August 10, 2016

August 10, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twelfth response to “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). I agree with Day who states “the power of simple description as a method for generating knowledge appears to have been grossly underestimated.” I feel very close to his description. 

“Of course, nothing in the Skinner system requires that the observer restrict his talk to the emission of descriptive statements.” The same can be said about the Peperkamp “system” of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). However, I don’t myself call it a “system” as I think that description of SVB and NVB alone is sufficient. 

“Once the observation of behavior has taken place”, once our way of talking has been carefully listened to, “the observer should be encouraged to talk interpretively about what he has seen.” The listener is stimulated to become a speaker and to engage in SVB, that is, talk about what he has heard and is hearing and “not necessarily restricting himself to the identification of controlling variables.” The restrictions Day is talking about are only part of NVB, during SVB such restrictions don’t exist. 

“To be sure, the radical behaviorist recognizes that the particular interpretation that he makes will be a function of his own special history, and clearly interpretation guided by extensive observation is to be preferred to speculation by the novice.” My interpretation of the SVB/NVB distinction is more than a function of my own unique history. 

All my students and mental health clients continuously validate my interpretation with their “extensive observation.” Without a trace of doubt “very special circumstances” have been created “that contribute to my “psychological” theory”. Day writes about “standard machinery of experimental method in psychology”, which, at some point, requires that subjects “do at least something which is capable of being seen.” 

This description of visual stimuli doesn’t represent vocal verbal behavior as it requires the subject say something which is capable of being heard. We only do this in SVB. Day wonders “How often does the psychologist actually watch his subjects in action, hoping simply that what he sees will lead him to talk more informatively about what he is investigating?” 

If the psychologist is investigating vocal verbal behavior, there is much to be heard, but not that much to be seen. And, if the psychologist talks with the subject about what he hears, he should not only listen to what others say, he should also listen to himself as a subject. If he doesn’t listen to himself as well, he will engage in NVB, but if he listens to himself while he talks with his subject, he will engage in SVB. 

The question should be: how often does the psychologist actually listen to himself while he speaks with his subjects? There is no need for him to hope that what he hears will lead him to “talk more informatively about what he is investigating”, as his involvement in SVB would demonstrate that he is talking very informatively now about talking. 

People who are engaged in SVB agree that they are having a meaningful conversation. How different is such an involvement from “the principal investigator of a research project”, who “merely surveys an orderly collection of numbers, usually purported to be “composite” measures of something or other?” It is clear that “an orderly collection of numbers” is not going to make us listen to the sound of our voice while we speak. 

Even the “more fortunate graduate student”, who wrote down these numbers and “presumably had at least the opportunity to observe the relevant behavior as it actually took place”, may have listened to the subject, but chances are very small that he or she listened to himself.