One issue that behavioristic minded people need to come to terms with is applying the philosophical tenets to one’s own behavior. Simply put, verbal behavior regarding oneself is sometimes caused by other theoretical positions. The inconsistencies might be noticed individually as well as be pointed out by others. What is a behaviorist to do after realising that coherence was not maintained?
A direct confrontation with the current issue occurred in the debate between the renowned humanist psychologist Carl Rogers and the familiar B. F. Skinner. As recounted by Rogers:
One story I want to tell that also bears on that same issue, I believe… For more than a year now I wanted to ask Dr. Skinner about this. We were both at a conference in Boston, little more than a year ago, I think. It was quite a while ago. He had given his paper on the design of cultures and then had commented on that. After hearing his comments, I directed these remarks to him. I will read this from the tape-recorded discussion:
Carl Rogers (1976) – B. F. Skinner – Carl Rogers Dialogue Debate
From what I understood Dr. Skinner to say, it is his understanding that though he might have thought he chose to come to this meeting, might have thought he had a purpose in giving this speech, such thoughts are really illusory. He actually made certain marks on paper and emitted certain sounds here simply because his genetic make-up and his past environment had operantly conditioned his behavior in such a way that it was rewarding to make these sounds; and that he as a person doesn’t enter into this. In fact, if I get his thinking correctly, from his strictly scientific point of view, he as a person perhaps doesn’t exist. I thought I would draw him out on a subjective side of why he was there but to my amazement he said he wouldn’t go into the question of whether he had any choice in the matter and added: “I do accept your characterisation of my own presence here”. [audience laughter]
I wondered ever since…
Here, we have an example on how to gracefully accept the implications of behaviorist philosophy regarding one’s own circumstance. More generally and from personal experience, one shall find it amusing to wholeheartedly accept behavioristically consistent conclusions pointed out by interlocutors from external circles. After all, noticing and noting individual environmental and historical variables is a necessary condition for change of said variables and thus effective behavioral control.
Issues of internal consistency of behavior do not occur solely in the context of radical behaviorism. The general political left is notorious for it’s own internal squabbles and theoretical debates. Even the author of the most famous theory of the left (according to Richard Wolff) suffered his share of criticism:
Karl Marx was erratic. He changed his mind all the time, infuriating his friends and comrades. He wrote furious repudiations of his earlier ideas. And he could not stand those who called themselves… Marxist (e.g. famously saying ‘If they are Marxists, I am not’).
Yanis Varoufakis (2022) – Yanis Varoufakis on Crypto & the Left, and Techno-Feudalism
The question here is – how to be more Marxist than Marx himself? The follower and developer of Marxist thought Rosa Luxemburg voiced her opinion:
Not socialist theory or tactics, but the burning political exigencies of German democracy at the time – the practical interests of the bourgeois revolution in Western Europe – determined the viewpoint that Marx, and later Engels, adopted with respect to Russia and Poland. Even at first glance this standpoint reveals its glaring lack of inner relation to the social theory of Marxism. By failing to analyze Poland and Russia as class societies bearing economic and political contradictions in their bosoms, by viewing them not from the point of view of historical development but as if they were in a fixed, absolute condition as homogeneous, undifferentiated units, this view ran counter to the very essence of Marxism.
Rosa Luxemburg (1909, p. 14-15) – The National Question
The indictment is clear – Marx diverged from Marxist thought! In the context of verbal behavior, however, the concepts Marxism, Radical Behaviorism etc. are emitted under specific circumstances due to a particular history of conditioning. The fact that Marx’s behavior changed throughout his life poses no theoretical difficulty. In practice, nevertheless, past accomplishments cannot shield one from all criticism. Pure semanticists searching for the true “meaning” of Marxism shall not be pleased.
Retaining behavioral coherence might sometimes be regarded as staying true to oneself and others. Proper analysis will provide us with all relevant factors causing the current circumstances and behaviors. Furthermore, it is the only way to avoid oversights illustrated by the comic:
In summary, effective behavior requires identification of its reasons. If someone points out that one is inconsistent, that one employs labels, that one disregards historical variables, at worst calls one a hypocrite by not applying the espoused principles to oneself – one is to politely thank the other party for drawing attention to the issue.
Radical behaviorist leftist 