July 12, 2016

July 12, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my thirty-seventh response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). I absolutely disagree with the authors according to whom the “greatest epistemological barriers faced by radical behaviorism is that, like Darwinian evolutionary theory, it removes humans from a special place in the hierarchy of living organisms.” However, I do agree with them it has something to do with speech which maintains hierarchical relations. 

Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is the vocal verbal behavior in which both the speaker and the listener presumably know their place. In NVB the speaker doesn’t need to (and therefore often doesn’t) speak with the listener and is allowed to get away with speaking at the listener as he or she is of a higher social rank, smarter, better, more powerful then and superior to the listener. In other words, NVB is spoken communication that stimulates adherence to society’s hierarchies.  

In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), on the other hand, the speaker talks with the listener who is invited by the speaker’s sound to be a speaker as well. Moreover, as the listener becomes the speaker, the speaker can also become the listener. In SVB the speaker is “removed” from his or her “special place in the hierarchy of” the other communicators, as there is equality between the speaker and the listener. 

Radical behaviorism, like Darwinian evolutionary theory, makes us scientific about how we talk. NVB historically has been involved in the perpetuation of the superstitious belief in a behavior-causing self. Only SVB paves the way for natural, environmental explanations of behavior. Thus, in SVB the speaker no longer forces anything onto the listener.

July 11, 2016

July 11, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my twenty-sixth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). Skinner stated "We have not advanced more rapidly to the methods and instruments needed in the study of behavior precisely because of the diverting preoccupation with a supposed or real inner life" (Skinner, 1975, p.46).

This “preoccupation” is a function of our Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) in which there is no turn-taking or feedback. More precisely, we are diverted from Sound Verbal Behavior public speech by NVB private speech, which is conditioned by NVB public speech. There are problems in relationship and learning when there is a mismatch between public and private speech. This mismatch is caused and maintained by NVB.

I blame this “preoccupation with a supposed or real inner life” not on our private speech, on what we believe or think to ourselves, but on our public speech, on the way in which we talk with each other.  Certainly, we must “look to the environment for the origins of behavior,” but we must listen to ourselves while we speak and turn to the environment that is within our own skin to be able to discriminate SVB and NVB.  

Unlike textual verbal behavior, which can be seen, vocal verbal behavior cannot be seen and must be listened to, to be observed. “Language is simply a type of behavior (Skinner, 1957); it is subject to the same contingencies of reinforcement as all other behavior.” However, the difference between vocal verbal behavior and other behavior is that in the former we discriminate auditory stimuli with our ears, but in the later, we discriminate visual stimuli with our eyes. 

It is not uncommon for people to close their eyes to be better capable of listening and to not be distracted by what they see. Similarly, when we want to focus only on visual stimuli, as when we are reading a book, we can concentrate better if no auditory stimuli are distracting us. Thus, it is useful to have our eyes closed when we are learning SVB.

July 10, 2016

July 10, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my thirty-fifth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). These authors, who don’t know Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) continue to wonder if it is more difficult to abandon “folk psychology” than to surpass “the causal status of thoughts altogether?”

It sounds like a question inexperienced students might ask: is physics more difficult than chemistry? The degree of difficulty depends of course on someone’s behavioral history. That is not any different for the “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism.”  For someone who knows about the SVB/NVB distinction the question doesn’t arise.

Someone who knows SVB considers such a question as the absence of knowledge. Teaching requires SVB, but will be impaired by NVB. It is as simple as that. The question: which is more difficult to surpass “folk psychology” or “the causal status of thoughts?” derives from NVB.

In NVB there is always a separation between the speaker and the listener and there is also a rift between public speech and private speech. As in NVB our private speech is kept out of our public speech, people inadvertently believe they cause and have their own thoughts.

“For the radical behaviorist, "the bodily conditions [that] we feel are collateral products of our genetic and environmental histories. They have no explanatory force; they are simply additional facts to be taken into account" (Skinner, 1975, p. 43). Although behaviorists have often repeated this statement, they have yet to realize that teaching radical behaviorism requires an entirely different way of talking.

Skinner had mostly SVB, but the majority of behaviorists have mainly NVB. “The ability to manipulate environmental variables directly allows the behavioral researchers to demonstrate prediction and control in a way that internal constructs such as belief and thoughts cannot.” As long as behaviorists engage in NVB, they reinforce internal constructs.

July 9, 2016

July 9, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my twenty-fourth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). While I am writing this, I am listening to the heavenly music by Ottorino Respighi: Concerto Gregoriano.  It moves me to tears. Please listen to it as it will help you to understand what I mean by Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). 

Not everything can be explained by a scientific paper. You miss out on so much if you think that music can be replaced. Have some faith in me. Respighi’s music can also help us overcome “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism.”  People need this more than a paper spelling out the differences between folk psychology and radical behaviorism. 

We need beauty and new ways of thinking to be reinforced.  By writing Walden Two, Skinner aligned himself with Thoreau. Skinner did what he could to promote Radical Behaviorism. He used his entire behavioral repertoire as an author. He is like me. I do everything to promote SVB, which is an extension of Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism. 

I often sing songs and will let you listen to them so that you will realize that SVB has a lot in common with singing. In SVB it is all about the sound of the speaker’s voice. Only if the speaker has a sound which positively affects the listener can there be SVB. As this was not the case previously we were having a lot of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

In NVB our appreciation for beauty and harmony was completely lost. All “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” are verbal, but once we listen to Respighi’s magnificent sounds, we appreciate the nonverbal. That is why SVB is the way out of all verbal entanglements.

July 8, 2016

July 8, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-third response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). It is not the “number of these barriers” which “may prevent students from ever becoming “used to it,””(to radical behaviorism), but rather, it is the absence of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and the high rates of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) in teaching, which induces negative affect and prevents learning.

One only needs to read some of the blatant “misrepresentations” of radical behaviorism by Chomsky to get a sense of the visceral repulsion he must have felt when he first heard about it. I can attest to that as I once had a brief phone conversation with him. I was naïve to think that he might be interested in learning about listening to ourselves while we speak, what I now call Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB).

I had written Chomsky an email which apparently peaked his interest and his secretary had scheduled a time for us to talk. As I didn’t know anything at that time about radical behaviorism, this was not part of our conversation. However, Chomsky apparently already knew that I was a behaviorist. Our ‘conversation’ lasted less than one minute. 

Since he had shown interest in my view about how the sound of the speaker affects the listener, I felt no hesitation to bring his attention to the sound of his dreadful, antagonizing, NVB-voice. He immediately said he wasn’t going to talk about that and then he hung up on me. It is only in retrospect I came to interpret Chomsky’s bullyish reaction as solid proof that I am indeed a behaviorist. He instantly realized that talking about the sound of his voice required him to be open with me.