June 30, 2014

June 30, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

During yesterday’s seminar we were talking about all the things this writer has been writing about recently. Because of all his writing his words came out fluently and without any hesitation. All participants stayed from the beginning till the end, which means, they were there at 13:00pm when the group began and they left at 17:00pm when the group ended. Everyone was intrigued with Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). The writer created a new rule that if people would produce SVB, he would raise his right hand, but when they would produce Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), he would raise his left hand. This non-threatening, non-punitive, nonverbal gesture proved to be very effective, more effective then any verbal explanation. 

Initially, each time he raised his right hand to indicate SVB or his left hand to indicate NVB, he also gave a brief verbal description, which, because of the nonverbal hand-signal, immediately allowed participant’s attention to go to their nonverbal experience.  His verbal description, however, stimulated participants to verbally explain to themselves what SVB means. When they were made aware by this writer’s raised left hand that they were producing NVB, they asked him why this was the case. This writer only then gave them minimal feedback and simply instructed them to “try to produce SVB instead.”  They stopped and tried and succeeded and if they didn’t, other participants came to their aid and shaped their speech by giving them their version of SVB. In the process, not only the person who was trying to move from NVB to SVB was experiencing and explaining SVB and understanding the distinction, but the entire group was involved in the discovery that was done by one person. 

This writer realizes the importance of this shaping process by the whole group for both the individual as well as for each of the individual members of the group. He had done a similar group experiment in one of his psychology classes, which wasn’t about SVB, but which success had set the stage for yesterday’s experiment. 

The aforementioned experiment, which he had also explained and referred to during yesterday’s seminar, was a straightforward demonstration of operant conditioning. One student was asked to be a participant. His behavior was going to be reinforced and punished by the other students.  He was asked to leave the class so that the students could be instructed on how to condition his behavior. He was to take a chair away from the table in the front of the class, drag it to the back of the class and then sit on it while facing the wall. The students were instructed to only say “Yes” when his behavior approximated this task or say “No” when it didn’t. Initially, the student didn’t know what to do, but soon the reinforcing “Yesses” and the punishing “No’s” provided the stimuli to drag the chair to the back of the class, where he sat on it, facing the wall. The “Yesses” immediately increased the correct behavior and the “No’s” decreased not-wanted behavior. In front of everyone’s eyes behavior had been shaped by its consequences. 

A couple of matters about this experiment need to be further addressed. The student who was the participant was willing to participate. He felt reinforced when he did what he was supposed to do and even showed some frustration when he received negative feedback in the form of “No’s”. This means that he already understood that “Yes” means right and “No” means wrong. These did not need to be conditioned, these were already conditioned.  Also the English language was already in place. If the feedback had been “Ja” and “Nee”, which is Dutch for “Yes” and “No”, he would have been clueless.   

Furthermore, he participated as best as he could because trusted that we were not going to do anything weird or harmful to him, because we had promised this to him beforehand. The establishing operation which made the “Yesses” and the “No’s” effective was that the student wanted to do the right thing. It also needs to be said that this was already part of his behavioral repertoire, which didn’t need to be conditioned. What is clear from this brief excursion into the behavioral history of the participant is that his history set the stage for him to become a participant.  He raised his hand immediately when this writer asked for a participant. 

The approximations given by the participants in yesterday’s seminar were not the straightforward “Yesses” or “No’s”, but SVB was definitely understood as right hand raised, as a “Yes” and NVB was understood as left hand raised, as a “No”. In other words, a rule had been established.  Once the rule had been made clear it was very easy to follow. No one has any problem stopping for a red light and driving with green. All communication problems can be solved by rule-governed behavior, but they can’t be addressed without rules. As the traffic light example indicates: there is no problem! The idea that there is a problem is problem. Rules of traffic are necessary, we agree on them because it makes traffic safe. Likewise, the rule of SVB makes our communication safe. Without this rule, we can go on with NVB ad infinitum. Since we lack this rule we do!

In our society we agree on rules against murder. To kill each other is against the law. This author, who is able to predict and control the behavior of others, who reliably and repeatedly makes people stop NVB and produce SVB, predicts that one day we will simply rule out NVB. He is already implementing such rules in the Psychology classes which he teaches. In the same way as the behavior of the student was controlled by his class mates, NVB was ruled out during the seminar due to the feedback from others. 

The person, who ignores the speed limit, who ignores the agreed upon rule, is punished for breaking the rule. Unlawful behavior will be decreased as long as there are negative consequences and lawful behavior increases if it is reinforced.  We can accomplish things so much more easily when we stop trying to invent the wheel and adhere to rules. This is how cultures thrive.  Yet, NVB is equally rule-governed as SVB. And, the rules that apply to SVB are not the same as those that apply to NVB. Indeed SVB and NVB are based on different sets of rules. 

Different countries, different environments have different rules and in England people drive on the left. This shows that there is no right or wrong about rules. Rules matter because we are adhering to them. In England drivers are reinforced for driving on the left, but in the United Stated people are reinforced for driving on the right. The verbal community decides what rules the individual organism must follow. The rules that apply to SVB are not any better than the rules that apply to NVB; driving to the left isn’t any better than driving to the right. 

A culture in which people have SVB is definitely different from one in which they have NVB. A country in which we drive on the left is different than one in which we drive on the right. An environment in which we feel safe and supported will give rise to different behaviors than one in which we fear and fight for our life. 

In each of the above, behavior is reinforced by the environment that we are in. This is not a choice that anyone individually makes. One finds oneself in an environment which existed before one's arrived. Likewise, different environments will continue to exist after one has died. One is affected by one’s environment whether one knows it, whether one admits it, accepts it, realizes it, understands it or not. Our freedom is determined by our understanding how we are affected by our environment.   

Our behavior: driving on the left or on the right, struggling to survive or living a peaceful life, talking with (SVB) or talking at (NVB) each other, is always determined by our environment. In certain environments, we can drive on the left, but to do so would be very dangerous, because the rule is to drive on the right. In another environment, we may try to live a peaceful life, but to do so would be against the rule and not help us to survive.  It doesn't make any sense to try to have SVB when everyone has NVB. To do so would be to go against the rule. The idea that we can individually change the rule is false. We can, of course, take the law into our own hands and do whatever we want, but even this rule-breaking behavior, this denial of the rules is also determined by our environment. 

Thus, in criminal environments different rules apply, in political environments different rules apply, in religious environments different rules apply, in scientific environments different rules apply, because each environment require and therefore condition different behaviors.  Certain scientific rules apply across environments and generalize across cultures.  The rule that we use rules to govern our behavior is as true in one culture as it is in another. SVB and NVB are response classes that occur in every language, but at different rates and intensity level.