Operating by the niche yet ambitious radical behaviorist philosophy, one is apt to recognize philosophical and scientific issues with some widely employed words. Numerous examples may be identified but none shall prove to be as problematic as the peculiar “to choose”. Let’s dedicate the present post to analyse the word and hopefully take a step in removing the word completely from our collective lexicon.
Voidness of meaning
Firstly, we can view to choose from the radical behaviorist perspective. The word appears in the same situations where other phrases signifying behaving or acting or doing something prop up. Choosing peculiarly does not add power to a statement – when I say that “I choose to write the sentence in a particular way”, I might as well simplify that “I am writing the sentence in a particular way”. Behavioral analyses and translations of verbal statements are abound in Skinner’s About Behaviorism (1974) and the present word is not skipped:
Willing is close to choosing, particularly when the choice is between acting or not acting; to will or to choose is evidently as unheralded as to act.
B.F. Skinner (1974, p. 51) – About Behaviorism
The word choose, does not add anything to a sentence except for throwing a mystifying veil over the reasons of an action. From a standpoint of communication it duplicates other words and thus is useless. It can succesfully be removed or replaced in most cases without losing any power to shape behavior of others.
Unscientific
The cornerstone of science – determinism – is abruptly lost when choosing is employed. Suddenly the analysis of preceding variables and environmental conditions are not sufficient as choice is allegedly no function of mundane working.
The unscientific nature of choice stems as well from its ultimate effects on the listener. In popular as well as in psychological discourse, it is accepted that when choice is referred to, the causes for behavior are internal in the acting agent. This successfully arrests any further inquiry into the reasons for behavior as it is implied that the reason has been identified. A banal question “why one chose to do something” disarms that notion.
A further thorny issue arises here as people are conditioned to react defensively when questioned for reasons of behavior beyond the utterance of choice. We may look at this behavior from the lenses of cultural evolution as described either by Skinner or Marvin Harris. The (sometimes aggresive) defense may be recognized as one of the reasons for the survival of the word “choose”.
Idealistic
As is customary in this blog to point out, the scientific progress of philosophical materialism has not widely embraced the subject of behavior. Here the idealistic mind-body dualism of Descartes reigns on and the word to choose is the greatest proof thereof.
Both scientific discourse and lay speech are still caught in the frustrating land of mystified antiquated language. While understandable for the latter, with an established science of behavior the situation cannot remain to be accepted for the former.
Regressive and reactionary
The word is hopelessly reactionary and hinders developments for true democratic and popular power. In more traditional vocabulary one might say the word chiefly serves bourgeois interests. A short analysis how monied interests employ choice will put the point to rest.
In Lithuania, the absurd discussions regarding loosening restrictions for alcohol sales and advertising are ongoing. If one employs catchy phrases such as “Follow the money” or the “Golden Rule” (i.e. “He who holds the gold, makes the rules”), one will know what is going on. It is easy to discover that the “free enterprise” lobby and the alcohol industry are the main promoters of the restrictions lifts. One of the main strategies here is to appeal to “consumer choice” and “consumer responsibility” as if strict regulation is unnecessary while being perfectly aware that such statements are nothing more demagoguery.
The fight against restrictions has been patented by none other but the smoking industry – the most effective actions are collected in the so-called “Playbook”:
The playbook required executives to repeatedly deflect attention from diseases caused by cigarettes, to neutralize criticism, and to undercut calls for regulation. The playbook demanded endless repetition of carefully crafted statements: cigarette smoking is a matter of personal responsibility, government attempts to regulate tobacco are manifestations of a “nanny” state, restrictions on smoking infringe on freedom, and research reporting harm from smoking is “junk science.” Let us credit the tobacco industry for producing the model now followed by other industries, the food industry among them. Whatever the industry, the playbook requires repeated and relentless use of this set of strategies:
Cast doubt on the science
Marion Nestle (2018, p. 19) – Unsavory Truth. How Food Companies Skew The Science Of What We Eat
Fund research to produce desired results
Offer gifts and consulting arrangements
Use front groups
Promote self-regulation
Promote personal responsibility as the fundamental issue
Use the courts to challenge critics and unfavorable regulations
Discriminatory
As a direct extension of above, one may see how the word to choose can be used to discriminate people, minorities or more generally all vulnerable groups. Choice allows any pundit to expunge analysis of socio-economic conditions and play the blame game. Completely any hardship a person faces is allegedly a result from his “choices” and therefore only he is to be blamed (read: to be punished).
Moving forward
To sum up, the word to choose is at once useless, misleading, unscientific, reactionary and discriminatory. Luckily, radical behaviorism provides an antidote. Here are two courses of action that need to be taken – this applies to all languages as equivalents to choice appear elsewhere as well:
- Remove the word and its derivatives from all scientific discourse. If this word is employed – remove it and/or rephrase the sentence. The only exception is when speaking of the word as a form of verbal behavior and explicitly identifying historical reasons for saying the word.
- Remove the word from colloquial language. Simply getting rid of this word may widen the horizon of many because no cause can be attributed to the mysterious force of choice. Further investigation of causes will be and should be encouraged.
Radical behaviorist leftist 