----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Harzem
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 4:10 PM
Subject: [tips] Re: Non-biological behavior?!! (was Re: what wouldSkinner say
On Jan 20, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Christopher D. Green wrote:
(in reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seem to me that the same issues that was raised by the Little Albert experiment
could also apply to this situation.
There has been lots of talk about the ethics of the Little Albert experiment
in recent years. I even had someone who claimed to be a descendent of John
Watson e-mail me out of the blue last year asking if I knew who the descendents
of Little Albert were, so that he could personally apologize to them. Of
course, the study took place 87 years ago, when clanging a metal bar was far
from the worst that could happen to an infant. People were (rightly) more
concerned about polio, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, scarlet fever,
etc.
This is a good example of 'hysteria' about Watson and his activities that has
been going on, in and out of psychology, for decades. It is an intriguing
question as to why so many people, after all these years, continue to pursue
the idea that Watson did a lot of bad things (that he did sex experiments at
Johns Hopkins is another example -- it is a fabrication), etc., etc.
I know that there are likely to be responses to this. So, let me say that I
do not plan to get into discussion on the life and work of J. B. Watson, only
because there is much established defamation that needs to be corrected and
this cannot satisfactorily be done within the space of this list.
Thus, at this point I am content merely to to agree to disagree with those
who have different views on this topic.
Peter
I thought the ex
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
