BEHAVIORISM: The Causes

By John J. Rein

In this paper I hope to be able to bring across to you, the reader, what causes people to act the way they do. Why do people murder? Why are there faggots and lesbians? From the research I've come up with I found that the forming of human behaviorism depends upon an individuals habitat.

The one source that brought me the most information was a book entitled How Behavior Means by Albert E. Scheflen. Scheflen starts the book with an editors statement. In this statement Scheflen states: "Man is an endangered species. We think the separation of fact from value is the principal illusion responsible for the nearly terminal condition of species man on planet earth." In this statement or opinion, it seems as if Scheflen is trying to say that the species of man will continue to form and deteriorate as it has in the past. I feel people don't realize the value of life as a whole, and the value of their own life, taking one day at a time and not really thinking or worrying of his future. Scheflen feels this does not alter a human's behavior unless they realize the true meaning of life. I, myself feel that a murder gives a person who has lived with misery all his life a sense of aggression or a way to retaliate to his or her parents as if to say "You're the one who brought me up, look how I turned out!" There is no possible way that every person who has ever killed someone had a bad upbringing or childhood. A child could have the best parents in the world and still have murder, robbery and kidnapping around him if he is in a certain area. This child, seeing these people are successful doing the things they're doing, starts robbing. He could start by ripping-off a piece of gum. Seeing how easy it was, and how successful he was, he moves on to bigger and better things. One person that exemplifies this perfectly is Ron Leflore, Detroit Tiger Centerfielder. Leflore grew up with the wrong group and stated this was because of boredom. Leflore and his gang would rob because there was "nothing to do". I read Leflore's book: One In A Million. He stated that his parents gave him all.they "could" which obviously wasn't much, but once again the parents did what they could with what they had. Ron Leflore was caught and found guilty of armed robbery, stunning his parents, but this case really was one in a million with Leflore ending up the way he has.

In the opening chapter Scheflen shows how the background does play such a vital role in a child's upbringing. He states that: "The communicational system is a means of regulating transactions of all types of behavior and of maintaining social order and control". I think what Scheflen means here is that if a child can relate to or communicate to other people at an early age he will have no trouble relating to any type of people as he matures. I feel that a child inherits his shyness or his openness from his parents. One situation I would really like to encounter with would be a couple made up of a loud father and a shy mother. What would the child be, loud or shy?

Violence has a lot to do with a child's upbringing. If he is brought up where there is constantly fighting or yelling he will naturally grow up to be a violent or loud person. I don't think this is very fair to a child, not having a choice of how held like to be raised. Sure it's impossible to ask a baby newly conceived "What do you want to be like?" They themselves should love the child enough to care about how they grow up. Almost all parents want their child to grow up and be able to make it in life. But they might also have standards of how they want them to be successful. They might want to raise their child as their fathers raised them. This does not always work due to times changing. You can't live life like you're in the 50's when it's almost 1980.

When a child is still young, especially a boy, he'll say, "I want to be an engineer just like Dad!" I t's too early for him to decide what he wants the future to hold for him. It's just that, at that age, he's not open to many other careers other than his father's. But as he matures, and grows he realizes other backgrounds he might like to go into. Scheflen says this is a big sign of maturity in children. When they have started to think about what they want to do with the rest of their lives. Right now I am at a point in my life where I really don't know what my future holds in store. I know what I want to go into, but I'm not sure how to go about it. To put it bluntly, I'm at a cross in my tracks.

In the introduction, entitled "The Concepts," Scheflen brings across the point of what causes or gestures and kinesic behaviors. In the early pages of the introduction Scheflen says "In short the movement of the body helps in the clarification of meaning by supplementing certain features of the structure of language." It's hard for me to try to clarify what Scheflen is saying because what he is saying is pretty clear. In this statement I think he is just saying that people sometimes move their bodies due to the way they are speaking, or are trying to express themselves better with these movements. I, myself have seen a lot of people really expressing themselves with body movements, but don't really understand why they get so "into" it.

There are a lot of people who act the way they do because they have "names" to live up to. One of these people is comedian Steve Martin, who openly admitted that he is as far from "Wild and Crazy" than anyone. I read in People Magazine where he said he knows what gets people laughing and what he needs to make them laugh. He also stated that he really is a shy person when it comes to meeting and talking to people. I, when I first read it, thought it was just a publicity story to attract people to the magazine, but I also saw Barbara Walters interview him and he admitted to be a far cry from what everyone else sees him as. I really have begun to wonder how a person like him (Steve Martin) was brought up by his parents.

In one of Scheflen's opening chapters he says that "If a person behaves in a customary and recognizable way, his action will be communicative-" Maybe I'm misunderstanding this statement, but I don't see how people can be more communicative if they behave in a customary way. What draws attention to people are unnormal acts.

I feel behaviors have different and traditional meanings for each one. There can be no two people that behave the same way in the world. Each person is his own person and behaves in that way. What I mean by this is that each person has his own mind and thinks for himself.

There are many causes for our body and head.gestures, as Scheflen points out in this statement: "Participants use their bodies differentially. They perform one set of behaviors in one relationship and another set -in some other relationship, at the same time." To put it in English, Scheflen is saying that we act differently when we are talking to different people. This seems like it would have to be true. Different atmospheres are present when talking to different people. If there was a sense of tension or uncomfortability the person would seem tight or bouncy, unable to sit still. Scheflen says that is the biggest sign of nervousness - motion. But what causes nervousness to be shown through motion? Scheflen doesn't give a reason for this. He does say it causes the nerves in your arms and legs to get more active or rapid. As weird as it may seem, Scheflen says the nerves don't play as big a role in behavior as everyone imagines.

Getting back to the child growing process, Scheflen says at around age 14 or 15 children really start to care for their body and outward appearance so much more. This is not too surprising to me because at this age you start to meet so many more new people. Their impression of you is important to them, but more so to you, if you really think this person meets up to your standards as a friend. He (Scheflen) says the process of mature growth stops at age 19. He feels though the person is a mature person, is old enough to know and realize what he or she wants out of life. Also at this age they can judge for themselves, what is-right, what is wrong. They really start to break away from their parents.

Homosexuality is really starting to become more widely publicized. This is a type of human behavior. This type of belief or behavior is caused by a person's genes not totally operating. I really don't see how people could be attracted to a member of their own sex. I feel there has to be more of a reason for homosexuality besides a person's genes malfunctioning. I have seen faggots and lesbians before. To me it seems they are doing it for a joke, but they're not. They treat love as a man and woman's relationship-treats it. They (faggots) look, at their love as normal except for [oral] sex. They feel God deprived them in that area. To me, them not being able to have [oral] sex is proof that God did not intend for his world to have homosexuality in it. I watched the Pope when he arrived in Boston. He didn't really discuss the topic of homosexuals, but said that the only intimate relationship should be between a man and a woman. Still is it wrong for them to express or publicize what they really believe in? Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone this at all. I'm' only saying they should not be as condemned as they are for something they believe in.

As I stated in the beginning of this paper, I said that the forming of human behavior depends upon the person's habitat.

This is true, look at the way Eskimo's behavior compares with Nigerian's. Sure, the climate plays a big role in their behaviorisms, but there are still other reasons why all different types of people act the way they do. I once read an article in National Geographic about our last two states admitted to the union; Alaska and Hawaii. The author was comparing the habits of each, pointing out odds and ends about each group of people. He stated that the Hawaiian's are the most fr iendly people in the union, and the Alaskan's were the hardest to get along with. Does this have anything to do with them being the last two states admitted to the U.S.? I found that really hard to believe, that the last two states admitted would be total opposites in the aspect of good neighborism. My sister and brother-in-law lived in Alaska for two and a half years. The thing they stressed mostly was how hard it was to get to know people. No one trusts each other until they know them totally inside and out. They were not cruel, just mistrusting. When explained why they act that way, the people said, "They worked too hard for the little they had, and they didn't want it taken from them". I can see a certain amount of mistrust, but I still would be willing to meet people and start a relationship with trust in the center of it. I'm told that in Alaska, most people either like the climate or want to be able to say, "Hey, I'm surviving in Alaska", which is no easy feat.

The Hawaiian's do have a better climate, but it really depends on what type of climate a person likes. Their behavior is not surprising to me. They must be in the race for the top place travelers flee to.. Life may not be easier in Hawaii than in Alaska, but I would think the climate would have some bearing on success in life. Something that interests me is, I'd like to know the difference on overall prices between the two states. Which one would have the higher prices? The lower? It seems to me that the whole cycle of life is differentiated between the two. In Alaska, people do what they do mostly for survival as a whole. People in other states strive to survive, but do not experience the torments the Alaskan's live with almost every day.

Two other books I have read on this topic, (The Selfish Gene and Contemporary Social Psychology) both stress on a child's manner of talking - the way they go about it. Do they struggle to get the words out? In The Selfish Gene the author, Richard Dawkins, talks about stagnation in speech as a sign of abnormal or nervous behavior. He goes on to say that a child "Inherits his selfish and shy behaviorisms". I can believe a child inherits-his or her shy behaviorisms, but not the selfish ones. How can this be done? I believe it, but it's something I never really thought of before. I always thought a child picks up selfish behaviorisms from people and children around them.

In conclusion, I have found that we can't understand human behavior merely by analyzing inherited emotions or personality disorders; we must look at the cultural determinations and the "life contexts" Scheflen refers to, of our communications experiences.