Talk:Radical behaviorism

NPOV dispute
I slapped the POV-check sticker on this because the entire article seems extremely biased against anyone who disagrees with radical behaviorism. "The strategy of the cognitive (or perhaps 'anti-behaviorist'?) schools is to concede as little as possible where Skinner is concerned and to extend every opposing theory of any area that has an opposing theory to Skinner [...] and to knit together a whole mismash of inconsistent theories and approachs all welded together by their common slogan of 'Mind!' and their hostility to Radical Behaviorism's atheoretical approach"? I think this article could use a lot of rewriting. &mdash;TheNewAuk 22:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly agree that the article is extremely biased and so needs to be rewritten--even extensively. It is nevertheless unfortunate, considering that virtually everything in it is correct as it stands--and not despite the bias--but rather on account of it. --Uroshnor 08:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia is a place for scientific editorial. The unbridled attacks on a whole school of scientific theory is not at all warranted, not matter-of-fact, and most certainly not neutral. The data and information is correct, but a great deal of the subjective slant, particularly that against cognitive science, is quite untrue, biased nonsense. The whole article is chock full of opinion presupposing the legitimacy of Skinner's theories.

Not scientific at all, and certainly not neutral.


 * Since there's concensus here, I'm changing POV check to NPOV.--Vaergoth 29 June 2005 20:25 (UTC)
 * In fact, after reading again, I really think this is a good candidate for a total rewrite. Many of the sections start out denouncing critics, and the tone of the entire thing is extremely defensive. Unless there are any major objections to this (and if there are, please list them here), I'm going to go ahead and place {cleanup-rewrite}.--Vaergoth 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Actually reading through this article i think it needs more than a rewrite. With the exception of a few sentences at the beginning it needs scrapped and rewritten. I think the questions it should answer are:

When was methodological behaviourism originated and by whom?

Who were the methodological behaviourists (apart from Skinner)?

What was the history of the movement? How does it related to the 'other' behaviorisms?

How was it criticised (by cognitivists and others), and how did Skinner (et al) react to these criticisms?

What is the state of methodological behaviourism now?

BScotland

I'm considering giving it a shot. There are some problems though.

It is difficult to write a non-controversial article about radical behaviorism, inasmuch as it is in fact a contorversial position and it is misrepresented in all major textbooks. Most textbook articles about radical behaviorism are, in fact, are about as biased against Radical Behaviorism as the present articles is biased against Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science being today's standard paradigm, this is difficult to see. An article about radical behaviorism has to address the controversy. However, there are or should be alternatives to the approach the author of the present article takes. roffe 08:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Radical and methodological behaviorism are two distinct philosophies.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And Analytical behaviourism a third. As to the POV question, while I'm content with the idea that fans of Skinner have a right to edit wikipedia, the idea that the article should be a polemical and hyperbolic defense of a paradigm which in the prevailing view of the relevant discipline has been not only partially but thoroughly discredited and makes no mention of the most significant criticisms of it, it is fair to say that it is not NPOV. As a suggested test; if your article on Skinner's views at no point uses the phrase 'poverty of the stimulus' then it isn't 'neutral'. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps so but it isn't as though cognitive science or alternative paradigms (it is debatable whether connectionists, cognitive neuroscientists or e.g. Daniel Dennett endorse 'cognitive science', but they all reject radical behaviourism) reject Skinnerian behaviourism arbitrarily or for political reasons; it is now widely (universally, even?) accepted that behaviourism cannot account for a large number of very real psychological phenomena, most prominently language acquisition. The article in its current form reads like a vitriolic defense of geocentrism and has about the same merit. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Review of Verbal Behavior
In "Review of Verbal Behavior" by Noam Chomsky, Chomsky attacks the triumvirate of operant theory - stimulus, response, reinforcement - as being applicable only to the laboratory and not "real life". In "real life" it becomes definitionally meaningless he says. He accuses Skinner of dressing up his theory with the appearance of science using the technically precise language of the laboratory to give his non-technical views on language prestige. This rather causes one to wonder how B.F.Skinner who innovated the very precise and technical language described in The Behavior of Organisms in 1938 (and sited by Chomsky) could then apparently not notice, or assume others would not notice, he was abusing the very clear technical language he himself championed not only in 1938 but throughout his life? But this is just one of many curious statements made by Chomsky in his critique not only of Radical Behaviorism, but of Empiricism itself, that allow him to include references to drive theory that Skinner rejected (and Chomsky concedes as much) but then when Chomsky demolishes drive theory we are to conclude that this also demolishes Skinner's position on Verbal Behavior. It is telling, and perhaps necessary, to take such a high-level approach in attacking Skinner's basic work or its inability to be generalized in undermining Skinner's theory of Verbal Behavior. Because if you take the basic laboratory work and analysis as proven, and even so-called cognitive scientists will do this, it becomes very hard to challenge Skinner's theory of Verbal Behavior since they so clearly parallel his basic laboratory work.


 * I thought the above was kinda fun, and worthy of the talk page if nothing else. Sam Spade 06:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Another gem
Insofar as cognitive "science" is simply the Frankenstein like rebirth of mentalistic humunculus-laden theories of inner determination they represent little more than the perpetuation of the very theories that Watson and Skinner attempted to displace (obviously with only little success).

Since cognitive "science" is little more than pre-Behaviorist mentalism dressed up in the latest fad computer-metaphor or neurobiological or genetic patois it can be little said to be Modern unless Behaviorism would then be "post Modern" to its Modernity. The strategy of the cognitive (or perhaps "anti-behaviorist"?) schools is to concede as little as possible where Skinner is concerned and to extend every opposing theory of any area that has an opposing theory to Skinner, to embrace many of the opposing Behaviorist theorists who didn't eschew mental constructs and to knit together a whole mismash of inconsistent theories and approaches all welded together by their common slogan of "Mind!" and their hostility to Radical Behaviorism's atheoretical approach.


 * Ahahaha... oh yeah, thats rich. Sam Spade 06:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
What do you guys think of removing the dispute header now? Sam Spade 06:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed it. Sam Spade 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Language
Niether this article nor B. F. Skinner address his astonishing(ly poor) attempt to address language. It's been a long time since I was up to speed in that area, but it seems to me to be a glaring omission. Does this, perhaps, suggest that this article is still PoV? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It is still quite biased
I don't think this article is an objective article. In the philosophy community, radical behaviorism is widely discredited.


 * I'm not so sure. Have you ever read Wittgenstein, Philisophical Investigations?  He actually seems to support radical behaviorism.    Silly rabbit 22:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy entry at least, for god's sake. This guy must be a complete behaviorist crank, or he wouldn't be talking about that retarded novel of Skinner with respect. He must be Skinner's grandson who was probably brainwashed into accepting this naive philosophy as worthwhile.


 * References, please? Also, I don't appreciate the fact that you call someone a crank because they are writing about what they are supposed to.  The article is radical behaviorism, not radical behaviorism is wrong.  If you want to, you are more than welcome to add a discussion of the shortcomings and discreditations of radical behaviorism once the basic definition and core philosophy (and utilitarian scientific basis) have been ferreted out.  But you really ought to provide some references if you are to make yourself credible.


 * Anyway, even if you manage to completely discredit behaviorism, please check out the history of science. I'm sure you will have a field day on that page.


 * Thanks, Silly rabbit 22:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am taking this article over
I am trying to have someone who is one of the last living co-authors of the theory of radical behaviorism to assist in the writing of this article. You may find that I am the one submitting his results on his behalf, once I have wikified them. Please direct your wrath at me, and not him. Whether you agree or disagree with radical behaviorism on its philosophical merits is about as relevant to the subject of an encylopedia article as whether you agree or disagree with the idea of biblical creation ex nihilo. The article still ought to exist and be unbiased as far as the philosophical principal goes. You are welcome to submit refutations later on in the article, but the definition of the radical behaviorism position is about as uncontroversial as the defintion of rabbit. I have attached an under construction tag to discourage any more biased edits, and to indicate that I intend to bring an expert to this article. Please respect my tag for the time being.

Thanks, Silly rabbit 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a few NPOV related edits to the page. After that, I hear that the article looks quite good overall.  I am removing the "under construction" tag.  But this is not a carte blanche for would-be vandals.  Stay away unless you know what you are doing.  To the Wikipedia users and especially the admins: thank you for your cooperation and assistance.  Silly rabbit 08:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Dennet reference
The discussion section seems to be a bit stagnant here, but I'm going to put this here anyway before I try to change anything. In one paragraph it states that Radical Behaviorism has been dismissed as too simplistic and confused for Pavlov's S-R behaviorism. While this is true, the article goes on to cite Daniel Dennet as an example of this. Lucky for me, I have his book (though haven't gotten around to reading it) and was able to check the reference. Although Dennet is dismissive of Radical Behaviorism as being too "simplistic," he does not misunderstand it in the way the article implies.

The full Dennet quote states: "...B. F. Skinner's Behaviorism, in which stimulus-response pairings were the candidates for selection, and 'reinforcing' stimuli were the mechanisms of selection." (page 183).

Dennet's quote is factually accurate. He accurately describes the behavioral model of stimulus-response relationships being selected for by their consequential stimuli. The paragraph that cites this quote as a "misunderstanding" needs to be changed, possibly with a different example in its place. Lunar Spectrum | Talk 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * to use the term 'stimulus-response pairing' is to confuse S-R psychology with Behaviorism which doesn't use any associatism to explain operant behavior. It is confusing at best. --florkle 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. While I agree with you that calling them "S-R pairings" instead of something like "S->R relationships" is misleading terminology, the full Dennet quote shows that he does in fact understand the three-term contingency to be different from S-R psychology. The current article mistakenly cites this as Dennet misunderstanding Skinner, which is what I originally said needed to be fixed. I made the original post about this months ago and have since forgotten to follow up on it, so I might as well just remove the problematic statement right now. Lunar Spectrum | Talk 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Skinner and his spawn get a pass
I'm studying Applied Behavioral Analysis background and techniques in the area of treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders. In so doing, I've found many real-world implications (harmful, in my view) of the dogmas of behaviorism. I've read reams of loose, sloopy, vague pronouncements from key drivers of behaviorism, dressed in highly technical jargon that portend to justify enormously significant assuptions. However, to the extent that Skinner's views remain deeply influential, the assumptions should be challenged.

The famous Chomsky polemics ( http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967.htm ), ( http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19711230.htm  )were never refuted by Skinner himself, nor in any complete way since, that I've found. Yet Chomsky's challenges are very clearly defined.


 * Chomsky made claims that were refuted decades before he wrote them, often about schools of behaviorism that Skinner himself had rejected. SKinner rejected Chomksy /categorically/ not specifically. See "Are Theories of Learning Necessary?" for a categorical rejection of Chomsky, et al. This is a radically inductive position that Chomsky could not grasp (and he even admits as much repeatedly if you read his critiques "it makes no sense...").

--florkle 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This entry is a good overview of the claims made in radical behaviorism. However, could it not be that this paragraph needs to be re-examined?

"Many textbooks, in emphasizing that Skinner held behavior to be the proper subject matter of Psychology, fail to clarify Skinner's position and implicitly or even explicitly posit that Skinner ruled out the study of private events as unscientific."

It seems to me that, any particular statemtents to the contrary notwithstanding, this is actually a fair and accurate representation of Skinner's behaviorism.


 * Skinner explicity /accepted/ private events in his radical behaviorism rejecting the methodological behaviorism prevalant in his time (viz Pavlov/Watson). See About Behaviorism (1974) for a popular treatment on this subject, but thinking and other private events are presented in Science and Human Behavior (1953) for example and Verbal Behavior (1957).... --florkle 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Skinner seems to have a teflon coating somehow. He made radical, sweeping statements about behavior that never quite get put on the historical shelf along with other primitive, mid-twentieth century nascent ideas of psychology. It seems to me that his ideas are rarely fully categorised as spectulative and/or innacurate because at some points, Skinner said, "sure, there's physiology".


 * Nope. Skinner rejected physiologizing as early as 1938 in his Behavior of Organisms (see last chapter) which broke quite distinctly with the physiologizing of Pavlov(!) one of the big dogs of Behaviorism. --florkle 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, there's either an enormous contradiction, or there's an enormously important truth. Which is it? Should this entry not endeavor to state more clearly and utterly where Radical behaviourism is a quaint, primitive speculation? Then the more modern forms of behaviorism, which it seems to me, are based on principles of radical behaviorism more than they admit, would then perhaps not be so readily treated with kid gloves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.238.73 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Theory and practice
Hey, I asked this question over at Talk:Experimental analysis of behavior, but it belongs here too. There's a section in that article called An anti-theoretical analysis?, which talks about whether or not Skinner was anti-theoretical. It seems to me that this section belongs in this article, since this article is about Skinner's theoretical framework. And, as the first line of the Radical behaviorism article says: "Radical behaviorism is a philosophy developed by B. F. Skinner that underlies the experimental analysis of behavior approach to psychology." In other words, experimental analysis of behavior is the methodology, Radical behaviorism is the underlying theoretical framework. Thoughts? --Gpollock 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * there are, perhaps, two underlying theoretical frameworks - one for EAB and one - a more philosophical one - is Radical Behaviorism. However, even there its not so clear cut. The proposition that behavior is lawful is central to RB and is, according to Skinner's About behaviorism uprovable. However, this unprovable assumption is the basis for EAB which necessitates that the behavior it studies... be lawful! The nature of what constitutes /theory/ is a matter of data driven inductive theory (nicely illustrated in Mecca Chiesa's book) versus those of the hypothetico-deductive schools Skinner opposed (see his "Are Theories of Learning Necessary?"). EAB may grapple with this issue by simply making it implicit and not discussing it, while a journal like Behaviorism may make it overt.

I don't think there is an easy answer here. fwiw.--florkle 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why then did it disapear?
If the critics on Skinner´s work are only a matter of misunderstandings, why did the cognitive sciences did arrise anyhow? are people these days unable to grasp the theories of the first half of the 20th century? I am aware of the khunian aspects of the changes in cientific theories, but the demise of behaviorism in terms of academic production, and the success of the current trends in psychology say somenthing about the validity of skinner´s ideias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.2.127.143 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Isn't there a Criticism section in this article?
I went to this article because I had read some of Skinner's works and wanted to find some critical reviews by those who found fault with his theories. There doesn't seem to be anything like that here. I wonder why? Are his theories considered so absolutely correct that they are beyond question? Given the very nature of the title of Radical Behaviorism, that sounds unlikely. Surely someone reputable other than Chomsky has criticized Skinner's theory? If so, then let's see those outlined. I have found that I never learn anything until I've heard the opposite point of view.Aletheia (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be the case in most behaviorism/Systems psychology/cybernetics-related articles. Indeed many other psychology-related articles too, but some ppl seem a bit more religous about this than others IMO. I guess it's not that rewarding to write critically about something you don't agree on/care about. idk. Marius193.75.62.253 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is beyond insane that this article does not have a criticism section. Radical behaviorism is considered extremely obsolete and almost archaic at most universities. Although Skinner and his contemporaries had a part to play in the development of psychology, linguistics and cognitive science, Radical Behaviorism is a view held by few academics today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gresposito (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Several years later and still no criticism section? I came here looking for this myself and was disappointed. I think it is desperately needed, but I am certainly not an expert. Is there anyone out there who knows enough to at least get a small, rough criticism section going? 7yl4r (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This entire article needs work. I need to figure out how to flag. Can someone w/ authority/know-how please do so? I'll begin a criticism section after a review. It may be that criticism is 'baked in' to the history. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinKingPsyD (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Education
I just got my teaching license a year ago, and in just about every class I had on educational psychology and classroom management, Skinner and Behaviorism are treated with an almost religiously fervent contempt. This is probably because the whole idea of conditioning feels fairly inhumane to the average teacher, most of whom, even in very conservative area like where I student taught, are fairly liberal. I suppose it's not because behaviorism's methods don't work (I gave my share of candy for answers in moments of weakness during student teaching), it's just that they don't produce long term learning, and they actually seem to discourage critical thinking. Now, I'm not saying I agree with everything I was taught about how wicked behaviorism is, but right or wrong, it seems to be very unpopular in education today, and that might be worth noting. Corbmobile (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "the whole idea of conditioning feels fairly inhumane." The teaching culture rejects behaviorism and, as you say, treat behaviorism with contempt.  However, you might be interested to know that a goverment study called "Project Followthrough" actually found that behavioral teaching methods (precision teaching and direct instruction))worked better than "standard" teaching methods.
 * from http://www.binder-riha.com/PT_DI.pdf
 * In federally validated research, each of these instructional technologies has been shown
 * to produce far greater achievement and self-esteem among students than more traditional teaching
 * practices, with favorable cost-benefit ratios when implemented in schools. These results have been obtained
 * despite adverse socioeconomic influences on students so often blamed for failure in the classroom. These
 * methods have not been widely adopted, partly due to political and philosophical resistance to measurably
 * superior instructional technology among educators.
 * While avoided in the regular classroom, these techniques are frequently used in special-education and developmental disability classrooms. The main problem, of course, is politics.  It always has been.  Who's right isn't as important as who gets funding.  Could it be that traditional methods are frightened by behaviorism?  Could it be that behaviorists are nut jobs?  Hard to say.  I hope that the information I have shared in this comment helps to give you useful information needed to make that call.  Rebent (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A further analysis of "Project Followthrough" can be found here: http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/387/OpenModules/Engelmann/EngelmannDI.shtml Rebent (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

POV - lead
I added the POV tag to the top because the following words detract from neutrality:

Radical behaviorism is a philosophy developed by B.F. Skinner that underlies the experimental analysis of behavior approach to psychology. The term radical behaviorism applies to a particular school that emerged during the reign of behaviorism. However, radical behaviorism bears little resemblance to other schools of behaviorism, differing in the acceptance of mediating structures, the role of private events and emotions, and other areas.[1]

Radical behaviorism has attracted attention since its inception. First, it proposes that all organismic action is determined and not free. However, there are deterministic elements in much of psychology. Second, it is considered to be "anti-theoretical,"[2] although this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of theory in a radically inductive scientific position, which rejects hypothetico-deductive methods and theory construction about things in unobservable, unmeasurable "other places" (such as the mind). Rebent (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC) ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— First Paragraph, Definition Correction Suggestion In the first paragraph the word "inclusion" should be "exclusion" shouldn't it? Drmdl1 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For reasons that I do not understand, someone added yet another cleanup tag to this article last month. Jarble (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Radical behaviorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050326035046/http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jeab/index.html to http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jeab/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206050814/http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jaba/ to http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jaba/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section is about Watson's methodological behaviorism, not Skinner's radical behaviorism
The Criticism section either should be deleted due to inaccuracy or lack of relevance in relation to radical behaviorism, or it should be revised to actually be relevant to radical behaviorism. The only source that is cited for the Criticism section is an io9 (blog) article written by George Dvorsky, who has no formal education beyond high school. This is made quite apparent in the text of the article as the author repeatedly confuses the work and words of methodological (or strict) behaviorist John B. Watson, who focused on classical conditioning, with that of radical behaviorist B. F. Skinner, who focused on operant conditioning. For example, the use of electric shocks and masturbatory reconditioning in gay conversation therapy relates to classical conditioning, not operant conditioning. Also, Skinner did not deny the existence of consciousness or mental processes such as thinking and feeling, and he surely did not try to reduce thinking to vibrations in the vocal cords, which is a theory Watson initially had but eventually renounced. Yet this claim is twice stated in the blog article, and it even includes a quote from Alan Moore (best known as a comic book writer) that erroneously attributes this belief to Skinner. Skinner also acknowledged genetic influences but believed it was more effective to focus on altering the environment to make positive change. 47.184.124.188 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)PsychologyProfessorandHistoryTeacher


 * Agreed. I've deleted the old criticism section, and added more appropriate criticism. Of the universe (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section needs work
The criticism section is missing citations, and could maybe be expanded using the criticism section from Skinner's page. Of the universe (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issues
This article had several NPOV issues which I have attempted to rectifty. Because my edits were rather extensive I will explain them here:

1. This paragraph:

"The most precise way to describe radical behaviorism as "radical" is to understand that instances such as evolution and cell division are occurrences that just happen. There is no third party that assists in this transformation; they can, however, be explained by other naturally occurring events. They should not try to be explained through objects that are not tangible, e.g., ghosts or inner entities. Radical behaviorists therefore conclude that naturally occurring events may be examined in relation to past and present environments through the effect they have on human beings.

which makes no sense. It's radical because evolution and cell division "just happen"? What does that have to do with its claims about behaviour?

2. The removal of the many, many claims that "many textbooks"--a very vague phrasing--make such and such claims.

3. The removal of the claim that "Skinner did not consider people a blank slate, or 'tabula rasa.'" Unless a quote by him stating this, or another neutral entity stating this, can be found, this should not be kept in. A citation that he rejected the label of an S-R psychologist is not sufficient.

4. This paragraph:

"Many textbooks confuse Skinner's rejection of physiology with Watson's rejection of private events. It is true to some extent that Skinner's psychology considers humans a black box, since Skinner maintains that behavior can be explained without taking into account what goes on inside the organism. However, the black box is not private events, but physiology. Skinner considers physiology useful, interesting, valid, etc., but not necessary for operant behavioral theory and research."

which is original research which attempts to interpet Skinner, as well as saying that "many textbooks" are "confused."

5. The claim that "many textbooks" "fail" to do something, which is a clear violation of NPOV.

6. The claim that the position that "animals...are passive recievers of conditioning" is "incorrect," which is a clear violation of NPOV.

7. The major unsourced statement that logical positivism has "come into disfavor."

While there are still many unsourced statements, for now I don't think they are controversial enough to warrant removal, just a [citation needed]. DifferenceTone (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)DifferenceTone (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

a great read that can be added to the further reading section
This article here is a great synthesis of "radical behaviorism"" that can be considered to be added https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014776/ Kaveinthran (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)