August 22, 2015

August 22, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my fifth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010). As we don’t pay attention to how we sound while we speak, we accept Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) as normal. The other day I was at a presentation for faculty about equity. The teacher who presented this topic had invited a panel of students, who shared their experiences, struggles and triumphs at college. The teacher spoke with an intense, angry tone of voice. When she finally gave these students a chance to talk, what struck me was the difference in tone. The students sounded so pleasant and positive.

After the meeting was over I mentioned to one of my colleagues the contrast between the NVB of this presenter and the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) of these students. She responded she had felt the same way and was amazed by the irony of this NVB presenter, who talks so forcefully about equity. It was clear to my colleague that a speaker who is not treating the  audience well, must be like this to students as well. During this lengthy presentation about equity, the presenter showed a slide of three people of different sizes, who were standing on crates and were looking over a fence to watch a ball game. Each person stood on a crate of equal size, but since they were different in size, the smallest was still unable to look over the fence, the medium one could just see over it and the tallest had no problem seeing the ball game that was going on on the other side of the fence. This picture was meant to illustrate an example of equality, that is, they had all been given a crate to stand on. Equity, by comparison, was when the tallest person had no crate, since he was already big enough to look over the fence without one, the person of middle height had one crate and could see over the fence and the smallest person was given two crates so that he too could see over the fence. it was about individual needs. Although this image seems straightforward, it doesn’t capture the sensitivity faculty must have towards  students to be truly equitable. This lady was absolutely unaware of how she sounded, but everyone seemed to accept her speech as normal.

She talked for about one hour about equity with an aversive sounding voice and she got a loud applause. This teacher’s overemphasis on visual data by means of slides about equity statistics stood in stark contrast to the neglect of the auditory data presented by these students. This teacher, who represents the faculty, demonstrated the lack of connection between faculty and students. Although she gave the students an opportunity to speak, she didn’t connect with them. She spoke with the audience in admonishing and judgmental manner. She didn’t connect with the audience either. It was only the students, with their SVB stories, who connected with the audience. 

“Everyday experience and systematic perceptual studies on humans confirm that such screaming is extremely grating and aversive to listeners, and very effective in catalyzing responses from them". Responses obtained after a presentation about equity by a teacher like that are mandatory, coerced and consequently superficial. If equity had been the issue then how the faculty and staff talk with students should have been addressed. The tone of voice would be discussed, because equity depends on how we sound while we speak. However, this lecture was given by a semi-“dominant individual”, who dictated the college equity policy. Also she was infuriated about inequity and that presumably justified her NVB. 

“The functional value of such aversive screaming is not limited to immature animals, however, because adult animals can be equally impotent, particularly in highly social species with developed dominance hierarchies. In such species, daily activities involve regular interaction with more dominant individuals, who often antagonize and attack subordinate group members.” I rated her as a semi-“dominant individual” as she functions in the college hierarchy where she is in reality not very high on the totem pole.

Only on an occasion like this she represents authority and the forcefulness of her speech also derived from her insecurity. This brief analysis shows how important it is to pay attention to how we sound and to acknowledge that we all sound stressed during stressful situations. She seemed stressed about the presentation and her superiors must have been listening. “Like immature animals, such low-ranking victims of aggression cannot offer serious physical resistance to their dominant counterparts. However, they can make themselves unappealing targets of further attack by screaming vociferously. When experienced at close range, the aversive qualities of such screaming may be extremely aversive and quite difficult to habituate to, thereby testing a Dominant’s commitment to further antagonization."

In my country of origin, Holland, we have a saying ‘he is screaming already before he is hit’ which means we make a big fuss about something when nothing is really happening. With the above explanation, we have a reason why someone would scream before he is being hit. I was often hit by my father and I screamed to avert it. If we look at screaming as a way to avoid being hit, we will deal with it differently, as we are inclined to reassure the screamer that they are safe and will not be hit. We don’t realize our NVB sound may feel to someone as if they are being hit or are going to be hit. Also, we sound louder and more intense when we fear we will be judged or rejected by others. This is a much more parsimonious explanation for why someone would become manic.  The reassuring, supportive sounds which I just referred to can be described “sonants and gruffs” and they lay the foundation for what I call Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). “The vocal repertoire of most primate species contains an additional class of sounds referred to as “sonants and gruffs. ” This class of sounds is, in many ways, the structural antithesis of squeaks, shrieks and screams.”