July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

This writer hasn’t written anything lately from a first-person perspective. As a consequence, he has also not addressed the reader directly. He is no longer so eager to address the reader directly. The reader will find that this writer is taking him or her to a third-person perspective of how we speak. If what this writer is aiming to accomplish succeeds, the reader will obtain a new view on his or her own first-person perspective, due to this third-person perspective.  

There is a certain order in how we communicate. Although we may have many problems, there is always a lawfulness to our verbal behavior.  Functionally, our way of communicating as well as our problems can be explained. To take this view, we look at how the environment, such as other communicators, but also circumstances and things, affect the way in which we, as individuals, talk.  How we as individuals speak sets the stage for how others talk with us. To find out how we talk together, we must look at how we talk as individuals.  

Since verbal behavior is mediated by another person, the tendency is to go with our attention to how we impact others. What is missing from this picture is how we impact ourselves by the way in which we speak. By remaining busy with how we would like to affect others, we are never in the position to realize how our own way of talking is affecting us. We keep thinking that this effect is caused by others, but, and this is where things can get complicated, neither others, nor we ourselves are causing this. To tease this apart, we must begin to realize that our speech is never caused by us, individually, but by our environment.  Only once we have acknowledged that our individual way of talking is function of our environment can we realize that this as true for ourselves as for those with whom we communicate. When we want to change how others communicate, we make them responsible, but we ignore the fact that our speech is caused by the environment. 

To rephrase the aforementioned, when we try to change the way others speak, we lose track of the fact that we are their environment and that they are our environment. When this happens, we produce Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) because we threaten others or we feel threatened by them. The notion that we are not responsible for each other while we speak, that we are only responsible for ourselves, is why NVB continues. However, in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), we are both responsible for each other as well as for ourselves. In NVB, by contrast, we are neither responsible for ourselves nor for each other. 

NVB continues because we keep thinking we are responsible for ourselves and  others, therefore, are responsible for themselves as well. This false belief can become clear when we treat SVB and NVB as two different languages which were learned under very different circumstances. During moments of SVB, we were feeling responsible for ourselves and for each other, but during moments of NVB, we were neither responsible for each other, nor for ourselves. Our lack of a scientific understanding regarding how we speak has perpetuated the notion that we are individually responsible for how we speak. Consequently, NVB is everywhere and SVB is only happening in an accidental and inconsistent manner. 

The way in which we individually speak affects others, but it also affects our selves. How we affect others is one thing, but how we affect ourselves is another. Often how we affect others is different from how we affect our selves. In NVB, there is no congruence between how we affect each other and how we affect ourselves. In SVB, we affect ourselves and each other in exactly the same way. This is not something to be believed, but something to be experienced. Once we have more of this experience, we realize that NVB is based on the dissociation from ourselves and from each other. During SVB, our way talking is bi-directional, the speaker becomes the listener and the listener can become the speaker, but in NVB, in uni-directional, my-way-or-the-highway speech, the speaker is alienated from the listener and both are alienated from each other, that is, from the environment.

July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

In his current job as a case manager for those who have returned from jail and prison back to society, this writer is expected not to say anything about himself. He is teaching skills-based classes to help parolees make the transition and adjust and live a ‘normal’ life again. One challenging goal is to stimulate them to find employment, because this is significantly related to reducing their rate of recidivism. Many of these clients have been incarcerated for serious crimes and have spend many years in prison. Because of their histories they can be very manipulative. 

By working with this new population, this writer practices a skill, which is very beneficial to him. By not revealing anything personal, he discovers a way of talking and thinking which was not possible when he was speaking the way he was used to. In other words, the establishing operation of his speech makes him say, think, feel and, above all, notice, different things. Since he just started in this position, he experiences the novel effects of his new environment on his behavior. Moreover, as he was hired because of his skills and his emphasis on behaviorism, he is considered to already possess the necessary components to be successful in this job. The support he receives for working with this difficult population, while being cautious not to say anything that can be turned against him, is especially rewarding to him. 

It is a great relief for this writer not to talk about anything personal anymore.  It is fascinating to notice, how what was for many years his biggest weakness has now transformed and is still transforming, into his strength.  In his new job there is an orderliness and a structure which this writer appreciates. The predictability of his current situation is the total opposite from his previous job as a mental health worker in a group home for the mentally ill.  There, a rather chaotic work environment existed because of a lack of structure and leadership.

July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

There is always something to write about and when whatever catches this writer’s attention is written about, this makes this writer feel good. It is simply a matter of paying attention to whatever asks his attention. The words, which are used to describe this process don’t need to be part of a big vocabulary, because the use of one’s words is now a function of the verbal exploration of one’s nonverbal experience. In this way, this writer has found that Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) only occurs when there is a match between what one experiences non-verbally and what one says verbally.  When, by contrast, one’s words don’t clarify what one feels, when feelings are diminished instead of enhanced by what one says, then one will be producing Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).    

The discovery that there can be a match between what one says and how one says it is a behavioral cusp, which makes many other behaviors possible.  Like a musician, who is automatically reinforced by the music he or she is playing, one can feel reinforced by how one speaks. Such automatic reinforcement only becomes part of one’s behavioral repertoire if there was a situation, or rather, if there were many situations, in which this behavior was reinforced, by others. 

So, the musician, who was reinforced multiple times for the music that he or she was playing for others, can sit by him or herself and enjoy playing his or her instrument, because he or she knows that others would like it as much as he or she likes it him or herself. In the same way, a speaker can say things to him or herself, because it has been reinforced by others multiple times.  Even when the speaker only speaks with him or herself, the speaker experiences what and how he or she speaks as reinforcing, because he or she can predict that what and how he or she speaks will be reinforced. The musician hones his or her skills by practicing his or her instrument by him or herself and after such practice he or she gets together to first practice and then perform with the other musicians. 

Although a similar process is possible with spoken communication, nobody instructs us to diligently talk with ourselves by ourselves, nobody urges us to practice the way we speak. This is what this author wants the reader to do. This text can be used by the reader to read out loud, so that the reader can explore what it is like listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. When the reader reads these words, he or she can listen to the sound of his or her voice. Nothing else is needed. This allows the reader to experience the congruence between what he or she says and how he or she is saying it. Since the what, in the case of the musician, the music score, is provided and since these written words are given to the reader, who is invited by this writer to become a speaker, in the same way as the Mozart music score invites the musician to learn how to play his music, the reader can now focus his or her attention on how he or she sounds. Similarly to the music, which is read, rehearsed and performed by a musician, the reader doesn’t need to think about these words, which were composed so that he or she could hear him or herself. 

When people learn a language they are reinforced for using the right sounds as well as the right words. The ubiquity of NVB is a consequence of the fact that we are more reinforced for what we say than for how we say it. This text takes the reader into how he or she says what he or she says. Now the reader begins to reinforce him or herself and the reader experiences that automatic reinforcement builds on earlier circumstances in which self-listening was possible. It is impossible to learn a language without paying attention to how it sounds.  

Because we are fixated on what is said or written, we have become alienated from what happens when what is said is said and when what is written is read. This writer has written this text so that the reader, while reading, can loosen his or her fixation on words. The reader has a sound and the reader can speak with that sound, which is only produced when the reader hears him or herself.  When the reader experiences his or her voice as sounding good, he or she produces SVB.

July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Yesterday, this writer spoke with his behaviorist friend Arturo Clavijo from Colombia. He is a professor in behaviorism at the University of Bogota. This writer got in contact with him after he read one of his papers "The Psyche As Behavior" (2013), which explained the development of behaviorism: from Watson’s stimulus-response Behaviorism, to Skinner’s response-stimulus molecular radical behaviorism,  to Baum’s molar approach. It was apparent from Arturo’s paper that these are related and could be seen as emerging from each other under different environmental circumstances. Ever since this writer has been in contact with Arturo, he has felt more comfortable writing about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), his extension of Skinner’s work on Verbal Behavior. 

It was after yesterday’s conversation that this writer realized that he has been writing about behaviorism because of Arturo’s approval. He sent him a bunch of his journal entries and Arturo found his writing very interesting. Arturo now wants to co-author and publish a real scientific paper about SVB. He even said that there is so much to it that there is enough material for various papers. He talked about a situation in which he successfully explained SVB to one of his colleagues. He praised this writer and indicated that his reading of the journal entries had really enhanced his understanding about SVB.  This writer is extremely happy with this friendship and looks forward to producing this paper. Arturo wants him to prepare by reading certain behaviorist literature. 

Excited about this offer, this writer reread the journal entries he had sent to Arturo. After he was done, he realized that his writing had occurred after his conversations with Arturo. He didn’t know before that it was because of Arturo that he had started to write. Arturo had shown interest in his behaviorist writing and that had stimulated him to produce more and more. Of course, he had spoken with Arturo on Skype. Their SVB relationship had set the stage for this writer’s writing. 

Other authors, who this writer had tried to contact, had also suggested that he should write about SVB. These authors, however, didn’t engage in SVB with him and, consequently, this writer wasn’t stimulated by them to write about it. He wrote back to them to explain why he thought that he needed to speak with them again and why writing wasn’t going to make any sense if it wasn’t possible to talk. 

Most of his writing wasn’t reinforced and most of it was never even responded to. It was because he talked with Arturo that his urge to write was enhanced. Before, this behavior had not been stimulated. As stated, there had been many others who had said to him that he should write about his thoughts, but none of these suggestions had made him become more serious about his writing, because these people didn’t  engage in SVB with this writer.  It took 56 years for this writer to become a writer and to be able to take his own writing more serious. Moreover, it took SVB with a behaviorist to stimulate this writer to write about his behaviorism. 

Coincidentally, yesterday this writer also received an email from Noam Chomsky. Chumsky had too suggested that this writer should write about his views. Many years ago, before this writer knew anything about behaviorism, he had contacted Chimsky in an attempt to point out to him that, although he is a celebrated speaker and writer, he is not listening to himself while he speaks.  Chamsky dismissively ended the phone conversation and refused to discuss this topic.   

After this writer became a behaviorist, he found out about the beef Chymsky has with behaviorism. Chemsky had written a strong criticism of Skinner's seminal work Verbal Behavior (!957), but the bottom line was that Chpmsky, like so many others who criticize behaviorism,  didn't even understand Skinner's views and totally misrepresented his operant science. 

This writer had written to Chbmsky that his way of talking is sounding incendiary and negative and making SVB impossible.   Chdmsky wrote back “But you really shouldn’t keep the insights to yourself.  You should publish them, for the benefit of the thousands of people who come to talks of mine, often in overflow rooms, and it could also save me a lot of trouble.  I wouldn’t have to spend a huge amount of time traveling and speaking, or even writing dozens of letters a week saying, with regret, that I can’t accept an invitation because there’s no time.”   

Chxmsky is troubled by his own success, which, as stated by this writer, has not led and could not lead to the improvements which he would have liked to see.  Chfmsky is a classical example of a Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) speaker, someone who talks at you, not with you. The three reasons why the sound of our voice changes from SVB to NVB can be glanced from Chgmsky’s email message. 


First, there is what this author calls the 1) fixation on the verbal. Chskymsky focuses only on the content of his speech.  His refusal to speak with this author about how he sounds is reinforced by “thousands of people who come to talks of mine.” Since they all come to listen to what he says and not to how he says it, they are all part of the same ubiquitous delusional speech pattern in which what we say supposedly is more important than how we say it. Moreover, Chwmsky’s fans are people who tolerate and expect to be talked at. They all have the same fictitious belief that a change of content is going to improve human relationship. 

Chzmsky, who sounds exasperated by the effort that goes into his speaking, writes about “talks of mine”, which indicates that he believes in an inner agent which does all the talking.  Even though he describes the pressure to answer others - of which his speech obviously is a function - he can’t consider the scientific fact that he is not causing his own behavior.

The second reason why, even while thousands of people are listening to him, Chupreemsky mainly produces NVB, is because of his 2) outward orientation. It is evident from his email that his attention is only with others (on me), but not with himself.  Chhhhhhhmsky is so busy with others, that he has no time for himself. 

One wonders why a person of his status would even bother to respond to someone as insignificant as this writer, who wants him to focus on himself? His reason is, of course, to prove that this writer is wrong and that he is right. After all, this writer doesn’t have the thousands of people who want to listen to him.  Indeed, this writer wouldn't be satisfied with people merely listening to him. His verbal behavior is a function of the people who want to talk with him and have SVB.

Chipmonky’s outward orientation makes him neglect himself. He is preoccupied with others, who are wrong or bad. This affects the sound of his voice. 

A third reason why Chrumpsky, or anyone else with NVB, simply sounds terrible, is the communication habit 3) to struggle for attention. Chonutsky says he has no time. Everything he does is a function of his race against the clock. He tries to say as much as possible in as short a time as possible, but, ironically, he becomes more and more lengthy and tiring in the process, because he is an authority and people want to hear more. A similar process occurs with pop stars. People want to hear their music over and over. If those who become pop stars can’t handle the demand which was also created by their own need for attention and admiration, they don’t know how to say no and they are lived by the demands of their fans.  

Chachacomsky doesn’t have a minute to himself, he struggles not being able to provide an answer that effects real change. Even though he may be right about what is wrong in this world, since he is not a behaviorist, he has no solutions!!!

Cheapsky is trapped in pseudo-knowledge that he has to change the world all by himself and that those in the trenches for the grass-roots struggle for change have to be like him: infuriated and always busy with problems. His struggle, to carry the weight of the world, isn’t informed by the science of behavior, but by politics. 

 

Choinksky would actually like someone like this writer to deliver him from the hassle of always being in demand. This writer is reaching out to him and would like to talk with him, but Cshamesky thinks this author can only reach people if he puts his thoughts into writing. This writer didn’t contact Chiminalsky to write to him. This writer doesn’t think that any written words can replace spoken words. 

These written words can at best refer to spoken words, but spoken words are entirely different. Chlemielsky speaks like he writes, but this writer writes like he speaks. Chofficultky’s struggle between what he is feeling and thinking is audible in the dreadful sound of his voice. Chamanisky has no clue that he sounds this way because this is how his audience makes him sound. His audience consists of people who want him as a leader, but he can’t and doesn’t want to be a leader. 

July 5, 2014

July 5, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

There are currently many reinforcing things happening in this writer’s life. His job has brought him into a new environment, which requires more restrained and which, therefore, is more reinforcing to him. Also, he talked with Dr. Fraley, one of the founders of behaviorology, the natural science of human behavior. Actually, he talked with him twice.  Both phone calls were very positive and Fraley fully understood and affirmed the importance of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). He suggested that this author gets in touch with other behaviorologists to elaborate on SVB. 

This kind of recognition is huge for this writer.  By reading Fraley’s papers, he found out that behaviorologists form a relatively small subset of behaviorists whose focus is to establish behaviorology as a separate field, next to biology, physics and chemistry. Behaviorologists don’t want to be any longer part of psychology. In most psychology departments behaviorism is represented as one of the theoretical approaches. As this doesn’t do justice to the science of human behavior and as behaviorists are not very well represented within the field of psychology, behaviorologists have decided that the time has come to establish their own separate field. They do this because they don’t want do concessions to psychology, which adheres to the unscientific view that behavior is caused and controlled by an internal, autonomous agent or self.