November 8, 2014

November 8, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

By listening to the sound of our voice while we speak, we stay, as Skinner recommended, close to the data. We are speaking and listening and we are describing what we are doing. The context in which we have these responses determines whether we will have Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). There is minimal reinforcement for SVB, but Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) responses are almost always reinforced. If it happens, SVB happens at a low rate, but NVB happens at a high rate of responding. If SVB happens, it is apparent, because something different happens than what usually happens, but if NVB happens, nothing unusual happens and consequently, we are less likely to take note of it.

The problem with the distinction between SVB and NVB is that we have no vocabulary to describe it. Although we are verbal, when we start to learn about this distinction, we are basically still nonverbal, like pre-verbal children. Our lack of words to describe this innocence can seem embarrassing to us and frightening, but the repeated instruction, to listen to how we sound while we speak, helps us to not get stuck with the content of what we say. As we are not trying to sound in a certain way and are simply listening to how we sound, we notice that we are usually trying to sound a certain way. 

Usually we produce NVB, but when we don’t produce NVB, we sound very differently because we are not trying to make ourselves sound like this or like that. However, when we don’t sound like how we usually sound, we are inclined to think of this as if we are not ourselves. We are so used to NVB that the sound of it strikes us as normal. Initially, the sound of SVB strikes us as abnormal. However, it is only abnormal since we don’t get to experience it that often and since it is often not reinforced. 

That we are listening to ourselves, is also something unusual and the longer we go on listening to ourselves while we speak, the more evident it becomes to us that we are normally not listening to ourselves, yes, that we almost never normally listen to ourselves, to our sound while we speak. The longer we listen to ourselves, the more we recognize and acknowledge how strange it actually is that we usually don’t listen to ourselves. This strangeness of experiencing our own sound while we speak loses its aversive quality, as we begin to give ourselves the permission to listen to it. 

By listening to our NVB, that is when we sound 'horrible', we effortlessly discover SVB in which we sound 'good'. The words we use to describe this shift are different from person to person. The words don’t matter, but what matters is that everyone, the verbalizer him or herself (as mediator) included, can hear the noticeable change which occurs in the voice of the verbalizer. The verbalizer and the mediator agree with each other each time SVB occurs and each time NVB occurs.

To understand NVB, antecedent stimuli must be explored, but to understand SVB, postcedent stimuli will have to be explored. Since we cannot understand SVB before we can understand NVB, to discover the distinction between SVB and NVB, we must focus on the antecedent stimuli of NVB. 

As Ledoux explains in his book “Running Out Of Time” (2013) on p.243 that particular historical circumstances created the contingency, which stimulated Pavlov to investigate antecedent energy traces of behavior. Since not all behavior could be properly explained by eliciting stimuli, the S-R paradigm was insufficient. This created the contingency that led Skinner to search for another explanation, one which honed in on postcedent variables. Because of its novelty, the discovery of operant behavior then led to a particular tradition in behaviorism that focused first on postcedent and only later on antecedent variables. Although postcedent and antecedent variables play complimentary roles in explaining behavior, this complementariness is, due to historical circumstances, not as much addressed as it should have been, according to this author. 

From the above explanation it is clear that the behaviorological tradition of making antecedent variables less important has had devastating consequences. The lack of acceptance of behaviorology is a consequence of its unnatural focus on postcedent variables. This is apparent when we talk and are aware of antecedent stimuli, of how someone sounds, but when there is no way to address this.

Behaviorologists claim that antecedent and postcedent variables are equally important, but the vast majority sticks to the tradition of giving priority to postcedent stimuli and consequently shy away from the exploration of human interaction while it is happening. Without talking about antecedent and postcedent variables, we were not able to create the contingency that is necessary to discover SVB. The explanatory gap, which has remained between respondent and operant conditioning, could only be closed by engaging in an inclusive conversation. 

Ledoux’s writing stimulates this writer to write about this important, but overlooked issue. Moreover, it altered his understanding about how changes in human interaction are likely to be accomplished. For years, he stubbornly believed change would only come from changing the way in which we talk. This is still true, but only how this is accomplished has changed for this writer. Previously, he limited himself to only speaking about spoken communication and he refused to write about it. By becoming familiar with behaviorology and by acquiring the scientific language to address what he used to only want to talk about, he became convinced that writing about speaking is more likely to change speaking than speaking about speaking. His own speaking has changed because of his writing.

At long last, this writer’s views are now in tune with the predominant intellectual contingency that values written words more than spoken words. This was something he detested before. It is only in retrospect that he realizes that he was always trying to address, while speaking, the antecedent stimuli which elicited NVB. He knows he was not alone in this, because he was reinforced postcedently for his SVB. However, his focus on spoken communication could not convince those who didn’t want to speak and who would only read about it.

This writing is to let everyone know that different contingencies have historically led to different discoveries. These words set the stage for SVB and herald the extinction of our superstitious NVB. 

Yesterday, after his work was done, this writer went for a long walk by himself in the hills of Upper Bidwell Park. After he had climbed the ridge, he sat on a flat rock and overlooked the canyon. Across the valley, the bright sun was setting and stringy clouds in the sky slowly changed their colors. Last night, this writer dreamed about the delight he had felt while explaining SVB. He knew with every word that he said that his language had reached and when those with whom he talked began to speak, they knew that they engaged with him in SVB and he acknowledged this. It was as if they were old friends, who were happy to meet each other again. 

The rising and the setting of the sun is a common event in human history, which was and continues to be witnessed by individuals alone and in groups. Our circadian rhythm is an innate behavior under antecedent stimulus control of the sun. What we do in the absence of light was and continues to be determined by postcedent variables. When the Stimulus-Response respondent paradigm didn’t explain behavior, because it was invisible and thus unobservable, we were in the dark. The Response-Stimulus operant paradigm sheds light on behavior, which had previously remained unexplained. 

SVB brings together both paradigms, because it doesn’t exclusively focus on one or the other. NVB is exclusive in that it creates the contingency which only allows one to focus on one or the other. Thus, in NVB we talk or write about nonverbal or verbal behavior, respondent or operant behavior, the verbalizer’s or the mediator’s behavior, endo or ecto-behavior or, function or structure of behavior. Historical contingencies have determined such an exclusion a long time ago, probably around the time that language began to occur, when human beings sat in caves to protect themselves from the cold and predators. With the ash from their fires they painted their hunting scenes on the walls and began to talk about survival, togetherness and food. Thus, their vocal cords came under environmental control. And so, survival and our need to be safe set the stage for SVB.