November 9, 2015

November 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students, 

This is my sixth response to “Effectiveness as Truth Criterion in Behavior Analysis” by Tourinho and Neno (2003). I hope you find this interesting to read, but I can imagine that you don’t like it as it may all seem rather theoretical. What I write about is only possible under certain circumstances. It is my aim to describe as accurately as possible the antecedents or the stimuli that set the stage for Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and the postcedents, the stimuli that validate and reinforce it. 

If SVB doesn’t occur, it can’t occur as antecedents prevent it. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is caused by other events than SVB. Regardless of what these events are, they prevent SVB as SVB can only occur in the absence of NVB. The workings of SVB and NVB are also explained by others, who didn’t yet recognize this distinction, but who were in the process of shaping their behavior in the direction of SVB. Like me, the authors use the writings of other authors to emphasize their point. The difference between me and these authors, however, is that I insist that we should be talking with each other to be able to clarify these matters. 

My writing is grounded in talking and I talk about and enjoy SVB every day. “As pointed out by Haack (1978), since “coherence theories take truth to consist in relations of coherence among a set of beliefs” (p. 86), it is justifiable to confirm that “James’ account on the way one adjusts one’s beliefs as new experience comes in, maximizing the conservation of the old belief set while restoring consistency. . .introduces a coherence element.” We will lack coherence as long as we are unable to continue with SVB. Our lack of coherence is a product of NVB.

You may blame me for being redundant, but my writing about SVB is consistent and coherent. I am amazed that I am doing this and I could have never believed some years ago that I would be writing this. For a long time I felt overwhelmed by the seriousness, precision and dryness of academic writing. Although I never aspired to do that, my journal writing takes on that form as the SVB/NVB distinction is an extension of behaviorism. 

Since I am writing to you my dear students and not to the behaviorist community, who, for the most part never wanted to talk with me anyway, I don’t mind repeating myself or others as this is needed to learn more about SVB. Although they wrote for a different audience, there is, of course, a similarity in the thinking of these authors, James, Skinner and me. Yes, “it is justifiable to confirm that “James’ account on the way one adjusts one’s beliefs as new experience comes in, maximizing the conservation of the old belief set while restoring consistency. . .introduces a coherence element."

SVB, the way of talking I have dedicated my life to, is, like the work of James and Skinner, pragmatic and conservative. It has to be as “In the truth-processes dynamics, when a new belief acquires the status of truth, it “mediates between the stock [of old ideas] and the new experience.” These words of William James resonate so beautifully with SVB. 

“The point I urge you to observe particularly is the part played by the older truths. Failure to take account of it is the source of much of the unjust criticism leveled against pragmatism. Their influence is absolutely controlling. Loyalty to them is the first principle—in most cases, it is the only principle” (James, 1907/1996a, p. 35, italics added). Nothing I have found on the first day that I discovered SVB isn’t true today. You will find the same thing when you would replicate my experiment. Just listen to yourself while you speak and tune into your own sound. 

By listening to yourself while you speak you become aware of the relationship that exists between the speaker and the listener. That relationship within each individual is of utmost importance for the relationship between the speaker and the listener as different people. If the relationship between you as the speaker and you as the listener is disturbed, as it always is in NVB, there are will be problems between you and others, who are trying to listen to you or speak with you.   

The authors write “In Skinner’s radical behaviorism, as in James’ philosophy, the appeal to effectiveness should be subordinated to an assessment of the relationship between new propositions and the ones previously assumed to be valid; on the contrary, one may be faced with inconsistencies.” These inconsistencies are maintained by NVB.  

“The appeal to effectiveness should be subordinated” to the SVB/NVB distinction, to talking about the effectiveness of SVB, as only this will avoid “inconsistencies.” What most behaviorists don’t realize is that they have only worked out “inconsistencies” in their writing, but they also must be worked out in their talking. The fact that this hasn’t happened always shows up in their writings. Agreeing in writing about effectiveness and consistency didn’t and couldn’t result in agreeing while talking. It never did. 

“The definition of the subject matter of a behavioral science in terms of organism-environment relationships and the recognition of the variability or the idiosyncratic character of behavioral relationships” is a perfect starting point for the exploration of the SVB/NVB distinction. Surely, another way of talking is needed which includes instead of excludes “the variability or the idiosyncratic character of behavioral relationships.” The former is SVB, the latter is NVB. “The term behavior must include the total activity of the organism—the functioning of all its parts” (Skinner, 1935/1961b). There can be no doubt about the fact that you are the speaker and the listener.