November 12, 2015

November 12, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students, 

This is my ninth and last response to “Effectiveness as Truth Criterion in Behavior Analysis” by Tourinho and Neno (2003). Indeed “scientific verbal behavior [SVB, when it is spoken] is a function of the scientist with his subject matter but also of contingencies provided by the scientific verbal community.” Skinner created his own contingencies. He once stated (I paraphrase) he would remake the whole field if he had to. “Considering that and assuming that the behavior-analytic approach to behavioral research and intervention leads the scientist to study the relationship of the organism as a whole with its surroundings”, Skinner steered clear from NVB as in NVB the organism is clearly threatened by its surroundings. The fact that he was more effective in arranging his own SVB than others made his “references to effectiveness as a truth criterion” more precise rather than “imprecise”, as these author argue.

Pragmatism “emphasizes functional aspects of the processes of constructing and validating our beliefs about reality” and in doing so it is an argument in favor of SVB. Skinner took James’s pragmatism to the next level by asserting that “the pragmatic truth criterion requires, preliminarily, agreement with its basic beliefs concerning behavior.” We can only continue to reason from a SVB perspective, if we actually engage in SVB as SVB is a natural phenomenon. We either engage in SVB or in NVB. Although we have instances of SVB, we remain mostly engaged in NVB. “To appeal to the successful working of a belief, not taking into consideration that coherence requirement, either leads to inconsistencies or makes it impossible to check the validity of a presumed explanation of behavior.”

SVB and NVB each have their own internal coherency. Any incoherence always derives from the fluctuating rates of SVB and NVB in any verbal episode. To think that incoherence is a function of representationalism or mentalism is not the point. It is because SVB is so easily disturbed, that we are still dealing with “inconsistencies” that make “it impossible to check the validity of a presumed explanation of behavior.” Skinner’s radical behaviorism still depends on our spoken communication to be spread and behaviorists have been slow to acknowledge this fact.

It is for good reason that Skinner considered his book Verbal Behavior (1957) his most important work. However, as long as the SVB/NVB distinction has not been made, behaviorists (as well as cognitivists) are  verbally beating around the nonverbal bush. Consistent results will require consistent relationships. Such relationships require agreement and therefore SVB. SVB is based on agreement, but NVB is based on disagreement. Presumably, in NVB we agree to disagree, but in SVB we agree to agree. When we agree in SVB, we agree explicitly as well as implicitly. We often explicitly agree, but implicitly we disagree. This inconsistency is a product of NVB. NVB overt public speech results in NVB covert private speech. Once we know this, we realize there is no need to “work out the consequences of the disagreement.”

What we call disagreement are different rates of SVB and NVB which occur due to our different histories. By all means, we need to “take into account” the “beliefs about behavior within the context of which effectiveness is being evaluated.” As long as we are trapped by NVB, we cannot be pragmatic, effective or coherent. Neither James’s pragmatic philosophy nor Skinner’s explanatory model will be of much use to us if we keep messing things up with our different rates of SVB and NVB.

Progress has depended and will continue to depend on the extent to which SVB increases and NVB will decrease. Of course, this can only occur if we discriminate and maintain contingencies which make this possible. Skinner didn’t make “imprecise references to effectiveness as a truth criterion”, to the contrary, he only made us more precise.  

The scientific community has yet to provide the contingency for SVB. James and Skinner and the authors of this paper, who link the two, are among the few scientists who can make arrangements which can make SVB possible. Since they are not doing this deliberately or consciously, SVB is more of a byproduct than an immediate result of their actions. Their study of “the relationship of the organism as a whole with its surroundings” hasn’t yet focused on how we sound while we speak. What they have been doing is listening to what they say, but after they have said it. This is an example of NVB. In NVB speakers listen to or privately think about what they say before they speak or after they have spoken. In SVB, however, we attain the possibility of listening to ourselves while you speak. This can happen as listening and speaking behavior occur at the same rate. Moreover, we continue to fine tune speaking and listening behaviors due to the total absence of aversive stimulation. In an operating room we keep the place free of germs, likewise in a SVB environment we control for aversive stimulation. A new kind of order, coherence, effectiveness, control and pragmatism emerges as we prolong our experiences of SVB.

Last night I had a dream. I was rowing a makeshift raft near a swamp. All my books were stacked on this raft and also some rocks. Somebody ask me to remove one of the rocks. The raft slowly tilted and all my books slid off and disappeared into the swamp. Initially, I was horrified, but there was the thought that I knew what was in these books and didn’t need them anymore. In this dream I was once again affected by NVB. Due to the amount of SVB public speech that I have experienced nothing was lost and my SVB private speech continued. Ultimately, that is, individually, checking “the validity of a presumed explanation of behavior” depends more on spoken than on written language. NVB makes us overestimate the importance of written language and ignore spoken language. Like Robinson Crusoe, we can speak with ourselves in the absence of others. Only to the extent that we have done that can we understand others who have also done that.