Sort of. Skinner thought that “meaning” was best understood via the consequences of language in a sentence particular context. So, yes, he rejected the notion of something internal.

But the resemblance seems pretty clear to me. I appreciate the reference, will look into it and try to learn more about enactivism.

I think that Skinner would have agreed that the environment causes behavior in the interaction with the organism (environment can’t cause you to fly unless you have wings) but his interest was in the prediction of behavior rather than understanding the “black box” of the organism’s structure.

Thanks, I appreciate the effort, specially given that you don’t have a Psychology background (I do, BTW) Curiously, Skinner considered that behavior experimental analysis was a branch of Biology.

Thank you all for this interesting conversation! I find enactivism as described by @cmooreanderson.bsky.social strikingly similar to B”Skinner’s radical behaviorism; the idea that everything is action, and that we only remember predispositions towards behavior. If I may, what do you think on that?

La verdad, me gustaría mucho una aclaración o explicación por parte del @copsicologia.bsky.social

Hablamos de una asociación parte de la FEAP, que considera que no hace falta una formación de base en Psicología o Psiquiatría para hacer psicoterapia. Me ha llevado muy poco tiempo en su buscador dar con alguien que publicita sus servicios y presenta una titulación de "CC Físicas e Informática".

Los límites del conocimiento científico vigente:

Artículo 18º del código deontológico del Consejo:
"Sin perjuicio de la legítima diversidad de teorías, escuelas y métodos, el/la Psicólogo/a no utilizará medios o procedimientos que no se hallen suficientemente contrastados, dentro de los límites del conocimiento científico vigente [...]."

I don’t know the quoted Dr. from the news piece, but this is basically correct: “Antidepressants can be helpful but they can’t fix chronic stress caused by social problems like debt, poverty, racism or domestic violence”.
Your position sounds quite like and ad hominem argument.