June 23, 2014

June 23, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

The other day, this writer was having a good conversation with a philosophy teacher, who also teaches at the local college. They had met before, but this time they met at a down town coffee shop, where they could talk. They acquainted themselves further with each other and the philosopher spoke of his interest in neuroscience and meditation and this writer spoke of psychology, behaviorism and the World Cup Soccer matches that are currently taking place. 

The philosopher said that this writer was the first behaviorist he ever met whom he liked. This was a great compliment to this writer, who is often trying to get to talk with other behaviorists, to introduce them to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), which is his extension of Skinner’s work. Although he is using behaviorist terminology as much as possible, this writer, who is a self-taught behaviorist, only uses the terms which he knows and finds useful. Furthermore, he explains things without any rigid allegiance to behaviorist parlor. On the one hand, this turns off many behaviorists, but, on the other hand, unlike most behaviorists, this gives him the opportunity to connect with non-behaviorsts. Anyone familiar with behaviorism knows that behaviorists have a real communication and image problem.  

The reason that this writer can be liked by someone who had never spoken with a behaviorist he liked, is because of SVB. This way of speaking about behaviorism makes it more palatable to non-behaviorists, who, if given the opportunity, are willing to admit they have a lot in common with anyone who talks with them and not at them. The latter, this writer calls Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The philosopher asked questions about this distinction of which he had never heard, but which made sense to him. The more questions were asked and answered, the better they understood each other. They totally agreed that the SVB-NVB distinction is important.

It may not be immediately clear from this writing to the reader that SVB has major philosophical implications, but the philosopher immediately picked up on the immense ramifications of SVB for human thought. The fact that this writer was able to explain SVB to him was rewarding for this writer, but was especially rewarding for the philosopher, who came up with all sorts of real life examples, which were explained by this new way of viewing things. In effect, the philosopher admitted that the behaviorist had something to say which made total sense to him. The excitement was emphasized because the philosopher was very aware of his negative expectations towards behaviorists. 

This writer’s ability to easily disprove the philosopher’s incorrect assumptions, was based on their shared understanding of what is meant by SVB and NVB. These terms designate something we can all relate to. Simple as it may sound, every human being knows the difference between when someone is talking at you or with you. The difference is made from the perspective of the listener. As speakers the philosopher and the behaviorist were their own listener and, consequently, they were listening to each other in the same way as they were listening to themselves. 

‘Normally’ in NVB, we listen to others very differently than to ourselves. Oddly enough, although it may be said that we can hear each other, in NVB we neither listen to ourselves nor to each other. In SVB, by contrast, we listen to ourselves as well as to each other. Moreover, in SVB, it becomes clear that self-listening makes listening to others possible and is therefore necessary. 

Listening to others, in NVB, means: disconnecting us from ourselves. Listening to others, in NVB, means: effort, struggle, distraction, irritation, anxiety, fear, anger, humiliation, hostility, abuse and energy depletion. Listening to negative emotions, in NVB, prevents us from having positive emotions in ourselves. 

In SVB, we listen to and enhance the positive emotions in ourselves and in others. It is called SVB, because we agree that we ‘sound good’, because we are attuned. In SVB, listeners co-regulate the speaker and speakers co-regulate the listener.