Language Enlightenment

Sunday, May 1, 2016

October 27, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader,

This author had a great skype conversation with a Belgian behaviorologist. During this conversation this man assisted him in formulating a behaviorological account for Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). He wondered if SVB and NVB should be explained by Motivating Operations (MO)? This author agreed this was a good idea. The term MO was developed because MOs account for conditions that increase or decrease the effectiveness of a consequence as a reinforcer or punisher. SVB and NVB are definitely explained by the kind of stimuli that communicators want or don’t want. Difference between NVB and SVB is that NVB is coerced and uni-directional, while SVB is mutual and bi-directional.

Those who have NVB produce punishing stimuli for those who have SVB, while those who have SVB produce punishing stimuli for those who have NVB. Only those who have SVB can reinforce those who have SVB, while those who have NVB can be reinforced by those who have NVB, but also by those who have SVB. This man stated what this author has thought all along, that SVB is a dialogue, while NVB is a/monologue. He saw SVB as a subclass of what Skinner called the autoclitic.

The autoclitic is verbal behavior that modifies the function of other verbal behavior. The sentences “I think this is SVB” or “I think this is NVB” contain the autoclitic “I think” which moderates the strength of the statement “it is SVB” or “it is NVB.” LIkewise, "I am absolutely sure this is SVB" or "I am absolutely sure this is NVB" contains the autoclitic "I am absolutely sure" which moderates "it is SVB" or "it is NVB" stronger than "I think."

At some point during the conversation he made a sound by hitting a wine glass against a bottle. It was a sharp and unpleasant sound. Then, he knocked his knuckles on the wooden table, which made a darker, more pleasant sound. He then asked if the difference between these sounds was related to NVB and SVB? This writer believes that a majority of people would consider the first sound as more aversive than the second. Likewise, if, and only if, given the choice, most people would experience NVB as sounding unpleasant and SVB as sounding pleasant!!

Among those who have experimented with NVB/NVB there is 100% agreement. It was a positive conversation. This author will definitely talk with him again.

On Sunday morning this author went to the gym and had a good work out. While spinning on a seated bicycle, he spoke with a university professor. He spoke with him three times before, but he still can't remember his name. This signifies his lack of connection with this man, who is talkative, but also shallow and distracted. In previous conversations he had spoken with him about behaviorology, the natural science of human behavior. Although at times distracted, he had become interested and praised this author for his knowledge and his results in applying it in his work. Today’s conversation was more serious. He spoke about his brother, who had been successful in a well-paying job and had a happy family, but who got addicted to methamphetamine and lost it all. On top of that, his brother got diagnosed with depression and bipolar disorder. As 9 out of 10 people in the United States, who struggle with mental health, his brother got imprisoned. This is where he finally got clean, but after he got out, he became addicted again. Currently, he was, as is common under such circumstances, living again with his mother.

This story was typical in that his brother’s environment was reinforcing his maladaptive behavior. As this author explained to professor how conditioning of behavior works and that the so-called treatment of his brother (and many others in similar predicaments) has not worked and is never going to work, he fully agreed and totally understood. After this author had explained that behavior is not caused by us individually, it was as if the light went on in the man, who was frustrated and also very worried about his brother. He shook this author’s hands and left.

Then this author saw Joe, who would have just walked by if it wasn’t for the fact that this author called his name. This author has known him for some years. Joe has been to many of his seminars. Long ago, Joe had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and hyper-religiosity. He had been hospitalized multiple times had taken all sorts of anti-psychotic medications for many years, before he had met this author. However, due to better circumstances, Joe at some point began to become normal again. He quit taking his medications, he was no longer hospitalized, he stopped believing that god exists and saw through his own grandiose delusions.

It was wonderful to talk with Joe right after the heavy conversation with the worried professor. Joe made fun of how he used to believe that god made him do the things he did, like throwing an empty beer can at a church. He felt he was better than anyone else and believed that god was constantly testing him. This made him want to prove himself by doing crazy acts. In his younger years, Joe had been good at math and now he was in the process of becoming a math tutor. He was going to try out this idea by first volunteering as a tutor. This author praised him for the way in which he has seen him change and Joe is an example of someone, who has recovered from mental illness by being busy with something more productive and reinforcing. Joe's interest in SVB is sincere and when he was reminded of SVB by this author, he burst out into a hearty bout of laughter and started telling many jokes.

On Sunday evening this author had q skype conversation with his behaviorist friend from Colombia. He is preparing an important conference presentation about aspects of the stimulus and did research in which he found there is more going on than what was previously understood about discrimination. Specifically, there appears be an innate tendency to view the composite aspects of the stimulus as a whole, something which earlier had been addressed by gestalt psychologists. This author understood that at any given instance we don’t respond to just one simple stimulus, but to many different stimuli and also our responses are not single, but many. This author talked many times with him and is going to publish a paper with him about SVB. This author and he mutually reinforce each other.

What was interesting and new in yesterday’s conversation was that his friend was doing most of the talking. He was trying out his presentation and this author mostly listened and only asked a question or two. This author was impressed by the intellectual power of his friend and felt more grateful for his support and acknowledgment than before. He feels so fortunate that he is in regular contact with this great behaviorist, who does cutting edge research, which he will present at a conference in Brazil that will be attended by many behaviorists. What a weekend!

October 26, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader,

The distinction between the two ways in which people behave verbally (no matter whether they are men or women, what language they speak or, what background they come from) is an observable and verifiable scientific issue.

Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB)are facts fo life and make us realize of what our spoken communication is a function. Specifically, SVB and NVB give knowledge about two variables of which all vocal verbal behavior is a function. We behave verbally very differently in SVB or in NVB.

Simply stated, in SVB we sound good, but in NVB we sound threatening. In the former, our voice is experienced by the mediator as a reinforcing stimulus, which enhances and maintains homeostasis, but in the latter, the verbalizer’s voice is perceived as a punishing stimulus, which has a dis-regulating effect.

In other words, SVB increases, but NVB decreases the rate of our verbal responding. Since the verbalizer’s NVB punishes the verbal behavior of the mediator, it is quite apparent that in NVB the mediator is not truly alive. Even when the mediator becomes the verbalizer in NVB, there is much ignorance and denial about the natural workings of verbal behavior. During SVB, by contrast, complexity is expressed and reciprocated. Consequently, only SVB can shed light on the natural physiological processes involved in the evocation of biologically-oriented verbal responses. Only during SVB do we feel safe and at ease enough to listen.

This brings us to the issue of parsimony, which states that among competing hypotheses we must select the one with the fewest assumptions. The SVB/NVB distinction is certainly parsimonious, because it makes as few assumptions about spoken communication as possible. Moreover, it effectively rules out the endless supply of pseudo-explanations, which will even prevent us from communicating. The simplest, most accurate explanation for why and how we behave verbally is that verbal behavior is mediated by those belonging to our verbal community. The verbal episode is best explained by the environment in which is occurs; SVB and NVB are modes of communication pertaining to different contingencies.

Another powerful argument in favor of the SVB/NVB classification is that it shrinks the confounding variables. By focusing on how we sound while we speak, we gain experimental control over relevant variables and decrease the difference between our predictions and outcomes. The sound of our voice while we speak is an important variable that has been and continues to be ignored, but once we take it into account, our communication is no longer as unpredictable as it used to be.

When many variables must be controlled research is likely to become expensive. Researchers must often settle for controlling fewer variables because of the costs. However, the experimental methodology of this author is cost-effective and yet it increases control. Many people refuse to believe it can be so simple, because they are used to being impressed by the many unparsimonious accounts, which do not offer anything in terms of practical applications and interventions.

By listening to our voice, while we speak, we become aware of why we communicate the way we do. Ignoring our spoken communication makes even the most ardent behaviorologists revert back to an imaginary self, psyche or mind. Refusal to talk is always based on NVB. SVB is parsimonious; it produces a simple account of why we talk or refuse to talk, which exposes NVB as pseudo-communication.

Much of what goes on in the name of creativity or uniqueness is a demand for escape-route variability, which obfuscates the ubiquity of NVB. It is interesting to notice that spoken communication can reduce variability of written language and that printed words in an indirect way have complicated our human relationship. The reason this author considers variability in spoken communication as a problem is because he views it in terms of predictable outcomes. The less predictable outcomes we have in spoken communication, the more problems we have. To solve problems, we need predictable outcomes. All we must do is focus on our sound while we speak.

SVB increases our confidence in the accuracy and adequacy of our description of our spoken communication. Our voice is an accessible independent variable, which changes how we verbally behave, because it can evoke novel responses.

October 25, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader,

Most of this writer’s responses to papers that were written by behaviorists were never even answered, probably because they think something is wrong with someone who insists on having a conversation about what they have written. Apparently, it is okay for them to continue to write as if they speak. This unnatural academic tradition, of defining terms of human speech by writing, has been going on for decennia.

B.F. Skinner, for instance, would write in one of his papers “I shall call such a unit operant and the behavior in general, operant behavior (1937).” He was writing in response to a paper on conditioned reflex by Konorski and Miller. Later, in his speeches, he would “call” the operant numerous times, but initially, he would only write about it. However, his distinction between respondent and operant responses was based on, and later gave rise to, many novel experiments.

This author’s writing is not academic, because his goal is to turn around the outdated academic tradition which prevented us from having more conversation. What good is the distinction between respondent and operant behavior, if we are still incapable of having the spoken communication, the actual experiment, in which we explore and verify this crucially important difference?

The so-called “debate” which is believed to be going on in papers and in which authors searched to extend the respondent-operant continuum, didn’t lead to any conversation. It has only led to more writing and less talking. This author firmly believes that talking about respondent and operant conditioning is an entirely different matter than writing and reading about it.

Another way of saying this is that the real challenge of Skinner’s distinction is and remains “a question of experiment.” That challenge starts, but is not met by the understanding of what Skinner meant. This author believes that the challenge of behaviorology, the natural science of human behavior, lies in applying it to how we interact, because that is where the language-rubber hits the relationship road. This author is not interested in written responses, because he wants behaviorists to talk. Talking is absolutely necessary to become scientific about relationship.

October 24, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader,

A new experience has occurred. This writer, who often facilitates groups during which people talk loudly, finds it useful to write down his thoughts, while others are speaking. Before, when he didn’t write down what he thought and felt, he used to get distracted by the sound of the voices of others, but now, by writing, he finds his ability to focus has improved. Before, he wasn’t able to think while others were speaking, but now, by writing, he is able to think about what is being said. Now that he writes about it, he knows it was because people sounded threatening to him that he was so often unable to understand what they were talking about.

It came as a surprise this morning during group, when the parolees were talking in a frustrated manner and this writer was writing down what he was thinking about it, that he suddenly felt as if he got back his language. Due to a habit he had for a long time, this writer was used to losing his language whenever people sounded negative. By writing, he noticed that his thoughts became clear and he was able to think, but without this writing, he felt confused and drained again.

This writer could never have guessed that his lack of attention had to do with his inability to formulate language, but this morning, as he was writing what he was thinking, he noticed a couple of times that he felt again overwhelmed by the voices of others. Each time he began to write, however, his focus immediately returned and in such a way that he was completely focused again. This is a great discovery: language can be found back in spite of the common communication chaos.

Earlier in the day, before going to work, this writer had been unhappy about his conversation with his wife. However, he didn’t say anything, but later gave her a call. In the brief conversation that followed his surprised wife told him that she had felt impacted by the negative experiences of the clients she was dealing with in her work. She realized that the same was true for this writer. She acknowledged the importance of being mindful about these effects and also found back her language, due to which her negative emotions were replaced by positive ones.

October 23, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader,

Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) exists and can be easily arranged, but we are not doing that because we don’t know that we can. This author was often rejected by people who refused to talk with him. Only when he gets a chance to talk with people does SVB become possible. However, most people habitually engage in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). They want and expect of what they are used to. Moreover, because they can stop SVB without any difficulty with their NVB, they feel that they have power. There is nothing a person who knows about SVB can do to change the person with NVB. The only people who are going to be open to SVB are those who already have a behaviorial history, which prepared them to understand it and to allow it to happen. Those who don’t have such a history can in principle also acquire this preparation, but it is not realistic to expect that they will, because there are no contingencies in place anywhere, where this could reliably occur.

This writer fully admits that for the most part, it has been a complete waste of time to try to change those who are not open to SVB. Those who were not immediately open to it, never became open to it later. Nobody, as far as this author knows, has come around saying “Maximus, this SVB you were talking about really works...I wasn’t believing it at first, but when tried it, I was amazed by how it impacted me and others.” This author doesn’t think it is impossible, but, based on his knowledge, he considers it highly unlikely. Most people are not open to SVB and will probably never know about it although it is totally possible and very beneficial.

SVB is all about staying with the facts. The facts are that we are not capable of creating the environments in which we reliably achieve SVB together. Only those who have struggled and have utterly failed are willing to admit that they can’t do it. Those who supposedly succeeded are bound to go on with their NVB unchecked. They can pretend to have SVB, but they cannot be stopped in what they are doing by what someone else is saying. However, those who are troubled, who have tried in vain to overcome their own problems, they have the most to gain. Their motivation derives from their need to somehow decrease their many negative experiences.