Ridiculous,

 

May be, this will be my final writing on this blog. Today, I want to say, to anyone who reads this, that I just don’t care, if you don’t respond to me or talk with me. Also, I simply don’t care, if you never get to express your Language Enlightenment (LE), because you refuse to explore the great difference between your own Disembodied Language (DL) and your own Embodied Language (EL). And, yes, it doesn’t matter to me anymore, that I continue to have EL by myself and enjoy my LE alone. Besides, this blog has always been about one thing and one thing only: my ability to actively avoid your unintelligent, energy-draining, superstitious DL. Surely, your mechanical DL is no longer my problem. Since I am not martyr, I mock your ridiculously limiting problematic way of talking.

 

I find it enjoyable to comment on your DL, because, as you can see, almost nobody seems to have the guts to even write anything sincere in response to me. In my opinion, you can’t say or write anything about my EL and LE, because you are ignorant about your own EL and LE. My disdainful humor derives from my LE and can only be appreciated by those, who know how to maintain ongoing EL. So, just for the record and to be very explicit, there are two sides to what I represent: I don’t approve of your dumb DL and you can’t seem accept or appreciate my irrefutable EL. Of course, I am not making any effort to come your way. I have tried, but it has become clear to me, that I can’t. This is not how EL works. I am not trying to teach anything to you with this writing. I share my experience with those, who dare to share their experiences with me.

 

I don’t know, who it was, I always forget the names of people, who, presumably, said or did something, which, supposedly, was so important, that others keep bringing it up. I do remember, however, there was this story, about a notorious Zen-master, who, for years, sat in front of a wall, meditating, waiting for the right person. One day, this other spiritual fanatic moron arrived, who cut off his own ear and threw it in front of him and said in a demanding tone of voice: if you don’t turn around right now, I will cut my own throat. I recall this absurd story, which seems to signify everything that is wrong with our so-called spirituality. Here we have this harsh, supposedly, enlightened master, who is visited by this, highly motivated, obviously, self-harming disciple.

 

What is so horribly wrong about our perception of our spirituality, is that it is, no matter how you look at it, always against having a genuine conversation. This arrogant, frustrated, harsh, non-talkative man, who, demonstratively, sat there, starring at the wall for many years, supposedly, really knew what true dialogue was all about. Give me break! He would only turn around if someone was worthy, that is, willing to sacrifice his or her life, to talk with him, in the way that he approved.

 

In my teen-age years, I began my spiritual journey, by reading a little booklet with short Zen anecdotes. It was all the reading I could handle at the time and these stories amused me, because they turned logic on its head, yet they still seemed to make some sense. I now find these stories complete nonsense, however, I am in this odd situation, that I am capable of having ongoing EL, but almost nobody wants to talk with me about it. I might as well talk to a wall and I have done that, but I am done with that. I believe that spiritual bullshit, in its many ways and forms, is the biggest stand-in-the-way for anyone to discover and enjoy their LE with EL. Your restless DL inevitably keeps you forever busy with supposedly meaningful nonsense, such as Zen.

 

I don’t want to talk with you, as you only know how to have DL, so I rather have EL on my own. You can read about my EL here, but you can never acquire it, as long as you still continue to believe, that you can get it from me or from others. You can only get EL on your own. In that sense, EL is the same for you as it is for me. What is so incredibly funny about this idiotic old story, is that one desperate, childish, drama-queen, is willing to hurt himself and is even threatening to commit suicide, if he doesn’t have his way, because this stubborn, wall-staring ascetic refuses for many years to talk with anyone, who isn’t ready to listen to his great so-called enlightenment. Supposedly, a disciple’s zeal signifies his devotion, that is why the illustrious master finally turned around, to actually talk. As I have said, it is about talking, it is all about our language and how we deal with our language.  

 

The LE, which I have become aware of, due to my EL, is as available to you, as it is to me. Moreover, our EL refutes everything that has ever been said, written, heard or read about enlightenment. There are many schools, religions or so-called spiritual paths, but EL goes against every one of these, as it is simply about how you talk with yourself. Whether you know it or not, when you talk with me or with others, you always only talk with yourself. There is no other, as there is only you in EL, as the other is experienced always only by you, in the way that you experience him or her.

 

The essence of EL is: the other is experienced as your experience. The same of course is true for the so-called external environment or your inner self. There is no external environment, there is no behavior-causing self or an internal environment, as there is only your own verbal formulation, what you say about it or are allowed to say about it, hear about it or what you are allowed to hear about it, read about it or what you are allowed to read about it and write about it or what you are allowed to write about it. Whatever we do, don’t do or don’t dare to do, is determined by our language, scriptures, laws, rules or nonverbal, ritual, cultural codes of conduct.  

 

You might as well begin to appreciate the fact that you always only talk about your own experience, your own longing, your own perception, as all the, presumably, objective knowledge, which, we like to believe, we can share together, is merely a verbal house of cards. We like to give ourselves more credit than we deserve, as we keep getting carried away by what we say, as we engage again and again in DL. Only in EL, can we be free and come out permanently out of our religious, pornographic, political, cultural, scientific, ethnic, but, ultimately, verbal fantasies. You don’t want to talk with me, as I already know about the immense difference between DL and EL. There is no need for anyone to know about this, as far as I am concerned. It doesn’t matter to me at all that my writings can't change your so-called mind, as there really is no mind to be changed, as there are only these words and how you and I use them. I used them in this way, because it greatly pleases me and gives me something useful to do. For me saying is doing and my ongoing EL equals my LE.                    

 

Select,

 

Those who have, somehow, found their way to this blog, belong to a select group. Very few people get to read, let alone, talk about and understand, these words about my Language Enlightenment (LE). I can speak and write effortlessly all day about my LE, because I deal with language differently than most people: I am able to have ongoing Embodied Language (EL), while others, only know how to have Disembodied Language (DL).

 

If you happen to read this, you should consider your self fortunate, as what you are now involved in isn’t available anywhere else. Whether you are going to get familiar with EL depends entirely on the extend to which you are sick and tired of your own DL. You may be having enough of the DL of others, but that doesn’t do you any good and it only will make things worse. Only if you pay enough attention to your own DL, will it stop and will your EL be possible. If, however, you still believe that your usual way of talking and dealing with language is getting you anywhere, you will not get involved in EL and remain unaware about your LE, as you continue with more of the same, negative, stupid, superstitious, meaningless, energy-draining DL. I write to put DL in its place: all DL is inevitably the outcome of our conditioning history, in which printed language is considered more important than our spoken language.  

 

With DL, you end up being a sadist or a masochist. If you consider yourself to be superior (with your so-called morals, as a justification for why you behave as horribly as you do), you will act like a sadist, but if you believe you are victim, because of what was done to you, you behave as a masochist. As a masochist, you will have all sorts of behaviors, which you don’t even want to have and as a sadist, although you may do whatever the hell you, presumably, want to, you still remain dissatisfied, unfulfilled, frustrated and depressed. Only EL allows you to develop, recognize and sustain the liberating behavior repertoire, which fits with your behavioral history and which prevents you from repeating yourself.

 

Our common way of talking (DL) confines us to our history of conditioning. Only if our way of talking can change, can we be free from our conditioning. Stated differently, EL is the language of freedom. I used to call it The Language That Creates Space, as it creates the opportunity to address and, therefore, include everything we experience. Another way of saying this, is that we can say more and more, due to our EL and understand, why we are who we are. With DL, on the other hand, people talk a lot about who they are or rather, who they believe themselves to be, but they have no clue about why they behave as they do. With EL, we realize, the only way to really be who we are, is to know, to find out, to say and to write, why we are who we are.   

 

In EL, we say or write to ourselves, exactly what is going on, as we speak in the way that we want to speak and write what we are able to write and like to write. Our so-called understanding of ourselves or our self-knowledge, involves an ongoing process of listening to ourselves and hearing what we have to say to ourselves. When we write about this process, we find ourselves perfectly capable of expressing, in our own words, in our own way, what we would like to read. Our EL makes us truthful, proud, confident, graceful and consistent. With EL, we can continue to build on our previous behaviors, as they have repeatedly resulted in desired outcomes. The opposite is, of course, equally true: our lack of steady, productive and skillful behavior makes us fall apart and shamefully dissociate from our behavior. Therefore, to recover from trauma or mental health issues, it is necessary to find work, so that we can establish a daily routine of being useful and needed.

 

Not some psychiatrist, psychologist or therapist, but our own EL instructs us about what we should do or not do. The forced false notion that only authority outside of ourselves can tell us what we should do or, supposedly, want to do, is a product of our DL, which has burdened us with false beliefs. We are more resilient, independent and capable than our authority figures would want us to believe. All our teachers, preachers, leaders, politicians, celebrities, authors and news-reporters have constantly gas-lighted anyone, who isn’t as powerful or important as they are, into believing their dominance is needed. In DL, we remain hierarchically divided, as, presumably, only a few of us – so-called representatives, who give a voice to others – do the talking and be in charge, while others are forced to follow, watch, listen and obey. Our EL, however, dissolves any superiority or inferiority and establishes a new form of equality, which we have never before experienced, as it isn’t the opposite of inequality, but the very essence of who we are as human beings.      

 

Faith,

 

I have total faith, that people will find their way to this blog, on which I share my experience about the difference between Embodied Language (EL) and Disembodied Language (DL). I am sure, if you read this and my previous writings, you would like to talk with me and my dear friend AnnaMieke, so you can get clear about your Language Enlightenment (LE).

 

I don’t need to do anything to reach you, as you will reach me, if you are ready to do so. If you aren’t ready, you will continue with your DL and all the miserable behavioral repertoire that is maintained by it. I don’t respect you, I don’t need you, I don’t feel sympathy for you or feel obligated to teach you what I know, as the only thing I am interested in, is sharing our common experiences of our EL and LE.    

 

As long as you keep wanting to go on with your DL, you will miss out on the blissful verbal dimension of your life, which is LE. You know how to speak, listen,  read and write, you may even be highly educated, but as far as your interactions are concerned, you have remained illiterate, because you don’t know how to have EL, as you are oblivious about your LE.

 

All your problems derive from the simple fact, that you are actually already enlightened, but, as of yet, nothing of what you say or write or listen to or read, reflects that. If it would, you would engage in EL and want to talk with someone like me or AnnaMieke, who can enjoy, appreciate and reinforce your EL.

 

I guess, I could have written about this elsewhere, on Facebook, Twitter, other social media or produce a book, you could hold in your hand, but I prefer to write this blog, which, as you can see, got started when I was teaching about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). During this behavioristic exploration, the significance of our LE was never fully acknowledged. From my recent writings, you should understand I don’t teach anyone anything, so, if you contact me to learn something, you are at the wrong address.

 

It isn’t difficult to get in touch with me. Anyone who is ready to have EL with me, can contact me free of charge and make an appointment on skype.  

 

My skype name is: limbicease

 

I know something you don’t know anything about. You are ignorant about how you use your language and how your life and your relationship is affected in predictable negative ways by your DL. All of this will be instantly clear to you when you talk with me and if it isn’t, I have nothing to do with you. My EL is  selective, as it only connects with those who dare to have EL and, who, therefore, acknowledge their LE.

 

All our previous definitions and theories haven’t and couldn’t have brought us into an understanding of the importance and beauty of EL. Our DL, which is all we ever talk, read, hear or write about, has to be stopped by ourselves, as no one can do this for someone else. I am not here to change anyone’s behavior. If you knowingly have EL with me, you will know that your behavior has already changed, as you have stopped your own DL. This possibility has remained out of reach until now, as nobody listens to themselves while they engage in DL. We end up doing what everyone else is doing and our DL was and continues to be perpetuated, because we have never had the opportunity to continue with our EL.

 

I know how to have ongoing EL, as I know how to express my LE, which is the basis for everything I do. You may not know how to have EL, but LE is also the basis for everything you do as well. Surely, your LE  troubles you deeply, as long as you keep preventing yourself from expressing it correctly, with your EL.

 

In EL you will say new things. What you have been saying to yourself and others with DL will lose its importance, each moment that you engage in EL.  Moreover, in addition to speaking, listening, writing and reading, all your other behaviors will change, as  EL makes you conscious of what you want. With DL, you do things believing that you want them, but once you talk about these things with yourself with EL, you suddenly no longer want them. In effect, your EL starts a selection process, in which only the behaviors remain and are strengthened, which fit with you and really work for you. You will know this is so, as you will say it, hear it, write it and read it.   

New Phrases,   

- It is almost three years ago, I wrote on this blog. Although the blog is still called Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), I now prefer to refer to it as Embodied Language (EL). As anyone who has read my texts knows, I coined the term SVB, because, for many years, I explored the Behavioral perspective, on what I used to call The Language That Creates Space. I was inspired by B.F. Skinner's book Verbal Behavior and created the Sound Verbal Behavior Academy. However, my quest for a scientific foundation for the new way of dealing with language, I had discovered, came to an abrupt end by reading L. Fraley's magnificent book Science, Life and Reality. What he describes, can be summarized as follows: we each create and live in our own reality. Thus, there is no objective external environment, which is separate from us. However, he doesn't address the difference between what I now call Disembodied Language (DL) - what I used to call Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) - and EL, that is why I lost interest in Behaviorology. Simply stated, EL is the scientific and, in my opinion, proper way of dealing with language explained by Behaviorology.

-  Behaviorology only makes sense, if we can talk about it with ongoing EL. The denial of Behaviorology in academia is a direct result of the fact that we unknowingly, repeatedly, engage in DL and, therefore, don't even recognize the importance of knowing the difference between EL and DL. We have as little EL as we do, because speaking from our own authority, is basically everywhere taboo. Moreover, EL has nothing whatsoever to do with speaking our mind, as there is no such process going on as private speech or covert inner dialogue. Our tenacious belief in such superstitious nonsense is the inevitable result of our dreadful history of conditioning with DL. Once have ongoing EL, it is clear that speaking, hearing, writing and reading are the four behaviors, which make us aware of our Language Enlightenment (LE). In other words, our speaking and, therefore, our hearing, as well as our writing and, therefore, our reading from our own authority reveals our LE. Stated differently, in EL all our attention can finally go to natural self, that is, to how we can use our language to fulfill our needs.       

 Embodied Language (EL), 

- These words aren't anything new or special, but if you calmly say them out loud and listen to the sound of your voice, you will be able to embody them and realize, once and for all, that in your usual way of talking, you disembody your words. Thus, there is Embodied Language (EL) and Disembodied Language (DL).  

- The difference between DL and EL is important because EL expresses your Language Enlightenment (LE). During DL, however, you will never be content, at ease or resolved about how you deal with your language. DL doesn't let you know that LE is your natural way of being, but your EL always reveals your LE.  

-  Surely, there is also written DL and EL. Since we mostly engage in DL, we also mainly write in and read DL. Only after we have had spoken EL, will we be able to write about our EL, like I do, here. Moreover, speaking, listening, writing and reading, are the four quintessential verbal behaviors, which comprise our LE. 

- I like to keep it simple and engage in EL, but the DL of others makes everything complicated. I continue with EL, regardless of whether others are interested in it or not and so will anyone else, who comprehends what EL is. I don't talk much with people anymore, as I am only interested in having EL and sharing my LE. 

- If you want to talk with me, you can reach me on skype. My name is limbicease and if you leave me a message, we will talk and everything about DL, EL and LE will become clear to you right away, but if you contact me to have DL, I will refuse to talk with you. I have come a long way with my EL and my LE. 

-  LE has nothing to do with what any so-called guru or presumably enlightened person has told you or has written in some book or scripture. Generally speaking, spiritual, scientific, political, philosophical or educational people are turned off by my distinction between DL and EL, because I make them aware of their DL.   

- I speak on my own authority about my LE and I reject any comparison, as there is nobody, who has ever put together what I have discovered. I don't teach, as I only share my experience and nobody learns anything from me, as we are only immediately experiencing our ongoing EL and our LE together.         

SD is the Sound of the Speaker's Voice

Dear Reader,

In “Operants, Issue III, 2018”, there is an article “How Should We Determine Appropriate Units of Analysis in a Science of Behavior?” in which David C. Palmer is interviewed by David Roth. It is stated that “The purpose of this interview is to discuss the main points in a fundamental paper Skinner wrote in 1935, titled The Generic Nature of the Concepts of Stimulus and Response.” I will comment on his interview, as some of the things that Palmer speaks about help me to make clear the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

The reader needs to know these two universal patterns of speech are easily observable if the observer listens to how speakers sound while they speak. Surely, everyone is able to hear and acknowledge that SVB speakers sound different than NVB speakers, but as behaviorists haven’t analyzed patterns of speech based on how the speaker sounds, they have over-looked or, it is more precise to write or say, over-listened, these two mutually exclusive ways of talking.

It is important to recognize that the SVB/NVB distinction is a listener’s perspective of the speaker’s speech, while Skinner takes a speaker’s perspective of Verbal Behavior (1957). While Skinner mentions the speaker-as-own-listener, his view obfuscates the listener-as-own-speaker. This is NOT a game of words I am playing, as the listener who hears the speaker’s sound is, as a speaker, affected by that speaker’s tone of voice. Stated differently, the speaker either invites the listener into SVB or forces the listener into NVB.

Palmer laments the fact that the (1935) paper “The Generic Nature of the Concepts of Stimulus and Response” (1935) is hardly ever read by any students today. According to Palmer, the paper is important as it “sets out a procedure by which appropriate units of stimulus and response in behavior analysis can be identified.” However, he doesn’t recognize that this essential procedure, which pertains to inductive reasoning, isn’t used due to our involvement in NVB. When Palmer writes “Most people are unaware that there even is a problem, because they use dependent and independent variables that have already been “validated” by others before them”, he doesn’t realize he is referring to bias that is maintained by our common way of talking. The NVB speaker doesn’t listen to him or herself while he or she speaks as he or she only cares about whether the others are listening to him or her. NVB speakers dominate listeners with a negative contingency.

Forceful, insensitive, superior and powerful NVB speakers always determine, during any given conversation, who may speak (and for how long and about what) and who MUST remain silent and listen (and be inferior, respectful, polite, obedient and follow orders). Skinner, who, in my opinion, unknowingly, is trying to address the necessity of SVB, argues that “units of analysis should not be defined in advance. Rather, they should be determined by looking for orderly relations between behavior and its independent variables. We should adopt those definitions that yield maximal orderliness in our data.” Once we learn about the SVB/NVB distinction, we are amazed by the “orderliness in our data.”

Once we acknowledge the sound of the speaker’s voice as an independent variable, we become aware what determines our speaking behavior, the dependent variable. The French have a famous saying: C'est le ton qui fait la musique, which means: it’s the tone that makes the music or it’s not what you say but how you say it. This saying describes the “orderly relations between behavior and its independent variables”, but it must be stated very EMPHATICALLY, it is a total waste of time to keep “LOOKING” instead of LISTENING for “orderly relations between behavior and its independent variables.”

It should be noted that Skinner came to define the “unit of behavior” for a rat as “any behavior that pressed the lever with sufficient force to operate the switch.” Anyone who can read this, can understand that Skinner OBSERVED and counted the rat’s lever presses. We humans also OBSERVE by LISTENING, that is, LISTENING is the quintessential way to OBSERVE, especially during our spoken communication. In other words, in the process of defining his “unit of behavior”, Skinner appears to be biased toward VISUAL stimuli. I suggest that the “unit of behavior” to be counted is whether any given speaker produces an instance of SVB or NVB.

My First Response to Fraley

Dear Reader,

By informing you about the great difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), I am bringing you a good tiding. This is my Christmas message to you. As a self-taught behaviorist, I am not so much bothered by jargon and, therefore, I can flexibly converse with anyone who doesn’t know anything about behaviorism. I am now going to give some comments on the paper “On Verbal Behavior: The First of Four Parts” (2004) by the behaviorologist Lawrence E. Fraley. I write these comments to illustrate to you that what I convey about SVB is totally in line with behaviorology.

Fraley writes (this is a very long quote!) “While verbal behavior is reinforced only through the mediation of another person, its mere exhibition does not require the participation of such a person. Verbal behavior is commonly evoked in the absence of another listener, but such instances go unreinforced socially. The person who contacts a hat may say, audibly, That is a stylish hat, but in the absence of a listener who can provide reinforcers, that statement goes without extrinsic social consequation. However, because a verbal response is heard by its speaker, it may in a sense reinforce itself (a type of automatic reinforcement). The evidence is the repetition, on similar occasions, of that behavior by lone speakers, who, in common parlance cast in agential terms, may be described as persons who like to listen to themselves talk. After all, an intrinsically reinforcing aural stimulus impinging in the form of sound waves is not stripped of its intrinsic reinforcing qualities when it impinges on the ear of the speaker from whom it originated. Speech that fails to reinforce its own production behavior is subject to a kind of intrinsic extinction. It can be sustained only on the basis of reinforcers that are supplied from extrinsic sources, which requires one or more other listeners.” Although you may have had some accidental moments of SVB in your life, you have NOT been reinforced EVER for your SVB and that is why you have so very little of it.

Unless your SVB is met by a listener, who can provide reinforcers, that is, by a listener, who becomes a speaker, and who knows about SVB already (!), your naturally occurring SVB will go “without extrinsic social consequation.” After reading my writing, you may feel inspired and you may actually want to try to start talking out loud with yourself, as you would like to know and experience what SVB is about, but chances are that your overt self-talk will NOT reinforce itself, that is, most likely, you will NOT feel automatically reinforced, even if you would be listening to the sound of your own wellbeing!!!

Your calm, effortless, pleasant-sounding voice, will NOT be “an intrinsically reinforcing aural stimulus impinging in the form of sound waves”, as “without extrinsic social consequation”, it can NOT yet have acquired “intrinsic reinforcing qualities when it impinges on the ear of the speaker from whom it originated.” This is one of the most astounding aspects of SVB! When your SVB is for the first time socially reinforced, you will discover you have been ‘deaf’ to the sound of your own wellbeing. As you were only reinforced for your NVB, you were conditioned NOT to listen to the sound which makes you feel good. Your ‘psychological deafness’, which pertains to this missing frequency of listening, causes you NOT to be able to produce that sound while you speak. In effect, you hardly EVER speak with a voice that makes you feel completely at ease.

Many unhappy people would like to feel happy, but they have no idea, that, day in day out, they speak with a tone of voice, which makes them and keeps them unhappy. As long as you are ‘trying’ to speak with a happy sound, you will NOT be able to speak with a happy sound. Fraley writes that “Speech that fails to reinforce its own production behavior is subject to a kind of intrinsic extinction. It can be sustained only on the basis of reinforcers that are supplied from extrinsic sources, which requires one or more other listeners.” You will only be able to speak with a happy tone of voice with others as well as alone by yourself after your SVB was extensively, extrinsically, socially and positively reinforced.

You may NOT want to believe me, but, since we didn’t until recently know about the SVB/NVB distinction, there has NEVER been a listener who was able to repeatedly reinforce your SVB!!! In other words, the speech which would make you happy is on extinction in the absence of a listener who can reinforce it. Although Fraley writes about verbal behavior in a more general sense, what he writes about the listener explains exactly why we have so very little SVB. “Such a listener must share salient characteristics with the listeners who have played a role in the conditioning history of that behavior.” In other words, such a listener MUST know what SVB is otherwise he or she could NOT reinforce it.

Then, Fraley provides an example, which is very useful for understanding why, in the absence of a listener, who, as a speaker, can reinforce your SVB, you keep going all over the place trying and desperately hoping to find someone who will be able to reinforce your SVB. (Again, this is a long quote). “That is why, if previously on city streets one has been successful in asking for directions only from the uniformed police officers among all types who have been asked, one eventually tends not to ask directions of other kinds of people on city streets. However, as the aversiveness called desperation intensifies, the asking behavior may come increasingly under stimulus control of the more common features of passersby, and the range of persons to whom inquiries are directed expands accordingly.” It should be stated here that “the aversiveness called desperation intensifies” especially because we are, when it comes to how we talk with each other, totally lost. No matter how frantically we search, we do NOT find the knowledgeable SVB agent, who can tell us the way. Inadvertently, we end up asking anyone, passersby, who claim to know SVB, but who can only reinforce our NVB.

Fraley then writes “Being operant in nature, verbal behavior is evoked by events in the environment. Its rate or its relative frequency is subject to change as a result of its consequating stimuli, which audience members must mediate. That is, verbal behavior, however evoked, may then be reinforced, punished, or extinguished—a characteristic that identifies verbal behavior as operant behavior. Thus, to survive in a person’s verbal repertoire, a specific verbal behavior must be selected for that survival by its consequences—meaning, of course, that, if it is to continue reliably to occur on such occasions, it must be reinforced. During the conditioning of a verbal behavior, the consequences are mediated by other members of the individual’s verbal community.” The reality is: there are only very few members of the SVB verbal community. This writing is to let you know I am creating a SVB community, which is steadily getting bigger.