September 11, 2015

September 11, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my sixth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). “The prescription of the good of culture as a supreme value in Skinnerian writings raises some problems” as the authors are conditioned by and conforming to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is the absence of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) makes them reason that “the election of good of the culture seems tautological.” In other words, these authors (actually, behaviorists and non-behaviorists alike) interpret Skinner’s SVB in a NVB manner. Predictably they argue that “Radical Behaviorism as a philosophy of the science of behavior states necessary but not sufficient assumptions for the election of the good of culture.” NVB always goes against SVB and will never acknowledge it, but SVB acknowledges NVB and transcends it.

With SVB it is impossible “to use the theoretical and technological framework of the science of human behavior for purposes other than the good of the culture”, but with NVB “purposes other than the good of culture” form the speaker’s motives. For instance, the speaker wants the listener to listen to him or to her, but he or she is not even listening to him or herself. Thus, the dominating and intimidating NVB speaker induces negative affect in the listener with his or her aversive-sounding voice. In SVB, by contrast, the speaker’s voice is an appetitive stimulus which induces positive affect in the listener. The culture created by the NVB speaker is different from the culture created by the SVB speaker. NVB creates a sick culture, while SVB creates a healthy culture. Stated differently, we create a sustainable culture to the extent that we have SVB, but to the extent that we have NVB we create a culture which is doomed to collapse. Culture is maintained by how people talk together.

Skinner is not putting any effort in trying to “convince us otherwise.” He would be doing that if his speech was NVB, but he mainly has SVB.

In NVB we are always trying to convince someone of something, which involves a great deal of effort. In SVB, on the other hand, there is no need to convince anyone and our conversation is effortless. The reader is asked to pause for a moment and think about how often talking with someone or listening to someone requires effort. This effort signifies how often we are involved in NVB. The time when our conversations went effortlessly and when we had a taste of SVB, were accidental, haphazard, occasional, once in blue moon. We have never had SVB in a predictable, skillful, consistent and deliberate fashion.

Skinner’s way of talking is more in line with SVB than with NVB, but as stated in my previous writing, his emphasis was not on how he spoke, but on what he said. This common focus, which I call verbal fixation, usually sets the stage for NVB. Along with outward orientation (the aforementioned tendency to dominate others) and struggle (for attention), we must discriminate three basic behaviors which make SVB impossible. Our voice changes when we are inattentive to how we sound while we speak. This occurs because we try to impress others with what we say. Also, the sound of our voice changes when we try to dominate others. And, the sound of our voice changes when we argue. NVB creates a culture of hostility and distrust, but SVB creates a culture of mutuality and support. SVB sounds good, but NVB sounds terrible.

I agree with the authors, who state that “the prescriptive aspect of Skinner’s theory does not necessarily stem from the descriptive aspect.” My interpretation is that “the prescriptive aspect of Skinner’s theory” does not necessarily derive from what he has written (“the descriptive aspect”), but from what he has said. The authors seem to be reasoning from a NVB perspective when they consider the Third Reich as an evil culture. Regardless of how awful the Third Reich was, it was a culture, which survived for a certain period of time, just like any other culture. “We may even accept that survival is the only value according to which a culture will eventually be judged. However, since we are not inclined to accept any culture that survives, it is questionable whether survival should be the main value to guide cultural planning.” Skinner, in my opinion, spoke of the survival of a SVB culture. He stated that “Personal sacrifice may be a dramatic example of the conflict of interests between the group and its members, but it is the product of a bad design. Under better contingencies behavior which strengthens the culture may be highly reinforcing. (Skinner, 1969b, p. 41).”  When Chiesa states that “the philosophy and scientific practice of behaviorism do not inevitably lead to the promotion of survival as a value (…) Surely the values do not emerge from the meta-ethics” (Chiesa, 2003, p. 296, our translation),” she is also, like the authors, speaking from a NVB perspective. In the “highly reinforcing culture” Skinner was thinking about the values do arise from the meta-ethics. Of course, both the authors and Chiesa respond to the content of Skinner’s speech, but not to how he said it. As already mentioned, such fixation on the verbal, which strips Skinner’s words from their context, from how he sounded, that is, from the nonverbal experience, is characteristic for NVB.  

“In Skinner’s prescriptive ethics, we would have a well-planned culture, by means of a technology of behavior.” Such a well-planned culture has to be based on SVB and must identify and control for NVB, because only a SVB culture is “able to solve the problems which it faces and, at the same time, does not require personal sacrifice from its members, thus guaranteeing survival and happiness (e.g., Skinner, 1948/2005).” Moreover, only a NVB culture requires and demands “personal sacrifice from its members”, whereas SVB guarantees “survival and happiness.”  

Behaviorist shouldn’t promote survival of NVB, but, unfortunately, they do. In a same way parents reinforce their child’s acting out behavior by giving it attention, behaviorist continue to promote NVB, by trying change the way in which we speak about behavior. They focus on content rather than context. The how of what they say has not become  important. Although, in theory, they agree that “Happiness or well-being of individuals that make up the culture should be assured”, while speaking, that is, in practice, they still mainly produce NVB. They may aspire to “Good cultural planning” which “would not demand personal sacrifice”, but they elevate behaviorist’ jargon above engaging SVB.