Image by
April 20th, 2026
Jill Maschio, PhD
In the early days of psychology, a branch called behaviorism emerged as a dominant perspective focused on observable behavior rather than mental processes. One contributor to behaviorism was John B. Watson. Watson was an American psychologist considered to be the father of behaviorism. He opposed other schools of psychology in their techniques and beliefs of human behavior. He opposed Wilhelm Wundt’s use of introspection for its unreliability to delve into the human mind. The idea was perhaps, why try to understand the inner working of the mind when we can simply observe behavior to understand it? His work was an extension of the work of others before him, such as Ivan Pavlov’s published experiment in 1897. While experimenting with dogs’ digestion and salivation when fed meat, Pavlov found that his dogs salivated to the sound of the bell metronome when it accompanied food. Soon, the dogs would salivate to the sound when food was not there, which was an indication that an association between the two occurred, and the behavior was repeated, coined by Pavlov as classical conditioning.
Extending these principles to humans, Watson, along with his student Rosalie Rayner, are well known for the Little Albert experiment conducted in 1920 at Johns Hopkins University. The experiment extended Pavlov’s animal conditioning and demonstrated that conditioning can occur in humans as well as in animals. Watson conditioned baby Albert to fear furry little animals by pairing them with a loud sound.
Behaviorism, in this sense, advanced a powerful claim: people can be conditioned by the environment and control. Watson was later criticized for making the following statement, “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. (1930)”. This statement raises deeper concerns that internal thought and the extent to which human beings are shaped by external forces outside their awareness question the role of artificial intelligence in shaping modern cognition. While early psychology emphasized external control of behavior, today’s concern is more subtle: whether individuals will willingly surrender their internal capacity to think in exchange for algorithmic guidance.
Erich Fromm wrote the book, Escape from Freedom (published as The Fear of Freedom in the UK) in 1941. Fromm wrote that Man seeks liberation from structure and the “walls” or constraints of society. Man tries to escape from freedom of forces that control individuality and lessen autonomy. However, Fromm argued that modern, autonomous freedom can be overwhelming and as a result creates intense feelings of isolation and insecurity, leading individuals to want to “escape”. The attempt to escape can leave the person powerless and eventually conditioned into submission –conditioned to authoritarianism, society, and destructive behavior (eliminate external threats or destroy the outside world) in the pursuit of freedom. This so-called problem was the freedom paradox.
Fromm proposed that people respond to escaping by automated conforming. That is, people try to escape freedom but end up conformity to society. As a result, people lose their individuality, sense of true self, and identity. People experience pseudo-thoughts and pseudo feelings. These are “artificial” thoughts that mimic genuine thinking, understanding, or critical thought but lack substantive reasoning, true comprehension, or empirical truth. People who conform to society have these pseudo thoughts and feelings. They believe their thoughts are their own, but their thoughts and feelings are actually socially manufactured and imposed, such as adapting to political views that are most common to a society.
Pseudo thoughts and feelings are part of what Fromm called modernity and robotism. Fromm believed that modern capitalism increases the risk of turning citizens into “robots” or automata. That is, well-fed, well-clothed citizens who are empty of original thought or passion and who are alienated from their true selves.
When Hannah Arendt wrote about the human condition (1998) in her book titled, The Human Condition, she explained that people have transformed into commodities. A person’s experiences are like capital to be invested in and “salable” at the market – that are then adorned by others. This kind of success is valued by society. It equates to having a meaningful life. However, this also means that those people are dependent on the judgment of others who base the value of success on capital where security lies in conforming. “Man’s success is held up by others as He cannot stand alone.” Anything other than this is failure. In other words, the present human condition is that success and one’s sense of worth are based on extraneous factors, and when success and sense of worth are based on external factors, conformity is the norm.
Erich Fromm’s Modern Day Human Paradox
Artificial intelligence presents a modern-day version of Fromm’s Freedom Paradox
The friction to escape “from freedom” will be, for some people, the reliance on AI. It comes with the notion that AI will not only reduce friction but liberate oneself from the constraints of society. I argue that relying on AI in this way is an invisible factor that will quietly erode the capacity and autonomy to transform – to become one’s authentic self. While maximizing “freedom from,” the mind may become less tolerant of ambiguity and more self-reliant on AI because it provides answers almost immediately, and information is readily available.
The consequence of failing to engage in self-reflection (metacognition) and bypass one’s own thinking may be Fromm’s modern-day paradox as well as AI automated conformity. People may believe that their thoughts and feelings are their own, but they will be pseudo-ones. People may be under the impression that AI empowers their thoughts and creativity, but as they slowly conform to its algorithmic outputs, they have fewer original thoughts. It will be few who have their own original thoughts.
William James said, “Man must keep thinking”. The alternative is a transformation into an algorithmic derived human – a “robot.” James spoke of becoming robots in 1890.
William James also stated, “But the slightest reflection shows that phenomena have absolutely no power to influence our ideas until they have first impressed our senses and our brain. The bare existence of a past fact is no ground for our remembering it. Unless we have seen it, or somehow undergone it, we shall never know of its having been” (pf 4). What we see and experience lay pathways in the brain, called memories.
A debate among early philosophers and psychologists was if the brain is like a machine. On one side of the debate, the human brain is goal-driven and reacts as a machine with outputs. On the other hand, it is argued that the human brain is not like a machine. It can produce correct and incorrect outputs, but a difference was proposed by Liebmann (1840-1912 ). He believed that the brain is conscious and can identify when a person gives a wrong answer and corrects themselves. The human brain works on what he called “law from in front,” meaning people can recognize our own thoughts. AI operates through what Liebmann described as “law from behind”—outputs determined entirely by prior data and algorithmic structure. In contrast, human cognition includes a “law from in front,” where thoughts are evaluated against internal standards such as truth, coherence, and meaning.
Right now, AI can simulate that it knows when it is wrong, but it is not due to internal, conscious recognition. The danger is not that AI lacks this capacity, but that humans may gradually stop using it. If so, the danger goes even deeper. AI may shift human cognition from conscious truth-seeking agents to out-put seeking agents, which is having interest in the output of AI more than using the information to construct knowledge themselves. If the later, the human cognition shifts from producing conscious thoughts, and validating recognition of truth and realty to a reality based on selecting, accepting, or rejecting outputs based on surface logic or to fit one’s expectations, narrative, or ego-driven impulse.
Looking into a modern family through a lens –
From a distance, the family appears ordinary. Two parents, children nearby, each engaged in daily routines. But a closer look reveals something different. Each member is continuously interfacing with AI through wearable devices—outsourcing decisions about food, schedules, communication, even preferences. What appears as normal functioning is, in reality, a form of algorithmic dependence. The family has not lost functionality; it has lost authorship of thought. They have very few original thoughts. All their decisions and functions in the world are a symbiosis with AI. They have lost their authentic self.
The question is not whether AI will think for us, but whether we will continue to think for ourselves. Fromm’s concept of positive freedom becomes essential in the age of artificial intelligence—not as resistance to technology, but as a commitment to conscious engagement. AI can extend human capability, but only if individuals retain the capacity to question, reflect, and generate meaning independently. Without this, the risk is not technological domination, but voluntary cognitive surrender.
References
Fromm, E. (1994). Escape from freedom. Henry Holt and Company. (Original work published 1941)
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428