June 9, 2014

June 9, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

Just before waking up this writer was dreaming about an observation that pertains to how we speak. He was dreaming about his own responses to how others speak. From this nonverbal approach he developed his theory of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which is based on how speech is perceived by the listener. Much to his own amazement, he found that others perceive the speech of speakers in the same way as he did. It was a surprise because he had believed his way of perceiving speech was different from others. He was often punished for his way of perceiving the speech of others because he used to try to speak about it. 

Nowadays this writer has learned not to speak so readily anymore about how he perceives the speech of others. The changes which because of this can now occur have made his life a lot easier and more successful. While slipping out of his dream, this writer came up with a couple of possibilities, which he wrote down on a piece of paper. Various responses to how others speak are possible: 1) one can see the speaker, but not listen, nor speak; 2) one can see the speaker and listen, but not speak; 3) one can see the speaker and speak, but not listen; and 4) one can see the speaker and listen and speak. Also, one 5) cannot see the speaker and not listen, nor speak; 6) not see the speaker and listen, but not speak; 7) not see the speaker and speak, but not listen; and 8) not see the speaker and listen and speak. Furthermore, one can 9) see first and listen later; 10) listen first and see later. In addition, one can 11) have public speech first and private speech later; 12) private speech first and public speech later; 13) one can have public speech and limited or  no private speech; 14) private speech and limited or no public speech; 15) one can integrate private speech into public speech and 16) fail to integrate private speech into public speech.   

After the author summed up the above, it occurred to him that he didn’t mention whether any of these possibilities led to any understanding of the speaker or not. According to him, understanding pertains to each of these possibilities, but, of course, different understanding is involved with each possibility. These distinctions are not made here to elaborate on each of them separately, but to let the reader know that these responses exist and also effect understanding while reading. 

To treat any response as a lack of understanding is to add a value to the response which is arbitrary. Whether one understands or not is irrelevant as far as the nature of the response is concerned. The consequence of the response can only be distilled if we consider a bunch of these responses over time. What this writer is saying here is that no matter what anyone thinks about one’s own  response, the consequences can only be seen by observing many of such responses.  

Another observation is that, in response to the speaker, the speaking of the listener is of great importance. The response is going to be different depending on whether it is based on listening or seeing, listening and seeing, the absence of listening and seeing, the presence of private speech, the absence of private speech, the listener’s ability to bring private speech into public speech or the listener’s skill to keep private speech out of public speech. Another, option,  which only recently has begun to develop in the repertoire of this author, is the listener’s ability to avoid listening completely to what the speaker is saying and to respond only to what the listener is saying to himself privately. 

Of course, one can be wrong, but if one assesses one’s responses correctly, one figures out over time that distraction of those who distract can be both effective and necessary to protect oneself. Moreover, if the listener’s response can bring the speaker’s attention to his or her private speech, this decreases the tension for the listener. Furthermore, the listener’s response that causes a speaker’s expression of private speech confirms the listener’s private speech, but doesn’t require it to be expressed. This author slowly learns to express less of his private speech.