November 12, 2013

November 12, 2013

Dear Reader, 

It must be said many times: we need to learn to differentiate between what spoken communication really is and what it is not. We keep referring to all sorts of processes which have nothing to do with spoken communication. This author refers to these processes as Noxious Verbal Behavior, because it is about people adversely affecting each other. Spoken communication breaks down when there is aversive stimulation. Break-down of spoken communication is not part of spoken communication. We must learn to think of spoken communication as a process that either starts or stops, that is or is not happening. The assumption that spoken communication is happening because we are producing words, is based on the conditioning effects of NVB, in which we get carried away by our words.

Because we have been conditioned by NVB, in which we talk at instead of with each other and because those who are supposedly doing the talking for others make them believe that what they say counts, we think that the hierarchical way of interacting seen in non-human animals also pertains to us humans. However, this is not true. Humans have specific verbal communities, in which specific languages are shared. Speaking only makes sense in the light of a listener, who determines whether what was said, was understood or could be understood. It is as impossible and utterly stupid for an English speaker to demand to be understood by a Chinese listener, who has never been exposed to English, as it is for a speaker to enforce supposed meaning onto a listener. It doesn't work. 

Mediation by another person, the crux of Skinner's verbal behavior, has not yet been firmly placed on the map. If it had, our countries, religions and cultures would seize to exist. The imaginary inner, autonomous agent, which, according to Skinner, distracts from the analysis of observable behavior, makes some speakers believe they are more powerful, intelligent or moral than others. This is why they think they should do all talking, be in control of what others have access to, determine the conversation and decide who may say something and when. Regardless of whether a person’s self-importance is derived from his genes, race, gender, economics, education, culture, politics, status or religion, these are all equally problematic. 

  

Men’s autonomy, which in Western culture determines his identity, is not to be discussed at all cost and has basically remained an unaddressed issue. Identity can only be properly analyzed once we are in the position to do so. NVB is too blunt to address it, but SVB reveals that our identity itself is the reason that human beings have so many communication problems. When we have SVB it becomes clear that we are indeed our brother’s keeper, we are each other’s environment. Only in SVB are we capable and willing of exploring the extent to which we are influenced by each other as well as the extent to which we are influencing each other. In NVB we don’t care about how we affect each other.  

In SVB we express ourselves wholeheartedly and we are flexible about our identity. We have always done this with those with whom we felt safe, accepted and at ease. With them we do not hang on to who we are. To the contrary, with them we can be our selves. SVB teaches us that we communicate most effectively without our overrated identity. This is done by recognizing NVB for what it is. Each time NVB is identified, SVB will blissfully continue, but each time we do not recognize it, SVB is made impossible. It is not that NVB takes over, but it is because SVB can no longer occur. Our ability to discriminate between SVB and NVB determines the extent to which SVB can and will happen again. It will happen every time when the situation is making it possible. Only when we feel safe and at ease, can we really communicate. Only then the speaker and the listener are perceived as one.