September 22, 2015

September 22, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my fourth 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. The authors are limited by what their cultures has afforded them to know about “ethical self-control.” Their emphasis on “delayed positive reinforcers” indicates their culture was dominated by a way of talking, which I call Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) in which we suffer and hope to have it better later on. Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), by contrast, creates positive emotions and reinforcing interaction right away and only our current ability to practice it will determine the future likelihood that we will have it. Without today’s practice it is not going to happen in the future and it never happened in our imaginary future, because there was no practice in which we could have learned it. The authors write “In some instances of ethical self-controlled behavior, the individual will not make contact with the consequences that benefits the culture. This may result from the fact that it is not his/her generation that will be there when the consequence is delivered. This poses the need to discuss further contingencies that play a role in promoting such repertoires.” I don’t think this only happens “in some instances”, I think it happens all the time. Hoping for a better future has not and could not result in the promotion of the repertoire called SVB. It perpetuated the cycles of violence brought forth by NVB, from which mankind has yet to emancipate. That entire generations weren’t able to  experience the positive consequences of their actions is deeply troubling and inhuman.  

Of course, the aforementioned is a rather exaggerated and bleak picture, which doesn’t accurately depict what is really happening. No matter how vicious the struggle for survival may be, there are always positive immediate reinforcers, which make people wait, hope, pray, and, experience some instances of SVB, which stimulate them to find ways in which they can make their lives better. Wars had to be fought, but must ultimately be prevented. They couldn’t be prevented as long as scientist had not yet analyzed the way in which we talk. As long as we didn’t understand illnesses, there was no medical cure and as long as we believe in false explanations about our interactions we cannot prevent conflict. The SVB/NVB distinction pertains to every culture.

There are cultures which have higher rates of SVB than others. Stated differently; there are more violent and more peaceful cultures. The relative peacefulness of a society is determined by the rates of SVB among its people.  Although this level of analysis is easily understood by people from different cultures, nobody has addressed it, as it puts into question all we have believed in up until now.  The fact that millions have died in vain, that there was nothing to benefit from for the next generation and that our struggles were utterly meaningless, entrenches us deeper into NVB. Here the link between NVB and psycho-pathology becomes apparent. Those who are presumably mentally ill are always  convinced about their way of viewing the world. “Most probably, the process undergoing such phenomena involves more than the role played by the culture’s beneficial consequence (perhaps, members of the culture may punish non-ethical behavior).” Indeed, those who have experienced SVB, who yearn for it, are “punished” and are branded as “non-ethical”, while those within the culture, who reach the position of authority from which they can define what is ethical and punish those who, according to them, are non-ethical, keep the hierarchical NVB going. “It should be noted that it is not a culture behaving in benefit of another culture, but a generation behaving in ways that benefit the same culture’s subsequent generations. This remains a topic to be further developed in cultural behavior analysis.” Such analysis depends on SVB.

The authors state “One person who impulsively behaves selfishly would hardly produce a social problem such as environmental destruction or overpopulation.” However, one person can change the conversation from SVB to NVB. One person can make SVB impossible. One person can produce a tremendous social problem or one person can be the initiator of SVB. One person’s way of talking can spoil the atmosphere for others or one person can positively enhance others by how he or she speaks. If we keep thinking about social problems in terms of the functioning of groups, this does not and cannot result in changing the behavior of individuals. I disagree with the idea that “a social problem appears when a large number of individuals frequently engage in practices that have deleterious effects on many members of a culture.”

A social problem has already appeared even when only just one person “frequently” engages “in practices that have deleterious effects on many members of the culture.” The reason we don’t recognize this is because the authors, but also the readers, are conditioned by and used to NVB. One person can positively determine the fate of many others if he or she knows about the SVB/NVB distinction. Such a person is able to analyze events differently than everyone who is still stuck with and entrenched by NVB. Those who are unaware of this distinction remain fearful, stressed, upset and defensive. Even if they are positive, they worry about that, as they never knew about the SVB/NVB distinction.  Although they may have been praised, promoted and have achieved positions from where they could influence others, they were never supported in listening to themselves while they speak and thus the understanding of SVB was missing. The authors probably disagree with me, but it doesn’t make any difference to me. I still think that what I not only write, but also say, is true. I challenge these authors to have a conversation, not an argument, with me in which we can verify what I am referring to. At a leadership seminar I met someone who apologized to me for using foul language, but I explained to her that she uses such language only because people are threatening her and she can feel this.  She broke out in tears as I acknowledged what she had been up against.