I guess EY was not trying to say “Behaviorism bad” in one article, and “Behaviorism good” in another; but rather that in some places the behaviorist map is very useful, and in some places the (older version of) map is pretty funny.
Behavioral science and cognitive science had a turf war over control of psychology departments in the mid-twentieth century. We like to recite the criticisms that became tropes in that war in order to pat ourselves on the back.
I read the 2008 article as saying that a “map” of human psychology that does not including meaningful reference to internal mental states will be accurate enough to be useful only by coincidence.
Behaviorism does not include meaningful reference to internal mental states, yet the second article says that it can be a useful map.
Where exactly is the conflict?
I guess EY was not trying to say “Behaviorism bad” in one article, and “Behaviorism good” in another; but rather that in some places the behaviorist map is very useful, and in some places the (older version of) map is pretty funny.
Behavioral science and cognitive science had a turf war over control of psychology departments in the mid-twentieth century. We like to recite the criticisms that became tropes in that war in order to pat ourselves on the back.
I read the 2008 article as saying that a “map” of human psychology that does not including meaningful reference to internal mental states will be accurate enough to be useful only by coincidence.
Behaviorism does not include meaningful reference to internal mental states, yet the second article says that it can be a useful map.