The Value of Visiting Foreign Intellectual Islands: The Example of the Cognitive-Behavioral Debate

AABT is ground zero in the cognitive-behavioral debate. In part, this is because the debate is rarely even engaged by basic scientists. There are few societies where basic cognitive scientists and basic behaviorists still regularly talk to each other, but it is more than that. Cognitive scientists are generally convinced that behaviorism is dead because the wing they themselves largely came from (S-R learning theory) is indeed moribund. Not many scientists are interested in debating the dead. It is only in the applied area that these issues are still being engaged regularly, and AABT is where the dialogue continues. It is the only organization that holds together substantial numbers of behavior therapists, cognitive therapists and behavior analysts. This unique situation assigns to AABT an important intellectual responsibility that goes well beyond the Association itself. The tension between cognitive and behavioral poles of thought can be an active source of creative development for the entire field, but only if we learn from the past and move the discussion to a different plane. I am writing this column from the perspective of a clinical behavior analyst. That undoubtedly colors my views, and I am hardly a disinterested observer. But from where I sit, I see problems with how both sides have cast the debate. As a result, we are simply not getting enough out of this wonderful dynamic.