September 30, 2016

September 30, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Whether human beings will ever be able to deal with the facts of what happens when they talk with each other is determined by our ability to distinguish between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Many people who came to know about this distinction have said it clarified something they had been thinking about for a long time; it stimulates them to be scientific about their own way of talking.

Scientists investigate the reality which is misrepresented by popular opinion. They acknowledge that speakers influence listeners with the sound of their voice. This fact remained out of sight as it cannot be seen; it must be listened to. As the speaker is his or her own subject in SVB, he or she listens to him or herself while he or she speaks.

Listening to others couldn’t make anything clear about the SVB/NVB distinction. Instead of listening to others, we reject authority outside of us and we listen to ourselves. To know about the nature of human interaction we cannot rely on what authorities have said or are saying.

Scholarly writings about interaction are of no help to anyone as they take our attention away from the spoken communication which contains the facts. However, the SVB/NVB distinction brings us in contact with the facts; in SVB speakers aversively dominate listeners, but in NVB speakers and listeners mutually reinforce each other. Moreover, if we are going to be scientific about our interactions with one another, we have to recognize that even knowledge itself is of no use to us as it distracts the speaker from listening to him or herself. Anything that interferes with this process prevents our own formulation of SVB.  

The more we know about the SVB/NVB distinction, the more we realize that although we would like to have SVB, fact is that we are constantly engaged in NVB. Only a scientist will accept such a rather painful fact. Whether they know it or not, unscientific people seek to fulfill their wishes to have SVB by believing that peace can be achieved by war.

The high rates of NVB, which can be observed everywhere, are not because man is innately such a brute beast, but because we haven’t yet developed the skills which will make SVB possible.  In the same way that math can be learned, SVB can be learned. SVB is peaceful and NVB is war, but we cannot believe and imagine our way to having SVB.

If we achieve SVB it will not be because we wished for it. We wish for all sorts of things only during NVB. Scientific endeavor is not beholden to our wishful thinking. Although science has always put a high price on intellectual honesty, it has not yet made a point of emotional honesty. The SVB/NVB distinction considers emotional honesty more important than intellectual honesty as the former makes the latter possible.

SVB is needed to realize that intellectual honesty doesn’t guarantee emotional honesty, but emotional honesty guarantees intellectual honesty. Presumably, scientists are also interested in results which do not confirm their theory, but, due to the way in which they talk, few are able to admit that they are emotionally biased to their own theory.

As scientists constantly engage in NVB they cannot be honest with themselves. The feelings of the scientist are an important subject matter to be investigated. Only SVB can make scientists intellectually and emotionally honest. Staying with the facts pertaining to human interaction requires a procedure not as blunt and ineffective as NVB.

Once we learn about the SVB/NVB distinction it is apparent that SVB supports and NVB prevents progress. We haven’t yet figured this out as we have elevated written descriptions over spoken descriptions of facts. This disaster continues to discourage the exploration of spoken while it occurs. No matter what the facts are, we still need to talk.