August 25, 2016

August 25, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-seventh response to the paper “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). Day says “phenomenologist should” (italics added) do this or that so often I can’t help noticing. He engages in effortful Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

In NVB we try to make others to listen to us, but in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) we focus on listening to ourselves and as a result, we listen effortlessly to others.  We can directly observe, listen to the speaker’s voice and know if his or her speech is effortful or effortless. 

In most verbal episodes there are many more instances of NVB than SVB. Spoken communication has remained mankind’s biggest unresolved problem.  If radical behaviorists would have been listened to this would not be the case, as operant science, which explains and supports the SVB/NVB distinction, is always based on positive behavioral control.

In SVB we mutually reinforce and therefore co-regulate each other, but in NVB only the speaker is reinforced for dominating the listener. The NVB speaker punishes and dis-regulates the listener and forces him or herself on the listener, who is not as powerful as the speaker. 

In NVB speakers speak the language of coercive behavioral control, which is justified by the fact that the speaker has a higher social status than the listener.  Stated differently, in NVB we all presumably know our place, but this socially accepted hierarchical difference between the speaker and the listener separates one from the other. During SVB the speaker and the listener are connected and united, but during NVB the speaker and the listener out of sync and disjointed. 

Day states “the best way to change a mental condition may be to try to change other, more conspicuous aspects of behavior first; the desired changes in covert behavior may occur as a result.” He is right. When we change our tone of voice many new behaviors begin to become possible. 

Changing how we sound changes the hierarchical structure supported by NVB. SVB changes the relationship between the speaker and the listener. 

This is why changing the sound of the speaker’s voice is a big taboo. The only place where this taboo is temporarily allowed to be lifted is in therapy because people suffer from mental health issues. 

When my clients are stimulated, by me, to listen to themselves while they speak, they change their tone of voice and manifest different behaviors than they were having when they were not stimulated to listen to themselves. The manic person becomes calm; the scattered, inattentive person becomes attentive and focused; and the depressed and isolated person becomes happy, lively and social again. This result is consistently achieved by only changing the sound of the client’s voice. 

If changing the tone of voice of mental health clients results in such beneficial consequences it is apparent that this phenomenon is also of crucial importance to those who are not afflicted by mental disorders. With SVB students learn better, relationships flourish, parenting becomes a joy, working collaboratively becomes possible and thinking rationally is enhanced. We become conscious, intelligent communicators in SVB, but in NVB we will remain rigid, mechanical and repetitive. 

“The lack of careful study of Skinner’s work” is due to our high rates of NVB; with SVB we are going to enhance education. One of radical behaviorism’s biggest opponents, the linguist Noam Chomsky, was never properly answered. His incendiary tone of voice should be addressed as it signifies NVB. He is a typical example of an outdated archaic speaker who dominates the listener. As such, he is political and biased, but not scientific. SVB is a scientific way of talking which exposes his failure.