Chomsky VS Skinner

A stimulus is something that describes the behaviour

We dont actually know what the stimulus is until we see the behaviour (post-hoc fallacy)

Stimulus response-theory is how languages are learned

Stimulus-response theory is too simplistic for language acquisition

Response is something that is provoked by a stimulus

The stimulus doesnt actually have to be present in order for it to be provoked, so what provokes a response in that case

Response strength is measured by the frequency & intensity of a stimulus

This does not apply to verbal behaviour (screaming "WOW! "

People do things because of reinforcement

Reinforcement is way too vague a term; it should explain why someone gives a certain behaviour, but has to include every possible behaviour, so it essentially explains nothing

Deprivation (wanting something you don’t have) explains a lot of verbal behaviour:

It can’t explain all behaviour, it’s difficult to tie complex verbal behaviours to just one need, people may exhibit verbal behaviour without deprivation

All internal states (thoughts, feelings, intentions) are irrelevant to explain behaviour

Intentions are important because they can determine responses (friend calling me an idiot)

Children learn language through reinforcement and imitation

Children mimic automatically, without reinforcement from the parents -- parents responses don’t influence the degree to which children mimic

Children need to be carefully taught language by the parents

Children learn language without actively being taught

Parents need to be conscious of teaching the child correct grammar

Children will learn correct grammar regardless