Skinner, About Behaviorism, "Radical Behaviorism"Skinner formulated his own type of behaviorism called radical behaviorism, which, unlike conventional behaviorism, does not accept exclusive situations, including thinking, individual perceptions, and unobservable feelings and sensations in a causal consideration of behavior. However, radical behaviorists don't reject the concept of introspection, but rather they bridged the gap between methodological psychologists and mentalists by allowing for observations which, in combination with the environment, produce behavior. The admonition is that radical behaviorists question both the true nature of our environment and our ability to observe it accurately. Through an understanding of our environment and the role it plays, they argue that the mental components of behavior can be sifted out and in turn, be determined by consequence. This revolutionary concept of behaviorism takes into account those contemplations which occur exclusively inside of the individual as well as their practicality. However, Skinner's main purpose is to question precisely what is experienced and its importance on behavior, which actually reinforces the idea of self-analysis, although not exactly in the way that previous behaviorists assumed. Skinner argues that conventional behaviorists may have failed to recognize some important factors of behavior, therefore inaccurately measuring the causes of behavior. This brings about the issue concerning just how much of an individual's behavior its possible to legitimately detect. While we could consider those aspects of behavior, such as free will, memories, or certain interpretations, it would be difficult to prove that those internal contemplations alone trigger particular behaviors. Methodological behaviorists reject the idea of ever understanding those internal components, and as a consequence, they neglected to factor that into the equation of behavior. At the same time, the methodological behaviorists opposed the mentalists who claimed that external influences were insignificant. Furthermore, Skinner insists that the basis of mentalism is problematic to the extent that the causes of these cognitions can be traced to the environment, however these cognitions still remain. He then suggests that both mentalism and methodological behaviorism are incomplete, however that both have some application to radical behaviorism since it is, in essence, a combination of the two. Skinner argues that while these internal factors of behavior should be considered, this analysis often becomes controversial because some may contribute to behavior, while others may be disregarded as irrelevant or useless. Whenever an individual's actions are considered to be the result of solely what's happening inside of him without consideration of external factors, no accurate explanation of behavior can be obtained. More concisely, Skinner acknowledged the possible influence of thought processes, beliefs, and desires on behavior while still admitting that they are prescientific principles with no valid applications in science.The environment has undoubtedly influenced man simply through evolution, however this doesn't influence the individual in the same way throughout his life, therefore the interaction of both of these components of behavior account for the individual's behavior. Being aware of these two environmental effects makes it possible to anticipate and regulate behavior including the way an individual generally behaves throughout the day. Thus, it is possible to alter an individual's behavior by altering either of these two factors. The more that we attempt to understand the impact of the environment on behavior, the more we will be able to effectively analyze the influence of the internal mental processes as well. Furthermore, this understanding would actually enable us to decipher a variety of private cognizance. Neglecting the importance of that role is how these incomplete assumptions of behavioral psychology transpired and they have been sustained solely through those findings which supported them. Skinner points out that is incredibly naive to assume that something is factual when no experimentation has been done which would have the possibility of disproving this assumption. In short, Skinner believed that the environment is an important factor in determining the causes of behavior, therefore he suggested that we must focus more on the role of the environment in order to determine the source of a particular behavior. While Skinner's theory is accurate concerning the impact of an individual's environment, his assumptions are also flawed in some aspects. Skinner takes an empiricist view on the concept of behavior, claiming that nothing can be accurately explained as behavior until it can be proven. Therefore, Skinner believes that the conventional concept of behaviorism is completely false because its based purely off speculation and lacks any concrete evidence. However, Skinner also fails to provide enough concrete evidence which would support his own claim suggesting that the environment is an important influence on behavior. Since this theory argues with the traditional ideals of behavioral psychology, it becomes extremely controversial. This theory argues that mental events are unimportant without the cooperation of external factors, suggests that some concepts that we classify as mental may actually be physical. However, it can be argued that beliefs and internal contemplations sometimes require no environmental influence at all, disagreeing with Skinner's theory all together. For example, Plato would argue that we do in fact have innate ideas that are almost independent of external influence. Skinner's theory is for the most part, scientifically sound, however he seems to ramble for a while and some of his findings are