September 27, 2015

September 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my first response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The authors write “We begin by stipulating three central points upon which we and the broad consensus of commentators agree.” I will use their paper to explain to the reader the importance of talking about the difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Only when we talk – and not when we read – can and will behaviorists grasp and agree with the difference between these unexplored, but completely obvious response classes. In this writing I can only write about talking, but we need to be talking about talking, to be able to learn more about talking. The illusion, that we are part of a conversation while writing and listening while we are reading, continuous to distract us from having SVB and is generating only NVB. To be on the proverbial, visual (not auditory) same page we need to listen to ourselves while we speak, we need to agree on how we sound.

We can’t agree on how we sound together if we aren’t even aware of how we sound by ourselves. To the extent that we have been exposed to and conditioned by NVB, we aren’t even aware of how we sound and as a result, we don’t notice that we sound horrible when, presumably, we interact. NVB is the assumption of interaction. We think we are knowledgeable and we do what we can, but without the SVB/NVB distinction we are ignorant and create and increase our trouble. We try to sound good, we try to sound happy, knowledgeable, self-assured and in control, but all these failed attempts are remnants of a non-existing behavior-directing inner agents, which continued unabated in our NVB. Every time a behaviorist engages in NVB, he or she still believes that he or she is causing his or her own behavior. If they would talk with each other about the SVB/NVB distinction, they would be able to recognize and acknowledge this and come to terms with this immense problem.  

  

When I discovered radical behaviorism and was excited as it explains the workings of SVB as well as NVB, I thought that behaviorist would soon embrace it, but this didn’t happen. These authors refer to what is written and read, when they and others write about what they and others have written. Their so-called “broad consensus” with which the “commentators agree” is biased towards writing and in total denial of how we actually talk with each other. However, they too experience the verbal episodes which are characterized by high rates of NVB and they too experience the relief which is felt when circumstances permit them to have more SVB. This difference never stands out, because, as authorities, they are used to talking at instead of with the graduate students they supervise. It is only probably in their personal lives, with wives, kids, family members and friends that the difference between SVB and NVB can become apparent, but this doesn’t seem to affect them professionally. To the contrary, they use behaviorism to hide from reality and escape in the safe world of academia, a world in which they can write and read and do as little talking as possible. Although they  don’t realize this, many have written about behaviorism in a manner which puts people off who want to talk about it. Moreover, the failure of behaviorists to communicate their science is caused by the fact that they have as high rates of NVB as any non-behaviorist. Their constant emphasis on what they say ignores and dismisses the importance of how they speak. As behaviorists expose superstitions that go on in the name of science, they are considered to be a threat. Their rejection by mainstream academia didn’t make them sensitive about how they interact with others, since they, after all, are right. They agree in their writings that they are right, but once they talk with each other, all sorts of disagreements emerge, as they, like everybody else, also don’t know how to talk with each other. Their so-called agreement is a paper tiger, which doesn’t have any power. How different it would be if they would  agree while they talk with each other and show to the world on a video what this looks and sounds like? Movies in which actors and actresses act what agreement looks and sounds like simply don’t cut it.

In SVB speakers are no longer acting as if and the effect of this on the listener is of great importance. SVB cannot be replaced by anyone who is speaking in a scripted manner. Such speech is NVB and, if listened to more carefully, we agree that it doesn’t sound good. Once we finally listen to how we sound, we are amazed that we agree. In other words, nonverbally we already agree, but we have yet to accurately express this verbally. As long as we are not deliberately creating environments in which we can and will listen to ourselves, we don’t and can’t hear the difference between SVB and NVB. Consequently, we can only achieve SVB in an accidental, irregular and limited manner. However, our body always experiences the stress, fear, frustration and anger, which is involved in NVB. We, that is, the speaker, may not notice, but the listener always notices. Moreover, this listener is not only someone else, that listener is also the speaker him or herself. Thus, the speaker who doesn’t listen to him or herself stresses him or herself as well as others. By contrast, in SVB, the speaker listens to him or herself and agrees with him or herself that he or she sounds good. The SVB speaker is like a musician, who plays his or her instrument with great skill and deliberateness. The process of self-listening unfolds during SVB, which becomes more refined as it continues. This happens as the sound of the speaker reinforces the speaker and the listener. To the extent that a musician enjoys his or her music, he or she lets others enjoy what he or she enjoys. His or her practice is as joyful as his or her performance.

Consensus about SVB is made possible by the verifiable experience that self-listening includes other-listening. Only when we listen to ourselves can and will we listen to each other. In NVB, other-listening excludes self-listening. NVB is hierarchical and thus the NVB speaker separates the speaker from the listener. The NVB speaker prevents the listener from listening to him or herself. He or she achieves that by preventing the listener from speaking. Only when the listener speaks out loud can he or she hear him or herself. As long as behaviorists keep emphasizing writing and reading, they can’t have the actual experience of SVB.

September 26, 2015

September 26, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my eight response to “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. Although these authors believe that they are scientific about the culture, they are biased towards directly acting variables, which are causing most behavior. To take into account these antecedent events would require a new way of talking: Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). The notion that it is difficult or even impossible to take into account every variable that pertains to the way in which we talk derives from Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

During NVB we remain insensitive and we are talking at instead of with each other. Talking with each other in SVB is possible by the sound of our voice. In SVB the voice of the speaker is perceived as an appetitive stimulus, but in NVB the sound of the speaker is perceived by the listener as aversive. When the speaker talks at the listener his or her voice grabs, stabs, pushes, pulls, drains, chokes, upsets, intimidates and dysregulates the listener.  Such a way of talking is not conducive to tracing the variables of which speech is function. Only during SVB, in which the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks, can the listeners become the speaker, who can detect antecedents which determine NVB. In NVB listeners can only refer to antecedents that inaccurately describe the negative emotions which the speaker induces. In SVB our conversation becomes so refined then that we can detect the real antecedents, which dissolves our urge to fill in the blanks with explanatory fictions.

It is remarkable how these (and many other) authors keep beating around the bush. “Malott and Glenn (2006) emphasized that when describing a macro-contingency we refer to the operants of multiple individuals that generate a cultural cumulative effect in addition to the individualized consequences of each response. An intervention in a cultural problem of this nature would involve establishing contingencies to alter individual operants.” Which contingencies can alter individual operants? How can their cultural interventions be effective if they overlook the importance of why people talk the way they do? They are obviously oblivious of the SVB/NVB distinction, which brings into view, or rather, within hearing range, contingencies that set the stage for SVB and NVB. They write about vague matters such as meta-contingencies.

Their example of limiting “the number of fast food restaurants in each zone of the city” as “an intervention to reduce the number of individuals whose diets are rich in sugar and fat” is typical in that it represents a bias to visual stimuli. Although, of course, visual stimuli are very important, our attention for visual stimuli often takes attention away from our ability to pay attention to what we hear when we speak with each other. Culture is transmitted by our vocal verbal behavior.

The authors fantasize about the workings of the macro-contingencies. “However, it is possible that an individual sensitive to traffic congestion or the pollution caused by traffic congestion would prefer not to drive his or her own car to work, thus producing a consequence that is beneficial to the culture. In these cases, individuals are likely to behave this way because these phenomena are associated with other social contingencies, such as the existence of ethical sanctions contingent on impulsive responses.” It is possible, but only likely if they are reinforced for making choices which are “beneficial to the culture.” People make choices based on what is good for them individually and “other social contingencies, such as the existence of ethical sanctions contingent on impulsive responses” are punishments, not reinforcements. Stated differently, the authors advocate NVB instead of SVB and I disagree with that. Aversive control of behavior has been practiced for way too long. Only as a side-note they write “However, opportunity for verbal interaction among participants appears to enhance the frequency of self-controlled responses.” The observed effects could be explained entirely by the “verbal interaction among participants”, which is a more parsimonious explanation than meta-contingencies. Interestingly, the condition which was manipulated in the experiments which were done by Borba et al. (2014), was whether participants could interact verbally and had access to each other. This directly maps onto SVB. In NVB, on the other hand, we cannot interact and have no access to each other.

Although it may seem as if people are interacting in NVB, participants don’t “have access to one another’s choices in real time.” During NVB, we are scheming, dominating, manipulating and faking it. It comes as no surprise “The results revealed a higher number of self-controlled responses in the groups exposed to Conditions 2 and 3, i.e., those in which there was a possibility of verbal interaction.” Although we keep mainly having NVB, there is occasionally a possibility to have SVB and this is how culture evolved. Cultures around the globe have different rates of SVB, but this is not recognized. In Holland, my country of origin, I experienced higher rates of SVB than in the USA. “The microculture that could interact verbally throughout the entire experiment produced self-controlled responses reaching 100% in most sessions.” However, it goes unnoticed that the microculture is more likely to set the stage for SVB. When people are given the choice to have SVB or NVB, they will choose SVB each time. Santana and Tourinho (2011) found “the results demonstrated the importance of verbal behavior in the implementation of ethical self-control responses.” Although the authors don’t address why cultures transmit high rates of SVB or NVB, it is a start that at least they address the importance of verbal behavior. If they knew about the vocal SVB/NVB distinction they would have linked the “opportunity for verbal interaction among participants” with SVB, because only SVB “appears to enhance the frequency of self-controlled responses”.

September 25, 2015

September 25, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my seventh response to “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. The authors suggest “macro-contingencies” to account for “the effect produced by many individuals over time.” They reason “a social problem appears when a large number of individuals frequently engage in practices that have deleterious effects on many members of a culture.” I disagree with this kind of group-think, which is anti-social. Presumably, a problem is only a problem if “a large number of individuals frequently engage in practices that have deleterious effects on many members of the culture.” I think a problem is already a problem when it concerns only just one member of the culture. If we are only going to pay attention to problems when many members of the culture have been affected, we are clearly running behind the facts.  This is what culture often makes us do. Cultures have been historically stable, but this is rapidly changing due to modern commerce. It remains to be seen if this change is going to be rapid enough to make us deal with what happens at an individual level, at the level of the organism, as Skinner would say. Culture has prevented us from recognizing how we talk with each other. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is perpetuated by our cultures, but Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) creates a new order.

SVB and NVB can be viewed as cultural tendencies made possible by  “macro-contingencies”, which “are functional relationships between a macro-behavior and the consequences it produces.” Rates of SVB and NVB within a culture tell us if this culture is taking care of its problems. If the culture produces high rates of SVB problems are addressed and prevented, but if it has high rates of NVB problems are swept under the carpet. “Glenn (2004) proposed the concept of macro-behavior to refer to “similar patterns of behavioral content, usually resulting from similarities in [the] environment”. The United States has higher rates of NVB than Denmark or Holland. However, higher rates of SVB, which are prevalent in more peaceful cultures don’t make any difference for the United States or any other culture, which have higher rates of NVB.

SVB is to human interaction, as medicine is to disease. Superstitious cultures produce higher levels of NVB and prevent access to modern science and medicine. We have dominated each other with our culture and only in recent history we have tried to respect and accept each other’s culture. Cultural variables are overrated, as they are not as aligned with our survival as phylogenetic and ontogenetic variables. SVB and NVB are the “similar patterns of behavioral content, usually resulting from similarities in [the] environment.” Without addressing these universal subsets of vocal verbal behavior, we make it seem as if biology has nothing to do with how we talk and therefore, with culture.

Aversive environments are created by speakers who induce negative affect in the listener. That this obvious phenomenon is not researched indicates how influenced we are by it. In SVB the speaker affects the listener with an appetitive contingency as he or she induces positive emotions in the listener. Only high rates of SVB predict if a culture can survive. As long as we are only focusing on behavior patterns such as “styles of dressing, littering, and eating fast food”, we are giving culture a very superficial treatment. How we behave verbally and vocally, as individuals, within each culture, needs to be urgently addressed.

These authors “want to establish a difference between the outcomes of a macro-contingency that result from the sum of individual behaviors, and the aggregate product that is a result of recurring interlocking behaviors, as in a meta-contingency (Malott & Glenn, 2006, pp. 32-3 on the distinction of these aggregate products). Without having addressed the distinction between SVB and NVB, without having identified the vocal verbal behavior that makes it possible for these behaviors to become interlocked, they hypothesize about “aggregate products.”

The author’s ignorance about day-to-day interactions, the glue that holds our cultures together, is apparent in the statement “The only selection that occurs is of operant behaviors, not of interrelationships between operants (Glenn, 2004; Malott & Glenn, 2006).” What about selection at a cultural level? This contradictory remark is in denial of the natural world. All human beings regardless of their culture experience  two ways of talking: NVB, in which the speaker coerces the listener, and SVB, in which the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks and is his or her own listener. In SVB, the speaker is perceived differently by the listener than in NVB. In NVB, the speaker threatens, intimidates, overwhelms, distracts, bamboozles and sells the listener, but SVB is without any aversive stimulation by the speaker.

There is nothing “delayed” about the effect the speaker has on the listener. What may be true for eating patterns is not true for how we interact. The authors state “It is possible that the cumulative effect does not affect individual behavior in situations in which that effect is highly delayed or in which the individual contribution to the final product is of low magnitude.” Their argument about the existence of “meta-contingency” presumably will reduce government spending, but what about our ability to talk peacefully and solve our problems? This requires a particular kind of talking. NVB wasn’t peaceful and couldn’t create peace. SVB is peaceful and immediately creates peace. The “delayed consequence” was a sales-pitch which we bought into. SVB is the only immediate way to “produce a consequence that is beneficial to the culture.” It is this immediate consequence which will allow us to carry on with it even if it is not reciprocated. Many people, the authors included, are unaware of SVB and subsequently put all their eggs in the fictional basket of NVB. “The existence of ethical sanctions contingent on impulsive responses” is not what will make us and keep us aware of SVB. In fact, it has prevented it. The expression and exploration of our impulsive responses will lead to understanding of how we are affected by each other while we speak. This understanding is still nonexistent, that is why NVB is ubiquitous.

September 24, 2015

September 24, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my sixth response to “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. The author’s solution for “individuals whose diets are rich in sugars and fat because they dine at fast food restaurants would be to limit the number of restaurants in each zone of the city, making access more difficult and raising the response cost of consuming that type of food” (see Lydon, Rohmeier, Yi, Mattaini, & Williams, 2011). Although this is a straightforward behaviorist solution, it leaves out the screens on which and the magazines in which the advertisements are seen or heard, which affect what we say to ourselves about fast food.

We will go out of our way to get what we want, if we don’t address what we say to ourselves. Furthermore, what we say to ourselves is determined by how others speak with us. If there is or was a lot of NVB, this means there is or was a lack of care and attention. This translates into a lack of self-care. Obesity is a symptom of a lack of self-care rather than lack of “ethical self-control.” Lack of self-care is determined by a lack of care. If people have higher rates of SVB, they have experienced higher levels of care and consequently have higher levels of self-care. Thus, eating diets rich in sugars and fat has nothing to do with self-control. And, changing the “macro-contingency” cannot facilitate a higher level of care. Much more effective would be if we could change the “shared environment” by reducing NVB and increasing SVB.

In SVB, we share a positive environment in which the speaker and listener enhance each other, but in NVB, the speaker and the listener share an aversive environment in which the speaker coerces the listener. This affects the environment within the skin of the listener to which he or she only individually has access. This always results into NVB private speech in the listener. Access to our NVB private speech is very different from access to our SVB private speech. We don’t want to make contact with the former, but we long to make contact with the latter. However, we will only be able to have access to the latter after we have dealt with and have overcome our fear of coming in contact with the former. A change in our private speech occurs only as a result of a change in our public speech. Public speech always comes first. The bad eating habits, which are in reality a consequence of a lack of care, can only be solved by caring and supportive SVB about food. However, SVB cannot be provided by those who didn’t experience enough care. SVB is a real event which is grounded in the philosophy of naturalism.

The only way in which SVB can be measured is by focusing on how the listener experiences the speaker. SVB is how the listener experiences the speaker, but in NVB it is presumably unimportant how the listener experiences the speaker. In NVB the speaker is ignorant about how the listener experiences him or her. This lack of feedback leads to all sorts of assumptions in the speaker, none of which address why the listener is turned off. However, the listener’s reason for not listening to the speaker is a culmination of preceding events. For instance, the speaker usually notices he or she is not being listened to. A teacher in front of classroom is a good example. He or she realizes the students are not listening, but he or she doesn’t necessarily acknowledge what he or she does because of which they don’t and can’t listen. The NVB teacher turns off all students who have more SVB behavioral history than him or her. This is true for all NVB speakers. They turn off all those listeners who have more SVB history. Indeed, the more SVB history the listener has, the more turned off he or she will be. This is often completely misinterpreted and the listener with more SVB history than the speaker is blamed that he or she is not listening, when in fact it is the speaker who makes it impossible for him or her to listen. NVB is a detectable event, but only if we pay attention to how we sound while we speak.

Events of not listening are preceded by aversive-sounding speakers.

It is those preceding events, in which the speaker repeatedly hurts the listener with the sound of his or her voice, which make the listener less and less inclined and, most importantly, incapable, of listening to the speaker. When we acknowledge this we have a whole new way of understanding autism. The speaker, who notices that his or her effect on the listener is not what he or she wants it to be, will inadvertently attempt to have another, a better, effect on the listener. Unless the speaker realizes, that is, directly experiences, that his or her NVB has this effect on the listener, he or she may try to anxiously make changes, to supposedly help the listener. Such changes can’t help the listener and make the NVB of the speaker even more intense. The real problem is that the speaker thinks that he or she is doing something positive for the listener when in fact he or she is doing something which is negative.

The lack of control over the behavior of the listener, such as children not listening to their parents or students not listening to their teachers, is because of the accumulative effects of preceding events, that is, the NVB of the parent or the teacher. If we would adhere to a philosophy of naturalism, we would be able to predict and verify that the absence of these functional antecedents would cause different responses in the listener. However, manipulation of the sound of the speaker’s voice as an independent variable is tricky, as acting that we are happy is not the same as being happy. Likewise, acting as if we are friendly, calm and open is not the same as being friendly, calm and open. Those with more SVB history will be turned off or even feel threatened, by speakers who are faking it. In SVB, the speaker doesn’t try to sound differently, but he or she can sound differently, because of his or her behavioral history. Our ignorance about the natural causes for why we speak the way we do is such that speakers demonize those who are not listening to them. However, once we experiment with the SVB/NVB distinction, we stop doing that because we finally realize what was causing our own NVB. Rather than believing that we control ourselves or others, we become aware that both SVB as well as NVB is not caused by us, but by others, who are our environment. Thus, SVB only happens when it can happen.