Behaviourism is a theory of psychology which argues that all behaviours are acquired through conditioning. This conditioning is governed by our interactions and reactions (or reflexes) with the environment, which Pavlov argues to be a way to balance the system with the surrounding environment as a means of survival.

One of the main concepts of behaviourist theory is Operant Conditioning. Majoritarily conceptualised by Watson & Rayner in the famous 'Little Albert' experiment, the theory states that behaviour can be determined through rewards (reinforcers) and punishments, both can be either positive or negative. The general idea is that if someone does something (such as a student answering a question correctly), if they are rewarded for this action (such as receiving a golden star), they are likely to try to repeat this behaviour, serving as a motivator which shapes their behaviour.

The example used highlights Skinners' ideas of how the educational system should work. To him, not only are immediate reinforcements necessary, but also intermittent reinforcements, self-administered by the student, which basically allows the student to know that they know, instead of needing external, immediate reinforcements. This allows the student to continue working, a motivator. Through adequate, scheduled reinforcements which are internal (from the student), and immediate, external reinforcements (from the teacher), dilligent students are cretaed.

After reading these concepts, it makes sense that Skinner believes that free-will is a myth. According to him, free-will, or, the capacity of humans to make their own choices without external influences isn't possible. He believes that our actions are dependent on a subconscious balance of achieving a reward and the avoidance of a punishment. These are dependent on our previous experiences. While yes, it is true that actions are dependent on previous experience, to say that humans don't have free-will seems like a simplistic view of human behaviour. Firstly, it must be defined what free-will truly is for Skinner, and this concept is very difficult to operationalise, because it's dependent on the thinker's visions of what an individuals interaction and influence with the surrounding is. If to Skinner free-will is acting without influence of anything on the surrounding then it may very likely be impossible to have full free-will. However, Skinner assumes that humans act depending on the prospect of rewards, and these rewards are what negates human free-will. This paints humans as naturally selfish, focused on acheiving positives for themselves. For me, this view sounds too rigid, particularly on the concept of positive and negative reinforcements/punishments. I argue that humans have free-will on their objectives, and these objectives will shape what is a reward during the moment of the action. For example, an action can be a punishment for who makes the action, however it may result in a reward for someone else, in this case, a punishment becomes a reinforcement. This argues that humans may chase something bad for them, if it results in a positive for someone else, showing that humans are capable of using their agency and selflessness. Therefore, for me, Skinner proposes a good argument, it is too simplistic to say that actions can be black-and-white, or only have the intent of resulting in a positive for whom makes said behaviour.

Such a deterministic view is what made IQ Tests very negative in different places. As it is shown on the documentary 'Subnormal,' many afro-caribbean immigrants that came to the UK in the 1950s were judged as being 'educationally subnormal' and were sent to special schools after taking the 11+ Tests (which were based on the concept of IQ). However, the tests did not measure their intelligence as they were heavily ethnocentric. Because of this, they labels that were placed on them segregated them to low educational achievements, they began to see their reality based on the 'Subnormal' label, and because of this, they saw free-will as an impossibility. I argue that this case shows a problem of determinism, to say that our actions are predetermined by external forces is to say that humans have no agency, and to say that humans have no agency means that they have no control over external forces. It's possible, however, that these individuals could have controlled their situation, and acted in such a way that allowed them to achieve more. However, because they believed that they had no free-will (that is, that their intelligence was predetermined), there was no motive to push them forward, an acception of fate. Therefore, such IQ Tests place labels on people, and these labels create a fake sense that their free-will doesn't exist, blocking social mobility, generating a hierarchy of IQs that doesn't mean anything because, if one doesn't feel that they have free-will, they will be less likely to achieve more intelligence.

References:

https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/pavlovs-dog

https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/watson-on-the-science-of-psychology

https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/skinners-behaviourism

https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/chomsky-on-iq-and-inequality

https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/goddard-on-iq