September 9, 2015

September 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my fourth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). The authors state “This science seeks to explain why each individual advocates for, claims to possess, or has the behavior governed by certain values.” How do individuals do this? They do this by talking with each other! When behaviorist, in their effort to explain and predict behavior, write about this or read about what others have written about this, they are not talking about it.  These authors write “We call these events “good”. Therefore we say that some values have phylogenic origin”, but the fact is, they haven’t said anything. Skinner was also writing about speaking, but his speaking was different from other behaviorists. His public speech became over time more and more guided by a very refined private speech and that is how he was able to practice self-management and do his discoveries.

I say this to introduce the reader to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) in which public speech includes and is guided by private speech. Let there be no mistake, private speech is, of course, a function of public speech. Therefore, the kind of private speech one acquires depends on the kind of public speech one was exposed to. It seems to me that Skinner had a lot of positive self-talk, which derived from high levels of SVB he was exposed to while growing up. Since his view of the world was shaped by these positive emotions, he was capable of maintaining and prolonging his positive experiences with his own behavior. This was particularly apparent in the way he spoke and sounded. His speech was entirely under control of radical behaviorism. This cannot be said about most of the other behaviorists. Many learned about operant conditioning by reading and studying his work, but few were able to interact with him. And, those who did cared more about what he said then how he said it.

Skinner cared deeply about what he said as well as how he said it. He had in his younger years wanted to become a writer, but his private speech guided him towards a scientific career, which was simply more reinforcing to him. His behavior was under control of “the good of others” in that he wanted to improve the world. His whole science consists of contingencies which “are established to generate behavior under control of what is reinforcing to others.” Naturally, what is “good for others” was also good for him personally. The connection between the “the personal good” and “the good for others” brought into view “the good for the culture.” How can something be good for the culture if it is not good for the person? How can something be good for others if it is not good for the individual? Of course, these values are related and must be embedded into each other to have any meaning.

“Skinner points out that feelings associated with ethical behavior do not cause the behavior. “Stimuli are reinforcing and produce conditions which are felt as good for a single reason, to be found in an evolutionary history. Even as a clue, the important thing is not the feeling, but the thing felt (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 107).”” Only this rootedness in evolutionary history can explain the complexity and congruence of our behavior. I like to remind the reader here that “the thing felt” while we speak is how we sound. It is the sound of the speaker’s voice which induces positive or negative emotions in the listener. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) we get carried away by feelings, because we don’t pay attention to “the thing felt”, in other words, to how the speaker sounds.  We take it personal when our feelings get hurt, but this always happens when someone sounds threatening, intimidating and aggressive to us. 

During most of Skinner’s speech there is no aversive stimulation at all and what he is saying is easy to understand. Skinner is aware of the power that is involved in the control of reinforcers. He disagrees with those who have this power and who use it in a way that only benefits themselves. His science, like SVB, has the potential to change all of that. “Governments, religions, and capitalistic systems, whether public or private, control most of reinforcers of daily life, they must use them, as they have always done, for their own aggrandizement, and they have nothing to gain by relinquishing power.”  His science opens the door to a whole new way of life, but this will not be possible as long as our way of talking, which is mainly NVB, maintains this power structure. “Other social contingencies may lead us to act for the good of the culture as a whole and not just for the good of an “other,” or an “other” organized as a controlling agency (Skinner, 1971/2002).” Skinner refers to SVB, in which the speaker induces and maintains a positive affective connected experience with the listener. SVB involves “other social contingencies,” but NVB doesn’t and can’t. However, SVB doesn’t involve “the “other” as an organized group, as the controlling agencies.” SVB is only possible when the speaker and the listener are one within the speaker as the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. When we listen to ourselves while we speak, the separation between the speaker and the listener (outside of the skin of the speaker) dissolves, because the speaker reinforces the listener and the listener reinforces the speaker.

“An important feature of Skinner’s meta-ethics is moral relativism. There is no absolute good or evil. Events acquire functions and classifications for an individual as a result of her/his phylogenic repertoire and of contingencies to which she/he is submitted along ontogenesis, particularly social contingencies.” This moral relativism is not specific to Skinner’s work. It pertains to all scientific behavior. SVB is a manner of speaking which is in synch with what we scientifically know. It works as it is the same for everyone who experiences and engages in it. This means that when the contingencies are such that it is possible, it will happen, like water evaporating at 100 degrees Celsius. The lawfulness of SVB and NVB will not be apparent as long as we remain stuck with our false belief in good and evil. It is for this very reason that we haven’t accepted the SVB/NVB distinction and keep going circles when it comes to how human beings actually interact.