Change is Good. Behavior is More Than Meets the Eye. (Part 2)

Now that we’ve thought about how the (American) world/culture is compliance based and thought through some questions regarding what is “good” or “bad” behavior (see Part 1), let’s take a look at how we respond to “behaviors.”  Traditionally “behaviors” are thought to be what you can see a person do - they need to be observable.  Examples of “behaviors” generally involve observable actions:  eating, sleeping, crying, kicking, playing, sitting, clapping, etc. whatever you can observe.  None of these actions are “bad” or “good” in and of themselves - they’re just what we “do.”  

Where the challenge often lies is how we interpret behavior, especially the behaviors of others.  Behavior is often very subjectively interpreted (think “good” or “bad”), but some believe that reasons for behavior can fit more objectively into functional categories such as attention-seeking, escape/avoidance, access to desired items/objects/activities, or automatic or sensory behavior (behaviors done alone without another person involved).  In this more “traditional” way of thinking of behavior, these functions can co-occur (there can be more than one reason), but traditionally this is where the list stops.  When I first started to get continuing education regarding behavior, this is what I was taught, but it didn’t show what I now believe to be a bigger picture.  It also put subjective ideas of “good” or “bad” onto behaviors and I was never taught to question that part.  For example, it was implied that “attention seeking-behaviors” were “bad” (or at least undesirable) and that they should be “ignored” in order to get them to stop.  What’s bad about seeking someone’s attention, though?  How do we reconcile that with what we know about attachment theory for instance?  We can generally agree that it’s “bad” for infants to be ignored or neglected because those infants may not be able to form healthy relationships when they get older, but at some point it becomes okay to ignore human beings?  What if there’s a different way to respond?  

Now, I’ve learned that there is a lot more going on under the surface and there aren’t nice, neat categories that observable behaviors can fit into.  There are also not nice, easy methods of responding to behaviors.  What if attention seeking behavior doesn’t have to be ignored and instead can be attended to with a caring partner?  What if someone is trying to avoid/escape a situation because they are in physical pain or are perceiving that they are in danger?  What if (gasp!) external rewards are not as motivating as we like to think they are and what if they could even be harmful?  What if we as humans naturally do things to help ourselves regulate our body systems?  Even if a regulation “behavior” may look unusual to someone, does it make it “wrong” (assuming it’s not hurting us or hurting someone else)?  

What we see (observable behavior) is just like Mona Delahooke suggests, the tip of the iceberg.  It’s often a tiny piece of the bigger picture.  It’s important that we try and take a look “under the surface” so to speak and realize that human beings are complex and that there are many reasons why people do what they do.  There are motor movements and actions that are not always in people’s volitional control.  If someone does not have the skills to say, calm themselves when they’re upset, or pour a glass of water, or communicate vocally to say what they want because of something else going on under the surface, what good does it do to ignore the behavior, reward/punish the behavior, or try and demand that someone “try harder” or stick with it?  

The next time you find yourself having a reaction to the observable behavior of someone else, try asking yourself if you truly know the reasons behind that behavior.  There is likely more than meets the eye.