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