April 30, 2016

April 30, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Human Behavior as Language: Some Thoughts on Wittgenstein” (2006)   Ribes-Iñesta explains “language as a form of life.” He writes that “Language as a medium is the totality of functions that objects and actions acquire as conventional signals. It involves the reactions induced by stimuli, the differential reactions to or recognitions of stimuli, and the reproduction of stimuli.” This is as close he gets to addressing how the speaker influences the listener. Ribes-Iñesta as well as Wittgenstein intellectualize about language. Unlike B.F. Skinner, they are not very emotionally involved in their analysis of language. Positive or negative emotions could be involved in “Reactions to induced stimuli.” The “language games” involved in prolonging our positive or negative emotions require a separate analysis. The SVB/NVB distinction accomplishes such an analysis. Such analysis is grounded in the everyday experience of people and has more appeal than the intellectual analysis. 

Understanding about “the nature of human behavior and its relation to language” has been impaired due to NVB. NVB is the reason why “language is like a second nature for us, even though we may not be aware of this.” In NVB we are not aware of our use of language. We are only aware of our use of language to the extent that we are in the here and now while we use it. In SVB, as the speaker listens to him or herself, while he or she speaks, he or she is a conscious speaker, because his or her attention for his or her sound, which is produced in the here and now, makes him or her aware about the here and now. Also, listening happens in the here and now. Thus, both the production and the reception of sound converge in the here and now.

In SVB, our joined speaking and listening behaviors are conscious acts. Also, we are more careful and understanding about our language during SVB. The causation of behavior attributed to an inner self is a myth perpetuated by how we talk, that is, by NVB. “Wittgenstein’s remarks and observations point to the mistake in assuming that speaking about our experiences and feelings entails speaking about the mind.” However, as long as we don’t know about the SVB/NVB distinction, we cannot and have not become scientific about our language. Behaviorism, in spite of its empirical evidence, continues to be given short shrift as we haven’t been able to talk about it in SVB. 

The “much-needed conceptual shift” didn’t and couldn’t come about due to the “theoretical efforts in the analysis of language and human behavior.”  If that shift is our goal, we must engage in more conversation. Only in SVB can we talk about the “possibility of producing and creating new circumstances resulting from special classes of individual practice.” In SVB we both talk about and dissolve the “conceptual confusion in assuming the “existence” of private events corresponding to “inner” experience.” Moreover, we will find that NVB has kept us ignorant. Rather than, as we have been used to in NVB, excluding human psychological phenomena from language, in SVB we will impregnate “human psychological phenomena by language”.  And, oddly enough, as we become more capable of expressing our emotions more accurately, due to our SVB we become more rational. “The linguistic nature of human environment” will only be observed if we listen to ourselves while we speak. Ribes-Iñesta writes about “The foundation of language in action and the acquisition of its basic elements through observation and listening”, but he doesn’t mention to accomplish this conceptual shift we must speak, instead of read. Reading can’t change how we talk, only talking can do that.

Ribes-Iñesta ends with “Contrary to our pragmatic culture, advances in psychology do not necessarily depend on empirical accumulation of evidence, especially when it is based upon conceptual misunderstandings. The critical revision of prevailing assumptions about human behavior may be a more adequate strategy to formulate meaningful questions.” Although he is correct, advances in psychology still depend on whether we talk with each other….and how we talk with each other. It has always amazed me how little willingness there is among those involved in behaviorism or psychology to talk with each other. In concluding my response to Ribes-Iñesta’s paper, I want to emphasize once more that (conceptual) misunderstandings can and should be dealt with by more and better interaction. The fact that we have so many misunderstandings and questions while we are talking with each other is the elephant in the room of psychology. We cannot possibly write or read our way out of this. When we will explore the SVB/NVB distinction, we find to our surprise that understanding each other was never really the problem!  We will understand ourselves and each other, when we experience ourselves and each other while we speak. However, in NVB we are neither in touch with ourselves nor with each other. NVB creates and maintains all of our misunderstandings and SVB is without such aversive experiences.