Talk:Behaviorism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 March 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fane79.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether it deserves its own section or its own page, it certainly does not belong in the Philosophy section. Indeed, the Philosophy section needs modification. While it does provide a link to the Logical behaviorism page (which, by the way, is woefully empty, which is surprising given just how much there is to say on the topic), there should at least be a brief discussion of what logical behaviorism is, and possibly how it relates to both methodological and ontological forms of behaviorism. This would probably also be an excellent place to include the criticisms launched against behaviorism by people like Hilary Putnam and Daniel Dennett. I would be happy to write this up myself if there's general agreement that these changes ought to be made. Yanssel (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This page should feature other behavior analytic techniques like habituation (desensitization/exposure therapy) in the classical conditioning section and counterconditioning (like covert (i.e., mindfulness, meditation) and overt (i.e., breathing, exercising) conditioning - although all of these behavior therapy techniques (including operant contingencies) can also be cognitive-behavioral. Further, CBTs is a discipline of behavior therapy that overlaps with behaviorism/behavior analysis and we should briefly discuss that somewhere in the body. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2022 and 25 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiaxiang Joao (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FangtianyuanHu (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@FangtianyuanHu and @Jiaxiang Joao

Hi!

You seem to have finished your studies around the 9th August.

Good luck for the last few days.

Thank you for sharing what you have learnt and researched about behaviourism.

--49.176.90.231 (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC).

This a a review for WikiEduMmuhober (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I was reviewing a recent edit by User:Bgeditor4 (Special:Diff/1112050665) where they added a brief paragraph regarding a behavioral neuroscience journal published by the APA in 1807. They seemed to use the publishing of the book and the supposed similarity between "behavioural psychology" and "behavioral neuroscience" to infer that research on behavioral psychology was conducted as early as 1807. I couldn't decide whether it would be acceptable to address this edit as unreferenced original research. PolyversialMind (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 10 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FloridaL23, Soyazhebh, Melidelgado, Taylor.collinssjsu, Cgm6196 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dkhora (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Behavioralism appears to be very similar. My instinct is that it's really the same but perhaps someone misheard the term or something? Thedonquixotic (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's... kind of the same? There's a ton of inconsistent terminology. I've seen very closely-related ideologies called behaviorism, behavioralism, and a talk by David Pearce on Arrow's theorem calls it "positivism" in the context of economics (no relation to logical positivism or positivism in sociology), where it's closely associated with the work of Lionel Robbins. The same idea appeared in all the behavioral sciences at around the same time.

I think this should be split into two articles: one on behaviorism in psychology, and another on behaviorism/behavioralism in all the behavioral sciences. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

In the first part, the cognitive revolution is told to largly replace behaviourism: "The cognitive revolution of the late 20th century largely replaced behaviorism as an explanatory theory with cognitive psychology, which unlike behaviorism views internal mental states as explanations for observable behavior." which could make it seem like behaviourism is a historical or outdated tradition in psychology. Although the article continues with explaining behaviouristic traditions after the cognitive revolution, could it be useful to early on emphasise that behaviourism didn't "die" with the cognitive tradition and that it's still a vivid tradition today? Especially since the cognitive revoultion itself is debated if it can be called a "revolution" to behaviourism or more emergent of a new tradition. 09:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 9 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WeaverJaRee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WeaverJaRee (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Why doesn't the spelling of behaviourism/behaviorism match between the body and title of the article? 207.219.24.74 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Because another IP editor went through and changed all of the "or" spellings to "our" a few days ago. I've reverted back to the default state; thanks for noticing and calling it out! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Behavioural psychology disregards or reduces conscious response as mere "behaviour". Whether free will or conscious decisions are just an illusion with a deterministic mechanism - is a different debate. I do not accept the notion that a "thought" is a "behaviour". Thoughts and feelings are causes of "behaviour" (better to say "response". "Response" is a more dignified term than "behaviour"), but by labelling thoughts and feelings as mere behaviour or output, we make 2 fundamental errors.

1. **Disregard for the process** : We mistake the "process" itself as an output.
2. **Potential misapplication** : Once thought and feelings are labelled as "behaviours", they become an industrial raw material for shaping and moulding.

We should not be oversimplifying human mind. We shouldn't ignore its internal process and mechanism. May be many part of mind's workings are still invisible in scans or imaging. Maybe there are neural encryptions and mechanisms still not known. Maybe things like qualia or perception still remain in the domain of unfalsifiability. Still as a part of scientific methodology we should acknowledge there are things we do not know, rather than drumming onto people's head about oversimplified stuff.

I would refer to Robert Sapolsky's classroom lectures on ethology (Widely available in youtube) and also I would refer to "The Pseudo-Science of BF Skinner : Robert W Proctor, Daniel J Weeks The American Journal of Psychology 103 (2), 265-274, 1990" I wish to bring it to the attention of the Wikipedia editors, that, although Behaviourist psychology helds a high regard, partly due to its historical influences, partly due to its resemblance with colonial era reductionism/skepticism/rationalism; it is fundamentally pseudoscientific in nature. It basically oversimplifies human mind to the level of a oversimplified physics system (like a gas enclosed by a piston (PV=nRT), or a spring with a bob (F=kX)), disregarding the internal computational architecture. This way, behaviorist psychology does not meet the standards of other psychology disciplines, such as Cognitive psychology, Gestalt psychology, and non-psychologists' works on mind and cognition (Esp. Alan Turing, Erwin Schrödinger). Addition: It worth mentioning that "Applied behaviour analysis", a "gold standard" therapy based on behaviourist / operant conditioning principles, has been criticized by many of its recipients, especially those are in the neurodivergent spectrum. MindMatterQualia (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @MindMatterQualia.

Having closed down your attempt to discuss this at the Teahouse, I'm going to question your approach here.

It says at the top of the page This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Behaviorism article

This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article, but I think your discussion above is getting close to that.

"Bringing [things] to the attention of the Wikipedia editors" is generally a waste of time. You are far more likely to get a useful response from somebody who knows about the field (not me!) if you propose specific changes to the article, with citations to reliable sources.

Remember that A Wikipedia article should be a neutral summary of what the majority of people who are wholly unconnected with the subject have independently chosen to publish about the subject in reliable publications, (see Golden rule) and not much else. What you know (or anybody else knows) about the subject is not relevant except where it can be verified from a reliable published source. ColinFine (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, MindMatterQualia. Seconding what Colin said. Imho, this is probably already over the line of WP:NOTFORUM. But let's give it one try: do you have a specific change in mind, either a removal of text, or an addition of text that would improve the article? Please specify the exact wording of your addition below. If a removal, indicate exactly what you would remove. You may use template {{text diff}} if it makes it easier for you. Mathglot (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)