October 9, 2015

October 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my thirteenth response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The authors hypothesize about the “eventual resolution of an integrated molar-molecular account”, but they don’t refer to the spoken communication that is necessary to make that happen. I claim that only Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) can make this happen. Molar behaviorists would have us believe that behavior cannot be understood by focusing on events in the moment. Moreover, they accuse Skinner’s molecular behaviorism, which holds that behavior can be broken down into its atomistic parts or molecules, as being inconsistent with his “Selection by Consequences” (Skinner, 1981).  This is total nonsense.

Skinner found that “response-contingent reinforcers most commonly alter the control of responses by their antecedents.” His research led him to state that “discriminative control of responding is ‘‘practically inevitable’’ (Skinner, 1937, p. 273). Although the authors of the paper under review agree with Skinner that “There are no inherently molar or molecular levels of analysis; these are relative terms, either of which can be applied to the very same observation depending on the frame of reference at that moment”, they don’t seem to appreciate Skinner’s molecular perspective is absolutely needed if we are to ever have any decent conversation with each other. Molar behaviorists, by contrast, who view behavior as the ultimate product of a person’s history, have accused molecular behaviorists of committing a fallacy by inventing fictitious proximal causes of behavior, but while they are doing this, by writing more papers, they back out of the conversation in which we could agree that molar and molecular are indeed “relative terms”.

Since behaviorists haven’t acknowledged the SVB/NVB distinction they  remain divided among themselves. I write about SVB due to “effects of selection by reinforcement.” In spite of high rates of rejection, I have continued with SVB as it is incredibly reinforcing. I feel more accepted than ever, but this wasn’t always the case. Due to self-experimentation I am able to commit to SVB. As a teacher, I receive feedback from my students, who explore SVB with me. Also, I received positive feedback from faculty who participated in my seminars. This is not to say that I am not constantly challenged, but I love that challenge. It is because of this challenge that I keep learning to have more SVB and avoid NVB. I keep creating the situations in which I can rise to the occasion.

“Which effects are produced depend on the specific environmental and behavioral events that are reliably contiguous with the reinforcer (i.e., with the stimulus evoking a behavioral discrepancy).” I call myself a verbal engineer as I create and maintain the contingency for SVB with my verbal behavior. In spite of problems, I set myself this difficult task which is appreciated. The authors propose a “unified reinforcement principle.” However, “Because the nonspecific dopaminergic system does not directly innervate the autonomic nervous system, our position is consistent with early speculations by Skinner (1937) regarding the inability to condition autonomic responses using operant reinforcement contingencies (see Donahoe, in press-b).” SVB is made possible due to the absence of aversive stimuli. Stated differently, the voice of the speaker doesn’t trigger a fight, flight or freeze response in the listener.

I think that SVB is necessary for operant conditioning, but NVB involves respondent behaviors that limit operant learning. Another way of talking, SVB, is needed to create a level of analysis which will help us to understand “anomalous findings”. “The inability of autonomically mediated responses to be modified directly by operant contingencies illustrates a case in which the interpretation of anomalous findings at the behavioral level (some responses are affected by their consequences, whereas others are not) may be resolvable by information from another level of analysis.” This information can and must be obtained while we engage in SVB. Moreover, we can’t have SVB and NVB simultaneously as we only in engage in one or the other.   

“Autonomically mediated responses are simply excluded as candidates

for direct selection by operant contingencies, but they are nevertheless acquired when operant contingencies are implemented.” What this means is that during instances of SVB, NVB stops, but during instances of NVB, SVB stops, that is, if we are going to have more SVB then NVB will be extinguished. SVB could never be extinguished by our increased rates of NVB as SVB is the essence of a happy, healthy life. I noticed in my life that less and less respondents are selected and predict that this process will continue based on my behavioral history, which was often troubled by respondents. Also, I became more studious and began to write about my increase of operant learning. “The contention that both operants and respondents are selected during operant contingencies is noncontroversial, and is explicitly endorsed by a number of the commentators (Galbicka; Dworkin & Branch; see LCB, pp. 44–45).”

As we achieve more SVB, more operants and less respondents will be selected. My life as well as this writing is proof of that. Reading this paper makes me realize how far I have come. “Indeed, one of the most important implications of the unified reinforcement principle is that the outcome of conditioning depends on interactions, if any, among stimuli and responses that are candidates for inclusion in the selected environment–behavior relation.’’ Authentic relationship (interaction), among people (stimuli) is possible, who behave (responses) in ways that are adaptive (candidates for inclusion) to maintain peace (selected environment-behavior relation). In other words, SVB is “one of the most important implications the unified reinforcement principle.”

I insist that “the outcome of conditioning depends on interactions,” but not between stimuli, but between people. If we can’t consider people as stimuli, we miss out on interaction. NVB is not interaction. It stops it, as it increases fearful respondent behavior which constrains operant learning. We must re-define what interaction is. Only SVB is interaction as puts an end to our long and dreadful history of aversive stimulation.