April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand describes behavior “that persists despite being counter-functional” as “falling into a class of behavior that includes instincts, emotions and sign tracking (auto-shaped behavior.” When we TALK about the two universal subclasses of our vocal verbal behavior, called Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), it becomes apparent that our two ways of TALKING are innately determined; only in SVB we feel safe, in NVB we feel threatened. It is only when we pay attention to how we sound WHILE WE SPEAK that the speaker-as-own-listener is able to differentiate between SVB and NVB. 

“Segal (1972) has described such behavior as induced, as occupying a middle ground between pure operant and reflexes.” We should take note of the fact that “Induced behaviors have in common that they are not shaped into existence, but instead emerge in the context of exposure to response-independent reinforcement.” Segal (1972) thinks induced behavior includes “topograhpies that are neither clearly reflexive nor clearly operant, that is, which appear to be under complex stimulus control and not so tightly bound to stimuli as classic reflexes are, and yet not obviously under the control of reinforcement contingencies” (p.10).  In SVB we can talk about that. 

As behaviorists have not given attention to the topographies of SVB and NVB, they were unable to make sense of “complex stimulus control.” They have focused on everything else except on how the speaker sounds to him or herself.  Of course, this is more obvious to the listener, who is not the speaker. However, this listener, who is not the speaker, is only able in SVB to let the speaker know how he or she experiences his or her sound. It is only during SVB that we can look back and realize that we were engaging in NVB. During NVB the speaker is not open to receiving feedback from the listener. Neural behavior that mediates the speaker-as-own-listener is not activated during NVB as NVB was conditioned by a speaker who was coercive and insensitive to the listener. Thus, rather than being under complex stimulus control, SVB and NVB are classic examples of classical conditioning.