September 16, 2015

September 16, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my eleventh response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). These authors agree with Skinner, who stated “to promote originality, an educational technology should also enable the student to explore new environments and solve new problems. Quantity of behavior is also relevant, though not sufficient.” However, not a word in this paper has been written about the kind of interaction that makes all of this possible. It is often assumed that if we get the content right then everything will work out, but as Skinner’s work has demonstrated, this is not true. The success of his work, which, although it is slowly getting bigger over the years, is still relatively small if we look at the low status of behaviorism in academia, is often mistakenly attached to his theories rather than to how he talked. 

Skinner was an exceptionally kind talker. He had a lot of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) in each of his explanations. If we compare Skinner’s calming sound to Chomsky’s infuriating tone of voice, we have an good example of how SVB compares to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).  It makes a big difference whether one has a big “quantity” of SVB or NVB. Chomsky in that sense is more like Trump. What many people don’t realize is that Chomsky is famous for his NVB. In spite of all his talk about justice, most of his speech sounds aversive. Trump, however, is more direct about the fact that his speech is noxious. Like any other thug he takes pride in his forceful demeanor. Although Chomsky is more soft-spoken than Trump, also his speech evokes negative affect in the listener. Skinner’s sound is very different compared to these two demanding men. The rate of his SVB allowed him to accomplish as much as he did. However, many behaviorists couldn’t accomplish as much as he did as they had much lower rates of SVB in their speech. Since behaviorism can only be properly promoted by SVB speakers, NVB behaviorists keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Currently (this was written on 9/16/15) Trump is up in the poles by promising he will make America great again. Similarly, behaviorist authors are writing a paper as they want to make education and culture great again. “A technology of teaching should teach the student how to produce environments that enable the emergence of creative behavior in their own repertoire. Ultimately, education for creativity can strengthen a culture by producing new cultural practices that solve the problems it has found or is going to find.” I don’t disagree with this, but think these authors will be unsuccessful in fulfilling their promise. The fact that they don’t mention the importance of spoken communication indicates they are mostly involved in NVB, in spite of their good intentions and, although, most likely, they have more SVB than non-behaviorists. This is nothing to be ashamed of or to upset about. It is a sad fact that we have all been conditioned by NVB.

Even the Dalai Lama has mostly NVB and so has the Pope, Obama, Ophra or Amy Goodman. SVB is a behavioral cusp not easily acquired. It can only be learned by repeated exposure to someone who knows what it is, who can explain it and keep it going. When people recover from alcohol or drugs this is always accompanied by a change of environment. If they recover they no longer hang out with those who are using and they will no longer surround themselves with the stimuli which maintained their addiction. Likewise, those who recover from NVB are only able to do so as they are stimulated to avoid NVB. They can only do that once they discriminate it as such. It takes me, as a psychology instructor, a whole semester, about seventeen weeks, to condition students to differentiate between SVB and NVB.

I am the first to undertake this important task and students reinforce my work with their behavior in class and by writing wonderful papers.  Many reinforcements become available as their rate of SVB increases and many burdens are resolved as they decrease their NVB. Once they catch onto SVB, they become scientifically informed investigators, who experiment with their newly discovered behavioral repertoire. Rather than solving problems, they learn how to avoid them and not to have them.

Skinner is referring to SVB when he criticizes “the traditional concept of freedom.” He is doesn’t view freedom in terms of “free will” and states “people can, nevertheless, be free from certain kinds of control, although no one can be free from environment. “Freedom is a matter of contingencies of reinforcement” (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 37).” Once people achieve SVB, they realize most environments they were in were not conducive to it. Most environments, which most often means, most people, exert the coercive control which can only give rise to NVB. Stated differently, most people don’t have the skill to maintain SVB. During SVB speaking and listening are joined as the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. The speaker as listener creates the contingency that is needed for SVB.

Skinner is “interested in the variables that control the use of the word freedom. The word freedom often refers to getting rid of aversive control (Skinner, 1971/2002).” In SVB, there is no aversive stimulation of the listener by the speaker and the speaker’s voice is perceived by the listener as an appetitive stimulus. We cannot not feel free as long as someone is talking at instead of with us. The speaker who is talking at us, is oppressing us as he or she is not interested in the listener as speaker. He or she cannot be interested in the listener as speaker, as he or she is not listening to him or herself while he or she speaks. Only someone who is listening to him or herself as he or she speaks will be interested in the listener as speaker, who will use the word freedom to describe his or her opportunity to speak. 

We must teach SVB. "Education can work for the development of self-control, facilitating the adaptation of individuals as they come into contact with aversive aspects that were not eliminated from the environment.” It is only due to SVB that we as speakers can trace “aspects that were not eliminated from the environment.” During SVB we recognize NVB, but during NVB we can't recognize SVB. This is as during NVB we are insensitive to our environment, to each other. Better stated, in NVB the speaker is insensitive toward the listener. NVB is my way or the highway.