June 24, 2016

June 24, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my ninth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). I have talked with enough people to be sure that nobody has really any problem accepting the fact that the world is not flat or the center of the universe.

It is because of how we talk that many don’t understand nor accept Darwin’s that theory “removed humans from their special place at the pinnacle of the biblical hierarchy of animals, stipulating that the processes of evolution through natural selection that operated on all animals had operated, and continues to operate, on humans as well.”

Amazingly, this conclusion has not been made; those who understand, but who still have superstitions, maintain these by their way of talking. Addressing “epistemological barriers” without even addressing the fact that they are a function of how we talk with each other is nonsense.  

The world is not in a chaos because of different conflicting theories or philosophies, but because of how we talk. The point I am making is that we are not talking as long as our theories and philosophies don’t match. We only assume we are talking, while we maintain our outdated beliefs.

The way of talking which makes us hang on to falsehoods is Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is a way of talking in which the speaker demands the attention from the listener. During NVB different speakers with different beliefs struggle to get each other’s attention. The struggle for attention and attempts to dominate the conversation are characteristics of NVB. 

The scientific way of talking, in which we are looking at and listening to the facts, is Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). During SVB communicators have a positive effect on each other because of how they sound. They agree that barriers are always caused by aversive-sounding speakers. They are intellectually engaged as no attention is drawn to negative emotions. SVB is scientific because we maintain our positive emotions.  

June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my eight response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). Many times in the history of science new findings weren’t accepted as people were mired by their old beliefs. Our technological society is based on science, yet most of us have no clue how this all came about and how science contradicts all our ideas about ourselves and about reality. The gap between what we know and what we believe is so big that it is creating many problems.

It makes no sense to write about the “Epistemological Barriers to Behaviorism” without addressing the fact that superstition has always hindered each scientific development. Behaviorism is not special in that sense. Although epistemological barriers have been and continue to be a stand in the way, they could never prevent development of science.

I think it is a misunderstanding to assume an “epistemological obstacle to the Copernican system is to be found in its displacement of the earth as the center of the universe.” The fact that people couldn’t directly perceive the earth revolving around the sun and around its own axis was never really the problem. The real problem was and has always been how we have talked with each other.

What has always been the problem is that educated speakers, produce Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and, in one way or another “challenge” the uneducated “listener’s “views of a single, unmoving and unchanging Heaven.” In NVB the sound of the speaker’s voice is perceived by the listener as an aversive stimulus. We have yet to acknowledge that this contingency has never been and is never going to be conducive to learning. 

As long as the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) of the speaker was lacking, he or she was unable to provide an appetitive learning- contingency to the listener. I think that listeners will readily accept the “Copernican, heliocentric account” from a skilled SVB speaker. They always did.  

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.