August 1, 2016

August 1, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my third response to “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). Behavior analysts have made autistic individual’s speak, yet, for the most part, they were unable to engage in the actual conversation that increases the interest in the science of human behavior which made this possible. As we shall see, phenomenology holds the key to understanding why this is the case. 

There is nothing wrong with radical behaviorism, but there is something wrong with how behaviorists have been talking about it. As long as radical behaviorism was promoted by Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the situation couldn’t be created to make it understood. Only Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) can create and maintain the situation that stimulates learning about behavior-environment relations. 

To the extent that behaviorists have been able to engage in SVB they were successful in promoting their science. Day states “Perhaps the most conspicuous characteristic of radical behaviorism is its focal interest in the control of behavior.” Although this is true, interest in the control of behavior did not, as one would expect, bring about increased attention for what should be considered mankind’s biggest problem: how we talk with each other. This issue must be addressed.

As this problem hasn’t been properly addressed behaviorists continue to miss an important opportunity to reach a broader audience. SVB has a broader reach than NVB as it focuses on solving our communication problems, which prevent us from getting along. Moreover, in SVB, the search for radical behaviorists call “controlling variables” comes to an end as speakers are aware of how they sound while they speak. Simply stated, how we talk with one another is determined by how we sound. 

“Events are considered controlling variables when they are seen, or perceived to be related to the behavior in some way.” I have yet to read a behaviorist paper in which listening was emphasized as a way of observing. 

For most scientists, behaviorists included, observing equals paying attention to visual stimuli. Textual stimuli that are found in scientific papers are visual, but the vocal verbal behavior known as talking is determined by auditory stimuli. The only way to ‘observe’ what goes on while we speak is by listening to our auditory stimuli. 

“However, many times the identification of controlling variables does not follow from anything so simple as an observation of the temporal contiguity of phenomenal events.” To know about the controlling variables of speaking, we must not only listen to how we sound while we speak, but we must also be willing to listen to the history of how we have sounded while we spoke. While observing visual stimuli, we see a table and say ‘table’, but while listening to how we talk we cannot say SVB or NVB, unless we continue to listen, that is, continue to observe. 

Observation of how we sound while we speak (listening) makes us and keeps us conscious. Conversation in which we accurately describe the relation between our vocal verbal behavior and its controlling variables “is called a statement of functional relationship.” Furthermore, “in the statement of a functional relationship, the controlling variable”, our voice, “is a stimulus and, that aspect of behavior seen in relationship to the controlling variable”, our way of talking, “is called a response.” 

Verbal episodes consist of x - amount of SVB instances and x - amount of NVB instances. Each time we change from SVB to NVB or from NVB to SVB, the sound of our voice changes. It was like that, it is like that and it is going to be like that. Nobody can go on with only one or the other. We will always be going back and forth between SVB and NVB. However, we can increase SVB and decrease NVB. Thus, it is possible for us to decrease the process of going back and forth between SVB and NVB. We can maintain, as much a possible, a safe environment.