 Alright folks, we're back with More Behavior Beast as I'm sure you figured out that these are behavior beast series by now because Brad and I are not sitting behind a table, we're standing outside and that seems to be a theme. I don't know why. It's not really a theme but we just got tired of sitting behind tables. Which totally is a beautiful segue into operant behavior, specifically into Skinner's radical behaviorism. Now the first thing you need to understand right now, like get this, get it or I have to do something harmful to this tree. That radical does not mean extreme, it means different. It's different than Watson's behaviorism. Radical behaviorism folks, different behaviorism. Why is it different? Because it is. Just leave it at that. We like circular arguments. No, stop. No, we don't like circular arguments. I'll give you a reason why it's different. Because it addresses voluntary behavior, what do you think about that? Because I'm sure most of you have went, Watson is amazing, except for the fact he doesn't really explain voluntary behavior. It's all reflexive. And because Watson was Watson, he thought it was all reflexive. So should we leave it at that? You go, oh, I know what you should do. You should go watch the video on Watson's behaviorism, which is really cool. It's really short, but it's really cool. So Skinner's behaviorism is drastically different, hence the term radical. It's not extreme. It's not like radical, you know, religion or something like that. It is not that sort of thing. It is completely and solely about a thoroughgoing analysis of behavior. Ooh, I caught it, right? Okay, so we're going to go in there when we're going to talk about experimental analysis of behavior, right? So let's back up a wee bit. So you got Watson, great with the reflexive stuff. Skinner comes out and says, you know, that's all well and good. And we'll call that stuff respondent behavior. But we need to have this other issue. We need to address how organisms engage in voluntary responses. Other psychologists of his day had thought about this as well. They weren't, it's not like Skinner was the first one to make this stuff, right? So other people had thought about how do we explain voluntary behavior? How do we react to Watson? Ooh, and they did so by proposing hypothetical constructs, things like mind, things like cognitive processes, all these things that fill in the gaps that lead you to understanding how an organism engages in a response that they choose to engage in, like me wiggling my hands or even using the words that I use, right? So other psychologists, other than Watson, other than Skinner, proposed hypothetical constructs. Skinner said, not going to happen. We're not going to play with those hypothetical constructs. Why? They're not scientific. Enter, you know, Ernst Mock and John Locke and all those folks and the people that influence Skinner's thinking and he went and took it a whole step further. He kind of wrapped the whole thing up in a package and said this respondent stuff is great. We got to add the operant stuff. We're not going to do using hypothetical constructs. We're going to use it by explaining an understanding variable in its understanding behavior in its context. The variable is called the environment. This is the world in which we operate, right? The wind going, Brad's fancy clothes that he's wearing, the river flowing, all of it is a variable, right? And those are the environmental variables that we operate, as organisms operate in and on. I just did it. I got you to there, right? Did you catch it? I got you to operant behavior. Operant behavior is voluntary behavior. Why do we call it operant? Because the behavior operates on the environment. Makes a noise, right? I could pick at this and oh, there I broke some bark, right? So behavior operates on the environment and in turn, the environment operates on your behavior. So if I engage in some task, if that task is successful, whatever that means, right? So that's a hypothetical. We're not going to really go there, but I'm just trying to explain it. Then I'll be more likely to continue that task. I just set up a three-term contingency for you, folks. The antecedent, the stuff that goes that happens, right? The context, environment, the behavior that you engage in, and the response to that behavior, what happens after you engage in the behavior, right? So if I climb the tree about halfway up, and I go whoops, and I slip, right? So that the consequence is going to be me hitting the ground. I may or may not try that again. I may or may not go back up that tree. There's all sorts of things that we could try to study and evaluate about what might make me continue to climb the tree. But the point being that all behavior produces some form of consequence. Some of those consequences are reinforcing. Some of them are punishing, right? Some of them, there's like nothing, right? So extinction or nothing happens. There's other things out there. All of this stuff that we're going to talk about here is about that. So about those consequences. So what we really need to worry about then is one thing. Experimental analysis of behavior. Radical behaviorism in Skinner. That's three things, oops. So anyway, no, experimental analysis of behavior. This is the area that Skinner invented to study operant conditioning. In other words, to study voluntary behavior and to apply the scientific method and scientific principles to the understanding of all behavior of all organisms, not just rats, not just pigeons, and not just humans, but all of those included, among with all the other species that are out there. So Skinner's behaviorism is radical behaviorism. It's different. It involves voluntary responses. It also involves the respondent stuff, which it borrows from Pavlov and all those fun things. So anyway, I think that's about it for this one. There's more later. Subscribe, please. Please. We're getting hungry. Thanks. See you.