January 16, 2015

January 16, 2015

Written by a locus called Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

Finally, this writer has started reading Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (1957). Last night, he had a dream in which he was reshuffling his notes. Interesting, how antecedent verbal stimuli could evoke such response, which was consequated by Ernest Vargas, whose foreword spoke to him and then led a response and more writing and a great conversation with Laurel about the importance of the verbal community, without which consequation is impossible. Also, Arturo returned from the jungle and had a short and reinforcing conversation with this writer. He told him he had a high fever and was bitten by some bug. They decided to talk more on Sunday.

  

What follows are this writer’s thoughts about the first three pages of the book Verbal Behavior (Skinner, 1957). This writer will use this book to write about both Skinner’s work as well as his own work. His own work is explained by Skinner’s work. This writing is primarily about this author’s work. Skinner’s work is used to elucidate this author’s work.

Skinner starts with “Men act upon the world, and change it, and are changed in turn by the consequences of their actions. Certain processes, which the human organism shares with other species, alter behavior so that it achieves safer and more useful interchange with a particular environment.” (p.1) From the very beginning he focuses the reader’s attention on what is going to happen after he or she has read what he has written. They will be changed by the consequences of their actions, that is, by their verbal behavior. Moreover, they will be changed, they will have to be changed, in very specific ways. The change he refers to is selection by consequences. The safety and survival of human beings depends on whether they will be able to view each other as part of the great web of life and connected with other species with who they share their environment. Skinner’s operant conditioning paradigm invites the reader to try out and verify the predicted consequences of moving away, from agential, pre-scientific, self-centered and destructive explanations of behavior to the natural effects of environmental variables. 

Likewise, this writer wants the reader to read out loud so that he or she can hear the sound of his or her voice while he or she speaks. While reading this text out loud, speaking and listening will become joined and the reader will be able to explore Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), the spoken communication in which we speak with a tone of voice which is experienced by the listener as reinforcing. If the reader is alone, he or she will have his or her first taste of SVB by him or herself, but if others are present, they will be affected by the change, which occurs in the sound of the voice of the reader as a consequence of this reading. 

As the sound of the reader’s voice becomes more enjoyable to him or herself as well as to others, the reader will experience the shift from what this author calls Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) to SVB. During NVB we are not aware of how we sound, and, consequently, we communicate in a mechanical, unconscious fashion. Attention for our sound, which is produced in the here and now, requires us to listen in the here and now. In SVB we are not trying to sound in any particular kind of way, our sound is what it is, but we are aware of it, which, as stated, in NVB we aren’t. In NVB our voice is experienced as an aversive stimulus by the listener, which can also be the speaker as his own listener. In SVB, by contrast, our voice is having a reinforcing effect on ourselves and others. 

The way we act upon the world with SVB and how we are changed by the consequences of SVB is very different from the way in which we act upon the world with NVB and how we are changed by the consequences of NVB. Only with SVB will we be able to achieve a “safer and more useful interchange”. However, such an interaction gets disrupted by NVB, in which communicators are insensitive to each other. In NVB people dominate, exploit, coerce, distract and manipulate each other, whereas in SVB we help, enhance, energize, join and enjoy each other. 

Skinner writes “When appropriate behavior has been established, its consequences work through similar processes to keep it in force.” This writer considers SVB as “appropriate behavior” and acknowledges that its “consequences work similar processes to keep it in force.” Only SVB will lead to the bodily changes needed to keep it going, but NVB will lead to other bodily changes which will make us more prone to having stress responses.

Skinner writes “If by chance the environment changes, old forms of behavior disappear, while new consequences build new forms.” Skinner views behavior as selected by consequences. If, and only if, we really  experience positive consequences such as “safety and more useful interaction” we want to achieve and maintain those reinforcing circumstances again, but if we keep experiencing a lack of safety and are bothered by useless and meaningless interaction, we have no other choice than to struggle, argue and stand our ground. In the former we achieve SVB, but in the latter we have NVB.

Skinner explains the direct effects of our behavior when he writes “behavior alters the environment through mechanical action, and its properties or dimensions are often related in a simple way to the effects produced.” No other person is needed to mediate our behavior, when we pick up an apple and eat it. “Much of the time, however, a man acts only indirectly upon the environment from which the ultimate consequences of his behavior emerge. His first effect is on other men.” Here Skinner refers to reinforcement mediated by others. When we ask “can you pass me the sugar?” we produce “a certain pattern of sounds”, which makes another person hand us the sugar. Verbal behavior acts indirectly on our environment; it requires reinforcement that is mediated by others. In NVB there are always problems with this indirect aspect of our verbal behavior. Why does that occur? The direct, aversive, nonverbal effect of the voice of the speaker distracts the mediator from the indirect, reinforcing, verbal effect on the speaker. Thus, in NVB, mediators reinforce demanding and coercive verbalizers.

In SVB and in NVB a verbalizer’s mand is reinforced by a mediator’s behavior, however, in SVB the mediator can also mand the verbalizer, whereas in NVB he or she can’t, isn’t allowed to, and, supposedly, isn’t supposed to. Stated differently, in NVB the mediator is forced to mediate the verbalizer. Whenever a mediator has the audacity to mand the NVB verbalizer, he or she will immediately elicit and an even harsher mand, which is meant to coerce the mediator into obeying the verbalizer’s order not to mand. Thus, NVB verbalizers and NVB mediators always together maintain NVB.

Only in SVB are speakers considerate about the effects they have on the listener. Only in SVB do communicators return the favor of manding. Collaboration, togetherness, trust and dependence will continue to require SVB and is only be possible with SVB. However, such social benefits are forgotten due to our imaginary independence, our disconnected paranoia, our agentloneliness and our self-glorification, which are created and maintained by NVB. The shouting down of “the walls of a Jericho”, the grandiose “command to stop the sun” or the manic prayer for “the waves to be still” are historical records of NVB. Skinner is correct in stating that “The consequences of such behavior are mediated by a train of events no less physical or inevitable than direct mechanical action, but clearly more difficult to describe.” (p.2) 

  

The fact that behavior “is effective only through the mediation of other persons” requires “special treatment” because SVB exists. It is SVB, not language per se, which distinguishes humans from nonverbal organisms. It comes as no surprise to this writer that Skinner on the second page of his book introduces “verbal behavior” by emphasizing its relation to the “individual speaker.” (p.2) His use of words, “whether recognized by the user or not, specifies behavior shaped and maintained by consequences” perfectly dovetails with this writer’s distinction of SVB and NVB, which must be made on an individual basis. Skinner admits that his definition of verbal behavior needs “certain refinements.” The SVB/NVB distinction ought to be considered as such a refinement. Interestingly, he also concedes that his term “verbal behavior” “does not say much about the behavior of the listener.”  . 

SVB is a refinement of verbal behavior, as it emphasizes the mediator’s perspective of the verbalizer. When Skinner states “there would be little verbal behavior to consider [for the listener] if someone had not already acquired special responses to the patterns of energy generated by the speaker”, he unknowingly seems to refer to SVB. For someone (most of us) who grows up in an environment in which there is mainly NVB, there is a lot to be re-considered for both the listener as well as the speaker. As stated previously “the patterns of energy generated by the [NVB] speaker” are very very different from those that are generated by the SVB speaker. The sentence “an adequate account of verbal behavior need cover only as much of the behavior of the listener as is needed to explain the behavior of the speaker” thus characterizes SVB, in which the mediator doesn’t say anything different to him or herself as the verbalizer says to him or to her. In NVB, the mediator’s private speech is different from the verbalizer’s public speech.

This writer agrees with Skinner, who writes “The behavior of the speaker and the listener taken together compose what may be called a total verbal episode. There is nothing in such an episode which is more than the combined behavior of two or more individuals.” (p.2) However, in NVB the behavior of the speaker and the listener are not taken together. These behaviors are only taken together during SVB. Stated differently, NVB is an incomplete way of communicating in which only the verbalizer matters. 

Skinner’s elaboration on “a total verbal episode” continues with “Nothing “emerges” in the social unit. The speaker can be studied while assuming a listener, and the listener while assuming a speaker. The separate accounts which result exhaust the episode in which both participate.” (p.2). Verbal behavior, like any other behavior, is a lawful natural process. What is believed to “emerge in the social unit” is a product of NVB. During SVB, our NVB suddenly doesn’t look so strange anymore when the comparison between SVB and NVB wasn’t and couldn’t be made. However, “the separate account” from the NVB speaker could only inform us about the NVB listener, while “the separate account” from the SVB speaker could inform us about both, the SVB listener as well as the NVB listener. Likewise, the NVB listener could only tell us about the NVB speaker, but the SVB listener could tell us about both the SVB and the NVB speaker. Again our all-inclusive Skinner, seems to be referring to SVB; he is definitely not into exclusive NVB.

As Vargas explains in his foreword, in Verbal Behavior (1957, pxiii), Skinner applies the concepts which he already worked out experimentally. It is amazing that he would come to these “fresh formulations” which “revealed a new level of order and precision” (p.3) and that this writer’s concept of SVB  overlaps with Skinner’s operant views. Skinner states that “Much of the experimental work responsible for this advance has been carried out on other species, but the results have proven to be surprisingly free of species restrictions.” (p.3). This writer too has done experimental work, not with other species, but with humans. The universality of SVB has been proven by the fact that people from every possible background have validated it. Regardless of what language people speak, they engage in SVB or NVB. Since there are no species restrictions, nonverbal versions of SVB and NVB can be seen in nonverbal animals and nonverbal children. Skinner places the word “understanding” of verbal behavior in quotation marks, because he wants to alert the reader that there is nobody to understand, there is only conditioning. SVB too “is something more than the use of a consistent vocabulary with which specific instances may be described.” (p.3)

SVB “is not to be confused with the confirmation of any set of theoretical principles.” (p.3). Those who try to understand SVB, prevent themselves from experiencing it. Skinner explains “The extent to which we understand verbal behavior as a “causal” analysis is to be assessed from the extent to which we can predict the occurrence of specific instances and, eventually, from the extent to which produce or control such behavior by altering the conditions under which it occurs.” The change from SVB to NVB and from NVB to SVB involves a change in the sound of the voices of those who are talking. The specific sound which predicts SVB can be called Voice II and the specific sound which predicts NVB can be called Voice I. These voices have been given these numbers, because unless we first identify Voice I, we will not and cannot identify Voice II. Although we are able to produce Voice II,  we keep missing out on Voice II, because we haven’t identified Voice I.

Skinner asks “How can the teacher establish the specific verbal repertoires which are the principal end-products of education?” (p.3) This writer, who, like Skinner, is a teacher, answers: with SVB. Skinner asks “How can the therapist uncover latent verbal behavior in a therapeutic interview?” This writer, who, was trained as a therapist, answers: with SVB. Skinner asks “How can the writer evoke his or her own verbal behavior in the act of composition? How can the scientist, mathematician, or logician manipulate his verbal behavior in productive thinking? This writer, who likes to write, who is a behavioral engineer, who loves math and logic and who is inspired by Skinner’s productive thinking, answers: with SVB. With SVB we will be able to solve all sorts of practical problems. With SVB, we will be able to recognize that NVB was indeed a big, but unknown problem. NVB has prevented us from finding out solutions which are available to us only when we know how to maintain SVB. The understanding and proper expression of Skinner’s verbal behavior as SVB is essential for applying behavioral analysis. 

January 15, 2015

January 15, 2015

Written by the locus Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writer started reading Verbal Behavior by B.F. Skinner (1957). He had attempted to read it two times before, but began reading what others had written about it, because he found that easier. Something has changed in his approach. Before, he used to be much more prone to stick with only one book or article. In spite of the fact that he is a slow reader, he would finish that one article or book and feel a sense of stress coming from feeling that intend, which often was not achieved. Now he is much more at ease reading multiple articles and books at once and moving from one to another.

The foreword of VB by E.A. Vargas was so intriguing that this writer has already read three of his papers. Vargas explains the difference between how the behavior of organisms can affect their world directly, non-verbally, that is, without words, and indirectly, verbally, that is, mediated by others. Drawing on the continuity of behavior, he describes our similarity to nonhuman animals, who affect their world “through the actions of other organisms by virtue of membership in a given community of organism.” While observing the behaviors of birds and fish, this writer always believed that humans too are members of a community. Unlike other organisms, religious, political and social communities are essentially verbal communities. Within each society there is a dominant culture and there are sub-cultures, which reinforce or punish, that is, which socially construct the verbal behaviors of their members.

What people say to each other within these verbal communities only makes sense to them, because they decide “the forms of verbal actions that are effective and maintains their meaning of events.” Moreover, “whether a speech episode occurs” within these communities “depends on the probability of any of the nested relationships occurring.” People are inclined to say something if there is someone who listens to them. However, if the verbal community to which one belongs doesn’t provide that possibility, a verbalizer may try out another community or even create new one. What may be “improperly shaped verbalizations” in one community, may be considered proper in another. 

The verbal community in which the tendency toward reconciliation is seen as a weakness, mainly reinforces those verbal behaviors which fall in the category this author calls Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). By contrast, only in the verbal community which views reconciliation as a virtue, a moral value, will the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) response class be reinforced. The child, who gets what it wants by throwing a temper tantrum, may still behave verbally. There is functionally no difference between the angry child “who communicates his desires” and the adult, who gets what he or she wants, with his or her threatening, intimidating and de-manding NVB, which sure enough results into “a reinforcer as exacting as the speaker desires.” 

“Exact tacting”, supposedly, is only necessary in certain verbal communities. However, believers in God also need medical doctors to cure their diseases and pilgrims traveling to Mecca in airplanes use I-phones, the products of modern science. The verbal behavior of scientists “requires a verbal community across time and space shaping successive generations of verbal behavior.” The “fine tuning” of “the detail and inclusiveness of such verbal behavior” has led to very specialized, institutionalized ways of communicating, which couldn't hone in on the crucially important distinction between SVB and NVB. NVB is an "institutionalized" way of talking, but SVB cannot be institutionalized.

In addition to all our sciences, there are verbal communities which are involved in “criminal inquiry that investigates the causes of illegal actions”, there are those that focus on “the literary criticism that attempts to tie down the reasons the reader behaves as she does to a text” and then there also the behaviorological communities which focus on verbal behavior, on “the autoclitic” which “evolved through making the listener behavior more effectively by coming into contract with the circumstances that control the speaker’s verbal behavior.” Many have known that “the speaker is reinforced by more accurate behavior on the listener’s part”, but neither the radical behaviorists nor the behaviorologists have “become a more effective partner in the verbal transaction”, because nobody has yet paid any attention to the “controlling circumstances”, which are at work while we speak with one another. 

Although “any number of verbal communities” of writers, producers, actors, poets, painters, dancers, comedians, musicians and sculptors have “set in motion efforts to contact the contingencies controlling the verbalizer’s behavior – whether spoken, written or gestured”, due to science, our attention has moved away more and more from our spoken to written verbal behavior and, as a consequence, we often unknowingly confuse the latter with the former. 

Also while reading this text “the reader understands its meaning only by understanding the controls over his or her own reading behavior, and where these overlap with those of the writer.” If the reader gets what this writer means by SVB and NVB, it will become apparent that “the point of where controls intersect” is “an artificial one based on locality that ignores behavioral function.” In other words, to really understand this writing, the reader would have to behave in similar ways as this writer behaved under the conditions that controlled his writing behavior. However, although the reader may fully understand from this writing, that “every act of reading then is to that extent and act of writing; every act of listening an act of speaking”, it is still a  different matter when this understanding is reiterated while we are talking. 

Such understanding could only be achieved by SVB, not NVB. Skinner, as a humanist, unknowingly referred to SVB. This writer fully agrees with Vargas, who wrote “the analysis must move from a portrayal of parties behaving with respect to each other – a writer and a reader for example – to the description of properties of certain classes of behavioral phenomena in relation to each other.” He even wants to go a step further. Before we move away from “a writer and a reader”, which we certainly should, we must first have the conversation in which can move away from a speaker and a listener. Only then will we be able to make sense of SVB and NVB, a “description of properties of certain behavioral phenomena in relation to each other.” We must explore the “system of verbal relations” of our vocal verbal behavior.

Skinner’s verbal behavior has affected Vargas’ verbal behavior, which in turn affected this writer’s verbal responses. However, this writer has only heard Skinner speak, but he has never heard Vargas speak. Moreover, like any other reader, this writer has only read Vargas’s description of a written and not of a spoken “system of verbal relations”, which “would begin to root out paradoxes and difficulties over which people continually trip, such as the overemphasized, even artificial, distinction between the localities called “speaker” and “listener”.” When “at certain points of the flow of verbal behavior, certain controls are in place”, Vargas, like Skinner, seems to be describing SVB. if these controls shift “and exert their effects at certain points of the sequence and not at others”, he refers to NVB. 


The “abstract principle” that “it makes little difference for the verbal relations involved whether verbal behavior is taking place between two loci or within one” is not true for how most communicators experience their daily conversation. In most interactions it matters a great deal who is the assigned speaker and who is the assigned listener. Stated differently, most of our interaction is NVB. Only during SVB it doesn’t matter “whether verbal behavior is taking place between two loci or one.” 


The oneness experienced by communicators in SVB is tangible and evident by what they say and how they say it. Any shift of control instantly determines the separation again between the speaker and the listener, which defines NVB. “It would help analyze the system of verbal relations when at one locus, since we would not have to ask such questions as how a speaker acting as his own listener reinforces himself (even if that were possible) or mediates his own behavior.” 


The analysis Vargas describes cannot be achieved by writing about it. The speaker acting as his own listener requires that the speaker brings out his private speech into his public speech. By listening to the sound of his self talk, the speaker can trace back his private speech to the public speech from which it originated. Once this is done SVB occurs. Once the SVB/NVB distinction has been explored it will be evident that SVB is based on the oneness of the speaker and the listener, brought about by the speaker as his own listener. Furthermore, NVB, like the terms “speaker” and “listener”, are “simply the necessary components of a heritage from [our] verbal community.”

January 14, 2015

January 14, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writer believes it is possible to improve human relationship and the natural science of human behavior, called behaviorology, is needed to make that happen. One application of this science is what he calls Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). He is the originator of this concept. It came about because he noticed how one verbal behavioral response affected another and how an orderly pattern of responses began to emerge. SVB is about verbal behavior as well as nonverbal behavior. Stated differently, SVB is about speaking as well as listening. Moreover, what we say, our verbal behavior, affects how we say it, our nonverbal behavior. Likewise, our nonverbal behavior or how we say it also affects what we say, our verbal behavior. In SVB, our verbal and our nonverbal expressions can bi-directionally affect each other. 

Things are very different in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which also the bi-directional interaction between our verbal and our nonverbal behavior occurs, but is not properly expressed. During NVB people falsely assume that there can be no effect from their verbal behavior on their nonverbal behavior or from their nonverbal behavior on their verbal behavior. Yet, this effect is there, and what’s more, it happens to both the speaker and the listener.

January 13, 2015

January 13, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer 

Dear Reader, 

Due to his developing understanding of behaviorology, this writer became increasingly aware of the role of the verbal community in consequating Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Just as there was no verbal community before B.F. Skinner to consequate operant conditioning, there is also no verbal community before M.J. Peperkamp, to consequate SVB. However, although it is not tacted in that way, there surely is a verbal community which consequates NVB. The members of the NVB and SVB community reinforce different sets of response forms and speak another language. Their consequating behavior mediates between what the verbalizer says and what then happens. Simply stated, in NVB orders are verbalized and mediators obey these orders. 

In SVB, for which a verbal community has yet to be created, there is no real difference between the verbalizer and the mediator. For instance, the verbalizer’s request to pass the ketchup, will be consequated by the mediator, who passes the ketchup, but a mediator can also become a verbalizer and any verbalizer can also become a mediator. The previous mediator can ask the previous verbalizer to pass the butter, upon which this verbal action will be consequated by the previous verbalizer, who has then become a mediator. From this example it is clear that turn-taking then is vital to SVB. NVB is ubiquitous because hierarchical differences determine that NVB verbalizers and mediators remain stuck to their roles.

This writer has given hundreds of seminars in which he has explained the great difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the two mutually exclusive, universally occurring response classes, which can be described as the spoken communication in which we talk with each other and the one in which we talk at each other. When people talk at each other, they either want others to listen to them or they are trying to listen to others, but they are not listening to themselves.  

When people talk with each other, however, they are not waiting for agreement or approval, because they experience a direct, ‘heart-felt’ connection. It should be made clear that direct contact with others, or with anything in the world, although it may evoke or elicit many kinds of actions, does not and cannot give rise to language. We come to behave verbally by being part of a verbal community. When our membership of a verbal community is impaired, there occurs a disintegration of our verbal behavior. In other words, we go crazy. The meaning of our verbal behavior depends on the verbal community which consequates it. A tragic example of what can happen in the absence of a verbal community, are the severely speech impaired neglected children that were found in an orphanage in Romania. Sadly, without a verbal community, they were bound to remain nonverbal.

In SVB, the verbalizer, who (due to an environment of safety is stimulated into self-listening) is aware of his or her sound (because the verbalizer is also mediating his or her own speech), knowingly effects the mediator. Because the verbalizer’s sound is so directly reinforcing (that is, without words) for the verbalizer, it also nonverbally reinforces the mediator. Stated differently, in SVB, because of safety, mutuality and turn-taking, verbalizer and mediator become so attuned that they experience oneness with each other while talking about the same reality. Although many of us, without knowing about SVB, already do take turns, support mutuality, try to maintain safety and, consequently, have different relationships, which are based on a real or imagined sense of well-being, although many different names have been given to these so-called verbal communities, such as liberal or republican, scientific understanding of how spoken communication actually works is totally absent.

In the aforementioned example of passing the butter, nobody is the king or the servant and we are all seated as friends and family at the dinner table. What’s more, the verbalizer’s request for ketchup doesn’t contact the ketchup directly, since it is the mediator’s behavior, which consequates the relationship between what is said and done, which brings the ketchup to the verbalizer. Stated differently, the reinforcement of the verbal behavior of the verbalizer is always indirect. However, while speaking verbally, we also impact each other nonverbally, that is directly. Moreover, our phylogenetic endowment equipped our bodies with reflexive mechanisms, which are adaptive due to these direct-acting effects. Thus, while the verbal behavior of the verbalizer is always either indirectly reinforced by the mediator with agreement, validation and understanding or punished with disagreement, rejection and ridicule – leading to increases or decreases of the probability of that verbal behavior in the future under similar circumstances – a speaker’s nonverbal behavior also always simultaneously is having its immediate effect. It goes without saying (pun intended) that the direct nonverbal impact of what we generally describe as our first impression or gut-feeling, is often completely ignored and overruled by what happens verbally. In effect, most verbalizers distract most mediators from how they speak with what they say. Since we are, as mediators, more familiar with and conditioned by hierarchical - not bi-directional – conversation, we are mostly inclined to reinforce NVB. 

Nonverbal reflexes, although usually construed as respondent behavior, can also be viewed as operant behavior by realizing that all our behaviors have consequences. In the behavior of deer, for instance, certain sounds and movements signal danger or safety. Since herd-like behavior is adaptive, those who he act like it, are selected by the environment to pass on genes which code for running, looking, smelling, jumping and other genetically determined behaviors. Although humans behave verbally, their nonverbal behavior, which they have in common with nonverbal animals, often plays a much bigger role in how they affect each other than is acknowledged. Many problems are caused by the breakdown of communication, which more often is caused by our nonverbal than by our verbal behavior. Although we speak the same language and belong to the same verbal community, the material and social conditions of our culture, which shape our verbal and nonverbal behavior, have increased the hierarchical divisions, which set the stage for more NVB. We may not like to hear this, but most of us, whether we know it or not or are willing to admit it or not, belong to the aversive-sounding NVB community. As of yet there is no SVB community. Without such a SVB community, our reciprocally-reinforcing and relationship-enhancing verbal behavior will not be reinforced. This writer knows how to create this SVB community.