September 10, 2016

September 10, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my second response to “Sound, Symbolism, and Swearing; an Affect Induction Perspective” (2010) by Yardy. The Affect Induction Model (AIM) of animal communication totally explains why it makes sense to differentiate between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) in human spoken communication. 

The AIM “follows the selfish-gene logic of evolution emphasized by Dawkins and Krebs (1978) and “argues that signaling is, first and foremost, a means of influencing others in ways that benefit signalers and might, but need not, benefit receivers as well.” This describes to the reader precisely the great difference between NVB and SVB.

In NVB the speaker influences the listener in ways that ONLY benefit the speaker, but in SVB the speaker influences the listener in ways which ALWAYS benefit BOTH the speaker as well as the listener. One easily recognizes the adaptive value of both ways of talking as NVB is only concerned with the benefits for the individual organism, while SVB is always only about benefits for the entire family or group. 

The AIM also explains why the NVB speaker’s voice is experienced by the listener as an aversive stimulus. Owren and Rendall (1997) explain that the AIM is “likely to involve exploiting low-level auditory and nervous system processes of arousal and motivation that are difficult for receivers to resist.” In NVB, the inferior listener is often not able to turn away from the superior speaker, that is, NVB is hierarchical. 

Owren and Rendal (1997) argue “the acoustic signals are particularly suited to such models of influence because they are especially difficult for receivers to ignore or block out.” An inferior employee may like to, but cannot escape the NVB superior employer as he or she is unable to shut down his or her ears “to minimize the effects of acoustic signals.” 

The conditioning effects of inescapable aversive stimulation have been shown to be very troubling. This makes me think of the many clients I treat who suffer from bipolar disorder. With me they are able to be calm, but with others they get very loud, argumentative and annoying? The AIM tells me why. They were conditioned to remain fearful and unless I or someone else reassures them they are constantly freaking out. 

Could it be that the manic screaming of bipolar clients originates in the frightening sounds animals make while they are facing death? “One dramatic example of affect induction through the use of sounds is that of “death screams,” these are “are harsh sounding vocalizations with abrupt onset and high amplitude that prey animals, such as rabbits, exhibit during an attack” (Wise, Connover & Knowlton, 1999). Bipolar pressured speech occurs at such a high response rate because it is reinforced. This is the only reason they keep screaming for their life. 

While exploring the behavioral history of manic clients, I repeatedly found out they grew up in threatening, abusive, hostile environments in which only their screaming had positive consequences as it made the predator, the dysfunctional parent, back off. What may evolve into mania was negatively reinforced as it warded off threatening stimuli. 

“Death screams are proposed to have an impact on the auditory and nervous systems of the attackers in such a way as to induce an acoustic startle response that potentially enables the prey animal to escape (Reviewed in Rendall et al., 2009). Bipolar clients will produce more or less instances of NVB based upon whether they feel threatened or not. 

Whether we acknowledge this or not, are aware of this or not or are willing to admit this or not, the fact remains that people really don’t like being threatened and will produce NVB to defend themselves.  Stated differently, NVB and SVB are simply two ends of a continuum

September 9, 2016

September 9, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my response to “Sound, Symbolism, and Swearing; an Affect Induction Perspective” (2010) by Yardy. The “Affect Induction model of animal communication offers a natural explanation for some forms of sound symbolism in language” and is evidence for the existence of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

“According to the Affect Induction model, the physical properties of signals influence receiver affect and behavior in specific ways through relatively direct effects on core sensory, psychological and affective processes.”  The speaker influences the listener with his or her voice, but the speaker also influences him or herself with his or her voice. 

 

In SVB the speaker’s voice is experienced by the listener as an appetitive stimulus, but in NVB the speaker’s voice is experienced as an aversive stimulus. Also the so-called bouba-kiki effect provides evidence for the SVB/NVB distinction. “Ramachandran and Hubbard (2001) showed English speaking participants and Tamil speaking participants a jagged image and a rounded image and asked “Which is bouba? Which is kiki?” Over 95% of participants agreed the angular image belonged with the word kiki and the rounded image with bouba.” 

After the difference between SVB and NVB was demonstrated, 95% of students or mental health clients associate SVB with bouba and NVB with kiki.  If “synesthetic inter-sensory cross-connections drive the bouba kiki effect” then these inter-sensory cross-connections provide us the ability to differentiate between SVB and NVB. “Synesthesia is the phenomenon where stimulation in one sense modality has an automatic sensory experience in another sense modality.” 

Additional evidence for the SVB/NVB distinction comes from Bolinger (1964, 1978), who found that speakers who are unsure, polite or lack confidence use higher or a rising fundamental frequency, while those who are confident, assertive and authoritative, use low or falling fundamental frequency; the former maps onto NVB, the latter maps onto SVB. This so-called “frequency code” (Ohala, 1994) is “biologically grounded, though it requires some experience and learning.” 

Other authors (Dawkins & Krebs, 1978) take on “a broader evolutionary perspective” and argue that “communication can be viewed as simply another means by which an organism can influence others.” On this view the speaker can simply be said to either have a positive or a negative influence on the listener. However, during NVB the superior speaker is unconscious about his or her forceful influence on the inferior listener.

No one is inferior or superior in SVB. The conscious SVB speaker has a positive influence on the listener, who is equal to the speaker and who is allowed to be a speaker as well.  During SVB, the speaker and the listener mutually reinforce each other, but in NVB “the signaler can be viewed as a self-interested actor that uses signals to manipulate and influence others to its own advantage” (Dawkins & Krebs, 1978). 

We can now recognize that although we behave verbally during NVB, the basic phenomenon that determines the outcome of this so-called communication is the aversive sound of the speaker’s voice. In NVB the the speaker is not as verbal as he or she believes him or herself to be.

NVB is the expression of hierarchical relationship in which the speaker behaves non-verbally rather than verbally, as he or she uses his or her voice to demand from the listener whatever it is that he or she wants.

SVB is the expression of heterarchical relationship in which speakers can be truly verbal as their voices induce only an appetitive non-verbal experience in the listener. In SVB the listener is completely at ease as the speaker doesn’t dominate or aversively stimulate him or her.

September 8, 2016

September 8, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my twelfth and last response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). I think that the “methodological challenges” are maintained by high rates of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and can and will be resolved by high rates of Sound Verbal Behaivor (SVB).

I agree with these researchers that “The success of the enterprise of the analytical-behavioral clinic research will depend on the way that the methodological challenges are carried out.” If behaviorist knew how often they, just like everyone else, are trapped in NVB, they would immediately acknowledge the importance of the SVB/NVB distinction.  

“The nature of the phenomenon being dealt with in the clinic, as well as specificities of the analytical-behavioral theory in the interpretation

of these phenomenons impose a search for new methodologies and the recognition of the reach and limitations of each method used.”

I write these words to present a methodology which far outreaches the methods described in this paper. Although “many steps have been taken towards comprehending the clinical interaction” they haven’t and couldn’t lead to an understanding of the SVB/NVB distinction, as they were “questions” by speakers who weren’t listening to themselves.

These investigators aim to understand  phenomena but downplay the importance of experiencing them. Their emphasis on what we say and their lack of attention for how we say it describes NVB, disembodied or decontextualized communication.  Unless we explore the paths of investigation that will be open to us if we learn to stimulate and maintain SVB, our theories remain more important than practice.

Researchers must listen to those who actually practice “analytical- behavioral therapy,” as only they really know what it takes to help clients solve their problems. The questions that “guarantee the obtention of useful responses” come only from therapists with SVB.

September 7, 2016

September 7, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my eleventh response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). In this paper the authors discuss different types of analyses. 

My analysis is of course not included, but their work can bring the reader's attention to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), two universal response classes which characterize the expression and maintenance of positive and negative emotions.

Catania (1999) has said “The analysis of more complex patterns can involve the identification of relationships between events distant in time or response classes of a superior order” but he doesn’t mention that SVB is necessary for such analysis as NVB makes it impossible.

The problem with analysis of more complex patterns of behavior is not that they are caused by events that are “distant in time or response classes of a superior order”. Due to the high frequency of NVB and the low frequency of SVB it is impossible to talk about these matters.

NVB cannot identify more complex patterns as it fixates on verbal categories. Even “explanations with emphasis in response-consequence relationships” cannot make the researcher aware of the SVB/NVB distinction. What is required is participation in the conversation.

The researcher or therapist needs to be reinforced for listening to him or herself rather than for listening to somebody else. This self-listening makes a different kind of other-listening possible which sets the stage for SVB, which then will make different data available.

“The clinic is a privileged environment for the development of research. In this situation we have access to verbal report data that, in another situation, would be very difficult to access (Luna, 1997).”

For therapy to be effective there must be a high rate of SVB and a low rate of NVB. Researchers must also be therapists who capitalize on the fact that the clinic situation can create a high probability for SVB.

September 6, 2016

September 6, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my tenth response to “Verbal behavior in clinical context: behavior analysis methodological contributions” by Zamignani and Meyer (2007). The behaviorist’s preference for “frequency of responses” has shown to be a “quite appropriate measure to represent the process of behavior acquisition” (Sturmey, 1996).

My frequency of SVB responses has increased to an all-time-high. In between previous semesters it caved in again as I didn’t have as much interaction anymore, but this summer I worked full time as a therapist. It is awesome to notice and be able to explain this wonderful change.

The authors state “In those studies, the frequency is an indicator from which is inferred the occurrence probability of a determined class of responses and, consequently, the process of strengthening or weakening of this class (Sidman, 1976; Skinner, 1953/1993).

Ever since I discovered the SVB/NVB distinction my SVB responses have kept on steadily increasing while my NVB response became less and less. “Stiles (1999) adds that this analysis should consider the relationship of syntony between the client’s responses and the therapist’s specific actions – called by him responsivity.” I am strengthened in my conviction that the analysis should involve SVB.

One’s normal responsiveness to and being in harmony with the environment is called syntony. This is made possible by SVB. During NVB there is no responsivity as the speaker speaks at and not with the listener.  NVB is uni-directional, forceful speech from the speaker to the listener, characterized by the  saying my way or the highway.  

“Possible functions of certain classes of behavior” don’t need to be “inferred” as they can be verified during SVB. SVB is bi-directional, which means that the speaker can at any time become the listener and the listener can at any time become the speaker. Only during SVB can the “more complex interaction pattern” be ”identified.”