Friday, August 12, 2016

May 7, 2015



May 7, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

My reason for teaching Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) is because it has the potential to transform human relationship. I am confident we can solve all our problems and achieve a better way of life. SVB improves how we talk with each other. I speak of teaching, because SVB can be taught and learned. To my knowledge nobody is teaching it. The reason that nobody is teaching it is because nobody knows enough about it to be able to teach it. However, people are trying to learn it on their own without having anyone to teach them. They know it is possible, but they can’t continue it as they don’t know how to. Due to my personal circumstances, I was not only motivated to continue, but upon discovering Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism, I found out about how it actually works. SVB is a scientific account of our vocal verbal behavior. 


It has taken me years to come to terms with my lack of understanding and my inability to accept the undeniable fact that I have discovered something entirely new, which no one else has discovered. If others discovered and understood the far-reaching implications of SVB, they too would have been compelled to teach it. However, the reality is that SVB isn’t taught by anyone, anywhere!


I am not saying that we don’t know about it at all, but the little we know about it is simply not enough to be able to continue with it. Although we achieve it in moments, we can’t continue SVB, the vocal verbal behavior in which the voice of the speaker has an appetitive effect on the listener, as we are unfamiliar with what happens when we shift from SVB to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 


Unless we know how SVB and NVB work, we will not be able to increase SVB and decrease of NVB. Although behaviorists, in their writings, acknowledge the well-documented scientific fact that we don’t cause our own behavior, they too don’t know how to create, let alone continue SVB, which would allow them to instruct and demonstrate during actual conversation, that our speaking and listening behaviors a caused by existing traceable environmental variables. However, these nonverbal independent variables, called stimuli, which set the stage for how we talk, exist primarily within our own skin. 


When we say that someone’s voice sounds like “music to our ears” or “makes our blood boil” we refer to experiences that are taking place inside of the body of the listener, which can only mediate what is outside the skin of the listener,  because of how that body was conditioned by past experiences.


How is one to differentiate between SVB and NVB if one seldom hears the former and mainly the latter? In most of our conversations, speakers control the behavior of the listener with an aversive-sounding voice. The speaker and the listener have been conditioned mainly by NVB, the vocal verbal behavior that is characterized by hierarchical differences, in which our speaking and our listening are predetermined. Although NVB is based on the continuation of our negative emotions and the exploitation of our positive emotions, we accept it as our normal way of talking. Granting that some of us have been conditioned by more SVB than others, the fact remains that most of us have been mainly exposed to and conditioned by NVB and are more inclined to reinforce NVB. 

  
Conditioning processes are lawful. The probability of behaviors which are reinforced increases, while the probability of behaviors that are punished decreases. In operant conditioning the event after the response changes the future probability of that response. SVB and NVB are two subclasses of vocal verbal behavior, which increase due to reinforcement or decrease due to  punishment. SVB or NVB have nothing to do with being right or wrong. Stimuli presented by speakers, inadvertently affect the body of the listener, some of whom become speakers, but most of whom let others do the talking. 


In NVB the behavior of listeners is under control of strict rules. Listeners are expected to listen to the teacher, parent, preacher, politician, leader or the authority. In SVB, by contrast, there is fluid turn-taking between the speaker and the listener. In SVB, at any given time, a listener becomes a speaker and a speaker becomes a listener. Moreover, in SVB the speaker is his or her own listener. The listener listens to the speaker in the same way as he or she would when he or she would listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. Likewise, also the speaker listens to him or herself in the same way as he or she would, when he or she would listen to someone else. In SVB there are no hierarchical differences between the speaker and the listener. SVB can only happen in the absence of aversive stimulation. Many SVB instances are needed to recover from the conditioning effects of NVB, our problem behavior.  Only appetitive vocal verbal behavior is capable of reconditioning our nervous system. 


Let it be said in a straightforward fashion: no matter what we believe, know or assume, most of our common way of talking concerns the subset of vocal verbal behavior classified as NVB. However, nobody produces this problem behavior because he or she likes like to, wants to or chooses to. We behave the way we do because of how we are affected by others, who condition our behavior. It is not our choice to behave this or that way. As long as we think it is our choice, we will create NVB and make SVB impossible. We are either involved in SVB or in NVB as our neural behavior was stimulated and shaped by our previous environments, that is, by certain people. Although we may believe otherwise, we are tremendously burdened by the fact that we are so often involved in arguing, fighting, dominating, coercing, pretending, struggling, humiliating, defending, posturing, distracting, manipulating and agitating, while we speak. Yet, the distinction between SVB and NVB can only begin to become clear to us if we are start to listen to ourselves while we speak.


I claim that even the most stressed out person; the psychotic; someone who is depressed or suicidal; someone who is manic; someone who is morning the loss of a loved one; someone who was abandoned; someone who has been neglected and rejected; someone who was falsely accused; someone who was tortured; someone who was misunderstood and not validated; someone who was sexually and physically abused and enslaved; someone who is suffering from the traumatic experiences of war; someone who was betrayed; someone who was discriminated; someone who was imprisoned; and someone who was addicted, will find relief by simply listening to themselves while they speak. 


When two people listen to themselves while they speak they will know that they have SVB. They will experience and express what is real. However, we need to talk in order to be able to hear ourselves. We need to talk and be unconcerned about what we say, so that we can pay attention to how we sound. When we do that, experiences which made no sense to us will begin to make sense to us again. Our sound nonverbally expresses the conditioning we have endured, survived and suffered. We need to hear the sound of our pain, our sadness, our loss, our confusion, our rage, our hate and our loneliness. 


We must first listen to Voice # I, the sound of our NVB. Only then can we begin to acknowledge that when we don’t speak with Voice # I, we speak with Voice # II, the voice of SVB, the voice of hope, health, love, support, peace, safety, stability, sensitivity, togetherness, strength, grace, creativity and gratitude.

May 6, 2015



May 6, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

When a listener identifies a speaker as someone who produces Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the listener discriminates the eliciting effects of the sound of the speaker’s voice, by expressing the events which happen within his or her own skin. In a very real sense, the listener nonverbally behaves the speaker, who has an immediate effect on the listener and who reacts to the aversively-sounding speaker with respondent behavior. Such respondent behavior is mediated by the listener’s sympathetic nervous system and is called the fight-flight-freeze response. 


According to Stephen Porgess's Poly Vagal Theory (2013), the fight-flight part of this response involves the mobilization of the listener, but the freeze part involves the immobilization of the listener. Since these are nonverbal implicit processes, listeners who listen to NVB speakers often run into problems, while trying to express verbally what they experience nonverbally. They express a mismatch between their verbal and nonverbal behavior, that is, as speakers, the listener is also stimulated to produce NVB. As long as this mismatch is not verbalized both the production and reinforcement of NVB continues.  


The listener will be able to discriminate Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) when he or she is capable of verbally expressing the nonverbal well-being that he or she is experiencing while listening to the speaker. Again, such a listener is directly responding to the sound of the speaker, which now immediately has a completely opposite effect as in NVB. The voice of the SVB-speaker instantly induces a parasympathetic autonomic response in the listener. Although there will also be some sympathetic activation, this serves to make the listener alert. 


Proper stimulation of the listener by the speaker results in the listener’s ability to effortlessly follow and understand what the speaker is saying. During SVB,  within the listener’s skin, no nonverbal aversive events occur, which distract the listener from what the speaker is saying. In other words, the voice of the SVB-speaker expresses and evokes in the listener the congruence between his or her nonverbal and verbal behavior. Also, when the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks, his or her listening and speaking behavior become joined, because they happen at the same rate and intensity level. SVB is an important behavioral cusp. Porgess's Poly Vagal Theory explains that Social Engagement, that is, talking and listening, can only occur in the absence of aversive stimulation.  

May 5, 2015



May 5, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 
I woke up from a good night sleep, which ended with a dreadful dream. Bonnie my wife and I had come to an edge. There was an abyss and in the distance a mountain range. It seemed to me I needed to be on that mountain range and I was sure my little towel would fly me there, if I held it spread out in front of me. I demonstrated to Bonnie how to hold it, so that she could fly too, but I noticed she didn’t believe it was possible. It then dawned on me that if she would take the jump, I would witness seeing her crash to her death. I didn’t want that, of course, and all of a sudden I didn’t understand anymore how it had been possible that I had been thinking that I could fly across this abyss? It was impossible and although initially this seemed like a realistic plan, I had been woken up due to her fear and I called off the jump.


When we analyze this frightening dream with the certainty that comes from the knowledge that human beings behave their environments neurally - that is, due to conditioning, we acquire individually different verbal and visual concepts with which we navigate and construct our ‘reality’, which remains inaccessible to others - we find that this dream has something interesting to convey. 


Although the dream appeared to be about Bonnie’s fear of flying, it was, of course, about me. The fact that my neural behavior concatenated this dream is undeniable. I woke up from this dream in which I was looking with Bonnie at this deep abyss and across at the distant mountain range. I held a small towel in my hands and Bonnie held one in hers and according to me it was possible to use that towel to fly across. 

 
It is not so odd to think of a dream within a dream, when one realizes that one can only think about the dream after one has woken up. Interpretations of this dream are only possible following an ‘awareness’ of the dream, that is, after the chaining of covert, nonverbal, neural behaviors, we are aware of the dream, or rather, we believe when we verbally express this chain that we are aware of ‘it.’ It is not even so odd then to think of a dream within a dream within a dream, because the chaining of neural verbal and nonverbal behaviors makes this possible. There is truth to the 'esoteric' fact that our body knows.  

Saturday, August 6, 2016

May 4, 2015



May 4, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 
When the listener responds to the speaker’s voice, the listener is either responding to an appetitive or to an aversive stimulus, that is, the listener either likes or dislikes the speaker. However, the listener’s response is a neural behavior of which he or she is either capable or incapable. For instance, the listener must have a behavioral history with English language, to be able to understand an English speaker. If such a history is missing, the listener will be incapable of having appropriate responses to English speakers. The listener’s history of reinforcement conditioned his or her body to appropriately respond to English stimuli. Whatever the listener is capable of perceiving as appetitive or aversive is always determined by his or her history of reinforcement. 

     
The saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder is factual in that the construct of an appetitive or an aversive sounding speaker is made possible by the neural behavior of the listener, who mediates the speaker. The listener who  identifies a speaker as interesting or uninteresting, as appetitive or aversive, is capable because his or her body was conditioned to do so, that is, auditory stimuli were repeatedly reinforced as such. What may sound good to one, may sound bad to another. In other words, the listener neurally or non-verbally behaves the speaker and thus provides reinforcement. 


Other than in the eye of the beholder there is no beauty. Everything that is perceived as out there, in the external environment, is in fact happening within the skin of each organism, who is conditioned to do so. Since such behavioral processes happen to individual organisms, listeners, as an audience of one,  feel energized or drained by a speaker. In the former the listener experiences the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) of the speaker, but in the latter the listener experiences the Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) of the speaker. Their body produces neural behaviors that make them attentive or inattentive. People describe their environment or others as something outside of themselves that is stimulating or tiring to them, but they don't realize that they refer to their body which has been conditioned by previous circumstances to increasingly respond stimuli in that manner. As long as they don’t listen to themselves while they speak, as they would in SVB, they don’t realize that they sound exactly like what they don’t want others to sound like and that the pot is calling the kettle black.The latter is an example of NVB.

May 3, 2015



May 3, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 
Behaviorologists, who insist that the science of human behavior is its own separate discipline because psychology can’t and doesn’t represent them, find themselves beating a dead horse each time they point out that most scientists continue to believe in “mini-deities” in spite of the fact that they acknowledge that “human beings are a product of natural processes.” The reason this keeps occurring is not because of some “cultural fog,” but because of how we talk.


In “What is Reality to an Organic Unit of Behavior” (2014) Lawrence Fraley beautifully analyzes this “I” or “me”, the entity which supposedly manages our body and its behavior from within. Although Fraley has written wonderful works about the “behavior-controlling relations” that maintain our ancient belief in our “personal internal agent”, he doesn’t say anything and doesn’t seem to realize that it is our way of talking about this “personal self-agent”, which maintains the fact that we keep on living “within the bubble of that fiction.” What keeps getting lost in the complex behavior of academic writing is a much more simple behavior, talking, has continued unabated. I say simple, because pretty much everybody can and must do it, even the most successful academic. 


A good example of this is the little heard off personal life of Albert Einstein. When his marriage with his first wife, due to extra marital affairs, was falling apart, he made a misogynistic list of demands presumably in an attempt to keep his family together. He basically insisted his wife would be a slave to him. Unless our interactions show this “mystical agential self” is no more asserted, people will continue to talk out of their asses. Einstein said “there must be something behind the energy” and he pandered, in spite of all his knowledge, to of “a superior spirit” and “a superior mind.” Skinner’s personal life, by contrast, holds up to scrutiny. Everything we know about him was proof he really lived what he knew. One could also detect this in the sound of his voice, when he spoke of “the operant.” From his vocal verbal behavior it was clear “the particular form of that occurring orderly response” was “determined by the current configuration of the responsively sensitive neural bodily structures”.