September 30, 2015

September 30, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my fourth response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The authors state “Because response–reinforcer contiguities have been shown to alter the control of behavior by its antecedents whenever circumstances permit the antecedents to be manipulated, such control may be presumed to exist under conditions that do not permit the experimental analysis of the effects of antecedents.” No matter what the consequences are, our way of talking is controlled by antecedents. Also, our ability to acknowledge this fact is determined by circumstances. During Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the speaker doesn’t recognize that he or she is affecting the listener in a negative manner. By contrast, during Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) the speaker is conscious that he or she is affecting the listener in a positive manner. Stated differently, in NVB no feedback from the negatively-affected listener reaches the speaker, who is subsequently reinforced for his or her insensitivity, but in SVB the positively-affected listener reinforces the sensitivity of the speaker, who experiences that he or she is connecting with the listener. Thus, in SVB “circumstances permit the antecedents to be manipulated”, but in NVB the conditions “do not permit the experimental analysis of the effects of antecedents.”

Manipulating the antecedents that control our conversations involves a process in which the speaker is changed by the listener. This can only be accomplished if the listener becomes the speaker and if the speaker becomes the listener. Without turn-taking conditions for NVB remain the same and NVB will continue. Although we can’t identify the antecedents which control NVB, they are of course there. We, that is, the listeners, need to talk, but not with the NVB speaker. We, that is the listeners, can’t talk with the NVB speaker as we are not allowed to talk with him or her. We can only talk with a SVB speaker.  

Skinner taught us, right after the end of the Second World War, in 1945 that events always exist which control our behavior, even if we cannot sense or fathom them. His operant conditioning paradigm shifted the  attention from antecedents to postcedents that become antecedents. The circumstances which controlled Skinner’s verbal behavior where determined by his awareness about the devastation that had occurred during WOII. Thoughts about preventing such calamities also directly tie in with the SVB/NVB distinction. With SVB there will be no more war, but with NVB we are heading for the next catastrophe. These authors, however, don’t really seem to realize that the misinterpretation of Skinner’s words was not so much caused by what he was writing, but by what he was saying. “Parenthetically, when many, including ourselves, find that Skinner’s writings facilitate theoretical developments whereas others find that they inhibit such efforts, these differing effects can hardly be attributed to the words alone; the differing histories of the readers must bear some of the responsibility.” Although they refer to the readers “differing histories”, they don’t recognize the importance of transitioning from Skinner’s written language to spoken language.

In the section “Units of selection and levels of analysis” the authors state “In short, reinforcers alter the strength of antecedent–behavior relations, not behavior alone.” I have tried to talk with them, but was unsuccessful as they would never admit that their focus is on written language, not spoken language. Behaviorists are perpetuators of NVB by ignoring the importance of spoken communication. Because of my different history, that is, because of my involvement in singing and music, I discovered there is such a thing as listening while you speak. When people listen while they speak they become conscious speakers as their sound is in the here and now and their listening is also in the here and now. SVB occurs when speaking and listening happen at the same time. Reinforcers, only be obtained in SVB, have altered for me “the strength of antecendent-behavior relations.” I am not interested in NVB and I avoid engaging in it as I experience it as deeply problematic.

 

“Antecedent–behavior relations are the focus of selection by

reinforcement just as phenotypic characteristics are the focus of natural selection.” First of all, as long as we don’t acknowledge the distinction between SVB and NVB, we don’t realize whether we are increasing one or the other. Secondly, there is no so-called choice between whether one engages in SVB and NVB. Once the distinction is clear SVB is selected. We don’t eat rotten fruit, but we endure rotten relationships as we are ignorant about the fact that we are having a rotten communication. We accept as normal a way of talking which is abnormal. Once we have SVB, we realize that NVB is jeopardizing our survival. We also realize we are alive only to the extent that we have SVB. Thirdly, SVB is nothing new. We already know it, but we never engaged in it consciously. We select it by engaging in it consciously.

We have had some SVB accidentally, occasionally, when the situation permitted it, but we did not understand that situation well enough to maintain it. Fourthly, we haven’t explored SVB. Only by exploring SVB can we come and remain in contact with the antecedents that make it possible. Fifthly, this exploration takes time. Once we make time, it will become immediately and effortlessly clear. Sixthly, SVB is a behavioral cusp which will make many other reinforcements available. Seventhly, what heralds SVB is the decrease and ultimately the extinction of NVB.

A heart-operation can only be accomplished with the greatest amount of care and precision. Likewise, the decrease of NVB, which is necessary to have SVB, is a prolonged conscious act which can only be achieved by focusing on the variables that make SVB possible. “Antecedent–behavior relations are the focus of selection by reinforcement.” We can only become aware about whether we reinforce SVB or NVB when the speaker-as-own-listener does the speaking. In absence of the activation and expression of the speaker-as-own-listener, we are talking in an unconscious manner. In NVB the speaker doesn’t even know why he or she is talking, let alone, why he or she is actually hurting the listener. In NVB, the speaker expresses a history of abuse, neglect, abandonment and trauma. In SVB, this history is acknowledged and thus transcended.