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.