June 22, 2016

June 22, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my seventh response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). How are scientist supposed to examine and question their own superstitions? As long as they are only expected to read and write and thus can basically avoid talking about their “hypothesized entities involved in scientific explanations,” they will continue to maintain their superstitions just like everybody else.

The ignorance, neglect, denial and misrepresentation of behaviorism is a function of how behavioral scientists have talked. They don’t have more Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) than non-scientists. Their way of writing papers may be conform to scientific protocols, but their way of talking is unscientific and perpetuating Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

Donohue et al. (1998) state that “All concepts have limitations, but

nonetheless concepts are necessary in science.” However, they don’t address that besides reading and writing, we must talk about science and be able and attracted to listen to someone who is talking about it.

These authors are imprisoned by written words. They have written, but not talked about the preconceived assumptions. The sentence “Science will always contain some assumptions, because all things cannot be simultaneously questioned” didn’t come out of nowhere. It signifies a way of talking in which at best only a few questions could be asked.

In NVB, a listener who becomes the speaker is only allowed to ask the speaker a limited amount of questions. Most people have had limited exposure to and involvement in SVB, in which “all things” CAN  “be simultaneously questioned.” Such questioning is often associated with religious experiences. As NVB was incapable of accommodating our relentless questioning, we have created and maintained scientific and religious assumptions. Causation of behavior by an inner agent is the most detrimental assumption and can only be eradicated by SVB.

June 21, 2016

June 21, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my seventh response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). Although these authors do a good job pointing out “concepts have limitations in that they selectively focus attention and contain presuppositions regarding what is plausible or even possible”, they don’t take this line of thought far enough.

Every time the communicators become fixated on what they say, they lose touch with themselves and others. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), speakers are oblivious and inconsiderate of how they nonverbally dominate the listener. The fact they remain ignorant about this and can get away with it doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.

In NVB listeners are not allowed to question speakers. Interestingly, Bachelard defined epistemological barriers or obstacles in the following way: "Any knowledge that is not questioned or that does not lead to further questions, any notion that blocks the fundamental questioning activity of science, is an epistemological obstacle."

During conversation, questions usually come from those who listen to the speaker, who, by asking, then become a speaker. If the listeners cannot become speakers, this “blocks the fundamental questioning activity of science” and this then is “an epistemological obstacle.” If listeners cannot become speakers they will have to get stuck with their private speech. 

“These obstacles or barriers are not external to the scientist, but are held by the scientist in his or her web of belief (Jones, 1991).” Bachelard urges scientists to question and examine their suppositions, otherwise they come to their subject matter “thoroughly prejudiced” and “marked by preconceived ideas and values (Jones, 1999, p. 79). Take note here NVB is always repetitive, mechanical, unconscious, forceful and effortful talk,  while SVB is novel, creative, lively, enjoyable and conscious communication.

June 20, 2016

June 20, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my sixth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). I think the authors are on the right track in their “focus on epistemological barriers to accepting a position.”

Translated by someone who is knowledgeable about the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) / Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction, they would be in favor of having SVB over NVB, as only SVB can bring our attention to the different contingencies that maintain SVB or NVB.

Emphasis on “accepting a position” applies to both a position purported by a SVB speaker as well as one purported by a NVB speaker. By accepting the difference between bi-directional and uni-directional exchanges, we realize that only SVB can be considered communication.

Everyone who has explored the SVB/NVB distinction agrees that NVB is NOT communication as it is a one-way-street, from the speaker to the listener. Certainly, the NVB speaker can force the listener to do all sorts of things and there are many reasons why the listener will allow this to happen, but the coercion and effort involved in NVB will always have different consequences than the effortlessness, the absence of aversive stimulation and the presence of comfort and safety in SVB.  

As the aversive control, which characterizes NVB, sets the stage for counter-control, it makes total sense to consider NVB as our greatest barrier to accepting a position. Participants who explore the SVB/NVB distinction will agree that NVB always involves a struggle for attention.

It is the experience of struggle, more than anything else, which is the barrier in accepting a position.  I agree with the authors “that the clarity of presentation is not usually the issue in psychology and also believe that there is rarely much prerequisite knowledge needed to initially understand positions in psychology.” However, rather than focusing on what we say, how we say it needs to get the attention.

June 19, 2016

June 19, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my fifth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). When people have trouble understanding each other and one party is trying to explain things, while the other is trying to understand, this often does NOT result in understanding. The more attention people give to explaining things with what we say, the less attention they have for how they say it. 

The more those who try to understand what is being said focus on what is being said, the more they are distracted by how the speaker speaks. During Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the speaker fixates on what he or she says. There can be no congruency between the content and how he or she speaks. The difference between what we say and how we say it is the difference between our verbal and our non-verbal expressions. 

Listeners only make an effort to understand NVB speakers. They don’t need to make any effort to understand a Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) speaker as such a speaker will be effortlessly understood. We don’t notice or acknowledge this, but the listener’s effort that is involved in understanding the speaker is always a consequence of NVB. 

Donohue et al. (1998) posit that “overcoming epistemological barriers to understanding a position” is not as important as “overcoming barriers to accepting a position.” Presumably, if we would do a better job at “overcoming barriers to accepting a position”, we are more likely able to overcome the barriers involved in “understanding a position.” In SVB experience is most important thing and understanding is a by-product.  Only when the speaker and the listener experience SVB will they be able to understand under what circumstances they are having it.

June 18, 2016

June 18, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my fourth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). Although my writing may appear like more of the same to you, if you read it carefully, if you read it out loud and listen to the sound of your voice while you read it, you will find out that what I am saying is at the same time very similar, but also very different from the authors of this paper have been writing.

Donohue et al. (1998) write  “Although Bachelard did not make the distinction between overcoming epistemological barriers to understanding a position and overcoming barriers to accepting a position, we believe that this distinction is important.” In other words, they use Bachelard’s words to introduce the reader to their distinction between understanding and accepting. In my view this distinction doesn’t get us to the core of the issue. By splitting the concept of “epistemological barriers” in two, we are now dealing with two kinds of epistemological barriers. In other word, Donohue et al. (1998) have NOT decreased epistemological barriers, they have increased them.

This continues to be very common in science as our writing and reading is considered to be more important than our speaking and listening. My distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), on the other hand, which makes us acknowledge that in SVB speaking and listening happen at the same response rate, while in NVB speaking and listening happen at very different response rates, reliably decreases epistemological barriers. However we need to talk.

I am not asking you to believe me. I want you to verify my distinction. If you do that, you find the results I am writing about. Interestingly, the difference between accepting and understanding maps perfect onto my SVB/NVB distinction.  If non-behaviorists accept behaviorism or if an autistic child accepts the behavior of the behavior analysts, who teaches it verbal behavior, this it is going succeed because of SVB.