Radical Behaviorist Critique

Radical behaviorism is a branch of psychological study that postulates that human "behavior" is at the integral part of psychological study. Unlike other disciplines such as cognitive psychology that concentrates on internal factors such as thoughts or rather obsessive preoccupations, behaviorism theory only considers the "observable" factors of the outside environment. In this paper, I analyze the strengths and weaknesses of radical behaviorism in light of cognitive psychological theory. Skinner who relied on Behaviorist Revolution advanced the theory that preceded philosophical argument that was presented by Watson.

Fuentes (2000) traces the philosophical origin of the Skinner theory to empiricism and positivism. On the other hand, he argues out that its epistemological paradigm bear direct relationship to objectivism where reality dwells from without the individual, and knowledge is simply an illusion of reality (Fuentes, 2000). Skinner's Radical Behaviorism was anchored in the notion that learning is a product of change that is orchestrated by behavior observed over some time. In fact, variations in behavior are factors of individual's reactions to stimuli that take place in their surroundings.

Therefore, reinforcement stands out as the fundamental component of Skinner's theory. In this respect, a reinforcer is any factor that fortifies the sought after response. Examples of positive reinforcement include positive affirmations such as a pat on the back, a congratulatory statement, or a nod of the head (Russell & Cohn, 2012). Similarly, Skinner's theory encompasses negative reinforcers, as the elimination of positive reinforcement that contradicts from repelling stimuli. The Skinner's theory further concentrates on the timings of reinforcements and their impacts on developing and preserving behavior.

One of the unique features of Skinner's arguments is that it strived to offer behavioral accounts for a wide range of cognitive phenomena. For instance, Skinner explained the motivation-based deprivation and reinforcement timings (Fuentes, 2000). Operant conditioning is a process that has been applied intensively, especially in clinical setup. Examples of this include behavior modification, teaching in a classroom setting, and instructional development that entails giving out a programmed instruction. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that Skinner stood against theories that propagated the learning concept.

There are various principles that describe behavior management. To begin with is the idea of fortifying or weakening operant behavior. In the fortified case, any behavior that is reinforced positively will reoccur later. This reinforcement is further made effective through intermittent reinforcement such as addiction to gambling (Deubel, 2003). Secondly, the information that aims at developing behavior should be given in small "doses" so that the impacts of the new behavior can be long-lived. However, weakening a response is achieved through aversive stimulus, which, in general terms, is described as punishment.

Essentially, punitive action tends to minimize the response rate in observed behaviors. Eventually, the effectiveness of the response tends to be short-lived and may end up being totally forgotten. A point worth noting is that reinforcements eventually build across same stimuli, thereby resulting in secondary conditioning (Russell & Cohn, 2012). Radical behaviorism is regarded as an effective technique for self-learning: the student is expected to focus on clear goals and demands in order to respond autonomously when a situation occurs.

For example, soldiers are trained and conditioned to respond to the silhouettes of adversary planes to the extent that their reaction is more or less automatic in nature (Fuentes, 2000). Despite the strong points of radical behaviorism, various limitations cast Skinner's theory negatively. For example, the learner could be in a circumstance where the stimulus for triggering correct reaction does not take place. The expected effect is that there can never be adequate proof that learning took place (Deubel, 2003). Radical behaviorism has also fallen short of explaining some given social behavior.

For example, not all kids imitate the behaviors that were reinforced to them. On the contrary, they could end up developing a new pattern of behavior following an observation process that lacked the reinforcements. It is because of such observations that Deubel (2003), for instance, argues on the sole proof of operative conditioning, where the kid is expected to exhibit a certain form of reaction coupled with reinforcements before learning occurs. Furthermore, an individual can embrace new behaviors by simply observing the behavioral characteristics of a third party.

In fact, this inspired the cognitive-social theory (Deubel, 2003). The idea of cognitive platform is fundamental in cognitive theory. The platforms or structures explain the patterns of physical or mental reaction describing some intelligent action congruent with the stages of child development. It is evident that subjectivism is part of epistemological paradigm where reality is found and developed by the learner, whereas knowledge is a human construction that is attained through consensus.

Essentially, there are four fundamental cognitive structures and development stages, including sensorimotor, pre-operations, concrete operations, and formal operations (Russell & Cohn, 2012). Skinner's perspective to comprehending learning and behavior is largely explained using the analogy of the learner as a black box. In this case, the learner is viewed as a black box and getting to know what components the learner is made up of is indispensable in the determination of the manner behavior is influenced by its surroundings antecedents and consequences.

Cognitive Theory in broader terms, and more so Genetic Epistemology, has one common goal; this is the acquisition of new knowledge as well as interactions between the various forces in the environment. The two theories endeavor to understand the internal processes, some of which include memory, language, and the way of reasoning. Essentially, their core argument is that the mind, instead of external stimulus, plays a significant role in controlling a person (Fuentes, 2000).

As argued out by Deubel (2003), the perception of mental condition as actions, contrary to being regarded as an indication of consciousness, offer fundamental variation between behavioral and cognitive theories. He asserts that behaviorism is associated with the body, unlike the cognitive psychology that is associated with the mind. Some of the cognitive concepts include knowledge structures.