Reviewing papers in the professional literature
In 2002, Murray Sidman expressed his concern:
" ... our students are losing contact with the basic behavioral science in which their applications are rooted and from which future applications are to be derived. I think it has been just as damaging internally that we have lost standing outside, in the general world of science , among biologists of all kinds, neural scientists, geneticists, and so on. Their respect, if we could regain it, would provide a solid starting point for support by society in general. "
In 1996, Saul Axelrod stressed loss of respect:
"The matter is not simply one of benign neglect. Some, such as myself, continue to endure snide comments of long-time colleagues when the topic of behavior analysis is raised. After many years at one university, I am still struggling to have one course in behavior analysis become a part of the curriculum for future regular-education teachers. Outsiders to our field respond, unflatteringly, to a behavioral approach with a comment such as, 'Oh, doesn't that have something to do with Pavlov's dog?' Seldom does one see a member of the editorial boards of the most respected behavioral journals employed in psychology departments of North America's most prestigious universities. "
I suggest, behaviorists can regain appreciation from society in general and respectful attention
from biologists of all kinds, on matters concerning explanation, observation and quantification.
For example, though these are not Pavlov's words, they might teach students that Pavlov was the first to show why looking at things and listening to sounds may remind human beings of a personal experience.
Pavlov's measured canine salivation; yet it was the cerebral cortex and Descartes' conceptualisation of the nervous reflex that were his starting points.
As a physiologist with a Nobel Prize for revealing the functions of the digestive system, Pavlov
embarked on an environmental analysis to find out what activates salivary glands, via the brain;
he went beyond vivisection, "the study of isolated organs and tissues".
Today, brain scientists and the general public could profit from the scope of Pavlov's research.
A list of the stimuli that made dogs remember what they were about to receive may suffice for
a valid cause-and-effect explanation.
For instance, rarely does Pavlov talk about a 'visual stimulus' , when he tabulates:
/a luminous square/; /a lamp flash/; / rotating object/; / circle of white paper /; /a circle vs ellipse/;
/black vs white screen/; /the letter T vs 15 diverse figures/; and even /meat powder at a distance/;
nor are 'auditory stimuli ' listed as such; only the sound of: /hissing/ ; /bubbling/ ; /crackling / ;
/a semitone/ ; /organ pipe/ ; /a metronome/ ; / whistle on the right/ ; /whistle on the left/ ; /a trumpet/;
/a buzzer/; /a hooter/; /a bell/; and more.
Had the dogs been Pavlov's first interest, he might have said:
" Eureka! I have news for psychologists: this explains the psychic secretion! Dogs have vision
and hearing ... and audio-visual stimuli affect the gland before the food even enters the mouth!
We have here a conditioned reflex: the response is glandular, the stimulus is definitely external:
environmental sources of a physiological response."
Pavlov wanted to know how the brain controls reflex networks in the body; not how the brain
is affected by what animals are able to see and hear.
In his experiments, he placed healthy and conscious dogs under a number of "rigidly defined"
conditions, insisting that only by this method is it possible to study the reflexes independently.
Observation has to do with Pavlov's decision 'no more vivisection' and this topic resolves
argument over 'introspection'; literally looking into organisms' body or head one can see inner
parts only with particular tools and may scan internal functions.
But thoughts, feelings, memories etc., are never seen via introspection simply because organs don't feel, think, recall,etc.: only individuals see and hear one another do so.
Such eye-openers may be enough to make any humanitarian drool with pleasure!
As for quantification: subjects stand quietly as Pavlov measured accumulated saliva in his registering apparatus, And those are his words, not an interpretation.
So Pavlov's reflex conditioning room and Skinner's operant chamber are similar: so far the
animals are stationary in either setting; and both men describe their experimental setup in detail.
Skinner's background in biology and behavioristic philosophy brought him to what must be
one of the most amazing revelations in the history of science:
the behavior of individuals is quantified by the accumulation of body part movements.
Pavlov collected saliva produced by a gland, whereas Skinner registered the rate of visible
parts, eg., paws, beaks. Yet stationary subjects are present in both research settings ... and
they look and feel and listen - otherwise no saliva or behavior to speak of, let alone graphic
records. Imagine what all this could mean for human beings!
Your fingers press keys on your computer, whilst you, the individual, sit on your chair ... for
hours ... sending your thoughts to those who relayed theirs to you ... and, also: speak of you.
Talk about relevance.
Silence Is Golden where you don't wish to hurt someone.
In scientific circles, researchers share their knowledge for the benefit of humans and animals,
worldwide. Behaviorists could even concur with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am. "
They know people exist, whether they keep their thoughts to themselves or advertise them!
Sound is invisible - not thoughts nor individuals whose memories can be happy as well. Just so.
From his experiments, Pavlov inferred applications to humans; and his theories might fascinate
linguists and cognitivists, hypnotists and neurologists, physicists and philosophers who ponder
about Mind over Matter.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
TIMING
A few minutes ago I read the passage below in a book from 1950: The Animal World of Albert Schweitzer, Jungle Insights into Reverence for Life
The message may impress ABAs [1] who could spread it to exemplify "social reinforcement"
with reference to good timing but supplied in an.exaggerated dose.
" I was sitting on a small stool in the yard while my father busied himself with the beehive in the garden.
A pretty little creature settled down on my hand and delightedly I watched it crawl about. But suddenly
I began to scream. The little creature which had every right to be angry at the pastor's taking --- combs
out of the beehive, and so he had stung the pastor's son in return.
At my outcry the whole family hurriedly assembled. Everyone pitied me. The maid took me in her arms and tried to comfort me with kisses. my mother reproached my father for not putting me in a safe place before he began to work at the beehive. I had become so interesting in my misfortune that I continued to cry with great satisfaction, until suddenly I noticed that I was still shedding tears without feeling any more pain.
My conscience told me that I should now stop. But to remain interesting for a while longer I went on with my mailing and got more comforting , which I had ceased to need. I felt so badly about this, however, that I was miserable all day long.
How often, as a grown man, when have been tempted to exaggerate the significance of what was happening to me, have I been warned by this experience. " (p. 43)
Two hours previously, I had finished a brief message: Behavior Analysts Should Take Note
where under the pseudonym Galileah, I wrote of myself in the third person; herein I do it again
This is what Galileah proposes scientists do --> to advance EAB [2] and disseminate ABA further:
analyse locomotion, movement of whole organisms, within an operant conditioning laboratory.
They may take her word for it: this will allow them to bring the two fields closer to one another;
she converted Pavlov's measure of saliva into rate of salivation, per second, for 2 1/2 minutes.
Experimental scientists also have B. F. Skinner's support and authority, as shown in his personal
letter to her in 1985. And in 1953 he wrote this:
" ... in the long run, the issue is not so much one of personal prestige as of effective procedure. Scientists have simply found that being honest - with oneself as much as with others - is essential to progress. Experiments do not always come out as one expects but the facts must stand and the expectations fall, The subject matter, not the scientists knows best. "
As always, Galileah appreciates behavior analysts for confronting reality.
So long as they saw nothing amiss - not in EAB, nor in ABA - they worked on, as usual.
Over the years, doubts grew strong: What's wrong? they ask in journals and articles.
Now the search for answers is more prevalent in the professional literature; they say:
" Behavior Analysis: heal thyself. "
" The experimental analysis of behavior (EAB) is in trouble."
" I take it as self-evident that more could be done in the EAB laboratory.".
Like scientists, Galileah knows anti-behaviorist sentiment is still present and should not be ignored.
Another observation in Schweitzer's book, exemplifies normal, healthy, attractive stimulus control
in an operant laboratory
" Every evening at six o'clock, when the bells of the Catholic mission on the island out in the stream begin to toll, he flies up from his fishing down by the river, and takes his place on his perch for the night. And every morning at six o'clock , when the bells awaken the mission, he spreads his great wings and is off again for his fish." (p 21)
This should be compared with the respondent conditioning converted by Galileah from Pavlov's
first listed data which imply pathological effects,
(a) on the dog (b) on the brain and (c) on the nervous system:
the dog salivates on contacting electricity ... and from a distance ... before actual contact.
Despite implications for painless surgery, such attraction to danger could be fatal in everyday life.
Think about Schweitzer's philosophical outlook:
"I must interpret the life about me as I interpret the life that is my own ..... If I am to expect others to respect my life, then I must respect the other life I see, however strange it may be to mine. And not only human life, but all kinds of life ..... Ethics in our western world has hitherto been largely limited to the relation of man to man. But that is a limited ethics .... we need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also." (p.30)
That sounds like B. F. Skinner's behaviorism:
" In my early experimental days it was a frenzied, selfish desire to dominate. I remember the rage I used to feel when a prediction went awry. I could have shouted at the subjects of my experiments ' Behave, damn you! Behave as you ought!' Eventually, I realized that the subjects were always right. It was I who was wrong.
I had made a bad prediction." Walden Two, p.240
Skinner wrote this admission 63 years ago and it moved me almost to tears.
As much as it does now. Scientists are criticised and ridiculed for mistakes.
Has social punishment decreased anywhere? If so, I invite readers to tell me about it.
In any event, Galileah expects scientists in animal conditioning experiments to multiply
cumulative records. She sees expansion as the only possibility for discovering how to deal with problems facing humanity today. She agrees with Dr. Allen Neuringer:
" EAB basic research does not focus sufficiently on problems relevant to the general population.
" Another reason to work toward solving real-world problems is that we may be running out of time. Threats abound, including atomic warfare, global warming, overpopulation, pandemic diseases, natural resource depletion, and corporate abuse. Each of these has the potential to destroy our way of life, if not life itself . "
Behavior analysts cannot deal with such urgent problems by themselves.
Cooperative research with other environmental experts is necessary and the truth is out there,
somewhere. After all, this gives hope and provides fresh opportunities.
Rehabilitation and science to study movement and mutual attraction go with personal prestige.
__________________________________
[1] Applied Behavior Analysts.
[2] Experimental Analysis of Behavior
[3] Behaviorism In Other Words, BIOW, part 1V, 1995
The message may impress ABAs [1] who could spread it to exemplify "social reinforcement"
with reference to good timing but supplied in an.exaggerated dose.
" I was sitting on a small stool in the yard while my father busied himself with the beehive in the garden.
A pretty little creature settled down on my hand and delightedly I watched it crawl about. But suddenly
I began to scream. The little creature which had every right to be angry at the pastor's taking --- combs
out of the beehive, and so he had stung the pastor's son in return.
At my outcry the whole family hurriedly assembled. Everyone pitied me. The maid took me in her arms and tried to comfort me with kisses. my mother reproached my father for not putting me in a safe place before he began to work at the beehive. I had become so interesting in my misfortune that I continued to cry with great satisfaction, until suddenly I noticed that I was still shedding tears without feeling any more pain.
My conscience told me that I should now stop. But to remain interesting for a while longer I went on with my mailing and got more comforting , which I had ceased to need. I felt so badly about this, however, that I was miserable all day long.
How often, as a grown man, when have been tempted to exaggerate the significance of what was happening to me, have I been warned by this experience. " (p. 43)
Two hours previously, I had finished a brief message: Behavior Analysts Should Take Note
where under the pseudonym Galileah, I wrote of myself in the third person; herein I do it again
This is what Galileah proposes scientists do --> to advance EAB [2] and disseminate ABA further:
analyse locomotion, movement of whole organisms, within an operant conditioning laboratory.
They may take her word for it: this will allow them to bring the two fields closer to one another;
she converted Pavlov's measure of saliva into rate of salivation, per second, for 2 1/2 minutes.
Experimental scientists also have B. F. Skinner's support and authority, as shown in his personal
letter to her in 1985. And in 1953 he wrote this:
" ... in the long run, the issue is not so much one of personal prestige as of effective procedure. Scientists have simply found that being honest - with oneself as much as with others - is essential to progress. Experiments do not always come out as one expects but the facts must stand and the expectations fall, The subject matter, not the scientists knows best. "
As always, Galileah appreciates behavior analysts for confronting reality.
So long as they saw nothing amiss - not in EAB, nor in ABA - they worked on, as usual.
Over the years, doubts grew strong: What's wrong? they ask in journals and articles.
Now the search for answers is more prevalent in the professional literature; they say:
" Behavior Analysis: heal thyself. "
" The experimental analysis of behavior (EAB) is in trouble."
" I take it as self-evident that more could be done in the EAB laboratory.".
Like scientists, Galileah knows anti-behaviorist sentiment is still present and should not be ignored.
Another observation in Schweitzer's book, exemplifies normal, healthy, attractive stimulus control
in an operant laboratory
" Every evening at six o'clock, when the bells of the Catholic mission on the island out in the stream begin to toll, he flies up from his fishing down by the river, and takes his place on his perch for the night. And every morning at six o'clock , when the bells awaken the mission, he spreads his great wings and is off again for his fish." (p 21)
This should be compared with the respondent conditioning converted by Galileah from Pavlov's
first listed data which imply pathological effects,
(a) on the dog (b) on the brain and (c) on the nervous system:
the dog salivates on contacting electricity ... and from a distance ... before actual contact.
Despite implications for painless surgery, such attraction to danger could be fatal in everyday life.
Think about Schweitzer's philosophical outlook:
"I must interpret the life about me as I interpret the life that is my own ..... If I am to expect others to respect my life, then I must respect the other life I see, however strange it may be to mine. And not only human life, but all kinds of life ..... Ethics in our western world has hitherto been largely limited to the relation of man to man. But that is a limited ethics .... we need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also." (p.30)
That sounds like B. F. Skinner's behaviorism:
" In my early experimental days it was a frenzied, selfish desire to dominate. I remember the rage I used to feel when a prediction went awry. I could have shouted at the subjects of my experiments ' Behave, damn you! Behave as you ought!' Eventually, I realized that the subjects were always right. It was I who was wrong.
I had made a bad prediction." Walden Two, p.240
Skinner wrote this admission 63 years ago and it moved me almost to tears.
As much as it does now. Scientists are criticised and ridiculed for mistakes.
Has social punishment decreased anywhere? If so, I invite readers to tell me about it.
In any event, Galileah expects scientists in animal conditioning experiments to multiply
cumulative records. She sees expansion as the only possibility for discovering how to deal with problems facing humanity today. She agrees with Dr. Allen Neuringer:
" EAB basic research does not focus sufficiently on problems relevant to the general population.
" Another reason to work toward solving real-world problems is that we may be running out of time. Threats abound, including atomic warfare, global warming, overpopulation, pandemic diseases, natural resource depletion, and corporate abuse. Each of these has the potential to destroy our way of life, if not life itself . "
Behavior analysts cannot deal with such urgent problems by themselves.
Cooperative research with other environmental experts is necessary and the truth is out there,
somewhere. After all, this gives hope and provides fresh opportunities.
Rehabilitation and science to study movement and mutual attraction go with personal prestige.
__________________________________
[1] Applied Behavior Analysts.
[2] Experimental Analysis of Behavior
[3] Behaviorism In Other Words, BIOW, part 1V, 1995
Saturday, June 11, 2011
THOUGHT-READING: continued...
On the TV National Geographic Channel, they keep saying:
If we stop being curious, we might as well give up.
My thoughts don't interest scientists and yet I do have some news that could please them.
Considering far-reaching implications of behavior quantification, yes indeed I'm surprised.
Who'd have thought counting drops of saliva or recording how many times per minute rats
move their paw, can add anything to explain natural, freely flowing, human communication!
Animal conditioners could teach how to keep subjects active and healthy and stationary in
one place; how to keep them attentive and listening, motivated and interested, and so forth.
The old and the young, the injured or mentally retarded, need such a special technology as
much as fit and strong populations whose pace is too fast, not to mention those individuals
whose careless misbehaviors worry parents and teachers, governments, environmentalists,
applied behavior analysts and /medical /surgical/ specialists dealing with rehabilitation.
The fact is Pavlov's data demonstrate long-distance dialogue between a dog and a scientist.
Conditioners might say that, under similar circumstances, human individuals will understand
as much as the experimental canines do.
Readers can rest assured: I am no genius, nor was I born with this insight. What I need now
is some interest and willingness to listen.
No scientist asks where my knowledge comes from, thus I am obliged to reveal my sources
and blow my own horn:
I know the dogs drool with pleasure and connect a tone with the food just because scientists
themselves associated them, spatially and temporally, as well as consistently.
Pavlov's and Skinner's writing reminded me of the facts.
Food always appears in the same place, and that is where the animals focus their eyes while
a gland secretes copious saliva; at the same time, they prick up their ears, wag their tail and
lick their lips. There is the evidence that they think the food is about to arrive!
Teachers in classrooms and kindergartens smile when I wish children had ears like dogs: we'd
tell at a glance that they're listening. perhaps, if we wagged a tail or purred like a cat, we might
find it easier to express our emotions at appropriate moments.
Even so, the thought-reading that goes on among humans is pretty amazing.
Apropos questions left open in the THOUGHT-READING Blog Post on May 3, 2011
- What does a salivary reflex imply about the brain and the nerve cells?
I think one answer is: the brain and the nervous system are naturally affected by what
people and animals see and hear, watch and expect.
- What is the difference between a 'mental' and a physical explanation?
Perhaps, the term 'mental' evolved from the fact that light and sound are not substantial:
no visible size, shape or weight. Yet the materials are physical, so physical explanations
may also be psychological and vice versa: psychological explanations are also physical.
- How may we go beyond Pavlov's findings to the events in day-to-day living?
Conditioned sounds are meaningful words, and tones, which adults and babies learn to pronounce
and understand. Therefore individuals stimulate one another and may elicit glandular secretions
by activating brain, nerves and muscles. Physiologists might be keen to study brain function
together with behavior scientists who know how to maintain subjects' interest and attention.
I have thought of words causing people grief and tears and wrote about 'less intimidation',
and others write better than I ever could:
".... wild creatures of the jungle often eat from his hand , or permit him to caress them freely .... he
feels a close tie of kinship with them; together they share the strange and marvelous gift of life. Their
life is doubtless as significant to them as his life is to him. They have the same right to consideration,
respect and , where possible, affection."
" Asked at a meeting where he was about to speak how he should be introduced, Schweitzer replied:
'Oh. tell them that this fellow over there who looks like a shaggy dog is Albert Schweitzer.'
The pleasantry was uttered by a man who has almost always had dogs around him, and who would
not consider it an insult to be likened to a dog. When Mrs. C.E.B. Russell, one of his gifted translators,
visited him in Africa and was put in charge of a gang of workmen, she asked Schweitzer how she was
to discharge her responsibilities.
'That's very simple,' he said, 'Just imagine yourself a shepherd with a flock of sheep, and act
accordingly. Then everything will be all right.' "
- How do we distinguish a medical from a psychological diagnosis? And prognosis?
Physicians diagnose causes of physio-organic problems, psychologists diagnose causes outside
the individual, for instance: /a severe shock/ or /excessive criticism and insufficient encouragement./
If necessary, physicians and psychologists work together. Prognosis for cures might be better
-- in medical and behavioral and psychological fields -- if the environmental effects on bodies
and souls were common knowledge. To my mind /souls/ denotes /individuals/ as for example,
"no one's around" means: "אין נפש חיה"; "not a soul to be seen"; "keine Seele zu sehen"; and then the
term "soulmates" refers to " friends who see eye to eye"; and "with heart and soul" is the metaphor
which implies "thinking strongly" and "feeling sincerely" and "doing something enthusiastically".
Doubtless others can talk and write about language with more charm and authority than I can.
Readers could do so here; it can be up-lifting: I am confident they will unite mind, body and soul.
If we stop being curious, we might as well give up.
My thoughts don't interest scientists and yet I do have some news that could please them.
Considering far-reaching implications of behavior quantification, yes indeed I'm surprised.
Who'd have thought counting drops of saliva or recording how many times per minute rats
move their paw, can add anything to explain natural, freely flowing, human communication!
Animal conditioners could teach how to keep subjects active and healthy and stationary in
one place; how to keep them attentive and listening, motivated and interested, and so forth.
The old and the young, the injured or mentally retarded, need such a special technology as
much as fit and strong populations whose pace is too fast, not to mention those individuals
whose careless misbehaviors worry parents and teachers, governments, environmentalists,
applied behavior analysts and /medical /surgical/ specialists dealing with rehabilitation.
The fact is Pavlov's data demonstrate long-distance dialogue between a dog and a scientist.
Conditioners might say that, under similar circumstances, human individuals will understand
as much as the experimental canines do.
Readers can rest assured: I am no genius, nor was I born with this insight. What I need now
is some interest and willingness to listen.
No scientist asks where my knowledge comes from, thus I am obliged to reveal my sources
and blow my own horn:
I know the dogs drool with pleasure and connect a tone with the food just because scientists
themselves associated them, spatially and temporally, as well as consistently.
Pavlov's and Skinner's writing reminded me of the facts.
Food always appears in the same place, and that is where the animals focus their eyes while
a gland secretes copious saliva; at the same time, they prick up their ears, wag their tail and
lick their lips. There is the evidence that they think the food is about to arrive!
Teachers in classrooms and kindergartens smile when I wish children had ears like dogs: we'd
tell at a glance that they're listening. perhaps, if we wagged a tail or purred like a cat, we might
find it easier to express our emotions at appropriate moments.
Even so, the thought-reading that goes on among humans is pretty amazing.
Apropos questions left open in the THOUGHT-READING Blog Post on May 3, 2011
- What does a salivary reflex imply about the brain and the nerve cells?
I think one answer is: the brain and the nervous system are naturally affected by what
people and animals see and hear, watch and expect.
- What is the difference between a 'mental' and a physical explanation?
Perhaps, the term 'mental' evolved from the fact that light and sound are not substantial:
no visible size, shape or weight. Yet the materials are physical, so physical explanations
may also be psychological and vice versa: psychological explanations are also physical.
- How may we go beyond Pavlov's findings to the events in day-to-day living?
Conditioned sounds are meaningful words, and tones, which adults and babies learn to pronounce
and understand. Therefore individuals stimulate one another and may elicit glandular secretions
by activating brain, nerves and muscles. Physiologists might be keen to study brain function
together with behavior scientists who know how to maintain subjects' interest and attention.
I have thought of words causing people grief and tears and wrote about 'less intimidation',
and others write better than I ever could:
".... wild creatures of the jungle often eat from his hand , or permit him to caress them freely .... he
feels a close tie of kinship with them; together they share the strange and marvelous gift of life. Their
life is doubtless as significant to them as his life is to him. They have the same right to consideration,
respect and , where possible, affection."
" Asked at a meeting where he was about to speak how he should be introduced, Schweitzer replied:
'Oh. tell them that this fellow over there who looks like a shaggy dog is Albert Schweitzer.'
The pleasantry was uttered by a man who has almost always had dogs around him, and who would
not consider it an insult to be likened to a dog. When Mrs. C.E.B. Russell, one of his gifted translators,
visited him in Africa and was put in charge of a gang of workmen, she asked Schweitzer how she was
to discharge her responsibilities.
'That's very simple,' he said, 'Just imagine yourself a shepherd with a flock of sheep, and act
accordingly. Then everything will be all right.' "
- How do we distinguish a medical from a psychological diagnosis? And prognosis?
Physicians diagnose causes of physio-organic problems, psychologists diagnose causes outside
the individual, for instance: /a severe shock/ or /excessive criticism and insufficient encouragement./
If necessary, physicians and psychologists work together. Prognosis for cures might be better
-- in medical and behavioral and psychological fields -- if the environmental effects on bodies
and souls were common knowledge. To my mind /souls/ denotes /individuals/ as for example,
"no one's around" means: "אין נפש חיה"; "not a soul to be seen"; "keine Seele zu sehen"; and then the
term "soulmates" refers to " friends who see eye to eye"; and "with heart and soul" is the metaphor
which implies "thinking strongly" and "feeling sincerely" and "doing something enthusiastically".
Doubtless others can talk and write about language with more charm and authority than I can.
Readers could do so here; it can be up-lifting: I am confident they will unite mind, body and soul.
Friday, June 3, 2011
WHEN A MAN WALKS
Silence on something can have a long history.
Since 1984, I have tried to campaign for expanded animal research.
To no avail, I'm afraid. For scientists I am unreliable, no credibility.
Nevertheless, in 2002, the silence was broken.
"You seem to be saying (now and in the past) that movement in space is critical to the actual definition of behavior, and that if we did more measurements of movement, we would find out things that we have not already learned in other ways. That would certainly be a defensible position but it would have to be elaborated more convincingly. What is it for example, that we might see about behavior that we have not seen with more standard techniques? What might we be able to do that we have not been able to do already?"
B.F. Skinner's clarity may allow me to elaborate more convincingly:
"When a man walks toward an object, he usually finds himself closer to it; if he reaches for it, physical contact is likely to follow; and if he grasps and lifts it, or pushes or pulls it, the object frequently changes position in appropriate directions. All this follows from simple geometrical and mechanical principles." (1957)
Naturally that goes for other species as well; e.g., the rats and pigeons whose responses compose
cumulative records ... which: I happened to revive, for one mobile rat ... with a pencil and paper.
Were behavior scientists to replicate such simulated records, they would remember that hitherto,
all proper graphs invariably reflect experimental subjects who don't go anywhere, not toward nor
away from anything. This means direction of locomotion has been left out of approach versus
avoidance analysis. Skinner's theme relates to one half of a story:
should an 'object' run away a man may be unable to reach it and immediate contact is less likely.
Yet a man may contact another without a physical touch! Skinner's definition of verbal behavior
made me perceive this characteristic. And then - later - my virtual graphs brought vocalisation
and social interaction into my thoughts where they have been ever since.
Should animal conditioners study mobile subjects, they would no longer think of 'behavior' alone;
they could remember an organism too: individuals such as Skinner's exemplary rider on his horse.
And then of course, Pavlov's drooling dogs.
It may come as a shock to know we overlook something: humans and animals do actually show
what they feel and think about signs, signals, symbols.
So much so, we lie and pretend to hide what we think, not mentioning things which may threaten. Though even such endeavours don't always work - not directly nor in the long run.
Some people seem to have eyes in the back of their head; they can tell what others are feeling and
thinking without looking at what makes them move away or the places they visit, or what they do there, and why they retrack. Perhaps these persons have learned to listen closely.
Whatever the explanation, I don't believe anyone can recognise a thought by looking into a brain
or Sarah Bellum [*]; just as I am certain no one can see why someone is glad by watching a heart.
And trust me on this:
Were it not for expanding the scope or perspective of Skinner's Lovely, I wouldn't be writing on
environmental contingencies in the style I do now and herein.
Behavior analysts have studied the partial movements of sensitive organisms; so far, so good;
physicists found inanimate matters and properties... for instance the speed of light and sound. However, inorganic material does not communicate with researchers - not through
distant stimulation, nor direct consequation. Photons and decibels do not respond to coaxing nor
intimidation whereas animals and humans may run from danger, relax in sunlight, recall a location
respond to familiar sounds that they can echo in conversation.
Should behavior scientists expand their expertise, they could disseminate useful re-minders:
they might mention behavior includes: /standing still/ ; /seeing and hearing/; /moving around/;
/waiting and watching/; / not saying what you think/ ; / listening to talk/ ; / showing approval/;
and very much more.
True, that would expose a folly in behavior analysis. Yet, this exposure is liberating!
Skinnerians can leave introspection -- looking into the body for diagnosis -- to the physicians;
they use their hands for palpation and have tools for listening to hearts as well as instruments
for looking at soft tissues and hard body parts. In my experience - albeit limited - highlighting
such distinction gains respectful attention.
The fact is, revealing age-old errors is the stuff sciences are made of!
Finding a fallacy can be even better than a discovery, for example: Earth is a rotating globe.
Who'd have thought of such a thing? No wonder many people refused to take it for granted.
I suggest introspection could be stopped, and reversed, by emphasizing differences between
brain function and human performance; I think there's a fair chance for universal consensus.
At times people, mostly teenagers, see nothing strange in what I say;
they don't even bother to argue; their tone says: "What else is new?", if I make a big deal of
"you see and hear what I think just as I can see you and listen to you while you're thinking."
People disclose personal thoughts and feelings about episodes to which others have access;
thus consensus is achieved. Feelings may be fake and thoughts can be wrong yet the richer
the vocabulary, the higher the probability for more general social validity.
Behaviorists could remind persons in large, powerful, organisations: [**]
the brain is an organ that may function like an electro-magnetic battery; it isn't a sentient
individual. We need to know more about how people and animals typically communicate.
Free-operant conditioning is a basic life science that studies whole and healthy organisms,
and has invaluable practical and conceptual implications, for social survival.
Most urgently: biologists, behavior scientists, and many ecological experts, might reiterate:
living things, including seeds, genes, organs, systems and tissue, depend on environmental quality
everywhere on our planet; all the time; which also goes for plants and trees. I hope and trust this
message will lead to studying normal mobile subjects and contribute to mutual understanding.
_____________________________________________________________
[*] Garrison Keillor's reference to his own brain; in: A Prairie Home Companion
[**] E.g., The National Science Foundation
Since 1984, I have tried to campaign for expanded animal research.
To no avail, I'm afraid. For scientists I am unreliable, no credibility.
Nevertheless, in 2002, the silence was broken.
"You seem to be saying (now and in the past) that movement in space is critical to the actual definition of behavior, and that if we did more measurements of movement, we would find out things that we have not already learned in other ways. That would certainly be a defensible position but it would have to be elaborated more convincingly. What is it for example, that we might see about behavior that we have not seen with more standard techniques? What might we be able to do that we have not been able to do already?"
B.F. Skinner's clarity may allow me to elaborate more convincingly:
"When a man walks toward an object, he usually finds himself closer to it; if he reaches for it, physical contact is likely to follow; and if he grasps and lifts it, or pushes or pulls it, the object frequently changes position in appropriate directions. All this follows from simple geometrical and mechanical principles." (1957)
Naturally that goes for other species as well; e.g., the rats and pigeons whose responses compose
cumulative records ... which: I happened to revive, for one mobile rat ... with a pencil and paper.
Were behavior scientists to replicate such simulated records, they would remember that hitherto,
all proper graphs invariably reflect experimental subjects who don't go anywhere, not toward nor
away from anything. This means direction of locomotion has been left out of approach versus
avoidance analysis. Skinner's theme relates to one half of a story:
should an 'object' run away a man may be unable to reach it and immediate contact is less likely.
Yet a man may contact another without a physical touch! Skinner's definition of verbal behavior
made me perceive this characteristic. And then - later - my virtual graphs brought vocalisation
and social interaction into my thoughts where they have been ever since.
Should animal conditioners study mobile subjects, they would no longer think of 'behavior' alone;
they could remember an organism too: individuals such as Skinner's exemplary rider on his horse.
And then of course, Pavlov's drooling dogs.
It may come as a shock to know we overlook something: humans and animals do actually show
what they feel and think about signs, signals, symbols.
So much so, we lie and pretend to hide what we think, not mentioning things which may threaten. Though even such endeavours don't always work - not directly nor in the long run.
Some people seem to have eyes in the back of their head; they can tell what others are feeling and
thinking without looking at what makes them move away or the places they visit, or what they do there, and why they retrack. Perhaps these persons have learned to listen closely.
Whatever the explanation, I don't believe anyone can recognise a thought by looking into a brain
or Sarah Bellum [*]; just as I am certain no one can see why someone is glad by watching a heart.
And trust me on this:
Were it not for expanding the scope or perspective of Skinner's Lovely, I wouldn't be writing on
environmental contingencies in the style I do now and herein.
Behavior analysts have studied the partial movements of sensitive organisms; so far, so good;
physicists found inanimate matters and properties... for instance the speed of light and sound. However, inorganic material does not communicate with researchers - not through
distant stimulation, nor direct consequation. Photons and decibels do not respond to coaxing nor
intimidation whereas animals and humans may run from danger, relax in sunlight, recall a location
respond to familiar sounds that they can echo in conversation.
Should behavior scientists expand their expertise, they could disseminate useful re-minders:
they might mention behavior includes: /standing still/ ; /seeing and hearing/; /moving around/;
/waiting and watching/; / not saying what you think/ ; / listening to talk/ ; / showing approval/;
and very much more.
True, that would expose a folly in behavior analysis. Yet, this exposure is liberating!
Skinnerians can leave introspection -- looking into the body for diagnosis -- to the physicians;
they use their hands for palpation and have tools for listening to hearts as well as instruments
for looking at soft tissues and hard body parts. In my experience - albeit limited - highlighting
such distinction gains respectful attention.
The fact is, revealing age-old errors is the stuff sciences are made of!
Finding a fallacy can be even better than a discovery, for example: Earth is a rotating globe.
Who'd have thought of such a thing? No wonder many people refused to take it for granted.
I suggest introspection could be stopped, and reversed, by emphasizing differences between
brain function and human performance; I think there's a fair chance for universal consensus.
At times people, mostly teenagers, see nothing strange in what I say;
they don't even bother to argue; their tone says: "What else is new?", if I make a big deal of
"you see and hear what I think just as I can see you and listen to you while you're thinking."
People disclose personal thoughts and feelings about episodes to which others have access;
thus consensus is achieved. Feelings may be fake and thoughts can be wrong yet the richer
the vocabulary, the higher the probability for more general social validity.
Behaviorists could remind persons in large, powerful, organisations: [**]
the brain is an organ that may function like an electro-magnetic battery; it isn't a sentient
individual. We need to know more about how people and animals typically communicate.
Free-operant conditioning is a basic life science that studies whole and healthy organisms,
and has invaluable practical and conceptual implications, for social survival.
Most urgently: biologists, behavior scientists, and many ecological experts, might reiterate:
living things, including seeds, genes, organs, systems and tissue, depend on environmental quality
everywhere on our planet; all the time; which also goes for plants and trees. I hope and trust this
message will lead to studying normal mobile subjects and contribute to mutual understanding.
_____________________________________________________________
[*] Garrison Keillor's reference to his own brain; in: A Prairie Home Companion
[**] E.g., The National Science Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
