February 26 , 2016

February 26 , 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

Today’s writing concludes my comments on Skinner’s book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” (1971).  Since I know about the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction, I don’t find it “hard to imagine a world in which people live together without quarreling, maintain themselves by producing food, shelter and clothing they need, enjoy themselves and contribute to the enjoyment of others in art, music, literature, and games, consume only a reasonable part of the resources of the world and add as little as possible to its pollution, bear no more children than can be raised decently, continue to explore the world around them and discover better ways of dealing with it, and come to know themselves accurately and, therefore, manage themselves effectively (p. 214).” 

It amazes me Skinner is not more adamant about changing the way in which we talk.  How else could we accomplish any of the things he mentions? Fact is, we couldn’t and we haven’t.  The assumption that it would be “hard to imagine” is based on NVB. Someone who is familiar with SVB would never say that.  Although he unknowingly referred to it, Skinner didn’t know SVB.  When the “experimental analysis shifts the determination of behavior from autonomous man to the environment – an environment responsible both for the evolution of the species and for the repertoire acquired by each member”, there must occur a change in the way we talk together. 

We are each other’s environment and regardless of what we say, we influence each other positively or negatively.  When we talk about the environment, we are inclined to think of weather or the forests, but we don’t consider ourselves as the most important part of the environment on which everything else depends. As long as we keep influencing each other negatively, we set the stage for NVB, but to the extent that we influence each other positively, we create and maintain a new environment in which SVB is possible. “Early versions of environmentalism were inadequate because they could not explain how the environment worked, and much seemed to be left for autonomous man to do (p. 215).” Indeed, NVB was the real reason that the issue of our identity was never properly discussed. 

There is no need for “autonomous inner man” to be abolished as our inclination to hang on to such an imaginary construct was a function of an aversive environment.  By listening to ourselves while we speak we change the environment in such a way that the speaker and the listener will be experienced as one. The oneness of our environment can be communicated accurately only during SVB. Man “is indeed controlled by his environment, but we must remember that it is an environment largely of his own making.  The evolution of a culture is a gigantic exercise in self-control (p. 215).” 

We either contribute to SVB or to NVB. In the former, we manage ourselves and each other with love and care, but in the latter we force ourselves and each other to do all sorts of things. Obviously, we do to others what we do to ourselves, but what we do to ourselves was done to us by others. Nobody is to be blamed for his or her NVB or is to be praised for his or her SVB. When we have SVB, we all participate in it and when we have NVB, we are also all part of it. 

I agree with Skinner that “A scientific view of man offers exciting possibilities”, but I strongly disagree with him that “We have not yet seen what man can make of man (p. 215). I have seen and, more importantly, I have heard what SVB will do to people. I have taught  hundreds of students who can tell you about the positive effects of SVB. In my classroom I create the environment in which all students reliably experience an increase SVB and a decrease NVB.  This result can be obtained by anyone who knows about the SVB/NVB distinction. There is nothing mysterious about it. SVB is the science of vocal verbal behavior.  Its results are predictable and replicable.