August 22, 2016

August 22, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-fourth response to the paper “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). Since the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) was never the topic of discussion at any conference, not much has changed between the publication of this paper and now. 

“The possibilities of active reconciliation” between radical behaviorism and phenomenology led people to organize to the Rice Symposium. Day wrote a nice paper about that, but it didn’t result in anything else. 

When we consider the SVB/NVB distinction, we realize that “there are numerous ways in which radical behaviorism and phenomenology need each other”, but radical behaviorism, the scientific account of human behavior, is, of course, needed much more than phenomenology. 

Radical behaviorism’s superiority was not received well is due to NVB. If even Carl Rogers, who coined the term unconditional positive regard (a term which radical behaviorists who are experts on conditioning laugh at) considered “Skinner’s verbal behavior as in some way inherently intolerant,” he clearly didn’t practice what he preached. 

From a behavioral perspective, what Rogers refers to is, of course, conditioned positive regard or a therapeutic stance.  Day recognized the difference between Skinner and Rogers. 

“Skinner’s analysis of obviously phenomenological subject matter, as his chapter on “Private Events in a Natural Science” in Science and Human Behavior (1953, Ch.17), or the paper on Operationism (1945), or his contribution to the Rice Symposium (1964), are clearly under the control of considerable self-observation on the part of Skinner himself.” 

I admire Day for his ability to detect aspects of SVB in Skinner and aspects NVB in Rogers. His writing shows he is focused on how people talk. “It is not that what Skinner has to say in this material needs “experimental test”, “What is needed is extensive descriptive analysis of verbal behavior controlled by observable events that are likely to be identified by the speaker as his own conscious experience, his inner subjective feelings, or his private hopes, fears, and aspirations.” 

In the aforementioned statement Day exactly describes SVB. These observable events are identified by the speaker, who is listening to him or herself while he or she speaks. Day’s observation is accurate, but unfortunately most behaviorists don’t include his level of analysis. 

“Without such a behavioral analysis, coverage of the obviously interesting aspects of human functioning will remain incomplete.” The opposite is also true: with such a behavioral analysis we will recognize the importance of the SVB/NVB distinction, as it sheds light on how our private speech, the way we think, is caused by our public speech. 

Day doesn’t find “important causes of the social and personal adjustment behavior” in analysis of “phenomenological verbal behavior,” but he insists that “careful description of functional relations can be expected to have an ameliorative influence upon the extent to which inner mental processes are called upon in the explanation of behavior.” 

NVB private speech doesn’t cause NVB public speech any more than SVB private speech causes SVB public speech. Instead NVB public speech co-occurs with NVB private speech. Thus, NVB public speech conditions NVB private speech. 

Likewise, SVB private speech co-occurs with SVB public speech. To the extent  a person is exposed to and involved in SVB public speech, he or she will be conditioned to have SVB private speech. Especially for those who suffer from mental health issues this analysis is of great importance.