Please answer the following questions. 1.) In Baum & Heath (1992) the difference
Please answer the following questions.
1.) In Baum & Heath (1992) the differences of I vocabulary and P vocabulary are discussed. Skinner preferred P (or physical) vocabulary, since it was based off of behavior. Are there any instances in which behavior analysts would prefer I vocabulary?
2.) Diller & Lattal (2008) had shared a variety of similarities and differences between Radical Behaviorism and Buddhism. In this, Skinner describes the self as “an organized system of responses.” My question is, do you think that personality is created by an organized system of responses that occur throughout ones’ life?
3.) In the same article, Baum felt that radical behaviorism is a philosophy of science, and that science deals with natural events. With this logic, does that consider radical behaviorism to be a philosophy of natural events when looking at the origin of behavior?
4.) Chiesa, (1994) explains that behavior analysts do not use motivation when referring to a mediating entity between an independent variable and behavior, and instead classifies the motivator as the independent variable. How do establishing and abolishing operations play into this? If an organism is working for food, and they have recently been deprived of food, then the food will likely be more reinforcing. The deprivation seems like a mediator to me in this example.
5.) Skinner (1984) talks about how the verbal community provides reinforcement when the speaker omits the correct response to the correct stimuli. In the reading, the example is a child says red when in the presence of something red. Both the verbal community and the speaker’s responses are to the red thing. This is how the speaker learns or continues to learn, what the color red looks like, and what they can tact as red. How does a child learn about private events when they do not understand the terms an older individual has learned. Skinner answeres this with an example of pain. If an individual says, “That hurts” and there is a public accompany to the private stimuli of pain, then the verbal community can reinforce the correct tact of the private stimuli. But how does a child learn when there is no public accompaniment? Is it possible for a child to have a different (wrong?) description of private stimuli that perhaps should not have been reinforced by the verbal community but was?