May 1, 2014

May 1, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader,

Today’s writing concludes this author’s response to the paper "Values and the Science of Culture of Behavior Analysis”(2007) by Ruiz and Roche. Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and SVB only can provide the necessary verbaland nonverbal contingencies that produce healthy behavior appropriate to all of mankind. Forget for one moment about our behaviorist community and our insolated academic environments. Except for their knowledge of behaviorism, discussion of behaviorists among themselves about values isn’t any different from discussion among non-behaviorists. As rate of responding of SVB for behaviorists isn’t any higher than for non-behaviorists, it can be concluded that knowledge of behaviorism doesn’t lead to any better communication. Behaviorists haven’t been able to make contact with contingencies that set the stage for nuanced academic discussions. 

The philosophical differences, laid out by Ruiz and Roch, should be seen as ways of speaking. Since scientists mainly write and publish papers and read and study the work of others, they often overlook the obvious fact that contingencies pertaining to what they say when they speak and listen, are different from the contingencies that set the stage for what they write when they write and read. In other words, written words do not and cannot bridge the gap between our written and our spoken communication. To believe otherwise flies in the face of the empirical evidence that behaviorists have gathered. This author insists that we must speak with each other to explore the contingencies which pertain to SVB and NVB. Only by our participation in spoken communication can we make discriminative learning possible.

Based on hundreds of seminars and individual sessions that this author conducted over the years and based on his clinical work with those who were diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder etc., he is convinced that the rules of evidence of scientific inquiry are absolutely adequate to screen out personal, social or cultural influences, but only if Skinner’s thesis of Verbal Behavior is extended with the distinction between SVB and NVB. The last thing any behaviorist needs is another written and therefore meaningless discussion about the general ways in which values can influence practitioners and scientists. Skinner has specifically emphasized that behavior doesn’t depend on prior choice of any value. The summarization of the potential of the value system to guide the actions of behavior analysts is counterproductive, because the lists of values can only be considered as the lists of reinforcers during SVB. In NVB, that very same list, with the same words, is a function of something else. Objectivity as a function of the communal structure of scientific inquiry requires behaviorists to consider how they individually, as whole organisms, are affected by public speech. Also the individual behavior of scientists is still maintained by environmental variables.

When this author once spoke with Hayes it was immediately evident that Hayes wished to remain private about his "value-based personal goals". Hayes is into self-glorification, but is anti-communitarian. After supposedly "achieving his personal values", he declines accountability to the scientific community and justifies his stance with a presumed passion for helping people, when in reality, he is only helping himself. Ruiz and Roche interest in social issues and commitment to promoting progressive practices with a view towards a better future, like Skinner, on the other hand, is more toward the  SVB side of the continuum. That is why they bring in John Dewey.

Dewey, who considered "the highest form of authority the agreement that could be reached by the members of a (verbal) community by means of open, non-coercive communication", was not interested in the truth, but he focused rather on verification. He presented a version of discrimination learning, which he described as a "better justificatory ability". This is congruent with SVB. Moreover, when he writes about speaking, he argues that it "is better to deal with the doubt about what we are saying, by shoring up what we have previously said or by deciding to say something different". Here Dewey seems to indicate the process of recognizing NVB as NVB, so that we can move on again with SVB. He conceives, like this author, of the possibility of continuing with SVB and he describes this process by saying: "moral progress is a matter of wider and wider sympathy."

This author, however, doesn’t think it is very useful to talk about moral progress. It is much more effective to talk about improved communication. If what Dewey suggests happens, we experience improved communication in which we are sounding good, because we are neither negatively influencing each other, nor are we aversively influenced by each other. When we are safe, understood and mutually reinforced, our spoken communication no longer elicits fight, flight or freeze responses. To the contrary, SVB makes more SVB possible and more likely. Our voices and our other nonverbal behaviors elicit autonomic responses, which trigger the communication of positive emotions.

This writer thanks Ruiz and Roche (2007) for bringing this important information together. He would like to talk with them during a skype conversation about the importance of SVB and NVB, the two universally recognized organizing principles of our verbal behavior. This writer has not before responded so elaborately to any behaviorist' writing and is grateful for the fact that this response was evoked. He is convinced that we have the shared goals of being part of one mankind.

April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

Also in today’s entry this writer continues his response to the wonderful paper written by Ruiz en Roche in 2007, in which they, among other things, explain why survival is the ultimate criterion to assess the worth of a culture. Yet, conflict between survival and traditional cultural values prevents people from adopting this explanation. Whether people believe it or not, the earth is round and not the center of the universe. Likewise, whether we believe it or not, behaviors are selected for by adaptation to the environment, because we somehow try to survive. 

Survival is also the most important criterion by which we should evaluate Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is pragmatic to consider SVB and NVB as two different cultures. In this way, we begin to recognize and understand that what is good for SVB isn’t good for NVB and visa versa. Moreover, the public conflict between different cultures becomes visible in the light of the how we deal with different cultures privately. In this sense, we express in our interactions that we have survived because we have always belonged to more than just one culture. Our ability to flexibly shift between cultures is why we have survived, but our inability to do so has led to and is going to lead to our demise.

As we didn’t have a behaviorist/evolutionary/environmental account, we have only been able to think about SVB and NVB culture in terms of belonging to one culture or the other. The fact is, however, that we belong to both. We need to belong to both and we can’t afford to belong to only just one or the other. The issue of dominant versus minority culture sheds light on what is going on: NVB is the dominant culture and SVB is the minority culture. 

Depending on the circumstances a person grows up in, he or she has lived alternatively in a SVB and NVB culture. Some people grow up with a lot of SVB culture, others with very little. If one grew up in a family in which NVB was more represented, then SVB communicators will be considered out-group and NVB communicators will be considered the in-group. To the extent that one moves away from one’s original dominant culture, one will experience conflict with one’s own, dominant culture. This author, who grew up in a family in which there was, in spite of the many things that were wrong, more SVB than in most other families, discovered SVB because the stage was set early on by the way in which he grew up. However, it didn’t lead to better relations with his family members, to the contrary, it made him decide to sever all ties with his family. This decision came after years and years of struggle for acceptance. It is only now that this author can understand that he has left his old culture and that his immigration to the United States has broken a pattern, which had been kept into place by cultural contingencies. 

Survival, as a criterion by which a culture is to be evaluated, is objected to, because people imagine and want to continue to believe that they cause their own behavior. Regardless of what culture one belongs to, this grandiose fantasy can only be maintained by a NVB culture and will be extinguished by a SVB culture. Those who insist on what is right are as resistant to SVB as to survival, as a way of explaining what they do and why they do it. Thus, SVB is at odds with every culture, because it allows all cultures to converge in a new way of communicating which transcends our hang-ups with culture. SVB cannot be eradicated because innate behaviors make us do whatever it takes to be safe. No matter how much NVB we have, our need for SVB is there, because it is our natural inclination. No matter how forceful our cultural conditioning has been, it wears off while we survive.

The claim that science can and should contribute to the assessment of cultural matters relies on SVB to provide us with evidence. Factual bases of cultural standards are not justified by NVB. In NVB there is no need for justification, because slave drivers will hit slaves into submission whenever they want. Oppressors think they were destined to coerce. The powerful continue to force and humiliate the powerless, because they think they are better than them. In NVB one's place in the social hierarchy, is constantly reiterated.

NVB is not communication. The slave only keeps working for the slave owner to save his life. Only to stay alive do the oppressed adhere to the rules of the oppressor. Only to imagine a better, happier life, do the powerless rely on their belief in a higher power. NVB might as well be called the language of co-dependence, in which the enabler enables the enabled and in which the enabled continuously demand to be enabled. Because we have not dealt with the cultural differences between SVB and NVB, we use coercion as as our main way of behavioral control. Along with our forceful way of communicating, NVB continues our denial of the science of human behavior, which teaches that our behavior was, is and will continue to be maintained by environmental variables. 

 

The critics of Skinner, who have argued that his naturalistic ethics cannot deliver what it promises, are totally wrong. They are still side-tracked by their metaphysical matters, because they don’t fully grasp the need to functionally define our value-laden concepts. It is not a matter of agreeing with Skinner that there is no distinction between facts and values or that there should be such a distinction. In SVB there is no distinction, but in NVB there is this distinction. In SVB this distinction doesn’t arise, but in NVB it creates a smoke screen, which hides the fact that people are reinforced for what is working only for them, while they use and abuse others as a means to their end. Critics of Skinner always do so to protect their own interests. And, behaviorists who disagree with Skinner’s formulation of‘good', are more inclined to NVB than to SVB. Such behaviorists  almost reflexively come up with fabricated conflict situations, which supposedly provide the proof of whether a particular formulation is helpful in such a situation or not and can tell us what we ought to do. Again, the issue of what we presumably ought to do arises only in NVB, but it doesn’t even arise in SVB. In SVB, we tell ourselves what to do, but in NVB others will continue to tell us what to do.

Although we tell ourselves what we ought to do during SVB, this was made possible because others allowed us to have SVB. We were taught SVB in a very different way than we were taught NVB. While learning the former, we felt safe, accepted and supported, but while learning the latter, we were forced, rejected and punished. What people see as their personal values were never separate from environmental cultural facts, due to which these personal values were acquired in the first place. Thus, Skinner’s functional analysis of values in terms of reinforcers is rejected by those who mainly have NVB. Those who are involved in SVB, however, know it is the inclusion of other cultures which makes SVB possible. Therefore, those who know how to have SVB would never reject Skinner’s view of cultural relativism.

Adherence to contextualism is a consequence of how we talk about our private events. SVB involves the inclusion and expression of our private, covert speech in public, overt speech. NVB is based on the  exclusion of our private speech from our public speech. In NVB, the idea of personal values, which set the stage for contextualism, is a big deal, but in SVB it isn’t. Over-emphasis on what is presumably personal or private occurs when it is not accurately represented in how we talk. It should come as no surprise that in NVB people talk a great deal about personal values, that is, about themselves (some psychologists have termed this image-management), but in SVB people talk mainly about each other. In other words, people are free from their obsession with themselves in SVB. A range of personal valued ends emerge from the examples that are given by Hayes: "to experience the harmony of events; to experience the connection among events; to produce a consistency of beliefs; to understand and make sense of the world; to feel personally satisfied; to manipulate and control phenomena; to survive as a species, individual or culture; to look intelligent; to speak nonsense; to get put into the mental hospital." The first values seem to describe typical SVB events, but towards the end of the list we read more and more examples of NVB. This author thinks Hayes would be happier if he stopped trying so hard to carve out and defend his niche in behaviorism. This author suggests for him to experience the great difference between SVB and NVB.

The epistemological gulf which is believed to exist between the contextualists and the non-contextualists is just another example of NVB. The gulf only exists for those who talk in a NVB manner, or rather, for those who can’t talk in any other way than in their own way. Unless they are instructed by someone who is capable of pointing out the difference between NVB and SVB, they will not even be able to respond to the contingencies of reinforcement that make SVB possible!

Matters can only be communicated meaningfully in SVB, but NVB keeps setting us apart. What we say is not as important as we think it is, because how we say it always provides the context. The context of what we say is perceived either as friendly or adversarial. When after tiring discussions, in which we couldn’t go anywhere, the suggestion is made that we should adopt the contextual view, we will be able to understand that we are dismissing the simple fact that we are not communicating. NVB is meaningless talk which prevents action. Only behaviorists who adopt the SVB/NVB distinction understand that in NVB, we can talk until we are blue and still not get anywhere. 

It is not the acceptance of the mentalist psychological community that behaviorists should be after, but rather whether behaviorism is going to be able to demonstrate that there actually is such a thing as real interaction. The claim of immunity to moral responsibility by contextualists is based on the pretension of interaction, which perpetuates meaningless discussions in the behavior-analytic community. Just because contextualists are going against radical behaviorism is not guaranteeing openness or enlightenment. As long as the distinction between SVB and NVB remains unaddressed, we can only expect more beating around the verbal bush in the name of ethics. The perpetuation all our so-called controversies is always a function of Machiavellian valued ends, which, of course, ideally remain hidden by the outward presentations of our morally upstanding citizenship. 

It is often stated that the pragmatic philosophy by Machiavelli can be used for good as well as for evil, but this author doesn’t think that it has led to any good. It certainly has redefined good and this is exactly what we should pay attention to. Good, as defined by Machiavelli, means to obtain one’s personal, private goals by any means necessary. This reference to private covert speech that serves as a discriminative stimulus for public verbal reports, naturally involves complete disregard for public accountability. It should be noted that Machiavellians are not only disinterested in bridging the schism, which they themselves keep orchestrating, butthey are also incapable of bridging the gap between them and the community, which is getting wider and wider. They miss the skill to do that. As they set the standard for how people communicate, they maintain and elicit NVB. Even in our so-called open discussions in which we attempt to find ways to improve the lives of others, we adhere mainly to NVB. In NVB there is always a predetermined agenda which prevents dialogue.  

April 29, 2014

April 29, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

In today’s writing this writer continues to let his writing be under discriminative control of the content of the paper that was written by Ruiz and Roche in 2007. In that paper the importance of dialogue was emphasized in reference to values and making ethical decisions. The section of that paper which detailed the radical behaviorist account, began with a quote by B.F. Skinner that was taken from his book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity”. He said “What a given group calls [italics added by Ruiz and Roche] ‘good’ is a fact; It is what members of the group find reinforcing.”

It must be mentioned that the behaviorist community is not interested in exploring the contingencies of spoken communication, because it would require behaviorists to talk. Like most mentalist scientists, what behaviorists mean by the dialogue which Ruiz and Roche refer to, is: writing, publishing, reading, studying and then, more writing. In other words, behaviorists, like other scientists, don’t talk. This writer has tried to talk with each of the well-known behaviorists, but no one wanted to or had time for it! Therefore, the so-called 'good' that most behaviorists subscribe to and find so reinforcing, is exactly the same as most mentalists, namely, academic validation and resources for research. As behaviorists and non-behaviorists live in the same academic environment, they only produce more and more papers that are mainly read by the members of their own group.

The survival of spoken communication as a culture depends on the contingencies that are its values. To put it squarely, NVB has no values whatsoever, because it doesn’t need to have them. Values purported by those involved in NVB are only a means to their end, which belongs to those who can exploit, oppress and coerce others.

In SVB, values like attention for nonverbal communication (which is needed for accurate conscious verbal expresssion); reciprocation (the understanding that we are each other’s environment, by which we are influenced and which we ourselves influence); turn-taking (between listener and speaker, in which speakers become listeners voluntarily and listeners are invited to and stimulated to become speakers); congruence (between what we say and how we say it); alignment (of verbal and nonverbal expression); and inclusion (of private speech in public speech), are there because these values translate in higher levels of accountability of speakers as well as listeners. 

In NVB, in which there is no accountability, values are used to manipulate those who want SVB, in which everyone is accountable. Skinner was explicit about the survival value of any culture. He made it clear, however, that nobody chooses survival as a criterion according to which a cultural practice is to be evaluated. Indeed, in operant conditioning we don't look for antecedent values to determine our choice of behavior. If communication is mutually reinforcing, then, due to the outcome of positive circumstances, it is more likely to occur in the future. Yet, circumstances in which SVB is reinforced are rare. They only happen accidentally, occasionally, but not deliberately, skillfully or reliably. Although we have experienced it, we haven’t looked into the difference between SVB and NVB enough to make this possible.

In spite of the fact that NVB is ubiquitous, SVB has survived. The reason for this is that SVB cannot be avoided. The nonverbal part of SVB, unlike its verbal part, is not to be learned, it is innate. How we sound and how our autonomic nervous system is responding, reflects our phylogenetic history (involuntary behavior), but what we say is operant and reflects our ontogenetic history (voluntary behavior). No matter how stressed we are, our biology, our bodies are geared toward escaping, reducing and avoiding it.                 

April 28, 2014

April 28, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

This journal entry is about an interesting paper, which I read yesterday. It was written by Maria R. Ruiz and Bryan Roche in 2007. The paper’s title was “Values and the Scientific Culture of Behavior Analysis.”It is one of those rare papers in which the authors write about the need to talk about matters more often. This is in line with Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). It appears that SVB is not only supported by Radical Behaviorism, but also by the American philosopher John Dewey, whose philosophical pragmatism focused on community and dialogue. The paper explains that ethical problems, which occur in situations with "conflicting outcomes", require behaviorists to talk with one another about values. Duh..

SVB suggests that we talk before the problems arise, so that we can prevent them. Thus, "conflicting outcomes" don’t arise in SVB. They only arise in Noxious Verbal Behavior, which makes SVB impossible. Moreover, SVB categorizes these so-called "conflicting outcomes" differently than Dewey, Skinner, or the authors of this paper. "Value-based decision-making" in behavior-analytic practices as well as in ordinary life depend on SVB. The absence of SVB and the ubiquity of NVB make us gloss over ethical dilemmas, because we don’t explore the contingencies of reinforcement which make either one possible. When SVB is present, NVB is absent and visa versa. Our lack of conversation signifies contingencies which only support NVB. 

If decisions lead to "conflicting outcomes", certain independent variables have not been taken into consideration, the one's which produce these outcomes. In SVB our way of communicating itself is the value which guides our decision making. In NVB, on the other hand, this value is absent, because the way in which we communicate, in speech and writing, is bound to give rise to "conflicting outcomes."

SVB is explained by B.F. Skinner, who dismisses the distinctions that many philosophers make between values and facts. Essential to SVB is the absence of aversive stimulation. Aversive stimulation is always present in NVB. Consequently, only in SVB can we feel safe, but in NVB we always feel threatened. And, in SVB we make each other feel safe, in other words, we regulate each other, but in NVB we upset, frighten, intimidate and dis-regulate each other.

In SVB we talk as equals, but in NVB we are not equal. In SVB we, that is, the speakers, are accountable to the listener, who may also become a speaker, but in NVB the speakers are not accountable to the listener, who are not allowed to become a speaker, or who may only talk in a way which is permitted the dominant, coercive speaker. In SVB we speak with each other, but in NVB we speak at each other. In SVB we don’t see the values and facts as different, because there is congruence between what we say and how we say it. Yet, in both SVB and in NVB, what we say is a function of how we say it. 

From the previous description Skinner’s "naturalistic ethics" seems to have emerged. After all, to survive we must feel safe and feel  supported by others. The SVB culture promotes the security of others, but the NVB culture promotes a hostile way of life in which everyone is out for themselves. In NVB private and public speech are separate. In NVB, attempts are made to elicit the private speech of others, while one is hiding one’s own. One always has covert speech which occurs, as Skinner has said, within one’s own skin, but it is quite another thing when one’s personal values, one’s private speech, is hidden to avoid accountability. This "Machiavellian pragmatism" is aimed at furthering one’s own cause at all cost.

It is interesting to reflect on the course of events that took place when this writer contacted Steven Hayes, a behaviorist who developed Relational Frame Theory (RFT). In his search for a behaviorist who would talk with him, this writer had emailed Hayes, who responded and arranged to have a skype-conversation. In the paper, Hayes is described as adhering to a "contextual philosophical framework" rather than a "relational frame". This makes total sense to this writer, who spoke with him. The time he had been given to contact him was when Hayes was apparently having a short break at a conference. It was noisy and this writer could see people walking up and down behind Hayes, who appeared on the screen and sounded stressed. As this writer tried to converse with this man, Hayes was distracted and was also talking with people near him. When this writer remarked that this affected the conversation Hayes didn’t care. The conversation had been unsatisfying and this writer made attempts to speak with him again, but Hayes was too busy. It was clear, however, that Hayes didn’t like to be put on the spot about his way of communicating. This writer is very experienced in recognizing such tendencies since he has worked with thousands of individuals. Hayes, who in the short conversation was bragging about the fact that his research reached his analytic goals, adhered to my-way-or-the-highway pragmatism. This writer, who initially believed there was some overlap between RFT and SVB, felt that Hayes is on some kind of narcissistic guru-trip. 

The apparent crossing of the paths of Hayes and this writer makes something clear about SVB and NVB: the two never meet. If this would have been a point agreement,however, our paths would and could have met. Behaviorists should be able to agree with each other that different contingencies set the stage for SVB or NVB. Scientists like Hayes, who are no longer accountable to others in the scientific or the broader community, must necessarily develop a pseudo-science that departs from the social context from which it arose. 

It is important to understand that one can have SVB, the next moment NVB and the next moment SVB again, but it is impossible to have SVB and NVB simultaneously. The shift of the contingencies which makes SVB or NVB possible is determined by different behavioral histories of all those involved. A person, who, like this author, sang opera for many years, is more likely to listen to his or her voice while he or she speaks, than someone who doesn’t have such a history. It took a person with a history in singing, to become aware of environmental stimuli that affected his voice, while trying to sound as good as possible. This made him pay attention to the sound of his voice while he speaks. Only such a person could discover SVB and NVB, the two ways of behaving verbally that are mutually exclusive. 

To illustrate how political values often guide scientific decision making, Ruiz and Roche mention "feminist science." However, no mention is made of the different contingencies of reinforcement that set the stage for such scientific or political activity. To become aware of the social context, we must not only talk, but we must talk in an entirely different way. Those who are open to SVB will realize that scientific knowledge is necessarily linked to the social context in which it was conceived. Our way of talking continuously makes it seem otherwise. NVB dissociates us from the reality, but SVB, which allows us to embody our communication, brings us in touch with the contingencies of reinforcement which make it possible.

One reason why NVB continues to dominate across the globe is that written words cannot bridge the gap between our spoken and written language. Although these words address this gap, the gap can be overcome only during our spoken interaction. Little has been said, but a lot has been written, about the need for science to participate more in the social context. Most likely, the little that was said was NVB. Our common lack of consideration for the causal environmental influences of human behavior goes hand in hand with the fact that NVB has not yet been distinguished from SVB. Consequently, we adhere to a way of communicating, in which we pretend to be communicating. We have accepted as normal something which, by any scientific standard, is abnormal, because it is so stress and anxiety-provoking. 


No matter how much has been written about it, serious, open dialogue is not happening, because we don’t recognize our verbal behavior is mostly NVB. As long as this continues, we are aversively influencing each other and inclined to move away from each other and retreat into our well-defended niches. "Ethical decision making" is done only by those who can afford to come out. Those who come out of their niche, must move beyond their old ways of communicating. However, they will be able to produce SVB only if they don’t compulsively go back to their old way of communicating. In SVB communicators express a new order of things, but NVB communicator will adhere to the old order. In SVB we can conceptualize "valued ethical decisions" because we have stopped NVB, which prevented us from making such decisions.

This writer knows that the reader most likely will be puzzled by his descriptions of SVB. Perhaps the reader even experiences a sense of frustration about not really understanding how SVB works. If this happens to be the case, this writer has achieved one of his goals. In no way is this writing intended to fully explain SVB to the reader. It can’t do that, no writing can explain SVB. SVB is something the reader must experience. Understanding happens of its own accord when SVB takes place, but understanding is secondary to experiencing it. At best this writing makes the reader want to experience SVB. This writer would love to actually talk with the reader to explain SVB.