February 26, 2015

February 26, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

The distinction between Sound and Noxious Verbal Behavior as two mutually exclusive subsets of verbal behavior involves the contingency analysis of how an individual interacts with him or herself as well as how two or more individuals interact with each other. Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) refers to the verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with positive reinforcement. On the contrary, Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) refers to all the verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an aversive contingency. These two different contingencies need to be broken down in three terms: an antecedent, a behavior and a consequence. 

The antecedent condition which calls for and makes possible SVB, is a particular sound, which is called Voice II. This stimulus sets the stage for SVB. Another stimulus, Voice I, sets the stage for NVB. As the speaker is the owner of the contingency, the speaker with Voice I emits and omits different behaviors than the speaker with Voice II. The contingency with which the speaker with Voice I controls the behavior of the listener is entirely different from the contingency with which the speaker with Voice II controls the behavior of the listener. The former uses coercive control, while the latter only uses positive reinforcement. The consequences for both the speaker as well as the listener are different in NVB and in SVB. Moreover, the difference between how two or more people talk with each other, also affects how each individual communicates with him or herself. 

In NVB, in which the listener is controlled with an aversive contingency, the speaker’s way of talking with him or herself is equally punitive. In SVB, in which the listener is controlled by positive reinforcement, the speaker’s way of talking with him or herself is equally reinforcing. Thus, the way in which a person talks with him or herself predicts how this person talks with others and visa versa. We may think we know this, but when it comes to the difference between whether we have reinforcing private speech or negative self-talk, it turns out that we have no clue about the fact that NVB covert self-talk is a consequence of NVB overt public speech and SVB covert self-talk is a consequence of SVB overt public speech. We are in the dark about all this as we still think we cause our own behavior. The three-term contingency, however, views behavior in terms of how we are affected by environmental variables, that is, by others.

Antecedents of SVB and NVB can be distinguished as discriminative stimuli and establishing operations. Since SVB episodes alternate with NVB episodes, each time they vary communicators can discriminate the  availability of a different contingency. There is a different relation between behavior and consequences in SVB than in NVB. Communicators incapable of accurate discrimination between these consequences mistake SVB for NVB or NVB for SVB. In either case, they focus on postcedents when they should focus on antecedents. In the analysis of verbal behavior, the need for increased focus on antecedents is often pushed aside by the general behaviorist emphasis in operant behavior on consequences. Proper analyses of the antecedents, of why we talk the way we do, becomes more likely, when we consider our so-called eed for spoken communication. This need is underestimated. Under normal circumstances, food is reinforcing to us only to the extent that we are hungry. Likewise, communication is only reinforcing to us to the extent that we long to talk.This is what is known in behaviorism as establishing operations. 

Nowhere is the difference between SVB and NVB more apparent than in the establishing operation . Speakers want to dominate and coerce others as they were conditioned by NVB interaction. Each time they talk they believe that now it is their turn to exploit others in the same way that they were exploited. Their relentless coercive control of the conversation makes SVB impossible. Often such domineering NVB communicators don’t even like to speak and rather avoid speaking altogether. Interaction is not what they long for as they are deeply frustrated by it. They may long for admiration, power, or dominance, but they don’t desire to communicate. 

How different this is for those who have more SVB repertoire. The need to communicate is proportional to the accumulation of repertoire that makes it possible. Those who have acquired more NVB than SVB repertoire can only pretend to communicate as they miss the skills necessary to have  SVB. They can’t even long for it, because they don’t know that they too can actually have it. Sadly, those who were conditioned mainly by NVB, tend to dominate the conversation. They discourage and disinforce (which is the opposite of reinforce) other the communicators. The consequence of their NVB punishes and weakens the tendency of other communicators to emit a SVB response. As positively reinforcing speakers are so easily stopped, ignored and dominated by coercive, pretentious speakers, NVB episodes far outnumber SVB episodes in most of our conversations.

NVB communicators believe that they can create motivation in others by threatening them with negative consequences. Inadvertently, the NVB communicators always elicit counter-control behavior in their listeners. Communicators engaging in such counter-control don’t and can’t develop SVB, but will only develop more NVB repertoire. Thus, the NVB speaker will always constrain the listener’s response, whereas the SVB speaker always enhances and reinforces novel listener’s responses.

February 25, 2015

February 25, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In the dream he was having before he woke up, this writer was surrounded by hostile people. They spoke in a threatening manner and he pretended he didn’t understand them and needed more explanation. However, he knew it was them who didn’t understand him and who aggressively asked him all sorts of questions. The more questions they asked, the more frustrated they became. Since his answers were not satisfying, this writer eventually pretended that he didn’t know the answer. After he had been giving them many answers, they noticed he was no longer answering them and stopped asking him. By this time, they had literally gotten on top of him. When they stopped pounding him with questions, he was able to get up. They then walked along the edge of a cliff. The bottom was so deep that it couldn’t be seen and they were moving cautiously. When he said something, the next person would whisper it to the next person and so on, until the last person in line had heard it. They moved along the edge as one unit and when he stopped, the next person would stop and then the next and then the next. Sometimes he would wait for the  others who were still in the process of stopping, at other times, although they were still in the process of coming to a halt, he already begun to move again. Different persons at different places in the line were affected differently. Sometimes, like this writer, they waited for others to catch up, at other times they were asked to move the moment they had stopped. At times like that it seemed as if they were pulled in both directions, but the only instruction came from this writer, who told the person behind him to tell the next in line to move forward. They moved together along the edge, slowly and carefully. 

This dream reminded this writer of a wild game he used to love as a child. About ten kids on the school yard would hold hands and started running together as a long chain. The person in the front decided the direction in which they were going. If you were at the end of this chain you were pulled by the others with great force and you had to run so fast that your legs could hardly carry you. It was almost impossible to remain at the end of the line and many kids would fall, let go or run away. Only daredevils  who could run fast enough could stay attached. The moving screaming chain of kids worked like a whip and the last one in the line received this powerful energy. It was incredibly exciting to do this. 

The dream was also about a chain of people who were moving like one body. Instead of being at the end the chain, this writer was now at the beginning of the line. As a child, this writer was running wildly, but in his dream, he was an adult and walking carefully. As a child, he enjoyed the momentum unleashed when kids hold hands and run together, but as an adult, his behavior is more adjusted to others and to the dangers of life. This writer is now a leader, who knows the workings of the whip. As a child, the line would often break or kids would fall down and this would temporarily mean the end of the game. Since many kids liked to run, a new line would soon be formed with kids challenging each other to be at the beginning, the middle or the end. If you happened to be in the middle of this swirling line, you had to be able to withstand the pull. Those who weren’t strong enough selected themselves out. 

This writing is under discriminative control of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) as two subsets of verbal behavior. SVB refers to the verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with positive reinforcement. On the contrary, NVB refers to the verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an aversive contingency. As the example of the human whip and the dream-line illustrate, verbal behavior only pertains to the latter. In the former, kids nonverbal behavior directly affect the next one in line, but only in the latter can one notice the indirect effects of the reinforcement through another organism’s verbal behavior. Stated differently, the verbal message, send down the line, keeps the line moving without breaking. In the example the human whip and the dream-line, the reader differentiates between nonverbal and verbal effects. It is always nonverbal behavior which causes the breakdown of vocal verbal behavior.

By focusing on words, on what we say, and on others, who reinforce or punish us, we engage in NVB, but we remain unaware of the struggle  that is caused by the direct effects of our nonverbal behavior. The special attention this writer gives to our vocal verbal behavior is because of its important role in human interaction. We communicate not only verbally, but also non-verbally. The directly occurring effects which happen during interactions are always caused by our nonverbal behavior. It is only when we understand that that we can figure out that our verbal representations of our nonverbal experiences are inaccurate and only become accurate to the extent that we focus on the nonverbal instead of on the verbal. In other words, unless we pay attention to the speaker’s direct effect on the listener and open up to the listener’s view of the speaker, we will continue to remain trapped by NVB in which there is no congruence between what is said and how it is said. Direct participation in vocal verbal behavior is needed to find out this can't be accomplished by writing, reading, texting, face-booking or watching and listening to conversations of others on TV or in movies. This writer advocates for the restoration of human interaction.

Nonverbal behavior needs to be distinguished from nonverbal verbal behavior. In nonverbal behavior our behavior results from reinforcers which become available due to the direct effects of our behavior on the environment. For example, the phone rings and we pick it up and we can talk with the person who is calling. Thus, picking up of the phone is reinforced by our conversation with the person who is calling. In this example, our nonverbal behavior precedes and gives access to our verbal behavior. In the case of our nonverbal verbal behavior, if we consider the tone of our voice, which also precedes and gives access to certain verbal behavior, we realize the direct nonverbal effect we have on the listener.

This effect becomes more apparent if we replace the word ‘speaker’, who supposedly ‘decides’ to speak in a certain way with ‘verbalizer’ and the word ‘listener’, who supposedly is either ‘willing to listen or pay attention’ to what we say, or ‘pre-occupied’ or ‘distracted’ by one thing or another, with the word ‘mediator’. The verbalizer verbalizes verbally as well as nonverbally and the mediator also always simultaneously mediates verbal and nonverbal stimuli. Skinner argued that the verbal-nonverbal distinction is irrelevant in a functional account. However, due to NVB conditioning this led to overemphasis on the verbal, what this writer calls verbal fixation. It is consequently often falsely assumed that our verbal behavior is generally occurring under non-coercive contingencies. This writer insist the opposite is true: most verbal behavior is NVB, because it occurs under nonverbal coercive contingencies. The continuation of NVB and SVB depends on the existence of another body, which either mediates directly and indirectly. Moreover, we have more in common with each other in our nonverbal than in our verbal behavior. Once this commonality is understood in its direct effect on what we say, we see how it facilitates or hinders mediation.

February 24, 2015

February 24, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

Contingencies are based on verbal rules, but when we speak, contingencies are sounds. In vocal verbal behavior, rules are not only based on what we say, but even more so on how we sound. Behaviors which are evoked by nonverbal rules about how we sound can be considered as a refinement of behaviors which are evoked by verbal rules. Although words have enormous benefits in their accumulative effects as cultures, this effect is highly overrated. We keep getting carried away by what we say. Unless we acknowledge that our culture of words disconnects us from ourselves and each other, unless we communicate our need for direct contingency contact by means of our nonverbal behavior, we will be unable to build the necessary repertoire that allows us to get along and live peacefully. 

This writing is under discriminative control of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) as two subsets of verbal behavior. SVB refers to the verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with positive reinforcement. NVB, on the other hand refers to all verbal episodes in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an aversive contingency. In NVB speakers presume that direct contingency contact is no longer necessary, while in SVB speakers claim that such contact is vital to survival and is needed to improve our relationships. In most spoken communication there are more NVB than SVB episodes. As a consequence of unnatural control of coercive contingencies our covert verbal behavior or thinking is mostly negative. 

Due to natural selective processes human beings came to have neural structures and vocal-musculature structures which are affected by the environment in such a way that verbal behavior became possible. The sounds that we have been producing have contributed in important ways to our survival. By imagining the sound of safety or the sound of danger, one begins to have a sense of SVB and NVB. Human interaction always goes back and forth between these two opposing experiences. Safety and threat presents to us as stimuli, inside and outside of our skin. They evoke more SVB or more NVB. In addition to this antecedent control, our sounds also postcedently control our behavior. We must not only use the proper words under the right circumstances, to be reinforced, but we must also have the right sounds under the right circumstances. As sound provides context for our words, the ‘meaning’ of our words is in how we sound.

 

The relative safety of a verbal community conditions post-cedently in its members the sound with which they speak. This writer, who was born and raised in Holland, immigrated to the United States in 1999. Although he is bilingual, he was never able to totally adapt to the way Americans sound. From his perspective, which is shared by his friends and family members, Americans sound louder, more pretentious and harsher than the Dutch. His former verbal community, with which, due to his immigration, he has for the most part, lost contact, continues as neural behavior inside of his skin, but is not very often reinforced anymore by someone outside of his skin. Nevertheless, his exposure American sounds make him sound more and more like a member of the American verbal community. As he becomes more attuned, he appreciates even more the sound on which he grew up. Due to this sound he was able to expand his repertoire with behaviorism.

February 23, 2015

February 23, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This writer has the ability to write in different ways. Today he is more serious than yesterday. He is inclined to write more like this than how he wrote yesterday. Today it is Monday and yesterday it was Sunday. The weekend is over and today he is having a job interview. He wishes to find full time employment.

It is revealing what this writer comes up with in his writings. What he writes is always about what positively reinforces him. He doesn’t feel inclined to write about things which don’t reinforce him. If nothing reinforces him, he simply waits and then something presents itself. It always does and he is happy to know this is so. 

In the past, he used to talk about this with himself and he would make audio recordings. He still has these audio tapes and occasionally he listens to them and enjoys them. In recent years, he hasn’t made any new audio recordings of himself anymore.  Although he never thought he would be doing this, these days he only writes.

Yesterday evening, before coming to bed, he read his writing from last year. It was satisfying to read what he had written because it explained how he came to be the way he is. In his writing, he was talking about speaking with a sound, which is reinforcing to himself and others. Since he would like others to do the same, he began to teach this. Every time others speak with a sound, which is reinforcing to him and to themselves, he is having the kind of conversation that he likes to have.

February 22, 2015

February 22, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

After they had breakfast, this writer and his wife went for a long hike in Upper Bidwell Canyon. It was a beautiful day. They walked on the rocky road which goes way into the canyon and enjoyed seeing the ridge from below. At this time of the year the canyon is green and lush with grasses and flowers. Very different from the rest of the year in which it is dry and scorched. They walked for a while and reached a path that lead into the canyon near the creek. There was nobody and it was a delight to silently walk that meandering path between the lava rocks. 

Before they returned, they rested on a rock near the creek on a small beach.This writer had asked his wife to throw a rock in the creek and laughed when she did. After that it was time to go back. The walk back seemed longer and more arduous, but when they made it back to their car they felt satisfied having been out in nature for so long. They felt hungry and decided to do some shopping and buy lamb and wine. Then they went home and this writer started the barbeque. It had gotten windy and the wind made the logs burn fast.

His wife had made some snacks. They were sipping wine, eating olives, cheese and pieces of toast as they were watching the flames. The roasted lam came tasted delicious. They were looking at their house and they were talking about how they were going to landscape the rest of their yard. Where they were sitting used to be a big tree, which they had taken out after they had bought the house. The garden was still in disarray because of that, but things were slowly coming together.