Language Enlightenment

Thursday, January 19, 2017

September 14, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my ninth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). As long as we think that thinking is more important than experiencing, we will continue to be having negative experiences. Moreover, such negative affective experiences always set the stage for Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which the listener will be negatively affected by the sound of the speaker’s voice. The notion that thinking (“the planning of contingencies that achieve a certain kind of balance between the good of individuals and the strengthening of the culture”) is going to create positive affective experiences is absolutely incorrect.

Thinking can’t create positive experiences as such experiences simply co-occur with it, but are not caused by it. However, positive affective experiences are caused by how we talk with each other. Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) only occurs if the speaker is not aversively influencing the listener. It requires turn-taking to verify if this is really happening. So, in SVB the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks, as he or she is assessing if he or she is inducing positive or negative emotions in the listener. Thus, in SVB, the most important listener is the speaker him or herself. Other listeners are more likely to listen to a self-listening speaker as such a speaker only evokes positive emotions. When the other listener becomes the speaker, he or she also listens to him or herself, while he or she speaks and he or she influences the former speaker, who is now listening to the listener who became the speaker. He or she reciprocates these positive affective experiences.

This shared positive experience which carries the conversation isn’t and doesn’t need to be planned or understood as it is experienced. The planning of experience, which is essential to behaviorism, falls short when it comes to vocal verbal interaction. As soon as the speaker plans what he or she says, as soon as he or she thinks about what he or she is going to say, he or she engages in NVB and influences the listener with a negative contingency. The NVB speaker speaks in a predetermined, mechanical and coercive manner. As he or she already knows what he or she is going to say, conversation as determined by such a speaker doesn’t and can’t contain anything new and is a repetitious event.

The behaviorist who speaks in a SVB manner is not planning anything. SVB is the language of behaviorism as it is only in SVB that the speaker recognizes that he or she is not causing his or her own behavior. The majority of behaviorists, however, only in theory believe that they are not causing their own behavior. Their NVB signifies this. Similarly to non-behaviorists, they place more importance on what they say than on why they say it. If behaviorists would be more concerned with why they talk the way they do, rather than why they think the way they do, they would find that the SVB/NVB distinction reveals that their thinking is caused by their way of talking. A new way thinking is preceded by a new way talking: the discovery of SVB. With the increase of SVB (and the decrease of NVB) behaviorism is something much more exciting and much better than what it has been and what it currently is.

SVB doesn’t depend, like behaviorist jargon, on institutional approval. “Although science and technology are needed to solve global problems, we cannot lose sight of the fact that scientific research is increasingly dependent on governmental and corporate funding, the press is also subject to restrictions by governments and corporations, and political factors usually influence what is taught in schools.” Someone can only teach SVB to someone else if he or she experiences it. Understanding SVB comes as a byproduct of experiencing it. I disagree that “science and technology are needed to solve global problems.” SVB is practiced when people interact peacefully. Global problems exist because of our involvement in NVB. We are mainly having NVB. Thus, “appropriate use of educational technology” won’t cut it. As long as we are unknowingly engaging in NVB, we cannot and do not “teach our students to think.” SVB is necessary to “maximize the chances that the culture will not only cope with its problems but steadily increase its capacity to do so.”

I like what these authors are writing and I imagine what it would be like to hear them say it. I am quite sure these authors have relatively high rates of SVB in their speech episodes with others. Their insistence on education is in the direction of SVB. “The technology of teaching is an ethical technology. Rather than being ethically neutral, it would be,

as envisioned by Skinner, guided by the goals of producing students that are creative, able to think, original, and free. Being more skillful at solving problems, this student will not only achieve a better life but would contribute to build a better world, participating in the design of

better cultural practices.” SVB, like radical behaviorism, cuts through all the red tape. It is about the results mentioned by these authors. I wish I could talk with them about SVB and will try to contact them. SVB is really about “participating in the design of better cultural practices.”

As I continue reading, however, I come to the section of the paper which is titled “teaching thinking.” In this section the authors explain why “students must also learn how to think.” I don’t agree with this. Students don’t need to learn how to think, they need to learn how to talk and they need to be made aware of the difference between SVB and NVB. Many people who have experimented with SVB described it as “learning, without being taught, in other words, learning how to learn, to solve problems, exploring the unknown and behaving in anoriginal way.” It is hopeful to read such verbal behavior, because it confirms that SVB was happening. If we are going to address “thinking as a behavior rather than as a mental activity”, as Skinner suggested, we will have to address it as speech, that is, as private speech, which, of course, is function of public speech. If we are not only interested in “successful behavior”, but are also going to “analyze and shape the whole behavioral chain that leads to a solution”, we need a way of teaching, that is, a way of talking, which makes that possible. According to Skinner (1968) this implies analyzing precurrent behavior: the preliminary responses which modify the environment or the individual himself and which may favor the emergence of the solution: SVB!

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

September 13, 2015

September 13, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my seventh response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Behaviorists have lamented conventional superstition in the same way that non-behaviorists have been against wars, destruction of the environment, inequality and poverty. Although they have a better understanding of behavior than non-behaviorists, the behaviorist’s way of talking is not in any significant way different from the non-behaviorist. Both are mainly engaged in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which what they say is more important than how they say it. This may not be very obvious, but it is a fact as far as I am concerned. I have made many attempts to contact behaviorists to talk with them about the possibility of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), in which what we say becomes more important because of how we say it, but most of them (like everybody else) are simply not interested.

My comments on this paper, as well as my comments on many other behaviorist papers, are to explain and promote SVB and behaviorism. I am a self-taught behaviorist. It explains how SVB works. We will only have SVB when we let go of the pre-scientific idea that we cause our own behavior. To the extent that behaviorists continue to produce NVB and are incapable of having SVB, they maintain and strengthen the mystical assumption that people cause their own behavior. This is not an accusation, but a fact, described in each of my writings. Any talk about “the survival of humanity, in balance with the welfare of individuals” only makes sense if we achieve and maintain SVB.

In his way of talking, Skinner was far ahead of most other behaviorists. He stated that “The absence of this balance” (between humanity and individual) “would be an example of bad design (Skinner (1971/2002).” Since he “does not advocate survival of cultures at the expense of tyrannical, coercive, or exploitative practices” Skinner is in favor of SVB and therefore against NVB. “The science of behavior” predicts that SVB “cultural practices will have the higher chance of being effective.” By recognizing NVB, we acquire a behavioral technology which helps us intervene on “problems arising from human susceptibilities that have been phylogenetically inherited.” Under certain circumstances we can’t help having NVB. Unless such aversive circumstances are addressed and changed SVB cannot occur. The extent to which we have been in safe and stable SVB environments determines whether we will be able to bridge “the gaps between immediate and delayed contingencies.”

Our ability to endure NVB is in direct proportion to the amount of SVB that we have experienced. Only to the extent that our culture provides us with multiple SVB opportunities can there be development of “flexible cultural practices (that may be stable and, at the same time, amenable to innovation depending on the contingencies)”. Since the distinction between SVB and NVB is still unknown, matters such as education are emphasized, which would only flourish if SVB were to occur more often. “Education would be extremely important to achieve these objectives. Creative behavior, problem solving, and freedom from certain kinds of control that compete with adequate environmental control, may be produced by a technology of teaching.” The authors are not mentioning the importance of our way of talking in all of this. They don’t acknowledge that NVB, coercive control, competes with SVB, appetitive and therefore more “adequate environmental control.”

Something has changed in my writing. When I read a paper, I copy and paste each section in my writing and then I comment on it, sentence by sentence. This not only allows me to better understand what I read, but it also stimulates a more coherent response, which explains SVB. As a consequence, although I write very slowly, I am much happier about my writing. Another aspect is that my writings have only been read by me and have not been published. As I continue to write, the anticipation of other people understanding it increases. I find this inspiring. Because I have produced so much good writing, I feel confident. It seems to me as if I have a bank account from which I can draw because I have plenty. Lastly, through the writings of my fellow behaviorists, I have become more and more convinced of the importance of my discovery of SVB.

“Since Skinner considers behavior to be determined by histories of variation and selection at three levels, he attributes many current behavioral problems to characteristics of the processes of variation and selection (Skinner, 1966/1969a, 1975/1978, 1981, 1990).” Although everything he has discovered is of great importance, Skinner couldn’t bring into focus the SVB/NVB distinction. His success always provided him with an audience, who would listen to him. As he was so good at self-management, he was reinforced by most of what he did. Except for his ‘dark year’, earlier in his life, he was not confronted with major setbacks. In other words, there was never a real need for him to ‘reinvent himself.’ In my life path, on the other hand, there have been many challenges and it is due to these challenges that I discovered SVB. Stated differently, I felt so troubled by NVB that it took me many years before I could give words to it. My mother often gave me SVB, but my father often gave me NVB. I was confused and upset about how that could be. Skinner came from a stable SVB environment, but I came from an unstable SVB environment, in which one moment it was there and the next moment it was gone again. Overall, there was a lot of NVB in my family. For many years I unknowingly longed for SVB stability. I have experienced a noticeable increase in SVB stability over the years.

September 12, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

September 11, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my sixth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). “The prescription of the good of culture as a supreme value in Skinnerian writings raises some problems” as the authors are conditioned by and conforming to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is the absence of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) makes them reason that “the election of good of the culture seems tautological.” In other words, these authors (actually, behaviorists and non-behaviorists alike) interpret Skinner’s SVB in a NVB manner. Predictably they argue that “Radical Behaviorism as a philosophy of the science of behavior states necessary but not sufficient assumptions for the election of the good of culture.” NVB always goes against SVB and will never acknowledge it, but SVB acknowledges NVB and transcends it.

With SVB it is impossible “to use the theoretical and technological framework of the science of human behavior for purposes other than the good of the culture”, but with NVB “purposes other than the good of culture” form the speaker’s motives. For instance, the speaker wants the listener to listen to him or to her, but he or she is not even listening to him or herself. Thus, the dominating and intimidating NVB speaker induces negative affect in the listener with his or her aversive-sounding voice. In SVB, by contrast, the speaker’s voice is an appetitive stimulus which induces positive affect in the listener. The culture created by the NVB speaker is different from the culture created by the SVB speaker. NVB creates a sick culture, while SVB creates a healthy culture. Stated differently, we create a sustainable culture to the extent that we have SVB, but to the extent that we have NVB we create a culture which is doomed to collapse. Culture is maintained by how people talk together.

Skinner is not putting any effort in trying to “convince us otherwise.” He would be doing that if his speech was NVB, but he mainly has SVB.

In NVB we are always trying to convince someone of something, which involves a great deal of effort. In SVB, on the other hand, there is no need to convince anyone and our conversation is effortless. The reader is asked to pause for a moment and think about how often talking with someone or listening to someone requires effort. This effort signifies how often we are involved in NVB. The time when our conversations went effortlessly and when we had a taste of SVB, were accidental, haphazard, occasional, once in blue moon. We have never had SVB in a predictable, skillful, consistent and deliberate fashion.

Skinner’s way of talking is more in line with SVB than with NVB, but as stated in my previous writing, his emphasis was not on how he spoke, but on what he said. This common focus, which I call verbal fixation, usually sets the stage for NVB. Along with outward orientation (the aforementioned tendency to dominate others) and struggle (for attention), we must discriminate three basic behaviors which make SVB impossible. Our voice changes when we are inattentive to how we sound while we speak. This occurs because we try to impress others with what we say. Also, the sound of our voice changes when we try to dominate others. And, the sound of our voice changes when we argue. NVB creates a culture of hostility and distrust, but SVB creates a culture of mutuality and support. SVB sounds good, but NVB sounds terrible.

I agree with the authors, who state that “the prescriptive aspect of Skinner’s theory does not necessarily stem from the descriptive aspect.” My interpretation is that “the prescriptive aspect of Skinner’s theory” does not necessarily derive from what he has written (“the descriptive aspect”), but from what he has said. The authors seem to be reasoning from a NVB perspective when they consider the Third Reich as an evil culture. Regardless of how awful the Third Reich was, it was a culture, which survived for a certain period of time, just like any other culture. “We may even accept that survival is the only value according to which a culture will eventually be judged. However, since we are not inclined to accept any culture that survives, it is questionable whether survival should be the main value to guide cultural planning.” Skinner, in my opinion, spoke of the survival of a SVB culture. He stated that “Personal sacrifice may be a dramatic example of the conflict of interests between the group and its members, but it is the product of a bad design. Under better contingencies behavior which strengthens the culture may be highly reinforcing. (Skinner, 1969b, p. 41).” When Chiesa states that “the philosophy and scientific practice of behaviorism do not inevitably lead to the promotion of survival as a value (…) Surely the values do not emerge from the meta-ethics” (Chiesa, 2003, p. 296, our translation),” she is also, like the authors, speaking from a NVB perspective. In the “highly reinforcing culture” Skinner was thinking about the values do arise from the meta-ethics. Of course, both the authors and Chiesa respond to the content of Skinner’s speech, but not to how he said it. As already mentioned, such fixation on the verbal, which strips Skinner’s words from their context, from how he sounded, that is, from the nonverbal experience, is characteristic for NVB.

“In Skinner’s prescriptive ethics, we would have a well-planned culture, by means of a technology of behavior.” Such a well-planned culture has to be based on SVB and must identify and control for NVB, because only a SVB culture is “able to solve the problems which it faces and, at the same time, does not require personal sacrifice from its members, thus guaranteeing survival and happiness (e.g., Skinner, 1948/2005).” Moreover, only a NVB culture requires and demands “personal sacrifice from its members”, whereas SVB guarantees “survival and happiness.”

Behaviorist shouldn’t promote survival of NVB, but, unfortunately, they do. In a same way parents reinforce their child’s acting out behavior by giving it attention, behaviorist continue to promote NVB, by trying change the way in which we speak about behavior. They focus on content rather than context. The how of what they say has not become important. Although, in theory, they agree that “Happiness or well-being of individuals that make up the culture should be assured”, while speaking, that is, in practice, they still mainly produce NVB. They may aspire to “Good cultural planning” which “would not demand personal sacrifice”, but they elevate behaviorist’ jargon above engaging SVB.

September 10, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my fifth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Skinner’s interest in “solving human problems with the help of behavior analysis” wouldn’t make any sense without “moral relativism.” Although his “behavioral technology is ethically neutral, because nothing in a methodology determines the values that govern its use”, he insists that “We are concerned here, however, not merely with practices, but with the design of the whole culture, and the survival of a culture then emerges as a special kind of value” (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 150, our emphasis). To contrast the emphasis added by the authors, I have underlined my emphasis. Skinner was not thinking about only one specific kind of culture, but he was deeply concerned about culture as such, as a force in the selection of human behavior.

Since his focus was on predicting and controlling behavior, he placed his emphasis on accurately describing --in his writing-- what happens. Although his contribution to science has been enormous, it didn’t and it couldn’t lead to discovery of the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). To make that happen scientists must remain focused on they sound while they speak. Skinner wants the same scientific treatment for every culture. If we are, going to have a conversation in which this objectivity is expressed, we are going to have SVB, but as long as our so-called conversation is clouded and distorted by our conventional superstition, which makes us identify with our own particular culture, we are going to have NVB.

These authors have only read what Skinner has written. That is why they write “We understand from statements such as this that Skinner argues that moral neutrality cannot, or should not, exist in the sphere of cultural planning.” In other words, they are inferring from his writing what he meant by what he said. However, a lot of what Skinner meant cannot be found in his writings. It can only be found in the sound of his voice, that is, in his gentle demeanor. There is nothing relativistic about his verbal conduct, which was exceptionally consistent. I consider most of his vocalizations as examples of SVB. I agree with the authors, who seem to feel where Skinner was coming from as he was not randomly doing something. “It does not make sense to intervene without an objective, without an idea of what is best to be done. The behavior of whoever intervenes is guided by a prediction of the intervention’s consequence.” Skinner certainly isn’t neutral about the fact that only radical behaviorism can enhance our culture, nor is he neutral about the superstitions which prevent such enhancement. Although I agree with Skinner and with the authors that “The moral relativism of a science of values is no longer in place”, I place the emphasis on how we talk, because without SVB we can’t improve our relationships.

The authors seem to be referring to SVB when they write: “Therefore, in the sphere of social intervention, there should be a special value that governs the use of technology, helping to define what is good and what is bad.” SVB is good and NVB is bad. With SVB, we are going to use our technology to enhance instead of diminish our relationships. Either we are going to do that or we don’t. If we don’t, this means that we can’t, as we keep having NVB. “The special value” has to be a new way of talking. Skinner is referring to this indirectly. “ this value is the good of culture, the survival of the culture (that would be ultimately defined by survival of humanity, because Skinner does not prescribe any type of competition between cultures), that should be above other values.” SVB happens without aversive stimulation. Unless we acknowledge the SVB/NVB distinction, we will get stuck with NVB. We are still bogged down by NVB because this understanding and experience is lacking.

According to Ruiz and Roche (2007), “in Skinner’s naturalistic ethics, survival emerges as the ultimate value and criterion by which to assess the worth of cultures and individual cultural practices” (p. 1-2). Skinner (1971/2002) argues that this good should govern the behavior of those who are in a position to design cultural practices.” Without SVB, that is, with NVB, we are heading for self-destruction. “Those who are in the position to design cultural practices” are least likely to be open to the difference between SVB and NVB. Their position of power is acquired and maintained by NVB. The person ideally positioned to teach about SVB and NVB has to be someone who is not invested in power. This is not a saint, but someone knowledgeable and capable. Skinner was very knowledgeable, but incapable of identifying the difference between SVB and NVB. Behaviorists should be interested in the fact that we are each other’s environment. Only in SVB do we co-regulate each other, but in NVB we dis-regulate each other. As long as “naturalistic ethics” doesn’t address a different way of talking, it is only theoretical. In other words, “naturalistic ethics” only makes sense as a behavior.

We should not expect these “new cultural practices” to “occur “naturally” through “happy accidents”, but we should be deliberate about “cultural revolution.” SVB only happens if it can happen and if it can happen, it will happen. If NVB happens, this means that SVB can’t happen. Most people who are introduced to the SVB/NVB distinction are surprised to realize that only SVB is deliberate, while NVB happens on automatic pilot. NVB is an unconscious, mechanical way of talking. The “cultural planning” professed by Skinner is not going to happen as long as behaviorists themselves continue to have NVB and find no time for the necessary exploration of SVB. Skinner, however, alludes to SVB when he states that “a well-designed culture is “a set of contingencies of reinforcement under which members behave in ways which maintain the culture, enable it to meet emergencies, and change it in such a way that it will do these things even more effectively in the future” (Skinner, 1969b, p. 41). Once we practice SVB things will rapidly get better.