June 9, 2015

June 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my seventh response to "Radical Behaviorism and Buddhism: Complementarities and Conflicts” by Diller and Lattal (2008).  Who could have thought I would be writing seven responses to this paper?  This is my final response. By comparing Buddhism and behaviorism, those who are into Buddhism are supposed to think they are like behaviorists and behaviorists should view themselves now as Buddhists. What else could the purpose of this paper be?  To convince non-behaviorists or non-Buddhists that behaviorism is cool?  If that was the goal, I would think that non-behaviorists would be even more turned off by behaviorism if it was compared with Buddhism. How would a non-Buddhist become interested in behaviorism by comparing it Buddhism? 

I guess the author’s inability to reach nirvana became the establishing operation for writing this paper? It would explain why they wrote “The notion of effective action leads directly to the consideration of the pragmatic outcomes of behaving in accordance with Buddhism and radical behaviorism”  (underlining added) . Of course, there is only effective action for behaviorism. Buddhism with its ten thousand rules is incapable of being pragmatic, but Baum, who presumably is an expert on this topic, point s out the importance of what Buddhism as a philosophy “allows a person to do.” Let us make no mistake about this “behaviorism is based on pragmatism.” We would have known that without Baum. Overrated Buddhist knowledge stands in no comparison to behaviorism in terms of its ability to “satisfy human needs and further human interests.” Thus, it is Buddhism and not behaviorism which is going to die out, because of its dismal record. It would be not pragmatic if Buddhism, which is ancient and well-respected, were incorporated to legitimize behaviorism 

"A scientific understanding of human affairs” would indeed lead to a “technology that could be employed to improve the world,” but our involvement with pre-scientific ways of conduct derails such progress. Sound Verbal Behavior (SVb) is such a  technology, but it has only been acknowledged and implemented by me and by a few others. Like Carr, I insist on the bidirectional causality of behavior. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB )  will continue if we keep making the speaker more important than the listener.  When we engage in SVB we will shape new kinds of behavior, but when we continue with NVB, we are not learning anything new. 

"Mindfulness meditation” is not shaping any new behavior and those who practice it still continue with their NVB. I have talked with thousands of meditators, and they practice NVB like everyone else, the Dalai Lama included.  Being able to “tact the contingencies that the individual [the speaker] is establishing for others [the listener] may lead to improved social interaction, and  ultimately, improvement of the human condition”(words between brackets and underlining added). I wonder if this is really about how we talk. “Instead of escaping the suffering of life and achieving nirvana” pragmatic people are realistic enough to acknowledge that how we talk is tremendously important." I doubt  that this is true. “Remaining present in the world, meditating and praying until all sentient beings have reached nirvana” is not going to do anyone any good. Nothing is gained by the Buddhist “ultimate self-control response” ,which is against talking. Let’s be very clear:Buddhist austerities are another form of aversive behavioral control . SVB is appetitive and is not about depriving ourselves from sensory stimulation. To the contrary, it increases and attunes our sensory stimulation to such a point that speakers and listeners feel stimulated as they all listen to themselves while they speak. Buddhism isn’t and will never be a science and “verification by personal experience” is meaningless. 

I guess the authors were trying to talk with themselves when they stated “with Buddhism, there is a feedback loop between behavior and its consequences; behavior and consequences interact to improve the life of the individual” (underlining added). This so-called interaction, however, has nothing to do with what happens between the speaker and the listener. It is at best a good example of a speaker who wants others to listen to him or to her, but who is not even listening to him or herself. As stated, such speech is NVB.  

It’s ludicrous that behaviorists write and even get published a paper in which they praise the “devotion of boddisatvas” whose attempts supposedly “bring about vast changes for all sentient beings.” What sheer stupidity is this?  Unless Buddhists  learn to have SVB, they can only pretend to have  “a scientific way of thinking in which self-examination is required.” I have not found one Buddhist with SVB.  The so-called rigorous questioning that is presumably done by Buddhist is a fake, as it only involves “personal verification." SVB on the other hand, is based on scientific questioning, that is,, it can and must be verified by others. 

In SVB, the speaker’s SVB is mediated by the listener, who then becomes a SVB speaker to the speaker, who then becomes a listener. This ongoing turn-taking and nothing else maintains SVB.  When SVB occurs, communicators find “this process of questioning the truth by which one lives” is not part of SVB. Each time speakers  get side-tracked by esoteric nonsense, they create NVB as they produce a frightening contingency for the listener.

Only during SVB are “contingencies constantly analyzed and adjusted to most efficiently achieve the desired goals” but in NVB we only theorize about them. By the way, weren’t Buddhist supposed to let go of “ desired goals?” I am just saying. “The desired goals”, of course, are better relationship as a result of better conversation. 

Finally, at the end of the paper, the Hahn (2003) mentions something in the right direction. “If you get caught in an idea and consider it to be the truth then you miss the chance to know the truth.” Naturally, it takes a mentalist to “get caught in an idea”, but leaving that aside, behaviorists still get caught in Buddhist ideas because they haven’t  yet become scientific about their way of talking. In other words, NVB  has continued in spite of the fact that the truth was already known about behavior being a function of environmental variables. The variable maintaining NVB is how we sound while we speak. If we don’t listen to ourselves while we speak, we keep missing the fact that we produce a sound which maintains NVB.  In SVB we have a different sound and mood which goes together with different behavior. 

I had a lot to say about this paper about Buddhism and behaviorism. It got me fired up as I have often met presumably meditative people who didn't want to talk. SVB is meditative communication, but NVB is mechanical,, unidirectional, hierarchical interaction. Actually, NVB isn't interaction at all, because it is a one-way street.  SVB cuts through all the red tape and exposes those who are pretending to be better than others. 

 

If our purpose is to have improved social interaction,,we must attend to how we sound while we speak. Every speaker must be his or her own listener. This, however, is only possible if listening to ourselves becomes more important than listening to others. Due to the high rates of NVB, we are more inclined to listen to others than to ourselves. To listen to ourselves,, we must stop listening to others. Only if we are no longer forced to listen to others can we begin to listen to ourselves. In NVB, we listen to ourselves as if we are listening to someone else, but in SVB our speaking and listening behavior is joined again.