[laughs]

And, and why don't they don't, they don't have one? Uh, because they repeated, uh, Skinner's, uh, claim that, uh, they in fact have a quotation from, uh, Skinner 1953 to the effect that, uh, classical conditioning just has to do with internal physiology, which is not what we're interested in, and so it's not relevant to, to, uh, aspects of behavior that, that are of most, uh, serious, uh, concern to, uh, to psychologists.

Uh, in particular, of course, uh, uh, uh, uh, psychologists who, who work in, uh, in applied areas.

So, uh, the quotation I found today on page 10, "Compared to reflexive behavior with its clear eliciting events, much of the behavior organisms appeared spontaneous or voluntary." And that's inf- uh, uh, you know, as we discussed earlier, that this notion of spontaneity and, and voluntary i- uh, as a, uh, characterization of emitted behavior is p- was part of the original rationale for justifying a new category of behavior and operants as opposed to respondents.

But, uh, if you go back and, and read the original, uh, uh, Skinner's writings on this issue, he recognized early on that this notion of spontaneity, although it might help him justify a new category of behavior and a new type of learning, it, it, it, it's [laughs] what do you call it? It's a, it's a duck that doesn't fly.

There's an expression down here about [laughs]...

Hmm.

So, uh, attributing something to spontaneity is really works against y- the ability of a, a, a therapist to design an effective intervention.