December 31, 2013

December 31, 2013

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Yesterday, in the waiting room of a blood clinic, this writer talked with a bearded man. He wore a bag with a peace sign on it. I asked him what his thoughts were on peace. In response, he asked me what kind of peace I was talking about? I explained  my kind of peace as one in which people talk with each other instead of making war. He called Israel the only civilized country in the Middle East and said that America should  help to protect it. America was letting down Israel, according to him. Nevertheless, he wanted peace. During the brief conversation in which I remained calm, he got quite intense. I tried to be as reasonable as possible and noticed that I was talking with a fanatic man, who loved to debate. He made me defend every sentence I said, by questioning everything I brought up. I patiently completed this task and went back to saying why I think we need more, not less talk. He then accused me of attacking him, while he himself was actually attacking me and I explained that I was only talking with him and not attacking him. He then stated that men can’t live without religion. I said I have no problem living without it and that many people live without it. I suggested that identity is a big communication problem. Then he said people have the right to believe whatever they choose. I agreed. However, I argued that belief doesn’t produce science and the two are incompatible. Then, he claimed that science is merely a belief. I disagreed and said that that can’t be true, because if science is belief then it isn’t science. He was not used to separating the two. I felt I didn’t need to convince him and nevertheless enjoyed our conversation. 

This conversation is a good starting point from which to explain what this author means by Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Every conversation can be seen as occurring on a continuum, which on one end leads to violence, war, hatred and breakdown of relationship (NVB) and on the other end leads to peace, friendship, harmony and love (SVB). It doesn’t matter what identity this author might have presented to this Jewish man, who would always be inclined to have the same argument. More  than twenty five years ago this author lived in Israel for almost one and half year and witnessed firsthand the conflict between Jews and Palestinians. This argument shows that in terms of how people talk, nothing has changed. This is as true about  Muslims as it is about Jews.

Talking is meaningless when it is predetermined. Religious beliefs don’t allow anything new being said. All religions say the same thing: our religion is true and the religion of others is false. It is as as stupid as when the French were saying that only the French language is true and other languages are meaningless. Obviously, there are many religions, many languages and one isn't more true than the other. It is only because we don’t speak another language that it seems as if other languages don’t mean anything. Strictly speaking, even when we predetermine that, to scientifically understand each other, everybody has to speak the same language, we are not really speaking with each other either, because some of us will always be better at something than others.  Some of us are better scientists. Some of us are better musicians. Some of us are better cooks. Some of us are better mathematicians. Some of us are better teachers. Each has their behavioral history due to which they acquired their skill. 

 It is inevitable that people grow up in different environments, countries, cultures, languages or religions. Situations are not the same and these differences affect us. 

What we are trying to say, but oddly enough never really get to talk about, is that, presumably, one situation is better than the other. Situations are definitely different. How are we to make the case that cooking is better than mathematics; that Chinese is better than Russian; that music is better than speech? If we set out to make such comparisons, if we are, so to speak, trying to compare apples and oranges. If we want to know what serves us better, what enhances us more,  as human beings, we need to have objective evidence to determine if that is the case. If, in other words, we are trying to find out whether the Muslim situation is any better than the Christian situation, whether hunting is better than agriculture, whether economics is more important than women’s rights, then we must, at least for the time of our measurement, which will have to be a conversation, be neither a Muslim nor aChristian, be neither a hunter nor a farmer and be neither a stock broker nor a feminist, to be able to determine which situation is better, meaning: more important. Our biases influence what we find and prevent us from comparing one with the other. No matter what, mankind must talk about, analyze and decided on the priorities of many different subjects. This is greatly hindered by our unsophisticated way of communicating, which this writer calls NVB. We must face the challenge involved in communicating these topics and sorting them out. Since we can’t accomplish this by aversively influencing each other, we must learn how to communicate peacefully. In SVB the conversation isn’t any longer about our group, tribe, land, religion, moral, language or culture. In SVB we will discover everything that has until now prevented us from communicating.