December 6, 2014

December 6, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

Animals move away from aversive stimulation, but human beings, who, because they have language, think that they are different from animals, believe that they can’t move away and consequently are troubled for long periods of their lives. As long as we haven't made the SVB/NVB distinction, we have no way of even deciding what is aversive. Consequently, we accept as normal a way of communicating, which creates and maintains our anxiety and stress. If only we knew that NVB makes us feel bad, we would want to stop it, but we usually have absolutely no clue that our way of communicating makes us feel the way we feel. There are, of course, many other reasons why we feel the way we do, but the most important one, is seldom analyzed. We don’t know how we feel, because of how we talk. NVB makes us miss out on the most important experience of life: feeling safe. 

  

Building on Goldiamond’s Constructional Approach (1974), Beata Bakker-de Pree, a Dutch behaviorist, came up with the theory of the Dominance of Active Avoidance (1984). This theory emphasizes that for an optimal mental health, avoidance behaviors are the most important. Ideally, by avoiding the invalidating, social, stimulus, individuals avoid it so well that escape is hardly even necessary. Although approach behaviors get the individual what the individual wants, over-emphasis on approach behaviors doesn’t and can’t contribute much to our well-being, because it maintains our lack of functioning active avoidance behaviors. Active avoidance is key to SVB, but made impossible by NVB. NVB makes us think that active avoidance is neither needed nor possible.

In behavior analysis the continuity of species refers to the similarity of behavioral principles or processes between humans and nonhumans. The psycho-biologist Jaak Pansepp (1998) coined the term Affective Neuroscience after he found the neural bases of emotion in humans and nonhumans. In evolutionary thinking it makes no sense to say the old contains the new, since evolution is a forward process. Because behaviors, just like genes, are selected by consequences, it only makes sense to say that the new must contain the old. Humans aren’t any different from nonhumans in their need for homeostasis. Because of our NVB we get carried away by the words of our languages and we think we are different from animals. SVB, however, puts us in our place, that is, SVB makes us conscious of the here and now and of our future, but NVB keeps us trapped in our past. Thus, SVB is evolutionary, forward thinking and NVB, just like creationism, is backward thinking.

Once we know about the SVB/NVB distinction, we realize how often our behavior was determined by the contingency that maintains NVB and makes SVB impossible. We may be controlled enough to not explode or go nuts, but the negative effects of NVB add up and are also expressed in other ways than in our spoken communication.: NVB is the independent variable that is causing many mental disorders. Since we can’t say what is bothering us unless we have SVB, we remain oblivious of what is going on with human interaction. If a person has a headache, it would be normal to postpone certain activities until he or she feels better. If, however, in our spoken communication we feel negatively affected, we usually don’t postpone the talk or our listening to such a talk. We have all learned to not let it bother us, to keep our heads up, to be the better person, to not react, to let it go, to change the subject, to not go there, to not rock the boat, in other words, to dissociate... 

NVB is the language of dissociation. Besides being the expression of it, NVB is also the source of arousal. Once we know the extent to which NVB is the source of negative arousal, we are motivated to create and maintain the contingency needed for SVB. Currently, we aren’t motivated, because we don’t know that we have that choice. Many sources of dis-regulation have been offered, but no one has mentioned the difference between SVB and NVB. Moderation of our arousal levels could not be effective as long as the source of it wasn’t properly analyzed. Once we acquire the ability to differentiate between SVB and NVB, our proper analysis will dissolve our dissociative tendencies and will make behavioral changes possible, which were never before considered. 

Skill acquisition is a result of SVB and a person’s ability to learn depends on SVB. NVB, the spoken communication in which the verbalizer aversively stimulates the mediator, is antithetical to learning. Stated differently, NVB can only bring forth more NVB, but can’t bring forth SVB. NVB has to stop before SVB can begin. However, SVB teaches both NVB and SVB. SVB opens us up to operant learning, but NVB narrows us down to respondent behavior. There is an optimal level of learning that is determined by our level of arousal. Too much arousal or too little arousal is called NVB. Only the exact amount of arousal is called SVB. Easy tasks can be performed with higher levels of arousal, while more difficult tasks require lower levels of arousal. This relationship between arousal and task performance was explained more than hundred years ago by the Yerkes-Dodson Law (1908). SVB makes this applicable to an individual, because it defines the exact amount of arousal of the mediator that is needed to be able to understand the verbalizer. Thus, with his or her voice, while he or she speaks, the verbalizer regulates the mediator’s level of arousal. This is a natural phenomenon.

SVB is based on positive affect and tension reduction, which, like nothing else, enhances learning. The idea that there might be a need to increase an individual’s tension, in order to enhance learning, is part of the old NVB-school, in which learning supposedly results from punishing consequences. This coercive teaching has contributed to the perpetuation of NVB and has prevented individuals from finding out about their optimal level of arousal. The regulating properties of SVB foster intrinsic motivation, that is, SVB overt speech results in SVB overt speech or positive self talk. In SVB communicators co-regulate, but in NVB they dis-regulate each other. Due to SVB we can make connections, which we couldn’t make with NVB.

We all know that social or biological contexts feed into our individual level of arousal, but we have never included NVB as a variable. This is especially important if we wish to measure the process of behavioral change or rate of responding. When we are exposed to SVB or NVB, we are confronted with two very different environments, which affect our level of arousal. A student in a classroom may be exposed to a teacher, who gives a lecture, which is only 30% SVB, but 70% NVB. The arousal level of each individual student would be different if the teacher had 70% SVB and only 30% NVB. 

A version of what in treatment of autism is called “Pre-Curser-Behavior (PCB)” (Carr, 2011), the behavior that occurs just before the problem behavior (e.g. the meltdown), is also seen before the breakdown of communication. In class, students would start talking with each other, checking their messages or, basically just fall asleep or get distracted. In this example, the problem behavior is that students are bored, not paying attention, zoning out and not learning anything. If, over a period one hour, we see moments in which most of the  students arousal levels have dramatically increased or decreased, we can look at what was said before this happened and what was said after this happened. This profile, of when most students pay attention or zone out, indicates when SVB or NVB occurred. 

This author has done this experiment many times and his students have given him the feedback that he needs to be able to continue with SVB. He asked his students to raise their hand and to point to the other side of the class room, if they thought that he was producing NVB. One person is enough to make him leave his lecture table and to move him to the other side of the class, where he continues talking. Each time this happens, everyone feels as if they are getting a break. As this happens more often,the  rate of SVB increases while the rate of NVB decreases, because the students influence the behavior of the teacher. This is an example of reciprocal reinforcement.