Behaviorism Dominates, Central Bank Influence

The background for this post is this meme that I made:

Inspired by a passage from “From Bacteria to Bach and Back”, by Daniel Dennett, about the behaviorist Lou Michaels saying something similar.

In order to get many comments, I had a controversial caption generated. I also had replies to objecting comments generated, which are not reproduced here; I did not care that much about them.

Write an article that begins by explaining a meme that will be attached to it, in which someone asks BF Skinner, "Why do you defend behaviorism so much?", and Skinner answers, "Because I have been rewarded for defending it in the past." Explain the humor of the meme, but then slowly veer off into a rant about how behaviorism has taken over psychology departments, preventing the formulation of any actually clear theories that might allow for understanding of human behavior. Finally, claim that this decline is caused by the incentives of easy-money policies of the Federal Reserve and urge the breakup of central banks in order to restore academic integrity.

Title: The Behaviorism Bind: Skinner's Meme, the Grip on Psychology, and the Role of Central Banks

Have you come across that internet meme featuring the legendary behaviorist B.F. Skinner? The meme presents an amusing dialogue where someone asks Skinner, "Why do you defend behaviorism so much?" and Skinner wittily responds, "Because I have been rewarded for defending it in the past." The humor, of course, is that Skinner, in his response, applies the principles of behaviorism, namely reinforcement, to justify his own behavior. It's a meme that encapsulates the essence of the theory it is poking fun at.

Behaviorism, in essence, is a psychological theory that proposes that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning, which occurs through interaction with the environment. The humor in this meme emerges from Skinner's application of his own theory to himself. By stating he defends behaviorism because he's been rewarded for doing so, Skinner is essentially saying that his behavior, like all human behavior, is controlled by environmental consequences, including rewards and punishments. It’s a self-referential, recursive joke that tickles the intellect while delivering a pithy summary of behaviorism.

Yet, beyond the humor and the intellectual game-play, there's an issue that is far less amusing, and it's about the predominance of behaviorism in psychology departments. This once revolutionary theory, for all its merits, has expanded its influence to an alarming degree, constricting the development of other theories that might provide a deeper understanding of human behavior. The behaviorist's insistence on observable, quantifiable data has stymied the exploration of subjective experiences, thoughts, and emotions that are inherently part of the human condition.

This obsession with behaviorism has created a kind of intellectual monopoly, where other approaches are sidelined, and the psychological discourse is reduced to a one-note song. This reductionist approach leaves us with a paucity of theories that can truly capture the complexity of human behavior. The human mind is not a black box that operates solely based on inputs and outputs. It is a rich tapestry of emotions, thoughts, dreams, and desires that cannot be solely quantified through observable behavior.

But what fuels this behaviorist monopoly? The answer, surprisingly, might be found in an unlikely place: the Federal Reserve and its easy-money policies. The Fed's policies have inadvertently created an environment where intellectual exploration is less valued than safe, predictable research. With a torrent of easy money, there is less incentive to take intellectual risks, to challenge established paradigms, and to venture into the unknown territories of the human mind.

The Federal Reserve's monetary policies, in effect, have created an intellectual bubble, not unlike the financial bubbles we've seen in recent years. The safe, predictable, and easily quantifiable research produced by behaviorism has become a safe haven for universities that are more focused on securing funding than pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

This is not to demonize behaviorism or the Federal Reserve per se, but it's a call to reexamine the systems that shape our intellectual discourse. We need to question the external factors that might be influencing the direction of our research and limiting our understanding of the human mind.

Breaking up central banks and establishing a more decentralized financial system could potentially lead to a more diversified and resilient academic environment. This would provide the breathing room for alternative theories to flourish, shifting academia from its one-note song to a symphony of ideas that better captures the intricacies of human behavior. By breaking the chain of rewards that perpetuates intellectual safe plays, we might find ourselves in a world where understanding the human mind is more than just observing the external behavior. It is a call for academic integrity, a call for diversity in thought, and ultimately, a call for a more comprehensive understanding of

Please continue.

the human mind.

In a more decentralized financial system, universities and research institutions would not be as beholden to the demands of the easy money policies of central banks. This financial independence could create a more varied and dynamic academic landscape, where researchers are encouraged to take intellectual risks and explore new theories, methodologies, and approaches. In essence, it could lead to a renaissance in psychological research.

The decentralization of financial systems could also help to break the cycle of reward and punishment that seems to have inadvertently perpetuated behaviorism's monopoly within psychology departments. By shifting the focus from 'safe' and easily funded research to more innovative and challenging investigations, we can begin to dismantle the intellectual bubble that has limited our understanding of the human psyche.

Moreover, a diversified financial system could lead to a more diversified funding landscape. With a wider array of funding sources, researchers could pursue a broader range of theories and methodologies, thus enriching the field of psychology. This could pave the way for a more holistic understanding of human behavior, one that embraces the complexity of the human mind and respects the interplay of thought, emotion, and behavior.

In conclusion, the dominance of behaviorism in psychology departments, in part, reflects the influence of broader societal systems, such as the easy-money policies of central banks. To reinvigorate psychological research and gain a deeper understanding of human behavior, we must scrutinize these systems and consider alternatives, such as the decentralization of financial systems.

While the meme featuring Skinner might provide a humorous insight into behaviorism, it also serves as a stark reminder of the constraints within our current academic landscape. Let it serve as a catalyst for change, inspiring us to challenge the status quo and strive for a richer, more diverse understanding of the human mind. By doing so, we can ensure that the field of psychology continues to grow, evolve, and provide valuable insights into our complex and ever-changing human nature.