September 20, 2015

September 20, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my second response to “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. These authors use Rachlin’s ridiculous example of “ethical self-control” of a person’s ability to follow “a diet free of sugars and fat.” How does that have anything to do with “ethical self-control?” Supposedly, giving in to one’s urge for instant gratification is more reinforcing than “delayed effect of better health.” This nonverbal version of failure of “ethical self-control” leaves out completely that the person who mainly eats sugars and fat is constantly experiencing out of control private speech. 

Unhealthy food consumption is not an unconscious act, but a behavior that is mediated by a person’s private speech, which is bound to be negative if this person has been primarily exposed to NVB. The antidote for this unhealthy behavior is SVB due to which the person accumulates positive self-talk. The behavioral momentum of SVB private speech is proportional to our exposure to and involvement in SVB public speech.   Teaching such a person healthy food habits is not going to cut it and dieticians can attest to the total failure of such educational attempts.  “Self-controlled responses”, that “would have the delayed effect of better health and lowered risk of obesity-related illnesses or heart problems throughout life (see Rachlin, 2000)”, deal only with one person, who is having these problems, but who are and more importantly, how were they talking with? Obviously, this person is not listening to him or herself and is trapped by his or her  NVB. 

Rachlin’s absurd emphasis on larger, better quality reinforcing consequences, which are delayed, depicts an isolated and lonely human being. Apparently, he is familiar with this “delayed effect.” He seems to taking pride, like others who believe that suffering has meaning, in the fact that “self-control” can only be truly considered “self-control” if the struggling person can withstand the torment of the “delayed effect.” This is outdated, aversive, deprivation crap, which behaviorists ought to steer away from. Reiterating coercive behavioral control is a dead end. Besides, how in the world does this have anything to do with ethics?

That question is definitely not answered by his statement that “When these self-controlled responses produce delayed consequences that are favorable to the culture, we can refer them as ethical self-control.” The individual who supposedly sacrifices satisfying his or her urges for the greater good is presumably having “ethical self-control.” What blatant nonsense is that? How is this imaginary goal achieved? Can it even be achieved? What happened to shaping behavior every step of the way? Rachlin abandons behaviorism in favor of “altruism”, an explanatory fiction, but the authors don’t see any problem, because Skinner had “described it as ethical self-management.” However, Skinner’s “ethical self-management”, unlike Rachlin’s unreal “ethical self-control,” is pragmatic. Skinner insisted one can only control oneself by controlling one’s environment. Therefore one essentially has to learn how to reinforce oneself. Thus, without calling it that Skinner talked about SVB, because in SVB the speaker is reinforcing him or herself with his or her own sound. The speaker who listens to him or herself while he or she speaks joins his or her speaking and listening behaviors and produces a sound which is uniquely reinforcing to him or to her.  The central role for the “delayed effect” of “individual self-control” derives from NVB.

In the class I teach we talked about visual illusions, perceptions of things that don’t correspond to reality. People see something when the reality is quite different. For instance, two equally long lines appear to have different lengths due to inward or outward facing fins. Also, an artist may draw an abyss on the pavement, which looks so real that people don’t walk over it, because they fear to fall into it. Such images are used by skillful artists to create a visual effect. Likewise, there is also an auditory illusion in which the sound of someone’s voice induces and emotion, such as anger, fear, sadness or excitement. An example of this is a preacher, who, by modulating the sound of his voice affects the mood of his parish. However, such a fabricated, projected voice is not conducive to SVB. To the contrary, such a dramatizing voice creates and maintains NVB. Such was the voice of Martin Luther King. Few seem to realize his dream was merely an auditory illusion, that is, a conditioning process, which has been going on in black churches for a long time. With all respect for what King was trying to do, his way of talking could not and did not bring us closer to SVB. In NVB, speakers predetermine what they say by how they say it. In other words, regardless of whether the speaker speaks about peace or war, he or she uses his or her voice, that is, a nonverbal technique, to bring his or her message across. Thus, the listener is affected by the emotions, which are induced by the speaker’s voice. Regardless of whether the speaker induces positive or negative emotions, these emotions are not conducive to SVB, because they are auditory illusions, not real. We are crying or laughing when  someone is acting, but acting is not the same having a genuine conversation. We have not yet made the distinction between acting as if we are having a real conversation and having a real conversation. Yet, this difference between NVB and SVB is of tremendous importance.