The title of this paper is a deliberately modified version of the title of an influential paper by Sidman, Rauzin, Lazar, Cunningham, Tailby, and Carrigan (1982), “A search for symmetry in the conditional discriminations of rhesus monkeys, baboons, and children.” In that paper, Sidman et al. reported that the majority of the children in their study (ranging in age from 4 years - 8 months to 5 year - 9 months) showed symmetry, but that none of the five non-human primates did.
Most, if not all behavior analysts would identify their field as a natural science, taking a rightful place with the physical and biological sciences. I have addressed this issue and some of its implications in a previous paper (Marr, 2009) with the aim of identifying communalities as well as differences between behavior analysis and other unquestioned natural sciences. I primarily emphasized ontological, empirical and explanatory schemes in our behavioral science and, more particularly, behavior analysis as a branch of the biological sciences. I listed a number of other i