B.F. Skinner listed the following myths about behaviorism:
Behaviorism is said to be:
- ignores the presence of the category of consciousness, sensory states and emotional experiences;
- based on the argument that all behavior is acquired during individual history, he neglects the innate abilities of a person;
- understands human behavior simply as a set of responses to certain stimuli, thus an individual is described as an automaton, robot, puppet, machine;
- does not attempt to take into account cognitive processes;
- there is no space for studying the intentions or goals of a person;
- cannot explain creative achievements in the visual arts, music, literature, or exact sciences;
- no place is given to the individual core of the personality or his well-being;
- he is necessarily superficial and unable to address the deeper layers of the soul or personality;
- limited to the prediction and control of human behavior, and on this basis does not concern the essence of a person;
- works with animals, especially white rats, and not with humans, so his picture of human behavior is limited to those traits that humans share with animals;
- results obtained in the laboratory are not applicable to everyday life. What is said about human behavior is therefore only unfounded metaphysics;
- naive and oversimplified. What is presented as actual facts is either trivial or has long been known;
- looks more scientific than scientific, and rather imitates the natural sciences;
- its technical results (successes) are also achievable through the use of a healthy human mind;
- if behaviorist claims are to be valid, then they must apply to behaviorally oriented researchers as well. Hence, it follows that what they say is wrong, since their statements are due only to their ability to make such statements;
- “dehumanizes” a person, it relativizes everything and destroys a person as a person;
- deals only with general principles, neglecting the uniqueness of each individual;
- necessarily anti-democratic, since the subjects are manipulated by the researcher, so its results could be used by a dictator rather than by well-meaning statesmen;
- considers abstract ideas, such as morality or justice, as purely fictions;
- indifferent to the warmth and diversity of human life, incompatible with creative joy in the visual arts, music and literature, as well as with true love for one’s neighbor.
These statements, it seems to me, represent a surprising misunderstanding of the meaning and achievements of this scientific paradigm …
More than 60 years have passed since Watson published his manifesto, during which time something has happened. The scientific analysis of behavior has made great progress, and the shortcomings of Watson’s theory are, in my view, only of historical interest. Criticism of behaviorism, on the other hand, has hardly changed.1.