VERSES FOR PUBLICITY

Pretence or sincerity,
What humans feel and think is plain to see and hear.
Yet we - the radical behaviorists - perpetuate controversy
in The Behavior Analyst, Nov. 2011, for instance:

Pavlov's data, however, stand firm!
Dogs pay attention when shown a conditioned stimulus;
they anticipate food and they drool.
Pavlov's Bell actually tolls for the dogs.
Who else can see, hear, listen, observe and perceive?
Who decides whether to swallow or remove something
... from the mouth with the tongue?

Organs don't possess any sense; they never observe what
happens beyond them; they cannot feel goings-on outside
in the surroundings; nor under the fur or the skin.
It isn't for organs that Pavlov's Bell rings.
Brain cells and neurons never see things.
And neither do atoms or molecules.
Pavlov's message is meant for the canine.

And humans too! Words mean little or nothing for those
who did not experience reflex or classical conditioning. 
Whereas for all those who did, words function like magic.
they serve to remind us what came first, and what next ...
and after that ... and so on.
And then for remembering the senses we have in common:
vision and hearing: humour and balance; smell, touch, taste.

Thus we infer and imply; and chain together cause and effects.
The story's worth telling in prose and in verse, again and again.
First, the dog understands the external stimulus and - quick as
lightning ... via the nerves ... the brain is energized.
Then the glands make saliva and our mouth waters .

We can add two and two together.
We come to mental arithmetic through radical behaviorism!
Let us revise what we know of the tear glands in your eyes.
Not glands producing tears; we recognize weeping persons.

A child's tears may carry as much weight for parents as words
And to reveal what causes the crying (say: pain, fear or anger)
parents often guess what the stimulus is.
Did something sharp touch the child?
Or was there something remote perceived from a distance
to which the child - and then his tear glands - reacted?

Individuals are visible and audible, sad or happy or otherwise.
Physiological events are private.  This is why, as we identify
the external stimuli that affect us plus physiology,
we are confronted by psycho-somatic phenomena.
There is more to a discriminative stimulus than we thought,
or taught or imagined or realized.
Anyhow, not the brain but the animals decide whether to swallow.

But what about an inner voice? Don't we lead a rich mental life?
I see no reason to doubt this; and furthermore, everyone agrees.
Nevertheless, an inner voice is unheard by anyone else and ---
irrespective of how many times you talk to yourself --- at best,
it is unreliable and at worst, irretrievable.
It happens too fast. Unless you record the date, time and place
of the stimuli, it is hard to follow or recall your train of thinking.
And of course the moment you do this, your thoughts become
potentially public: others could read or hear them; repeat them
and criticise; or else assure you of their worth and importance.

The pivotal point of verbal behavior is interaction, socialisation,
dialogue, conversation and even email communication.
Two - or more - individuals participate as speakers and listeners.
That is why I think behavior scientists could move beyond single-
subject research towards small group research in the laboratory.
Like a family which behaves as one unit for common objectives;
the survival and welfare of the next generation, for example.

The time has come I suggest, to speak of many things:
specific, general, personal, professional.
I just read a dog quote:  The more one comes to know men, the
more one comes to admire the dog.  I like it.
It alludes to men, women and children, all mankind on our planet.
It is easier to recall admirable human qualities 
with Ivan Pavlov's experiments as your guide.

What is this thing called love?

I heard Gwyneth Paltrow singing Cole Porter's song on the YouTube, and I was moved
by her voice ...  and her pausing ... [*] So much so the question became serious for me
and this is my literal reply:

"Love" is not a thing: it is the word referring to what you - and most other persons - do;
the flesh-and-blood figures who show us the meaning of love are the people who do so;
talk of the partner with warmth; write poetry and love stories; or the birds who migrate
from Alaska to the South Pole, and mate with their one and only; and attend to and care
for their offspring.

Political activists could campaign for sciences that study mutual attraction.  Researchers
could discuss Nature and Nurture, with environmentalists and humanists.   Citizens could
entertain the scientific philosophy which says: "look carefully".  

What is this thing called 'thought'?
A thing it is not: there is really no such thing as an abstract thought. 
The thinkers are the ones we can touch; and observe ... see and hear ... as they exchange
their opinions in conversations; or write what they think in their emails, or in facebooks.
The same goes for 'cognition' and any mental or intellectual activity.

So long as we don't confuse anybody with too many abstract concepts, no harm done.
After all, we adults already know that others can tell what we think; otherwise, there'd
be no use in lying or pretending - even amicable socialisation would be futile. Whereas
we know, this is not true; we even teach children why and when to say what they think:
defend others from unjust slights; giving people and animals credit where credit is due.    

Monday, December 5, 2011
What Is This Thing Called Behavior?

Of course we can say, the concept 'behavior' refers to what people and animals really
do... see and hear, and imagine, feel and sense, and expect; move and come to a halt;
wait for distant signals, look for familiar signs; choose or prefer a new trail or an old path.

All's well with the term 'behavior' and 'behavior analysis' and even 'radical behaviorism'
is okay - provided you mention human and other organisms, more often than you refer
to 'behaviors' in the abstract, using too many nouns, not enough verbs.
This tendency can be cured by behaviorists who already quantify the rate of response:
frequencies can be counted and recorded, and compared, and assessed for their social
value while considering the health of the individuals who are involved.

We could also go along the etymological trail to find the history of to be and to have
over the centuries... how people spoke long ago...   Also, we could disclose what the
negative not behaving means; and in tongues other than English.
Readers might ask people from various countries what they imply when they identify
youngsters as "not behaving". My guess is, we would then understand quite well what
is meant when somebody tells someone "to behave" --- "or else".
And decide whether we're looking at an electron or a machine; a market or a person.
_________________________________________________________________
[*] This rendition, in the film Infamous, is based on a real-life nightclub performance
      by Barbara Cook