|
RandomBehaviorist (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Skinner didn't respond to Chomsky's review ... not because it was "devestating", but because it was obvious that Chomsky had grossly misunderstood the basic tenets of Skinners work. Skinner choose not to respond to it because it was so off base.
hepner (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
tthis is so racist y'all
kidkitna (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'm not taking anything away from Skinner's work by pointing out the lit review at all. My post is about the fact that this one review is regarded in my field as the most influential review in psychology and it did have damaging effects. Regardless of what you want to believe, Behaviorism is not the forefront of psychology and won't be. You're claim isn't an educated claim. It's based more on preference and emotion than anything. I can back Chomsky up with research.
kidkitna (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yeah I don't what you're background you have, but I have a BA in psychology with my concentration in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. If you look at the history of psychology after Chomsky's lit review you will see that it was very damaging to the Behaviorist Theory and it pretty much did ruin any vision of Behaviorism becoming the main focus of researching psychologist. The only field in psychology that I know that still adheres to it is neuroscience research based on learning.
biglmac (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
He was a radical behaviourist. Radical, people often believe, means "extremist." That's not the radical that radical psychologists are. Radical refers to the usage of fundamental principles. |
©2008 All Rights Reserved.