April 25, 2015

April 25, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

This writing is my response to “Human Behavior as Language: Some Thoughts on Wittgenstein” by Emilio Ribes Inesta (2006). I am, like Ribes, against the “general conception of language” and I absolutely agree that “Human behavior cannot be understood if we separate language and social practice.” I appreciate the quotes by Wittgenstein and Malcolm. The former wrote about “language games” and the latter conceived of a philosophy in which there are no more knots to untie. Since “language without social practice and social practice without language are senseless”, I insist that we should be talking about these matters. I mean this very literally: we must have a different kind of vocal verbal behavior to be able to realize what these authors attempted to ‘talk about’ in their writings. My argument is that “we separate language and social practice” every time we value our written words as more important than our vocal verbal behavior. 

We talk the way we do, because we have learned to give higher value to what is written than what is said. Although we keep buying into this myth, any child can see the emperor is not wearing any clothes, that is, any nonverbal human being can hear the verbal emperor sounds awful. Surely, we don’t pay attention to how we sound while we speak so that we can get away with our big lie, that we are the narrators, the originators of our own lives, that we choose our own words and that we are individually responsible for what we, for better or for worse, claim to be our thoughts, feelings and actions. It is because we keep telling each other that we have an inner self which causes all our actions that we believe we are individually responsible for what we say and how we say it. The verbal lie called the ‘self’ seems to be the truth, because people everywhere keep repeating it.

Although Ribes correctly states “from this perspective, language, as an essential component of social practice, contextualizes every human psychological phenomenon” (Ribes, 2006), he doesn’t mention the more poignant fact that our sound is needed to contextualize what we say about our experiences. Certainly, “the logic of language is grounded in social practice”; French or Chinese sounds which are only produced and mediated by members of those verbal communities. “The fictitious universal logic of a rational or formal syntax or grammar” is based on our agential, that is, on our academic, scientific infatuation with words. Thus, what we say takes our attention away from how we say it. We imagine we sound the same when we speak English, but the fact is that we are not. Unknowingly, we remove ourselves from reality, from ourselves and each other, by how we sound. 

Dissociation from reality produced by the vocal verbal behavior of the speaker is called Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). He or she controls the behavior of the listener with an aversive contingency. We are punished by NVB as we get imprisoned by words, which disconnect us from the reality. The way out of our verbal prison is by listening to ourselves while we speak. Our voice is needed to makes sense of what we say. We are able to have vocal verbal behavior in which the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an appetitive stimulus. This is called Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). SVB has different consequences than the vocal verbal behavior in which the speaker’s voice is an aversive stimulus. Neither Wittgenstein nor Ribes get any closer than stating “to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life.” 

Nothing imaginary happens when a speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. Only the speaker, who expresses what he or she thinks, feels or experiences vocally, can listen to his or her sound and is able to come out of the ancient prison of words. When we hear ourselves, while we speak, we are sure that our own “form of life” is either negative or positive. If we still doubt which is which, our voice sounds aversive to us.

Ribes writes that “language is not only what people write and speak, but also the means by which this is done.” The means by which people write are different from the means by which people speak. We cannot compare a pen or a keyboard with the feedback that is produced by the sound of our voice. “The sounds spoken” are different from “the signs written or read.” In the latter, we at best imagine a sound. We imagine the sound we are most familiar with. We are most familiar with NVB. The sound we keep imagining doesn’t represent our well-being. Our well-being doesn’t need to be imagined; it is “self”-evident. When speakers produce SVB, they consider this way of talking with others as causing their thoughts, feelings and experiences and the expression of these. NVB is perpetuated as it maintains our bias. SVB is a natural phenomenon, but it will only become apparent while we talk. 

April 23, 2015

April 23, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In an unpublished interview with Ribes-Iñesta (1990), Skinner remarks that he does not regard the orderliness of behavior as an essential assumption. For him behavior is a natural phenomenon, which can be studied by a positive science. Although theories determine the selection of data, he insists and emphasizes that data are independent of theory. Skinner is basically against theory, because he wants to be able to consider all the data. He answers a question about the molar/molecular distinction by saying he is not interested in this distinction. Skinner has also no interest in how the inner organism works, as he is into variation and selection of behavior of the whole organism.  

  

The data regarding how we talk with each other doesn’t depend on theory. Although much has been theorized about how we talk, this hasn’t led to any  kind of improvement. It hasn’t led a science of vocal verbal behavior that is capable of solving our problems like we do in physics or chemistry. The two response classes called Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) are only relevant to the extent that it can make audible new and important data to skilled speakers and listeners. SVB brings into hearing range the voice of the speaker, that is, the stimulus that sets the stage for the listener’s vocal verbal response. The behavior of the speaker, who turns into a listener, is functionally related to the behavior of the listener, who turns into a speaker. This behavior-behavior sequence involves turn-taking. 

Like Skinner, I am interested in the variation and selection of behavior of the whole organism. My focus is whether individuals acquire more SVB repertoire or more NVB repertoire during their life? I am interested in the control of behavior. In my way of talking other communicators will always experience an increase of SVB and a decrease of NVB. I predict this and I achieve this as I have the necessary skills that make this possible. Moreover, I teach these skills to those who are willing to learn from me. SVB signifies an increase of health and relationship, but NVB involves the decline of our health and the destruction of our relationship. Our talking affects many other behaviors and potentially has many positive or negative long-term consequences. We can hear this everywhere around us and we can also see it in our own lives.

I am interested in the effect of vocal verbal behavior on our environment, that is, on each other, because that is where the rubber of human relationship hits the road. Our vocal verbal effect on our environment only becomes clear if we listen to each other and to ourselves while we speak. The speaker must also include his or her own environment, the environment that is within our own skin. The effect of the speaker is understood from the listener’s point of view, because the verbal operant is defined by its effect on the listener. When asked about the contradictions in his theory, Skinner says he is not interested in theory and is unaffected by the occurrence of anomalies.

The lawfulness of our behavior or other natural phenomenon is not altered by our theories. If our theories hold water, they should emphasize the fact that behavior is determined by previous and current circumstances. By rejecting the importance of theories, Skinner shapes a scientific behavior that makes rapid change possible. He urges us to stop wasting time with theoretical superficial controversies. Operant behavior is defined by the probability of a response and not by the response itself. SVB and NVB are subsets of vocal verbal behavior explained by past instances of reinforcement, not by any purposive or imagined future consequence. Our future cannot cause our behavior. 

When a person acquires a verbal repertoire, he or she will in principle be able to analyze the contingencies to which he or she has been exposed and is exposed. This leads to the formulation of rules which enter into the total contingencies affecting our behavior. Most importantly, Skinner states that the formulation of rules as descriptions of contingencies of reinforcement are nothing more than operant behavior, that is, behavior that is susceptible to variation and selection. Like Skinner, my interest is in operant behavior. I focus on SVB, which is operant. My only concern with NVB is to recognize it as respondent behavior and to avoid it as much as possible. Our reflexive, mechanical vocal verbal behavior has had and continues to have devastating consequences and must be identified as our problem behavior. 

My focus is on SVB as only SVB will reliably replace NVB, our problem behavior. I am aware of the constraints which are imposed on the process of operant conditioning by our reflexive behavior. Most people are unaware of the negative consequences which result from their way of talking, that is, from their involvement in NVB. Upon being made familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction, people often still think they engage in SVB, while in fact they are having NVB. This happens all the time. SVB is SVB and NVB is NVB, not because of how we think about these subsets, but because of how we experience the response products of SVB and NVB. Much NVB masquerades as SVB. Even if we rationally know about this distinction, we keep getting it wrong because we focus on what we say and not on how we say it. This requires awareness, which will only be there if it is stimulated by our way of talking. What we say involves one response of behavior, with which we easily get stuck, but how we say it refers to emotion or movement and to novel responses. To stop our war of words, which is as impairing as right-sided paralysis after a stroke, we, the speakers, by listening to the sound of our words, become aware of our body, the environment within our own skin, from which we are disconnected again and again during NVB.

 

Regardless of whether we will find words for our bodily states, private events have a physical, functional independent status. Emotions are real irrespective of whether we learn to accurately express them or not. They are the most important, yet often completely ignored data of human interaction, which exist independent of our theories. Skinner focuses on operant conditioning, because, unlike natural selection and evolution of social environments we call cultures, operant conditioning can be studied experimentally, that is, in the laboratory. 

We have been kicking and screaming and we have been producing more of the same outdated, problematic NVB to prevent the scientific study of our way of talking. SVB requires we create a laboratory in which we study our way of talking experimentally. We are not observing visual data, but we are listening to auditory data. Our reflexive behavior will not be elicited in non-aversive environments. The issue of inhibiting it never arises during SVB. Non-aversive communication laboratory environments, can only be created and maintained after we have if we learned to distinguish between SVB and NVB. 


SVB and NVB are two universal subsets of vocal verbal behavior which are mutually exclusive. We can only capitalize on what we know about operant conditioning if we talk about the behavior-controlling environment. The sound of the speaker's voice is an antecedent stimulus, which sets the stage for the response, which is SVB or NVB. The postcedent events determine whether that response is going to be more or less likely under similar circumstances in the future. We suffer the ubiquity of NVB because we keep reinforcing it. We haven’t been able to capitalize on what we have come to know about operant conditioning, because we haven’t learned how to behave scientifically about our way of talking. Capitalizing on operant conditioning requires that we talk with each other in such a way that we don’t aversively affect each other at all. To explore such a possibility we must create a SVB laboratory.

April 22, 2015

April 22, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

I had a dream before waking up this morning. I was in a crowd of walking people and many of them were crossing the road. The traffic had slowed down to let the people pass, but a motor cyclist drove through the crowd. He wasn’t going fast and people were jumping out of the way. Some people did that tapped on his shoulders saying “You can’t ride through a crowd like this!” If I had to jump out of the way like that, I would have probably done the same thing. After he had passed through the crowd, annoying everyone, the motor cyclist crashed his rusty, noisy, old bike. It was clear he had done so deliberately. He simply jumped off of his crappy motorcycle and let it run into a wall. He walked back to the crowd and said those who touched him were responsible as they had made him lose his balance. This was not true. He had driven through the crowd without any problem. He demanded that the insurance company had to determine who was going to pay for his damaged bike and I felt incredibly glad I had not touched him. This guy knew exactly what he was doing and now those who had done the right thing were now going to get punished. They were all arguing with this jerk. 

By writing about this dream I am thinking what it might mean. I don’t have a motorcycle. However, one obnoxious student, who, luckily, decided not to be in my class, has a motorcycle. I am glad that I avoided speaking with him yesterday night. He spoke with me before, as he was the last one to leave the class of the previous teacher. As the dream illustrates, behavior operates on our environment. This guy was trying to make others to pay for his worn-out motorcycle. Yesterday night, before the start of my class, I greeted the other teacher, who was getting ready to leave. This same student, barged into our conversation and attempted to attract my attention with his loud and forceful voice. I calmly continued my pleasant conversation with the teacher, who asked if she could sit in my class to observe my teaching. After she left, the student still sat there with all his belongings spread out on the front desk and didn’t appear to get ready to leave. His class with the previous teacher was over, but he didn't make any attempt to move. I was a bit early so adjusted the screens, started the power-point and put up some music. It seemed as if he was waiting for me to say something, but I was getting ready to give my class and I kept quiet. When he noticed he wasn’t going to get my attention, he grabbed his big helmet from the table and left the room without saying goodbye. My nonverbal behavior had made things clear. 

The verbal operant is defined by its effect on a listener. However, due to my previous conditioning and an unusual change in the environment, this time another behavior was selected. The change that occurred due to my lack of verbal behavior was noticeable. As a consequence, my arousal levels were so low that I was able to feel calm and focused. Although in the past I would have said something, I felt I didn't need to get involved with this person. As I have also began to notice on various other occasions, absence of verbal operants can be crucially important for the listener to get the message.    

April 21, 2015

April 21, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

A history of conditioning is necessary to distinguish between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). We don’t fail to make this distinction, because it is so difficult to make, but because this history is lacking. On first discovery this distinction seems very clear, but as time goes by one finds there is no support to keep making this distinction in everyday situations. We give up on it as this distinction in not repeatedly made. When the distinction is first made, it is a very happy experience, but nothing of this happy experience remains, when we can no longer make this distinction. 

We like others to support us, but when we focus our attention on others instead of on ourselves, we increase our rate of NVB. We will only be able to achieve higher rates of SVB to the extent that we are able to arrange for ourselves the situation in which we can have SVB. We can have someone  read from a book or a newspaper or tell us a story, but we also have the ability to read, write, make up or tell a story ourselves. After exposure to the SVB/NVB distinction, the listener notices that a speaker alternates between instances of SVB and NVB. Recognizing SVB and NVB in others, however, also involves knowledge about the fact that a speaker’s overt expressions evoke in a listener’s body mediating covert listening, observing and reporting responses, which under the right circumstances could become overt. 

Covert responses can only become overt when audience variables are present which make that possible. Only when audience variables evoke speaking in the listener, will the listener produce conscious talking in which his or her thinking and knowing is overtly expressed. This is seldom if ever the case. 

A listener’s covert verbal report can only be considered conscious responding, if this immediate overt response is possible, that is, if the listener can  become the speaker. Given the fact that audience variables are usually such that this is not possible, the listener gets stuck with his or her audience of one. Due to unfavorable circumstances people talk with themselves. 

Yet, the listener would like to express him or herself to others, overtly. As long as listeners only talk with themselves, covertly, they cannot become conscious about what they think, feel or know. The listener can’t become conscious about what he or she knows as long as speakers prevent him or her from speaking. Even though, people who talk with themselves covertly often end up talking with themselves out loud, overtly, they will only be conscious of what they say to themselves to the extent that they listen to themselves while they speak. Ironically, most people who talk with themselves overtly are not listening to themselves while they speak. People who talk with themselves out loud usually do so compulsively. We may say that this or that person likes to hear him or herself talk, but fact is that those who dominate others are not listening to themselves.

I discovered SVB because I was disappointed in my interactions with others. When I first started talking with myself, I became aware of why people start talking with themselves. When I gave myself permission to talk out loud with myself, I was surprised to find out that my sound was different from when I was talking with others. I couldn’t figure out why I wasn’t able to maintain my sound with others, but this sound was immediately available again the moment I was alone. To this day, I have my sound with only a few people.

My body feels very different when I am with others. Their voices are stimuli which evoke the mediation of my body’s overt behavior. This also affects my attention span. Thus, overt vocal verbal behavior evokes covert responses about how my body experiences the sound of someone’s voice. My history of responding to such covert stimuli has taught me that making them overt can get me in trouble. However, I discovered I can stay out of trouble, by making them covert to an audience of one, that is, by talking out loud with myself. 

By talking out loud with myself, I was able to let myself know what I know: conscious communication requires verbal reports about the behavior of the speaker’s body. The speaker’s body instantly responds to his or her voice. As the sound of our voice occurs in the here and now, attention for our sound  synchronizes speaking and listening behavior. Our voice, a stimulus, evokes a sequence of behavior-behavior functional relations, which covertly may lead to neural responses of well-being and can be overtly expressed as SVB. I found out that SVB keeps us conscious and NVB keeps us unconscious.