H. G. Wells and B. F. Skinner on the superorganism.

Meyer (1999) compares two big thinkers. One is B. F. Skinner. The other is science-fiction writer H. G. Wells.

The paper looks at Skinner’s idea of a “superorganism.” That is a giant social unit shaped by selection, not by a single mind.

The author shows how Wells pictured similar futures in novels like The Shape of Things to Come.

Skinner first saw the superorganism as a rigid, planned world. Later he switched to a softer view.

He began to stress variation and selection inside the group, much like biological evolution.

Wells traveled the same road: early books push strict design, later ones allow more flexible, cultural selection.

Parker (1984) and Lord et al. (1986) warned that mentalistic talk weakens behavior science. Meyer (1999) keeps that guard up while stretching the lens to whole cultures.

Malagodi (1986) asked radical behaviorists to study culture directly. The 1999 paper answers with a concrete concept: the superorganism.

Baum (2018) extends the same theme. He frames behavior as long, molar patterns selected at many scales. Meyer (1999) supplies the historical roots that Baum’s view now grows from.

Roche et al. (2003) find common ground between behavior analysis and social constructionism. Meyer (1999) shows one shared image: societies evolving through consequences, not blueprints.

When you write behavior plans, picture the client’s world as a tiny superorganism. Variation (new skills) and selection (reinforcement) shape the group. Share this story with teachers or parents. It helps them see why small, repeated contingencies beat one-time lectures.