September 6, 2015

September 6, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

The following writing is my first response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). The paper starts with a quote from Skinner: “Let me ask you a question. I warn you, it will be the most terrifying question of your life. What would you do if you found yourself in possession of an effective science of behavior? Suppose you suddenly found it possible to control the behavior of men as you wished. What would you do? (Skinner, 1948/2005, p. 240).” To me this is not a terrifying question. To be able to “suddenly control the behavior of men as you wished” is only terrifying for those who were for a long time unable “to control the behavior of men as they wished.” The shock only occurs due to the lack of behavioral control. Since this lack is common, the question is a shock to those who have a history characterized by the inability to “control the behavior of men” as they wished. To those who don’t have this history, there is no shock, because they already know how to “control the behavior of men as they wished.” 

Although Skinner knows a great deal about control of behavior, he made this statement as he doesn’t know about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Someone who knows SVB would never make such a statement. To the contrary, he or she would describe how he or she controls the behavior of men as he or she wished. In SVB the speaker simply controls the behavior of listener with an appetitive contingency. The directness of this verbal “science of behavior” can and will only be experienced while we talk.

 “Technology aims at the deliberate production of consequences”. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an aversive contingency. In SVB the speaker produces immediate positive consequences in the listener. SVB is the technology Skinner talked about which can “solve our current problems such as birth control, environmental preservation, reduction of malnutrition worldwide, improved sanitation and health, and so on." 

“The development and proposed application of a technology of behavior, particularly one that may promote cultural planning, has triggered heated opposition and ethical questioning” as we don’t yet differentiate between SVB and NVB. “Heated opposition” is an example of NVB.“Deliberate control of human behavior challenges the traditional conceptions of free will and freedom.” Moreover, if we apply “deliberate control of human behavior” to how we speak and how we, as speakers, influence the listener, we find the illusion of “traditional conceptions of free will and freedom” only pertains to NVB. In other words, an unscientific view of who we are continues to be maintained by NVB, which is a coercive way of talking.

Only NVB “carries the threat of enslaving the controlees to benefit only the controllers.”  With SVB there is no chance for such enslavement. And this puts in perspective the “ontological and epistemological principles of Radical Behaviorism”, which teaches that “behavior is always controlled, deliberately or not.” This distinction between “deliberate or not” is the same as non-aversive or aversive. The speaker’s non-deliberate control of the behavior of the listener is unconscious and aversive and inducing negative affect in the listener. In SVB, by contrast, the speaker is deliberately, consciously and positively controlling the behavior of the listener, as he or she knows and experiences that he or she produces a sound, which induces and maintains positive affect in the listener. The question is not between deliberate control or not, but between positive or negative control by our vocal verbal behavior.

Skinner’s claim that “a whole society (albeit small), with its planned culture, by means of a technology of behavior” would “guarantee survival and happiness for its members” indicates the possibility of SVB.  I disagree with the authors, who state that Skinner’s claim (in Walden Two) would “probably be endorsed by many behavior analysts and radical behaviorists.” If that were true, many behavior analysts and radical behaviorists would be interested in SVB, but this is not (yet) the case. As it stands, most analysts and radical behaviorists produce as much NVB as everyone who is not an a radical behaviorist. The “possibility of total control of human behavior” is seen as “a nightmare by its critics”, but “analysts and radical behaviorists”  also strongly oppose replacing coercive with non-coercive verbal behavior. They agree with Skinner’s SVB in theory, but they don’t practice it.

Skinner refers to this in Walden Two, when Castle says to Frazier (who planned and founded Walden Two), that he would “throw the science of behavior in the ocean.” This is a standard NVB interaction in which the speaker, Castle, influences the nervous system of the listener, Frazier, by inducing negative affect with the sound of his voice. This is, however, only implicitly mentioned in the dialogue between Frazier and Castle. Frazier answers Castle by asking him “And deny men all the help you could otherwise give them?” Frazier wants to continue with SVB, but by asking this question, by arguing with him, he is already joining Castle’s NVB, who immediately bites back “And give them the freedom they would otherwise lose forever!” Still trying to continue with SVB, but clearly already engaged in the argument, Frazier then asks Castle “How could you give them the freedom?” It is as if Frazier invites to be hit by Castle’s NVB line of reasoning, who then forcefully answers back “By refusing to control them!” Castle’s so-called refusal to control the behavior of others apparently didn’t apply to how he dealt with Frazier. This happens again and again in day to day conversation, in which the NVB speaker denies controlling the behavior of the listener, while in fact he or she has just negatively influenced him or her. Frazier, that is, Skinner, has the last word, when he says “But you would only be leaving the control in other hands.” The “other hands”, the opposite of deliberate, conscious control, invariably represents NVB.  

August 30, 2015

August 30, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my thirteenth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others”by Rendall and Owren, (2010). How interesting it is that “words that convey “smallness” are disproportionately characterized by high-front vowels whose spectral density is biased toward higher frequencies, and words that convey “ largeness ” are characterized by low-back vowels whose spectral density is biased toward lower frequencies ( Hinton et al., 1995 ).” As someone who played on different sizes of flutes this is nothing new to me. There is a lawful relationship between size and sound and this has nothing to do with language differences. A similar relationship exists between emotion and sound. However, we underestimate the importance of this relationship. We are biased toward semantics and tone-deaf for emotion as we fixate on the words and don’t listen to how we sound while we speak. In every language of the world there is SVB and NVB. Only during SVB does the sound of the speaker’s voice “facilitate semantic learning. 

“This phenomenon occurs cross-linguistically and represents the semantic extension in languages of the natural sound-symbolic relationship that exists in the wider world as noted above. Hence, a young infant’s affective familiarity with these basic sound-symbolic relationships could subsequently facilitate semantic learning, at least of words that obey the cross- cultural pattern of semantic diminution and augmentation.” Not much learning is going to occur as long as the listener’s “affective familiarity with these basic sound-symbolic relationships” is based on fear of punishment. Unfortunately, much, if not most of our cultural conditioning is based on coercion. Our cultural conditioning is as strong as it is, as it is based NVB which dominates in every culture. However, there are cultures in which there is more SVB than in others. I am certain that in Holland there is more SVB than in the United States. “And these linguistic patterns in turn are likely to have arisen naturally but unintentionally through historical processes of cultural selection, which favored the use and survival of word forms that convey their meaning more “naturally” in the sense that they are easier to learn, recall and deploy, precisely because they exploit biologically preprepared sound – meaning relationships.” Cultures change. It seems to me the national dialogue in Holland, my country of origin, has in recent years become more NVB, while conversation in the USA is slowly beginning to change toward SVB. I like to think of myself as helping that process along. This gives the saying ‘don’t ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country’ an entirely new meaning.

If we engage in SVB, we will be exploring what the authors have called “affective semantics.” In SVB we say different things because of how we sound. We will say things which we couldn’t say before, because our sound wouldn’t let us. The authors describe SVB; “Accepting this possibility suggests even wider scope for semantic constructs to be grounded in the perceptuo-affective “impacts” of sound structure – what might be termed affective semantics.”Our nervous system prefers certain sounds over others. If we were given the choice, we would choose SVB over NVB 100% of the time. Fact is, however, that we are not given the choice and we don’t even realize that we have a choice. The choice is apparent when the distinction is made between SVB and NVB. As stated, we have a semantic bias and we don’t listen to ourselves while we speak and we engage in NVB by default. 

In every textbook about the scientific method we are told that we must start with observation and description before we formulate a hypothesis. From the get-go there is visual bias. Auditory data, as pertaining to how we sound while we speak, is given short shrift in psychology. Even if it is mentioned, since everything in science has to be defined and written, the auditory data are lost in translation, because written and spoken language are two entirely different things. Experiencing the affective effects of how we sound while we speak and listen isn’t the same as reading and writing about it.

“Kohler (1947) famously reported a bias for human subjects to match particular nonsense words, such as naluma and takete, with unfamiliar objects whose form was rounded or jagged, respectively. This bias has been confirmed in other populations and in young children, and it has been extended to include other objects and other nonsense words, such as bouba and kiki (e.g., Westbury, 2005 ; Maurer et al., 2006 ). One explanation for this implicit semantic bias is that it reflects reciprocal linkage between the visuo-sensory processing of a rounded object and activation of motor areas responsible for coordinating the articulation of the round-mouth vowels both in bouba and naluma, but not kiki or takete" (Ramachandran and Hubbard, 2001). As is clear from this line of research, the interpretation is “reciprocal linkage between the visuo-sensory processing.” Yet, another interpretation is needed.

“A related alternative is that the semantic bias reflects the differential affective quality of sounds with different spectral density and signal onsets, as reviewed earlier for animal vocalizations. In this case, the consonants /k/ and /t/ are unvoiced and have relatively plosive onsets and noisy spectra. Therefore, the words kiki and takete might more naturally conjure “harsh/fractured” and similar semantic constructs, and so be matched to jagged objects preferentially. In contrast, the consonants /b/, /n/, /l/ and /m/ are all either voiced, or nearly so, and therefore have smoother onsets and more patterned spectral structures. Hence, the words bouba and naluma might more naturally conjure “smooth/ connected” and similar semantic constructs, and so be matched to rounded objects. Recent experiments using words that both replicate and cross the original consonant and vowel contexts (i.e., boubakiki; kouka-bibi) provide some support for this account (Rendall & Nielsen, unpublished data). By extension, a vastly larger set of affective semantic effects might await future discovery and might ultimately be shown to account for the form of at least some real words.”

Since they are animal researchers, these authors are on the right track when they state: “The semantic bias reflects the differential affective quality of sounds.” I think the “vastly larger set of affective semantic effects” that "awaits future discovery and might ultimately be shown to account for the form of at least some real words” will remain unknown as long as we continue to have NVB and don’t discover SVB and learn how to maintain it. SVB holds the key to a many discoveries. Certain things can only be said and understood during SVB, but as long as NVB reigns, we are not going to hear it, as we are not listening to ourselves. Even if we overcame our semantic bias and we would focus more on how we sound, it still remains to be seen (pun intended) if we would be willing to be concerned with how we ourselves sound. Our willingness to pay attention to how we as speakers sound depends on the circumstance in which we talk. If the circumstance is such that we, because of threat, focus on each other, instead of on ourselves, we again engage in NVB. If others are aversively influencing us as speakers or as listeners, our communication becomes a struggle between the speaker and the listener, based on our outward orientation and fixation on words. 

SVB requires the absence of aversive stimulation and only if we arrange for such a circumstance we are able to achieve and maintain it. “Vocalizations can exert direct and indirect influences on listener affect and behavior. Some of the effects are taxonomically widespread, evolutionarily conserved and very difficult for listeners to control or resist.” Both SVB and NVB are “evolutionary conserved” as we have a survival need to express safety, wellbeing, but also fear and threat. “Of course, as functional as such affective effects of vocalizations can be, they do not undercut the role of cognition, nor do they preclude the possibility of more complex communicative processes and outcomes in many species.” I disagree with this general statement, because I think of human vocalizations. NVB not only “undercuts the role of cognition”, but it also “precludes the possibility of more complex communicative processes and outcomes.” 

Only in SVB do vocal signals “scaffold communicative complexity.” Only in SVB there can be “the complementary and integrated nature of affective and cognitive systems.” Only in SVB there is “semantic complexity of human language” based on positive affect and subsequent “sound – meaning relationships.” Only in SVB do communicators experience that “such pre-prepared, or early acquired, sound – sense relationships represent a form of intrinsic (i.e., original) meaning that provides a natural foundation from which to construct increasingly complex semantic systems.” None of these ontogenetic effects will be achieved with negative affect, that is, with NVB.  NVB creates a negative motivation for our actions. With NVB we are not for something, but we are always against something. “The corollary is that the communicative importance of the affective influence of vocal signals do not disappear when brains get larger and the potential for cognitive, evaluative control of behavior increases. Rather, complex communicative processes might often specifically exploit and build on the phylogenetically ancient and widespread affective effects of vocal signals.” NVB doesn’t and can't provide us with “cognitive, evaluative control of behavior”, instead it makes us justify and downplay our actions, specifically our way of talking, because of our negative emotions.

August 29, 2015

August 29, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my twelfth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010). In the section of the paper titled “Bio-phonetics”, the authors give a perfect example of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). However, they only mention it as a possibility, not as a necessity, which, of course, it is. “It is also possible that some of the relatively rich semantics of adult language is scaffolded on simpler sound–meaning relationships. For example, the first natural sound–meaning relationships for infants are those marking the caregiver’s identity. Young infants of most species, including humans, show an early preference for mothers ’ voice whose unique features they quickly associate with the comfort, support and accompanying positive affect that she represents.” Without a safe and reliable “sound-meaning relationship”, which is based on the mother’s voice, the infant cannot grow up to be able to produce the “relatively rich semantics of adult language.” If the infant didn’t and couldn’t experience “comfort, support, and accompanying affect” of the mother’s voice, he or she grows up with a narrowed basis for language. Moreover, if there was no SVB, there must have been Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which, because of its negative affect, impairs our relationships. The foundation for what later becomes SVB or NVB is laid in our childhood.

“Over time, infants learn additional social discriminations that have other functional behavioral consequences. These include discriminating the age, sex and body size of social companions, because these basic distinctions herald important differences in the social status, behavioral dominance and implicit threat or challenge that others represent.” If the mother’s identity is recognized, the infant will learn to associate her voice with giving “comfort, support, and accompanying affect” and begin to realize how different the mother sounds compared to others. In other words, the mother’s SVB forms the foundation for the infant’s ability to recognize NVB. If the father and the other children share the mother’s SVB, then the family interactions are going to be happy and harmonious, but if their communication, like it was in my family, is NVB, then NVB sets the stage for discriminating “the age, sex, and body size of social companions, because these basic distinctions herald important differences in the social status, behavioral dominance and implicit threat or challenge that others represent.” This exactly describes  NVB, because in NVB the speaker dominates the listener.

At age 57, I finally have become capable of recognizing that only in SVB we can discriminate NVB and that NVB simply cannot discriminate SVB. My mother’s influence was such that I was able to discover SVB. Now that I have discovered it, I don’t go back anymore to the NVB represented by my father and siblings. NVB is meaningless to me as the “implicit threat or challenge that others represent” could never result in SVB. I consider SVB to be a science which can only be learned if it is taught. Social, hierarchical distinctions are based on pre-scientific NVB. We have maintained NVB because of our social distinctions, which have prevented us from becoming truly verbal and fully human. Such distinctions don’t matter during SVB. 

Coercive interaction simply sounds horrible, that is why I didn't listen to my father. “Many of these social distinctions are also signaled by salient differences in the acoustic features of the vocalizations these individuals produce, such as in voice pitch (fundamental frequency) and voice resonances (or formants) that vary predictably among age – sex classes and among individuals of varying body size.” Discrimination of NVB makes higher rates of SVB possible.  It is true for primates “many of the earliest sound – meaning relationships that young infants acquire are those that represent meaningful social distinctions among group members, and the affective and behavioral consequences they predict.” It was my mother’s, not my father’s voice that taught me the difference between SVB and NVB. 

Another way of saying the aforementioned is that my father’s dominating NVB have inadvertently led me to work very hard on trying to understand how spoken communication actually works. His way of talking was such a big contrast to my mother that I was unable to deal with this difference as a child. The authors are correct when they write “It is, therefore, possible that the semantics of human languages exploit some of these biologically, preprepared sound – meaning relationships which would then offer infants a natural aid in semantic learning.” My father’s forceful voice impaired my language development and learning initially, but my mother’s voice made me wonder what would happen if her way of talking could continue.