September 23, 2015

September 23, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my fifth 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. I disagree with the authors that “Although operant behavior is involved, impulsive responses of this type include considerations beyond the realm of individual analysis because we must address the effect produced by many individuals over time.” When we consider the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), we realize to our big surprise how often we are actually determined in our way of thinking by NVB. How we think is determined by how we talk and a different way of talking leads to a different way of thinking. We must “address the effect produced by many individuals” who have SVB instead of NVB “over time.” These authors will never get there with “the concept of macrocontingency as proposed by Glenn (2004)”, as it totally distracts from how we are talking with each other. Analysis of culture doesn’t require the concept of “macrocontingency” and challenges behaviorists to stay with the rat in the operant room.

“Glenn (2004) proposed the concept of macro-behavior to refer to

similar patterns of behavioral content, usually resulting from similarities in the environment,” but these “similar patterns of behavioral content” are more parsimoniously explained by the SVB/NVB distinction. In SVB, the conversation is bi-directional, which means, speakers are listeners and listeners can be speakers, but in NVB the so-called conversation is uni-directional, which means, speakers want listeners to be listeners and not speakers. In NVB, there is no turn-taking between the speaker and the listener. In NVB, the speaker induces negative affect in the listener, but in SVB the speaker induces positive affect the listener.

The authors could have focused on the verbal behavior that is used in advertising as an example, but that is apparently too complex for their purpose of hypothesizing about the interlocking contingencies. Thus, they keep it simple by using a lame example about consumption of fast food. “Styles of dressing, littering, and eating fast food are behavioral patterns exhibited by many different individuals. However, there is not necessarily a functional relationship between the responses of the individuals in the sense that the behavior of one person occasions or reinforces the behavior of another.” There is a definitely a functional relationship between the writer of the advertisement and the response of the customer. Think about McDonalds’ use of language? How are customers affected by words such as ‘I’m loving it’,‘dollar menu’ or ‘Getting in on all the lovin’ action ahead of time?’ Aren’t they targeting children with ‘happy meal’ and ‘latest toys and games and more fun?’ The authors seem to be having the same sales strategy as McDonalds. “The sum of the individual contributions to the effect on the group has been referred to as a type of aggregate product, that is, a product of the behavior of many people (see Malott & Glenn, 2006, p. 33).” They are overly interested in big things and their focus is a function of NVB.

How do I know? Their theorizing takes us away from operant behavior. They even state so themselves. “As this kind of aggregate product is the sum of consequences of individual operant behaviors, we will refer to it as a cumulative effect (Glenn, 2004). Why are these authors interested in adding up “consequences of individual operant behaviors?” What are they actually adding up? They only add up what they can add up and what they can’t add up they simply don’t consider. The “cummulative effect” consist of what they choose to count. I am not into counting. I am into talking. What use is counting while talking? Counting prevents people from talking. Our way of talking doesn’t add up as in NVB we don’t listen to ourselves. It is only due to SVB that we are accountable for, that is, conscious about our actions. We will not listen to ourselves while we speak and if we continue to count and predetermine our conversation. The “cummulative effect” of NVB is the dissociation from our environment, also from the environment that is within our skin.

I don’t think we have explained anything by assuming that because of the lack of “ethical self-control” people follow “diets rich in sugars and fats” which as “an accumulative effect” then increases “government spending on medicines and health-related actions.” However, we would be explaining something if we would analyze the NVB self-talk involved in this health-undermining process. Access to covert speech can be obtained and explored during SVB overt speech. Once NVB covert speech has been expressed overtly it becomes SVB. As long as covert NVB cannot be expressed overtly, it cannot be recognized as NVB. It was never recognized as NVB even when it was expressed overtly.

McDonalds advertising always plays into to the customer’s unfulfilled innate need for SVB, for safety. It exploits this need. The customer is led to believe that he or she is achieving safety and their kids are having fun, but, through classical conditioning, they end up eating junk food. Interestingly, “Malott and Glenn (2006) emphasized that when describing a macro-contingency we refer to the operants of multiple individuals that generate a cultural cumulative effect in addition to the individualized consequences of each response.” I don’t know why they leave classical conditioning out of the picture and I can only conclude that it must have something to do with the fact that these authors stick to a particular agenda. Predetermined speech sets the stage for NVB.

In SVB we cannot predetermine our way of talking. This doesn’t mean that we cannot talk about behaviorism, but it means we can only really talk about behaviorism as long as we have SVB. In other words, once we are not having SVB anymore, which is most of the time, we cannot really talk about behaviorism anymore either. I know I am repetitive, but this is needed to make my point. Most behaviorists have never even talked in a SVB manner about their behaviorism and they only know how to talk about it in a NVB manner. This necessarily always results in a watered down version of behaviorism in which behaviorists consider it a taboo to talk about what they really feel. The behaviorist who knows SVB, however, can talk freely and happily about his or her feelings. Moreover, he or she evokes positive emotions in others. I have heard Sigrid Glenn talk and she sounds cold. She tries to be nice, but she is a hard-head and she strikes me as inconsiderate and insensitive.