March 20, 2016

March 20, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “Humble behaviorists attempt to substitute if-then contingency statements for the easily uttered “rights” and “wrongs”, and “oughts” and “shoulds.” This is just like changing the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is very clear that Neuringer, like any other scientist, keeps fixating on the words, which is a characteristic for Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). If we are going to stop arguing, we will have Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). However, we will not have SVB as long as we are trying to stop NVB. Once we have SVB then NVB and all of its problems is no longer our concern. What makes Neuringer write: “rights” and “wrongs” and “oughts” and “shoulds” are “easily uttered?” He writes about speaking! There is no difference in difficulty in saying these things or in making if-then statements! The difference is only in whether we are arguing or not, whether we are having NVB or SVB? Neuringer keeps verbally beating around the nonverbal bush. Neuringer quotes Reichenbach (1951) who wrote “Statements of the descriptive form – Do not speed – contain either implicit or explicit contingencies.” This is another example NVB. Aren’t we threatened with a speeding ticket? “The behaviorist’s goal is to specify contingencies, through research.” Why can't Neuringer admit that we always engage in NVB when we are in a threatening environment? Why isn't it obvious to him or other behaviorists that we can only engage in SVB when we feel safe and when we are treated with sensitivity? When it comes to statements of descriptive form, such as "Do not speed", he readily admits that they "contain implicit and explicit contingencies," but he, as he only writes about such matters, he forgets that he can and should talk about implicit and implicit contingencies,     

March 19, 2016

March 19, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) suggests “Rather than arguing about the best language, all would profit from the more difficult but productive activity of translation.” He admits that behaviorists are “arguing”, but he is not aware that that is Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Also, he doesn’t realize that successful “translation” would have to involve Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) which signifies the end of the argument. Not surprisingly, Neuringer considers the productive activity of translation more difficult than arguing, As all scientists, he too only limits himself to written language. Moreover, he cannot become familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction as he abdicates and underestimates the importance of spoken language. When we have SVB, however, we find it is not more difficult than NVB. To the contrary, SVB is easier than NVB. Moreover, once we have SVB, there is no need to translate anymore as we communicate in the most sensitive, intelligent and effective manner. Although Skinner (1974) and “many others have also attempted translations across disciplines”, they have all focused mainly on writing and in doing so dismissed the importance of speaking. Ironically, Neuringer asks his students “not to talk or write in a particular way, but instead to communicate." He seems to be getting at something. In Holland we would say he heard the sound of the bell, but doesn't know where the clapper hangs. He insists that communication "often requires that they use a language grounded in observations of behaviors and events.” However, his insistence on written, not spoken words. I stimulate my students to talk and they end up having SVB and their writing as a function of their experience of SVB while speaking.   

March 18, 2016

March 18, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) acknowledges that “There has arisen, however, a correlated tendency to maintain that “our” language is better than others, for example, the language of philosophers, Freudian psychologists, and cognitive psychologists, to name a few.” Of course, the behaviorist’ language is better than others as it is the only language that accurately describes the science of human behavior. The fact that all sorts of unscientific ways of talking have continued unabated is because writing is considered as the foundation for scientific language, for behaviorists as well as non-behaviorists. Furthermore, when a speaker speaks in such a way that he or she is better than the listener, he or she will aversively affect that listener. This is a typical example of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which has been going on forever to establish and maintain hierarchical ‘relationships’ in which the roles of speakers and listeners are fixed. Actually, hierarchy always signifies the absence of relationship; in NVB the speaker speaks at and not with the listener. Only in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), there is bi-directional interaction due to the turn-taking that goes on between the speaker and the listener. For those who know the difference between SVB and NVB, it is evident that NVB is inherently biased and therefore unscientific as the speaker coerces the listener, no matter what he or she is saying.

March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) quotes Hineline (1980), who wrote “The behaviorists’ interest in language extends to their own scientific language, and serious attempts are made to emit language that is based on empirical relationships, and to stay close to the observed data.” One wonders why nobody has come up with the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction? Aren’t people talking either as a function of positive or negative emotions? Isn’t it by now an empirical fact that human animals are innately inclined to move away from aversive stimulation? Doesn’t NVB, in which the speaker’s voice is perceived by the listener as a negative stimulus, make the listener want to move away from the observed data, from what is said? Isn’t SVB, in which the speaker’s voice is perceived by the listener as an appetitive stimulus, the only response class which should be considered as scientific speech, and shouldn’t NVB be seen as unscientific speech? Isn’t it important for the behaviorist to speak, to be listened to and to be understood? Shouldn’t the serious attempts to emit a scientific language have made behaviorists embrace SVB as their only way of communicating, because NVB is always elicited? How far can we really say that behaviorists have extended their interest in language to their own way of talking? Is it scientific to equate scientific language only with written and not with spoken language?

March 16, 2016

March 16, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes about research that was done by Herrnstein (1984), in which pigeons were trained to respond to projections of slides with people in them. The pigeons even responded appropriately to pictures of people they had never before seen. “In an extension of this work, after pigeons were trained to respond on one key to music by Bach and another key to music by Stravinsky, they generalized in ways analogous to people: they responded to the Bach key when probe pieces by Telemann or Buxtehude and the Stravinsky key when music by Eliot Carter was played (Porter & Neuringer, 1984).” This is very interesting research corroborating the generalization which goes on in human interaction. Certain people have substantially more Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) instances in any given verbal episode than others, who have more Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) instances in any given verbal episode. I read in another paper (I don’t recall which one), that it was found that as discrimination increases generalization decreases. This explains why someone like me, who discovered, due to a large amount of SVB instances in his behavioral history the distinction between SVB and NVB, only wishes to continue with SVB, whereas those who had a lot of NVB instances in their behavioral history, basically only want to continue with NVB. This explains SVB and NVB from a respondent perspective.