September 6, 2015

September 6, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

The following writing is my first response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). The paper starts with a quote from Skinner: “Let me ask you a question. I warn you, it will be the most terrifying question of your life. What would you do if you found yourself in possession of an effective science of behavior? Suppose you suddenly found it possible to control the behavior of men as you wished. What would you do? (Skinner, 1948/2005, p. 240).” To me this is not a terrifying question. To be able to “suddenly control the behavior of men as you wished” is only terrifying for those who were for a long time unable “to control the behavior of men as they wished.” The shock only occurs due to the lack of behavioral control. Since this lack is common, the question is a shock to those who have a history characterized by the inability to “control the behavior of men” as they wished. To those who don’t have this history, there is no shock, because they already know how to “control the behavior of men as they wished.” 

Although Skinner knows a great deal about control of behavior, he made this statement as he doesn’t know about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Someone who knows SVB would never make such a statement. To the contrary, he or she would describe how he or she controls the behavior of men as he or she wished. In SVB the speaker simply controls the behavior of listener with an appetitive contingency. The directness of this verbal “science of behavior” can and will only be experienced while we talk.

 “Technology aims at the deliberate production of consequences”. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an aversive contingency. In SVB the speaker produces immediate positive consequences in the listener. SVB is the technology Skinner talked about which can “solve our current problems such as birth control, environmental preservation, reduction of malnutrition worldwide, improved sanitation and health, and so on." 

“The development and proposed application of a technology of behavior, particularly one that may promote cultural planning, has triggered heated opposition and ethical questioning” as we don’t yet differentiate between SVB and NVB. “Heated opposition” is an example of NVB.“Deliberate control of human behavior challenges the traditional conceptions of free will and freedom.” Moreover, if we apply “deliberate control of human behavior” to how we speak and how we, as speakers, influence the listener, we find the illusion of “traditional conceptions of free will and freedom” only pertains to NVB. In other words, an unscientific view of who we are continues to be maintained by NVB, which is a coercive way of talking.

Only NVB “carries the threat of enslaving the controlees to benefit only the controllers.”  With SVB there is no chance for such enslavement. And this puts in perspective the “ontological and epistemological principles of Radical Behaviorism”, which teaches that “behavior is always controlled, deliberately or not.” This distinction between “deliberate or not” is the same as non-aversive or aversive. The speaker’s non-deliberate control of the behavior of the listener is unconscious and aversive and inducing negative affect in the listener. In SVB, by contrast, the speaker is deliberately, consciously and positively controlling the behavior of the listener, as he or she knows and experiences that he or she produces a sound, which induces and maintains positive affect in the listener. The question is not between deliberate control or not, but between positive or negative control by our vocal verbal behavior.

Skinner’s claim that “a whole society (albeit small), with its planned culture, by means of a technology of behavior” would “guarantee survival and happiness for its members” indicates the possibility of SVB.  I disagree with the authors, who state that Skinner’s claim (in Walden Two) would “probably be endorsed by many behavior analysts and radical behaviorists.” If that were true, many behavior analysts and radical behaviorists would be interested in SVB, but this is not (yet) the case. As it stands, most analysts and radical behaviorists produce as much NVB as everyone who is not an a radical behaviorist. The “possibility of total control of human behavior” is seen as “a nightmare by its critics”, but “analysts and radical behaviorists”  also strongly oppose replacing coercive with non-coercive verbal behavior. They agree with Skinner’s SVB in theory, but they don’t practice it.

Skinner refers to this in Walden Two, when Castle says to Frazier (who planned and founded Walden Two), that he would “throw the science of behavior in the ocean.” This is a standard NVB interaction in which the speaker, Castle, influences the nervous system of the listener, Frazier, by inducing negative affect with the sound of his voice. This is, however, only implicitly mentioned in the dialogue between Frazier and Castle. Frazier answers Castle by asking him “And deny men all the help you could otherwise give them?” Frazier wants to continue with SVB, but by asking this question, by arguing with him, he is already joining Castle’s NVB, who immediately bites back “And give them the freedom they would otherwise lose forever!” Still trying to continue with SVB, but clearly already engaged in the argument, Frazier then asks Castle “How could you give them the freedom?” It is as if Frazier invites to be hit by Castle’s NVB line of reasoning, who then forcefully answers back “By refusing to control them!” Castle’s so-called refusal to control the behavior of others apparently didn’t apply to how he dealt with Frazier. This happens again and again in day to day conversation, in which the NVB speaker denies controlling the behavior of the listener, while in fact he or she has just negatively influenced him or her. Frazier, that is, Skinner, has the last word, when he says “But you would only be leaving the control in other hands.” The “other hands”, the opposite of deliberate, conscious control, invariably represents NVB.