August 24, 2016

August 24, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-sixth response to the paper “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). Day does a great job delineating how radical behaviorism “impinges upon the domain of phenomenology.” Radical behaviorism primarily focuses on “behavior, even though it may not be public in nature.” A behavioral analyst acknowledges the fact that “much of both his own behavior and that in which he is interested is under complex control, a control that is likely to be to a considerable extent environmental in nature.”

When people think about the environment, they tend to think of oceans, forests, rivers and skies, but not of other people. We are each other’s environment; we affect each other and we are affected by each other. The way we are affected by each other’s sound is a more ancient biological process than how we are affected by each other’s words. Language is a relatively new event in our evolutionary history.  

Our body’s innate response to sound and particularly to vocalizations from conspecifics is of great importance. This obvious fact is often completely ignored because we are more inclined to pay attention to what we say than to how we say what we say. Although we are verbal creatures, the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) relates to our non-verbal history.

Our own sound can stimulate us in a manner that rejuvenates our entire nervous system. Furthermore, our brains and our nervous systems are either stimulated and conditioned by the sound of our well-being or by the sound of our fear, stress and frustration.  In the former our nervous system is regulated, but in the latter, is it dysregulated. 

Instead of simply acknowledging that the phenomenologists seem to be having more SVB than the radical behaviorists, Day suggests that “The phenomenologist needs greatly to recognize that a little less metaphor and theory, and a lot more description of the things that he has actually observed, would be of much help to others in understanding the problems he faces.” He focuses on what the phenomenologist say.

I understand why Day wrote what he wrote, but as a teacher and as a therapist, I firmly believe that an emphasis on how we say things is of greater importance for helping others. The problems people face are caused by an over-emphasis on the importance of their verbal behavior and the disconnect this creates from their non-verbal behavior. 

To speak in a phenomenological metaphor: we are often just like unconscious talking heads as we disconnect from our body, which is the instrument of sound. Each time we get verbally carried away, we disembody our communication, but by listening to how we sound while we speak, we become embodied, conscious, whole speakers again. 

When Day insists “The phenomenologist should be especially weary of the ways in which his previous experience acts to influence however he happens to talk, particularly in constructing theories, planning research, and reaching explanatory conclusions”, he clearly only refers to what the phenomenologists say and not to the previous experiences of how speaker’s voices played a role shaping their verbal behavior. 

One could say that Day is verbally fixated as he is downplaying the role of “previous experience”, that is, of nonverbal learning, which “acts to influence however he happens to talk.” If it is true, and I strongly believe it is, that phenomenologist have more SVB than behaviorists, Day’s criticizes their SVB with NVB. Such disapproval never worked. 

In the study of complex behavior, to decide “what is chicken and what is egg”, we shouldn’t lose track of the fact that nonverbal learning made verbal learning possible;  prior environments changed our body.

August 23, 2016

August 23, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-fifth response to the paper “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). I find it very soothing to read and write about what seems to be the only radical behaviorist who recognizes squarely the importance of talking.

According to Day, radical behaviorists can only make sense of the “value, meaningfulness, and significance of a person’s experience” by putting themselves “in a position to make the same kind of observation – often clinical, social, literary, religious, or aesthetic in nature – that gives rise to such phenomenological talk.” (italics added)

If this “extensive observation of a wide range of human functioning” is done while we are talking, we are beginning to observe by listening. We are listening to ourselves while we speak and this makes us capable of listening to others in the same way as we listen to ourselves. 

As long as psychologists don’t listen to themselves they remain “rather narrowly experienced people.” Presumably radical behaviorists observe and describe “relevant behavior, conspicuously including what the persons involved have to say to themselves,” but for someone who is familiar with the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction, it is evident that radical behaviorists, like most other people, have never listened to themselves while they speak. 

They are interested in what others say to themselves and are involved in “the rehabilitation of mentally defective children,” but they only pay lip service to what they say to themselves.  The “more complex aspects of behavior which are coming to be identified as phenomenological in a looser usage of the terms” are more likely to be communicated as SVB. 

Day wants radical behaviorists to take advantage of “phenomenological talk” (italics added), as he recognizes SVB in phenomenology and the NVB in radical behaviorism. It is important to realize though that one doesn’t need to know about radical behaviorism to have SVB. 

When I first discovered SVB, I was completely unaware about radical behaviorism. However, people may still be “grossly unaware of the first lessons to be learned from the experimental analysis of behavior,” may have more SVB repertoire than knowledgeable radical behaviorists. 

Lack of understanding about this phenomenon has greatly damaged the reputation of radical behaviorism. Not surprisingly, what Day suggested fell on deaf phenomenological ears. He writes “Phenomenologist should be especially weary of the way in which ...” and “phenomenologists should, at least to some extent, attempt to….” and “he must not fail to examine carefully the observable events….” (italics added). 

Day clearly expresses NVB in each of these sentences. Of course, this is how academia always works. This is how peer-review articles are written, which are only read by a small group of specialists and which can never contribute anything to changing the way in which we talk.

Presumably “the phenomenologist needs greatly to recognize that a little less metaphor and theory, and a lot more simple description of the things that he has actually observed, would be of much help to others in understanding the problems he faces.” To defend radical behaviorism, Day focuses on what we say, but how we say things needs be addressed if we want to be able to understand our problems.

A therapist who continuously says to a client that he or she “must” or “should” do this or that will not achieve anything. When it comes to listening to one self while one speaks, even radical behaviorists have remained unaware of certain “pertinent relations between environment (including one’s own behavior) and the behavioral change”; Behavioral change occurs as listeners respond to the sound of the speaker’s voice.  

August 22, 2016

August 22, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-fourth response to the paper “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). Since the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) was never the topic of discussion at any conference, not much has changed between the publication of this paper and now. 

“The possibilities of active reconciliation” between radical behaviorism and phenomenology led people to organize to the Rice Symposium. Day wrote a nice paper about that, but it didn’t result in anything else. 

When we consider the SVB/NVB distinction, we realize that “there are numerous ways in which radical behaviorism and phenomenology need each other”, but radical behaviorism, the scientific account of human behavior, is, of course, needed much more than phenomenology. 

Radical behaviorism’s superiority was not received well is due to NVB. If even Carl Rogers, who coined the term unconditional positive regard (a term which radical behaviorists who are experts on conditioning laugh at) considered “Skinner’s verbal behavior as in some way inherently intolerant,” he clearly didn’t practice what he preached. 

From a behavioral perspective, what Rogers refers to is, of course, conditioned positive regard or a therapeutic stance.  Day recognized the difference between Skinner and Rogers. 

“Skinner’s analysis of obviously phenomenological subject matter, as his chapter on “Private Events in a Natural Science” in Science and Human Behavior (1953, Ch.17), or the paper on Operationism (1945), or his contribution to the Rice Symposium (1964), are clearly under the control of considerable self-observation on the part of Skinner himself.” 

I admire Day for his ability to detect aspects of SVB in Skinner and aspects NVB in Rogers. His writing shows he is focused on how people talk. “It is not that what Skinner has to say in this material needs “experimental test”, “What is needed is extensive descriptive analysis of verbal behavior controlled by observable events that are likely to be identified by the speaker as his own conscious experience, his inner subjective feelings, or his private hopes, fears, and aspirations.” 

In the aforementioned statement Day exactly describes SVB. These observable events are identified by the speaker, who is listening to him or herself while he or she speaks. Day’s observation is accurate, but unfortunately most behaviorists don’t include his level of analysis. 

“Without such a behavioral analysis, coverage of the obviously interesting aspects of human functioning will remain incomplete.” The opposite is also true: with such a behavioral analysis we will recognize the importance of the SVB/NVB distinction, as it sheds light on how our private speech, the way we think, is caused by our public speech. 

Day doesn’t find “important causes of the social and personal adjustment behavior” in analysis of “phenomenological verbal behavior,” but he insists that “careful description of functional relations can be expected to have an ameliorative influence upon the extent to which inner mental processes are called upon in the explanation of behavior.” 

NVB private speech doesn’t cause NVB public speech any more than SVB private speech causes SVB public speech. Instead NVB public speech co-occurs with NVB private speech. Thus, NVB public speech conditions NVB private speech. 

Likewise, SVB private speech co-occurs with SVB public speech. To the extent  a person is exposed to and involved in SVB public speech, he or she will be conditioned to have SVB private speech. Especially for those who suffer from mental health issues this analysis is of great importance.

August 21, 2016

August 21, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-third response to the paper “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). As long as we keep having Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) it is impossible to understand ourselves and each other. All our problems are problems of relationship, created and maintained by how we talk with each other. 

Day says “to know thoroughly what has caused a man to say something is to understand the significance of what he has said in its very deepest sense.” I agree, but I insist that such understanding must occur while we talk. Moreover, NVB never brought about such an understanding. If such understanding ever occurred, it didn’t occur very often as it was always because of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). 

Human relationship remains a mess unless we address how we talk with each other. Many people have thought we must engage in conversation to begin to address and solve our problems, but our conversation didn’t and couldn’t help as it was NVB. As long as the distinction between SVB and NVB is not clear, we have NVB, even with the best of intentions. 

“It is true that Skinner has not rushed to embrace with star-eyed enthusiasm the sentimental, emotional, commonsensical, or obscure outpourings that often pass as pleas for phenomenology in psychology.” 

According to Day, Skinner had “his own row to hoe in attempting to advance an explicit interest in the analysis of behavioral control,” but in my opinion, although didn’t talk about the SVB/NVB distinction, he basically refused to engage in NVB as he preferred to have SVB. 

SVB is radical behaviorism’s natural outcome. Without it we are unable to talk about how we are actually affected by each other and how we are affecting each other. NVB only allows superficial conversation. 

Skinner was well aware of the “professional shallowness in the interpretation of his work.” Radical behaviorism’s emphasis on behavioral control has been criticized from day one by those who are in power and who can continue to maintain their power by means of NVB. 

Ultimately, as Skinner described in Walden Two (1948), there is only going to be a more peaceful, happy society if we change our way of talking. Walden Two describes the change from NVB to SVB. 

People echo the presumed “intolerance” of Skinner’s views on verbal behavior. “A specialization of interest does not imply intolerance, nor is intolerance implied by a decreasing interest in verbal behavior as its control by observable events becomes more hopelessly obscure.” 

There is a reason why control by observable events over NVB and SVB continued to become obscure: once we make these events observable, once we listen to the sound of the speaker’s voice and discriminate between SVB and NVB, we are going to have less NVB and more SVB. 

“The radical behaviorist understandably reacts slowly to phenomenological talk that is to some extent too distantly removed from the direct observations that have made the speaker excited to begin with.” 

Day refers to an “excited speaker”, which I translate as someone with SVB, whose enthusiasm is dampened by radical behaviorist talk, which is “too distantly removed from the direct observations that have made the speaker excited to begin with.” 

Day describes how the passionate phenomenologist’s SVB is stopped and dismissed by the “too distantly removed” NVB of the radical behaviorist. He writes in response to the Rice Symposium in 1969, but not much has changed since. Theoretical discussions are bound to be about what we say and not about how we say it. 

August 20, 2016

August 20, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twenty-second response to the paper “Radical Behaviorism in Reconciliation with Phenomenology” by Willard Day (1969). It should be clear from my distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which is supported by and grounded in radical behaviorism, that environmental variables (not private events), cause us to talk the way we do. Think of these variables as people. 

In different environments people speak different languages; in France children learn how to speak French, but in China children learn how to speak Chinese. Similarly to these languages, SVB and NVB are simply patterns of behavior. “Many patterns of verbal behavior pass as successful explanation to many people, and indeed common practices of explanation provide an interesting area for empirical investigation.” 

My theory, which is directly observed by me as verbal behavior, that is, as speech occurring within my own skin, is only valuable to the extent that it can bring the reader’s attention to what made me describe the SVB/NVB distinction the way I did.  The reader will agree with me that my description of my public speech always either co-occurs with the positive or the negative emotions which are experienced privately. 

As we could only verify our emotional patterns of verbal behavior while we speak, it is important we acknowledge that in NVB we were not in the position to learn about them. The SVB/NVB distinction only makes sense if we talk about it and this writing is intended to stimulate that. 

As we engage in SVB, we will find that phenomenology, the study of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness and radical behaviorism both focus on a first-person perspective. From a scientific third-person perspective we all talk from a first-person perspective!

“Any kind of professional language, no matter how esoteric, is of interest to the radical behaviorist as a sample of verbal behavior.” Once we engage in SVB, however, we will find that many so-called professional languages should from now on be categorized as NVB. 

Skinner referred to this as mentalism, but NVB is a much more pragmatic term as it focuses our attention directly on how we talk or on whether we even talk with each other at all. One thing is for sure: as long as the emphasis of psychological theory continues to be mainly on writing and on reading, we are talking and listening less and less. 

If we really want to know “what sort of factors have been involved in leading the speaker to say what he does,” we cannot avoid feeling the heaviness and tremendous burden which is involved in NVB and our  delight in SVB. However, factors that have been involved in how the speaker speaks determine how what the speaker says comes across.

The saying it-is-not-what-you-say-but-how-you-say-it is a listener’s perspective of the speaker. Likewise, the SVB/NVB distinction is a listener’s perspective, that is, a first-person perspective. A speaker’s perspective, on the other hand, is a third-person perspective. 

In SVB we will acknowledge that a first-person perspective gives rise to third-person perspective, but a third-person perspective by itself (as in NVB) is disembodied and excludes a first-person perspective. Thus, a lot of what has gone on in the name of science was NVB, a way of speaking which disregarded the listener’s subjective experience.

“How earnestly the radical behaviorist is prepared to try to understand whatever factors control the emission of any interesting psychological talk” will depend on whether he or she listens, not to somebody else, but to him or herself. Only in SVB the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. Only in SVB the speaker speaks with and listens to others in the exact same way as he or she speaks with and listens to him or herself. In NVB, the speaker speaks at, not with the listener.