September 27, 2015

September 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my first response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The authors write “We begin by stipulating three central points upon which we and the broad consensus of commentators agree.” I will use their paper to explain to the reader the importance of talking about the difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Only when we talk – and not when we read – can and will behaviorists grasp and agree with the difference between these unexplored, but completely obvious response classes. In this writing I can only write about talking, but we need to be talking about talking, to be able to learn more about talking. The illusion, that we are part of a conversation while writing and listening while we are reading, continuous to distract us from having SVB and is generating only NVB. To be on the proverbial, visual (not auditory) same page we need to listen to ourselves while we speak, we need to agree on how we sound.

We can’t agree on how we sound together if we aren’t even aware of how we sound by ourselves. To the extent that we have been exposed to and conditioned by NVB, we aren’t even aware of how we sound and as a result, we don’t notice that we sound horrible when, presumably, we interact. NVB is the assumption of interaction. We think we are knowledgeable and we do what we can, but without the SVB/NVB distinction we are ignorant and create and increase our trouble. We try to sound good, we try to sound happy, knowledgeable, self-assured and in control, but all these failed attempts are remnants of a non-existing behavior-directing inner agents, which continued unabated in our NVB. Every time a behaviorist engages in NVB, he or she still believes that he or she is causing his or her own behavior. If they would talk with each other about the SVB/NVB distinction, they would be able to recognize and acknowledge this and come to terms with this immense problem.  

  

When I discovered radical behaviorism and was excited as it explains the workings of SVB as well as NVB, I thought that behaviorist would soon embrace it, but this didn’t happen. These authors refer to what is written and read, when they and others write about what they and others have written. Their so-called “broad consensus” with which the “commentators agree” is biased towards writing and in total denial of how we actually talk with each other. However, they too experience the verbal episodes which are characterized by high rates of NVB and they too experience the relief which is felt when circumstances permit them to have more SVB. This difference never stands out, because, as authorities, they are used to talking at instead of with the graduate students they supervise. It is only probably in their personal lives, with wives, kids, family members and friends that the difference between SVB and NVB can become apparent, but this doesn’t seem to affect them professionally. To the contrary, they use behaviorism to hide from reality and escape in the safe world of academia, a world in which they can write and read and do as little talking as possible. Although they  don’t realize this, many have written about behaviorism in a manner which puts people off who want to talk about it. Moreover, the failure of behaviorists to communicate their science is caused by the fact that they have as high rates of NVB as any non-behaviorist. Their constant emphasis on what they say ignores and dismisses the importance of how they speak. As behaviorists expose superstitions that go on in the name of science, they are considered to be a threat. Their rejection by mainstream academia didn’t make them sensitive about how they interact with others, since they, after all, are right. They agree in their writings that they are right, but once they talk with each other, all sorts of disagreements emerge, as they, like everybody else, also don’t know how to talk with each other. Their so-called agreement is a paper tiger, which doesn’t have any power. How different it would be if they would  agree while they talk with each other and show to the world on a video what this looks and sounds like? Movies in which actors and actresses act what agreement looks and sounds like simply don’t cut it.

In SVB speakers are no longer acting as if and the effect of this on the listener is of great importance. SVB cannot be replaced by anyone who is speaking in a scripted manner. Such speech is NVB and, if listened to more carefully, we agree that it doesn’t sound good. Once we finally listen to how we sound, we are amazed that we agree. In other words, nonverbally we already agree, but we have yet to accurately express this verbally. As long as we are not deliberately creating environments in which we can and will listen to ourselves, we don’t and can’t hear the difference between SVB and NVB. Consequently, we can only achieve SVB in an accidental, irregular and limited manner. However, our body always experiences the stress, fear, frustration and anger, which is involved in NVB. We, that is, the speaker, may not notice, but the listener always notices. Moreover, this listener is not only someone else, that listener is also the speaker him or herself. Thus, the speaker who doesn’t listen to him or herself stresses him or herself as well as others. By contrast, in SVB, the speaker listens to him or herself and agrees with him or herself that he or she sounds good. The SVB speaker is like a musician, who plays his or her instrument with great skill and deliberateness. The process of self-listening unfolds during SVB, which becomes more refined as it continues. This happens as the sound of the speaker reinforces the speaker and the listener. To the extent that a musician enjoys his or her music, he or she lets others enjoy what he or she enjoys. His or her practice is as joyful as his or her performance.

Consensus about SVB is made possible by the verifiable experience that self-listening includes other-listening. Only when we listen to ourselves can and will we listen to each other. In NVB, other-listening excludes self-listening. NVB is hierarchical and thus the NVB speaker separates the speaker from the listener. The NVB speaker prevents the listener from listening to him or herself. He or she achieves that by preventing the listener from speaking. Only when the listener speaks out loud can he or she hear him or herself. As long as behaviorists keep emphasizing writing and reading, they can’t have the actual experience of SVB.