September 10, 2015

September 10, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

The following writing is my fifth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Skinner’s interest in “solving human problems with the help of behavior analysis” wouldn’t make any sense without “moral relativism.” Although his “behavioral technology is ethically neutral, because nothing in a methodology determines the values that govern its use”, he insists that “We are concerned here, however, not merely with practices, but with the design of the whole culture, and the survival of a culture then emerges as a special kind of value” (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 150, our emphasis). To contrast the emphasis added by the authors, I have underlined my emphasis. Skinner was not thinking about only one specific kind of culture, but he was deeply concerned about culture as such, as a force in the selection of human behavior. 

Since his focus was on predicting and controlling behavior, he placed  his emphasis on accurately describing --in his writing-- what happens. Although his contribution to science has been enormous, it didn’t and it couldn’t lead to discovery of the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). To make that happen scientists must remain focused on they sound while they speak. Skinner wants the same scientific treatment for every culture. If we are,  going to have a conversation in which this objectivity is expressed, we are going to have SVB, but as long as our so-called conversation is clouded and distorted by our conventional superstition, which makes us identify with our own particular culture, we are going to have NVB. 

These authors have only read what Skinner has written. That is why they write “We understand from statements such as this that Skinner argues that moral neutrality cannot, or should not, exist in the sphere of cultural planning.” In other words, they are inferring from his writing what he meant by what he said. However, a lot of what Skinner meant cannot be found in his writings. It can only be found in the sound of his voice, that is, in his gentle demeanor. There is nothing relativistic about his verbal conduct, which was exceptionally consistent. I consider most of his vocalizations as examples of SVB. I agree with the authors, who seem to feel where Skinner was coming from as he was not randomly doing something. “It does not make sense to intervene without an objective, without an idea of what is best to be done. The behavior of whoever intervenes is guided by a prediction of the intervention’s consequence.” Skinner certainly isn’t neutral about the fact that only radical behaviorism can enhance our culture, nor is he neutral about the superstitions which prevent such enhancement. Although I agree with Skinner and with the authors that “The moral relativism of a science of values is no longer in place”, I place the emphasis on how we talk, because without SVB we can’t improve our relationships.

The authors seem to be referring to SVB when they write: “Therefore, in the sphere of social intervention, there should be a special value that governs the use of technology, helping to define what is good and what is bad.” SVB is good and NVB is bad. With SVB, we are going to use our technology to enhance instead of diminish our relationships. Either we are going to do that or we don’t. If we don’t, this means that we can’t, as we keep having NVB. “The special value” has to be a new way of talking. Skinner is referring to this indirectly. “ this value is the good of culture, the survival of the culture (that would be ultimately defined by survival of humanity, because Skinner does not prescribe any type of competition between cultures), that should be above other values.” SVB happens without aversive stimulation. Unless we acknowledge the SVB/NVB distinction, we will get stuck with NVB.  We are still bogged down by NVB because this understanding and experience is lacking.

According to Ruiz and Roche (2007), “in Skinner’s naturalistic ethics, survival emerges as the ultimate value and criterion by which to assess the worth of cultures and individual cultural practices” (p. 1-2). Skinner (1971/2002) argues that this good should govern the behavior of those who are in a position to design cultural practices.” Without SVB, that is, with NVB, we are heading for self-destruction. “Those who are in the position to design cultural practices” are least likely to be open to the difference between SVB and NVB. Their position of power is acquired and maintained by NVB. The person ideally positioned to teach about SVB and NVB has to be someone who is not invested in power. This is not a saint, but someone knowledgeable and capable. Skinner was very knowledgeable, but incapable of identifying the difference between SVB and NVB. Behaviorists should be interested in the fact that we are each other’s environment. Only in SVB do we co-regulate each other, but in NVB we dis-regulate each other. As long as “naturalistic ethics” doesn’t address a different way of talking, it is only theoretical. In other words, “naturalistic ethics” only makes sense as a behavior.

We should not expect these “new cultural practices” to “occur “naturally” through “happy accidents”, but we should be deliberate about “cultural revolution.” SVB only happens if it can happen and if it can happen, it will happen. If NVB happens, this means that SVB can’t happen. Most people who are introduced to the SVB/NVB distinction are surprised to realize that only SVB is deliberate, while NVB happens on automatic pilot. NVB is an unconscious, mechanical way of talking. The “cultural planning” professed by Skinner is not going to happen as long as behaviorists themselves continue to have NVB and find no time for the necessary exploration of SVB. Skinner, however, alludes to SVB when he states that “a well-designed culture is “a set of contingencies of reinforcement under which members behave in ways which maintain the culture, enable it to meet emergencies, and change it in such a way that it will do these things even more effectively in the future” (Skinner, 1969b, p. 41). Once we practice SVB things will rapidly get better.