Comment by gress
10 years ago
It may not be what you think, but you continue to argue (condescendingly) that behavior analysis is the only valid approach to any topic concerning human behavior. Now you do so by an appeal to authority.
Have you considered the possibility that some philosophy might actually be useful in this domain?
[incidentally: I have nothing against behavioral analysis in itself - just the claim that thinking about what goes on in the mind should be excluded in its favor]
My bad for coming off as condescending. That wasn't my intention. Philosophy is useful when talking about or discussing things. The problem with philosophy though is it doesn't allow one to predict and control behavior. Thus, if practical behavior change is your goal then behavior analysis is appropriate.
Prediction and control is not the only paradigm for causing behavior change, indeed it may frequently be the least appropriate one.
Prediction and control is what science rests on whether we're talking about behavior or physics. You can't prove that an independent variable (IV) caused a change in a dependent variable (e.g., behavior) unless you can predict and control it by systematically manipulating the IV while observing changes in the DV.
However, this is way beyond the scope of the original blog post or my original comment. In my first comment, I offered an alternative description of a phenomenon that the author described. You suggested that I was advocating for "strict behaviorism." That wasn't the case, so I clarified. At this point, I'm not sure what the purpose of this discussion is.
12 replies →