To the very last days of his life, every time that Ivan Petrovich Pavlov saw a dog salivate, he would ring a bell.

Anonymous

 

Behaviorism is the most scientific kind of psychofraud. It is based on the premise that the purpose of behavioral science is to predict and control human behavior. So far so good. However, it takes as its second premise that all human behavior can be understood, i.e., predicted and controlled, solely by objectively observing human behavior. In other words, according to behaviorism, by merely observing which train of behavioral events ended in a particular type of behavior, we can infer that the same train of events would end in identical behavior for another organism of the same species. There is considerable evidence that this is often, but not always, true for many kinds of lower animals; e.g., it is very easy to predict and control maze-running behavior in rats using this approach. There is also evidence that the behavioristic model holds for many types of simple human behavior. More often than not, we can correctly predict human reactions to a strong electrical shock using only past observations to construct a behavioral model. However behaviorism has never shown that it can significantly enhance human creativity. Behaviorism denies the existence of subjective behavior such as thinking. Since private thought processes are not objectively observable, they are to be denied, as is the existence of the concept of "mind."

 

Mind

The greatest stumbling block for most persons in accepting behaviorism is in rejecting the existence of their own minds. For if a person knows anything, surely it is that he has a mind. Everything else, including his body and the physical universe may be an illusion, but he cannot be a figment of his own imagination.

The only thing we know with certainty is that we have thoughts and perceptions. We may not be certain what is causing these thoughts and perceptions, but we cannot logically deny to ourselves that we have them. This set of private thoughts and perceptions is what we call our "mind."

Insofar as the mind can predict and control its own thoughts, we say the mind is "conscious." Insofar as the mind has unpredictable and uncontrollable thoughts, we say the mind is "unconscious." Every human being has experienced both conscious and unconscious thoughts; the former, in his deliberate and purposeful behavior; the latter, in dreams and in his uncontrollable emotions, whose origins and fundamental causes he does not grasp. Post-hypnotic thoughts and actions are scientifically verifiable examples of unconscious processes (59, 95). We can alter all our thoughts by altering our brain (13, 139, 140). Physical, chemical and electrical changes in the brain can change our memories, perceptions and any other mental phenomena (11, 13, 139, 140). These changes can be scientifically replicated and verified in each person. Therefore, the mind is a controllable effect of the body, just as gravity is a controllable effect of matter.

The behaviorists deny the existence of all these aspects of mind, which are clearly and irrefutably self-evident. They feel that by denying the existence of subjective behavior, they are being "scientific purists."

 

Science

The behaviorist position in denying the existence of purely subjective mental phenomena consists of the argument paraphrased here:

We are only concerned with predicting and controlling human behavior. Subjective mental states are not objectively verifiable; only behavior is objectively verifiable. Assumptions about unobservable mental states represent unnecessary hypotheses which contaminate and unnecessarily complicate the behavioral data, which is the only data with which we are concerned. Therefore, we should eliminate all non-behavioral assumptions and subjective observations, if we are to develop a true science of behavior.

This basic behavioral position was taken by J. B. Watson (163, 164) and his followers — most notable among them, B. F. Skinner (137, 138) — as a means of combating the psychofraud of the Freudians and the psychotherapists who based their theories on unobservable mental states and mechanisms. It was a sincere desire to develop a true science of the psychosocial environment. However, by denying the obvious existence of mind and subjective behavior, the behaviorists have created a new type of psychofraud.

What distinguishes psychofraud from science is not the objectivity of the input data, but rather the verifiability of the predictions of the models. Psychoanalysis is not psychofraud because it is based on a theory about unobservable mental states. It is psychofraud because its claims at predicting and controlling human behavior cannot be verified scientifically. In controlled experiments, psychoanalysis is no more effective than placebos or other forms of suggestion and in some cases less effective (38, 91, 183). The theory of psychoanalysis has nothing to do with the reasons it works. Christian Science and orgonomy work just as well; and in certain documented cases, both have been shown to work much better (35, 112).

Orgonomy is completely objective in most of its assumptions. Orgone is supposed to be a physically measurable quantity. The fact that no one outside of Reich's followers has ever measured it is not as important as the fact that no controlled experiment has ever shown orgone treatment to be anything other than a placebo effect.

The crux of the problem is the fact that the overwhelming majority of behaviorists and all of its leading exponents, including Watson and Skinner, were, and still are, scientific illiterates. They have no understanding of the deeper aspects of modern science, but only of its outer manifestations. They wish to use the methods of natural science; yet they have never had a systematic knowledge of mathematics, physical science or biology. They are like the cargo cultists of the South Seas who still think in terms of sympathetic magic.

The cargo cultists see an abundance of valuable goods coming out of the holds of ships and airplanes. They think that there is something intrinsic in the form of these objects which makes them produce like a horn of plenty. They build crude models of ships and planes in the hope that they will produce goods for them. They have no concept of the goods being manufactured in factories and then shipped thousands of miles by these devices.

The scientifically illiterate behaviorists saw that physical science models were based on objectively measurable data. They also saw that the physical sciences were highly effective in predicting the physical environment. Like the cargo cultists, they simulated the outward forms of physical science but missed its deeper significance.

The success of modern science rests not on objective measurement but on objective verification of its predictions. The Ptolomeic model of the earth-centered universe was completely objective. Newton's general theory of gravitation assumed a non-observable and seemingly mystical entity, "gravity." Gravity had no substance, but it was produced by matter and would affect matter at a distance. Gravity is a physical analogue of mind. Mind has no substance, but it is produced by life and matter and can affect life and matter. The Newtonian model was accepted because it made better predictions than the Ptolomeic model, not because it was more objectively determined.

Pre-Newtonian astronomy was a physical analogue of behaviorism. It merely measured the behavior of celestial bodies and predicted future behavior on the basis of this behavior. It made no assumptions about such mystical concepts as action at a distance. It was not until Newton had the imagination to postulate the concept of a simple, non-purposive force that man had a scientific alternative to the psychofraud of (1) the universe as a plaything of capricious gods and (2) simple physical behaviorism. The success of this approach is continued in modern science, which postulates all manner of non-observable entities ranging from force fields to atoms and elementary particles. These postulates are accepted if and only if they improve the ability to predict and control.

In biology the concept of a gene was postulated and used effectively long before there were electron microscopes for observing genes. The gene theory was accepted because it enabled one to predict and control animal and plant breeding. A theory of mind should be accepted if and only if it increases our objectively verifiable ability to predict and control human behavior. To accept any behavioral theory on any other basis is to accept psychofraud.

 

Behavior

Human behavior is both objective and subjective. Objective behavior can be observed by more than one person. Subjective behavior can only be observed by one person, the person behaving. From personal experience we all know that our subjective behavior can affect our objective behavior. For example, when a person does a mental calculation of what the outcome of several possible actions might be and then chooses one particular action based on his calculation, his objective behavior has been modified by his subjective behavior.

A behaviorist would try to predict the final behavior entirely by having observed previous objective behavior. If he had observed every event in the person's life, he might be able to make a good prediction of immediate future behavior. However, in "real life" this is not practical, although it is technically possible. Therefore, the behaviorist will have a very poor model for predicting objective behavior which results from subjective behavior.

Anyone postulating a mental model could estimate a person's subjective mental state by observing a few samples of objective behavior and using his knowledge of his own subjective behavior. If his mental model were a good one, he would make better predictions from the same number of objective observations than a behaviorist possibly could. In our everyday practical actions of predicting and controlling the behavior of other persons, we intuitively assume that other persons are similar to us and will behave similarly. This is based on an introspective model of mental behavior.

There seems to be a one-to-one correspondence between mental states and brain states (13). Mind states should eventually be shown to be objective, just as quantum states can be objectively demonstrated although no one has ever seen a quantum. Personality and intelligence tests are more objective attempts at developing mental models.

 

Personality and Intelligence

A true behaviorist denies the existence of personality and intelligence, since these are mental states. He would say that how a person acts in the future depends entirely on what has happened to him in the past. Since there is no mind, there are no mental differences, but only different experiences, which result in different behavior. Implied in this is the notion that human beings are identical in innate potential and that they differ behaviorally only because of environmental differences. This denies all the evidence of biology in general and behavioral genetics in particular.

For our purposes we have defined intelligence as "a person's ability to predict and control his total environment — physical, biological and psychosocial." We define personality as that part of his intelligence which determines (1) what aspects of the environment he will choose to predict and control and (2) to what extent he is resolved to effect this prediction and control. Personality is, therefore, a subset of intelligence, and both are effects of certain body states, e.g., brain and endocrine states (so). We know from elementary biology that the basic structure of our bodies is determined primarily by our genes and not by our environment, although in unusual circumstances, such as surgery, environment can have profound bodily effects.

The preponderance of scientific evidence to date indicates that within a modern, democratic, and at least partially socialized culture, bodily states, and consequently behavior, are primarily, not entirely, determined by heredity (39, 69, 180). Environment can have a profound differential effect only on those populations which have been exposed to extreme environmental hardships, such as gross nutritional deficiencies and almost complete denial of educational opportunity. Therefore, differential intelligence is determined almost entirely by differential heredity in any truly democratic society. However, the extreme behaviorists take the opposite view. This view is psychofraud.

The environmental determinism of the behaviorists is expressed quite succinctly in the famous dictum of J. B. Watson, the founding father of behaviorism: "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant, chief. And, yes, even beggarman and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors."

The current leader of behaviorism, B. F. Skinner, has expressed the same sentiment in many of his writings and public statements (137, 138). On a television show in 1971, when Skinner was asked by the interviewer if he could have painted like Michelangelo if he had been raised in the same environment, Skinner answered a most emphatic, "Yes!"

A simple counter example to the behaviorists' notion that human beings are a tabula rasa, upon which the environment prints the story of their lives, occurs in the field of athletics. We all know that in certain fields of athletics we can all learn to improve our performance, but no matter how we practice we cannot begin to match the performance of some outstanding athletes. We can all learn to play baseball, but not many of us can learn to play as well as Babe Ruth or Willie Mays.

A behaviorist might counter this argument by admitting that there are biologically determined differences in athletic behavior, because this behavior is directly dependent on the physical state of the body, which is objectively observable and measurable. However, so-called innate differences in personality and intelligence are denied because these are assumed mental states which cannot be objectively observed or measured. He might deny the proposition that we can all learn to play chess, but not as well as Bobby Fischer.

A non-behaviorist would then say that these mental states are in one-to-one correspondence with particular brain states which are objectively observable and measurable (13, 34, 139, 140). Since the brain is as much a part of the body as our bones and muscles, genetically determined differences in brain chemistry and structure are responsible for differences in personality and intelligence. Just as we cannot teach a chimpanzee to behave like a normal human being because of a genetically determined difference in brain structure, so we cannot teach a congenital idiot to behave like a genius because of another genetically determined difference in brain structure. At this point the behaviorists would divide themselves into two camps.

In one camp would be the direct-line descendants of Watson, represented by Skinner and his followers. In the other camp would be the philosophical cousins of Watson, such as H. J. Eysenck (38, 39) and A. A. Lazarus (77), who use many of the trappings and methods of behaviorism and sometimes call themselves behaviorists, but recognize that subjective mental states are real or that there are genetically determined differences between persons which cause behavioral differences. The latter, although possibly mistaken in many of their assumptions and analyses, represent the vanguard of scientific psychology and psychotherapy. They are, properly speaking, a subset of Ethical Therapy. They are not, properly speaking, behaviorists. Only Skinnerism is akin to pure behaviorism. Thus, from now on when we refer to behaviorists, we mean only those who practice Skinnerism.

 

Skinnerism

No behaviorist, Skinner included, will deny the existence of genetically determined human differences, if confronted directly with the question in a sufficiently clear form. What they do implicitly deny is the importance of these differences, by claiming that any human being can be shaped into whatever any other human being has been shaped. They do not claim that they can shape the behavior of a chimpanzee into that of a normal human being. The behaviorists recognize interspecies genetic differences. They effectively ignore only intraspecies genetic differences. There are three reasons for this: (1) their success in shaping animal behavior so that any healthy animal could be trained to do what any other animal of the same species did; (2) their success in shaping simple noncreative human behavior; and (3) their ignorance of genetics in general and behavioral genetics in particular.

Skinner has trained animals to do the most improbable things, such as teaching pigeons to play ping pony and to control the guidance system of a missile. He has also trained rats to go through very complex behavioral patterns to obtain rewards. Skinner is also an early and effective developer of teaching machines. With human beings, behavior therapists and behavior modifiers (the terms used for behaviorists who treat mental illness or in their term, "deviant behavior") have been very effective in eliminating undesirable habits such as bed wetting, smoking, drinking and, to a lesser extent, sexual deviancy (38, 77, 118, 170, 171). Behavior therapy has also been shown to be highly effective in eliminating phobias, obsessions and compulsions. All in all, there is little doubt that behavioristic techniques can predict and control simple behavior in animals and in humans. What these techniques have not been shown to do is to significantly increase creativity.

The basic Skinnerian theory is that all human behavior is determined by operant conditioning. This is a process by which certain behavioral patterns, engaged in at random, are "reinforced." Reinforcement is any process which causes the persistence or repetition of a type of behavior and may cause its elimination, if it is not present. For example, giving food to a hungry animal who accidentally presses a lever in a cage will cause the animal to press the lever more and more often every time he gets hungry. Eventually he will unerringly press the lever whenever he wants food. If, after the animal has learned this trick, we cease to give him food every time he presses the lever, he will press it less and less often until he stops pressing altogether, except by chance. This latter process is called "extinction." The giving of the food to the animal is "reinforcement." The lever pressing is the conditioned response. The whole process is an example of operant conditioning.

According to Skinner every conceivable type of behavior in human beings and in animals is brought about by this type of conditioning (137, 138). This includes sex behavior, speech, phobias, aggression, etc. There is no innate predisposition toward any particular kind of behavior. If a certain type of behavior is accompanied by a reward, as in the above example, that behavior will persist. If another type of behavior is accompanied by punishment, such as substituting an electric shock for food in the above example, then that type of behavior will undergo extinction. In this case, the lack of shock is the reinforcement. The removal of the shock itself or other painful experiences is often called "negative reinforcement." The Skinnerians have made an important contribution to human knowledge by showing that positive reinforcement, i.e., rewards, in general are more effective in shaping behavior than negative reinforcement, i.e., punishment. There is considerable evidence that Skinner is correct in his theory except for one critical point, namely, that he claims that there is no significant innate predisposition toward particular kinds of behavior.

What will work as a reinforcer at any given time is determined by the biological structure of the organism plus his past experience. For example, a fresh piece of liver will more easily reinforce a hungry cat's behavior than a hungry horse. Similarly, there is considerable scientific evidence (117) that many abnormal types of human behavior ranging from schizophrenia and homosexuality to criminality and alcoholism have genetic causes, in part, but may be mitigated by environmental circumstances. This means that certain environmental factors served as rewards for abnormal persons when they would have been regarded as either neutral or punishment for normal persons. This is analogous to a horse's having a liking for liver. This is one type of genetic difference which Skinner and his followers by and large ignore. They also ignore such things as the biological basis of language (181). More important, however, is their disregard for innate differences in human intellectual potential.

Even if two persons were perfectly normal in their responses to environmental stimuli, they might not have the potential to behave in identical ways any more than a four-foot pygmy has the same innate potential for playing basketball as a seven-foot Watusi, irrespective of the similarity of their training. The Skinnerians, however, claim that they can take any human being at birth and turn him into an Einstein, a Hitler or a Michelangelo solely with operant conditioning. This is psychofraud.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that operant conditioning alone can turn any person chosen at random into a creative genius or a charismatic leader. For the Skinnerians to insist that they can do this solely because they can teach pigeons to play ping pony, rats to press levers and humans to stop simple neurotic behavior is completely unscientific. One way in which the Skinnerians could scientifically support their claims would be to take a random sample of children at birth from parents of very low ability and train them to be creative geniuses. If they succeeded in producing a significantly higher percentage of creative geniuses among these children than could be expected by chance, the Skinnerians would have a very convincing argument on their side. However, even then they would not have invalidated the possibility of innate differential potential among human beings, since there is a slight possibility that the experimental subjects might have had an enormous environmental advantage.

A definitive experiment for determining the relative effectiveness of genes and environment in producing high intelligence and creativity might take the following simplified form.

Two large groups of mothers would volunteer to put their newborn, well-formed children up for adoption, all to be educated and raised in the best possible behavioristic environment. One group of children would come from mothers of very high intelligence and creativity. Another group of children would come from mothers of very low intelligence and creativity. The children would all be educated by a group of Skinnerians as best they could. This might involve placing each child in a well-to-do foster home or in an idealized behavioristic home environment (137). The experimenters would not know the family background of the children. (This represents a double-blind placebo control.) All children would be given the very best education possible for maximizing their intelligence and creativity. If (1) there were no group differences between the adult performance of the children of the high-ability and low-ability mothers, and (2) both groups performed well above the norm, then the Skinnerians would have been proved correct. Conversely, if there were differences, we could show that genetic differences cause ability differences.

There are more sophisticated experiments for proving or disproving Skinnerian theory which could be done under less drastic conditions. By using elaborate statistical procedures and measures of cosanguinity, we could show the degree of heritability of any kind of behavior. However, this would not convince the Skinnerians, who reject and seem to have little understanding of advanced, modern concepts of statistical control and scientific method.

The most serious criticism that one can level at the Skinnerians is that they, like the rest of the academic community from which they come, are totally oriented toward methods and have no clearly specified ethical end goals or objective criteria for health. They are interested in predicting and controlling behavior as an end in itself. Even if their theory were completely true, they would still have no clear notion about which kind of behavior is "best" for the individual and society. They would have no way of preventing their methods from being used by evil men for evil purposes.

The Skinnerians live in a world of their own with their own language and methods. Like most practitioners of, and believers in, psychofraud, they ignore any developments which might threaten their illusions. As in most cases of psychofraud, the behaviorists are the victims of their own ideology. They would be merely pitiable if it were not for the fact that they are militant ideologues convinced that they have the means of saving and restructuring the world into whatever shape they wish (137, 138). They seem to have begun a deliberate policy of infiltrating government agencies and universities to further their ends. It is likely that if they could create a Skinnerian utopia, it would be run by practical, evil politicians and not by academic bureaucrats.

Skinnerians quite candidly admit that their form of psychology is akin to religion. No outsider can understand it or appreciate it. The only way to become a full-fledged Skinnerian priest is to have been a student of Skinner or of one of his students and intellectual descendants. It is somewhat like the Catholic Church; only those priests anointed by the Church have the power to anoint new priests.

Skinnerism is a fitting counterfraud to the psychofraud of humanistic psychology. Skinnerism denies subjective behavior. Humanistic psychology gives subjective behavior a central role and almost ignores objectivity. Skinnerism is mechanistic. Humanistic psychology is mystical. Between the two exists the full gamut of psychofraud. An alternative to all psychofraud is Ethical Therapy.