November 12, 2014

November 12, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

Yesterday, this writer was reading midterm of the students from his psychology class. It occurred to him that those who had adhered, as they had been instructed, to the APA format, were the least interesting to read, while those who basically had ignored this aspect of the assignment had written papers, which had some kind of message. It was as if the former were only pretending to say something, while the latter were clearly thinking about the research they had read and responding to it in ways which related to their own lives. As this author had said in advance that he would not grade the papers on APA format, some students chose not to practice that part of the assignment.

Some papers contained no opinion of its author at all, while in others the data was organized to support the writer’s opinion. It was particularly interesting to notice this since students had been given the task to write a paper on a topic of their choice. How data from the research papers they had used was presented, indicated if the students had felt supported and confirmed in their own opinion or were overwhelmed, confused or even defeated. What also struck this writer was the correlation between how students behave in his class room and how they write. He had never before noticed this.

Stated with better words, this writer saw the similarity between how students talk and write. In some cases, it was apparent that certain students, who hardly talk, can say a lot in their papers. It seemed as if he was hearing them for the first time. However, in cases in which the student is talkative, but perhaps not as thoughtful, the paper reflected difficulties involved in interpreting the facts, which don’t always agree with what we are thinking. Also, great differences were seen in the extent to which some students were able or willing to question the facts.

While reading these papers, this author was reminded of his own process. Due to behaviorological knowledge, he no longer views individuals as causing their own behavior and, as a result, he  doesn’t view these authors any longer as having caused their papers. It is only in retrospect that this author has come to understand his resistance to having to quote the words that were produced by others. He realizes that behaviorologists, like everyone else, have inadvertently continued the agential view in the name of academic writing. If behaviorologists truly adhere to the view that individuals are not the doer of their actions, they should stop the tradition of having to reference the work of others. Our mothers and fathers and other members of our verbal community have influenced our verbal behavior much more than any scholar, yet we never reference them or give them the respect they deserve.