October 25, 2014

October 25, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Most of this writer’s responses to papers that were written by behaviorists were never even answered, probably because they think something is wrong with someone who insists on having a conversation about what they have written. Apparently, it is okay for them to continue to write as if they speak. This unnatural academic tradition, of defining terms of human speech by writing, has been going on for decennia.  

B.F. Skinner, for instance, would write in one of his papers “I shall call such a unit operant and the behavior in general, operant behavior (1937).” He was writing in response to a paper on conditioned reflex by Konorski and Miller. Later, in his speeches, he would “call” the operant numerous times, but initially, he would only write about it. However, his distinction between respondent and operant responses was based on, and later gave rise to, many novel experiments.  

This author’s writing is not academic, because his goal is to turn around the outdated academic tradition which prevented us from having more conversation. What good is the distinction between respondent and operant behavior, if we are still incapable of having the spoken communication, the actual experiment, in which we explore and verify this crucially important difference? 

The so-called “debate” which is believed to be going on in papers and in which authors searched to extend the respondent-operant continuum, didn’t lead to any conversation. It has only led to more writing and less talking. This author firmly believes that talking about respondent and operant conditioning is an entirely different matter than writing and reading about it. 

Another way of saying this is that the real challenge of Skinner’s distinction is and remains “a question of experiment.” That challenge starts, but is not met by the understanding of what Skinner meant. This author believes that the challenge of behaviorology, the natural science of human behavior, lies in applying it to how we interact, because that is where the language-rubber hits the relationship road. This author is not interested in written responses, because he wants behaviorists to talk. Talking is absolutely necessary to become scientific about relationship.