September 8, 2015

September 8, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my third response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Since the authors don’t know about the Sound Verbal Behavior/Noxious Verbal Behavior distinction, they split Skinner’s ethics into meta-ethics and moral ethics. The split between facts and values, common to those who are still uninformed about behaviorism, is now replaced by meta-ethics and moral-ethics. These authors correctly feel that Skinner left out moral ethics as he didn’t write about the vocal verbal behavior which must be practiced to accurately talk about behaviorism. That vocal verbal behavior must be SVB. Although it has not been analyzed in this way, it was because of SVB that Skinner did “not recognize an ontological distinction between statements of facts and statements of values.” Anyone with SVB would know that.  

The authors wonder: “Could we, then, refer to a radical behaviorist meta-ethics as an empirical ethics? We think so. What is a value, what is good or what benefits an individual or a group of individuals, have this status because of phylogenic, ontogenetic, and cultural histories.” Their initial question comes from NVB in which we don’t connect with what we say. SVB makes us talk about each of these three levels of analysis, but NVB prevents such talk. Since there are no arguments in SVB, it is literally beyond dispute that SVB has to be the language of empirical ethics. NVB is still so common among scientists as they are not scientific about talking. During NVB even behaviorists stop being behaviorists, they become pre-scientific and superstitious.   

To Skinner the above question never arose. He wrote “What a given group of people calls good is a fact: it is what members of the group find reinforcing as the result of their genetic endowment and the natural and social contingencies to which they have been exposed” (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 128, emphasis added). Then, “things are good (positively reinforcing) or bad (negatively reinforcing)” (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 104) and “good things are positive reinforcers” (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 103), “what is good for the individual is what promotes his well-being” (Skinner, 1974/1976, p. 226).” Skinner is very clear on the fact that what is considered good by one given group of people may be considered bad by another group of people. Without acknowledging this, we are always trying to convince others that what we find good is better than what they find good. This would be an example of NVB. Acknowledging our different behavioral histories is needed to pave the way for SVB.  Skinner’s radical behaviorism paves the way for SVB. The tone of his voice and the calmness of his speech signify his SVB.  

“Skinner draws a parallel to the phylogenic and cultural levels: “What is good for the species is what make for its survival....What is good for a culture is what permits it to solve its problems” (Skinner, 1974/1976, p. 226). In this sense, what has value for a culture is what contributes to its survival.” NVB doesn’t permit us to solve our problems. SVB, on the other hand, facilitates the much-needed cross-cultural dialogue.  With SVB, we will survive, as we can salvage the best of each culture. With NVB, however, we will demonize each other’s cultural heritage. 

“Skinner distinguishes three kinds of “good.”” He recognizes “personal good, owing to our biological susceptibility and genetic endowment; the good of others, derived from social reinforcement for positive social behavior; and the good of the culture, and the measures the culture uses to induce its members to work for its survival.” The personal good, the good of others and the good of the culture are all included and intertwined in SVB, but in NVB the personal good is more important than the good of others or the good of the culture. Different “goods” “all refer to consequences, but may be distinguished by who is mostly affected by the consequences.” In NVB the good of others and the good of culture are used as arguments to cover up that consequences are for the personal good. “People can act under control of personal goods, the good of others and the good of the culture”, but whenever their actions are based on the consequences of only one or two of these, they have NVB. Thus, SVB creates universal positive consequences.

It is often said that everything has already been said, but nothing is further away from the truth. We have had SVB in such limited amounts that most of us have never experienced ongoing SVB. The conversation about SVB has yet to get started. As long as behaviorists were mainly involved in reading and writing, it couldn’t get started. Talking which is simultaneously under control of “personal goods, the good of others and the good of culture” is a new phenomenon, introduced by Skinner.  

The authors quote Skinner who wrote: “When we say that a value judgment is a matter not of fact but of how someone feels about a fact, we are simply distinguishing between a thing and its reinforcing effects. Things themselves are studied by physics and biology, usually without reference to their value, but the reinforcing effects of things are the province of behavioral science, which, to the extent that it is concerned with operant reinforcement, is a science of values. (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 104, emphasis added).” If I were to add emphasis, I would underline the fact that we say these things. Skinner said these things in a different manner than most behaviorists are saying it. Moreover, Skinner’s way of saying things was inextricably connected to his writings, but this is not the case with most other behaviorists. The majority of behaviorists superstitiously believe that they are saying something, while in fact they are only writing about it. They imagine to be part of a conversation while in fact they are  only reading about it. Stated differently, the importance of talking about it is lost due to an emphasis on writing about “operant reinforcement” as “a science of values.” Verbal behavior as behavior that is mediated by others, can only be felt while we talk about how we feel about the facts as we perceive them.