March 7, 2015
Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer
Dear Reader,
The distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and
Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is especially apparent when one considers how
each subset of verbal behavior immediately impacts the environment. In SVB and
NVB communicators respond very different. Moreover, these responses produce different stimuli. Most importantly, response products of SVB and NVB sound different. SVB is called SVB because everyone agrees that SVB
makes our voices sound pleasant, while NVB is called NVB, because, when we listen
to it, everyone also agrees our voices sound terrible.
During
SVB our responses produce positively reinforcing stimuli, but during NVB we
generate punishing stimuli in each other's body. Although there is also a
great difference in the content of SVB and NVB, in this writing the reader
focuses on the fact that we sound
different. In SVB, the verbalizer’s voice mainly evokes the mediator’s response, but in NVB, the verbalizer's voice mainly elicits the mediator’s response. As SVB involves absence of
aversive stimulation and NVB is exemplified by threats and intimidation, SVB is mainly operant behavior, while NVB is mainly respondent behavior.
Movements of this writer’s fingers on his keyboard produce words, which are read by the reader. These response products explain the
difference between SVB and NVB. However, if this writer would talk with the
reader, “certain changes in his vocal musculature would result in changes in
the air-wave patterns that function as auditory stimuli, especially for others (Ledoux, 2014, p. 447) (italics added). Explanations
which can be read are different from those which are heard.
The latter contains more response
products than the former. This can have a confusing or positive effect.
SVB evokes many more response products than NVB, because NVB
narrows things down to that which is only important to the verbalizer. In SVB,
by contrast, responses of the mediator matter. Moreover, mediators are invited and stimulated by the verbalizer to verbalize . Thus, in SVB a learning
environment is created in which information, which is talked about by verbalizers and the mediators, is disseminated faster and easier. In NVB,
by contrast, in which verbalizers aversively control the mediator’s response,
a situation is created, which, in its most extreme form, is like an army drill.
Army recruits are screamed at, because they are ordered to do things,
which they would otherwise not be likely to do: kill people. This coercive example of NVB and its response products hopefully makes clear to the reader that NVB involves a different sound of our
voice than SVB.
This example emphasizes it is only the drill
sergeant, the verbalizer, who matters and the army recruits simply
have to do whatever they are told. The recruit is not supposed to speak with
the sergeant. He or she is only expected to say “yes sir” and “no sir” and
then to immediately execute the action which he or she was ordered to do. If he
or she waits or hesitates, he or she will be immediately screamed at. Army recruits are almost constantly punished for behaving verbally and ordered and conditioned to act nonverbally. In military
training, combat-situations are simulated with man-shaped targets suddenly
popping up. The verbal orders given by the drill-sergeant condition the recruit
to respond to these eliciting stimuli
with instant, deadly force. Targets fall down upon being hit, providing immediate
reinforcing feedback. Such a mechanism is also used to sell millions of computer games. Reinforcement
is given when targets are hit, but after a miss, social punishment follows such as peer
pressure, retraining and postponement of graduation from boot camp. Recruits
are desensitized by uni-directional NVB to do the unthinkable and kill.
The exact same quick-shoot-reflexive or respondent behavior occurs in NVB
and is audible in the sound of our voice while we speak. Just as the realistic targets
in army training camps become conditioned stimuli, which are more likely to be
hit, we have been conditioned to achieve our goals by means of NVB. In the
process of having things their way,
NVB verbalizers basically kill or neutralize the mediator, that is, they prevent the mediator
from having his or her say. Even if mediators are allowed to have their say,
the verbalizers are not really listening. This deceptive move, in which the verbalizer
pretends to be listening to the
mediator, who is supposedly allowed to express his or her opinion, has been
going on for so long for a reason, which has remained unobserved. Although the
mediator is eager to speak, he or she is tricked into the idea that he or
she will be listened to, while the verbalizer, who pretends to listen, is in reality actually incapable of listening. In other
words, the drill-sergeant is equally conditioned by NVB to be a drill-sergeant as the
recruit. Stated differently, both,
the drill-sergeant as well as the recruit, are reinforced by NVB.
It should also be mentioned here that classical conditioning,
the pairing of stimuli, plays a huge role in the conditioning of both SVB and NVB.
How else would it be possible that so many people find violence entertaining and
associate many of their consumptive and sexual behaviors with it? Just as
sounding good will be automatically
reinforcing for verbalizers who have been conditioned to have more SVB
repertoire, sounding intimidating and aggressive will be automatically
reinforcing for verbalizers who have been conditioned to have more NVB repertoire. As NVB gave only verbalizers more power and as SVB gave verbalizers and mediators peace, support and
togetherness, but less power, struggle for dominance is at
the core of NVB. Only when SVB responses outweigh our NVB responses, will
we have reached the tipping point from where our relationships can improve.
