April 23, 2015
Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer
Dear Reader,
In an unpublished interview with Ribes-Iñesta (1990),
Skinner remarks that he does not regard the orderliness of behavior as an essential
assumption. For him behavior is a natural phenomenon, which can be studied by a
positive science. Although theories determine the selection of data, he insists
and emphasizes that data are independent of theory. Skinner is basically against theory,
because he wants to be able to consider all the data. He answers a question
about the molar/molecular distinction by saying he is not
interested in this distinction. Skinner has also no interest in how the inner organism
works, as he is into variation and selection of behavior of the whole organism.
The data regarding how we talk with each other doesn’t depend on theory. Although
much has been theorized about how we talk, this hasn’t led to any
kind of improvement. It hasn’t led a science of vocal verbal behavior
that is capable of solving our problems like we do in physics or chemistry. The two response classes called Sound
Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) are only relevant
to the extent that it can make audible new and important data to skilled
speakers and listeners. SVB brings into hearing range the voice
of the speaker, that is, the stimulus that sets the stage for the listener’s vocal
verbal response. The behavior of the speaker, who turns into a listener, is
functionally related to the behavior of the listener, who turns into a speaker.
This behavior-behavior sequence involves turn-taking.
Like Skinner, I am interested in the variation and
selection of behavior of the whole organism. My focus is whether individuals
acquire more SVB repertoire or more NVB repertoire during their life? I am interested in the control of behavior. In my way of talking other communicators will always experience an increase of SVB and a decrease of NVB. I predict this and I achieve this as I have the necessary skills that make this possible. Moreover, I teach these skills to those who are willing to learn from me. SVB signifies an
increase of health and relationship, but NVB involves the decline of our health
and the destruction of our relationship. Our talking affects many other behaviors
and potentially has many positive or negative long-term consequences. We can hear
this everywhere around us and we can also see it in our own lives.
I am interested in the effect of vocal verbal behavior on
our environment, that is, on each other, because that is where the rubber of
human relationship hits the road. Our vocal verbal effect on our environment only becomes clear if we listen to each other and to ourselves while we speak. The speaker must also include his or her own
environment, the environment that is within our own skin. The effect of the speaker is understood from the
listener’s point of view, because the verbal operant is defined by its effect
on the listener. When asked about the contradictions in his theory, Skinner says
he is not interested in theory and is unaffected by the occurrence of anomalies.
The lawfulness of our behavior or other natural phenomenon is not altered by
our theories. If our theories hold water, they should
emphasize the fact that behavior is determined by previous and current circumstances. By
rejecting the importance of theories, Skinner shapes a scientific behavior that makes rapid change possible. He urges us to stop wasting time with theoretical superficial controversies. Operant
behavior is defined by the probability of a response and not by the response
itself. SVB and NVB are subsets of vocal verbal behavior explained by past
instances of reinforcement, not by
any purposive or imagined future consequence. Our future cannot cause our behavior.
When a person acquires a verbal repertoire, he or she
will in principle be able to analyze the contingencies to which he or she has been exposed and is exposed. This leads
to the formulation of rules which enter into the total contingencies affecting
our behavior. Most importantly, Skinner states that the formulation of rules as
descriptions of contingencies of reinforcement are nothing more than operant
behavior, that is, behavior that is susceptible to variation and selection.
Like Skinner, my interest is in operant behavior. I focus on SVB, which is operant. My only concern with NVB is to recognize it as respondent behavior and to avoid it as much as possible. Our reflexive, mechanical vocal verbal behavior has had and continues to have devastating consequences and
must be identified as our problem behavior.
My focus is on SVB as only SVB will reliably replace NVB, our
problem behavior. I am aware of the constraints which are imposed on the process of operant
conditioning by our reflexive behavior. Most people are unaware of the negative
consequences which result from their way of talking, that is, from their involvement in NVB. Upon being made familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction, people often still think they engage in SVB, while in fact they are having NVB. This happens all the time. SVB is SVB and NVB is NVB, not because of how we think about these subsets, but because of how we experience the response products of SVB and NVB. Much NVB masquerades as SVB. Even if we rationally know about this distinction, we keep getting it wrong because we focus on what we say and not on how we say it. This requires awareness, which will only be there if it is stimulated by our way of talking. What we say involves one response of behavior, with
which we easily get stuck, but how we say it refers to emotion or movement
and to novel responses. To stop our war of
words, which is as impairing as right-sided paralysis after
a stroke, we, the speakers, by listening to the sound of our words, become aware of
our body, the environment within our own skin, from which we are disconnected again and again during
NVB.
Regardless of whether we will find words for our bodily states, private events have a
physical, functional independent status. Emotions are real irrespective of whether we learn
to accurately express them or not. They are the most important, yet often completely
ignored data of human interaction, which exist independent of our theories.
Skinner focuses on operant conditioning, because, unlike natural selection
and evolution of social environments we call cultures, operant conditioning
can be studied experimentally, that is, in the laboratory.
SVB and NVB are two universal subsets of vocal verbal behavior which are mutually exclusive. We can only capitalize on what we know about operant conditioning if we talk about the behavior-controlling environment. The sound of the speaker's voice is an antecedent stimulus, which sets the stage for the response, which is SVB or NVB. The postcedent events determine whether that response is going to be more or less likely under similar circumstances in the future. We suffer the ubiquity of NVB because we keep reinforcing it. We haven’t been able to capitalize on what we have come to know about operant conditioning, because we haven’t learned how to behave scientifically about our way of talking. Capitalizing on operant conditioning requires that we talk with each other in such a way that we don’t aversively affect each other at all. To explore such a possibility we must create a SVB laboratory.
Well, I cannot agree with Skinner on what he says about theory. Leibniz used to say that "scientia quo magis theorica, magis practica" [science, the more theoretical, the more practical is] and John Dewey [as a well known behaviorist] shared the same opinion. So, we need theory, at least as a working hypothesis or as a guide, although our data will correct our former ideas. To know theory is to grasp the universals, the essences of things.
ReplyDeleteThank you Cristi for your comment. Skinner's objection against theory is because, simply stated, theory is the verbal behavior of the scientist. The circumstances in which such scientific verbal behavior occur explain that behavior. Also the grasping of universals is verbal behavior that can be explained by the presence or absence of certain environmental variables. Knowledge of universals is a reification of what we say to ourselves about the reality...Thus, a hypothesis is not a thing, but a process and the same is true for data or ideas.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Dewey always insisted on the distinction between things [as "thinghood"] and things meant, i.e. existences vs. essences/meanings. For Dewey, an idea [as hypothesis] is a plan of action. The same is with a theory, with the remark that a theory is more complex than an idea. There is a prejudice according to which practice is more valuable than theory. But those that hold such a view didn't understand the concept of "theory" properly... As a conclusion, I just want to say that we cannot give up theory when we scientifically approach a subject-matter.
ReplyDeleteDewey's insistence on the distinction between things and things meant is of great importance to me. The former seems to relate to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB); it de-contextualizes things, as if something was said without any reference to a listener, as if meaning was contained within the speaker. The latter, however, seems to relate to Sound Verbal Behavior(SVB; it contextualizes the thing (said by the speaker) to what it means to the listener. The meaning refers to the relationship and connection between speaker and listener. The speaker cannot make sense of what the listener who speaks means unless they have SVB; in NVB the speaker imposes his or her meaning onto the other speaker and prevents him or her from contributing to the conversation. To promote his operant science, Skinner was not against any theory per se, but against certain theories in certain contexts. He was opposed to theories which didn't explain behavior and only added another layer of structure which needed to be explained in turn. His opposition was against explanations which prevented the further search for the environmental variables, which, once identified, would result in control over the behavior. He was a great humanitarian, yet, he is often made out to be someone evil because operant science is about prediction and control of behavior. Much of what people believe about what causes behavior (presumably a self) is as untrue that the earth is flat. Most people who are unfamiliar with radical behaviorism have no idea about contingencies of reinforcement. Skinner was in favor of theory which would enhance the culture. He was against coercive behavioral control because he knew it would lead to counter-control. His emphasis on positive behavioral control explains why SVB works. NVB,however, is the language of coercive behavioral control, which is unfortunately practiced all over the world. Once we know the difference between the two, we will choose for SVB, as it is more refined and leading to better consequences.
ReplyDelete