@coperfield9188]

alien

[@NajatJellab]

So there would be no murder with premeditiation for example right?

[@Noxturno_]

If the environment does punishes severely, and provides proper ways for people not to get to that point of needing to murder someone else, then yes. Most of people are rule followers, they seek what the mainstream does. if it was not true, we would be living exactly at this time, under barbarity, but we aren't in that situation, which I think is proof enough of it. I recommend you to take a look at the job of Mr. Jacque Fresco. His method of explanation of behaviorism is way easier to digest and understand than all this philosophical words B.F. Skinner puts together.

[@alysssarae5855]

the way that these guys talk makes me wanna falcon punch them with a running start.. shake my damn head

[@celestialteapot309]

Most people will behave like pigeons if encouraged to do so.

[@mystictheninja1486]

I like what he said about dictatorships. If indeed a culture has a much more educated mind, it's a lot easier to spot the nonsense of the dictator and so it would eliminate him from gaining any steam. If, on the other hand, a culture is wholly idiotic and uneducated then they might find the characteristics of the dictator to be quite pleasing and fail to notice all the malevolence and tyranny that will follow in his wake. When power and education are abound in one man while the majority of the population is weak and uneducated, this is the sort of environment from where a dictator can easily rise to power and sweep over the world. As skinner said, a more educated population would make it impossible for this sort of situation to come about in the first place because the proficiencies are readily there within all members of the culture to combat it.

[@somusz159]

A dictator could pretend to appeal to the general populations values and even condition them through the media. What would be the defense against this?

[@B0sm]

When asked about Morality, Skinner's answers became more confusing and avoidant. He even got to a point (min 19:12 ) where he felt so questioned that he dropped off his Scientific-style answers and started stating his personal opinions, which are nothing but absolutely wrong. There will always be someone who's willing to use technology for the purposes of war, destruction, drug-trafficking, enslaving people, commiting crimes, etc. How will Scientists prevent that kind of people from accessing their knowledge or technologies is a MUST CONCERN for those same Scientists, is not something that concerns Cultures, Societies or Values! I consider myself a Behaviorist, but I'm very disappointed at Skinner with this interview. However, it is necessary to say that, fortunately, behaviorism has evolved a lot since the time of this interview.

[@ahern1221]

That’s not for science to solve, that’s a spiritual issue. But through love this issue could be easily solved.

[@cainm6375]

Personal opinions are all morality consists of

[@JulioLeonFandinho]

Skinner can't say a thing about morality AS a psichologist, that's why he seems avoidant to you. He certainly wrote works about morality and freedom, but his conclusions on that matters are more inspired in aristotelic philosophy than in his efforts with pigeons. Skinner's conditioning is very limited and just explains what it explains, and it does it very well, it explains behaviour better than any other psichology theory to this day. But it's not viable to explain many other things

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@ahern1221 Through love? How would that work?

[@jw7196]

@@JulioLeonFandinho Maybe. However Max Hocutt, in his book _Grounded Ethics,_ made an effort to explain morality using behaviorist principles. You can find what is basically a summary of his work in the paper _Oughts from Is's_ (Ackerman, 2003).

[@anialiandr]

Is skinner thinking how to repair himself? What purpose is of this conversation?

[@AS-hs5kk]

big difference between the two, one is clear and quick, the other is slow and unclear in his thoughts.

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

One is a philosopher, the other is not...

[@goodnighthummingbird7861]

Olya G haha one is crafting bias behavioral hypothesis. The other a philosopher. Philosophy basically means always asking questions. Until fact is found.

[@AS-hs5kk]

@@paulheinrichdietrich9518 thank you

[@AS-hs5kk]

@@goodnighthummingbird7861 thank you

[@abhinavdas98]

Professor of Psychology...

[@marshacreary2442]

Has anyone compared Skinner to Kinsey?

[@wramaccorsi1357]

Skinner seems to be more clever than the philosopher and therefore he's capable of promptly justifying and explaining whatever accusative questioning is thrown at him in this video. However, no matter how he quickly manages to circumvent these "accusations" toward his thoughts, he demonstrates through his speech that he takes authoritarianism for granted, as if moral concerns were "non scientific" and therefore "obviously" out of question to be debated. This is his big flaw In my view - other aspects of his thinking may be fine, but there's a big and essential hole left in the middle of it - there's no room for the mandatory cornerstone of morality - it's missing altogether - and as it usually happens with these luminaries, Skinner can't see this fact, which flies in his face. An ultra clever, morally crippled man.

[@TheRojo387]

He may as well have been a student of George Orwell, in a terrible, twisted way.

[@michaels4255]

Accusatory. Accusative means something different.

[@wramrobertodecamargoaccors4679]

@@michaels4255 Indeed! That was a typo of mine.

[@samsheehan5298]

Morality is a question of opinion

[@institutoabelhas]

@@samsheehan5298 Sadly, yes.

[@Hotscrotum69]

Warnock is so transparent. Waste of Beefs time.

[@samaraisnt]

The host is such a mug, lol.

[@kat_the_vat]

that guy has a MASSIVE forehead

[@stevenhines5550]

Uhh...this guy is psychotic. Actually not a "guy" like a human guy.

[@k4ir0s]

extremely depressing. discomforting opinions by Skinner

[@michaelmuller6890]

Yes, he spreads pessimism. And imagine: in my country that point of view is the one and only publicly recognized way of pschotherapy....

[@k4ir0s]

@@michaelmuller6890 I would not consider seeing a psychotherapist in your country then. I cannot imagine talking to a therapist with the belief that our behavior is 100% shaped by our environments. I imagine that talk therapy is not recognized as helpful with that belief.

[@michaelmuller6890]

@@k4ir0s Behaviourism covers about 90 percent of all practising therapists. The other 10 percent are left from the time before the health reform 1989 or are analysts from private universities or from abroad. The public universities train behaviourists only and the public insurance pays behaviourist or analytic therapy, nothing else. And yes: lots of patients are unsatisfied, but do not know why. And how could they? If all the media delivers the message that there be no other therapy than what they have got? My personal way is rather that of Carl Rogers. With him i find humanism and the positive image of being that one needs.

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@k4ir0s I think you don't understand the concept of determinism.

[@paulheinrichdietrich9518]

@@michaelmuller6890 Why pessimism? He is over- optimistic (read Walden II).

[@TheHistoryguy10]

Skinner wants to make everything people do mechanical. The problem is that a person is not just material and thus is not a moist robot. Man has an inner world of thought that is non-material and non-local in nature. Thought does not originate in the brain, it runs through the brain but originates in the person. The brain is like a television set which receives the signal, but the signal comes from somewhere else. In his behaviorism/reductionism Skinner is trying to reduce everything to mechanics, including his thoughts, but his own experience should tell him different. Skinner was a man who lived in constant tension between his own theories and reality. Very sad.

[@AlexK348]

What is very sad is that people are so incredibly judgemental and know-it-all when they don't know nor understand shit. Everything people do follow patterns, laws, we are machines, very complex machines ofc, but still so, we are part of nature, we are not outside of it, that is what it means to hold a scientific view in psychology.

[@TheHistoryguy10]

"know-it-all when they don't know nor understand s**t." Where in my comment do I say that I know it all? It's a simple statement of disagreement with Skinner. I do not hold the same philosophy as he does and I'm voicing my dissent. "we are machines" "we are part of nature, we are not outside of it," You're welcome to hold this view of man, but it does not make it true. I welcome a respectful dialogue about why you believe man is a machine. Man is inside the cosmos, but like God he is able to influence it. Man is a thinking being and having thought is able to bring forth actions into the external world and thus influence it. This ability is not mechanical, no matter how much Skinner wants to make it that way. He knows his thoughts (and his personality) are not mechanical, but are unique to him as a person who bears the image of God. Our exchange on KZbin is not mechanical but personal to you and me. Naturalism is a false philosophical point of view.

[@AlexK348]

Sure, it is a simple statement that stems from the fact that you don't understand or have not really looked into his writings and work. You disagree with what you don't know a single thing on, and claim he proposes things he has not claimed. And sure my act of holding such a view does not make it true, science, along with its epistemological and ontological premises, makes it true, or well, valid and accurate with what we know of the world and universe to be precise. They are axioms, and now, if you do not want to believe in science or deny its postulates, claims and/or findings, that's where I tell you, you are welcome to do so, but that does not make you right nor rational. And a god is not an entity nor concept that pertains psychology nor science in the slightest, so you can keep it to your discussions in philosophy and theology, it has no place in the realm of epistemology and science. And I think after that, there is not much else to say, trying to explain his work and real postulates would take too much time and effort, which would probably go to no avail.

[@TheHistoryguy10]

"You disagree with what you don't know a single thing on" Please don't assume you know something about other people. Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. Therefore, you don't know that I have two of Skinner's books in my personal library. Furthermore, my response was to the things he stated in the video. I don't need to have outside knowledge to do that. It's helpful, but not required. In my post to you, I opened the door for a discussion on why you believe man is a machine. I will make the opportunity available and ask a direct question, "What evidence can you offer which proves that man is a machine?" As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure where it's going so I'll leave it alone. Best wishes.

[@AlexK348]

Hahaha, you really love cherry picking, don't you? Alright, you got it, a line you could discredit or oppose effectively, you've read Skinner... Yay! Well, that takes my argument back to the beginning and the main point, that you either do not actually know about it or not understand it, since now I can assume that you do know about it, it's the latter then. And now it's clear as day, you really have no actual grasp of his work, which is sadder of course. Now, sure, you do not need to have outside knowledge to disagree with some random statement someone said, but you did not just disagree... Let's go back, as you like to do... "Skinner wants to make everything people do mechanical."... Bs, he says that already what people do is mechanical, that is different, and well, sure, you say you do not need to know anything outside the video to disagree with that, but it's a little hard to take any value on your disagreement or counter argument when it's based on assumptions and judgements that do delve into his work, with the capability to grasp its messages ofc, and there is where your argument falls, your understanding of a machine is that of a robot, it's limited, it's not his same understanding nor definition, therefrom your counter arguments become void... You then say "Man has an inner world...", and who said he did not? Because he did not, he just said such inner world was not the origin or cause that we ought to look for when understanding why a person behaves the way they do, inner processes are behavior too. Proof? Oh, simple, look at his work...... A behavior of organisms; Schedules of reinforcement and so on... "The inner world is non-local" HAJAHAHAHA, bullshit, are you for real? Sure, its ontology does not place it in the realm of a physical object with a place on the observable world, but that is so precisely because it just the byproduct of the human brain, in certain states, given certain experiences and environmental conditions that allows it to exist and may lead it one way or the other, and so on... Proof? There is a whole scientific field or groups of field under the name of neuroscience for that. This is science, since here it's you who is making the claim that "thought does not originate in the brain", denying or ignoring a whole history since even the philosophers and massive amounts of research, please, you, do present the evidence for your claim.... Behaviorism is the opposite of reductionism, because it considers the organism as a whole, since its evolutionary origins and traits as far as to each small condition or change in the environment as possible variables that play a role into determining or helping us understand how behavior works. We are a machine because we are part of nature, how come? There is nothing in nature that does not follow certain patterns that can be understood, analysed and predicted to a certain reliable extent, that is what we mean when we talk about machines or working in a machine like accord. And there is absolutely nothing that would suggest that we are outside from that realm of nature, on the opposite, absolutely everything, from our anatomy, our findings in evolutionary research up to our findings in experimental behaviour research, tells us that we are inseparably a part of that continuum in nature.