August 28, 2015

August 28, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my eleventh response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010).  Before I continue commenting on this important paper, I want to write about a dream I just woke up from. It was a about magnificent feast.  Accompanied by music, a big, canoe-like dish was carried in by eight men and eight women. The food displayed looked beautiful. It was a piece of art, so colorful and abundant. As they ceremonially came to the middle of the room that was filled with the many participants for this celebration, it was apparent to everyone that the food was alive. People let out sounds of joy, thankfulness and anticipation and were amazed by the wave-like changing patterns and colors of the food. The huge dish seemed to float off the shoulders of the carriers, who, with great care and calmness lowered it to the ground. It seemed to take a long time for the dish to land and everyone admired the grace with which this was done. People drew closer and were ready to eat from this gorgeous dish. Plates had been handed out and while this boat of sacred food came closer to the ground, it began to overflow. Everyone came closer and held out their plates to catch the food and plates were passed from one person to the next until everyone had been provided. Before the eating began, a song was sung by a female and a male singer, which described the waiting for, the arrival and the meaning of this food. As everyone swayed to this graceful music, their eyes filled with tears of gratitude. It was now time to eat, to use our hands and to nourish ourselves.

While we speak, we either adjust and attune to each other or we don’t. If we don’t, speakers produce Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), but if we do, we make Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) available to the listener. Because of their punitive conditioning many adults never acquired the ability attune. As children, we were born sensitive and in need of attunement and attachment. Without attunement there can be no attachment. Attachment is only possible if we are and remain attuned. However, even if were fortunate enough to have good parents, most of us only experience this wonderful attachment and attunement while we grow up.  As we get older, we become less and less reinforced for this and, consequently, this creates many problems. There is of course a more obvious need for reinforcement while we are young, because without it we are unable to learn anything. As we have learned things, we are capable of reinforcing ourselves, but this never means that we can completely do without the reinforcement of others.

The authors wrote “In many cultures, the speech that adults use when talking to infants is quite different from the speech they use when talking to other adults. Infant-directed speech is often simplified compared to adult-directed speech, but it also often involves exaggerated prosodic features, such as wider excursions of voice pitch; more variable amplitude, tempo and delivery; and more varied patterns of word stress. These modifications to infant directed speech mean that, as a physical acoustic signal, it is inherently both more salient and more variable than adult-directed speech, and these properties also make it more functional in capturing and focusing infant attention and modulating core arousal.” It is interesting that we, as adults, also want to see and hear actors and performers act out “exaggerated prosodic features.” Our emotional need continues to exist. However, we can’t get our need for “salient” and “variable” speech met by passively listening to actors, performers, leaders, preachers and professional speakers, who supposedly do the talking for us. Unless we engage in SVB, our need for interaction can’t be met. Every time we engage in NVB this need is frustrated and we become more isolated. Also, our therapists and teachers usually can't help us achieve SVB as they tend to be too busy with what they are saying. Their common verbal fixation causes NVB and is based on a misunderstanding about talking and listening. As long as the sound of our voice is not our focus while we speak we will continue to have NVB.

The aforementioned more “salient”, “variable” speech, which seems to come natural when adults talk with children, is needed for adults as well.  However, during the course of our normal development our overt speech becomes covert. Initially, everyone is happy when a child says its first few words and begins to formulate sentences, but once they acquire language, speech begins to recede to a covert level, where it becomes what we say to ourselves and determines to what extent we are able to regulate ourselves. Obviously, negative self-talk is dysregulating and only our positive self-talk is regulating. Such negative or positive self-talk is a function of the NVB or SVB which we have experienced while growing up. For most people there is more SVB while growing up then while being grown up. Therefore, as adults, we are mainly determined by what we say to ourselves, by covert speech. To the extent that our positive self-talk allows us to be open to what others say to us, we will engage in SVB, but to the extent that our negative self-talk prevents us from being open to others, we will engage in NVB. Thus, how we were being talked with while we were growing up determines how we later talk as adults. We cannot produce SVB as long as it was not reinforced. And, of course, then, we also cannot reinforce SVB in others.

Our ability to become an effective speaker is determined by the extent to  which we can be an affective speaker. We don't become fully verbal as long as the sound of our voice doesn’t support what we are saying. This is only be the case in SVB. During NVB our voice contradicts what we are saying, that is, our negative affect influences the listener in such a way that he or she experiences our sound as an aversive stimulus from which they want to escape. To learn, not only children need to hear a positive sound, adults need to hear a positive sound too. Without that listeners will not fully understand what the speaker is saying. “The resulting modulatory effects have been shown to facilitate semantic learning and to highlight additional organizational properties of language. For example, exaggerated pitch excursions and word stress in conjunction with manual gesturing and manipulation of concrete objects facilitates semantic labeling. Variable tempo and pausing help to highlight phonetic boundaries, clausal boundaries and higher syntactical units (reviewed in Kuhl, 2000 ).

August 27, 2015

August 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my tenth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010).  “Auditory-motor sympathy has also been shown in humans for non-verbal vocalizations, where the sound of non-verbal exclamations

of positive affect potentiates in listeners activity in motor areas involved in facial expressions associated with producing the same positively-toned exclamations (Warren et al., 2006).” This is evidence from neuroscience for how we perceive each other while we speak. Although we speak verbally, our sound is “a nonverbal vocalization.” If the speaker’s positive affect is expressed, it affects the listener differently than when the speaker’s negative affect is expressed. The message is perceived differently when the voice of the speaker induces a different emotion in the listener.

“Gallese et al. (2004) have proposed viscero-motor mirror circuits as a foundation for direct emotional resonance via simulation of at least some of the felt emotions of others.” There are many implications for this “vocal-affective influence.” If we stay with the fact that we experience positive or negative emotions when we hear someone speak, we recognize that we either engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). These two subsets of vocal verbal behavior occur in every verbal community around the world. Regardless of whether one speaks Chinese or Arabic one will either experience SVB or NVB. Similarly to listening to different languages, when the listener listens to SVB, that listener is not experiencing NVB, but when the listener is listening to NVB, he or she is not experiencing SVB. Likewise, when the listener is familiar with the Dutch language but not with the French language, he or she will not be able to understand the French language. Likewise, when the listener is familiar with NVB, but not with SVB, he or she will not be able to understand SVB.  Without the environmental stimulation by some SVB speaker, a teacher, the listener cannot become a SVB speaker by him or herself. 

“Given the reciprocally integrated neurophysiological networks

for perception and action, and in so far as vocal signals are reliably driven by emotional states in signalers, then the process by which listeners perceive emotion-laden signals includes the capacity for experiencing some similar emotions and thus also potentiating behavioral responses that might naturally flow from that shared experience.” The authors cautiously mention only “some similar emotions” potentiate behavioral responses, but once the SVB/NVB distinction is known, we recognize that each language actually consists of two languages and all emotions potentiate “behavioral response” that “naturally flow from that shared experience.” However, I would reserve phrases like “naturally flow” for SVB, as nothing flows in NVB, which is coerced. Only positive emotions flow. As we share the same negative emotions we continue to have NVB. Certainly, our shared anger, frustration, hatred and animosity results in behavioral responses which are different from those which only “naturally flow from” SVB. These predictable outcomes are lawful. If there is SVB we get another predictable outcome, and, if this outcome wasn’t obtained, this simply means that NVB must have prevented it. This is another way of looking at ourselves and each other. Things happen for a reason. When we find why they are happening, we find ways to change them. If we don’t know that the perpetuation of our problems was preceded and maintained by our NVB, if we don’t see any reason to decrease our NVB and increase our SVB, we are not going to be able to solve any of our problems. The solutions to our communication problems will only “naturally flow from” our shared positive affect. It cannot and will not result from our negative emotions. 

The question is really: are we going to speak the same language? Are we going to have SVB? If we have SVB, we find that SVB is the same in every language. Whether we get along with each other doesn’t depend on whether we speak Spanish or Swedish. Everywhere when people get along with each other they engage in SVB. SVB is a universal phenomenon, it transcends all our differences. “Empirical confirmation” of this type of process will only be obtained if we are going to engage in it. Writing and reading about it is not the same as experiencing it. Experiencing SVB is the only way in which we can individually verify its validity. Reading about it will not and cannot provide this experience. Also, a “neurophysiological account” is not really needed to prove what we already know through direct experience: “affective and behavioral resonance in humans such as contagious laughter, contagious crying and comfort-seeking.” We need a SVB way of talking, which makes us familiar with our emotions and more capable of expressing them accurately. NVB can be defined as our failed attempts to express our emotions. We cannot wait for “empirical confirmation” to get better at expressing what we feel. The “vocal-affective influence” is there whether we know it or not. Although we may have a lot of trouble because of this, unconsciously, we still experience our own and each other’s emotions.

The authors argue in favor of “vocal-affective bootstrapping of complex communication.” This is opposed to the long-held, reigning Chomskyan view that language learning “must be governed by some innate coding of its deep organizational properties in a special language module in the brain (Chomsky, 1957). Such a view disregards that “speech sounds, as physical signals, influence attentional and affective systems of listeners in ways that might promote language acquisition.” This could mean we learn about SVB, a different language than NVB, the language which we had accepted as ours. Not surprisingly, Chomsky’s voice incites frustration in most of his listeners. Even though he wishes to reduce violence and oppression, his sound has an aversive effect on listeners, who think that this is okay. A similar effect is created by others who adamantly try to change the world.  Amy Goodmans, Rush Limbaughs, Clintons, Popes, Dalai Lamas, Doctor Phils all mainly have NVB and teach people to have NVB. They know how to attract the attention, but are unaware of the SVB/NVB distinction. All of them are supposedly simplifying things. Fact is, their NVB complicates things. Only SVB can simplify things, because it includes rather than excludes complexity. Supposedly, if we listen to these people we obtain the solution to our problems. Nothing is further from the truth. Only a different way of talking is going to solve our problems and this way of talking is not demonstrated by any of these people. They cannot demonstrate it as they don’t know about it. Of course, they have all experienced SVB and they have some familiarity with it, but this hasn’t resulted into a persistent adn skillful focus on the “vocal-affective influence” of the speaker on the listener. Such a focus is needed to achieve and maintain SVB.

August 26, 2015

August 26, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my ninth response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010).  I have now arrived at that part of the paper in which the authors talk about “affective and behavioral resonance.” Of course, the is just a figure of speech. They don’t talk about it, they write about it, but we say that they talk about it while we are referring to their writing, and we, the readers, don’t say anything either, as we only read about it. I already pointed out this phenomenon in my previous writings, but it can’t be addressed often enough that there are serious problems involved in our interchanging of speaking and listening with writing and reading. These different realms are often assumed to interact, when in reality they don’t.  Many things have been written with the assumption that it would make a difference in how we talk and that it would change our behavior, but it didn’t. It didn’t because it couldn’t. It couldn’t because reading doesn’t affect how we are talking.  

What does change our way of talking is how we sound. During Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) the speaker produces a sound which expresses his or her wellbeing. When speakers express wellbeing, we have a different interaction than when speakers have a sound which signifies stress, fear, anxiety, frustration or guardedness, in other words: negative emotions. Under such circumstances we engage in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).  The listeners are always affected by such speakers, whether they know it or not, recognize it or not, express or are allowed to express it or not. During NVB the speaker is on automatic pilot as he or she doesn’t listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. Since the NVB speaker doesn’t listen to him or herself while he or she speaks, he or she isn’t the least interested in how the listener is affected by this. Stated differently, the “affective resonance” that these authors are wring about is always prevented by NVB. It only occurs during SVB, that is, when NVB has been stopped. 

“Affective and behavioral resonance” during spoken communication is a real possibility which, unfortunately, we often miss out on as we don’t know how to stop NVB. The problem is not SVB, but the problem is NVB. NVB is difficult to extinguish as we keep triggering each other into it. Also, we are not having NVB because we want to have it; we have NVB as we don’t know how to have SVB. Once we know the difference between SVB and NVB, we know we want to have SVB. As long as we seem to want NVB, the difference between SVB and NVB has not yet been discriminated. 

SVB equals “affective and behavioral resonance.” If circumstances are such that it can happen, it will happen. Moreover, it will happen effortlessly. It “emerges from the increasing realization that the neurophysiological organization of behavior depends on reciprocal influence between systems guiding the production of behavior and systems involved in perceiving, interpreting and responding to the behavior of others.” The “increasing realization” occurs because of the repeated differentiation between SVB and NVB. One cannot be known without the other and lack of understanding about NVB therefore prevents us from having more SVB.

Especially while we speak, it becomes apparent that “behavior depends on reciprocal influence.” In SVB, the speaker is his or her own listener. As the speaker and the listener are one within each person, the speaker and the listener can also be one in SVB in another person. This other person can be a speaker as well as a listener. SVB is characterized by turn-taking in which the speaker can become the listener and the listener can become the speaker. In NVB, by contrast, there is no turn-taking. In NVB the speaker and the listener roles are determined by the speaker, who coerces the listener with his or her uni-directional way of talking. In SVB, however, the speaker invites the listener to speak, so that there can be bi-directional interaction.  

Since “neurophysiological organization of behavior depends on reciprocal influence between systems”, we are dysregulated when this “reciprocal influence between systems” is made impossible by our NVB. In NVB the speaker not only dysregulates others (listeners), but also him or herself.     

"The landmark finding on this front was the discovery of mirror and canonical neuron systems in primate brains which are activated both by seeing an object, or seeing an action performed by another individual,

and by acting on that same object, or performing the same action oneself."

Mirror neurons are believed to play an important role in recognizing what the main character in a movie is feeling and in predicting what they are going to do.  Just by look and listening, our neurobiology has evolved to give us direct access to the same roller coaster of experiences that the main character is experiencing, “This perceptuo-motor integration generates an unconscious behavioral resonance between individuals via incipient “motor sympathy” for one another’s actions.” We experience feelings of joy, stress, suffering, anger and fear as we see and hear what others are going through.

“The effects have been shown to include visuomotor sympathy for certain communicative gestures in primates (Ferrari et al., 2003) and for facial expressions of emotions in humans (Carr et al., 2003 ; Hennenlotter et al., 2005). They have also been shown to extend beyond the visuo-motor system. For example, auditory-motor mirror neurons that integrate the sound of an act with the behavior required to generate it have been reported in non-human primates (Kohler et al., 2002 ; Keysers et al., 2003 ).”

There has to be congruence between what we say and how we say it as without integration we can't make any sense. During NVB in which this integration is lacking there are many problems. SVB solves these problems as it establishes and maintains congruence between what we say and how we say it. Once we know the SVB/NVB distinction, we recognize which sounds and gestures belong to either one of these subsets of vocal behavior. No gesture or sound belongs to both. It doesn’t make any evolutionary sense to keep making sounds and gestures which originate in survival, but this is what we do during NVB. Once we know the SVB/NVB distinction, we realize that, indeed, mankind’s survival is at stake and that NVB surely paves the way for our demise. Only SVB integrates what we say with how we say it. NVB prevents that as it turns us against our own biology.

August 25, 2015

August 25, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my eight response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010). “A socially influential animal has the opportunity to use a listener’s own learning processes to create vocal “leverage” over its affective states and behavior.” This puts me as the originator of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) in a unique position. As a teacher and speaker, I am able to create vocal “leverage” over the student’s affective states and behavior. Moreover, I can teach students to acquire this behavior.

As I was and still am involved in singing, music and poetry, I have “the ability to induce differentiated affective outcomes” because of my use of “subtly different call types.”I am able to produce alarming as well as soothing call types. My voice stands out from others and people have repeatedly told me this. Since I know about the SVB/NVB distinction, I am no longer affected by the alarm calls that are coming from those who don’t know about this distinction. “The threat calls of subordinate animals will generally be of little affective consequence for dominants.”

Although I don’t consider myself as a “dominant” animal, I am one by virtue of my knowledge about SVB. Many calls have no effect on me, because I immediately recognize them as NVB and I don’t get involved. “Hence, the capacity to induce learned affect in others depends on the identity of the caller vis à vis the recipient.” I basically leave NVB speakers alone and they leave me alone. “This functional requirement might help to explain why the variety of calls used in such face-to-face contexts in different primate species have regularly proven to contain clear cues to caller identity when such cues have otherwise seemed entirely redundant in these contexts.” My notion of identity is about how speakers sound. Simply stated, if we sound ‘good’, we feel ‘good.’ We don’t make ourselves sound good or feel good. If we do that, we are not sounding or feeling good. Our natural voice always expresses our well-being.

Since sounding good is my identity, I respond effectively to those who sound threatening, intimidating, overwhelming and upsetting. My ability to  recognize these aversively-sounding NVB speakers never fails and affects my behavior. Initially, I felt always influenced and troubled by NVB, but now that I have come to understand that I don’t cause my own behavior, that there is no me, who causes me to be the way I am and to act as I do, I realize I can only sound good and be myself, under certain circumstances and with certain people. 

“In the social groups of many primate species, one’s influence on other group members hinges on individual identity and social status, and therefore simply announcing one’s identity vocally can also influence the affect and arousal of others.” Certainly, I influence others with the sound of my voice. It is as simple as that. Due to my influence, people experience SVB and the difference between SVB and NVB. My social status as an instructor and therapist allows me to do this. I am an “influential individual” whose “identity cues provide additional explicit opportunities to leverage the social behavior of others by controlling the behavioral sequelae that follow from vocal exchanges.” One semester or multiple therapy sessions provide “myriad opportunities for behavioral shaping through processes of conditioning and learning.” I feel fortunate to be in the situation in which I am able to do what I do best.