January 20, 2014

January 20, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader,

 

Today’s letter type is called “Bauhaus.” It was chosen because it has the word house in it. The literal translation of this German word would be “Built House.” This author likes that word and everything it stands for. This letter type is used today to reflect on the new house this author and his wife have moved into. The house is beautiful on the inside and on the outside. Yesterday we sat in the garden, from where the outside of the house could be admired. 

This author has found a new way of communicating which stands like a house. The foundation and the structure of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) are solid and reliable. One can’t have SVB with one’s brother, but not with one’s sister, with one’s mother, but not with one’s father. SVB involves the whole family. As long as someone is excluded it is not SVB, but Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).  NVB excludes, but SVB includes. SVB is a house for the whole family.  SVB is no ordinary house, it is a home. If we leave it, we leave our home. When we go into NVB, we are far away from home, 

If we come back to SVB, we come back home and we feel how much we have missed it. This realization occurs to all who have come to know SVB. One can’t come home, if one doesn’t keep building it. One has to always be willing to create it, because it requires speakers and listeners to create the house called SVB. If the speaker is absent, it can’t be created, if the listener is absent, it can’t be created. The presence of the listener is determined by the fact that the listener also speaks and the presence of the speaker is determined by the fact that the speaker also listens. If this doesn’t happen, we create NVB. In NVB, the speaker doesn’t listen. In NVB, the listener doesn’t speak. In NVB, the listener is only allowed to speak if he or she talks in a predetermined fashion. In NVB, the listener is given freedom of speech, the illusion that he or she may say something. In NVB, you may say whatever you like, but nobody is really listening. Thus, in NVB, nobody can really speak, because nobody is really listening. Because nobody is listening, we may imagine that god or the scientific community is listening, but we need other people to listen. In SVB, someone is always listening when you speak and is talking when you listen. 

January 19, 2014

January 19, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Most of us, sometimes use a harmless word or an expression, such as a euphemism, in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant. For instance, we say “he passed away” instead of “he died”; “the situation is screwed up” instead of “fucked up.” Not many misunderstandings arise from this use of euphemisms. When we say “he isn’t the sharpest tool in the box”, we usually know he isn’t very good at solving problems. There are no problems when there is consensus and when we know what we are talking about. This is also where euphemisms become tricky, because although we may agree, or, rather, have been conditioned to agree, we may actually not agree at all, but without even knowing it. How can that be? 

During a shaping experiment in a laboratory the organism, for instance a pigeon, is immediately reinforced for even the slightest approximation to the target behavior. The pigeon is conditioned to have superstitious behavior. The pigeon operates on its environment and the lawfulness of behavior is extrapolated, which generalizes to all living organisms. Now we can finally recognize that a euphemism is merely an operant that is maintained by social reinforcement. Our correct use of language is shaped by our verbal community. However, social acceptance can make us support ideas which are deeply problematic. Let’s look at the term “Political Correctness” and explore how that term came about.

“Political Correctness” refers to ideas, language and politics, which were considered to be discriminating, because they were against politically, socially and economically disadvantaged groups. At some point, because people no longer agreed with the language that was used to describe them, it became obvious that a lot of political rhetoric had been very inhuman. What changed was the derogatory language, but although the language changed, the cover up of many injustices still continued. Euphemisms play a big role in how language hides the reality. The Right Wing uses “Political Correctness” in a hostile manner to describe the Left Wing, while both Left and Right Wing use “Political Incorrectness” as a positive self-description. 

Historically, “Politically Correctness” dates back to the early-to-mid 20^th century when in political debates between Communists and Socialists the term was used referring pejoratively to the Communist “party line”, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. What the use of this term indicates is that changing our language makes talking more difficult. It isn’t “Politically Correct” to talk about the fact that America continues to kill innocent families with drones. Calling these deaths “collateral damage” that result from “protecting our interests” undermines the public debate about what is actually done in our name. There would be immediate outrage if a foreign agent would murder our civilians. 

Use of euphemisms is an attempt to "speak good" and "to speak well", to praise and to glorify, but it never leads to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Euphemisms are a function of a deliberate make-belief way of talking. This author calls it Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). When our positive sayings hides our ugly reality, they only make things worse. Thus, "speaking good" or "speaking well" indicates that horrible things must be happening. Fact is, however, that we don’t speak good and that we don’t speak well, that is why we should speak good and should speak well. Who needs all this praise and glorification? In SVB the need for praise and glorification never arises. The need for praise and glorification distracts from the harm we are doing to others. Only in SVB we can have authentic communication because we do no harm.   

January 18, 2014

January 18, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

SVB posits that “speaking well by not speaking” is nonsense. The fact that historically many of those who had wished to speak were silenced by those who didn’t want them to, doesn’t mean that there is any value to not speaking. When nothing is said then nothing is said. Something can only be said if it is said. The issue of silence is highly overrated. It is mostly related to those who dominate instead of engage in the conversation. Their unwillingness to communicate is part of NVB. 

Although SVB communicators try to avoid NVB, they are never against communication. SVB is communication and NVB is not. If “speaking well by not speaking at all” was a euphemism dating back to ancient days then “holy” silence represents a lot of “not speaking well.” Blasphemism is supposedly always the opposite of euphemism, but if this “not speaking at all” is the highly regarded euphemism that prevents the blasphemism called speaking, then we find ourselves in a confusing, but no longer deniable world, in which “evil-speaking” may represent the solution to many of our problems. 

The notion that saying nothing is better than saying something and is labelled as “speaking well” indicates that a lot of things in human interaction are upside down. When those who stop the interaction are praised for their great wisdom, disengagement becomes a virtue. Those in power feel they don’t have to engage. They communicate only when they feel like it and with those with whom it is necessary. Most people are never listened to, because they are unnecessary. 

Encouraging speech, enabled by modern technology, is only a fairly recent event. When one wants to say something that goes against the verbal community to which one belongs, one usually maintains one’s peace of mind by not saying what isn’t accepted. Other more tolerant verbal communities may be found that acknowledge these expressions. If one can, one usually becomes part of another verbal community, which reinforces these expressions. However, this transition from one verbal community to another will be a frustrating matter as long the issue at hand is not properly understood. Most people don’t realize that in spite of changing communities (political, religious, national, language, etc) they have continued to engage in NVB.

The use of euphemisms is much less likely in SVB than in NVB. In SVB we laugh without restraint and we don’t take offense when someone is talking out of his ass and reverting to NVB. Because we can say it as it is and call a spade a spade, rather than using euphemisms, we are more likely to use blasphemisms. The use of euphemistic language to cover up the ugly reality of our human interaction prevents us from investigating and understanding of what these behaviors are actually a function. The anonymous verbal community seems to decide the proper language to be used, but again and again we repeat words that are put into our mouths without realizing how these words shape our behavior.

Rhetorical devices, such as euphemisms, once such a characteristic part of the interaction among human beings as living organisms, are now becoming obsolete. They may still appear from time to time, but they are out of date and out of use, like rusty old tools that were replaced by better ones. The incentive to use the new tool, which is called SVB, is a function of its comparison to our old NVB machinery.

January 17, 2014

January 17, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Today's letter-type euphemia was chosen to see how it effects this author’s writing. Euphemism comes from the Greek word euphemia, meaning “the use of words of good omen”, which is derived from root-words eu, “good or well” and pheme “speech or speaking”, meaning glory, flattering speech or praise. Etymologically (study of the history of words, their origins, how their form and meaning have changed over time) eupheme is the opposite of blaspheme (evil-speaking). The term euphemism itself was used by ancient Greeks, meaning “to keep a holy silence” (speaking well by not speaking at all.) This fits quite well with this author’s goal of explaining Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

It must be pointed out here that “holy silence”, or whatever that means, can’t be considered as speech. Silence only makes sense in relation to the words that are spoken. If there are no words or, rather, if there are no sounds, then there can't be any silence either.  Secondly, absence of words doesn’t mean silence. A silence in which one “speaks well by not speaking at all” is a forced silence. Such a silence may signify the absence of public speech, but doesn’t imply the absence of private speech. Thirdly, in NVB people understand silence as the absence of speech, but this view leaves out important conditions, which influence the quality of the silence, particularly the quality of silence during our speech. The fact that silence was elevated to “holy silence” and is equated with “not speaking at all” prevents perception of silence during speech. Effects of silence during speech are not well understood. 

Fourthly, in SVB, silence pertains to public and private speech. Absence of public speech can result into absence of private speech, but this isn’t necessarily the case. It can also lead to an increase in private speech. In the presence of incessant public speech, we often experience relief from the pressure that it put on us. Private speech gives evidence of this, when we describe to ourselves the calming effects of being alone again. This raises the question: of what kind of private speech is  this calming effect a function? Obviously, it is a function of negative, not positive private speech. The pressure that we experienced in our public speech is typical for NVB. In SVB there is no such pressure.

In SVB positive public speech maintains positive private speech. The idea of becoming silent inside of ourselves doesn’t arise, because SVB allows us to be quiet with others. Positive private speech, which we experience after we move away from SVB public speech, doesn’t need to be quieted down. Although it never was, NVB public speech needs to be calmed down. Since people were silenced and shamed for expressing such ideas, they became part of their NVB negative private speech. In conclusion, SVB reveals that any insistence on “holy silence” was in fact always preceded by NVB public speech. 

      

Public NVB caused private NVB and NOT the other way around. The latter is based on our ancient belief in an internal causal process, but SVB refutes this unscientific perspective. Without public NVB there would be no private NVB. If public NVB could be stopped once and for all, there wouldn’t be anything to stir private NVB with. If experiencing silence during our conversation is our objective, we need to deal with our communication differently than trying to shut each other up.

January 16, 2014

January 16, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) is a different language than Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is useful to view it as another language, because this gives us a better sense of what is needed to make it possible. We know NVB, our native language, through and through. NVB is the language we are used to. SVB, on the other hand, is like learning a second language. One language isn’t better than the other and SVB isn’t better than NVB. However, the tendency is to think that SVB is better than NVB, but this is because we are familiar with NVB.

Our emotional bond is stronger with our mother tongue. Looked at from SVB, that is, from a novel verbal community, we develop and become more rational, by moving away from our emotional attachments.  Yet, SVB doesn’t claim to be better than NVB, it just is different. The difference is commonly referred to as the difference between being emotional or being rational. This distinction can often not be made because we are unfamiliar with the SVB/NVB distinction. In NVB we pretend to be rational when we are emotional. There are multiple verbal communities we can become part of, but whether that is going to happen depends on our ability to move away from NVB. 

Learning a new language is easier while living among those who speak it, but here comes the problem: SVB isn’t known and there is no place where it is spoken. SVB is a new language. Its newness is experienced as in learning a second language. It is hard to believe we don’t know it, because we are so familiar with its verbal aspects, but we don’t know the nonverbal portion of it. Yet, we did experience instances of SVB. They occurred in spite of our struggle, our verbal fixation and outward orientation. SVB isn’t accidental, but deliberate. Once we know it, we can replicate those instances in which it happened. 

It isn’t possible for us yet to replicate SVB, because we didn’t know what was needed to make it happen. All we remember is that we were feeling well, that we were having fun, that it was easy, and that there was positive energy. Since we have been deprived of SVB and since we would like to think of ourselves as already capable of it, we attributed the SVB which we experienced, to either ourselves or to the people, who were part of it, who made it happen. In each case, we attributed SVB to internal values held by ourselves or by others. 

Supposedly, someone was smart, friendly or patient, or someone else was mean, deceitful or crazy.  What was missing from this picture is that we can only be that way if circumstances permit it. In other words, nobody really is what they believe they are. They can only be that way in a certain situation. Indeed, our much-overrated sense of autonomy depends on our environment. In societies in which this isn’t reinforced different behaviors are observed. This fact about human behavior also holds for schizophrenics. They too only believe and have been made to believe that they are mentally ill, but as anyone who works with them and observes them closely knows, mental illness is only present under certain circumstances, but absent under other circumstances. Once we have SVB this behaviorist knowledge will dissolve ways of thinking which prevented us from understanding that we are determined by environments, by other human beings. 

We consider storms and rains as environmental events. We may think of our cities, neighborhoods and homes as environments in which we live, but we don’t usually consider human beings as our environment. And, even more less likely, do we consider the environment within our own skin, to which only we have access. We are so environmentally unfriendly because we are so disconnected from each other and from ourselves that we don’t even see this.  

The spoken communication in which our verbal and nonverbal expressions can become and can remain aligned is a communication in which emphasis is placed on our nonverbal expression, on how we sound. This nonverbal focus brings attention to the experience which we have while we speak. In SVB we experience joy. This joy is known by the way that our body responds. If we can’t feel it, it simply isn’t there. Nobody of the thousands of people with whom this author has experimented wasn’t able to experience the joy of SVB. There is hope for everyone, even for the most traumatized, stubborn, aggressive, psychotic, suicidal, dissociated and fanatic among us. SVB has affected everyone who came in contact with it and it will continue to do so.

The nonverbal, as indicated by this author, relates to what is not articulated in language, but in sound, facial expression, gestures, and movements. This author focuses on sound, because the human voice played a prominent role in his behavioral history. Years of classical singing and listening to his voice created an awareness of his sound which couldn’t have happened in any other way. It is due to this background that the author was inclined to listen more closely to his speaking voice. He found that self-listening had an immediate effect which was caused by the way in which he sounded. He couldn’t at first believe that something so simple could have such big effect.He calmly spoke with himself for hours and was able to say what he had wanted to say. Words kept coming and he listened to what he had to say to himself. There was no preference for any particular aspect of himself because he was listening to how he sounded. When he sounded good, his speech was orderly and coherent, but when he no longer liked his own sound, his thoughts and feelings became chaotic and fragmented. When he produced coherent words again, he sounded good again.