October 5, 2014

October 5, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

This writer had a wonderful genuine skype conversation with Maria de Lourdes R. da F. Passos. She spoke about how difficult and discouraging it has been for her to get her papers published. Only very few behaviorists are capable of analyzing the linguistics of verbal behavior. For the most part they still seem to be traumatized by the dismissive Chomsky and have some sort of reflexive aversion against the word they came to hate because of him: linguistics. 

Maria fully acknowledged and validated this writer’s explanation of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and agreed with him that written and spoken language require separate levels of analysis.Currently, this writer is reading the book “Running Out Of Time” by Stephen Ledoux. As the title suggests, the book is written with a sense of urgency or perhaps even despair. This writer had also contacted Ledoux and had briefly spoke with him by phone. Although it was a courteous conversation, Ledoux didn’t quite understand this writer’s reason for contacting him. Ledoux remained limited to his teacher’s role of promoting his book and behaviorology.

In his book Ledoux writes about what he says in class to his students. For instance, he writes about how he explains the difference between an unconditioned reinforcer and a conditioned reinforcer (p.122). The difference is easier understood when he explains the former as “attention” (without a verbal component) and the latter, as “praise” (with a verbal component). So, what he is referring to is how he speaks with someone to whom he explains something. The example illustrates the difference between nonverbal attention and verbal praise. 

Reading about this difference it is not the same as hearing about it. Reading about it cannot replace hearing about it, because only hearing it has the conditioning effects, which are enhanced, but are never caused by this or by any other writing. 

Reading about this distinction can only condition knowledge about the verbal praise, but it doesn’t involve anything about nonverbal attention. For that there needs to be face-to-face interaction, that is, two bodies meeting in time and space.. , Writing about attention without words is a necessary part of the scientific process, but is not sufficient. Events must have physical status to be detectable and measurable. Thus, we must talk. 

If people are going be reconditioned into having behaviorological explanations for their behavior this is going to occur as a consequence of a new way of speaking, which will lead to new way of writing. To assume that behaviorological writing and reading will change our way of speaking flies in the face of everything we know about operant conditioning. It didn't happen and it is not going to happen.

There is very little Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) in the world. We don’t know what it is, how it works and how to reinforce it. The most important behavior for which we should seek its cause, is our way of talking with one another. No matter how many authors keep writing about changing the conversation, we keep reinforcing Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). We can read, write and study all we want about fictional explanations, such as reification, converting adjectives into nouns, nominal falllacies and circular reasoning, but this has not led and this will not lead to  increased reinforcement and increased levels of SVB, and, eventually, extinction of NVB. The more we kept putting the proverbial horse behind the wagon, the less we have started to actually talk with one another. This is exactly what is happening in all academic disciplines, including behaviorology. 

    

A written account of verbal behavior is as bad as a fictional account, because it doesn’t give us any leverage in intervening with the behavior on which human relationship depends. Most of mankind’s spoken communication problems have remained unresolved because we have falsely assumed that our writings would produce effective interventions. We have yet to come to grips with the sad fact that our analyses were merely writings, which could never find their way to a larger population, because they made interaction more instead of less difficult. 

Once we know about SVB, it becomes crystal clear that we haven’t yet talked like that. Each time we write or read about speaking, we lose track of the fact that we are reading and writing, but not speaking. Moreover, when we read about speaking, it appears as if we are speaking about speaking. The fact is, however, that the exact opposite is true: we are reading about writing and we become more oblivious about speaking. To improve our relationships, we must learn to speak about how we are actually speaking with each other. This cannot be replaced by reading. Only SVB can make us do that. NVB prevents us from exploring our spoken communication.