2007-10-25 "No one's passing out the M&M's"

Major concerns of this book are the way we are treated in school and at work. Here are some statements about these matters whose truth struck me:

"Aside from any immediate return, we have to note the possible long-term effect of education."

"... we have to explain the behavior of those who pay for or approve those who teach.

"... the use of a standard wage as something which may be discontinued unless the employee works in a given manner is not too great an advance [from slavery]."

These concerned statements are not from Alfie Kohn: they are B.F. Skinner's, from his 1953 work "Science and Human Behavior". Kohn's book relies a lot on an unusually harsh way of presenting that science.

Alfie Kohn mentioned in the preface taking a psychology class based on Skinner's experimental work with rats and seemed put off by it. But the work with rats was just a start for Skinner and apparently a sound one: working with an apparently "simpler" organism gave Skinner a chance to uncover many principles. Hardly enough to "explain away" people - or rats. And these principles were present long before Skinner, just as evolution was present (at least for evolutionists) long before Darwin.

Although some of Skinner's works are cited as references for this book, Skinner's 1953 "Science and Human Behavior" isn't to be found among the references even though a entire section of it on "Controlling Agencies" is devoted to understanding the way schools, workplacees, governments, religion, and psychotherapist use control. Skinner knew that being ignorant of controls was unwise. Ahd he wrote about it because didn't want you to be ignorant about control.

"Punished by Rewards" seems like two book in one.

The first is a concern, not unlike Skinner's and probably most of us who have been to school and work, against being manipulated. That seems a good concern but hardly a concern one needs Kohn to point out. I'd trust you would see those problems yourself and, if motivated, I'm sure you could find ways to address them (and, to some extent, likely have).

The second book is a smearing of Skinner and Behaviorism, which Kohn associates closely with what he calls "pop behaviorism". What's "pop behaviorism"? Kohn writes its core is "Do this and you'll get that". Sound modern? Oddly, he admits that "rewards were in use long before a theory was devised to explain and systemize their practice". He also refers to "the popular version of behaviorism, whereby we try to solve problems by offering people a goody if they do what we want." Haven't people been doing this for thousands of years? Did they need Skinner and behaviorists to learn that? Is Skinner and the behaviorists responsible if abuses of their findings were made?

It was, after all, Skinner who noted many manipulations and sought to help us all to overcome them , as in "Science and Human Behavior" and his concerns about piecework and gambling systems. It was, after all, Skinner, who encouraged people to join together to design and live in alternative societies, as with his book "Walden Two". It was Skinner who warned against misguided practices that threaten all humanity in "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". The Skinner willing to explore being "beyond freedom and dignity" was the same Skinner who taught us about controlling agencies in "Science and Human Behavior".

In the preface, Kohn writes that Skinner "would have been appalled by the result", meaning this book. I'm not so sure. I think it is more likely that Skinner would have agreed with much of it for much the same reasons that W. Edwards Deming did, that it notes misuses of control. And if Skinner could brush off Chomsky's criticism by recognizing Chomsky didn't understand Skinner's work, there can be no doubt that he could have brushed off Kohn's criticism. When asked before this book was published, he was kind enough to interview with Kohn. Skinner, 80 years old, answers a series of pointed questions (included as an Appendix to this book) with ease, grace, wit and sensitivity.

Why Kohn felt the need to use Skinner and Behaviorism as punching bags in a book about rewards I don't know. It seems inconsistent with Kohn's concerns about competition and manipulation, doesn't it? Skinner and Behaviorism is, in good part, about reinforcement: reinforcments may not be rewards and rewards may not be reinforcements.

As to "pop behaviorism", a term which seems closely tied to Kohn, that describes a way of manipulating that goes back to the snake with Eve. Skinner's Radical Behaviorism appears to offer far better tools to understand and avoid "pop behaviorism" than Kohn does. But rather than oppose the two, I wish Kohn would reconsider Skinner's Radical Behaviorism, in which case he might be able to write a truly fine book by applying Skinner's work as well as learning from Skinner's maturity, depth of thought, and sense of fair play.