March 15, 2016

March 15, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “Contingency thinking may also influence overt behaviors. If I want to decrease candy eating, I say to myself at the point of temptation, “If I eat a candy-bar now, that will increase the probability that I eat another one tomorrow. Do I want to do that to myself?”” Too much candy-eating is bad and any kind of self-talk that supports too much candy-eating is can be construed as negative self-talk. Such negative private speech is the result of our exposure to and our involvement in negative public speech. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) public speech causes NVB private speech. The only way to change NVB private speech is to be more often involved in SVB public speech. This  results in more SVB private speech, in self-talk that stimulates moderation of candy-eating. If we look at candy-eating in terms of how private speech is related to public speech, we recognize that candy-eating is negatively reinforced by and functionally related to NVB public speech. Thus, “The covert query, “If this behavior – then what consequence?””, occurs as we were conditioned by NVB. Such a query wouldn’t even be necessary and therefore wouldn’t occur, if we were more often exposed to and involved in SVB. Any kind of self-talk about improving ourselves can be explained as NVB covert speech which is function of NVB overt speech. Probabilities of SVB and NVB will change due to our knowledge of the SVB/NVB distinction.   

March 14, 2016

March 14, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “discriminative responses to these “subjective” states would be useful in an experimental analysis of behavior.” He is referring to verbal reports about covert responses, such as “feeling depressed” and “having an intention or goal.” Then, he states that “Often the behavior analysist is not in a position to experience the conditions leading to the purported emotion, thought, rumination, feeling or the like.” The reason why most behavior analysists, but also everybody else, is often not in a position to experience such conditions is because of their way of talking, which limits their thinking. With Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) behaviorists will be able to gather more accurate verbal reports on human subjects, because they talk in a non-threatening way, but in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) speakers don’t empathize with the listeners and are not in a position to think about the contingencies that gave rise to the thoughts and feelings of the listeners. “Discrimination training” must happen on the side of the researcher: “Contingency thinking” involves practices in which researchers talk out loud with themselves and say “If my sound expresses stress and fear, then I acquire negative private speech” and “If this is true for me, then this is may also be true for others” and “If I bring out negative private speech into public speech, then I find what caused me to feel this way. Is this also true for others?”

March 13, 2016

March 13, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “Meaning is based on discrimination of differences: If everything is “x” then “x” is meaningless.” The fact that behaviorist classify “both mental and physical under the single rubric of behavior” doesn’t necessarily “weaken the term” as it allows behaviorists to “show why it is functional to hypothesize similarities between overt (or “physical”) and covert (or “mental”) behaviors. However, the critics are correct that something meaningful is missing: the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

We can talk about behavior in a SVB or in a NVB fashion and these are two entirely different ways of talking. In SVB we connect with each other, but in NVB we disconnect from each other. Thus, it is functional to “hypothesize about the similarities between overt and covert behaviors” only in a SVB manner, but not in a NVB manner. In SVB it is meaningful to hypothesize about similarities between overt and covert behaviors, but in NVB it is utterly meaningless. As spoken communication is considered to be less important than written publications, behaviorists and non-behaviorists alike overemphasize the latter, but underestimate the importance of the former. By writing about it, “humble agnosticism” is not going to restore the importance of spoken communication. Thus, it is not the adherence to a theoretical position, but the overemphasis on writing which prevents SVB. 

March 12, 2016

March 12, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “Yet, behaviorists are criticized for reducing al meaningful psychological phenomena so a single class, that of behavior.” What this means is that behaviorists always only want to talk with non-behaviorists about the terms they are using. This verbal fixation is typical for Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The negative responses and rejection which is so often received by behaviorists, is not because of what they say, but because of how they say it. This comes out in the way they speak as well as in the way they write. The implied criticism, that behaviorists may even have less Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) than non-behaviorists, is most likely true. After all, behaviorists are better scientists than those who are still stuck with the explanatory fictions which hide in the verbal garb of “meaningful psychological phenomena.” Of course, behaviorists feel superior to non-behaviorists; only the science of human behavior focuses on “an actively changing organism under control of prior and consequent environmental events.” This superiority, which would be accepted as the reality in SVB, is another indication of NVB, in which all the communicators, that is, the speakers and listeners as well as the writers and the readers, are and remain hierarchically separated. The NVB speaker’s tone of voice is experienced by the listener as an aversive stimulus from which he or she wants to move away.

March 11, 2016

March 11, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The paper “Humble Behaviorism” (1991) by A. Neuringer signifies the failure of our spoken communication. When our conversation doesn’t work we resort to writing. Moreover, we get so carried away by our written words that we completely forget about the importance of the spoken word. Although the author only superficially goes into this, the title reminds the behaviorists that when they talk about their science, they are not overly concerned with the “tentativeness” of their “theoretical and methodological positions.” I call the spoken communication that works Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and the spoken communication which doesn’t work Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Besides being unscientific, arrogant behaviorism also sounds terrible. Humble behaviorism, by contrast, sounds good as it is based on SVB. I agree with “The scientific stance that all knowledge is provisional and that one’s most deeply held positions must continually be reconsidered”, but to do so only in writing and not while speaking is in my opinion an act of cowardice. In many Western countries behaviorists are rejected by mainstream academia and media. I claim that behaviorists have failed to communicate their science properly as they have avoided to address mankind’s most important problem behavior: our way of talking. If behaviorists would learn about SVB, they would have to acknowledge that their own NVB has gravely hindered the progress of behavioral science.