Variation and selection: The evolutionary analogy and the convergence of cognitive and behavioral psychology.

Koegel et al. (1992) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. They asked: what if extinction bursts and creative ideas are the same process?

The team mapped Darwin’s two-step—variation, then selection—onto both operant extinction and cognitive creativity. They used plain diagrams and everyday examples.

No new data were collected. Instead, the paper shows that extinction bursts look like ‘variation’ and the drop in responding looks like ‘selection’.

The same story fits cognitive psychology’s view of brainstorming: many wild ideas (variation) then picking the best (selection).

Lattal (1984) said basic researchers should test ideas on themselves to stay useful. Koegel et al. (1992) echo that call but give trainers a ready-made story—evolution—to sell the science.

Critchfield (2018) updates the message for grad school: teach stimulus-relations so BCBAs can build emergent skills without extra trials. Both papers push the field toward smarter, not harder, practice.

Capaldi (1992), printed the same year, claims ‘history’ lives only in current interactions. L et al. seem to disagree by letting ‘past’ variation survive as bursts, yet both treat past events as behavior now—no real clash, just different angles.

Next time a parent asks why problem behavior gets worse before it gets better, say: ‘His brain is throwing out new moves to see what works—like evolution testing mutants. We’re holding the line so the bad moves die off.’ The cognitive crowd nods, the behavioral crowd stays pure, and you sound like you read both camps.