January 28, 2014

January 28, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

This author, who is also a Psychology Instructor at Butte College, has written his syllabus with this spacious and easy-to-read letter type. Since Spring semester has just started, he had to adjust his syllabus and was again exposed to this letter type called “Latha.” The author choose to use this letter type with his first syllabus because he had copied the syllabus from someone else. It is because of this coincidence that he became familiar with it. 

Although he had used it, he didn’t pay attention to it, but now that he is key-boarding a new entry in his journal, he realizes what a nice letter type “Latha” is. We are more likely to read something which is easy to read and we are more likely to listen to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), which is easy to listen to. If it is difficult to read or difficult to listen to, it becomes Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) to us. SVB and NVB are on a continuum, we either move in one direction or the other. This writer knows the reader will find it easy to read these words in the same way that the speaker knows that the listener will have no problem listening to what the speaker says. 

The word “Latha” makes this writer think of milk, grass, cows, breasts, the mother, new-borns, food, nourishment, attachment and caring. There is also a whiteness in to this writing, a possibility to see the page. Usually, we are not aware of the page, but this writing makes the background against which our words appear clear. Once related to this background, our words become more meaningful, more poignant, in a figure-ground-kind-of way. 

It is important for this writer as a speaker, as a lecturer, as a teacher, to keep in touch with the page on which ideally the rest of the class is with him. To keep be on the same page with is class is a challenging, but rewarding task. This semester, this teacher is going to teach by the book and by the test, so that there is alignment between what is taught and talked about and what is tested and no confusion for the student. 

The nourishing aspect of teaching, the attachment of connecting previous knowledge to new knowledge, the security of development, the care, the availability of circumstances in which feeding and learning becomes possible, all of these will be remembered during this semester by this teacher, so that he will engage his class. When he read some of the feedback from the students of his previous class, he was hurt by what was said about him. Some didn’t think he taught very well. Some said he didn’t know the material well enough. Others said he was just reading from the slides. It was also said that he did all the talking, that he was boring and inadequate with the computer and should take a class himself. It pained him to read some of these critical comments. It was so upsetting that he drew a blank in front of the class and felt embarrassed about it. He regained himself, but it was a very difficult first class, so difficult that he was seriously thinking of leaving this job. The whole day he was upset and anxious. Only in the evening, when he came home to his wife from his other job with the mentally ill clients, he was finally able to calm down. When he got home, his lovely wife had some food and wine and was watching a beautiful documentary about nature with soft music playing. The next morning he felt much better. 

On Sunday this author had another one of his seminars. There were only five people, which was the smallest turnout so far. It was still a wonderful event and we had a great time talking together. One participant suggested we should have SVB regularly in a salon-like setting. This is a great idea which hopefully will be taken to the next level. Because there were so few people it was an extremely mellow event. We were very calm and concentrated and this allowed us to experience the deep relaxation that is caused by SVB. Many things were said indirectly, that is, they didn’t need to be spelled out and were only referred to. Because it would have been possible to say them, the participants didn’t feel the pressure anymore to say them. This made it possible for them to talk indirectly about the things which in NVB simply can’t be said. Being able to mention these things without having an urge of going into to them is essential to SVB. 

SVB frees us up to say many other things. When this happens, some of us initially choose not to say anything, while others seize this opportunity to say what they are now capable of saying. After this went on for a while, those who listened approved of those who had spoken, by saying that they were thinking and feeling similar things as they were just talking about. Then, those who initially spoke were calmed down and listened to those who initially didn’t speak. As they began to speak, because they were being listened to so attentively, their words were under control of speech that only happens when listening is increased across the board. First, those who could speak, spoke, and those who could listen, listened, but then the essence SVB happened: speakers and listeners switched sides. 

January 26, 2014

January 26, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

Today this writer organizes one of his seminars in the Chico Branch Library of Butte County. What follows below is the text which was used to announce this event and some comments on my previous seminars. This writing is not meant to predict what is going to happen, but rather to set the stage for it. Prediction of outcome is not of any concern, because this author knows that he and the participants will be talking about events after they have happened. Only based on what has happened can one say what is more likely to happen in the future. The behavior, that is, the speech of this writer, will occur first and then the description of this behavior will follow. The talking of this author will set the stage for what is going to happen in today’s seminar. 

It has already happened many times. This writer has given hundreds of seminars. Those who respond to the words of this author by coming to the seminar must be already somewhat familiar with the process. It is their previous experience to which this writer appeals, which also sets the stage for today’s events to unfold. Thus, the seminar will be a combination of talking about experiences by the participants that have already happened to the participants and talking about experiences by the author that have already happened to the author. Since this talking is another kind of talking than the talking we are used to, it will be apparent to the participants that this kind of talking, although it did happen, wasn’t really possible because circumstances weren’t conducive to it. In this seminar, these circumstances are explained by this author. 

In this interactive seminar we discover what is needed to make authentic interaction possible. We identify stimuli outside of ourselves, in our environment, which set the stage for Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Once the contingencies of reinforcement, the necessary external circumstances for SVB, have been discriminated, we find that 1) covert private self-talk is caused by overt public speech, 2) we misunderstand each other because we misunderstand ourselves, and 3)spontaneous speech is possible due to accurate description and the active avoidance of our predetermined speech.   

In SVB communicators are no longer individually considered to be responsible for how they communicate because they acknowledge they are each other’s environment. That there is “our way of communicating” is based on a catastrophic misunderstanding. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), our normal way of communicating, listening to others prevents listening to ourselves and public speech excludes private speech. NVB is talking at each other, not with each other. 

In SVB speakers and listeners co-regulate each other. Although participants will be doing a lot of talking, SVB emphasizes the listener and makes repeatedly clear that without listening to ourselves, we can’t and don’t listen to each other. In SVB issues can and will be discussed and understood which can’t be discussed in any other way. Since the circumstances in which SVB was possible were only momentarily and accidentally available, we have not experienced it on an ongoing basis. In this seminar these circumstances are described and created. SVB is not a therapy or method, nor is it a spiritual path. It is a scientific behaviorist account of how interaction really works. Experimentation is needed to verify the great promise that it holds. 

A lot of things have happened, but were never talked about because circumstances were not suitable. Once circumstances are suitable, we are able to talk about things which previously we couldn’t talk about. The change of environment which occurred was caused by how we communicate. We change from NVB to SVB, because SVB makes it possible to address the things which have already happened, while NVB is focused on what is going to happen. SVB gives us peace of mind, because it allows us to catch up with ourselves, whereas NVB makes us miss the moment, because we are constantly worried about the future. In NVB we project an image of ourselves onto others or on the situation, but in SVB we give an accurate description of the experiences we went through and we create a situation in which others are able to do the same. 

Speech about what is going to happen is overrated because it made speech about what happened impossible. Besides, speech about what is going to happen is only going to have any meaning if it is based on the accurate description of what has already happened. If what has already happened has been analyzed correctly, there is no need to focus on what is going to happen. SVB is the accurate analysis of what has already happened: 1) public speech happened first, only then could private speech happen; 2) misunderstanding of ourselves only seems to precede misunderstanding of each other, because we believe that private speech precedes public speech; 3) since spontaneity was not possible based on these premises, there was little room for authentic human speech.

January 24, 2014

January 24, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

This writing continues the line of thought developed yesterday. Particularly, this author wants to emphasize the strong behaviorist evidence that exists in favor of verbally saying, writing, thinking, interpreting and understanding after nonverbal behavior or direct contact with the world has happened. In behaviorism, the functional relationship between doing and saying is called correspondence. So, my dear reader, get this: there was first doing then talking about doing. Because of drought people had to move away to find water. Migration behavior is a function of the availability of food and other resources. Language is a function of movement. This is easy to see when one moves away from one’s country, from what was historically one’s verbal community.

This author has always felt a strong resistance against quoting what someone else has said or written or referring to their research. To him it is just as relevant to refer to what his mother, his father or his sisters and brothers have said, than what Skinner or any other researcher has said or written. This writer finds what someone says more important than what someone writes. He is interested in spoken communication. Written communication is only relevant to him if it leads to spoken communication and since this is usually not the case, most of what is written doesn’t interest this writer at all. This writer is not busy with what someone wrote if this person was not willing to talk with him. Those who wrote in such a way that he felt they were speaking with him are also not authors he is inclined to quote, because what they said was simply something which he liked. Other people don’t need to quote this writer for what he has said. He doesn’t require others to quote him. He wants others to have their own part of the conversation and he is not interested in making them say what he has already said. 

What the world looks like is very different when one realizes that there was first behavior and only then understanding. This is completely opposed to what people think. Most people, even highly educated ones, believe against all the available evidence that what we do is caused by how we think, by an internal imaginary agent, by something inside of us. Our internal locus of control refers to something inner, which we presumably possess and  causes us to behave in a particular way. External locus of control refers to when we are determined by our environment and not by what we supposedly choose ourselves. 

When it comes to causation of behavior the majority of people have it completely wrong. We don’t cause our own behavior. Behavior is caused by our environment. Only after we have done something cab we begin to talk about it. The illusion that we first talk with ourselves and that our actions are preceded and determined by this self-talk, prevents us from changing. Our behavior has become extremely rigid due to how we view ourselves and each other. If one can only for one moment entertain the notion that nobody is or can be responsible for their own behavior, that there is in fact no such thing as my behavior or your behavior, that there is only behavior, one recognizes what a strange conundrum we put ourselves and each other in. We don’t possess our behavior, nor do we own our own feelings, thoughts or language. The issue of ownership doesn’t arise because all of our verbal behavior belongs to our verbal community and has no existence outside of this community. 

We can change behavior quite easily once we recognize that behavior isn’t caused by us. Once we recognize what causes behavior, our behavior begins to change. The fact that behavior doesn’t change or changes for the worse means that we don’t know what causes it. Unintended consequences may be unintended, but they were caused by something. They were not caused by what we thought was causing them. Nothing of what we thought has caused our behavior. Behavior is not a function of what we think. Behavior such as walking is not caused by thoughts about walking. Behavior such as talking is not caused by thoughts about talking. Whether we are going to walk may be a function of whether the weather is good. Whether we are going to talk may be a function of whether someone likes us. The nonverbal aspect of behavior isn’t given its proper place. Verbal behavior is a function of our nonverbal experience. 

Human beings have existed for a long time without language before language evolved. Each child is born nonverbal and only later becomes verbal. Our infatuation with our language is such that we disconnect from our biology, our body, our here and now experience. There are many reasons for that, but none of those have anything to do with our so-called inner self. Our identity didn’t and couldn’t cause our behavior. Our body was in a particular place, in a particular circumstance, in a particular situation, with certain people or without them and this caused us to behave. We did what we did not because of ourselves but because of others. No matter how inconsiderate we are toward others, we want to be esteemed by others.

January 23, 2014

January 23, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

Although the experiment with different letter types is officially over, this writer today chooses to write with the letter type “Old English Text” because he hadn’t yet used it. In terms of how letter types determine what one writes, this is an interesting and unexpected addition to the previous experiment. Writing with different letter types led to the observation that what one writes is a function of multiple discriminative stimuli: writing is preceded by antecedent stimuli (the letter type) and followed by consequences (what is written). Initially, the experiment was based on an accidental discovery that there was a difference between when this writer wrote with a pen and when he wrote with keyboard. This discovery was emphasizing the consequence.

Because the experimentation was experienced as reinforcing, this writer came to recognize a difference in the content between what was hand-written with a pen and what was key-boarded and put in a file called “Typed Journal.” Because he felt so familiar and comfortable with writing with a pen, he was more inclined to write in his hand-written journal. While experimenting, he discovered, however, there was not only a big difference between what he had written with a pen and key-boarding, but but also between the parts of his journal that were written with a pen and those parts that were written with a pencil. Witnessing this huge difference was so inspiring that the author became curious about what he would write with different letter types. 

In the beginning, he preferred his handwritten journal over his key-boarded journal, but this changed during the experiment because he realized there were many letter types to choose from on his lap top computer. Due to his positive experience of key-boarding, this writer began to like his key-boarded journal so much that he gave up on his hand-written journal. Moreover, he became much less apprehensive about his writing. He had always felt uncertain about his writing, but during this process of experimentation, this uncertainty dissolved. This happened, as stated, due to the   reinforcing and revealing consequences of his writing, which kept his exploration going. This writer wrote with many different letter types, each time anticipating a different outcome. His prediction worked, but only up to a point. The experiment came to an end when choosing a new letter type became a boring routine for him.

Actually, the experimentation only momentarily came to an end. It continued, but in a different manner. After he noticed that choosing a different letter type, which had been a stable variable in his experimentation, was no longer reinforcing, he didn’t like the pressure which seemed to come with writing with a new letter-type. He felt this pressure because he wanted his discovery to be consistent over time. Consequently, his writing had become a function of the thoughts that had been preceding his writing. Thus, a change in the consequence, which was no longer reinforcing to him, had led to a change in the antecedent thought processes that preceded his written responses.

When this writer decided this morning that he didn’t have to choose a new letter type, he felt immediate relief. Because of this reinforcing consequence, his writing was now preceded by verbal self-talk stimuli of being off the hook. By recognizing, while writing about it, how consequences affect his preceding self-talk stimuli, it became apparent that, even though writing had happened as a response, it had not gotten much attention. What had been written at one moment as a function of antecedent stimuli was written at another moment as a function of post-cedent consequences. 

What was written or said can only be considered after it was written or said. Writing about writing happens after writing and speaking about speaking happens after speaking. Besides, speaking about speaking can only happen after if there was listening, and writing about writing can only happen after there was reading. Before writing there was no writing and nothing to be read. Before speaking there was no speech and nothing to be listened to.  This is not to say that nothing happened before speech or that nothing made speech happen. Life in the verbal community was already happening before we individually learned how to speak and write. Language was taught to us by competent members of our verbal community. Their knowledge and skills in speaking and writing preceded our knowledge and skills in speaking and writing. We can only begin to talk and write about that after we have learned how to talk and after we have learned how to write. We will not be inclined to talk much about talking if there was not much talking about talking in our verbal community. We will not we be inclined to write much about writing if there was not much writing about writing in our verbal community. Such constraints affected our reading and listening, because we were conditioned by talking, which didn’t involve much talking about talking and by writing, which didn’t involve much writing about writing.