April
30, 2016
Written
by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer
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 how
the speaker influences the listener. Ribes-Iñesta as well as Wittgenstein
intellectualize about language. Unlike B.F. Skinner, they are not very
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 SVB/NVB distinction accomplishes such an analysis. Such
analysis is grounded in the everyday experience of people and has more appeal
than the intellectual analysis.
Understanding
about “the nature of human behavior and its relation to language” has been
impaired due to 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 not aware 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,
because his or her attention for his or her sound, which is produced in the
here and now, makes him or her aware about the here and now. Also, listening happens
in the here and now. Thus, both the production and the reception of sound
converge in 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, that
is, 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 and have not become scientific about our language. Behaviorism, in spite
of its empirical evidence, continues to be given short shrift as we haven’t been
able to talk about it in SVB.
The
“much-needed conceptual shift” didn’t
and couldn’t come about due to the “theoretical efforts in the analysis of
language and human behavior.” If that
shift is our goal, we must engage in more 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 both talk about and
dissolve the “conceptual confusion in assuming the “existence” of private
events corresponding to “inner” experience.” Moreover, we will find that NVB has
kept us ignorant. Rather than, as we have been used to in NVB, excluding human psychological phenomena
from language, in SVB we will impregnate “human psychological phenomena by language”.
And, oddly enough, as we become more capable
of expressing our emotions more accurately, due to our SVB we 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 to accomplish this
conceptual shift we must speak, instead of read. Reading can’t change how we
talk, 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, advances in psychology still
depend on whether we talk with each
other….and how we talk with each
other. It has always amazed me how little willingness there is among those
involved in behaviorism or psychology to talk with each other. In concluding my
response to Ribes-Iñesta’s paper, I want to emphasize once more that
(conceptual) misunderstandings can
and should be dealt with by more and
better interaction. The fact that we have so many misunderstandings and
questions while we are talking with each other is the elephant in the room of
psychology. We cannot possibly write or read our way out of this. When we will
explore the SVB/NVB distinction, we find to our surprise that understanding
each other was never really the
problem! We will understand ourselves
and each other, when we experience ourselves and each other while we speak.
However, in NVB we are neither in touch with ourselves nor with each
other. NVB creates and maintains all of our misunderstandings and SVB is
without such aversive experiences.
