Rachlin Howard
Stony Brook University.
J Exp Anal Behav. 2018 Jan;109(1):48-55. doi: 10.1002/jeab.273. Epub 2017 Aug 3.
The question whether talking to yourself is thinking is considered from two viewpoints: radical behaviorism and teleological behaviorism. For radical behaviorism, following Skinner (1945), mental events such as 'thinking' may be explained in terms of private behavior occurring within the body, ordinarily unobservable by other people; thus, radical behaviorism may identify talking to yourself with thinking. However, to be consistent with its basic principles, radical behaviorism must hold that private behavior, hence thinking, is identical with covert muscular, speech movements (rather than proprioception of those movements). For teleological behaviorism, following Skinner (1938), all mental terms, including 'thinking,' stand for abstract, temporally extended patterns of overt behavior. Thus, for teleological behaviorism, talking to yourself, covert by definition, cannot be thinking.
自言自语是否等同于思考这一问题，从两种观点进行了考量：激进行为主义和目的行为主义。对于激进行为主义而言，遵循斯金纳（1945年）的观点，诸如“思考”之类的心理事件可以依据身体内部发生的、通常他人无法观察到的私人行为来解释；因此，激进行为主义可能会将自言自语等同于思考。然而，为了与其基本原则保持一致，激进行为主义必须认为，私人行为，进而思考，等同于隐蔽的肌肉、言语动作（而非这些动作的本体感觉）。对于目的行为主义而言，遵循斯金纳（1938年）的观点，所有心理术语，包括“思考”，都代表公开行为的抽象、时间上延伸的模式。因此，对于目的行为主义来说，按定义是隐蔽的自言自语不可能是思考。
