November 11, 2015

November 11, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students, 

This is my eight response to “Effectiveness as Truth Criterion in Behavior Analysis” by Tourinho and Neno (2003). The authors devote the last section of their paper to “limits of the pragmatic criterion in behavior analysis”. This tells me they themselves  aren’t pragmatic. They are still struggling with Skinner’s “generic definition” which “provides for instrumental criterion in 1945.” Skinner wrote “What matters to Robinson Crusoe is not whether he is agreeing with himself but whether he is getting anywhere with his control over nature” (Skinner, 1945, p. 293). Remarkably, they don’t go at all into the fact that Crusoe was talking out loud with himself and that this was made possible by the behavioral his history of talking with others. 

Even though he was all alone on his island, Crusoe, by talking out loud with himself, made his private speech public. Interestingly, the authors do mention that “Skinner suggested that, even in the absence of verbal interaction with others (and, therefore, in the absence of public agreement), the validity of an explanation could be checked”, but they don’t mention anything about the fact that a person’s private speech is of course a function of that person’s public speech. Instead they write “Whether or not it is possible to achieve agreement in the absence of verbal interaction is a question that merits discussion, but to reject the requirement of public observation should not mean that the coherence criterion could be neglected.” Skinner had something in common with Crusoe and that is why he used him as an example to explain his views. He knew the advantage of being alone and (like me) he “checked” the “validity” of all his explanations on his own before he revealed them to others. 

Skinner was able to practice self-management as he had a high rate of SVB in his behavioral history. These high rates of SVB continue in the absence of others in private speech and are automatically reinforced. Skinner didn’t need those who knew less than him, who had more NVB and couldn’t achieve agreement with him. This is the situation anyone with high rates of SVB finds him or herself in: one is liberated from the large NVB crowd.

Let there be no question about why I cherry-pick from the behaviorist literature: I only choose what serves my purpose. Had Skinner used other heroes like Crusoe more often and had he written more books like Walden II, radical behaviorism might have reached a broader audience. However, he didn’t experience any limitation to his pragmatic approach and that is why he stuck with it and kept on going. His work, like mine, kept on growing and growing during his life time. Seeing this development was his biggest joy. “It is, indeed, an a posteriori conclusion generated by theories selected according to their effect upon the scientist or professional who is conducting the behavioral study that will promote cultural survival.”

Only after we come back again to SVB can we realize we were involved in NVB. NVB goes on so often, but we remain unaware of it. Only when NVB was stopped can we explore and reap the benefits of SVB. Certainly, this doesn’t happen often, but that is our problem. It could happen effortlessly and repeatedly, but we don’t know how to make it happen. I write to explain to the reader that SVB requires the absence of aversive stimulation. Only those who speak English understand English and “only those who share the values of a behavior-analytic culture will agree.” Only those who engage in SVB will agree with SVB. It is sufficient to know that SVB is possible. 

Unlike these authors I think that “The effectiveness criterion” does “take into consideration the preliminary role that basic beliefs or assumptions play in controlling the use of effectiveness as means of assessing the validity of an explanation.” These authors reason from a NVB point of view, while Skinner reasons from a SVB point of view. They are silly to accuse Skinner of being “dogmatic.”  Since they are stuck in the same NVB boat as Hayes, they are looking for something to base their argument on. All they can do is yank the reader around with more writings from others who disagree with Skinner. Yet, to carve out their own niche, they state “Nevertheless, Hayes (1993) is not here taking into account that, for Skinnerian behaviorism, analytic objectives or prior goals are not prediction and control as such, but a set of specific beliefs about its subject matter: behavior.” Since this is true, Hayes was wrong. In my analysis, Skinner has more SVB than the majority of behaviorists and the authors of this paper have more SVB than Hayes.

In both SVB and NVB we are dealing with “a set of specific beliefs about” how we talk. If this writing was a real conversation, mentioning objectives which can be found “throughout Skinner’s work” would involve increased rates of SVB. Although he didn’t know the SVB/NVB distinction, Skinner’s references to verbal behavior were “clearly defined, explicitly addressed, and frequently recognized as arbitrary (perhaps the only exception to this is the reference to the “natural lines of fracture along which behavior and environment actually break”) [Skinner, 1935/1961b, p. 347]).

In Skinner’s statement about Crusoe, “what was being rejected was” NOT “a criterion (adopted by methodological behaviorism) of intersubjective agreement based on public observation.” Unknowingly, Skinner was asserting the validity of SVB, which neither requires “agreement based on public observation,” nor agreement based on private observation. As there is no separation between speaker and listener, the issue of agreement doesn’t arise in SVB. Crusoe taught Skinner to keep NVB at a minimum.

November 10, 2015

November 10, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students, 

This is my seventh response to “Effectiveness as Truth Criterion in Behavior Analysis” by Tourinho and Neno (2003). The Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction emphasizes the “organism-environment relationship, a correlation between classes of stimuli and classes of responses (Skinner, 1935/1961b).” The sets of experiences of speakers and listeners in SVB and NVB are very different. 

In SVB speakers and listeners are connected, but in NVB speakers and listeners are separated. Due to the NVB antecedents, the speaker and the listener in most of us individually are separated. We are used to NVB, but not to SVB. “The notion of classes of stimuli and classes of responses will be essential to accommodating behavior variability in the Skinnerian explanatory system” and are necessary for explaining SVB. NVB doesn’t allow “behavioral variability.” Moreover, SVB involves “processes through which individuals take advantage of behavior already acquired by others”, but NVB only selects behaviors that narrow down our operant repertoires. 

Although in writing, “behavior analysts recognize variation in human behavior” and “approach variation from the biological perspective,” they continue to miss out on the importance of having face to face conversation about this matter. “The behavior of the organism as a whole is the product of three types of variation and selection: …natural selection,…operant conditioning, and processes through which individuals take advantage of behavior already acquired by others” (Skinner, 1990, p. 1206). 

To talk about cultural conditioning, operant conditioning and classical conditioning requires SVB. Presumably “In all cases, however, one observes that, when speaking of a pragmatic criterion, the author’s only reference is the effectiveness principle.” (italics by me). They are only referring to the “effectiveness principle” in writing and yet they make it seem as if they are “speaking of a pragmatic criterion.” There is nothing pragmatic about writing about matters which we should be speaking about. Furthermore, reference to the “effectiveness principle” makes much more sense if our conversations were based on it. If this would be the case, we would engage in SVB continuously. In NVB, even behaviorists never “arrive at more consistent criteria for validating our claims to knowledge.” 

Many papers have been written about behavior and many discussions presumably took place in these papers to close “the gap between behaviorist and cognitive researcher”, but nobody thoroughly acknowledges the importance to talk about this. “Fully accepting inner causes should be a consequence of accepting the fundamentals of radical behaviorism. And what is more, thus radicalizing radical behaviorism might close some of the gap between behaviorist and cognitivist researcher—to render us with a more comprehensive psychology of both private and public behavior.”(Overskeid, 1994, p. 41) There is nothing radical about writing papers which are read by only a few experts and not talked about. 

“Overskeid is correct in demanding a more consistent discussion on the status and functions of private events in behavioral processes; however, strictly speaking, to simply accept internal causes for behavior will not be effective or ineffective within the scope of Skinnerian science; it is more a matter of working with a different notion of behavior (other preliminary beliefs), another subject matter, compatible with another set of postulates.” Each time we demand "a more consistent discussion” we engage in NVB. 

SVB is that “different notion of behavior (other preliminary beliefs), another subject matter, compatible with another set of postulates.” It is not surprising that according to “articles published in the journal  Behavioral Therapy” behaviorists have been “drifting somewhat” from their “basic science foundations.” They neither talk nor sound like Skinner. Unlike them, he was having many instances of SVB in each of his verbal episodes. 

Most behaviorists have mostly NVB instances when they talk, that is, if they talk at all. “Declining trends in the publication of the single-case design studies from 1974 to 1997” (Forsyth et al., 1999, p. 215) results from the absence of actual conversation. Rather than blaming “social and institutional constraints” behaviorists should learn to discriminate between instances of SVB and NVB. The question “whether we are still achieving the goal of advancing behavioral science as a means to alleviate a wider range of human suffering” derives from NVB. There is no doubt in those who know about SVB that it alleviates “a wider range of human suffering.” 

The authors write “As long as we are achieving this pragmatic goal” of “alleviating human suffering” then “perhaps it matters little what we call ourselves or what we ultimately do”. (1999, p. 218, italics added). I strongly disagree with this. They can’t have achieved this goal without SVB. If they had achieved it, they would place greater importance on how they talk, but they haven't done that. Moreover, it matters a great deal we tact NVB as NVB and SVB as SVB. “The possibility of a science of behavior advancing towards the solution of human problems” cannot become a reality unless discriminating SVB and NVB is our “pragmatic objective.” Behaviorists only complain in writing that the DSM-IV is “topographically oriented” and “not revealing any concern for identifying behavioral relationships.”

November 9, 2015

November 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students, 

This is my sixth response to “Effectiveness as Truth Criterion in Behavior Analysis” by Tourinho and Neno (2003). I hope you find this interesting to read, but I can imagine that you don’t like it as it may all seem rather theoretical. What I write about is only possible under certain circumstances. It is my aim to describe as accurately as possible the antecedents or the stimuli that set the stage for Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and the postcedents, the stimuli that validate and reinforce it. 

If SVB doesn’t occur, it can’t occur as antecedents prevent it. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is caused by other events than SVB. Regardless of what these events are, they prevent SVB as SVB can only occur in the absence of NVB. The workings of SVB and NVB are also explained by others, who didn’t yet recognize this distinction, but who were in the process of shaping their behavior in the direction of SVB. Like me, the authors use the writings of other authors to emphasize their point. The difference between me and these authors, however, is that I insist that we should be talking with each other to be able to clarify these matters. 

My writing is grounded in talking and I talk about and enjoy SVB every day. “As pointed out by Haack (1978), since “coherence theories take truth to consist in relations of coherence among a set of beliefs” (p. 86), it is justifiable to confirm that “James’ account on the way one adjusts one’s beliefs as new experience comes in, maximizing the conservation of the old belief set while restoring consistency. . .introduces a coherence element.” We will lack coherence as long as we are unable to continue with SVB. Our lack of coherence is a product of NVB.

You may blame me for being redundant, but my writing about SVB is consistent and coherent. I am amazed that I am doing this and I could have never believed some years ago that I would be writing this. For a long time I felt overwhelmed by the seriousness, precision and dryness of academic writing. Although I never aspired to do that, my journal writing takes on that form as the SVB/NVB distinction is an extension of behaviorism. 

Since I am writing to you my dear students and not to the behaviorist community, who, for the most part never wanted to talk with me anyway, I don’t mind repeating myself or others as this is needed to learn more about SVB. Although they wrote for a different audience, there is, of course, a similarity in the thinking of these authors, James, Skinner and me. Yes, “it is justifiable to confirm that “James’ account on the way one adjusts one’s beliefs as new experience comes in, maximizing the conservation of the old belief set while restoring consistency. . .introduces a coherence element."

SVB, the way of talking I have dedicated my life to, is, like the work of James and Skinner, pragmatic and conservative. It has to be as “In the truth-processes dynamics, when a new belief acquires the status of truth, it “mediates between the stock [of old ideas] and the new experience.” These words of William James resonate so beautifully with SVB. 

“The point I urge you to observe particularly is the part played by the older truths. Failure to take account of it is the source of much of the unjust criticism leveled against pragmatism. Their influence is absolutely controlling. Loyalty to them is the first principle—in most cases, it is the only principle” (James, 1907/1996a, p. 35, italics added). Nothing I have found on the first day that I discovered SVB isn’t true today. You will find the same thing when you would replicate my experiment. Just listen to yourself while you speak and tune into your own sound. 

By listening to yourself while you speak you become aware of the relationship that exists between the speaker and the listener. That relationship within each individual is of utmost importance for the relationship between the speaker and the listener as different people. If the relationship between you as the speaker and you as the listener is disturbed, as it always is in NVB, there are will be problems between you and others, who are trying to listen to you or speak with you.   

The authors write “In Skinner’s radical behaviorism, as in James’ philosophy, the appeal to effectiveness should be subordinated to an assessment of the relationship between new propositions and the ones previously assumed to be valid; on the contrary, one may be faced with inconsistencies.” These inconsistencies are maintained by NVB.  

“The appeal to effectiveness should be subordinated” to the SVB/NVB distinction, to talking about the effectiveness of SVB, as only this will avoid “inconsistencies.” What most behaviorists don’t realize is that they have only worked out “inconsistencies” in their writing, but they also must be worked out in their talking. The fact that this hasn’t happened always shows up in their writings. Agreeing in writing about effectiveness and consistency didn’t and couldn’t result in agreeing while talking. It never did. 

“The definition of the subject matter of a behavioral science in terms of organism-environment relationships and the recognition of the variability or the idiosyncratic character of behavioral relationships” is a perfect starting point for the exploration of the SVB/NVB distinction. Surely, another way of talking is needed which includes instead of excludes “the variability or the idiosyncratic character of behavioral relationships.” The former is SVB, the latter is NVB. “The term behavior must include the total activity of the organism—the functioning of all its parts” (Skinner, 1935/1961b). There can be no doubt about the fact that you are the speaker and the listener.