April 28, 2014

April 28, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

This journal entry is about an interesting paper, which I read yesterday. It was written by Maria R. Ruiz and Bryan Roche in 2007. The paper’s title was “Values and the Scientific Culture of Behavior Analysis.”It is one of those rare papers in which the authors write about the need to talk about matters more often. This is in line with Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). It appears that SVB is not only supported by Radical Behaviorism, but also by the American philosopher John Dewey, whose philosophical pragmatism focused on community and dialogue. The paper explains that ethical problems, which occur in situations with "conflicting outcomes", require behaviorists to talk with one another about values. Duh..

SVB suggests that we talk before the problems arise, so that we can prevent them. Thus, "conflicting outcomes" don’t arise in SVB. They only arise in Noxious Verbal Behavior, which makes SVB impossible. Moreover, SVB categorizes these so-called "conflicting outcomes" differently than Dewey, Skinner, or the authors of this paper. "Value-based decision-making" in behavior-analytic practices as well as in ordinary life depend on SVB. The absence of SVB and the ubiquity of NVB make us gloss over ethical dilemmas, because we don’t explore the contingencies of reinforcement which make either one possible. When SVB is present, NVB is absent and visa versa. Our lack of conversation signifies contingencies which only support NVB. 

If decisions lead to "conflicting outcomes", certain independent variables have not been taken into consideration, the one's which produce these outcomes. In SVB our way of communicating itself is the value which guides our decision making. In NVB, on the other hand, this value is absent, because the way in which we communicate, in speech and writing, is bound to give rise to "conflicting outcomes."

SVB is explained by B.F. Skinner, who dismisses the distinctions that many philosophers make between values and facts. Essential to SVB is the absence of aversive stimulation. Aversive stimulation is always present in NVB. Consequently, only in SVB can we feel safe, but in NVB we always feel threatened. And, in SVB we make each other feel safe, in other words, we regulate each other, but in NVB we upset, frighten, intimidate and dis-regulate each other.

In SVB we talk as equals, but in NVB we are not equal. In SVB we, that is, the speakers, are accountable to the listener, who may also become a speaker, but in NVB the speakers are not accountable to the listener, who are not allowed to become a speaker, or who may only talk in a way which is permitted the dominant, coercive speaker. In SVB we speak with each other, but in NVB we speak at each other. In SVB we don’t see the values and facts as different, because there is congruence between what we say and how we say it. Yet, in both SVB and in NVB, what we say is a function of how we say it. 

From the previous description Skinner’s "naturalistic ethics" seems to have emerged. After all, to survive we must feel safe and feel  supported by others. The SVB culture promotes the security of others, but the NVB culture promotes a hostile way of life in which everyone is out for themselves. In NVB private and public speech are separate. In NVB, attempts are made to elicit the private speech of others, while one is hiding one’s own. One always has covert speech which occurs, as Skinner has said, within one’s own skin, but it is quite another thing when one’s personal values, one’s private speech, is hidden to avoid accountability. This "Machiavellian pragmatism" is aimed at furthering one’s own cause at all cost.

It is interesting to reflect on the course of events that took place when this writer contacted Steven Hayes, a behaviorist who developed Relational Frame Theory (RFT). In his search for a behaviorist who would talk with him, this writer had emailed Hayes, who responded and arranged to have a skype-conversation. In the paper, Hayes is described as adhering to a "contextual philosophical framework" rather than a "relational frame". This makes total sense to this writer, who spoke with him. The time he had been given to contact him was when Hayes was apparently having a short break at a conference. It was noisy and this writer could see people walking up and down behind Hayes, who appeared on the screen and sounded stressed. As this writer tried to converse with this man, Hayes was distracted and was also talking with people near him. When this writer remarked that this affected the conversation Hayes didn’t care. The conversation had been unsatisfying and this writer made attempts to speak with him again, but Hayes was too busy. It was clear, however, that Hayes didn’t like to be put on the spot about his way of communicating. This writer is very experienced in recognizing such tendencies since he has worked with thousands of individuals. Hayes, who in the short conversation was bragging about the fact that his research reached his analytic goals, adhered to my-way-or-the-highway pragmatism. This writer, who initially believed there was some overlap between RFT and SVB, felt that Hayes is on some kind of narcissistic guru-trip. 

The apparent crossing of the paths of Hayes and this writer makes something clear about SVB and NVB: the two never meet. If this would have been a point agreement,however, our paths would and could have met. Behaviorists should be able to agree with each other that different contingencies set the stage for SVB or NVB. Scientists like Hayes, who are no longer accountable to others in the scientific or the broader community, must necessarily develop a pseudo-science that departs from the social context from which it arose. 

It is important to understand that one can have SVB, the next moment NVB and the next moment SVB again, but it is impossible to have SVB and NVB simultaneously. The shift of the contingencies which makes SVB or NVB possible is determined by different behavioral histories of all those involved. A person, who, like this author, sang opera for many years, is more likely to listen to his or her voice while he or she speaks, than someone who doesn’t have such a history. It took a person with a history in singing, to become aware of environmental stimuli that affected his voice, while trying to sound as good as possible. This made him pay attention to the sound of his voice while he speaks. Only such a person could discover SVB and NVB, the two ways of behaving verbally that are mutually exclusive. 

To illustrate how political values often guide scientific decision making, Ruiz and Roche mention "feminist science." However, no mention is made of the different contingencies of reinforcement that set the stage for such scientific or political activity. To become aware of the social context, we must not only talk, but we must talk in an entirely different way. Those who are open to SVB will realize that scientific knowledge is necessarily linked to the social context in which it was conceived. Our way of talking continuously makes it seem otherwise. NVB dissociates us from the reality, but SVB, which allows us to embody our communication, brings us in touch with the contingencies of reinforcement which make it possible.

One reason why NVB continues to dominate across the globe is that written words cannot bridge the gap between our spoken and written language. Although these words address this gap, the gap can be overcome only during our spoken interaction. Little has been said, but a lot has been written, about the need for science to participate more in the social context. Most likely, the little that was said was NVB. Our common lack of consideration for the causal environmental influences of human behavior goes hand in hand with the fact that NVB has not yet been distinguished from SVB. Consequently, we adhere to a way of communicating, in which we pretend to be communicating. We have accepted as normal something which, by any scientific standard, is abnormal, because it is so stress and anxiety-provoking. 


No matter how much has been written about it, serious, open dialogue is not happening, because we don’t recognize our verbal behavior is mostly NVB. As long as this continues, we are aversively influencing each other and inclined to move away from each other and retreat into our well-defended niches. "Ethical decision making" is done only by those who can afford to come out. Those who come out of their niche, must move beyond their old ways of communicating. However, they will be able to produce SVB only if they don’t compulsively go back to their old way of communicating. In SVB communicators express a new order of things, but NVB communicator will adhere to the old order. In SVB we can conceptualize "valued ethical decisions" because we have stopped NVB, which prevented us from making such decisions.

This writer knows that the reader most likely will be puzzled by his descriptions of SVB. Perhaps the reader even experiences a sense of frustration about not really understanding how SVB works. If this happens to be the case, this writer has achieved one of his goals. In no way is this writing intended to fully explain SVB to the reader. It can’t do that, no writing can explain SVB. SVB is something the reader must experience. Understanding happens of its own accord when SVB takes place, but understanding is secondary to experiencing it. At best this writing makes the reader want to experience SVB. This writer would love to actually talk with the reader to explain SVB.