September 19, 2015

September 19, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writing is my first response to the paper “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. I will use the writings of these authors to point out my distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Although this distinction is not yet acknowledged by most behaviorists, we will soon realize that this distinction is of tremendous importance for survival of the culture. The authors, in line with Skinner, write about “ways in which behavioral science could intervene in culture by arranging behavioral contingencies in order to solve problems” (see Skinner, 1982/1987). I claim that SVB, like nothing else will put our attention on the arrangement of behavioral contingencies which will not only solve, but also prevent our problems. Moreover, discrimination of SVB and NVB will make us at long last recognize the contingencies which cause and maintain our problems. In other words, SVB will prevent us from creating or contributing to NVB contingencies. SVB eventually will extinguish NVB. This process urgently needs to be speeded up. 

“Many of the problems noted by Skinner (1971/2002, 1982/1987) can be described as problems of ethical self-control (see Borba, Silva, Cabral, Souza, Leite & Tourinho, 2014; Tourinho, Borba, Vichi, & L

eite, 2011; Tourinho & Vichi, 2012).” I think this description isn’t very helpful. I strongly believe that it is much more pragmatic to describe our problems as communication problems. “Ethical self-control” then is part of our private speech, which, of course, if a function of public speech. Stated differently, covert self-talk is caused by overt speech. Problems with “ethical self-control” must be considered as a failure of public speech (NVB), and must be corrected by public speech (SVB).   

     

“Rachlin (1974, 2000) defined self-control as the response, within a

choice situation, that produces reinforcers of greater magnitude but with a longer delay. The self-control response is an alternative to impulsive responses, which produce more immediate reinforcers of lesser magnitude.” Jumping on the popular,mentalistic, freedom-choice bandwagon isn’t pragmatic either, as it obfuscates where the rubber hits the road, namely in conversation. The idea of choice makes us think of one individual, but verbal behavior takes two to tango. Besides, the reinforcers are delivered by others, who mediate our verbal response. Mankind is still trapped by NVB, as we all want instant gratification and don’t care about delayed consequences.

Our choices are a byproduct of how we talk, but SVB, paradoxically, is the way of talking that “produces reinforcers of greater magnitude”, but without delay, instantaneously. As the speaker in SVB induces of positive affective experiences in the listener, he or she immediately reinforces, that is, regulates the speaker. Moreover, since the listener in SVB can become the speaker and since the speaker can become the listener, since each speaker in SVB is also his or her own listener,  since each speaker in SVB listens while he or she speaks, since speaking and listening are joined in SVB, the speaker and the listener co-regulate each other in a bi-directional manner due to turn-taking. The exact opposite happens in NVB, in which the speaker induces a negative affective experience in the listener. In NVB the speaker dis-regulates the listener with a uni-directional, hierarchical way of talking.

There is no turn-taking in NVB, nor is the NVB speaker listening to him or herself while he or she speaks. To the contrary, the NVB speaker coerces the listener to listen to him or to her. Thus, the NVB speaker wants others to listen to him or her, but he or she is not listening to him or herself. Consequently, in NVB the emphasis of the so-called conversation is always on listening to others. However, this NVB other-listing excludes self-listening, but in SVB self-listening includes other-listening. In SVB other-listening is made possible due to self-listening. I refer to what Skinner called the speaker-as-own-listener.

It is only when speaking and listening are joined that the speaker is also his or her own listener. As long as speaking and listening happen at a different rate, they are not joined and one is happening at a higher rate of responding than the other. The speech which results from the fact that we listen more than that we speak or speak more than that we listen is deeply problematic and is causing psycho-pathology. I call such speech NVB. NVB causes negative self-talk, but SVB causes positive self-talk. Because of its immediate positive effects, SVB bridges the gap between short-and long-term consequences. Stated differently, physical changes to the body of the speaker will produce a different way of perceiving the environment outside of the speaker’s skin. In other words, “reinforcers of greater magnitude” become accumulatively available to us and as we become better at recognizing NVB, that is, by better understanding the contingency which doesn’t reinforce us, which needs to be avoided, we are less in need of reinforcement from others, as we, like to play our flute and are automatically reinforcing ourselves. The contingency that makes SVB possible is created and maintained by the speaker, who develops the behavioral cusp to listen to him or herself while he or she speaks.

The “impulsive responses” Rachlin refers to results from NVB, but the “self-control”, on the other hand, can only be achieved by SVB. Only to the extent that we have experienced instances of SVB will we be able to have self-control, that is, our private speech will only have a regulating effect on our public speech if it is positive self-talk. Negative private speech, a product of NVB public speech, has a dis-regulating effect on our public speech. It doesn’t matter whether we as speakers are capable of acknowledging this or not, as others, the listeners will always experience our NVB forcefulness. And, even if the listener has been conditioned to accept our NVB, which is a form of abuse, if he or she is no longer in the aversive contingency created by the NVB speaker, he or she will realize that he or she was negatively affected by a previous environment, that is, by an energy-draining speaker. Such speakers condition impatience, anxiety and stress in the listener. “Reinforcers of greater magnitude” are a cheap sales-pitch, which we are sold on and buy into. If we had more SVB this would not occur. SVB dissolves our interest in these imaginary future events, which supposedly will bring us “reinforcers of greater magnitude.” The SVB instances in our verbal episodes will increase due to each small step.