July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Yesterday, this writer spoke with his behaviorist friend Arturo Clavijo from Colombia. He is a professor in behaviorism at the University of Bogota. This writer got in contact with him after he read one of his papers "The Psyche As Behavior" (2013), which explained the development of behaviorism: from Watson’s stimulus-response Behaviorism, to Skinner’s response-stimulus molecular radical behaviorism,  to Baum’s molar approach. It was apparent from Arturo’s paper that these are related and could be seen as emerging from each other under different environmental circumstances. Ever since this writer has been in contact with Arturo, he has felt more comfortable writing about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), his extension of Skinner’s work on Verbal Behavior. 

It was after yesterday’s conversation that this writer realized that he has been writing about behaviorism because of Arturo’s approval. He sent him a bunch of his journal entries and Arturo found his writing very interesting. Arturo now wants to co-author and publish a real scientific paper about SVB. He even said that there is so much to it that there is enough material for various papers. He talked about a situation in which he successfully explained SVB to one of his colleagues. He praised this writer and indicated that his reading of the journal entries had really enhanced his understanding about SVB.  This writer is extremely happy with this friendship and looks forward to producing this paper. Arturo wants him to prepare by reading certain behaviorist literature. 

Excited about this offer, this writer reread the journal entries he had sent to Arturo. After he was done, he realized that his writing had occurred after his conversations with Arturo. He didn’t know before that it was because of Arturo that he had started to write. Arturo had shown interest in his behaviorist writing and that had stimulated him to produce more and more. Of course, he had spoken with Arturo on Skype. Their SVB relationship had set the stage for this writer’s writing. 

Other authors, who this writer had tried to contact, had also suggested that he should write about SVB. These authors, however, didn’t engage in SVB with him and, consequently, this writer wasn’t stimulated by them to write about it. He wrote back to them to explain why he thought that he needed to speak with them again and why writing wasn’t going to make any sense if it wasn’t possible to talk. 

Most of his writing wasn’t reinforced and most of it was never even responded to. It was because he talked with Arturo that his urge to write was enhanced. Before, this behavior had not been stimulated. As stated, there had been many others who had said to him that he should write about his thoughts, but none of these suggestions had made him become more serious about his writing, because these people didn’t  engage in SVB with this writer.  It took 56 years for this writer to become a writer and to be able to take his own writing more serious. Moreover, it took SVB with a behaviorist to stimulate this writer to write about his behaviorism. 

Coincidentally, yesterday this writer also received an email from Noam Chomsky. Chumsky had too suggested that this writer should write about his views. Many years ago, before this writer knew anything about behaviorism, he had contacted Chimsky in an attempt to point out to him that, although he is a celebrated speaker and writer, he is not listening to himself while he speaks.  Chamsky dismissively ended the phone conversation and refused to discuss this topic.   

After this writer became a behaviorist, he found out about the beef Chymsky has with behaviorism. Chemsky had written a strong criticism of Skinner's seminal work Verbal Behavior (!957), but the bottom line was that Chpmsky, like so many others who criticize behaviorism,  didn't even understand Skinner's views and totally misrepresented his operant science. 

This writer had written to Chbmsky that his way of talking is sounding incendiary and negative and making SVB impossible.   Chdmsky wrote back “But you really shouldn’t keep the insights to yourself.  You should publish them, for the benefit of the thousands of people who come to talks of mine, often in overflow rooms, and it could also save me a lot of trouble.  I wouldn’t have to spend a huge amount of time traveling and speaking, or even writing dozens of letters a week saying, with regret, that I can’t accept an invitation because there’s no time.”   

Chxmsky is troubled by his own success, which, as stated by this writer, has not led and could not lead to the improvements which he would have liked to see.  Chfmsky is a classical example of a Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) speaker, someone who talks at you, not with you. The three reasons why the sound of our voice changes from SVB to NVB can be glanced from Chgmsky’s email message. 


First, there is what this author calls the 1) fixation on the verbal. Chskymsky focuses only on the content of his speech.  His refusal to speak with this author about how he sounds is reinforced by “thousands of people who come to talks of mine.” Since they all come to listen to what he says and not to how he says it, they are all part of the same ubiquitous delusional speech pattern in which what we say supposedly is more important than how we say it. Moreover, Chwmsky’s fans are people who tolerate and expect to be talked at. They all have the same fictitious belief that a change of content is going to improve human relationship. 

Chzmsky, who sounds exasperated by the effort that goes into his speaking, writes about “talks of mine”, which indicates that he believes in an inner agent which does all the talking.  Even though he describes the pressure to answer others - of which his speech obviously is a function - he can’t consider the scientific fact that he is not causing his own behavior.

The second reason why, even while thousands of people are listening to him, Chupreemsky mainly produces NVB, is because of his 2) outward orientation. It is evident from his email that his attention is only with others (on me), but not with himself.  Chhhhhhhmsky is so busy with others, that he has no time for himself. 

One wonders why a person of his status would even bother to respond to someone as insignificant as this writer, who wants him to focus on himself? His reason is, of course, to prove that this writer is wrong and that he is right. After all, this writer doesn’t have the thousands of people who want to listen to him.  Indeed, this writer wouldn't be satisfied with people merely listening to him. His verbal behavior is a function of the people who want to talk with him and have SVB.

Chipmonky’s outward orientation makes him neglect himself. He is preoccupied with others, who are wrong or bad. This affects the sound of his voice. 

A third reason why Chrumpsky, or anyone else with NVB, simply sounds terrible, is the communication habit 3) to struggle for attention. Chonutsky says he has no time. Everything he does is a function of his race against the clock. He tries to say as much as possible in as short a time as possible, but, ironically, he becomes more and more lengthy and tiring in the process, because he is an authority and people want to hear more. A similar process occurs with pop stars. People want to hear their music over and over. If those who become pop stars can’t handle the demand which was also created by their own need for attention and admiration, they don’t know how to say no and they are lived by the demands of their fans.  

Chachacomsky doesn’t have a minute to himself, he struggles not being able to provide an answer that effects real change. Even though he may be right about what is wrong in this world, since he is not a behaviorist, he has no solutions!!!

Cheapsky is trapped in pseudo-knowledge that he has to change the world all by himself and that those in the trenches for the grass-roots struggle for change have to be like him: infuriated and always busy with problems. His struggle, to carry the weight of the world, isn’t informed by the science of behavior, but by politics. 

 

Choinksky would actually like someone like this writer to deliver him from the hassle of always being in demand. This writer is reaching out to him and would like to talk with him, but Cshamesky thinks this author can only reach people if he puts his thoughts into writing. This writer didn’t contact Chiminalsky to write to him. This writer doesn’t think that any written words can replace spoken words. 

These written words can at best refer to spoken words, but spoken words are entirely different. Chlemielsky speaks like he writes, but this writer writes like he speaks. Chofficultky’s struggle between what he is feeling and thinking is audible in the dreadful sound of his voice. Chamanisky has no clue that he sounds this way because this is how his audience makes him sound. His audience consists of people who want him as a leader, but he can’t and doesn’t want to be a leader.