April 4, 2014

April 4, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

What is written and what is said can be considered from an operant perspective as a function of one of four processes. It can be 1) positively reinforcing, 2) negatively reinforcing, 3) positively punishing or 4) negatively punishing the writer or the speaker. If what is written or what is said is positively reinforcing the writer or the speaker, then writing or speaking is more likely to occur in the future because of its enhancing consequences. Depending on what kind of writing and what kind of speaking is positively reinforcing the writer or the speaker, the writer will produce a particular kind of writing and the speaker will produce a particular kind of speaking. This refinement of writing and speaking is determined by environmental stimuli which set the stage for this behavior to  gain momentum. The writer or speaker who acquires this specialization has a unique effect on the reader and the listener. This effect is unique in that it satisfies the taste of the reader and the listener. The writer or the speaker who is positively reinforced cultivates with his or her writing or speaking the taste and appetite of the reader and the listener. 

A completely different process takes place, if the writer or the speaker is negatively reinforced for what he or she is writing or saying. In this case, it is the removal of a negative stimulus which makes a particular kind of writing or speaking more likely to occur in the future. Writing and speaking which is based on avoidance of negative consequences is negatively reinforced. If the writer or the speaker is feeling misunderstood or rejected, his or her writing or speaking is a way of forgetting about these negative experiences. To the extent that writing or speaking makes feelings of being misunderstood or rejected disappear, the writer or speaker is inclined to produce the specific kind of writing and speaking which produce a sense of relief from these negative experiences. Readers and listeners, who read and listen to writers and speakers, who are negatively reinforced, are similarly negatively reinforced for their reading and listening. They recognize and praise this writer or speaker, who writes or says what they experience. However, the subsidence of negative stimuli, which are avoided due to negative reinforcement, only occurs as long the writer is writing, the speaker is speaking, the reader is reading and the listener is listening. In other words, such writing and speaking creates an illusion, which is maintained by even more writing, more reading, more speaking and more listening.

As we can see, effects of positively reinforced or negatively reinforced writing or speaking are very different for the reader and the listener. In the former, the reader and listener learn from the writer or speaker to distinguish between what is reinforcing and what is not, but in the latter, the reader and listener are carried away by the written or the spoken words, which allow the reader or listener to avoid whatever is described or said. The consequence of negative reinforcement is the opposite of discriminative learning, which only occurs only because of positive reinforcement. Another important difference is that the writer or the speaker whose writing or speaking is positively reinforced, isn’t maintaining and prolonging the aversive experiences, which are merely avoided and not resolved in negative reinforcement. Thus, negative reinforcement of behaviors, which take our attention away from our problems, prevents the positive reinforcement of the behaviors which are necessary to decrease problems or to be without them. This is an enormously important, but virtually unaddressed issue: writers and speakers, who are positively reinforcing are getting less and less attention, because writers and speakers who are negatively reinforcing to readers and listeners, dominate everywhere. Due to what we continuously read and hear, we have become better at negative reinforcement, but the refinement of our skills, which is necessary to positively reinforce others, is less and less addressed. 

No matter what writers or speakers think about it, the negative reinforcement leads to an increase of behavior. What kind of behavior? Are writers and speakers going to increase intelligent, sensitive, positive human behavior, or are they increasing avoidance of aversive stimuli and inadvertently maintaining destructive, coercive, inhuman behavior? If writers and speakers wish to achieve the former, they must decrease their negative reinforcement in their readers and listeners. This would mean that writers will see a dramatic decrease in the sale of their books. Most books are sold because reading is negatively reinforced. Likewise, leaders and authorities, who speak at their listening followers, would see a decline of their willingness to listen, because listeners are positively reinforced to speak. A complete shift would occur when less was read and more was said and when what was read made saying things more likely. It involves transformation of readers and listeners into writers and speakers. Those who always did the writing and the speaking begin to read what these new writers have written and listen to what these new speakers are saying.

There is an increase of behavior due to reinforcement and there is a decrease due to punishment. In positive punishment behavior is decreased by presenting an unfavorable outcome. In negative punishment, behavior is decreased because it is followed by the removal of something we like. Writers and speakers decrease behaviors in their readers and listeners by means of positive and negative punishment. However, writers and speakers also write and speak because they struggle with and try to decrease their own unwanted behavior. A lot of writing and speaking is punishing in that it is an attempt to get rid of undesirable behavior. Writers and speakers align themselves with readers and listeners in their attempt to gain consensus about undesirable behaviors that need to be decreased. 

 

The reader and the listener want to read and listen because they agree with the writer and the speaker about the kind of behavior that must be stopped. Agreement between the reader or the listener and the writer or the speaker, is based on reinforcement and not on punishment. If there was no behavior that needed to be decreased, there would be no need for punishment. If only behavior that was desirable had been reinforced, there would be no need for punishment. If undesirable behavior had never been reinforced, there would be no need for punishment. There are many positive consequences to reinforcing desirable behaviors. It dissolves the need for decreasing behavior. Moreover, there is no energy or time lost in learning behaviors that need to be decreased. This also saves us a lot of frustration. If our focus can remain on positive reinforcement, we keep learning desirable behaviors. Because we are so focused on problems, we spend most of our time being busy with decrease of behavior. Increase of behavior is also made possible by decrease of another behavior. However, if no behavior needs to be decreased, more increase of behavior possible. The reader and the listener, who are learning these new behaviors, are aware of the importance of language in this process. 

The correct explanation of appropriate behaviors, which need not to be decreased, sets the stage for life-long learning. Discriminative learning, however, is increased more due to conversation than to reading. It is in conversation with one another that we attain the accuracy to describe the behaviors which don’t need to be decreased, which, therefore, can be increased endlessly and joyously. Writing can prepare us for this conversation, but it cannot replace it. Writing can refer to this conversation and can set the stage for it. Our speaking, however, will only make this conversation possible, if the speaker becomes a listener and if the listener becomes a speaker; turn-taking is essential to relationship.