Understanding behaviorism in the 19th century was a complex task. There were diverse opinions on the subject of behaviorism; some thought that it was a scientific study of the mind while others thought otherwise. Because of the confusion, many of the scientists turned to philosophy for an answer. One such philosophy is that of Charles Darwin on the theory of evolution; the theory drew criticism from some quarters with many getting offended while others found it impressive (Rayner & Pollatsek, 2013).
Many behaviorists agree that there can be a science of behavior. Nonetheless, there is controversy because of the fact that behaviorists have different opinions regarding the meaning of behaviorism. Some scientists refute the idea that behavior is a science related to psychology while others consider psychology as something different from behavior. Some refer to it as behavior study. Most scientists began to call psychology as the science of the mind as recently as in the final half of the 19th century. According to Rayner and Pollatsek (2013), a behaviorist is someone who demands behavioral proof for any psychological theory. Such a person knows no difference between the states of the human mind (Rayner, & Pollatsek, 2013). Some scientists define a behaviorist the philosophers’ method of introspection. Introspect, according to the authors, is imaginary from how the scientists explain it. In philosophy, behaviorism is a mental trend that can be compared with the philosophy of the mind. Therefore, the struggle that has gone on for many years is related to the definition and the understanding of behaviorism in relation to the human mind. Their conflicts in the 19th century were just too difficult to resolve since every scientist had their opinion towards defining and concluding the matter.
The strength of the article is that since behaviorism is based on the observation of behaviors, it is easy to quantify and accumulate facts and information whenever these researches are conducted. Scientists and theorists can, therefore, take pride in initiating researches of observable behavior instead of using those behaviors that are difficult to observe. The weakness is that since behaviorism is based on a one-dimensional approach to the study of human behavior, it fails to account for behaviors resulting in moods, emotions and thoughts (Rayner, & Pollatsek, 2013).
My reflective synopsis is that behaviorism is more concerned with how a person behaves than how he thinks. To a certain extent, thinking does not determine what a person decides to do because he only responds to stimuli. Everything about behaviorism can be made clear in relation to the laws of nature, considering how people respond when they are stimulated. Behaviorism seeks to understand human behaviors and not to predict and manage it; this makes it seem manipulative. The idea that we are not in control of our actions does not really make sense, though every person has a complex mind that has the ability to make decisions. Therefore, it is necessary that people apply their common senses before they can react to stimuli. However, that happens only to a small degree because in many cases an individual has no choice in their decision-making. For that reason, people cannot be studied like rodents and primates, as implied in many behavioral studies. As it is evident from the article, there is no consensus about the idea of behaviorism and whether it is of material importance to the science of psychology. Suffice is point out that it has some interesting concepts that can be applied in the field of education. For instance, the knowledge that behaviors can be modeled depending on one’s environment can be useful in altering that learning environment such that it suits the learner. Other important lessons can also be drawn from the same concept.
References
Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. (2013). Behaviorism: Definition and History. Taylor and Francis.
Retrieved from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/bpl_images/content_store/sample_chapter/9 781405112611/baum_sample%20chapter_understanding%20behaviourism.pdf
