June 17, 2016

June 17, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my third response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). The historian and philosopher of science Bachelard “argued that scientific progress is particularly dependent upon liberation of science from restrictive ways of previous thinking.” Behaviorists agree that “thinking” got started as public, overt speech, which receded to a covert, private level. We talk with ourselves in the exact same way as others have talked with us. 

To the extent we have been involved in and conditioned by Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the so-called interaction in which the speaker separates him or herself from the listener, we accept this separation as normal and get imprisoned by “restrictive ways of previous thinking”, which are of course a function of “restrictive ways of previous” talking. 

We can only be “liberated” from our NVB private speech by another way of talking. There are only two different ways of talking: NVB and Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). In SVB the speaker and the listener don’t become one, but are one. Moreover, in SVB they realize that unless one can be the other, because one is the other, there is no interaction! Stated differently, NVB is NOT interaction, but coercion oppression and abuse, which has continued in the name of interaction. 

There are no “restrictive ways of previous thinking” to be considered anymore after we have been introduced to SVB. Indeed, SVB public speech will always result into our positive private speech, that is, in non-restrictive, creative ways of thinking. As Bachelard didn’t know anything about the SVB/NVB distinction, he could not “propose practical steps that would be beneficial to overcome such barriers.”

June 16, 2016

June 16, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

If what I do in this writing was done while I was speaking, there would be no need to repeat things so often as the listener would experience the nonverbal stimulation that comes from the speaker’s voice. Right now you don’t hear my voice, you only read about it. Hearing someone speak is entirely different from reading what someone has written. 

We believe it is more important to read than to hear someone speak as we have become more accurate in our textual verbal behavior than in our vocal verbal behavior. The scientist’s insistence on written words, on accurate definitions of dependent and independent variables, was a consequence of the inability to accomplish this while they were talking. 

Distractions occurring while talking have incorrectly been believed to be insurmountable and thus writing and reading have become elevated above our speaking and listening.  As science has progressed, the discrepancy between written and spoken words has become only bigger.

The gigantic gap between our textual and our vocal verbal behavior can only be bridged by something which they have in common. Although written words are often not sounded out, they can in principle be spoken out loud and be evaluated to the same level as spoken words. 

If you read these words out loud, you will hear and become aware of your own sound. The production and observation (or listening) always happen in the here and now and make you into a conscious speaker. Conscious speech can only be achieved through the continuous activation of the speaker-as-own-listener. The speaker who speaks and listens simultaneously engages in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), but the speaker who is either focused on speaking or listening engages in NVB.    

June 15, 2016

June 15, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my second response to the “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et. al. (1998). I like to use the fond that is  used by behaviorologists in their journal. They can if they want to read my blog and peer-review my writings, but if they choose not to that, it will not stop me from thinking about the science of human behavior. 

It has often been said or written “science moves forward not in a continuous advance, but rather in upheavals distinguished by ruptures in current scientific thought” (Tiles, 1984). This is because of how we talk. To the extent scientists engaged in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) they moved “forward in continuous advance” with “scientific thought”, but to the extent they engaged in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), they created and then had to deal with “upheavals” and “ruptures.” 

 “Breaks” which presumably “lead to novel approaches of science as a whole” are distinguished by temporary changes in the way we talk. Unknowingly, we changed from NVB to SVB when something was more accurately understood, which then led to a more advanced way of life. 

As we have come to prefer writing and reading about these advances more than speaking and listening, it has become less and less obvious to us that scientific progress has always depended on how we interact with our environment, on how we behave verbally as well as nonverbally. 

The SVB/NVB distinction focuses our attention on the nonverbal basis for our verbal learning.  When we read that “science is periodically punctuated by revolutions” (Kuhn, 1970), we ought to acknowledge that  people from time to time are incapable of talking with each other.

June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

When I read “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue, Callaghan & Ruckstuhl (1998), I was immediately inclined to change this title it into Epistemological Barriers to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). It starts with “The historian and philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard proposed the concept of epistemological barriers to describe the intellectual challenges encountered by scientists in their work.” I think that “epistemological barriers” are overrated.

The “intellectual challenges encountered by scientists in their work” are NOT “epistemological barriers”, but are ways in which private and public speech, their verbal behavior, has been conditioned. I don’t think scientists must “overcome barriers or obstacles posed by their prior views.” As their views describe how they speak, I insist they must acquire a new way of talking.

The way of talking which contains and maintains these so-called “epistemological barriers” is Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), but the kind of talking that dissolves these “epistemological barriers” is called Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Thus, “The intellectual journeys students pursuing advanced studies face when attempting to accept cognitive psychology or radical behaviorism” are determined by how their teachers speak to them.

The SVB/NVB distinction brings our attention to the fact that “epistemological barriers” are, of course, always a function of how we talk about matters. It is NOT whether “folk psychological beliefs that students typically hold when entering these studies pose less challenge to cognitive psychology than to radical behaviorism”, what really matters here is whether what is taught is taught by means of SVB or by NVB!

As long as what is taught continues to be taught as it has always been taught, by means of NVB, students will be more inclined to accept cognitive psychology than radical behaviorism. In other words, NVB has always paved the way for more explanatory fictions, while SVB is indispensable for an environmental, scientific account of behavior. Radical behaviorism has remained small due to NVB, but will reach millions with SVB.  

June 13, 2016

June 13, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

When you first hear about the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction it is necessary to go back and forth between SVB and NVB so that you get a sense to recognize which is which, but once you know the difference between them, the only thing that matters is to increase SVB and decrease NVB.

NVB will decrease by itself as you increase your SVB. No time is wasted on trying to decrease NVB. People have tried to prevent all sorts of negative behavior, but they remain trapped in that meaningless activity as they don’t know how to stimulate and maintain behavior that will make them skillful, successful and happy. 

Once you know SVB, you have learned something which you didn’t know before. It is not that others don’t want to have SVB...they don’t know how to have it. You have so many problems because you don’t know how to create and maintain the situation in which problems don’t occur. 

By changing the way in which you talk, you are going to be able to live a new kind of life. I live such a life. I have changed due to my exploration and knowledge of the SVB/NVB distinction. If you want to know more about my life, I will tell you about it and talk with you. 

This writing is to inform you about my life. You too will reach that point at which your involvement in NVB has simply become a thing of the past, in which your participation in SVB will be your reality and future.

As our SVB history counteracts our history with NVB, you will be more certain and knowledgeable about your actions. However, none of this will happen by itself. Unless you experiment and familiarize yourself with these universal response classes, these descriptions will not be of any help. Once you will begin to select them there will be many ongoing positive consequences.