Not S-R, S-O-R

David Brooks reviews Rebecca Lemov's World As Laboratory: Experiments With Mice, Mazes and Men in today's NY Times Sunday Book Review. The book chronicles the history of the human engineering studies that flourished beginning in the early 1950s. These were the kinds of studies that formed the foundation of American behaviorism (greatly aided by the work of John Watson, B.F. Skinner and Clark Hull). Brooks' review effectively portrays the majority of these studies as ill-guided attempts at fulfilling psychology's mission to understand, predict and control human behavior.

When I was in graduate school in psychology in the late 60s, the debate over behaviorism was in full swing. The American Psychological Association was controlled by behaviorists. Behaviorism was largely an attempt to free the discipline from the control of European psychoanalysts. The prevailing sentiment was succinctly captured by my esteemed statistics professor, Lester C. Shine, Ph.D., when he said one day, "the days of the talking psychologist are over."

The fundamental model of humanity at the heart of behaviorism is simple: human beings are data processing machines; present a stimuli (S) and you will receive a predictable response (R).  Hence, this model became known as "S-R psychology."

But, as I've written about before, (interestingly, also in response to a Brooks piece) another brand of psychology was also afoot in those days. Often called the "Third Force" (to distinguish it from both psychoanalysis and behaviorism) this line of thinking rejected materialism or determinism in any form, be it Oedipal or electrical. According to this approach, the proper psychological model is not S-R, but Stimulus - Organism - Response, or, S-O-R. That little "O" makes all the difference, because it proposes that the way in which the individual experiences and gives meaning to the stimulus is the critical factor, not the stimulus "in itself." The "O" put the "person" back into psychology, the "ghost" back into the machine. Today, S-R psychology is largely discredited, but quietly making a comeback in a more insidious form of determinism: neuropsychology.

I poured hundreds of passionate hours of undergraduate and graduate argument, discussion and debate into these matters. At the time, these were for me the most important ideas confronting psychology. And, they still are. Because living in an S-R world could easily have led to the kind of Brave New World Huxley prophesied. Still could.

It's good to see a modern-day political and social thinker like David Brooks taking up issues that used to be solely the purview of specialists, and making thoughtful statements like this one:

As for today's white lab coat types who are trying to reshape the brain through drugs and neuroscience, Lemov has me looking at them in a new and much more skeptical way.

Tags: Rebecca Lemov David Brooks Behaviorism

Comments

[Connie Sartain]

Max Barry's new book Company is a response to the S-R model, I think. And of course the big O foils the S-R plan. Here's to the big O.

[Tom]

Yes, that's so right, Connie...the "Big O" definitely fouls up the S-R plan. S-R models are so neat, so predictable, but the damned O is always the fly in the Ointment!

[Michael Wagner]

I grew up in a time when the Big O was a basketball hero of mine. But I am more than willing to become a fan of the "big O" you speak of!

I appreciate your compliment directed toward David Brooks. But as one that benefits from your writings and obvious expertise - I have to say you are doing much the same!

Thanks for advancing the great conversations of life.

[Tom]

Oscar was righteously legendary.

I went to undergraduate and graduate school in Dayton, Ohio and the fans in that part of the country were serious about their basketball. There was NEVER anyone who fired their imagination like "The Big O." Smooth does not begin to capture what it was like to watch him play. I was so fortunate to live in an era to see Oscar and "The Big E," Elgin Baylor, play the game.

Then, of course, there was Michael...

But, I digress.

Thanks for the kind words, Michael.