February 20, 2015

February 20, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

In the United States people presumably have freedom of speech. Also life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are believed to be unalienable rights. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence document the rights of citizens to have access to what reinforces them, to what they value. 

It is important to recognize that historical contingencies of oppression, deprivation and coercion evoked the verbal behavior to compose these rights. Although, supposedly, these rights were given by their creator, in reality there was of course only a bunch of people, who decided in a natural process of verbal behavior they and now we have these rights. 

“These rights statements often take the form of claims regarding unhindered access to valued reinforcers.” (Vargas, 1975; Krapfl & Vargas, 1977) In essence then, SVB is the listener’s scientific claim to his or her right on reinforcement during spoken communication. The listener who accepts NVB is by definition an unscientific listener, who, inadvertently, will become him or herself sooner or later a NVB speaker. NVB is always maintained by accumulated deprivation and has historically prevented us from having access to what reinforces us. 

Scientific knowledge about our verbal behavior, which is SVB, is incredibly reinforcing, but NVB has kept us ignorant about its beneficial possibilities. SVB is based on the scientific fact that nothing prevents reinforcement from occurring.  In other words, SVB is a complete break with our past. It can be seen as a cure for a disease. And, the medicine works: NVB, our superstitious way of communicating will extinguish as SVB replaces it. 

When the speaker mistreats the listener, when he or she doesn’t reinforce him or her, there will be NVB, which is not communication. In the same way that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was not a reaction against the tyranny of creationism, SVB is not a reaction against NVB, but stands on its own as a scientific fact. Once we have SVB, discussions about rights become irrelevant, because we have access to reinforcement while we speak. When we are safe with each other and respected by each other, there is no need to have the right to bear arms. Moreover, there is no need to say anything offensive, which then has to be protected by our so-called freedom of speech.These are all measures of counter-control which could only bring us limited safety. Real safety will only occur when no counter-control is elicited. 

In his book “Walden Three” R. Ardila states “Operant psychology has the principles and the laws to change the world, but it doesn’t have the power” (p. 20). It doesn’t need to have the power. In SVB the issue of power is viewed in a new light. Our obsession with power, like our fixation on words, will only arise due to NVB. People have historically fought for their rights, that is, for access to reinforcers, but this process has always involved counter-control of the previous coercive contingencies. 

Any thoughts or discussions about the adoption of coercive behavioral technologies can only arise from the aversive conditions, which no longer occur during SVB. Likewise, nobody thinks anymore that the world is flat. Once we verify, agree and talk about the fact that in SVB the speaker controls the listener with positive reinforcement and realize that verbal behavior can pave the way to reinforcement for everyone, we know that the environments in which speakers still control listeners with aversive contingencies make SVB impossible.   

None of our counter-control measures have resulted in SVB. They have only perpetuated NVB. Similar to scientists, who are not waiting for the approval from people who are ignorant about it, those who know about SVB will create and maintain the environments in which it is possible. And, the more often they do this, the happier and the healthier they will be.