September 15, 2015

September 15, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my tenth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). I enjoy responding to this paper, which stimulates me to become more specific about SVB. I like to write more about behavior that leads to the solution, “precurrent behavior: the preliminary responses which modify the environment or the individual himself and which may favor the emergence of the solution.” It is of utmost importance to understand that sentence in relation to speech.

Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) requires environmental modifications, which are inside and outside of our skin. Foremost, we must be in a safe environment, an environment that is without aversive stimulation. Each speaker also modifies what happens within his or her own skin by listening while he or she speaks, that is, by synchronizing and joining his or her speaking and listening behavior. SVB only occurs when speaking and listening happen at the same rate and intensity level. Some people may need to slow down in their speech to have SVB, while others may need to speed up. Some may need to talk less and listen more to have SVB, while others may need to talk more and listen less to have SVB.

Certain questions that a person may be preoccupied with resemble the effects of previous environments in which SVB was impossible. Once SVB is possible these questions lose their importance, while other questions can be asked which could not be asked before. The answers to these new questions emerge from the fact that in SVB the speaker and the listener are one. Moreover, in SVB, also the speaker and the listener who is different from the speaker, experience unity. Since thinking is functionally related to talking, we think how we talk. We don’t, as we so often believe, talk the way in which we think. This is also caused by the fact that NVB public speech excludes private speech and, consequently, negative private speech can’t produce the solution.

“In heuristic problem solving, problem-solving behavior creates

conditions that tend to increase the likelihood of a solution; however, one cannot predict exactly when such a solution will occur.” During SVB we don’t know what we are going to be talking about or explore what we are going to talk about. During SVB we realize that the problem was always NVB. As long as we don’t recognize NVB as NVB and SVB as SVB, NVB will make us believe that SVB is the problem. By accepting the fact that NVB cannot occur without environmental support, we realize that what supports NVB also supports the problem. The absence of SVB teaches us what supports the problem cannot support the solution. The presence of SVB teaches us what supports the solution. The presence of SVB is the absence of NVB. The presence of a problem is the absence of a solution. The problem does not occur if the solution is there. In SVB we engage in an interaction which is without problems. Although we have, in moments, accidentally experienced this delightful possibility, we have not consciously, skillfully and deliberately achieved and maintained such a conversation. Although we may find it hard to believe that SVB is possible, when we have it, it is not difficult at all, because it is effortless and simple. SVB is the solution to our problems.  

SVB is a creative behavior, while NVB prevents creativity. During SVB communicators co-regulate and positively stimulate each other, but in NVB communicators dis-regulate and dominate each other. “A radical behaviorist approach states that creativity can be produced and, therefore, teaching must generate creative behaviors. Creativity can be found not only in selection but in variation as well (Skinner, 1968). Importantly, here we can also identify the values favored by Skinner: it is important to teach existing knowledge and also to teach students to think, and to produce creative behaviors.” SVB can be produced, but only under the right circumstances. Without knowledge about SVB “creative behaviors” are overrated and can prevent us from thinking.

Creativity, like happiness, is idealized. We desire creativity or happiness because our reality is so dull and unhappy. If we are creative or happy, we don’t seek it nor are we compelled to talk about it. We talk about that which we don’t have and we think that it will come to us, because of our private speech. This is not true. If creativity or happiness comes to us it is not because of our private speech, but because of our public speech. Only SVB results into positive self-talk, but NVB always results in negative private speech. There is a lack of knowledge about talking. We know physics, chemistry and biology, but we don’t know about SVB, as hierarchical relationship prevent us from learning about it. So-called creativity is consoling and preoccupying us with childish  fairy tales. And our so-called happiness and excitement is taking us away from human interaction. There are many people who claim to know how to enhance creativity and there are many people who claim to know how to have non-violent communication. Presumably “we can teach students to arrange environmental contingencies that maximize the likelihood of new and creative responses”, but how far can we get with NVB? I am not saying it is impossible, but I claim that without SVB it certainly is.

We should realize once and for all that expressions of art and music have not and could not teach us the behaviors which we need to have mutually reinforcing interaction. We can only learn about that by engaging in and by exploring our conversation. Skinner states “when familiar forms of art and music lose their power to reinforce, new forms are acclaimed just because they are new” (Skinner, 1968, p. 18, emphasis added).” When we engage in SVB, we know we are engaging in something new. SVB is renewing. There is nothing renewing in our conversation due to new forms of art or music. Indeed, we will only have SVB is someone stimulates us and  reinforces us to have it. Currently, other than myself, I don’t know anyone who knows how to do that. The problem with SVB is that it is not only about “the accurate transmission of knowledge.” Such a transmission “can reduce the variability of behavior and decrease the likelihood of original responses”, but it doesn’t produce SVB. Something more is needed. The teacher must have SVB to be able to evoke SVB in his or her students.