Reading Memo: Behaviorism and Neo-Behaviorism

Our gaze of identifying psychological history shifted to America by the end of 19 th century. It
started from the descriptive notion of consciousness and mental process then to a viewpoint that
mental states are purpose-driven and dictated by its aim, which is survival. Psychologists were turning
their heads to the possibility that psychology could be utilized and applied that would benefit the
economy, education, American jurisprudence, and the clinic directly. The idea that psychology’s
indispensable aim was to give direct contribution to the society. I think that this rising interest in
practical questions made Freud’s Psychoanalysis disregarded during this time. Not to mention the other
uprising science of human understanding was occurring which was Behaviorism.

Watson was clear about his goal to propose a new science of psychology. For him, it was
behavior and not consciousness that should be the focal point of his scientific psychology. Thus, forming
a new definition to Psychology as the science of human behavior, not science of mental processes.
Though Watson considered the existence of consciousness, for him it cannot be measured through
scientific exploration—he gave the example of identifying one’s feelings because of its being subjective,
on the contrary to his objective take on identifying the behavior. It was nonsensical and aimless for him
to stick with the exploration of the elemental relationship of the mind. From criticizing the content
proposed by the structuralist, Watson also disapproved its method — the instrospection. For him, the
method was a failure and explained that it was not because of the observation set-up, but it is always
because of the incapable “untrained” observer. His attitude in proclaiming behaviorism was clear and for
me, a more controlling one. Moreover, Watson wanted a total independence if behaviorism would not
succeed to be its core subject matter in psychology. That’s how confident he was back then.

While Watson sounded like a controlling father, Skinner sounded like a gentle and supportive
father to me. Although he followed Watson’s ideas and also rejected the mental states as a significant
subject in psychology, he was more a hands-on scientist practitioner that engages with only one or few
subjects. Apparently, he was criticizing his contemporaries about their enthusiasm with hypothesis
testing. With its numerous subjects and averaging method, for him, it was “lacking in the experimental
analysis of behavior”, in contrary to his practice of having a few or one subject in which, for him it is the
situation that the direct analysis of behavior is being observed.

Both Watson and Skinner gave a massive resistance towards the prevailing scientific psychology
during their time, yet both had successfully evoked their ideas to the psychological community. No
doubt how they enormous works had given many effective strategies on how to handle contemporary
practical problems, such as employee management, classroom management and the like. However, in
the end, we must still reflect how this frameworks can be utilized by those in power in a way that we are
not even aware of it.