March 25, 2015

March 25, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

I will respond to “Using Social Representations to Negotiate the Social Practices of Life” (1994) by Bernard Guerin, because it helps clarify some of the things I claim about how we talk with each other. Guerin points out that the contingency which best explains human behavior is our social environment. Although most behavior analysts would agree, this agreement has, according to Guerin, remained primarily theoretical. To date, not much literature exists about the study of “social practices of a group of people” which looks at “how social representations are used to regulate social behavior.” Such a study could explain why human beings engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

I absolutely agree with Guerin, who writes “We only learn such responses (strictly speaking such contingencies) through other people, and the interactions which maintain such responses are with other people.” SVB and NVB are perhaps not best treated as different behaviors, but as different social contingencies. By emphasizing the ubiquity and the importance of social mediation, we are more likely to discover SVB and NVB, two subsets of vocal verbal behavior. 

Indeed “our attitudes, attributions and excuses about our own actions are also negotiated through social groups” and “what our social groups allow us to get away with saying and doing.” For instance, in Afghanistan, a mentally ill woman, who may have said something about a book she didn’t like, was accused of insulting the Koran and was kicked and beaten to death by a mob of young men. Yet, this is nothing new. We haven’t been able to eradicate much of this violent fanaticism, because we are still looking at behavior in a de-contextualized manner. Unless we take into account the social basis of such fictitious rule-governed behavior, we will continue to be inclined to demonize other people for doing exactly the same thing what we are also doing, that is: “maintain a social group.” 

Maintenance of our way of interacting as well as “much of our everyday life depends upon the groups and communities we live in, not with contacting the objects we might talk about or represent.” The horrific act described above is not explained by referring to religious beliefs, because the “maintenance of such fictions comes about from social negotiations.” It is impossible to address “fictitious ‘knowledges’ and social representations” if we don’t recognize they are mediated “through our social groups.”

In my early 20s I traveled a lot and have seen many countries and experienced and enjoyed many different cultures. One thing I will never forget, which made travel and its discomforts so attractive in the first place, was the high rate of SVB responses I experienced, often with people who were living in less affluent environments than I had been raised in. I was moved by the kindness, hospitality, innocence, liveliness, pride, openness, genuineness and helpfulness of relatively poor people. These experiences changed my view of human beings forever. It was already clear to me then what I am only now writing about. Stated simply, when people need each other, they will have more SVB. The less they need each other, the more NVB they have. The individualistic way of viewing life of the Western world that we don’t need each other (which, as we know now, is socially maintained), had devastating consequences for how humans communicate. By analyzing the rates of SVB and NVB in different societies, we can study social practices and acknowledge that “social representations are only made possible by prior social power relations.” We detect the “conditions of social practice under which we would want to class any talk as a social representation.”

The rates of SVB and NVB predict the conditions which set the stage for people from collectivistic as well as from individualistic cultures to “talk about fictitious events”, have “ritual talk”, “talk about unknown or unknowable events” or “talk which closely involves the resources and supplies of a social group.” The echo-chambers of  social media that perpetuate the pre-scientific notion that individuals cause their own behavior are as fictitious as any religious doctrine.

Conditions which create and maintain higher rates of SVB and lower rates of NVB produce social representations that make consensual agreement within the group possible. On the other hand, conditions which create and maintain higher rates of NVB and lower rates of SVB produce social representations that make consensual agreement impossible. Conditions in which social representation was “consistently held by all the members of social group” would either inform us “about the extreme [NVB] social power relations of that group than about the content of that representation” (word and italics added) or it would demonstrate real agreement about the content of our SVB representation, which sustains our mutually reinforcing relations. 

I agree with Guerin’s emphasis on the need for “consistency of the social situations themselves, not in some person-originated “need for consistency””, but I claim that the pursuit of this need is a defining characteristic of NVB. Aversive contingencies that maintain “extreme [NVB] power relations” in which “consensual agreement (about social representations) is never likely”, always give rise to counter-control. That this may have led to the Western belief in individualism, was based on higher rates of SVB. Stated differently, NVB is not based on consensual agreement. Counter-control was initially based on higher rates of SVB, because it used to be more reinforcing to disagree and assume individuality, but this is no longer the case. 


That we continue to hang on to this socially negotiated fiction may very well involve the demise of Western culture. Since only in SVB we can “talk about an event in such a particular way” that this “functions to keep the group together and to facilitate interactions”, we need to know the contingency which makes it happen. “Shouting at rocks doesn’t make anything happen. Words only have effects on people, and that applies to all words.” In NVB, we treat each other as rocks, but we are people, who will only respond well to SVB.

March 24, 2015

March 24, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

I reread some of my writings from last year and liked what I wrote with this “Latha” fond. It visualizes Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), my way of talking, which leaves space between the words. There is a transparent quality to this letter type. I am inclined to speak in plain words when I write with this fond and this goes together with writing from a first person perspective. It has been useful for me to write from a third person perspective and to refer to myself as “this writer”, but it is a relief to not do that anymore. In other words, it is more reinforcing for me to write that I like to write like this. My friend Arturo from Colombia suggested this change and it felt like an invitation. Although it has helped me to write from a third person perspective, it leaves out something that is essential to SVB: my subjective experience. Writing from a third person perspective is artificial, as it presumes it is more important than writing from a first person perspective. There is a big problem with speech in which we supposedly are not personal. I call such mechanical, inhuman conversation Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). In NVB we can neither feel or be ourselves nor do we feel each other.

As a sensitive male, I am aware that male or female speakers produce different vocal verbal behavior with audiences of men or women. Different environments, due to the gender of the audience, reinforce different verbal behavior of the speaker. For instance, Wolfson (1984) found different rates of compliments by men and women. Interestingly, Carli (1990) found that females who spoke more tentatively were more influential with males than with females. Culture shapes the vocal verbal behavior of men and women and it is no coincidence that a special feminine style of speech (Tannen, 1990) results in relatively lower levels of power (Lakoff (1973). 

The SVB/NVB distinction sheds light on the long-established power differences, which are maintained by the way in which men and women continue to communicate. It is obvious that males can have more effects or consequences on females than vice versa (Guerin, 1995). Thus, it is not the communication itself, but the male or the female context that is important, because this determines the power to apply contingent consequences. Indeed, consequences and the histories of consequences are the “power” behind audiences, words, and communicating activities (Ladegaard, 1995).

The above quoted research provides evidence for the fact that not only do men and women talk differently, their different vocalizations create and maintain hierarchical differences, which forces mediators into nonverbal subservient behavior. In NVB, mediators have to be on guard. They constantly have to watch who they are dealing with and must be cautious about every word they are saying. And, they should know when it is better not to say anything at all. As long as we cannot talk plainly about the elephant in the room, NVB, the environment within the mediator’s skin will be dis-regulated. 

NVB involves the sympathetic activation of the autonomic nervous system of both the verbalizer and the mediator. SVB, on the other hand, involves the absence of fight, flight or freeze responses and parasympathetic activation, because SVB and does not produce the stimuli which trigger these reflexes. Although mediators, during NVB, may be able to control these negative effects and will refrain from expressing them or reacting to them verbally, the stress-inducing, energy-consuming consequences of NVB are always there and take the attention away from what is being said. In NVB the mediators are coerced to pay attention to the verbalizers, who are reinforced for their ability to demand and hold the attention. Thus, in NVB compliments only comes from mediators, but not from verbalizers. 

March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

I described yesterday that paying attention to the consequences of our vocal verbal behavior equals paying attention to what we don’t like! Since we only pay attention to things to the extent that they are different from what we are used to, we are not that much inclined to pay attention to the consequences of how we talk. The reason we have this dilemma is because of previous occasions in which our vocal verbal behavior was reinforced by positive consequences or punished by negative consequences of our way of communicating. As long as we got what we want, we had no reason to be busy with the consequences, because they were, according to us, “good.” 

We have only been paying attention to our way of talking when it didn’t get us what we want, or rather, when it didn't get us what we were used to, when consequences, according to us, were “bad.” Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) are respondent processes and can be seen as two different sets of paired stimuli. Verbal episodes determined by an abundance of SVB instances, were made possible by the circumstances in which communicators repeatedly experienced pairings of Voice II with supportive, positive, sensitive and comfortable experiences. By contrast, the verbal episodes in which NVB instances outnumber SVB instances, are caused by behavioral histories of communicators, who were repeatedly in situations in which Voice I was paired with a set of coercive, negative, insensitive, frightening and dangerous experiences. This pairing process of stimuli is called classical conditioning.  

March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

People ask what Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is and want to know how these two subsets of verbal behavior are defined. They ask for an antecedent, for what causes one or the other, in the hope this will give them better understanding of these responses. Although something can and must be said about how SVB and NVB are caused antecendently, the behavioral perspective, to which I adhere, analyzes behavior in context and looks at what follows, to what happens postcedently, so that predictions can be made about the likelihood of these behaviors under similar circumstances in the future. Consideration of a stimulus which sets the stage for a response, which is followed by a consequence, which makes this response more or less likely in the presence of that stimulus in the future, is called operant conditioning.

By looking at what happens as a consequence of SVB and NVB, that is, at the postcedent events, we realize that the proportion of SVB/NVB instances in a verbal episode predicts whether we are going to have more SVB and less NVB or less SVB and more NVB in the future. In other words, the SVB/NVB distinction becomes apparent after these responses have occurred. By having a verbal episode, by talking, we can begin to acknowledge and experience the consequences of instances of SVB and NVB. These consequences stand out to the extent that they are different from the consequences of our usual pattern of communication. This means, if we are used to more instances of SVB then NVB, then instances of NVB will stand out. Conversely, if we are used to more instances of NVB then SVB, then SVB instances will stand out. The communication experiences which are different from what we are familiar with are perceived as negative. Since we don’t like what we are not used to, we are not paying much attention to the consequences of how we talk, because, by doing so, we would become more aware, more conscious of what we don’t like. 

March 21, 2015

March 21, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

While writing this writer is talking with himself sub-vocally. He doesn’t say anything. If a video was made of him, one would only see him sitting on his chair with his laptop on his knees. Nothing of his verbal behavior could be heard. One would only hear the sound of his keyboard. The words he is thinking are a neural behavior only available to him. He feels great he is no longer talking out loud with himself and is writing like this and enjoying himself. It is like a miracle which happens in total silence.

People often told him about the great difference they experience between what they say when they think out loud and what they think without saying it. This writer is thinking without saying it, but since he is typing thoughts, he is experiencing a similar epiphany as when a person is for the first time thinking out loud and really listening to him or herself. The listening this writer is doing is different because there is nothing to hear. In fact it cannot be called listening. He is reading what he writes and discovering what he is going to write, while he is writing. 

His pace of writing is much slower than his pace of his speaking. He likes to slow down and is not bothered if it takes time for the words to appear. He is more patient as a writer than as a speaker. He never thought about this and he is delighted by this discovery. It is easier for him to follow his thoughts while he writes than when he speaks. When he speaks there is an immediacy which is lacking when he writes and reads. A year ago, he would have never thought he would experience his writing as a more laid back activity than his own speaking. A shift in his verbal behavior has occurred. 

This writer is at ease while writing and reading these words. He has created this situation in which this writing is replacing his speaking and this reading is replacing his listening. He is moving into a new realm, the realm of the printed word. For a long time reading and writing had been uncomfortable to him. Recently, reading has become more accessible to him due to his writing. While writing this, he notices his mouth would still like to make movements to speak these words, but he doesn’t let that happen. He doesn’t keep his lips shut, but he senses that his lips are touching each other in a peaceful manner. The feeling generated by that smile is felt throughout his body and is refreshing.

When one reads a written text, one’ s eyes must follow the words that form the sentences as one tries to understand, but when one, like this writer, is writing one’s own text, there are no words to be followed as they have not yet appeared. To read one's own written words, one is waiting for words to appear and only then can one read. It seems this writer is writing and reading these words at the same time. Indeed, his writing and reading behavior are happening at the same rate. This can also happen while he speaks, when his speaking and listening are joined. When speaking and listening happen at the same rate, Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) occurs. 

Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) occurs when speaking and listening happen at different rates. The words “Sound” and “Noxious” describe the quality of our sound during vocal verbal behavior. During any given verbal episode, the sound of our voice changes from moment to moment and gives rise to instances of SVB and NVB. A pleasant and an unpleasant conversation is determined by how we sound. The more instances of NVB, the less we enjoy, the more instances of SVB, the more we enjoy our conversation. 

When writing and reading behavior happen at the same rate, a written version of SVB is created. Such texts are very easy to read. Likewise, in SVB as vocal verbal behavior, speakers are easy to listen to. In NVB, by contrast, the speaker’s voice is an aversive stimulus and difficult to listen to. In NVB texts, the reader is having difficulty understanding the writer. A text that was written by a writer whose writing wasn’t joined with his reading verbal behavior, is difficult to understand. It is easy to read and understand when a writer’s writing and reading are in total synchronicity. 

Since most of our conversations unfortunately have a higher rate of NVB than SVB instances, most of our writings show a similar pattern too. It is no accident that since most of our conversations are difficult to follow, that most of what is written is difficult to read. This can and should be  noticed and changed. Noticing the high rate of NVB in a written text is easier to spot than noticing it during spoken communication. When a text is too difficult for us to read, we simply don’t want to read it. Likewise, when conversation is difficult to understand, we also just don’t want to hear it. When the NVB verbalizer’s speaking happens at a higher rate than his or her listening, the mediator’s speaking must happen at a lower rate than his or her listening, so that he or she can understand him or her. Speaking and listening is always effortful during NVB. Likewise, writing NVB texts is as difficult as reading NVB. 

It is easier to refuse to read a text then to refuse to listen or speak with each other. If a text is too difficult, we put is away, we don’t want to read, because we don’t understand it. However, if a conversation is too difficult for us, we often can’t refuse it. To avoid the immediate bad consequences, we fake that we understand each other. Reading, writing, texting, tweeting and social networking have appeal, because they relief us from the immediacy of our social constraints.

During SVB, the written and the spoken verbal behavior of the verbalizer and the mediator keep getting better and better over time. In other words, there is constant improvement, adjustment and refinement. Even when something isn’t clear, this is addressed and cleared up. In NVB, on the other hand, the verbal behavior of the speaker and the listener as well as the writer and the reader gets worse over time. Another way of viewing this negative and problematic process is that, comparatively speaking, we discriminate more and more instances of NVB. 

 

SVB and NVB are functionally equivalent. In both response classes people get their needs met, but the means by which this happens are different. In NVB, the relationship gets more and more strained, often leading to a crisis or breakup, but in SVB, the relationship improves. SVB is definitely more advanced than NVB, which is basically our caveman mentality. Only in SVB can we be more precise, accurate and complex, but due to our NVB, we become more crude, dissociated and insensitive. Lifelong consequences of verbal behavior are best observed in old people. Old folks who have had more SVB are healthier, more social and active in their old age, but those who mainly had NVB, become more rigid, isolated, frustrated and angry. 

We give all sorts of medical names to these aging-phenomena, but we are often unknowingly talking about the long-term effects of NVB. This writer once worked in a geriatric home and noticed that even in old age people continued to terrorize each other, as they had done throughout their lives. When he facilitated conversational social groups, those who had been used to more SVB responded with joy and appreciation, but often they had to be constantly protected from the meanness of those who were more NVB-inclined. Especially apparent in that context was the contrast between the repetitiveness of NVB and the spontaneity of SVB. Those with SVB are simply more alive, but those with more NVB are dying.