Radical Behaviorism

Reading the Driscoll chapter (Driscoll, M. (2000a). Radical behaviorism, Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed., pp. 31-70). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [ereserve]) on Radical Behaviorism was very interesting. I think the fact that I read it directly after having read the Schuh article on the philosophical perspectives of learning styles really affected the way I looked at the presentation of Behaviorism.

The Schuh article, and our current cultural context in general, presents Behaviorism as the Big Bad Antiquated Giant. There aren't too many B.F. Skinner proponents writing and speaking out there these days. But reading the chapter on Behaviorism opened my eyes to how prevalent Behaviorist assumptions really still are.

I think that the Behaviorist viewpoint is pretty universal still in the realm of animals. (Unless, perhaps, you've read Temple Grandin.) The way we treat our pets is almost completely based on Behaviorist principles. And this is because most of us look at animals like black boxes. We have no idea what's going on inside. We know that we can't appeal to a dog's ability to reason, so any sort of instructional principle that would rely on reason would fail. So instead, we swat them on the nose with a rolled-up magazine. But there's something deeper there - even within animals - that we can see and sometimes it's a little bittersweet that we can't touch it. You see your dog reacting out of sheer fear, and you want to just reach out and make it understand. "It's not because I'm mean! I just can't have you chewing on my throw pillows!"

It gets even more difficult to swallow when it's applied to humans. To what extent is a child like a dog? There is something creepily dehumanizing about the military and other situations that routinely use Behaviorist principles to "train" humans. That's what Behavorist instruction is fundamentally - it's training rather than teaching.

However, there are certain facets of Behaviorist instruction that we use every day. Most fascinating to me was the example given in Driscoll's chapter about using Behaviorist training methods (Frequency Interval for rewards and suchlike) to discipline yourself. When grading papers, for example, after every 15 papers, you get to take a break and have a snack. I think this would be a very helpful method for me, who tends to have to force willpower on myself with systems of self-reward. So why, if I think it a dehumanizing, impersonal principle, do I use it on myself?

I think maybe the only answer is that there are certain tasks and behaviors and stages in life for which these types of approach are fitting, even appropriate. There are types of information that has to be learned in a drill-and-practice way. I've found that myself in studying character-based language. There's no amount of intuitive reasoning or creativity or group work that will help me read Japanese. That's a situation in which what's going on in my black box doesn't actually matter.

But how do we keep it relegated to the domains to which it belongs? Where do we draw the line between humans and animals? How do we keep ourselves from letting it take over our view of what human beings are and how they work? That's where we have to differentiate and use careful study of the theory in our practical applications.