"The consequences of an act affect the probability of it's occurring again"
About this Quote
Skinner’s line is blunt on purpose: it strips human behavior of romance and recasts it as engineering. “Consequences” isn’t moral fallout here; it’s feedback. If an action is followed by something rewarding, it becomes more likely. If it’s followed by something punishing or unrewarding, it fades. The sentence reads almost like a physical law, and that’s the point: Skinner wants psychology to feel measurable, predictable, and usable.
The subtext is a quiet argument with the popular self-image of the rational chooser. We like to believe our future actions are governed by insight, values, or “learning from experience” in a reflective sense. Skinner’s behaviorism demotes that inner narrator. What matters is the environment’s schedule of payoffs. The phrasing “probability” is doing heavy lifting, too. It doesn’t promise perfect control; it promises influence. That statistical modesty makes the claim harder to dismiss and easier to operationalize.
Context matters: mid-20th century psychology was battling over what counted as science. Introspection was suspect; Freud was expansive but unfalsifiable; Skinner arrives with boxes, levers, and data. In that world, consequence-based explanation is a declaration of method: focus on observable behavior, map contingencies, replicate.
The intent isn’t just descriptive; it’s prescriptive. If consequences shape behavior, then parenting, schooling, prisons, workplaces, even media platforms become behavioral architectures. Skinner’s sentence is the seed of modern incentive design and, depending on your politics, either a humane alternative to moralizing or a chilling blueprint for manipulation.
The subtext is a quiet argument with the popular self-image of the rational chooser. We like to believe our future actions are governed by insight, values, or “learning from experience” in a reflective sense. Skinner’s behaviorism demotes that inner narrator. What matters is the environment’s schedule of payoffs. The phrasing “probability” is doing heavy lifting, too. It doesn’t promise perfect control; it promises influence. That statistical modesty makes the claim harder to dismiss and easier to operationalize.
Context matters: mid-20th century psychology was battling over what counted as science. Introspection was suspect; Freud was expansive but unfalsifiable; Skinner arrives with boxes, levers, and data. In that world, consequence-based explanation is a declaration of method: focus on observable behavior, map contingencies, replicate.
The intent isn’t just descriptive; it’s prescriptive. If consequences shape behavior, then parenting, schooling, prisons, workplaces, even media platforms become behavioral architectures. Skinner’s sentence is the seed of modern incentive design and, depending on your politics, either a humane alternative to moralizing or a chilling blueprint for manipulation.
Quote Details
| Topic | Learning from Mistakes |
|---|---|
| Source | Later attribution: B. F. Skinner (B. F. Skinner) modern compilation
Evidence:
r the consequences of his choice none of these is conspicuous in the new scientific selfpo |
More Quotes by F. Skinner
Add to List
