December 14, 2015

December 14, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my fourteenth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). I agree with Skinner’s “intense focus on single subjects” and I am interested in “the conditions under which an organism will emit a type of response and the likelihood of that event changing as a function of manipulating the environment (Skinner, 1956, 1963, 1971).” However, unlike most behaviorists, I am more interested in self-experimentation than in other-experimentation. 

The distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) can only be made if the single subject focuses on him or herself. SVB and NVB are universal response classes which occur “as a function of manipulating the environment.” Only if you experiment on yourself will you be able to recognize that your voice sounds totally different in SVB and NVB. In order to have SVB someone must stimulate you to listen to yourself while you speak. Focus on single subjects is definitely a step in the right direction as this brings your attention to the set of stimuli that cause you, the organism, to behave, but unless you begin to experiment on yourself, by listening to yourself while you speak, you will not understand the workings of SVB. 

Unless you know under what circumstances your experience of your own voice changes from positive to negative emotions and vice versa, you will be unable to make the necessary environmental arrangements which make SVB possible. Thus, in absence of your own involvement in it SVB cannot be achieved. In other words, as long as the single subject is not you, but someone else, you will try to listen to others or try to understand others, you will try to make others listen to you or you will try to make others understand you, but you will not be listening to yourself. 

Focus on the other, a process I call outward orientation, prevents you from listening to yourself while you speak. Of course, your hyper-vigilant outwardly-directed behavior is your reaction to an aversive and punitive environment. When you feel threatened by someone or something, you are always on guard. Threatening stimuli set the stage for NVB. If, on the other hand, you feel safe and supported, reinforcing stimuli that make you feel relaxed and at ease set the stage for SVB. Due to your sense of well-being your speaking and listening behavior will occur at the same rate and become joined.   

December 13, 2015

December 13, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my thirteenth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). The following statement is of great importance for what I have already addressed in yesterday’s writing. I mentioned that the speaker needs to take time to listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. In other words, the speaker must be alone, so that it becomes very easy for him or her to listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. Stated differently, the speaker must create his or her own environment to achieve Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) all by him or herself. This is not to say that he or she can’t have SVB with others, but that it is necessary to first achieve and explore SVB on our own. 

The group-talk we are used to is Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and our pre-occupation with others prevents SVB. In NVB we, as speakers, want others to listen to us or, as listeners, we try very hard to listen to others, but, as speakers as well as listeners, our focus is on the other and not on ourselves. This communication conundrum, or rather, the simple fact that we have been conditioned by NVB, is the reason that the science of human behavior, behaviorism, until this very day is tossed out in favor of folk psychology.

Our NVB way of talking presumes an inner behavior-causing agent. Dismantling this myth of the inner-self-causation of behavior will only occur when we listen to ourselves. “The final obstacle, the assumption of folk psychology that science is best accomplished through group design research, contrasts with the radical behavioral emphasis on the use of single subjects experimental design.” By listening to yourself while you speak, while are alone, you will be able to create the “single subject experimental design,” that is needed to synchronize and join your speaking and listening behavior.

When you are by yourself there is no such thing as a speaker or a listener, there is only simultaneously: speaking and listening. In your conversations with others, however, you are rarely capable of joining speaking and listening behavior and therefore you are seldom experiencing the unity of the speaker and the listener. When you talk with yourself it is apparent to you that this joining can and should also happen when you speak with others. Moreover, when you achieve SVB by yourself you realize that others have prevented you from having it.

December 12, 2015

December 12, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my twelfth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). The authors quote Skinner who stated to “accept the task, is to change, not people, but rather the world in which they live” (Skinner, 1975, p. 48). I feel so fortunate that I have discovered Radical Behaviorism and that my extension of Skinner’s work, with what I call Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), is not about changing individuals, but about changing the situation. 

This new perspective has also led to changes in my situation. As a psychology instructor I create situations which are beneficial to my students as well as myself. I emphasize that my student’s behavior is caused by environmental variables and not by an inner self. I let them feel, that by being in my class, they are in a different environment than they are used to. They acknowledge this is true and they describe the changes of their behavior. They appreciate my passion and say that my class is not boring. They are stimulated because I challenge them. 

“The practical problem in continuing the struggle for freedom and dignity is not to destroy controlling forces but to change them, to create a world in which people will achieve far more than they ever have achieved in art, music, literature, science, technology and above all in the enjoyment of life (Skinner, 1975, p.47).” Our struggle ends and freedom and dignity are experienced and enjoyed during SVB. This is possible by bringing in one variable that was missing when we were having Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB): the speaker-as-own-listener. Our conversation changes as we listen to ourselves while we speak. 

We are each other’s environment and we either stimulate each other to listen to ourselves while we speak or we don’t. We can only stimulate each other to listen to ourselves while we speak if we ourselves listen to ourselves while we speak. We must practice to listen to ourselves while we speak when we are alone. Only to the extent we have done that are we capable of stimulating others to listen to themselves while they speak. If we haven’t done this we can’t stimulate others to listen to themselves while they speak. So, the “practical problem” is to change the way in which we talk. We talk to others in the same way as we talk with ourselves. Our way of talking creates the situation.      

December 11, 2015

December 11, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my eleventh response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). The authors write that “Humans can arrange contingencies that will further the species and the values that the members may hold, such as freedom and personal dignity.” In yesterday’s class my students and I engaged in one last conversation about the cumulative effects of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) during this semester. It was moving to hear how positively affected everyone was by the discovery and exploration of SVB. When I asked them to talk about what has changed since they started this class nobody spoke.

It wasn’t that nobody had anything to say or didn’t dare to speak, but a deep silence and relaxation fell over our group. It was a profound experience and I described what was happening. Throughout the semester various aspects of SVB had been addressed, but this unique experience of meditation had not happened to us as a group. Everyone was blissful and I could tell by their faces that many students were surprised by the tangible beauty of this experience. The first one to describe this calmly said he felt that SVB pulled them into himself. Others agreed and reported that they had already experienced this elsewhere before.

One girl said she had always tried to describe SVB, but never had the words for it. Another person, who had been hearing voices his whole life, shared that because of SVB he was now hearing pleasant voices. Repeatedly, students reported on how changes in their environment had led to changes in their behavior. Also, some spoke about the mental health services they had received and which mostly involved Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Even psychiatrists, therapists, counselors and teachers don’t know about SVB and, consequently, are not helping. At best they have instances of SVB, but they don’t know what it takes to continue with it. 

For about one full hour our SVB conversation continued and students brought up the fact that their stress, fear, anxiety and depression had dissolved and they were able to identify the different people and situations which had brought that about. One student showed that he had been biting his nails his entire life, but he declared that now he was confident he would find a way to stop this habit. I had told the class at the beginning of this semester that I myself used to be a nail-biter and he still remembered that. The students looked at me and at each other. We smiled and we felt a deep sense of relief and gratefulness.

December 10, 2015

December 10, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my tenth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). Skinner (1974) stated “A behavioristic analysis does not question the practical usefulness of reports of the inner world that is felt and introspectively observed. They are clues (1) to past behavior and the conditions affecting it, (2) to current behavior and the conditions affecting it, and (3) to conditions related to future behavior.” If you bring your private speech into your public speech, you can learn a lot about the past conditions, the current conditions and the future conditions which affect how you talk and listen.

In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the inclusion of your private speech into your public speech is impossible, and, consequently, you are stuck with your private speech (read mental illness) and you end up thinking that you yourself have caused it. To read about these past and current conditions is not the same as to talk about them and one cannot replace the other. Most likely, reading about it creates the impression as if you have talked about it. This writing doesn't claim to dispel that illusion. 

The fact that your behavior is determined by environmental variables doesn’t take away anything from the richness of your experience, to the contrary, it only adds to it. Knowing that your behavior is caused by the environment doesn’t deny what is “uniquely human”, but “it gives humans the opportunity to reciprocally effect the environment.” This means that in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) all the communicators recognize the fact that they are each other’s environment and that, therefore, they either cause each other’s positive or negative way of talking. 

SVB is made possible by the verifiable fact that we mutually reinforce each other. In NVB, on the other hand, the speaker aversively controls the behavior of the listener and the speaker causes the negative changes in the listener, in the environment, which cannot be verified as there is no feed-back. In NVB, the listener, the speaker’s environment, presumably doesn’t cause any change in the speaker. This is factually wrong. 

Although the NVB speaker, who due to a shared history of NVB is allowed to dominate the listener, is reinforced by this listener for his or her forceful way of talking, this NVB speaker is changed by this reinforcing audience. The listener who reinforces the NVB speaker doesn’t really know, but always experiences that he or she is being dominated and therefore also always produces some kind of counter-control. Likewise, the NVB speaker also doesn’t really know, but always experiences that he or she is dominating the listener, while he or she is always also affected by the counter-control exerted by the listener. This only becomes clear in SVB.