These citations are not useful. Is the reader supposed to read an entire 700-page book to find out whether your claim about the content of the book is justified, and to what specific idea your were referring?

The most significant absence from this draft, which is about behaviorism, is behaviorism. The draft behaves as though BF Skinner and his revolution either never existed or were merely a footnote to something Aldous Huxley said once on the radio. There is a similar absence of the entirety of social psychology from a discussion about the influence of minds on minds. It's as though Shoshana Zuboff invented the whole discipline the morning after Marx died and nothing else has been written since. I experience a slight ethical quandary every time I recommend it, but there is still no single better work than Elliot Aronson's The Social Animal for explaining the essence of what has gotten thought.

In short, I think the best route to improvement is to put the next draft in a richer intellectual context. You don't need to invent everything for yourself by the light of nature. The weakness of the conclusion, which does not really escape tautology. is a signal that you have spent too man of your words on devising the foundation, rather than adding your own ideas atop a century of quite vivid and most definitely existing thought.

When I said in September that "the machine is a behaviorist," I was registering my complete agreement with your proposition that a psychological theory has once again come to dominate our relationship to our computers. Recurrently, since we began this technological arc in the mid-20th century, we have built on the basis of a misinterpretation of our own image, in which we were building. Because we devised the structure and function of the new species-wide nervous system on a psychological theory that began by denying the existence of mind, we have wrapped ourselves in a new biology that erodes mind. The parasite, which is the silicon incarnation of the behaviorist deity, now shapes us in its image. But if you want to pose the questions with which that recognition leaves you, you need a deeper familiarity with the thinking that made it happen.