People

What counts as behavior?

The question has troubled behaviorists since 1984 when it appeared in a journal [i] and I began writing reminders. Now I realize I've  had my say and shall reply shortly in the spirit in which ABAI [ii] is calling for posters in an upcoming conference [iii]

In psychology what counts as behavior is anything people do, including those who do the counting.
Not being people, physiological cells and organs are discounted as behaving individuals.

The Behavior of Organisms

B.F. Skinner is the scientific anchor who keeps my head above water in an ocean of abstractions [iv].

In animal-conditioning laboratories, cumulative records are historical turning points in psychology: since the 1930s, while printing the data on paper for professional interpretation, they show every   subjects' response rate is affected by environmental contingencies,

And still researchers and practitioners continue to puzzle over 'behavior'. Consenssus is necessary. 
I am convinced Skinner might yet come to the rescue and assist in resolving this issue right now and here:

"A Definition of Behavior : Behavior is what an organism is doing - or more accurately what it is observed by another organism to be doing."

This fits the idea that acids and brains don't see or hear, nor look or listen to each other as do organisms with eyes and ears in a head that they turn up and down and from side to side.
The next excerpt is also persuasive:

"By behavior, then, I mean simply the movement of an organism or of its parts in a frame of reference provided by the organism itself or by various external objects or fields of force. "

Even without added emphasis, that takes us into operant settings where a subject's body parts move the keys that print the records which demonstrate cause-and-effects chains ... a main aim in basic science and in applications therefrom.   

All the same, Skinner added a caveat to his initial definition of behavior:

"But to say that a given sample of activity falls within the field of behavior simply because it normally comes under observation would misrepresent the significance of this property.  It is more to the point to say behavior is that part of the functioning of an organism which is engaged in acting upon or having commerce with the outside world."

Perhaps he meant inner entities don't make paths or build dwellings like people and animals do.
In any case, there is a question as to what humans can and cannot observe with the naked eye.
At the upcoming conference, such themes are close to my heart. Therefore, I offer additional thoughts, wishing to attract readers' interest and cause curious souls to wonder where they come from.  
January 9, 2013:
I simplified the above introduction, in view of the controversy as to 'variabilty' in
The Behavior Analyst, 2012, 15, received yeterday. 

Re: Consciousness and Private Events

Pavlov relinquished vivisection for research with fully conscious subjects and preferably cheerful. From my nursing days, I think physicians could assist in this area: 'unconscious' usually means patients no longer respond to audio-visual stimulation, nor to touch. Thus consciousness is akin to awareness, inasmuch as we say people are aware of things we may show and tell them.

'Subconscious' knowing sounds more optimistic since normal, healthy persons are also involved.

As for personal privacy, I believe our skin and our skull function like boundaries. People are solid, not transparent, so we don't really see each other's insides.
In ordinary circumstances, I don't even feel what happens in my own body. Only when something is especially painful or shocking or (on the contrary) joyful or interesting, do I notice anything going on in my head and my body (for instance: palpitations, dry tongue, shaky voice, weak muscles). I assume others don't see my physiology either; not without x-rays, stethoscopes, and so forth. The most they could do would be to feel - with the aid of their fingers - my heart pulsing along, There are also close hugs through which I can sense the heart of a child beating strong.

All that was brought home to me when I was imagining a scared "Mrs. Rat" whom I had visualized

running away from a lever where she'd been shocked, her heart pumping fast in panic.

Later, I understood why we humans so frequently try hiding our thoughts and feelings:

we already know others can see us move, do hear what we say and may read what we write.

Yet they may not approve, so we have to be careful when, where and how much, we pretend.

At the end of the day, everyone needs credibility, we don't want to lose people's trust.

Persons tend to blame scientists for oversights, perhaps equating science with errorless learning.

Researchers however, are not infallible and particularly not when exploring unfamiliar territory.

   

Re: Patterns of Explanation in Behavior Analysis

Pavlov made history with psychosomatic effects: external stimuli affect animals and inner glands.

Skinner discovered events outside have characteristic results, irrespective of species membership.

Sidman highlights the importance of systematic replications for evaluating psychological data.

And I believe Sidman's search for Unsolved Puzzles [v] may help unite nations, in the way they

see themselves as human beings, mammals and vertebrates, members of the animal kingdom.

I wouldn't argue with scientists, had I not seen the flow of cause-and-effect in experimental analysis

of behavior:  from remote conditions, to the animals and via the brain, into physiological systems.
And this, while keeping animals fit and providing information for functional, face-to-face, interaction

that might yet generate normal and healthy socialisation, on a very large scale.

Rhetoric

Where there's a cause for a will, there's a way to delay.

Naturally, persons agree that lessening pain, sorrow, hostility, would be a good thing for humanity.

So why shouldn't more people campaign against cruelty, when millions are already voting for more peace and equality? The findings from conditioning experiments are valid in theory, reliable in practice and viable from a radical philosophical point of view which gives credit where credit is due: to environmental qualities.

Those who claim otherwise [vi], never recognize the language of reciprocal social reinforcement.

Furthermore, their forecasts are premature since individuals in groups, have not yet been studied experimentally. With regard to modeling and learning through emulation and observation, knowledge is missing. We need to replicate the conditions that generate and maintain cooperation amongst naive and experienced experimental subjects.

The trouble is forgetfulness.  Nevertheless, since scientists carefully chart their work, readers can refresh collective memories and remind others: report past achievements, the professional literature exists! [vii]
That seems to have become my mission.
Mottos I like are: 'Humans Are Born Innocent Of Sin'; 'Liberate the Operant!';  'Towards Freedom and Dignity'; 'Science For A More Humane World!'

There was a time when operant conditioners acknowledged the organism as a unit for analysis.
Nowadays they seldom mention anyone in connection with behavior, not even animal subjects.

Yet, together with human researchers, animals are the essential participants in behavior science.

Without them, no bar-press, no behavior or movement, nothing to go on, no talk about feelings - much less, write or translate into other words, or infer and imply, or compare.

Sidman gently reminds us: "Good data are good data, regardless of theory..."

And yet should good data lead to the theory and in the vernacular, this is great.

Sidman presents an unsolved problem concerning "voluntary control" :

"... the problem will not be solved on the basis of Pavlovian conditioning alone, since this type of conditioning fails to tell us how the controlling word... itself comes to be strengthened."

Mellow as Dr. Sidman, readers may resonate to this:

So long as you count the dogs who react to what scientists show and tell them, Pavlovian conditioning can tell us how the controlling word is strengthened. I am relieved to report that people readily conceptualise words as 'conditioned stimuli'; and - theoretically - as 'conditioned reinforcers'.

As for cognitive terms in everyday language, Skinner's early warnings are understandable, in view of the confusion between cause and effect in psychological circles, over the centuries to the present day.

And as for private thinking and feeling why should we pick on behaviorists' error, when the entire world falls into the same trap, again and again? We can admit speaking and listening to others is plainly common 'verbal behavior', and covert talking to oneself is not objective like playing football.

We could confess that unless we know when others are pleased or disappointed, neither Stick nor Carrot will work for us - or them - or indeed, anyone.

On TV, recently, I heard this great introduction to a documentary on the formation of life on our planet:
'Earth is the birthplace of the human race.'

This sentence could provide a springboard for seeking ... and finding ... solutions to the issues regarding supposedly primary controlling roles of seeds and DNA that appear in literary and professional texts.

Mark Twain, good-natured wordsmith and environment-friendly, says it well:

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living.  The world owes you nothing.  It was here first.

In my blog postings I poured out my soul over the power of words as conditioned sounds; whichever way humans behave ... stay put or move, air or hide thoughts and feelings ... whatever we do, can be caused by words ... whose meanings are conditioned ... starting at birth.

For one of the most remarkable testimonies to what human beings are capable of, I recommend:
Izzeldin Abuelaish (2011) I SHALL NOT HATE

At times, persons understand more from humorous hints than from precise statements. Somehow, absurdities seem to cut through many words and come straight to the point. In conclusion, I offer the following  

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Of the Sun and the Moon, the Moon is plainly the more important, as it provides us with light when it is dark and not needed, whereas the Sun appears only in the daytime when it is light anyhow.

And finally: When a thing has been said and well said, have no scruple, take it and copy it.  ' Nuff said!

_____________________________________

References

[i]   The Behavioral and Brain Sciences (1984) 7:4, pages 715; 722;

[ii]  The Association for Behavior Analysis International

[iii] The Conference Theory and Philosophy, Santa Fe, NM; November 2-4, 2012

[iv] Though in 1984, critical waves upset even Skinner and I shied away from showing his error.

        Today I believe he would be pleased and agree: "the essence of behavior is the organism".

[v]  Murray Sidman (2012) Unsolved Puzzles: Where to Find Them?  

          European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 137-140

[vi]  For instance: "Wars are inevitable"; or: "People understand only the language of force."

[vii] For example: Ayllon & Azrin (1968) The Token Economy; A Motivational System For
       Therapy and Rehabilitation

23 August, 2012.