Do We Need the Environment to Explain Operant Behavior?

By way of operant conditioning, human behavior is continuously shaped and maintained by its consequences - and understanding this process is important to most fields of psychology and neuroscience. The role of the learning organism's environment has long been contentious, however. Much relevant research is being done by people identifying with the Skinnerian tradition, who tend to agree that the causes of behavior can be found exclusively in the environment. The meaning of this proposition is not clear, however. Some authors say the environment is outside the body, others claim it is also inside it. Among those who say the environment is outside the body, many are of the opinion that events inside the body and hence (in their view) not in the environment can also cause behavior, though they claim that events inside the body cannot be causes in the same sense as events taking place outside it. This is confusing, and the present paper argues that the "environment" may neither be a useful nor a necessary concept in the analysis of behavior. Moreover, abolishing the concept could clear the way for a reintegration of Skinnerian psychology into the mainstream.

Power and Autistic Traits.

Autistic traits can help people gain and sustain power, and has probably done so throughout history, says the present paper. A number of testable claims follow from this assumption. First, the powerful should have more autistic traits than others - which they do appear to have. Among other things, powerful people, and those with many autistic traits, tend to prefer solitary activities and are often aloof. Moreover, they are often rigid and socially insensitive, low on empathy and with low scores on the trait of agreeableness - and as a rule they do not have many friends. Both groups are also more self-centered than others, more honest, less submissive, more sensitive to slights, and with a stronger tendency to engage in abstract thinking. They tend to behave in bossy or dominant ways, and their moral judgment is more based on rules than on feelings. In addition to experimental evidence, I cite biographies showing that a surprising number of presidents, prime ministers and other powerful people seem to have had traits like those in question - and interestingly, in animals, leaders are often rigid and insensitive to group members' needs and feelings, mostly acting the way they are themselves inclined to, not responding much to others. Problem solving is important in leadership, and people with many autistic traits appear often to be better thinkers than typical subjects with similar IQs. However, these and other congruities could be coincidences. Hence the question of whether traits the two groups have in common also have a common cause constitutes a strong test of the paper's thesis - and a common cause does appear to exist, in the form of testosterone's effects on the central nervous system. Finally, there is evidence that, other things equal, powerful men have more reproductive success than others. If men wielding power do indeed have more autistic traits than those less powerful, this will lead to, other things equal, such traits becoming more common - which can help explain the prevalence of autistic traits.

Under Skinner's skin: gauging a behaviorist from his Rorschach protocol.

Behaviorism and psychodynamic psychology have been regarded as polar opposites. Contrary to popular belief, B. F. Skinner took an interest in Freud and many of his concepts, and agreed to be tested with the Rorschach method and the Thematic Apperception Test by Roe in her study of scientists (Roe, 1953 ). We looked for signs of creativity defined as complex responses, an intriguing emotional tone, novelty, and liveliness. Skinner displayed an enormous number of responses characterized by simplicity, an intellectualized tone, a driven quality rather than creative complexity, and a sense of strained social relationships and lack of liveliness. The findings are in line with Roe's study of other scientists. Skinner's intellectual productivity and high ambition fits well with the commanding figure history describes.

The Personality of a Nonperson: Gauging the Inner Skinner.

B. F. Skinner is consistently rated as one of the most important figures in the history of psychology. Much has been said about his character, some of it strongly negative. Yet little is known about what kind of man he really was. Drawing on information from published sources, archival material, and people who knew him, we used "blind" raters to assess Skinner's score on the Big Five personality factors. We found that Skinner was a highly conscientious man and highly open to experience. He was also somewhat neurotic and somewhat extraverted but neither agreeable nor disagreeable. The resulting personality profile was compared with meta-analytic results concerning scientists versus nonscientists, creative scientists versus noncreative scientists, and artists versus nonartists. In general, Skinner's personality profile was consistent with findings regarding those of other notable scientists.

Looking for Skinner and finding Freud.

Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner are often seen as psychology's polar opposites. It seems this view is fallacious. Indeed, Freud and Skinner had many things in common, including basic assumptions shaped by positivism and determinism. More important, Skinner took a clear interest in psychoanalysis and wanted to be analyzed but was turned down. His views were influenced by Freud in many areas, such as dream symbolism, metaphor use, and defense mechanisms. Skinner drew direct parallels to Freud in his analyses of conscious versus unconscious control of behavior and of selection by consequences. He agreed with Freud regarding aspects of methodology and analyses of civilization. In his writings on human behavior, Skinner cited Freud more than any other author, and there is much clear evidence of Freud's impact on Skinner's thinking.