Top products from r/BehaviorAnalysis

> It's not acknowledged because it's both mentalistic

I don't know what you mean by 'mentalistic'

> and just plain wrong to implicitly assert that the source of observed needs is not behaviour itself but, instead, some kind of as-yet undefined entity related to the categories/classes of behaviour labelled as "attachment styles".

Okay, let's unpack this.

A behavior is something you do, an action, or an attitude toward something. It can be a single thing, or it can be a repeated pattern.
Do we agree on this? You are welcome to propose your own definition if you wish.

A need is a drive stemming from how our brain and body is wired, develops and thrive and that is required for us to survive or to thrive.
Do we agree on this? There are decades of studies on needs, weather it is the overly simplified Maslow Pyramid model or any other, but the key here is that it is an essential drive, although it can be an unconscious drive.

A desire is an impulse someone has, before that impulse translates (or not) into a behavior.

Both needs and desires may trigger various behaviors.

So far, are good?

Now let's pick it apart.

> ... to implicitly assert that the source of observed needs ...

Needs rarely are observable. The behavior, being a concrete action, is often observable. Needs aren't.
If you are hungry, you can observe a lot of different behavior stemming from that need; but "hungryness" isn't observable in and of itself. What you observe are only the manifestations of that need.

Needs don't have a "source", or at least an external one.
Needs stems from how your body and your brain develops and function.

Needing oxygen to breath doesn't come from an outside source, it comes from how your body works to keep you alive.
So are any needs.

> some kind of as-yet undefined entity related to the categories/classes of behaviour labelled as "attachment styles".

First, attachment isn't a "style". You are mixing up with "parenting style". Attachment and parenting styles are two different things, although they may be inter-related, since certain parenting style may promote more or less secure attachments.

Second, attachment isn't a class of behavior. It's more a kind of relationship.
Some kind of relationships may or may not allow some of your fundamental needs to be met.
No child can grow up properly, no brain can mature properly without this special relationship with a caregiver.

And third, it's not "as-yet undefined", it's supported by decades of research, first by researcher Ainsworth and Bowlby, then later by several new branches of study in neurobiology, as MRI scans have shown a direct link between attachment type and brain hemisphere development.

> I'd love to hear about this entity that controls a child's needs.

Like I said, it doesn't "control" a child's need. However it's fundamental to a child's developing brain architecture as it is the basis of meeting the child's needs required for growth. If you are sincerely interested into learning more, there are a gazillion books on the topic; here is on:
Parenting from the inside out, from Dr Seigel & Hartzell

> Do adults have this entity within them as well?

It is not an "entity", like I said, it's a relationship.
And yes, as adult, we are heavily influenced by the kind of attachment we had with our parents and this in turn has a huge impact on how we approach new relationships in our adult life, from spouse to our own children as parents. To make a story short (because the are studies upon studies on this), the attachment you had with your parents has a 70% predictor for the outcome of how you will bond and the kind of relationship you have with your loved one as an adult, and with your own children. This stems from how the brain's hemispheres connections are building up as you grow up with secure or insecure attachments, which in turn will over or under develop certain part of the brain (we know this from MRI studies) . I could develop more on that if you are genuinely interested to hear more.

> On another note, your verbal behaviour suggesting that behaviourists might raise their children "as if they were dogs or pigeons" is wholly inappropriate

I was attacking the discipline, not the people using it. But yes it is true, it certainly could have been said with less salt and in a more gentle manner.
Behaviorism remains a very useful discipline to help children coping with various special needs; and it is also very useful when combined to other disciplines as treatment for various pathological conditions; but as a tool for parenting, it unfortunately bypass all notions of cognition, applying rules that were discovered for animals onto children as if they follow the same conditions. In my life as a parent educator and family counselor, the far reaching influence of that first discipline of psychology has had an immense and powerful negative consequence on millions of parents worldwide, justifying practices that are found today to be down right damageable to children.

The author of that advice could have written something like: "When it comes to simply addressing the behavior itself, behavioral science shows 4 different category of intervention"... without attempting to tell parents that there are really only those 4 ways of handling children's behavior, tearing down every single other disciplines along the way.

Nothing seems particularly problematic with your post, but some issues I had would be:

>It is a theory (but a strong one, like gravity) that all organisms will be more likely to do an action that is reinforced.

Which theory are you discussing? You were discussing behavioral psychology, then seemed to claim it's a theory. I assume you're referring to something like the law of effect? If so, then the way you've stated it is obviously a little simplistic (as behavior is also affected by antecedents and other factors unrelated to consequences) but mostly correct. The only real issue I'd have with it is that it seems to be saying that all behavior follows this principle, when of course it only applies to learnt behavior. Innate behaviors or genetic predispositions aren't determined by their relative consequences.

>I can also train a rat to choose to do the same action repeatedly for hours, or to choose to do any complex series of tasks. It is for that reason that I do not believe in free will, and think that though we have more influences on our choices than a rat (how we feel, the desire to be random), if we had the entire situation on lockdown, knew every particle, we would be able to completely figure out what any human would choose to do.

This would only disprove libertarian free will - the idea that our behavior is free of influence from external causes. The problem, however, is that the question of free will is a metaphysical issue, and so can't really be answered with science. This is why there are still compatibilist theories out there where the fact that behavior is determined by external forces makes no difference to them.

You might be interested in George Ainslie's "Breakdown of Will", as it's the perspective of a behaviorist who argues for the existence of free will.

>Especially when you think about it on a universe-wide scale, the idea that the universe is non-deterministic because of little organisms on some planet in the milky way galaxy... seems unlikely. Don't put humans on a pedestal when we are but a wisp of intergalactic rubbish.

Well, we know that the universe isn't deterministic already, even without taking humans into account. The universe, and the behavior of things within it, is probabilistic which essentially means there is a random or stochastic element inherent to the workings of the universe that makes perfect prediction impossible. Importantly, this inability to perfectly predict phenomena is not due to imperfect knowledge.

Behavior, it seems, is also probabilistic and this is why the theories we use to understand, control and predict it are probabilistic. For example, the generalised matching law (the quantification of the law of effect) is a probabilistic equation, not a deterministic one. This isn't a problem for scientists or behaviorists, it just requires us to understand that the universe (and behavior) doesn't work in a Newtonian clockwork sense.

However, I do agree with your general point that people often try to suggest humans are an exception to the workings of the universe as a part of special pleading, rather than any serious or valid argument.

With all that said, I don't believe in free will either, I just think that we have to be careful not to misuse science and try to apply it to situations where it's not entirely applicable. Scientific findings can be interesting, and even sometimes useful when used to inform our positions, but ultimately to answer the question of free will we need philosophy.

No problem, friend. I'm actually a computer engineering student right now, and with any luck I'll get a masters in electrical in a few years. I learned about behavioural psych when I happened to take psychology as an elective, and my professor happened to do it professionally. One of the reasons I love it so much is that before learning about it, I had gone deep into all sorts of other fields of psych in some weird attempt to change myself/find "answers"/understand others and it only truly lead me to confusion at best, and dread at worst. Then I found out about this strictly empirical and evidence based approach to it and thought "woah, this actually makes sense", and after reading about self-management it was like I finally found what I was looking for.


About that book, if you look at the 10th edition on amazon, you'll find that it's pretty pricey. Not to worry, you can find an past edition for about 10 bucks used. You can also check other used book sites like abebooks or thriftbooks. I personally bought the 9th edition for myself, but I've read the 6th edition too since it's at my uni library, and even that one is perfectly fine, you won't be missing much at all. (If I'm being totally nitpicky, I think I'd go with the 6th edition, because in the 9th edition I noticed they incorporated and emphasized some non behavioural research. It's totally minor though. I just get super particular about books.) I feel like I have to type that out as a footnote whenever I rec that book lol.

Start with the VB-MAPP. It’s really not that difficult to understand. Buy yourself 1 copy of the workbook and use it as a guide to write individualized treatment plans. Not everything in it is useful for every child though, particularly higher functioning kids so you will need to come up with your own goals as well. Just get out there and start gaining the experience and confidence. You will get there eventually. Also, if you need help studying, The CBA Learning Modules helped me tremendously to pass the test. They are expensive but worth it. Here are some more good resources I found helpful when I was in school.

Teaching Language to Children With Autism or Other Developmental Disabilities https://www.amazon.com/dp/0981835651/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_knMqAbP298N1D

The Verbal Behavior Approach: How to Teach Children with Autism and Related Disorders https://www.amazon.com/dp/1843108526/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_9nMqAbDP5Q2SP

Both of these are fairly easy reads with good information. The second book I have given to parents as part of their training to help them understand basic concepts they can apply at home.

FIT may be a reach, but the usual advice is to apply to several programs in equal thirds of the following categories (programs that you’ll definitely be admitted to, programs that you’ll probably be admitted to, & programs that are a reach).

I think taking the GRE is a great idea! You should also strongly consider taking a study course.

The APA publishes data on GPA, GRE, etc. for almost every graduate program in America. APA Graduate Study

Good luck!

I think it’s important to ensure that we account for these types of static variables as part of the constellation of variables that influence behavior. If we are to understand behavior wholly (I.e. determinism), then we should aim to understand the functional context in which the behavior occurs. That includes culture, making these demographics important.

Here are a few books I prefer on the topic here:

Biglan- changing cultural context:

Changing Cultural Practices: A Contextualist Framework for Intervention Research https://www.amazon.com/dp/1878978225/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_McF2DbRCYRNTN

Guerin: - how to rethink human behavior:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1138123382/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_WgF2DbKPZPRWZ

I hope this helps on the topic.

Unstuck and on target

https://www.amazon.com/Unstuck-Target-Executive-Curriculum-Flexibility/dp/1598572032

Smart but scattered

https://www.amazon.com/Smart-but-Scattered-Revolutionary-Executive/dp/1593854455

Flexible and focused (written by Adele Najowski, a behavior analyst)

https://www.amazon.com/Flexible-Focused-Individuals-Specialties-Behavioral/dp/0128098333

An explanatory fiction is Skinner's word for hypothetical construct. It's a little harder to make a distinction between what is testable and what isn't. For example, reinforcement, a construct, is testable because it is verifiable as a description of events we can observe; it is also an explanation for changes in behavior. Conversely, the brain as a computer is an explanatory fiction. As a hypothetical construct, it has heuristic value, as in, it leads a research agenda. But it isn't real. It is just useful. Skinner, specifically, wrote a lot about the follies of chasing hypotheticals. Since the brain isn't a computer, nor does it operate like one, attempts to prove that it is/does is a poor use of research resources. Now, personally, I don't wholly agree with Skinner here. Sometimes useful advances in science have occurred from hypothetical deduction; that doesn't mean that a lot of deductive research agendas are successful--probably more are not useful.

I recommend reading either of the below books, or both, as your question, while seemingly straight forward, takes one well into the philosophy of behavior analysis--radical behaviorism.

Radical Behaviorism: The Philosophy and the Science https://www.amazon.com/dp/0962331147/ref=cm_sw_r_oth_awd_kJTOwb9FZ7MCX

Conceptual Foundations of Radical Behaviorism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1597380113/ref=cm_sw_r_oth_awd_kHTOwbNG1KPZB


Also, I have no idea why they are so expensive. The Jay Moore book is more of a text, so the price might be what it is. The second, I think I paid $20 or so for it, not $600.

Good on you!

You can't become a "registered behavior technician" and work with your own child but you can absolutely get the 40 hour training and have a consulting BCBA that trains, supervises, and updates the program for you.

Some other useful resources for implementing your own program are the classic Maurice and Green book and Mary Barbera's book and courses for "gung ho parents."

This covers a lot of what CHH covers but it's easier to read and less clinical

Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures Wadsworth Publishing https://www.amazon.com/dp/1305109392/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdb_o9WYzb9462W2V

I used this book which has 2 practice tests in it. If you have the modules, then I'd recommended studying them if you're doing poorly on their practice test. Taking another test will not improve your score if you don't know the material.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1519716249/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480964338&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=bcba+practice+exam

Behavior Analysis for Lasting Change: https://www.amazon.com/Behavior-Analysis-Lasting-Change-Mayer/dp/1597380326

These!

http://www.amazon.com/Toysmith-Super-Stacking-Tops-Kit/dp/B000ICZ8IY

I once found some that lit up, too. Can't remember where though :/