B.F. Skinner & # 8217 ; s Walden Two Essay, Research Paper

Is it possible for psychologists to of all time understand the human status good plenty to make a utopia by & # 8220 ; technology & # 8221 ; human behaviour? This is the challenge thrown out by behavioural psychologist, B.F. Skinner in his novel, Walden Two ( 1948 ) . Well written and entertaining, Walden Two is directed to the layperson instead than to the professional psychologist. It concerns a fabricated knowing community of 1,000 started by one Frazier ( no first name or rubric of all time mentioned ) who applies the tools of behavioural alteration to do of Walden Two the best of all possible universes.

Skinner & # 8217 ; s technique as a propagandist is to demo us Walden Two through the eyes of assorted foreigners who possess changing grades of incredulity and enthusiasm for the community. The reader can place with one or another of these visitants depending on his ain dispositions. Skinner/Frazier is provocative in his claims, intentionally so, in my sentiment, as another technique in interrupting down opposition. The more we resist an thought, the more power it draws from our really opposition. He begins with teasers, thoughts which have involvement and virtue on their ain but which are reasonably fiddling and extrinsic to his cardinal thesis. The reader and the disbelieving visitants sense he is seeking to soften them up and stiffen their dorsums all the more. A doctrine professor named Castle is the chief carrier of opposition. Skinner looks down upon doctrine as a signifier of navel gazing and Castle is made an easy mark. More serious reserves come from the storyteller, a psychological science professor named Burris. However, Burris besides serves as a voice for Skinner and much conversation between him and Frazier is like an internal duologue within Skinner, himself. The party is completed by two immature work forces and their girlfriends. The cats and one of the misss are the partisans of the group while the other miss resists by turning away. She ne’er engages any of Frazier & # 8217 ; s thoughts and remains untouched by them throughout the visit.

Why do we hold such a strong inclination to defy the construct of behavioural technology? Skinner devoted another book, this clip in essay signifier, which grapples with the issue. Its rubric, & # 8220 ; Beyond Freedom and Dignity, & # 8221 ; reasonably articulately explains the ground for such opposition. Do we truly have free will? Make we even have a psyche? Are we mere mechanistic existences of such finite dimensions that the full workings can be wholly understood and programmed by another homo, if extremely intelligent, being? Most people & # 8217 ; s inclination would be to revolt against such a impression. To escalate our repugnance, Frazier comes across with a smugness and self-importance that must be calculated to trip our most throwback possible response.

For a adult male recommending a plan with a formidable name like & # 8220 ; behavioural technology, & # 8221 ; Skinner & # 8217 ; s utopia promotes a great trade of freedom. There is no money and everyone consumes the goods of the society as he needs. The jurisprudence of supply and demand is based on labour credits. Everyone is expected to lend 4 labour credits a twenty-four hours. The ratio of clip employed to sort of work depends on the desirableness of the sort of work. In other words, work that is truly unpleasant which cipher truly likes making, would hold a high labour value, so you would make it for a shorter clip to acquire your labour recognition. This makes the occupation more desirable. What you lose in pleasance of work, you gain in leisure. Enjoyable work has a lower labour value so you spend more clip at it but it is still alright because it is pleasant. Either manner, everyone is about every bit contented. And occupants choose their work ( presuming it & # 8217 ; s something they can make of class ) so the people who figure out the value of a recognition can set it by the figure of people who volunteer for each undertaking. If fewer people volunteer for something, they give it a higher labour value until more start volunteering. Therefore, the economic system combines elements of capitalist economy ( supply and demand ) with Bolshevism ( everything is owned and consumed in common and used for the common good ) .

The educational system is besides based on freedom and self-motivation. There are no regimented schoolrooms or menaces of bad classs. Motivation to larn is entirely the curiousity of the pupils. They are learning the methodological analysis of acquisition and set free. Behavior mod involves conditioning the kids to persist by presenting increasingly greater obstructions that can be overcome. A scheme that achieved coveted consequences every clip, will now be made to merely work every other clip. Then, every 3rd and so on. He may hold gone overboard with this and created excessively much perseverence in them, promoting them to utilize tactics that don & # 8217 ; t work over and over. If something doesn & # 8217 ; t produce the right consequences for the first 9 times it is tried, is it likely to work the tenth clip ( unless it is set up that manner on intent ) ?

There is no democracy, no political parties and no vote. Society is run by behavioural applied scientists. But really a sort of democracy truly operates. The end of the society is the felicity of all. The more successful the contrivers, the more people do what they are intended to make, populating productive and contented lives. When things don & # 8217 ; t work right, it is because people are & # 8220 ; voting & # 8221 ; against a certain societal agreement by non collaborating. Nobody & # 8217 ; s freedom is truly interfered with and his voluntary engagement is the lone thing that enables the society to run swimmingly. It is all based on & # 8220 ; positive support & # 8221 ; instead than penalty or & # 8220 ; negative reinforcement. & # 8221 ; & # 8220 ; Every member has a direct channel through which he may protest to the Managers or even the Planners. And these protests are taken every bit earnestly as the pilot of an aeroplane takes a spatter engine. We don & # 8217 ; t need Torahs and a constabulary force to oblige a pilot to pay attending to a faulty engine. Nor do we necessitate Torahs to oblige our Dairy Manager to pay attending to an epidemic among his cattles. Similarly, our Behavioral and Cultural Managers need non be compelled to c onsider grudges. A grudge is a wheel to be oiled, or a broken pipe line to be repaired. & # 8221 ; I wonder, nevertheless, if that is truly adequate of a cheque against possible corruptness on the portion of the leaders.

A more obvious failing of behavior technology as a Panacea is manifested in a treatment of how to make a & # 8220 ; aureate age. & # 8221 ; Smug as ever, Frazier claims to cognize what & # 8220 ; conditions & # 8221 ; are necessary to excite a Renaissance in great civilization. But his conditions strike me as grounds that Skinner is nescient of important parts of the human mind. The first thing he mentions is leisure obtained by agencies of backing. Of class, it helps to hold clip to give to one & # 8217 ; s originative impulses. But it doesn & # 8217 ; t seem important. We enjoy more leisure as a whole today than in most periods. But we tend to make full that leisure clip with fiddling amusement such as Television. The more clip we have, the more distractions we clutter our lives with. I think an creative person must hold a certain sum of purdah, even, possibly, solitariness in order to develop the sort of deepness needed to make a new and important work of art.

Frazier goes on to reason, & # 8220 ; When creative persons and composers aren & # 8217 ; t patronized, they by and large get a modicum of leisure by going irresponsible. Hence their repute with the public. & # 8221 ; He doesn & # 8217 ; t reference illustrations but one that seems to suit would be Richard Wagner who had a repute for irresponsibleness due to his wont of roll uping debts. Of class, Wagner was, so, enduring from a deficiency of backing. So far, Skinner is right. But Wagner was merely as productive during this earlier period of his life as he was subsequently on when under the generous backing of King Ludwig III. True, he wrote his most mature work at this latter period but merely because he was in the mature clip of his life. There is no grounds that his work improved under Ludwig or that it suffered before him. Not that the backing wasn & # 8217 ; t a good thing. Artists deserve support. But Skinner has non managed to back up his contention that doing support more available is truly traveling to do a difference to the civilization.

Frazier besides mentions an appreciative audience as a factor. But many plants of great art take old ages to finish. The creative person must be borne up by more than an appreciative audience that he may or may non happen one time the work is ready for his public. Of class, if a composer, Richard Wagner, for illustration, knows that there is a populace for a certain sort of art, he could take encouragement from this cognition. But Wagner expanded on his chosen medium, Opera, to such an extent that he created plants which had been hitherto unknown and so he had no confidence of of all time being accepted.

I suggest that inspiration from other plants of originative art is more of import than expectancy of an appreciative audience. Wagner was exposed to Carl Maria von Weber, for illustration, who exerted an early influence on the way of Wagner & # 8217 ; s ain creativeness. Belonging to a civilization where creative activity is already taking topographic point seems to enable more people to travel in that way.

Frazier besides contends that & # 8220 ; the calling ( of an creative person ) must be economically sound and socially acceptable. & # 8221 ; But how respectable was the theatre in Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s clip? True creative persons are non deterred by deficiency of support, be it fiscal or societal. They create for themselves, holding something they need to convey to life and the will to accomplish it, if they have

to walk on organic structures to make s O.

Another failing is Skinner & # 8217 ; s chesty dismissal of the field of moralss, claiming that values are already obvious to everyone, beyond the possibility of difference:

& # 8220 ; Of class, I know nil about your class in moralss, & # 8221 ; Frazier said, & # 8220 ; but the philosopher in hunt of a rational footing for make up one’s minding what is good has ever reminded me of the centipede seeking to make up one’s mind how to walk. Simply travel in front and walk! We all know what & # 8217 ; s good, until we stop to believe about it. For illustration, is at that place any uncertainty that wellness is better than illness? & # 8221 ;

& # 8220 ; There might be a clip when a adult male would take ill-health or decease, even, & # 8221 ; said Castle. & # 8220 ; And we might clap his decision. & # 8221 ;

& # 8220 ; Yes, but you & # 8217 ; re traveling the incorrect pes. Try the one on the opposite side. & # 8221 ; This was non playing carnival, and Castle evidently resented it. He had made a friendly gesture and Frazier was taking advantage of it. & # 8220 ; Other things being equal, we choose wellness, & # 8221 ; Frazier continued. & # 8220 ; The proficient job is simple plenty. Possibly we can happen clip tomorrow to see our medical edifice.

& # 8220 ; Second, can anyone doubt that an absolute lower limit of unpleasant labour is portion of the Good Life? & # 8221 ; Frazier turned once more to Castle, but he was greeted with a dark silence.

& # 8220 ; That & # 8217 ; s the millionaire & # 8217 ; s thought, anyhow, & # 8221 ; I said.

& # 8220 ; I mean the lower limit which is possible without enforcing on anyone. We must ever believe of the whole group & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ;

But even he admits, & # 8220 ; I can & # 8217 ; t give you a rational justification for it. I can & # 8217 ; t cut down it to any rule of the great good. This is the Good Life. We know it. It & # 8217 ; s a fact, non a theory. & # 8221 ; In Skinner & # 8217 ; s footings, the & # 8220 ; Good Life & # 8221 ; is one in which people & # 8217 ; s motives are understood and gratified. But how good does he understand our motivations or motive itself, for that affair? People & # 8217 ; s motivations ( based on their values ) have varied a great trade more than the above extract acknowledges. Frazier references wellness and liesure as & # 8220 ; good, & # 8221 ; barely making justness to the complex concaphony of picks our species is known to do. No uncertainty, he believes behaviourism can explicate it but he has non demonstrated such ability. Surely Frazier plants at determining the motivations of his topics. But are they non besides determining his behaviour? If he does, in fact, regulate without irresistible impulse, he can non coerce his values on the population. He can merely work with what they already value. Is this non, in fact, a signifier of mutualism?

On P. 255, Frazier asks & # 8220 ; What would you make if you found yourself in ownership of an effectual scientific discipline of behaviour? Suppose you all of a sudden found it possible to command the behaviour of work forces as you wished? & # 8221 ; But Frazier & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; control & # 8221 ; is barely what is normally implied by that word, which would be power-over, power wielded over people against their will. Frazier & # 8217 ; s merely & # 8220 ; power & # 8221 ; comes from his ability to form people in a manner that enables them to be happy and to acquire what they want. It is power-with. Skinner must hold his grounds for seting his thoughts in such baleful footings, about as if he delighted in forcing our buttons. In his ain linguistic communication, naming his plan, & # 8220 ; behavioural technology, & # 8221 ; is bad behavioural technology. He used a term most calculated to bring forth opposition. It seems he wants to win people over in malice of themselves. It smacks of self-importance aggrandisement ( which Frazier admits is one of his motivations ) .

He intensifies the provocative consequence of his claim to be able to command people with his & # 8220 ; cryptic & # 8221 ; scientific discipline of & # 8220 ; behavioural technology & # 8221 ; by stating, & # 8220 ; If adult male is free, so a engineering of behaviour is impossible. & # 8221 ; But his & # 8220 ; engineering of behaviour & # 8221 ; is non opposed to freedom. It is based on it. & # 8220 ; It & # 8217 ; s a small late to be turn outing that a behavior engineering is good advanced, & # 8221 ; he goes on. & # 8220 ; How can you deny it? Many of its methods and techniques are truly every bit old as the hills. Look at the atrocious abuse in the custodies of the Nazis! & # 8221 ; The Nazis used techniques of use for power-over. Their ability to pull strings did non get rid of free-will, nevertheless. We are ever free to decline to be manipulated. Most use is based on the cognition on the portion of the operator ( consciously or otherwise ) of secret guilt, insufficiencies and bitternesss on our portion ( which is normally unconscious ) . Manipulation is blackmail. The counterpoison to use is the same as the counterpoison to blackjack: to state the truth. The victim of most signifiers of use is non every bit much afraid of the extortioner stating the universe as he is of going aware of his ain secrets, carefully hidden from himself. A self-conscious human being is enured to use. It ever costs us to confront our interior devils and that is the true cost of freedom. Other signifiers of power-over are outright misrepresentation and physical domination in the signifier of guns or musculus. These techniques are outside the state of psychological science and therefore our treatment. It is notable, nevertheless, that, without these extra techniques, the Nazis couldn & # 8217 ; Ts have reigned.

He continues with more benign illustrations than the Nazis. & # 8220 ; What about instruction? Or faith? Or practical political relations? Or advertisement and salesmanship? & # 8230 ; My inquiry is, have you the bravery to take up and exert the scientific discipline of behaviour for the good of world? & # 8221 ; By his illustrations, he shows that what he means by & # 8220 ; behavior engineering, & # 8221 ; is in the custodies, non merely of pedagogues, spiritual leaders, advertizers and salesmen. They are in our ain custodies at good! We use these & # 8220 ; techniques & # 8221 ; on each other every twenty-four hours. A kid can make it, and does. What else is he making when he acts on his best behaviour in hope of traveling to the circus as a wages? What else are his parents making by doling out wagess for such good behaviour? Most use is common.

Hopefully, by using techniques based on honestness and cooperation instead than of use, Skinner/Frazier can construct a society based on honestness and cooperation among it & # 8217 ; s members. Such a society would be one of power-with at its best.

While Skinner has offered some really compelling thoughts on the reorganisation of a free society, affecting new applications of the jurisprudence of supply and demand every bit good as democracy, his application of behaviourism in footings of preparation are less original, impressive or far-reaching. The gradual debut of aversive stimulation is an old behavioral technique. It is besides a technique we all know and pattern. Children usage this method every clip they get into a cold lake bit by bit alternatively of all at one time. He has non demonstrated ownership of anything powerful plenty to do us believe his Utopia could really be created in existent life.

Less predictably, Skinner so goes on to deny the scientific method, itself, the really thing his Utopia is purportedly based on.

& # 8220 ; You use the word & # 8216 ; experiment & # 8217 ; a great trade, & # 8221 ; I said, & # 8220 ; but do you truly experiment at all? Isn & # 8217 ; t one characteristic of good scientific pattern losing from all the instances you have described? & # 8221 ;

& # 8220 ; You mean the & # 8216 ; control, & # 8217 ; & # 8221 ; said Frazier.

Frazier says, & # 8220 ; to travel to all the problem of running controls would be to do a fetish of scientific method. & # 8221 ; The ground it isn & # 8217 ; t necessary to travel & # 8220 ; to travel to [ all that ] problem & # 8221 ; is & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; the relation between cause and consequence is obvious. The felicity and composure of our people are evidently related to the self-denial they have acquired. & # 8221 ; So Frazier, the & # 8220 ; experimental scientist & # 8221 ; now abandons experiment itself, and presents himself as a purveyor of revealed truth, received from the Great God Obvious. Burris & # 8217 ; & # 8220 ; caput was whirling & # 8221 ; as he wondered & # 8220 ; how Frazier had been so successful. & # 8221 ; The reply to that inquiry, of class, is besides & # 8220 ; obvious. & # 8221 ; It & # 8217 ; s easy to be successful in a fabricated & # 8220 ; experiment & # 8221 ; if the writer so decrees.

As the visit draws to a decision, Frazier reveals yet another extremist thought. He considers history bunk and does non promote its survey at Walden Two. & # 8220 ; I don & # 8217 ; t care how good historical facts can be known from afar. Is it of import to cognize them at all? I submit that history ne’er even comes near to reiterating itself. Even if we had dependable information about the past, we couldn & # 8217 ; t happen a instance similar plenty to warrant illations about the persent or immediate hereafter. We can do no existent usage of history as a current guide. & # 8221 ; He offers a batch of pertinent unfavorable judgment of history and it & # 8217 ; s relevancy, including the undependability of its information, its skewed positions, etc. But, even with all of History & # 8217 ; s drawbacks, extinguishing history as a survey would do an even greater deformation of our apprehension. Why survey history? Er & # 8230 ; it exists, doesn & # 8217 ; t it? We have a past. Would he allow immature people grow up in Walden Two believing it had ever existed, believing, possibly, that it had sprung up matured from the forehead of Zeus? It strikes me as unsafe to accept such monolithic ignorance. To stay nescient, is to believe a prevarication.

Skinner & # 8217 ; s Frazier has boundless religion in his thoughts. He no longer needs to cognize history. He is assured that his contrivers and directors will ne’er go corrupted. ( If they did, it would be hard to cognize it without a cognition of what Walden Two had been like before the corruptness started. ) His strict plan turns out to be oddly missing in substance. Skinner & # 8217 ; s thoughts are provocative and thought arousing. But the jobs are far excessively serious to let the speedy dismissal Frazier would give them. In short, I am non ready to subscribe on the flecked line.