Customer Reviews

Beyond Freedom and Dignity

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

B.F. Skinner was the leading experimental psychologist in the United States for a large portion of his career, and his reputation within the field is still formidable. Unlike most scientists, Skinner also chose to write books for a popular audience. And, unlike most so-called "popular scientists" like Carl Sagan or Stephen Jay Gould, Skinner cared more that the layman understood the philosophy behind science, rather than how that particular science worked.

"Beyond Freedom and Dignity" is Skinner's most successful - and controversial work. Skinner's brand of psychology is called Behaviorism for a very good reason - it deals only with objective, measurable behaviors and does not speculate about motivations, drives, dreams, etc. Skinner argues that applied Behaviorism has the potential to solve many seemingly unsolvable problems, such as overpopulation, crime, pollution, and the like. To Skinner, our very concepts of Freedom and Dignity are hindrances because they are abstract ideals that cannot be measured or quantified. It is only when we care about behavior that we have a chance of understanding why human beings do the things that we do and have the potential to truly change society.

I strongly recommend this book, although I do not agree with much of Skinner's philosophy. Skinner wrote clearly, cleanly, and directly. Anyone with a high school diploma or GED could read and understand this book, and engage in a dialogue with Skinner's ideas. I've used chapters of this book in a course in the History of Psychology that I teach, and it never fails to engage people, challenge them, and spur them on to debate. To me, this is what a great book should do. Whether you glorify or villify B.F. Skinner, his ideas are worth grappling with.

I would try a copy at my local library first and then purchase this book if you wish to reread it.

This is a great book. It argues that:

1) the human race faces great and urgent problems, such as overpopulation and habitat destruction.

2) we don't behave all that well: we're having difficulty addressing the urgent problems.

3) a scientific approach may be able to help.

4) indeed, a "technology of behavior" is being developed and shows promise. This includes Skinner's experimental findings and conclusions, for example, the role of operant conditioning and the limitations of punishment.

5) Using this emerging technology of behavior, individuals can manage themselves better (as Skinner demonstrated with himself). As a race, we should also be able to use this technology to manage ourselves collectively better.

6) We are being managed (i.e. controlled) anyway, often by forces we either aren't aware of or don't grasp the impact of.

7) If we took control of this technology of behavior, applying it as it is and developing it further, we might be able to save ourselves from the urgent problems that confront us.

8) A key obstacle to the application and further development of this technology is our belief that we are somehow ultimately free of external causes. We believe in free will (freedom or autonomy) and consequently we take credit ( feel dignity) for things we really don't have much or any control over.

9) If we look at the explanations we offer on the basis of our freedom and dignity, we may see that they cover up huge areas of ignorance we have as to why we behave as we do. And if we look at our behavior, we see that we don't control it as much as we think we can (consider the problem people have with obesity or addiction) and we take credit for things we aren't responsible for (including what now appear to be genetic endowments).

10) By attributing things to our "free will", we tend to ignore the real events that influence us, and by so doing we fail to learn from them.

11) If we worked together to look at what really is influencing us and at how we do and can influence others, we might be able to shift ourselves toward being more altruistic and more effective, i.e. we might be able to overcome the big problems that we are currently creating.

Better ways of managing ourselves may mean better ways to manipulate others, but it may also mean that people will be better informed so as to counter manipulations and join, where appropriate, in managing themselves better. At least with an open, scientific process, we have a chance of learning and improving the process ourselves, instead of floundering into disasters due to half-baked concepts about ourselves.

It may make no sense to you to chuck your "autonomous person" yet, but there's no need to. The important thing is to take a little time to learn what Skinner and other behaviorists have learned and try to apply it to help yourself ... and others. You may find yourself stepping beyond freedom and dignity toward knowledge and usefulness ... and that may feel like a good thing.

This is an extremely important book whose central thesis is that people prefer to be controlled by forces they cannot directly observe rather than by forces they can directly observe. When someone makes you do something, you feel controlled and are likely to rebel. If you are controlled by things that don't seem to be controlling you, though, like your education or the norms of your society, then you don't feel coerced and do not rebel. His point, however, is that you are still being controlled even if you don't see the hand of the person controlling you.

Although most people are horrified by Skinner's assertion that they are being controlled by forces they don't know about, Skinner himself did not mean the book to be pessimistic. Instead, he hoped that by alerting people to what controls them that they would be able to examine those controls and change them through a science of behavior.

This book, like everything else produced during the era, has that '70s aura of doom and gloom about it, but that's no reason to get twisted in the details like the previous reviewer. Skinner points out what's been right in front of our noses all along--always a sign of true brilliance.

The world abounds with examples that prove his main point: that humans are not strictly 'free', nor can we ever be. We can chose to accept the obvious and exert some conscious control over the 'contingencies' of our behavior, or we can continue to stick our head in the sand and refuse to believe that we are subject to many of the same rules of design as other animals...well-trodden ground previously occupied by critics of Darwin, most notably.

This book is much too often neglected, misunderstood and ignored. Yes, Skinner was kind of a strange eccentric man who took his ideas way beyond their logical conclusions and spent too much of his time fantasizing about the futuristic utopia he wanted to design. But his basic premise is very sound: HUMAN BEHAVIOR, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EVENT IN THIS UNIVERSE IS CAUSED AND THOSE CAUSES CAN BE UNDERSTOOD THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It does not issue out of a contradictory ghost in the macine called "free will." This book is a true classic which should be read by everyone with an interest in human behavior and the philosophy of science.

Anyone who accuses B. F. Skinner of championing a mechanistic, stimulus-response psychology needs to read this book! In it, Skinner takes the reader on an exercise in looking at the world and our place in it through the lenses of personal learning history and the cultural context influencing what is important (primarily Euro-American---but one can only handle so many things at once.) Although, as other reviews have written, some of the terms and circumstances date the book, the themes contained within remain valid.

I will admit, I was somewhat skeptical when I began reading Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity. I expected Skinner's writing to be adamant and presumptuous in dealing with human nature as a stimulus-response reaction. Skinner's ideas and views, however, are highly credible and not as "radical" as one would think those of a radical behaviorist might be. I have condensed Skinner's book into a brief synopsis and personal reaction of five sections: technology of behavior, freedom and dignity, punishment and alternatives, evolution and design of culture, and the idea of man.

Skinner begins this book with an overview of behavioral technology. He points out that the physical and biological sciences have solved any problems facing human nature though the utilization of technology. A similar type technology should be applied to behavior though a scientific analysis as opposed to abstract concepts such as states of mind and feelings. At this point, Skinner transits the responsibility from autonomous man to the environment.

One would assume that the goal of any first chapter in a book would be to grasp the reader's attention. This is exactly what this does. I am reminded of Hippocratic doctrine of the four humors when Skinner discusses early biological science. He compares the early physical and biological sciences to modern behavioral science. I am also intrigued, because Skinner begins to discuss potential ways to use behavioral technology to create a utopian society.

The next sections deal with freedom and dignity. Skinner states that the literature on freedom has made the mistake of defining freedom in terms of states of mind or feelings. Skinner defines the struggle for freedom as the avoidance of or escape from aversive features of the environment. Skinner also states that people commonly recognize the concept of dignity as a person's worth when deserving credit for actions. However, when people are the products of their environments, dignity should not be a concern, because ultimately, people are not autonomous.

Again, I found there to be much validity in Skinner's writings. What is interesting is that there are schools of thought built entirely around the concept of freedom (e.g., existentialism), stressing its importance. Skinner claims that no creatures possess free will; this is very bold statement. I also found his views of dignity interesting. He claims that more dignity is given to individuals when the causes of their achievements are less conspicuous. In retrospective, I find this to be mostly true.

Skinner then begins to discuss punishment and alternatives to punishment. He points out that the most commonly used technique for constructing, or manipulating, human behavior is negative reinforcement and punishment. According to Skinner, these punitive techniques can be maladaptive. He then explains that nonpunitive contingencies (e.g., positive reinforcement) are commendable alternatives to negative reinforcement and punishment.

I agree with Skinner's claim that nonpunitive contingencies are not commonly used to mold behavior, because this would somehow be viewed by society as manipulative, which subsequently, would reduce freedom. In turn, punishment is not viewed as "controlling;" people still have the option to choose. He gave much evidence to support this, and these comments, in my opinion, are true. However, I did not particularly like the way that Skinner made the assertion that positive reinforcement could be used to better society. I did not like this, because he said nothing to back up this claim. An entire chapter of this book was devoted to potential alternatives to punishment but never was an alternative created other than the broad category of positive reinforcement. In addition, I do not agree with Skinner's belief that those who defend the literature of freedom and dignity are those who attempt to control, or manipulate, people. I am not even sure why this was stated, and again, there is no evidence to support this statement in his book.

Skinner then focuses on the evolution and design of a culture. He compares the evolution of a culture to the evolution of a species. Basically, both culture and species propagate those traits which lead to better or longer survival. In his design of a culture, he basically applies most of the previous concepts. He states that in his design, different cultures would be separated geographically with no form of authoritarian government and people would be very frugal and economic (i.e., they would produce only what was needed and would only consume small, practical potions of the natural resources).

I particularly enjoyed Skinner's application of evolution to culture. I found his design of a culture to be interesting but not particularly impressive. It is too simplistic, much like the utopian designs that Skinner initially criticizes. I do agree with Skinner's belief that a science of behavior could and should be exercised in creating a culture.

Skinner then focuses the last portion of his book on a question: what is man? He explains that the role of environment does not abolish man. It abolishes the autonomous, inner man. He claims that this understanding is would lead to scientific progress. He also states that man is not a passive product of the environment, because the environment is ultimately of man's own making.

This last section is basically a redundancy of previous concepts. It did serve, however, as an effective closing for his arguments. One thing I might point out is that I did not particularly care for his statement that man is controlled by his/her environment and, at the same time, man is responsible for his/her environment. This seems to me like a very circular explanation (i.e., a is the cause of b, and b is the cause of a) that was just inserted to please some of the more anti-behaviorist readers.

Overall, Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity is a very persuasive book with some very innovative concepts. I can reluctantly, but honestly, admit that I cannot entirely refute any off his proclamations. Skinner does not deny the role of nature or of cognitive processes in his assumptions, which is something that I did not come to expect in reading this book. I have, however, pointed out a few slight weaknesses in his arguments. After finishing this book, I am fully aware as to why this book is deemed a classic in the scientific community.

As far science has been able to determine, man has no permanent self; therefore man has no inherent, or intrinsic, moral character. I agree with Skinner in that regard. Buddah, Alan Watts, and J. Krishnamurti said essentially the same thing. For man to have a permanent self, that self would have to be a spiritual entity, a soul, or spirit. Probably most of you believe that you are spiritual beings inhabiting physical bodies. Skinner, the scientist, couldn't accept that. To him, and I think he was right, consciousness arises on the "razor's edge of time." Consciousness has no moral character. Morality, character, etc, are learned behaviors. An interesting note: the judicial system and capital punishment are predicated on the belief that man has a permanent self--i.e., a preexisting and transendent soul. We are living under a theocratic form of government. Capital punishment crosses the line that separates church and state. "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" is a must read.

B.F. Skinner was, beyond a doubt, a
brilliant man. He was, however, of another
time, one that we have only definitively moved
out of in the last twenty years.

He is a Modern thinker. Throughout this
work he writes as if we could easily
know what 'progress' might be, and that we
might all agree on what exactly would be
involved.

This work takes to task the seminal works
of the modern episteme which address freedom
and dignity. His thesis is, essentially, that
the ethic of freedom and dignity is counter-
productive, and that we should abandon this
nonfunctional obsession.

His work is inflammatory, and is written
with that purpose. The arguments are sound,
and fairly convincing. The post-modern reader
will most likely not disagree with his logic
but will find his assumptions, which must have
at one time been considered 'self-evident', to
be baseless, and mildly disturbing.

I found most of his thought to be very
sound, and very good advise to our world.
However, his application of these thoughts, is
the frightening and inevitable conclusion of
modern scientific efficiency and problem-
solving: a vision of the future not at all
unlike Huxley's Brave New World.

This is not only a book full of good
thoughts about social reform, but a challenge
to humanism, guaranteed to upset many readers,
and possably spur them on to think about the
human problem in a new way.

I have given Skinner's book I star, because it was required to write a review. I consider its ideas dangerous - for the simple reason that it represents a frontal assault upon our ideas of freedom and human dignity.

　Of course, Skinner doesn't see anything 'sinister' in his ideas. He simply takes it for granted that our notion that we have 'interior selves' and are autonomous (i.e. free agents) - is largely an illusion. In short, Skinner's argument (and it just that, not a statement of fact, as he would have us believe) - is that we are wholly determined in our lives by environmental factors, which is to say - 'conditioned' by forces outside ourselves.

Skinner's argument, then, is that we might as well accept this and make the most of it. Rather than resisting the idea of conditioning, he thinks we should perfect it. In short, if there is nothing more than external conditioning and learned behaviour, then we might as well have social scientists maximising our potential to live with the learned behaviour.

The fallacy of Skinner's argument, is that the notion of human freedom and dignity rests upon scientifically 'unprovable' or 'unverifiable' assertions. When we look, we cannot find a 'ghost in the machine' - and thus, we might as well accept the machine. But it is a facile argument. The fact that we cannot reduce our interior selves to a scientifically quantifiable formula, is the very reason why it remains of vital importance to human life. Its resistence to reductive, strictly empirical formulas, is what makes human nature special. Nobody sensible would deny that childhood experience is highly formative, or that certain genetic determinants are at work, or that empirically speaking, we are conditioned in our external lives. But we have no reason to suppose that these factors are ALL determining.

Needless to say, Skinner's thinking was informed by wholly secular ideas of social and scientific progress - much as if we could get behind everything and 'push.' Paradoxically, Skinner never gave that much thought to who controls the controllers! Skinner wasn't thinking of anything like Soviet style dialectical materialism - but, if we wanted a graphic example of how things go painfully wrong by regimenting human nature and trying to educate people out of the idea that they have 'interior selves' - well, the failures of the Soviet Union (or Communist China) tell us all we need to know.

I don't say this with any illusions that captalism and 'free markets' per se, are intrinsically more respectful of human freedom and dignity. Those values hinge upon something deeper, and without that, there is little to prevent a 'market oriented' society drifting into social controls and abuses of human nature, no less than those which drove the Soviet system.


Ironically, some reviewers have adduced Buddhist teachings(i.e. the doctrine of anatman = no-self) as further confirmation of Skinner's ideas. But Buddhism only denies that there is a permanent self in the skandhas or aggregates - a materialistic self. In fact, the Buddha taught people to take refuge in the 'self' and the Dharma as an inner lamp. Buddhists do have 'interior' lives. Moreover, the Buddha accorded 'dignity' to human nature, or manusya‚- as the 'most noble of two footed beings.'

It is not anyone else's business to define what we are - in any final or absolute sense. Those who would endeavour to do so are of the same mind as those who would patent the human genome,and plan on engineering an improved version of the human race in their laboratories. The chances are that those who would play 'God' will end up doing the devil (or Mara's) work. As the Rolling Stones song said: - "Hey - you! Get offa maa cloud! "