Human Behavior as Language

Dear Reader,

In “Human Behavior as Language: Some Thoughts on Wittgenstein” (2006) Ribes-Iñesta explains “language as a form of life.” He writes that “Language as a medium is the totality of functions that objects and actions acquire as conventional signals. It involves the reactions induced by stimuli, the differential reactions to or recognitions of stimuli, and the reproduction of stimuli.” This is as close he gets to addressing the listener who mediates the speaker’s speaking behavior. Both Ribes-Iñesta as well as Wittgenstein intellectualize about language. Unlike B.F. Skinner, they don’t strike me as particularly emotionally involved in their analysis of language. Positive or negative emotions could be involved in “reactions to induced stimuli.” The “language games” involved in prolonging our positive or negative emotions require a separate analysis. The Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction can accomplish such an analysis as these two universal categories are grounded in the everyday experience of ordinary people and has more appeal than any intellectual analysis.

Understanding about “the nature of human behavior and its relation to language” has been hindered by our involvement in NVB. NVB is the reason why “language is like a second nature for us, even though we may not be aware of this.” In NVB we are oblivious of our use of language. We are only aware of our use of language to the extent that we are in the here and now while we use it. In SVB, as the speaker listens to him or herself, while he or she speaks, he or she is a conscious speaker, as his or her attention for his or her sound, which is produced in the here and now, makes him or her aware of the here and now. Also, listening brings our attention to the here and now. Thus, production and reception of sound emphasize the here and now.

In SVB, our joined speaking and listening behaviors are conscious acts. Also, we are more careful and understanding about our language during SVB. The causation of behavior attributed to an inner self is a myth perpetuated by how we talk, by NVB. “Wittgenstein’s remarks and observations point to the mistake in assuming that speaking about our experiences and feelings entails speaking about the mind.” However, as long as we don’t know about the SVB/NVB distinction, we cannot really become scientific about our language. Behaviorism, in spite of all of its empirical evidence, continues to be given short shrift as it hasn’t been taught with SVB. It should be taught with SVB.

The “much-needed conceptual shift” hasn’t and couldn’t have been produced by the “theoretical efforts in the analysis of language and human behavior.” To create such a shift, we must engage in a different kind of conversation. Only in SVB can we talk about the “possibility of producing and creating new circumstances resulting from special classes of individual practice.” In SVB we can talk about and dissolve the “conceptual confusion in assuming the “existence” of private events corresponding to “inner” experience.” Moreover, we will find out that NVB has kept us ignorant about ourselves and each other. Rather than, as we have been used to, due to NVB, excluding human psychological phenomena from language, in SVB we will impregnate “human psychological phenomena by language”. And, as we become capable of expressing our emotions more accurately, due to our SVB we will become more rational. “The linguistic nature of human environment” will only be observed if we listen to ourselves while we speak. Ribes-Iñesta writes about “The foundation of language in action and the acquisition of its basic elements through observation and listening”, but he doesn’t mention that to accomplish this conceptual shift we have to speak and listen, instead of read. Reading can’t change how we talk and listen, only talking can do that.

Ribes-Iñesta ends with “Contrary to our pragmatic culture, advances in psychology do not necessarily depend on empirical accumulation of evidence, especially when it is based upon conceptual misunderstandings. The critical revision of prevailing assumptions about human behavior may be a more adequate strategy to formulate meaningful questions.” Although he is correct and meaningful questions must, of course, be asked and answered, I still believe that advances in psychology are going to depend on whether we will talk with each other and how we will talk with each other. It never stops to amaze me, however, how little motivation there is among behaviorists, therapists or psychologists to actually talk with each other.

In concluding my response to Ribes-Iñesta’s paper, I want to emphasize once more that conceptual misunderstandings can and will only properly be dealt with if we learn about another way of talking. The fact that mental health professionals continue to have so many misunderstandings and unanswered questions, even if they are finally having some conversation, is the elephant in the room of human psychology. We cannot possibly write or read our way out of this mess! When we explore the SVB/NVB distinction, we will find to our big surprise that understanding each other was never really the problem! In SVB we understand ourselves and each other because we experience ourselves, that is, we are conscious, while we speak. However, in NVB we are neither in touch with ourselves nor with each other. NVB creates and maintains our misunderstandings, while SVB is the solution to our problems!