February 2, 2015

February 2, 2015 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer 

Dear Reader, 

Although this writer considers himself to be a verbal behaviorologist or a verbal behaviorist, he is neither representing radical behaviorism, which has verbal behavior as its crowning jewel nor the natural science of human behavior called behaviorology. These are only important to him, because they explain why he has found what he has found. 

When he read Walden II  (1948), one of B.F. Skinner's books, he was delighted, because it confirmed what he had already believed to be possible.  When he became aware of the incompatibility of psychology and behaviorism, he sighed with great relief of having found his theoretical home. Although he postponed reading Verbal Behavior (1957), because he knew he needed to be better prepared to be able to understand it, he was excited to read papers which referred to this important work, as he felt validated by this environmental account of how we behave verbally. 

When, after studying radical behaviorism, he stumbled upon behaviorology, he realized what had taken mankind so long to establish the science of human behavior: academics are only reinforced for writing and reading, but not for talking and listening.  This is where the rubber hits the road. Academics accuse those who are not yet familiar with their discipline of wanting to learn by means of talking. Non-academics are told that if they want to say something, they must first write it down. Moreover, they are given the false impression that they will be listened to once they are read. To make this imaginary event happen, they have to submit a paper. Of course, they will first have to understand what submit means to those who call the shots in academia. They will say it means to present, to propose or to put forward. This writer, however, doesn’t experience the feedback he is receiving as an invitation to do that. According to him, he is being asked to succumb, to acquiesce, to surrender, to bow down and to give in. Spoken words presumable are of no importance at all....only written words are. 

Dear Reader, 

What follows requires some context. As I became more familiar with radical behaviorism and then behaviorology, I knew that this was what I had been looking for academically, but had not been able to find. It was such a delight to study on my own behaviorist literature that I tried to contact the behaviorists and behaviorologists, whose papers and books I had read. Although the majority was not interested in conversation with me, with some I got positive responses. Low and behold, this was especially the case with behaviorologists. Initially, I had good phone and skype conversations and email exchanges with behaviorologist, who obviously were also excited to hear that someone was interested in their work. I felt so validated that I decided to call myself a Verbal Behaviorologist. 

In spite of its validity and pragmatism, behaviorism and behaviorology are virtually ignored in the world of academia. Many papers have been written to address this unresolved issue, but none of them focused on how we talk. As I continued to discuss with behaviorologists why it is necessary to talk about the SVB/NVB distinction instead of only reading and writing about it,  I received an admonishing email from Stephen Ledoux, who told me that I was not allowed to call myself a Verbal Behaviorologist. What now follows is my response (in cursive) to that email.  

Dear Stephen, 

Enthusiasm and misrepresentation 

You start out with “enthusiasm”, which in my view refers to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), but then you add “misrepresentation”, which brings in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). In other words, you start out with inconsistency, because, already in the heading of your email, you are switching back and forth between SVB and NVB. Although this is very common and happens all the time, this is also the very reason why SVB can never increase. Unless we recognize that NVB stops SVB and makes it irrelevant, SVB will not be able to continue. Unless NVB stops, SVB cannot and will not continue. Because we haven’t been able to stop NVB, our SVB happens at a very low rate of responding.  Also, because we don’t even know that when SVB starts, NVB stops and that when NVB starts, SVB stops, we have no clue how this makes us miss out on higher rates of SVB, which would enhance human relationship.  

  

Thank you for your well-intended feedback. I never claimed to be fully knowledgeable about behaviorology . If people have this impression, this is because they have not talked with me and rely only on what I have written. I have never told anyone to rely on what I have written, but instead I have always insisted on verification by talking with each other, because only in conversation can we discriminate the contingency for SVB and NVB. My writings are meant to get people to talk with me.

I use the label Verbal Behaviorologist, which I came up with myself, and which, as far as I know, isn’t used by anyone, to bring attention to the universal patterns of vocal verbal behavior, which I call SVB and NVB. To deny that these patterns exist, flies in the face of everyday reality. It is amazing that people like yourself, who are educated in the science of how all behavior is a function of environmental variables, should have any trouble recognizing that these patterns are present and urgently need to be addresses, that is, reinforced. Although you or others, who didn’t have enough conversation with me or who refused to talk with me altogether, may not realize that the SVB/NVB distinction is an extension of verbal behavior and is explained by behaviorology, I still insist that if we would talk more, we would be able to recognize these mutually exclusive and obviously distinct response classes.  

In both the email as well as in the phone conversation we had recently, there was mostly NVB and little SVB. Both communications were mainly characterized by a verbalizer, in this case you, who talked at, but not with me, the mediator. It was very clear that you were not the least interested in me being the verbalizer. As a matter of fact, I have the impression that what I have written has rattled the chains of a lot of self-absorbed people, who for all their great knowledge and status, are unwilling to have genuine conversation with each other or with me. By completely ignoring the content of the email which I recently send, in which I requested to have the opportunity to verbally present my SVB thesis, and by accusing me of unfair misrepresentation, I am being punished and I should, according to you, decrease and stop my writing.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for behaviorology, and am glad that you found my intro text of interest, out of respect for full disclosure I wanted you to know what I thought needed to be said to people to whom you are unfairly representing yourself as someone fully informed about the natural science of behavior, especially the verbal behavior part of it, although I sincerely hope that someday you do come to be fully informed about it (which is a worthwhile reason to maintain communication). 

I have never presented myself as someone who is fully informed about the natural science of behavior and if verbal behavior theorists take offense to what I am writing, let them write me back and at least have a ‘sublimated’ written conversation with me. Don’t you realize that this total unwillingness to talk is as superficial as people who are nowadays only just texting, face-booking and tweeting each other? I do deeply respect your writing in which you state your case. This is my response. I am still reading your book, I am learning, but I don’t have the means for another graduate study. Besides, I have found what I was looking for. To me it all makes sense. Only those who talk with me can verify.

I will continue to learn about verbal behavior and behaviorology and radical behaviorism and remain hopeful that we will have the kind of conversation in which the validity of SVB and NVB can be determined once and for all. The problem which I address and which has not been addressed and is bound to rub many people the wrong way. Based on my experiments, it is clear that human relationship gets lost in translation because we keep failing to differentiate the great difference between spoken and written communication. Thus, it is not the proverbial child who is thrown out with the bath water, but it is the bathwater itself, the environment, which is repeatedly thrown out. The chances of that happening are less likely in spoken than in written communication.

If I alone was affected by this, I would have said this:

"As authors, we all know that our writings affect readers in different ways that we may agree with in some cases and not in others. In the case of Mr. Maximus Peperkamp, we wish to clarify that, while Mr. Peperkamp seems to take his views very seriously and sincerely, the facts remain that (a) he calls himself a behaviorologist but just doing so is insufficient to established credentials as a behaviorologist, (b) he neither represents nor speaks for the organized behaviorology community, and (c) he is not a member of the behaviorology[ organizations to which we belong. The personal views that he is promoting, inappropriately with the behaviorology label, are his own longstanding and independently developed conceptualizations, and while they may be valid, we cannot tell because they have not been submitted, so far as we can ascertain, for any formal natural science of behavior peer review."

Your writing shows exactly the point which I am making. You write “I would have said this…”, but you are not saying anything, you are writing this. In the first paragraph you repeat the switching back and forth pattern which was announced already in the heading. First you praise me a little, which is SVB, but then accuse me of inappropriately labeling myself, which is NVB. I appreciate the second paragraph in which you almost (may be it is just my wishful thinking?) seem to defend me. Again, first the mediator, me, is supposed to be mollified by a couple of SVB remarks, that we don’t have to agree with everything that is written and that Mr. Peperkamp takes his views very seriously and sincerely, but then follow some painful NVB rejections.    

I don’t disagree with and accept the criticism that a) calling myself a behaviorologist (actually a Verbal Behaviorologist) is insufficient to establish credentials as a behaviorologist. It simply felt reinforcing to me to call myself that and to have something to hang on to. As you know, I am still paying off huge loans for a study at a graduate school which was truly an example of misrepresentation. Where do I complain about that? The California Board of Behavioral Sciences (another misrepresentation) let me know that my Master of Science (M.S.) in Clinical Psychology from Palo Alto University (PAU) is worthless for transitioning into a Marriage and Family Therapy (M.F.T.) license or any other counseling position because all my classes were geared toward a Ph.D. that was focused on dealing with people with severe trauma and mental illness. My big mistake was that I had been attracted to what was presented as the Scientist Practitioner Model, but all I got was punitive treatment from scientifically ignorant, mentalistic professors employed by the cookie-cutter-psychology machine called PAU. By calling myself a Verbal Behaviorologist, I felt vindicated and I also acknowledged the link which exists and needs to be enhanced between verbal behavior and behaviorology. Moreover, it helped me to keep my head up in spite of the immense disappointment and financial set-back of not achieving my Ph.D. Ironically, I discovered behaviorism on my own, once I was out of the PAU program. I don’t claim to represent, but wish to communicate with the organized behaviorology community and I consider behaviorology as my theoretical home. I have read enough to know this, although I admit that my knowledge is incomplete. So, yes, b) I don’t speak for the behaviorology community and yes, c) I have no money to become a member of any behaviorology organization. However, I vehemently reject the false accusation that d) I am promoting my personal views, which are not congruent with behaviorology. Furthermore, I also object against the fallacy that a peer-reviewed article can suddenly miraculously make anything clear about the issue I wish to address, because reading about things is just not the same as talking about it. The contingencies pertaining to spoken communication are totally different from those pertaining to writing and reading. Didn’t Skinner often warn against the tendency to mix up and confuse different levels of analyses? 

Although I happily agree that I need to study more behaviorology and look forward to discovering all that I haven’t yet understood, and feel  supported by your guidance to study your book and may be one day will write an article, I have studied and read sufficiently to know that my independently developed conceptualizations of SVB and NVB are valid, even without any paper being written or published about it or without any behaviorologist acknowledging me. This conviction is not born out of fanaticism, but out of a dedication to and understanding of authentic human interaction.  All my attempts to speak with others were only to discover, explore and verify together the validity of my views about SVB and NVB. My insistence on speaking is because speaking is more pragmatic than writing. Much can and needs to be improved about how we communicate. Behaviorology and verbal behavior pave the way.         

However, Maximus, many others are also affected, and their preference was that just this be said:

      "Mr. Maximus Peperkamp seems to take his views very seriously and sincerely.  However, his statements do not reflect a behaviorological understanding of verbal behavior.  Although he calls himself a behaviorologist, he is not a member of our organized behaviorology community and neither represents it nor speaks for it."

Again, this is absolutely not meant fastidiously, but deeply serious. Supposedly, something was said, but, although it was put into quotation marks, nothing was said, only something was written.  Moreover, it wasn’t even written by those "many affected others", it was written by someone, who was their spokesperson, their representative, someone who supposedly voiced their opinion, who did the talking(?)for them. 

In SVB, in which we consider the verbal behavior at the level of the individual organism, nobody can be the voice for someone else, because each communicator has to be his or her own voice. In NVB, by contrast, in which we adhere to hierarchical differences, which are, by the way, just as fictitious and unscientific as inner agents, what one person says is supposedly more important than the other and consequently the assumption can be exploited and perpetuated that groups of individuals can be represented by someone, a leader, who is allowed to dominate the conversation. Although this may be mankind’s history, it is a deeply problematic history and not one which paints a bright future. Only with SVB, in which we are our own voice, can we leave our violent history behind, do we become truly verbal, are we real participants in the conversation, because we successively speak and listen and what’s more, speak and listen simultaneously. In SVB, we matter as individuals.  

  

Once behaviorologists will experience SVB, they are able to admit that their accusation, that my statements do not reflect a behaviorological understanding of verbal behavior, was wrong. What will become clear, however, was that their understanding of verbal behavior which didn’t include SVB and NVB was lacking. I agree that my statements take the issue of verbal behavior into new direction, but just because they don’t know about SVB what I know doesn’t mean at all that I am wrong. Just, for the record, the pattern of first giving a little SVB (Mr. Peperkamp seems to take his views very seriously and sincerely) and then a bucketful of NVB, is not my idea of having a nice conversation.  The switch from SVB to NVB is always made with words like "however"… 

Now I am sure that neither phrasing is fun, but they occur, not as an attack, but so that you can see how you are needlessly offending even those who would support your effort if you worked to develop it within the same scientific protocols in which others have to work (rather than making claims that don't yet fit right, and so rub folks the wrong way), because these protocols (e.g., peer review) help everyone and we have all benefited from participating in them. Please put your views up for proper and appropriate peer review by those already acknowledged by natural scientists of behavior as natural scientists of behavior. And remember that, however they respond, it will, as it should, only be to help you out of professional respect, which is of course a major part of why I write this to you. 

I appreciate that at least you are honest enough to acknowledge that either phrase is punishing me. Where is the support that you speak of? Who are these needlessly offended people and why didn’t they, as I have repeatedly asked, talk with me? Why didn’t we have any of the conversation in which these scientific protocols were explained and discussed? They are offended because I wrote something down. By doing this, I stepped on their toes. If I had continued to beg for a conversation, I would have never received anyone’s attention. I am not asking attention or stirring the pot for the effect, I have something which nobody has yet discussed. What are these claims that I make which rub people the wrong way? Why do they rub the wrong way? They are not intended to do that at all, if anything, they are intended to create the environment in which behaviorology is validated by our way of talking. Behaviorology is undermined by NVB. I can prove that. Nothing fits during NVB, although square pegs can be coerced into round holes. During SVB all communicators agree that things fit.

Having not said that, but having written that, I promise, I will put up my views for peer-review and I want to thank you for the invitation and encouragement. I admit, I can’t get anyone to talk with (=SVB) me and give me feedback (you talked at me=NVB). This sort of feedback coerces me into submission for peer-review. You are right, it isn’t fun, but I trust your appeal to professional respect and look forward to the feedback, which although some of it is written, is still mostly withheld. I seem to be below the standard to respond. How is that supposed to make me feel? I can handle it and I feel challenged. I want behaviorology to be known all over the world and it is to this bigger cause that I surrender.  Thank you again for being concerned enough about me to write to me.

After taking some time to think this through calmly, I feel confident that you will see how such steps in particular, and these events in general, can only help you discover how much behaviorology you know or not, and then making the effort to better learn more behaviorology will help clarify and define the parameters and quality of your interest areas. 

You thought right Stephen and I again feel appreciation for you. This is SVB. I will do as you say and learn more about behaviorology. I predict that my definitions and parameters, although objectionable to some, are not that far off and that those who, due to coercive behavioral histories, are no longer interested in conversation, have little or nothing to offer in terms of contributing to the quality of my area of interest.  

Of course some professionals, more experienced than I am, suggest that my writing you only reinforces those of your responses that are contributing to the problem. If that is true, then the consequence for me will be to see no progress, which will substantially weaken my writing responses; whether or not that happens depends on what steps you take, or not. I look forward to not being disappointed.

This is to me the most interesting part of your letter. Again, this is SVB to me. Thank you. If these other, supposedly more experienced, professionals were right, then you were wrong; but you were right and so, they were wrong. Although you are looking up to them (that is why you call them more experienced), it is apparent that you see progress differently as they do. You are willing to give me a chance and I will try not to disappoint you, while I stay true to findings which are not my own, but of thousands of people, who have come to know SVB and NVB.

Wishing you success in those endeavors, and hoping to hear about them as they progress (but not from mass mailings, which are a style that in my experience mostly undermines success [or maybe the letter-carrier just stuffs too much junk mail in my box]),

Thank you for your suggestions, which I will follow up on. I appreciate that you wish me success and hope to hear about my progress. That is SVB. What follows (between parenthesis) is again NVB. I just wanted to talk with people about what I have found, because it is important and it matches, but I was wrong in assuming that behaviorologists or radical behaviorists would be more inclined to talk with me. I had hoped that we would work things out while talking and I still think we can and should do that. I enjoy this writing although it doesn’t measure up to the joy of talking. If it makes people feel better, I will no longer call myself a  Verbal Behaviorologist.

Kind greetings,

Maximus Peperkamp  

February 1, 2015

February 1, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

Although this writer is accused by Stephen Ledoux, whose great book “Running Out Of Time” (2014) he is reading, that he is mis-representing behaviorology, he is not too worried about that, because he is also invited by him to write and submit an article to the peer-reviewed behaviorology journal. Even though this writer could of course do that, he still wants to make his point while talking. 

In an email to Ledoux he had explicitly written: “It is my goal to get in front of an examination committee so that I can verbally present my Sound Verbal Behavior thesis and discuss, explore, verify and experience with the committee members how we go back and forth between SVB and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) during our conversation. He still believes he deserves a Ph.D. for this. SVB and NVB are universal response classes.” In his response to him, Ledoux didn’t say a word about his request.  

The assumption that SVB could be validated by those who read about it goes against everything SVB stands for. If this writer is going to write about SVB, something he never thought he would, but which, due to his knowledge of behaviorology, he is now more inspired to, he is going to write that SVB is valid without any written approval. As he made clear in his email to Ledoux, he wants to talk about SVB with the examination committee, because that is the only situation in which SVB is going to make any sense. Ledoux, who in a recent phone-conversation even admitted that verbal theses presentations sometimes happen, ignored in his email this writer’s request, but he ought to know that this writer has legitimate reasons why he insists on being given the chance to bring in the context and point out the situation in which SVB can and will occur.

This writer was reminded of events that got him started many years ago as a facilitator of communication seminars. In The Hague, the town where he used to live in The Netherlands, a contest for new business owners was organized by the Chamber of Commerce. Three prices were awarded to the most promising business plan. This writer wrote a business plan. He didn’t know anything about behaviorism or behaviorology, but he knew that people sound good when they have real conversation with each other. 

In front of the jury, he gave a synopsis of why he believed the Sounds Good Method would work and would help everyone acquire a new and improved communication. Since he didn’t have any idea about the business side of being self-employed and giving seminars, he fabricated the costs for his office, travel, coffee, clothes, publications, employees, food and mailings and presented his fictitious investments and revenues to a puzzled crowd of business owners and listeners. 

It was immediately clear that everyone loved the idea he presented. The committee, which consisted of a director of the local newspaper, a catering company, a bank, an insurance company and an investment company, decided to create an extra price for him, because although it was apparent that his business plan was bogus, they were intrigued by how better communication could be achieved by sounding good. The extra price was that they would participate in a seminar which this writer would organize especially for them. They would try out if there was any merit in this writer's plan, which was more than just a business plan and in fact aimed at changing the entire world. They asked him to name his price, to pick a date and then they would show up. This writer knew someone who owned a big mansion. He rented her beautiful house for one afternoon and bought delicious foods, wine, cigars and whiskey. The business people arrived and were very impressed. This dressed-up writer talked with them and they mellowed out and became unusually relaxed. 

When the three hours were over, it seemed as if time had flown by and the seminar was suddenly finished. It was a shock as they had just began to enjoy themselves. They complained they didn’t yet understand  what this writer had been doing and how it all worked. He had, as he is still doing today, only asked them to listen to themselves while they speak. This allowed them to hear themselves and produce a sound which was not as stressed as their usual sound. Because of the novel, positive experiences that occurred, a sense of bonding had happened between these ambitious individuals, who otherwise would never spend that long time sitting, talking and having a great time. They were amazed, confused and delighted that communication could be so simple, effective and enjoyable. 

They unanimously agreed that it was valuable, but felt they didn’t grasp it and so they asked this writer to organize another seminar. Another seminar took place and this writer was able to take them into deeper relaxation and more exploration. They had many tangible experiences of what he now calls Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). They were stunned. By the way, they were not drunk or anything, they just enjoyed a glass of wine or whiskey. The end of the second seminar came again so quickly that they asked for another one. In this fashion, they participated in a total of five seminars with this writer. They just loved it and they kept in contact with each other and with this writer.  They went golfing together, they went to a spa together and they went to have breakfast together. During each of these fun events what had been learned was further elaborated. 

Meanwhile, the investor had lost a lot of money when the stock-market had crashed, but she was supported by the group; the newspaper director, had a stroke and was visited by the group and realized that he needed to make some serious changes to live a healthier life; the catering director decided to sell his company and he started a diving school in Aruba. This was something he had always wanted to do; and the other two, the bank director and the insurance director, they were doing well. 

These five people who were in this writer’s first seminars, gave him an enormous boost and gave him contacts with other clients. It is important to realize that even while this writer didn’t know about behaviorism or behaviorology, he was already creating an environment in which verbal behavior could be addressed and changed. His longing for such an environment and the sheer joy of seeing that SVB worked with so many different people led him to create such environments again and again. 

Soon after he had started his company, which was called “Open Communication”, he was already working within the Dutch Department of Social Affairs and the Department of Agriculture and Traffic. He sometimes gave seminars to groups as big as 100 people which would last for a whole afternoon. Government employees were discussing and planning the implementation of policies while they were having SVB. 

A couple of years ago, still before this writer knew anything about behaviorism or behaviorology, he was doing some volunteer work at a local free health clinic. Many people were homeless and were having mental health problems, but SVB made total sense to them. One day, he spoke with a gentleman, who was only there to pick up his wife, who was also volunteering. When he overheard this writer speak about SVB, he was so intrigued that he wanted to know more about it. After a couple of conversations and becoming more acquainted, he turned out to be a millionaire, who proposed to this writer that he would finance him if he would write a book about SVB. He was willing to pay for a ghost-writer. It became clear, however, that this millionaire and his ghost-writer were not  interested in learning about SVB. To the contrary, they wanted to change this writer's words and so, he had to let them go, because their pursuit was in favor of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Although this writer has given many successful and well-paid seminars, he is no longer interested in these one-time events. Due to his accumulated knowledge of behaviorism he now insists on repeated trials so that lasting effects can be achieved.

The behavior-environment relation is important to understanding what this writer means by the tact SVB. Both SVB and NVB are forms of verbal responses, which are constantly reinforced in the presence of specific events: Voice I is reinforced as it elicits NVB and Voice II is reinforced as it evokes SVB. Someone with Voice II is not going to be reinforced for his or her SVB by those who don’t even know the difference between Voice I and Voice II, who, consequently, can only reinforce Voice I. It may be difficult to accept and people may not like to hear this, but someone with Voice I is continuously reinforced for his or her NVB by those who know the difference between Voice I and Voice II, because they know they can’t prevent Voice I. A good metaphor for NVB is when someone holds a gun in front of our face and demands our money. The best thing to do under such circumstances is to give one’s money. One can also think the All-American-Way and defend oneself by buying a gun or pepper-spray, but counter-control like that is all part of the NVB arms race. 

During SVB communicators are defenseless against anyone who with their  NVB disrupts it or makes it impossible. The only thing one can and will do is realize that the environment is changed by those who elicit NVB.  Once one knows this, one will avoid those environments in which NVB happens and seek out or create those environments in which SVB can occur. The situation in which one is threatened is different from the situation in which there is no aversive stimulation at all. SVB requires the absence of aversive stimulation. Since the property, the sound, of the communication event controls the response, SVB and NVB are considered abstract tacts.  

In his book Verbal Behavior (1957, p. 85) Skinner states “behavior in the form of a tact works for the benefit of the listener by extending his contact with the environment, and such behavior is set up in the verbal community for this reason.” The tacts SVB and NVB are new and have not been previously described. Moreover, the verbal community for SVB has yet to be created. Just as the radical behaviorist verbal community didn’t  exist before B.F. Skinner, the SVB community didn't exist before M.J. Peperkamp. Skinner created the radical behaviorist verbal community and this writer is in the process of creating the SVB community. 

The tacts SVB and NVB not only describe the relationship between events and their properties, Voice II and Voice I , they also relate to co-occuring intra-verbal tacts, which are controlled by our overt SVB and NVB. Once people have experienced the enormous difference between SVB and NVB, they realize that their covert negative private speech was a consequence of their involvement in and exposure to overt NVB public speech. After this discovery, they have a new way of interpreting their thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings which were previously troubling, transform into good thoughts and good feelings once they are properly understood.

SVB is a proposition depicting the relationship between how the sound of the verbalizer is affecting the body of the mediator. Thus, SVB tacts the link between stimuli, responses, consequences and stimulus control. In SVB, the verbalizer always has a regulating effect on the mediator, but in NVB the verbalizer always has a dis-regulating effect on the mediator. The fact that these effects can only be discussed during SVB, but not during NVB, doesn’t mean that these dis-regulating effects of NVB do not occur. The dis-regulating effects of NVB always occur, but they are not  discussed. NVB is not conducive to accurately discussing feelings. What goes on in the name of feelings during NVB is another way of dominating, exploiting, intimidating, rejecting, manipulating, distracting and posturing. 

Readers can recognize and verify whether it is true that SVB and NVB are consistent patterns of verbal reasoning behavior, which both have a high probability of being reinforced under the right kind of circumstances. It can’t be repeated often enough that the different kind of logic of SVB or NVB only applies to the circumstances in which they occur. Although the rules may not be explicitly stated, because we have such familiarity with and exposure to NVB, NVB has a high probability of being reinforced. We are not familiar with SVB as we are not very often exposed to ongoing SVB, and, consequently, there is a low probability of it being reinforced. 

 

SVB and NVB are arrived at inductively. It is not surprising that our relative familiarity with the formal rules for deductive reasoning goes hand in hand with NVB, while inductive reasoning for which, except the principles of behavior as articulated by B.F. Skinner, there are no formal rules, has mainly been known in written form and thus could not generalize to a wider audience. This writer has extended Skinner’s Verbal Behavior with the necessary SVB/NVB distinction, which makes this generalization not only possible, but inevitable. Stated differently, during SVB rules for inductive reasoning can and will be discriminated, because only during SVB are communicators in the situation that stimulates them to understand the functional relations that are involved in a reinforcing environment. 

NVB is based on deductive and SVB is based on inductive reasoning.  The biggest stand in the way to the development of effective behavior is the sound of the speaker's voice. Moreover, the sound of the verbalizer’s voice determines whether inductive reasoning is possible and accepted, that is, whether there will be embodied communication. If we continue to talk in our usual NVB, disembodied, deductive, unconscious manner, we will remain oblivious of conscious SVB, inductive, functional, bi-directionally reinforcing relationships. It is because we are not talking inductively, that we don’t know SVB and have remained unaware about the patterns of our verbal behavioral responses and their environmental independent variables.

January 31, 2015

January 31, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer 

Dear Reader, 

 

The distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the two universally present ways of behaving verbally, is apparent everywhere when people talk. When people talk with each other, they are having SVB, but when they talk at each other, they are having NVB. During NVB, people may pretend to be talking with each other, while in fact they are talking at each other. The distinction between SVB and NVB allows for the skillful and replicable separation between real human interaction and false, fabricated mechanical communication. 

 

This writer arrived at this distinction inductively, not deductively. He wants the reader to arrive at it inductively as well. The reader has also engaged in and listened to many conversations. From this, the reader should be able to recognize that when people have real conversations, they take turns, that is, they are alternatively speakers and listeners. This switching back and forth between speaking and listening, due to which all the communicators can talk, are listened to and are part of the total conversation, because they speak and listen, is called SVB.

  

If our spoken communication is most satisfying, most interesting, most effective, most likely to lead to actions which reflect and enhance the bi-directional benefits of such a conversation, then it is reasonable to interpret the so-called conversation in which this turn-taking doesn’t or can’t happen, because one person does, or only very few people do all the talking and many are not supposed to or not even allowed to speak, as fictitious communication.  Horrible-sounding, dialogue-preventing, monologic, coercive verbal behavior that is typified by hierarchical divisions, is make-believe communication, which this writer calls NVB. 

We need to know what it means to have real interaction. To teach SVB one has to know what it is. It is ridiculous to believe that SVB, or Chinese for that matter, can be understood or taught based on just one description, which supposedly will tell us all we need to know. Many instances of SVB l have to occur before SVB is understood and many occasions of SVB need to be presented by someone who knows SVB so that others can learn it too.  There is, of course, no such a thing as SVB. Any referent which only relates to one instance is not enough to learn SVB, just as translating one word would not be enough to speak Chinese. Thus, the definition and understanding of SVB is arrived at inductively, by describing the situation in which it makes sense to have SVB.  Such a situation is not hard to imagine. When we are supporting each other, reciprocating each other, sensitive to each other, respectful to each other, when we are at ease with each other, when we feel safe with each other, when we feel good with each other, we sound good. In SVB we all sound good.

There are observable, measurable variables or contingencies which act on the way in which we communicate. Stimuli which are occurring in certain situations make the use of a phrase such as SVB meaningful. Likewise, Cantonese wouldn’t make any sense when spoken or written to someone who wasn't in the learning situation, such as taking a class or going to China, in which he or she could learn how to speak or write in Cantonese. This writer has always insisted on talking about SVB because he wanted to stay, like Skinner, close to the data. His aim was to familiarize people with the situation in which the discriminative stimuli are available that control the process of SVB.  Once in this situation, once in the conversation with this writer, understanding SVB is very easy.

Only in a SVB-situation will the communicator respond to the term SVB with “I get why you call it SVB.” The statement "When it can occur it will occur and when it can’t occur it won’t occur” applies. We are referring to independent variables, to stimuli that make SVB, the dependent variable possible.  In the  absence of independent variables the dependent variable cannot occur, but when independent variables are discriminated and thus become available, SVB will reliably and effortlessly occur. 

Similarly to B.F. Skinner, this writer arrived at his thesis inductively. Anyone who becomes familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction will attest to its parsimony, which derives from the fact that it de-emphasizes theory. The question “what would happen if the conversation continued in which the verbalizers and the mediators take turns and agree that from a mediator’s perspective the verbalizer continues to sound good?” resulted in SVB. Variation of behavior is enhanced by the SVB/NVB distinction. SVB seeks out sources of variation in individual behavior and wants to study and explain it, but NVB treats variation as noise to be eliminated. NVB is defined operationally, since verbalizers produce noxious sounds, noises which prevent SVB, real communication. 

Everybody can learn to effectively develop the skills that are necessary for SVB with the step by step instructions provided by this writer. SVB is acquired by what Skinner called programmed instruction.  Listening to ourselves while we speak paves the way for SVB. The schedules of reinforcement for SVB have to be different for different individuals because each individual has a unique behavioral history and genetic predisposition. SVB can be predicted, controlled, scientifically studied and validated. If the verbal behavior of the verbalizer produces reinforcing consequences in the mediator, we can say that it was effective. By contrast, responses which decrease the probability of certain response classes are considered ineffective. Thus, if the probability of the SVB response class was increased, it may be considered to be effective, but this is only the case for those who see SVB as effective. However, an increase in the probability of the NVB response class is considered to be effective only for those who consider NVB to be effective. It helps to remember that the effectiveness of SVB and NVB depends on the same criteria that determine the effectiveness of French or Italian. We are dealing here with two entirely different verbal communities.  

As Skinner has repeatedly pointed out, the selective process that is involved in the operant conditioning of verbal behavior, or in any other sort of behavior for that matter, is identical to the modification of topographies that are revealed during the evolution of a species. In his book Verbal Behavior (1957, p. 160) Skinner states “our belief in what someone tells us is…a function of, or identical with our tendency to act upon the verbal stimuli which he provides.”  Whether the mediator believes in the verbalizer’s statement has nothing necessarily to do with whether a statement accurately corresponds to the reality or not. Moreover, whether the statement is considered to be ineffective by the mediator, meaning, whether it is rejected by the mediator, doesn’t depend at all on whether it is true or not. And, the mediator’s response to what the verbalizer says can also be viewed in terms of whether it is real or not. As long as our verbal behavior produces reinforcement it is considered to be effective. The so-called truth of a statement then depends on the extent to which it assists the mediator “to respond effectively to the situation which it describes”(Skinner,  1974, p. 235).  It only makes sense to tact SVB and NVB from a SVB perspective.