March 12, 2016

March 12, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “Yet, behaviorists are criticized for reducing al meaningful psychological phenomena so a single class, that of behavior.” What this means is that behaviorists always only want to talk with non-behaviorists about the terms they are using. This verbal fixation is typical for Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The negative responses and rejection which is so often received by behaviorists, is not because of what they say, but because of how they say it. This comes out in the way they speak as well as in the way they write. The implied criticism, that behaviorists may even have less Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) than non-behaviorists, is most likely true. After all, behaviorists are better scientists than those who are still stuck with the explanatory fictions which hide in the verbal garb of “meaningful psychological phenomena.” Of course, behaviorists feel superior to non-behaviorists; only the science of human behavior focuses on “an actively changing organism under control of prior and consequent environmental events.” This superiority, which would be accepted as the reality in SVB, is another indication of NVB, in which all the communicators, that is, the speakers and listeners as well as the writers and the readers, are and remain hierarchically separated. The NVB speaker’s tone of voice is experienced by the listener as an aversive stimulus from which he or she wants to move away.

March 11, 2016

March 11, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The paper “Humble Behaviorism” (1991) by A. Neuringer signifies the failure of our spoken communication. When our conversation doesn’t work we resort to writing. Moreover, we get so carried away by our written words that we completely forget about the importance of the spoken word. Although the author only superficially goes into this, the title reminds the behaviorists that when they talk about their science, they are not overly concerned with the “tentativeness” of their “theoretical and methodological positions.” I call the spoken communication that works Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and the spoken communication which doesn’t work Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Besides being unscientific, arrogant behaviorism also sounds terrible. Humble behaviorism, by contrast, sounds good as it is based on SVB. I agree with “The scientific stance that all knowledge is provisional and that one’s most deeply held positions must continually be reconsidered”, but to do so only in writing and not while speaking is in my opinion an act of cowardice. In many Western countries behaviorists are rejected by mainstream academia and media. I claim that behaviorists have failed to communicate their science properly as they have avoided to address mankind’s most important problem behavior: our way of talking. If behaviorists would learn about SVB, they would have to acknowledge that their own NVB has gravely hindered the progress of behavioral science.  

March 10, 2016

March 10, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In his paper “Humble Behaviorism” (1991) Neuringer puts the horse behind the wagon: he argues that humility will make behaviorists more scientific. It hasn’t happened, and, most likely, it isn’t going to happen. The question should be: why it hasn’t happened? Why hasn’t science made behaviorists humble? It hasn’t happened as it couldn’t happen. The issue of humility doesn’t arise when we think of the contingencies that increase scientific behavior. The issue of humility only comes up as Neuringer, who most probably had nothing anymore to loose, finally began to take to note of the obvious fact that his own arrogance should be, of course, considered unscientific behavior. To the extent that the orderliness of data and the lawfulness of human behavior is not the real motivation, behavioral science continues to be convoluted by “personal characteristics of the behavioral scientist.” It should give us pause to ponder over the reasons why the journal “The Behavior Analyst” has published such an unoriginal and ridiculous article? One can only conclude that the editors, like Neuringer, must have thought it was pertinent to the behaviorist community “to motivate consideration of humility as one goal for behavioral researchers.” The question I like to ask is: how is “willingness to consider alternative views” or “openness to criticism” even accomplished if we never really talk about these matters? If Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) prevents this then we must stop it and replace it with Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)! 

March 9, 2016

March 9, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

If we put things more plainly, the paper “Humble Behaviorism” by A. Neuringer (1991) would never have been written nor published, if it wasn’t for the fact that behaviorists, at least some of them, recognize that they are unscientific. “An explicitly humble behaviorism could reduce the threat of behavioral research perceived by many in our society; meliorate fights among sub-disciplines of psychology, so that adversaries might work toward common goals, and encourage researchers to identify and admit their own arrogance and error, thereby motivating research.” As this second sentence demonstrates, something should be said about how behaviorists talk with each other as well as with non-behaviorists. In spite of all his so-called “explicit humble behaviorism”, Neuringer probably because he doesn’t know much about it, only indirectly refers to the how behaviorists communicate. 

Neuringer circumvents the important issue of ineffective communication by placating and reassuring his colleague behavioral scientists that they are no less arrogant than any other scientists. He distances himself further from what should be considered the elephant in the operant chamber, by stating that neither “behavioral science, or science generally” is “unusually arrogant.” Presumably, his paper is a function, not of his frustration, but of his magmanimity. We are supposed to believe that he is not upset about anything and that he is perfectly okay with the fact that “arrogance and humility in science coexist.” All of this is done to present his hypothesis that “humility will prove to be functional.” What a complete nonsense!       

March 8, 2016

March 8, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Now that I have given my thoughts about the title “Humble Behaviorism” by A. Neuringer (1991) let me comment on the content of that paper. It starts out with the sentence “If behaviorists were more humble, their effectiveness as scientist would increase.” I don’t know at what point in his life Neuringer came to this conclusion, but I suspect it was late in his career. It sounds like something that someone would say who is looking back and who is having regrets. However, I fully agree with the statement; it is about time that behaviorists stop being arrogant. Yet, a paper couldn’t and didn’t make any difference. There is no such a disembodied thing as “Humble Behaviorism”; there can only be embodied humble behaviorists. It is not behaviorism which needs to become more humble, but behaviorists! 

The only way in which behaviorists and non-behaviorists will be able to be humble is by changing the way in which they talk. Our common arrogant, insensitive way of talking I call Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The language of humility, by contrast, I call Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). It is due to NVB that behaviorists are not as scientific as they would be if they would learn what it takes to maintain SVB and extinguish NVB. They didn’t learn that and nobody is talking about it except me. Thus, the issue is not whether behaviorists are humble, but whether they are scientific!