May 18, 2015

May 18, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

Today’s writing is inspired by the paper on “Behaviorism and the Stages of Scientific Activity” by J. Moore (2010). In the abstract Moore tells the reader  that he will be ‘discussing’ a “three-stage progression”, which “starts with a) identification of basic data, then moves to b) description of relation among those data, and ultimately concludes with c) the deployment of higher order concepts in statements about organizations of data.” Moreover, Moore views “theory and explanations as examples of verbal processes at the later stages, guided by stimulus control from the earlier stages.” His main point is that “many mentalistic assumptions about causal entities and relations” give rise to theories which lack “the benefit of suitable stimulus control from the earlier stages” which is essential to a behaviorist account.  

Although Moore emphasizes that much of the behavior of scientist is verbal and that “the artifacts in question are verbal products”, he doesn’t mention anywhere in his paper that scientist talk with each other. This fact seems to be unimportant to him, because only “the common terms associated in doing science” supposedly matter. His “analysis of the underlying verbal processes as they have played out over time”, doesn’t contain any remark about the datum scientists used to talk about, but nowadays only seem to write about. When one thinks about how these “first laws and theories of a science were probably rules developed by artisans and craftsmen who worked in a given area”, one envisions people talking with each other. Someone who is good at, and reinforced by his skill, is likely to pass on his trade lovingly and thankfully, to the next generation. 

In this scenario much more is going on than merely some “descriptions of the effect brought about by relevant practices” which “were then codified in the form of verbal statements that functioned as verbal stimuli.” Indeed, the aforementioned romantic picture is drastically changed, when Moore adds that the purpose of these verbal stimuli is to “occasion effective action, if only among subordinates.” Verbal stimuli that only serve the purpose to get someone to do as they are told, that is, to only follow orders, are aversive. 

In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the speaker aversively controls the behavior of the listener. In the example in which the listener is expected to do as he or she is told, as he or she is ordered, the verbal behavior of the speaker results in the nonverbal behavior of the listener. In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), by contrast, in which the hierarchical, predetermined role division between speaker and listener is absent, the verbal behavior of the speaker, evokes and invites the verbal behavior of the listener. In SVB, in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an appetitive contingency, the listener becomes the speaker, but in NVB the listener is confined to remaining the listener, by behaving, by obeying, nonverbally. 

The only verbal behavior which occurs in the listener during NVB is private speech, which is anxiously kept out of public speech. Since this NVB covert speech is kept out of public speech as much as possible, it is difficult to trace it back to its origins, which is, coercive, punitive public speech. Thus, the trade that was passed on with love and care led to a different kind of verbal behavior than what was taught in an aversive manner. The former led to SVB, the latter led to NVB. Since the NVB hierarchical way of talking dominated mankind’s history, even today most of our conversations fall into this subset of vocal verbal behavior. Although the goal of NVB is to basically enslave the listener and to make him or her do nonverbally what the speaker wants, this is always achieved by the emphasis on “verbal statements, often taking the form of maxims or other informal expressions (e.g. rules of thumb)”, which would then supplement or replace “private or idiosyncratic forms of stimulus control.” 

As subjective, private speech was to be kept out of supposedly objective public speech, so that “verbal stimuli” could become “public property”, mankind, in the name of scientific progress, maintained the hierarchical structure which causes NVB. Moreover, because we have yet to become scientific about talking, we have with NVB maintained a culturally sanctioned belief in an inner self. 

With the SVB/NVB distinction it becomes easier to see how all sorts of verbal acrobatics are deliberately used to exploit people their nonverbal work. The rules, sanctified now as scientific rules, definitely give us a sense of order, but this is not, in my opinion, the order which Skinner was thinking about when he wrote “Walden II”.  In “Science and Human Behavior” (1953) Skinner writes “ [Science] is a search for order, for uniformities, for lawful relations among the events in nature. It begins as we all begin, by observing single episodes, but it quickly passes on to the general rule, to scientific law…” A different kind of order emerges in speakers and listeners who take turns, whose conversation is based on reciprocal reinforcement. In SVB, the well-being of the speaker and the listener are guaranteed.  'Order' created by NVB and kept in place by coercion, is not scientific. Forcefulness with which this order is superimposed on nature is reminiscent of an angry god-figure, who demands to have things his way. The verbal demands placed on us have been so overwhelming, that we haven’t even started “observing single episodes” of SVB and NVB, because that involves a shift from our verbal to our nonverbal behavior, while we speak. Only if we listen to ourselves while we speak can we identify SVB.

In this writing I am talking with the reader about Moore’s paper. I only talk about Moore or Skinner because behaviorism can explain SVB and NVB. There is a great difference between these subcategories of vocal verbal behavior, which have not yet been mentioned anywhere. I claim that only SVB is scientific and that NVB is always biased. Our way of talking matters a great deal for how science is done and what we are doing with science. We must consider Skinner’s pragmatism. In “Contingencies of Reinforcement” (1969) he writes “Scientific laws also specify or imply responses and their consequences. They are not, of course, obeyed by nature, but by man who deal effectively with nature.” Skinner was not talking about one man obeying another man, but he was speaking about man obeying nature, in order to deal effectively with nature. He stated “Science is in a large part a direct analysis of reinforcing systems found in nature; it is concerned with facilitating the behavior which is reinforced by them…The point of science…is to analyze the contingencies of reinforcement found in nature and to formulate rules or laws which make it unnecessary to be exposed to them in order to behave appropriately.” In my view Skinner was indicating SVB, which is behavior which is reinforced by “reinforcing systems found in nature.” NVB, by contrast, is reinforced by one man’s ability to oppress other men, or by men obeying other men and, most importantly, by continuously demonstrating this by the way in which we talk.