March 27, 2015

March 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

 

I recently read somewhere that it is important to challenge you, dear reader, so that you will pay close attention to what you are reading. This doesn’t mean I should make it difficult for you, but that I should write in such a way that you can understand what I say. Things are clear to me, which, I think, are not clear to you and that is why I write in this way. 

This writing is about how we talk with each other. I want you to know about two subsets of vocal verbal behavior: Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). In SVB we realize that we talk the way we do because of the environment that surrounds us, but in NVB we think that stimulus control and the history of stimulus control resides within each person and is the expression of an inner agent, a self or an idea. 

SVB and NVB imply two types of contingencies. There can be (but often isn’t) correspondence between the contingencies which are described by our vocal verbal behavior and the occurrence of these contingencies in the moment that we engage in vocal verbal behavior. Correspondence between our verbal and nonverbal behavior is present during SVB, but is lacking in NVB. It is impossible to have correspondence between verbal behavior and the objective world in NVB. That this is not seen as an immense problem is because, in spite of all its negative emotions, NVB is reinforced. Moreover, NVB is reinforced since generally this is how we get others to do things. 

Coercive behavioral control is communicated by means of NVB. We have so much NVB because forcefulness is still our main way of behavioral control. We continue with this because we don't know how to implement positive behavioral control. We can only learn about this by talking with each other. To stimulate, shape and maintain behavior by means of positive reinforcement requires us to talk differently; it requires us to have SVB. SVB is a different way of talking, which in and of itself is a different way of behaving. SVB is not a way of talking which presumably leads to doing; SVB is doing. 

NVB, on the other hand, prevents action, because it separates the speaker from the listener. The listener remains inactive in NVB and thus in NVB, we are neither listening to others nor are we listening to ourselves. It is only in SVB that we realize that in NVB nobody is listening to anybody. Moreover, in NVB we maintain the illusion together that we are talking with each other and that we are listening to each other. This illusion is maintained by our talking and not by our listening. In NVB talking is more important than listening.