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. 
 

Breaking News .....

Breaking news!

Due to technical problems the end of the world, scheduled for 2012, has been postponed to 3012.
Please cooperate, and continue living with spirit and confidence. Keep smiling!  Vote for Science!
Sign up for the Arts and Humanities.  Focus your thought on trees and plants, people and animals.
Keep your imagination intact.

Good luck to all.

Closure

      While wondering what records would look like should a rat choose to move towards - or away from - a lever, I saw something I could not find words for, though I knew it was true. I stared at the points where I supposed the animal begins pressing the lever:  the curve will slope upwards.

But at the same time, the rat's movement will cease.

So how can reinforcement increase and decrease behavior - in the same place - simultaneously?

Never before had I confronted this question.  I was lost for words in my virtual Skinner box.

Distraught, I went out and watched people on the street: they enter a cafe, sit and start eating; they walk along and halt in order to look through a shop window. The same everywhere: at one and the same time reinforcement stops and starts behavior. I wasn't dreaming but something was wrong.  Some days later, came the solution: it depends on one's focus: movement of visible parts as distinct from the whole individual! Skinner, par excellence. [1]

Returning to the cumulative records in my make-believe lab, this became plain:

looking at a paw or a beak, responses are observed to accelerate. Whereas, watching the entire animal, reinforcement clearly stops the rat in its track.  Furthermore, looking at what subjects obtain as they halt, anyone may infer motivation from the audio-visual sign or signal for the onset and offset of reinforcement. As in nature, so in these extended lab settings: animals go for what they want and inform onlookers as to attraction from afar ... reinforcement from a distance!   

The normal and typical win-win situation akin to mutually reinforcing social relationships.

Though they didn't come quickly, those were sudden insights. [2]  And scientists will certainly gain by exploring conditioning with spaced keys and spaced stimuli to symbolise remote reinforcement.

Despite - or because of - unsettled nature-nurture issues, searching for primary controlling sources inside the head or the body continues, unabated. This twists cause and effect, rendering us insensitive to reality.

And this hinders conceptual unity among human beings, including scientists from many disciplines.

Behavior analysts can defend radical behaviorism. Even now, I feel myself tensing over misconceptions due to the lingual traps into which humans repeatedly fall. [3] In 1938, Skinner argued the point:

A Set of Terms

In approaching a field ... defined for purposes of scientific descriptions we meet at the start the need of a set of terms. Most languages are well equipped in this respect but not to our advantage .... The important objection to the vernacular in the description of behavior is that many of its terms imply conceptual schemes. I do not mean that a science of behavior is to dispense with a conceptual scheme but that it must not take over without careful consideration the schemes which underlie popular speech. The vernacular is clumsy and obese; its terms overlap each other, draw unnecessary or unreal distinctions, and are far from being the most convenient in dealing with the data. They have the disadvantage of being historical products, introduced because of everyday convenience rather than that special kind of convenience characteristic of a simple scientific system. It would be a miracle if such a set of terms were available for a science of behavior, and no miracle has in this case taken place. There is only one way to obtain a convenient and useful system and that is to go directly to the data.

Almost 50 years later a miracle did take place: I blithely designed data in a bigger animal laboratory.

This left me no choice but to think sentences with individuals as the grammatical subjects.

My way out of all this has to be through sincere verbal clarity, rhyme, rhythm and reason.

But in 1984, I might as well have been asked to fly to the moon as insist, animals manifest mental activities and display how they feel, in public.  Still, by this time the vernacular comes more easily, and then it can be surprisingly communicative in face-to-face conversation on psychology.

People know they see objects look smaller as they recede and loom larger as they come closer.

No teleology! Simply a matter of seeing things from a distance, not so different from planning a meeting, printing a calendar or predicting the weather from the state of the clouds and the winds.

Nowadays, I introduce behavior researchers as experts who think beyond the box, in a great scientific [4] breakthrough.  Not merely because they see things from another perspective; but also because "thinking outside the box" is the essence of radical behaviorism: the philosophy that says learning, teaching, habits and all, depend on the environment which can influence individuals, organs and molecules.

So with Skinner's blessing, I'm not about to give up just when I see my language improving. I feel as though I transversed the globe and hope this is what we refer to as closure, or closing a circle. 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Men act upon the world, and change it, and are changed in turn by the consequences of their action.

Together with the biblical statement, Skinner's grand opening to VERBAL BEHAVIOR is even more awesome to my secular mind. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists and believers in God wonder alike. A recent example is the 2012 transit of Venus; the planet appears as a tiny dark disc moving across the face of the sun ... and this view impressed thousands and thousands of people dispersed over the earth.

I long for the day when the world comes to appreciate Pavlov and Skinner as pioneer scientists, who taught animals to attribute meaning to sights seen and sounds heard.

Pavlov made history by affecting the dog's consciousness and physiological activities.

Skinner recorded experimental control over movement of visible anatomical parts and brought the animals to a voluntary standstill.

Both men carried out their research agenda with single individuals, one by one.

Individuality need not be glorified nor suppressed, or pushed aside or ignored.

Factual descriptions of how people speak and respond to each other, suffice for dissemination.

We don't react in ways perennially determined by any personal genetic lineage. Human spontaneity is a virtue when people make up their mind, on the spur of a moment, to initiate socialisation.

Persons and animals are not unfeeling machines nor thoughtless robots. Live creatures know when to push something away or pull it towards them, instinctively.

Here is the marvel of normal and natural conditioning: even in unfamiliar surroundings, living species -individual  members - may adapt rapidly and survive. I don't believe human power is total or unlimited.  But let us correct error [5] and prolong cooperative interaction for sustaining many more healthy relationships on Earth. The Law of the Jungle includes more than an inexorable food chain. What we say about prey and predator, is true.  Yet let us remember the social life in families, groups and herds where collaboration for  migration and emigration, and care for the injured, plus the feeding of the young, also take place.

As long as mutual attraction is more frequent than killing, the survival of species is facilitated.

The life of organisms is recorded by scientists who satisfy their curiosity and discover laws of nature, hopefully for the good of mankind.  Many creatures demonstrate a special interest in unfamiliar objects and unexplored neighbourhoods.

Perhaps other species also accept loss and change with more equanimity than we do.

Anyhow, it is not possible for people to affect each other's behavior without also affecting each other's brain and physiological systems, by means of words - in speech, and script, and song;

and also in whispers which make people listen very intently with interest and pleasure.

Thus Skinner concludes THE BEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS: AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS.
I feel privileged in closing this blog with his legacy.

Pavlov's and Skinner's and Sidman's work [6], may well provide the empirical foundation to support the theory and practice of complementary medicine. [7]

____________________________

Notes

1. "By behavior, then, I mean simply the movement of an organism or of its parts.." (1938)

     This may explain why Skinner encouraged the spacious laboratory as a fruitful suggestion.

 2. "Insight is a psychological term that attempts to describe the process in problem solving when a previously unsolvable puzzle becomes suddenly clear and obvious. Often this transition from not understanding to spontaneous comprehension is accompanied by an exclamation of joy or satisfaction, an Aha! moment."

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka effect

     

3. 'Reifying behavior', as if behavior were literally a thing with size, shape, and outline. In reality, it is people and other organisms who behave and misbehave.  To argue the opposite is to dehumanise human endeavour - not to mention, contradict scientists' values and principles.    

4. 'Scientific' in the sense of causal or functional as in 'functional relation' or 'causal explanation'.

5. " Individuals not using the insight process are more likely to produce partial, incomplete responses."

     This shows the division between the cognitive and the behavioristic approaches to psychology and causation.  I didn't 'use insight'; it came after I saw something odd that I thought should be describable.

And so it is. Consensus on what persons do or say is elementary in applied behavior analysis, and it is part of the high observer-reliability (recorded directly) in time and in place.

6. "There is no way to overstate the importance of Murray Sidman's contributions to applied behavior analysis."  William H. Ahearn, The New England Center for Children and Western New England College.

I resonate to Dr. Ahearn's opening sentence in his discussion: Sidman on Aversive Control (2011)

European Journal of Behavior Analysis,12, 327-329

7.  I refer to physiological states caused by external variables to which people are exposed daily:
the stimulation and the reinforcement schedules that might sustain mental and physical health. 

        

July 7, 2012

August 26, 2012

Modified on 28 October 2012 at 8:00

Comparison

I keep trying to defend radical behaviorism but I can't say I make waves. It is hard to attract
the attention of scientists for more than a minute and persuade them to enlarge their animal-conditioning laboratory. Nobody's interested enough to ask: Why? What for?

Murray Sidman's Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in
Psychology (1960) introduced issues regarding data reliability and generality, and concludes:
It is never easy to determine whether contemporary enthusiasm (or apathy) represents a sound judgment.
That verdict will develop concurrently with the particular science.

Well, expanding behavior science will reduce apathy and engender trustworthy data with global
consensus and lead to general appreciations of people as fallible, flesh-and-blood human beings.
How do I know?
My answers are posted in this blog, and interested readers may judge and decide for themselves
whether - or not - they lead towards conceptual revision.

Meanwhile, I cite Murray Sidman as the spokesman for experimental behavior analysis.
The first question (in Chapter 1) is Why Perform Experiments? 
   In psychology, the hypothesis-testing school of experimentation is undoubtedly dominant today.
Many of those who organize their research in this manner have made significant contributions.
But I caution the student not to fall into the error of  insisting that all experimentation must derive
from the testing of hypotheses. Psychologists must recognize, as do other scientists, that advances in
knowledge come from many unexpected quarters.
I was uncomfortable with hypothetical cumulative records until Murray Sidman assured me,
he did not mind. Ever since then, I count my designs as coming from "unexpected quarters".

Comparing methodologies Dr. Sidman continues to clarify: The history of science reveals many discoveries that resulted from the inquiry, 'I wonder what will happen if...' (p.8)
There are two broad and diametrically opposed schools of thought concerning the most effective methods for integrating diverse data. The difference between the two schools lies, not in the presence or absence of theory, but in the way theory is brought into the picture. In one case, the theories are formulated first and then tested -- by -- experiment. The other method is to experiment first and let the theories emerge -- from the data. (p.14)
   
"Theory first vs theory later ", sounds a good way to categorize different schools of thought. Yet,
I find Sidman's everyday terms more helpful for comprehending the battle of words - which still
rages. A lot of people can connect guessing with having a theory, know what curiosity is and
are familiar with let's find out what happens if...

Wondering what records might show if a rat had food and shock at one lever, the first thing
that happened to me was I knew "my animal" would probably run away and not come back.
So I left the food where it was and moved the shock to another lever. But there again, I thought
the rat would press once - no more.   And thus, only the food curve would be accumulative.
So the next thing I did was imagine a second food lever and then there could be two curves:
if food stopped at the one, the rat would stop too, and try at the other.
If food stopped at the one, the rat would stop too, and move to another.
I thought this a few times until the penny dropped: I must not use shock.

The next thing that happened was I asked myself what would happen if behaviorists knew
that rats didn't need shock to stop them pressing the lever.  The investigators could open
the food - or the water - in another location. 
So then I recalled Sidman's words:  Great experiments have been performed without the experimenter
having the slightest inkling as to the probable results ..... When an investigator performs an experiment
to test no hypothesis, his life is full of surprises . (p.8)

And - since I had never performed a proper experiment - I felt trapped. I can never convince
Sidman, and Skinner, and Ferster and many more opposers of "theory before data" to accept
my suggestion. Perhaps the best I can do now is, remind behavior analysts of how we define
social interactions and find outside cause for diametrically opposed epithets:
patriot or traitor, idealist or terrorist, liberal or radical, such unilateral epithets can depend
on geography, place of birth, socio-economic status, school and experience.

So long as impartial objective measures of either border-position are neglected, pushed out of
sight, or simply not mentioned, identical behaviors are evalued one-sidedly.

Comparing adjectives, applied by parents and teachers to their oppositional child - before and
after successful modification - can be a beautiful and an enlightening experience for all involved.
In my view, reflex and operant conditioning is nothing less than miraculous.

Were it not for misplaced prestige, behavior scientists would have answered What is behavior?
to everyone's satisfaction 30 years ago.
Behavior is manifestly, not a thing; it is what people do as they go here, there, and everywhere.
Or, when they sit on a chair pushing keys to write on their computer, like individual organisms
in the Skinnerian experimental settings.
For analysing socialisation however, researchers need larger laboratories to make room for all
the animals, as well as all the operanda. I don't know how many, but subjects must be able to
go and choose locations according to their needs and their inclinations. In this way, the data will
exemplify communication, and highlight healthy and reciprocal contingencies of reinforcement.
This is also a question about normalcy.

Three inspiring quotes:

She has lost the art of conversation, but not, unfortunately, the power of speech.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) Irish writer

The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it.
Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873) British politician, poet and critic.

The great gift of conversation lies less in displaying it ourselves but in drawing it out of others. He who
leaves your company pleased with himself and his own cleverness is perfectly pleased with you.
Jean de la Bruyere (1645- 1696) French essayist and moralist
In 2012 we speak more of intelligence than cleverness, or maybe, the words wisdom 
or kindness, sound better today.

In any case: conditions may inhibit or energize persons, organs and hormones, and so on,
way down to biochemical levels of analysis:  viruses, bacteria, single-celled organisms.
Here we vindicate the behavioristic philosophy of science as thinking outside the box,
on a grand Darwinian evolutionary scale:
from the seas, to the continents and trees ... light and shadow, sound and silence ... up
into the heavens and back to earth again.

5 June, 2012
What a relief!
Yesterday, after hearing a biophysicist's questions: How does a cell in our body know how to fight
viruses, bacteria and chemical toxins?  What does it see?  What does it remember?  I asked:
How do the processes you described fit Darwin's theory of evolution? Are viruses primitive forms
of life? Are there viruses and bacteria that are necessary for the lives of other organisms?
Without hesitation, the scientist said Yes.
I forgave the personification of the cells!

Looking into the head

After all, if organic disease is suspected, or known to exist. introspection - looking into the head or
the body - is warranted and necessary.  Under normal circumstances, you don't feel what happens
inside; i.e., only if something is wrong do you feel your heart weaken or beating strong.
This may explain why we take the normal state of affairs so much for granted, we don't even ask
why people are normal and friendly.
Mostly, we think like internists: the source of mental retardation, delusion, hyperactivity,
self-damage, etc., has to be genetic.
Yet scientific data, derived from reflex and operant analysis, illustrate external sources: reinforcing contingencies in laboratory settings as well as applied science environments.
I employ the term "science" for a functional analysis and "scientific" to denote the measurement
which Skinner called his basic dependent variable:
probability of response that emerges in cumulative records and reflects the partial movements
made by every single subject. Today, apathy for expansion in the way Skinner predicted will be fruitful (personal letter) is interfering with progress and the welfare of behavior analysis.

More and more people - albeit unknowingly - side with BF Skinner when he declares himself most concerned with the possible relevance of a behavioral analysis to the problems of the world today.
There is no doubt about that relevance but alone, behavior scientists will not save the world.
Humans need to unite: terrorists and freedom fighters, patriots and traitors, behaviors are the
same on all sides of political, or ideological, or geographical borders.
Many people know what human means, physically, biologically and behaviorally.
And just in case anyone thinks I worked all this out by myself: I had the best teachers and mentors.
Their articles still exist and I owe more to them than I can say.

Looking outside

Were it not for the prestige afforded 'introspection', the ideas that feeling is observed as private
and that thinking is necessarily mental, may have been confirmed as folly and gently faded out.
Thoughts and feelings would have been counted and quantified like walking and talking or any
other behavior which people are able to see and to hear.
The outer-inner /public-private / arguments might have been settled and Skinner's behaviorism
would have lost 'radicality' and spread, many years ago.

Controversies over physiological vs environmental causes might not have arisen. As it is, Pavlov's
work can be said to indicate that things we see and hear - or discuss - affect us as individuals plus
the brain cells, hormones and chemistry. Which in Skinner's words is "an appeal to events taking place somewhere else, at some other level of observation, described in different terms, and measured in different dimensions." Pavlov's data justify explanation on a molecular level of observation.

As a process, Pavlovian conditioning is relatively slow, because time must elapse until salivation
is nil, before the next stimulus presentation.  Still, the result is immediate and precisely what you
expect from a reflex.  So perception, visual and auditory, could have been recognized as a reflex reaction.  Like: " 'I see.' said the blind man as he bumped into the lamp post."  Although this is
a case where "seeing" is due to contact between person and object, so the causal relation is clear.

Mystery arises with distance between cause and effect.
Of course the dogs - not the gland - understand tones - but how?
Well, answers involve photons and decibels, measurable light and sound in the air.
The human organism doesn't sense physical impact with either material but all the same, it exists.

And there is the bridge between external causes and internal effects, which permit the behaviorist
to unite Sciences with Humanities. People differ less than one might think.
Human beings share good commonalities with scientists and other citizens.

Deciding whether or not to approach water, seeing and hearing things from afar, is doing what
comes as naturally to man as to other animals; you cannot help seeing and hearing things from
a distance.
It is also human nature to close the eyes, move out of earshot, turn the head away, and look in
another direction.
And those are 'operants', often called 'voluntary' and still commonly explained as due to free will.
Admittedly, I have been very slow in writing all this, but today I insist:
radical behaviorists lack basic data about good reasons for locomotion.
Were they to replicate what I tried to do, they would realize moving away from potential harm, is
a perfectly normal reflex response conducive to the survival of an individual organism.
And that one must be gentle with mentally healthy experimental subjects - otherwise, they will be
be tense and fearful - beyond the scientist's control - rather than relaxed and confident.

UNIVERSAL

No wonder physics and chemistry are - literally - universally relevant!  The stars in the sky,
the moon and the sun, changes in winds, climate and temperature, apply to just about
everything on our planet.
Through telescope and microscope, invisible atoms and molecules or huge heavenly bodies, all
things move according to the gravitational laws in our physical world.
Then again: we are able to scrutinise the movements of whole individuals with our naked eyes.

And indeed, everyone sees inanimate objects don't move like persons and animals.
Live people climb up hills and stop, motionless, at the top; perambulate freely in many directions;
repelled by shock, they run away; they go here and there, attracted by what they need for their
routine welfare. And, you and I know, the way we respond depends on our social relationships.

Animal experiments show intelligence, not as a precursor but, as the outcome of exposure to
stimulation and schedules of reinforcement, specified for every subject's behavior. Hence,
traditional practitioners need not interpret response frequencies as controlled by fictitious internal causes. Which brings us all the way back to BF Skinner and introspection:

    The important objection to the vernacular in the description of behavior is that many of its terms imply
conceptual schemes. I do not mean that a science of behavior is to dispense with a conceptual scheme but
that it must not take over without careful consideration the schemes which underlie popular speech .....
    This does not mean that we must entirely abandon ordinary speech in a science of behavior.  The sole
criterion for the rejection of a popular term is the implication of a system or of a formulation extending
beyond immediate observations .....
    With this criterion it is possible to save a considerable part of the vernacular for use in describing the
movements of organisms. (1938)

Today, I see the most pervasive conceptual scheme in any vernacular is the implicit notion
that to explain or understand causal links for human behavior, one has to begin with looking into
the head or the body; anything else is flatly rejected as unprofessional: silly, simple or superficial.
I confess, only now do I realise the extent of Skinner's radical behaviorism.

They say: Truth Is Stranger Than Fiction.  In relation to 'heredity' versus 'environment', the term 'superficial' denotes looking outside ourselves and listening to the sounds, the tones and the voices
all around.  Oddly enough, behaviorism is the one profound philosophy on the market!

To illustrate, let us sample evaluations in connection with cause-and-effects.
For instance, I find this extremely confusing:
In common usage, causality is also the relationship between a set of factors (causes) and a phenomenon
(the effect). ---- A direct factor is a factor that effects an effect directly, that is, without any intervening
factors. Intervening factors are sometimes called "intermediate  factors".) The connection between a
cause(s) and an effect in this way can also be referred to as a causal nexus. .......
Causality is a basic assumption of science.  Within the scientific method, scientists set up experiments to
determine causality in the physical world. .......
Physicists conclude that certain elemental forces ---- cause all other events in the universe. The notion of
causality that appears in many different physical theories is hard to interpret in ordinary language.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Compared with the clarity in this recommendation:
The conception of experimental methodology that I advance here is neither revolutionary nor new.
But I must caution the student not to expect a set of rules of experimental procedure, to be memorized
in classic textbook fashion. --- Experimenters cannot always tell us how or why they do what they do,
and the fact that that their conclusions are sound so much of the time remains a puzzle ....... 
At some time or other, everybody asks --- "Why? What? How?" --- The scientist might be defined as
a person whose indulgence of his curiosity is also the means by which he makes his living. .......
Curiosity may, of course, be guided by hypothesis and by theory, but the history of science reveals many
discoveries that resulted from the inquiry, " I wonder what will happen if. . .?" ......
Murray Sidman: Tactics of Scientific Research (1960) 

And regarding statistical causal inference:
Statistics textbooks provide interesting examples of causal questions: Did halothane do more to cause
surgical deaths than ether? Was the lower admission rate of women to graduate programs at the
University of California caused by discrimination against women? Does smoking cause cancer? .......
"Causal inference is one of the most important, most subtle, and most neglected of all the problems
of Statistics." P. Dawid, 1978 Cited by the following authors:
P. Spirtes, C. Glymour, R. Scheines: Causation, Prediction, and Search (1993)

Sidman's questions stress individual data:
Another type of problem often encountered is that of reversibility of a behavioral process. --- After observing
a behavioral change as a function of some experimental manipulation, is it possible to recover the original
baseline behavior? .......
A behavioral analysis is not some idealized state of behavior inferred from the performance of a group of
individuals by means of a statistical averaging process. It is the continuous, and continuing  performance
of a single individual. .......

And herewith, two book reviews:
This one alludes to risky practice: 
1. Causation, Prediction, and Search, 2nd. Edition (2001)
What assumptions and methods allow us to turn observational into causal knowledge, and how can even
incomplete causal knowledge be used in planning and prediction to influence and control our environment?

This one appears more attractive:
2. Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology (1960)
.... Every student should be aware of the attitude toward research that Sidman's work exemplifies. He may
well find it clean, refreshing, and powerful.

Last but not least, with respect to motivation:
1. In the statistical control analysis, p.3; "Introduction and Advertisement"
 Pedagogy reflects accepted statistical theory, and with some important exceptions, statistical theory tiptoes
 around issues of causal inference. Even so, many research issues in statistics are fundamentally motivated
 by problems about reliable causal inference, although the motivation is sometimes hidden by the details.

2. Compared with experimental analysis, p. 408; "Appendix: A Terminological Note" 
Because a conditioned reinforcement derives its function from association with a stimulus that is already
reinforcing, it is possible for a conditioned reinforcer to become much more powerful than any primary
reinforcer. For  a  conditioned  reinforcer  can  be associated  with  a  wide  variety of primary as well as 
secondary reinforcements. We can extend our example of chaining so that the subject, when hungry, will
receive food in the red light; when thirsty, it will receive water;  ----- when a tone is sounding along with
the red light, a threatened shock can be avoided. The list can be stretched indefinitely. The red light will
then be associated with -- reinforcements, and it will function in a wide variety of situations. It will have
become a generalized reinforcer. Money is a conspicuous example of generalized reinforcement. 

Due to scientists' lack of interest in designing laboratories, such that rats would go wherever they choose, I find audiences elsewhere and can report eye-opening experience, for myself and my
listeners. Telling evidence of mutual contributions is: "I never thought about that!"

If - as the book review suggests - statisticians believe mankind can control global environments with insufficient knowledge as to abating coercion, or uniting humanity for peace and for sanity -
I'm afraid to finish the sentence; a documentary on supervolcanic eruptions made me panic today.
(Thursday, May 17, 2012)

That was yesterday.
This morning, I say mankind cannot control Nature's gigantic disasters, the environment is primary. In fact, at times people pose more of a threat than a chemical element. Yet, I am sure humans have the ability for positive talk - and thinking out loud - as well as for matching tactful vocabularies.
To make a plausible case for 'free will', more details are needed as to how humans drive and spur, force and inspire, learn from and teach one another, with words - phrases and sentences -
anywhere. Let us be certain we know why we agree and unite behavior science with psychology.

July 1, 2012