November 7, 2015

November 7, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students, 

This is my fourth response to “Effectiveness as Truth Criterion in Behavior Analysis” by Tourinho and Neno (2003). These authors “present an instrumental conception of truth, according to which the truth is “whatever yields the most effective action possible” (Skinner, 1974/1993, p. 259).”” Anyone who is familiar with the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) will agree that this distinction “yields the most effective action possible” as it effortlessly and predictably results into an increase of SVB and a decrease of NVB. Other approaches that attempted to change the way we talk couldn’t accomplish what the SVB/NVB distinction will again and again achieve. 

Just as Skinner took Thorndike’s instrumental learning to a new level with operant learning, the SVB/NVB distinction takes our vocal verbal behavior to a new level. It has this effect as it is based on Skinner’s “instrumental conception of truth.”Skinner calls a response instrumental if it is emitted voluntarily because of its consequence — that is, because of a stimulus (the SVB of others) that follows it. If the SVB speaker is not reciprocated by the listener, this is because the listener, due to his or her NVB history, is incapable of reinforcing the speaker. Only SVB is instrumental or operant as only in SVB the speaker is positively reinforced by the listener, who can become the speaker and take turns with the speaker. NVB, however, is elicited behavior as the listener often isn’t even allowed to speak.

Both in SVB and NVB communicators associate paired events, but only SVB is an example of voluntary, instrumental or operant conditioning, while NVB is an example of involuntary or classical conditioning. Stated differently, SVB is heterarchical, but NVB is hierarchical. Perhaps this difference is even more important than any other description. I have described NVB as hierarchical, but today I realize there must be an opposite to hierarchy. A heterarchy is a system of organization where the elements of the organization are unranked (non-hierarchical) or where they possess the potential to be ranked a number of different ways. 

It doesn’t surprise me to find out that definitions of the term vary among disciplines. Any kind of agreement can only be accomplished if we have the SVB/NVB distinction in place. I suggest we use heterarchy and hierarchy to describe SVB and NVB. These terms also made me think of horizontality versus verticality. I describe SVB as horizontal as it grounds us, but I consider NVB as vertical as it makes us view ourselves and each other as higher or lower in the dominance hierarchy. 

These visual descriptions are quite useful for becoming more focused on auditory cues, which remain ‘out of sight’ due to our NVB. As SVB speakers are more down to earth they sound better than NVB speakers, who think they are better than everybody else. By rejecting “the notion of objectivity as correspondence of truth in favor of an interpretation consistent with the instrumental concept of truth”, Skinner was in my opinion unknowingly referring to SVB. His description “responses to some forms of stimulation are more likely to be ‘right’ than responses to others, in the sense that they are more likely to lead to effective behavior” (Skinner, 1953/1965, p. 139) fits exactly with SVB.  Besides leading to more effective behavior, SVB already is effective behavior.  

SVB responses “are more likely to be right” that is, they are more likely to describe reality accurately than NVB responses. This is not to be taken at ‘face value’, it requires auditory verification. By listening to the difference between SVB and NVB, we recognize and agree that only SVB can promote “identification with pragmatic principles” and that NVB will always obstruct inquiry of practical solutions. “According to Pierce, definitive beliefs, corresponding to reality and unassailable by doubt, would be possible through the application of methods used in experimental sciences, the same resource used to measure the truth or falsity of a belief.” Such verbal behavior must be SVB, but can’t be NVB. 

Only SVB allows us to fully doubt. In NVB we are presumably without any doubt. Only if we allow doubt, can it and will it come to an end. “Therefore, it is in terms of doubt and belief that the notion of truth shall be approached, but “truth is the end of inquiry, that opinion on which those who use the scientific method will, or perhaps would if they persisted long enough, agree” (Haack, 1978, p. 97, italics added). 

Preposterous as this may sound: SVB “is the end of inquiry.” Once we experience the great difference between SVB and NVB, we no longer doubt that we can stop NVB and continue with SVB.  Since we haven’t yet acknowledged the SVB/NVB distinction, we are unable to “persist long enough” with SVB to agree on this. Although it has been tried, we haven’t been successful in creating a scientific spoken communication. 

“The scientific method, Peirce argues, alone among methods of inquiry, is constrained by a reality which is independent of what anyone believes, and this is why it can lead to consensus. So, since truth is the opinion on which the scientific method will eventually settle, and since the scientific method is constrained by reality, truth is correspondence with reality. It also follows that the truth is satisfactory to believe, in the sense that it is stable, safe from the disturbance of doubt.” (Haack, 1978, p. 97). We can only continue to have SVB, become truly verbal and scientific, once we no longer aversively influence each other with the sound of our voice. Any behaviors which maintains the dominance hierarchy is unscientific and behavior which is scientific is heterarchical.