Question

Create a 1 page mini debate transcript for these two students:

Imagine this scenario: You are attending a local psychology conference and you find two graduate level psychology students entered in a hot debate, with a crowd of people around them. You are curious and come closer to see what everyone is interested in. You find that they are debating the work and personality of BF Skinner. One of the students, Rick Nilsen claims that Skinner was a cool headed scientist who based his opinions about the human being only on observable behavior. The other student, Blanca Alvarez, says that Skinner was not just as simple as he seemed. He believed in behaviorism, just like other people believed in Marxism or any other –ism. • What points would each one make?

Answer 1

Solution:

The transcript key is as below-

Rick Nilsen would be mentioned as RN in the transcript

Blanca Alvarez would be mentioned as BA in the transcript

RN: Skinner did give more weight to observable behavior as he did always compare the human sciences with the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry, for he believed in the prowess of empirical evidence.

BA: Although, he could be labeled as an empiricist, he did have an approach towards comprehending the behaviors of humans on the basis of their interaction with their given immediate environment, which goes beyond the realms of mere empiricism, and capture hence a deeper level of understanding behaviorism.

RN: That is deduction made from the subsequent research and not the inherent believes and functionality of Skinners. He had an innately different view and didn't have an opinions of something going beyong as he did not give more attention to the covert than he did to the overt.

BA: Skinner was of the mere belief that extrapolation of facts could be detrimental to a certain theory as researchers across attempt an explanation and have the wrong interpretation. He was cautious.

RN: Skinner probably dislodged the internal states and paid attention to the external, overt behavior because he couldn't possibly go wrong with observable behavior, so, yes, he was being cautious and losing out on vital components that could aid in better gauging behaviorism - which would be the internal mental processes of a human being.