SOULMATES

At times I am engulfed by a feeling of lost opportunities.
However, people know late can be than 'never' and what shouldn't be done over 'spilt milk'.
No need to reiterate so I shall come straight to the point.

The other day I was surprised by a description of mistakes made by behavior analysts. 
And once more I wondered why I still hesitate so much about showing our oversights.
And again I thought of the answer which - to my mind - is understandable:
I am not a researcher, it is not I who should justify and propose expanded experimentation.
Citing their words, stressing their influence, saying they're right and that I agree with them,
I hoped this would attract scientists' interest, arouse curiosity, prepare them for amending
our concepts. Yet error or credit, why should my opinion matter to them?

On the other hand, I can't just sit and say nothing. Something important did happen with me.
So now I search for soulmates - behaviorists and others - who resonate to the mind-boggling
insights which overcame my resistance - while simulating cumulative records for one mobile rat.
By any standard: practical, conceptual, philosophical, Skinner's invention is fantastic for science.

And alone I am not; scientists too, ask questions about the state of behavior analysis:
Why only autistic?
Why is our science not spreading to mainstream classrooms?
Why don't people accept our discipline as valid beyond special education?
Why are behavior principles not taught throughout universities on an international scale? 

'Soulmates' is perhaps a bit strong.
'Skinnerians' may suffice to describe the kind of allegiance I seek.
I know there are those who delight in the clarity of Skinner's writing as much as myself.
Therefore, I shall go on presenting an excerpt at every opportunity which comes along.

"Progress in a scientific field usually waits upon the discovery of a satisfactory dependent variable." (1950)
Having found a way to record - and assess - 'response rate', Skinner knew what he was talking about:
after all, 'free-operant conditioning' can serve as a scientific foundation for any school in psychology.

I forget when this was, but imagine how I felt on reading Pavlov's first tabulated data on p.30.
However, later [*] I put it like this :
     Pavlov called these data a "remarkable" phenomenon, but I think this is an understatement.
How can it be that a live, healthy, conscious animal contacts "an electric current of great strength"
(Pavlov's words) and simply doesn't feel it?  No reflex movements away from it, no effect on
heart rate or respiration. For the time being at least, I think the phenomenon deserves to be called "unimaginable" or "unthinkable"; just like, for example, the idea that the world was neither flat nor
stationary was once unthinkable - and is still hard to imagine or believe - despite visible evidence;
the signs from which this can be inferred in retrospect.
    To my mind, it is remarkable that these data are not discussed in the behavior-analytic literature
and other educational textbooks for that matter. Why is this?
I think it is because of the language in which Pavlov describes them: there are too many abstract
words; it isn't easy to understand what he is talking about. Therefore, the significance of the data
was not recognized. I am reminded of George Orwell's warning in "1984" :
"It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten,
a heretical thought should be literally unthinkable, at least in so far as thought is dependent on words."  
Scientific terminology need not be like Orwell's Newspeak. Professional language can be coined
deliberately to introduce coherent chronological order ... render Oldspeak more valid and lucid,
generally and specifically. In other words, to facilitate communicating with Oldspeak.
Not to replace it altogether or make it unspeakable. (June, 1995) (Reworded again: June, 2012)
__________________

[*] December 11, 1999: Behaviorism In Other Words (BIOW) Part IV
Skinner mentions them but adds that they were found to be unreliable, i.e.: could not be replicated.
Yet Dr. Escudero's work in Spain shows that they are applicable for medical purposes with humans.