November 26, 2014

November 26, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

The following comments are additional responses to the MIT lecture by Edward G.Carr (2011) about problem behaviors of children with autism. Carr’s research is so informative because it provides us many clues about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the two ways in which we communicate. As Carr repeatedly reiterates, labelling, isolating and medicating doesn’t help. His approach reserves a special place for spoken communication. He even wrote a whole book about it “Communication-Based Interventions For Problem Behaviors.” This author has read positive reviews about this book. Carr’s relaxed tone of voice makes what he says easy to understand. His lecture is mostly based on SVB and only occasionally he has a moment of NVB.

The reader is urged to verify what this writer means. Google Carr’s lecture (2011) by cutting and pasting this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kkocTdn0iY. This writing is a partial transcription of that lecture, which is used to illustrate SVB and NVB. Human beings across the globe are having trouble communicating. Since there are so many problems, we need to analyze our problem behavior. As our problems can only be known by the way in which we talk about them, ALL problem-enhancing communication is called NVB. Only communication which solves problems or which is without problems, is called SVB. The negative emotions we have, when we have a problem, are noticeable, but they are often not talked about or they are not talked about in such a way that they become less or can completely dissolve. This is especially obvious in the treatment of autism.

Non-autistic communicators can learn from autistic non-communicators that aversive stimulation is stops interaction. As the cause of all domestic, racial, economic, national, political or religious conflicts is based on aversive stimulation, the solution is the  absence of this aversive stimulation in all our interactions. This general approach, however, requires an individualized treatment.  

To understand how we individually contribute to SVB or NVB, we must become scientific about the way in which we communicate. NVB is unscientific in that even when we admit that we have problems, we have no way of solving them, because our so-called solutions are not based on the natural world, but on explanatory fictions, perpetuated by our social and cultural contingencies.

It is often brought up by the behaviorologists that our language itself is unscientific, as it predates our modern scientific findings. Although this is true and although better definitions can help us to better observe, describe, predict and control the outcome of our interactions, our preoccupation with content, with what we say and with how we say it, will still prevent us from finding out why we say what we say and why we say what we say in the way that we say it. Read the preceding sentence three times and listen to the sound of your own voice while you do that. We never randomly say something and we never randomly say nothing, but we are constantly adjusting and responding to our environment. If, as in autism, our overt speech is impaired, lacking or only happening at a very low response rate, then our covert speech, what we say to ourselves privately, cannot be of much use. What we think to ourselves is a function of our public speech. Thus, if we are constantly exposed to and conditioned by NVB public, we will acquire NVB covert speech, negative thoughts, which create many problems. In NVB, we are on automatic pilot, we are involved in mechanical communication. Moreover, in NVB we are unable to make our covert speech overt. We can only do that during SVB.  

Individualized treatment of NVB, our problem behavior is needed. We need to become our own research subject, implement our own treatment and only then compare our notes with others. Carr (2011) states that generality in a single subject design is accomplished by three approaches: 1) direct replication (DR), 2) systematic replication (SR) and 3) operational replication (OR). In DR, we treat a person of the same age, the same diagnosis and the same problem behaviors. In SR, we give the same treatment to people with a wide variety of ages, diagnoses and behaviors, to establish external validity. In OR other scientists, who may not even trust any of these findings, replicate the study, but get the same results. Single subject designs yield more reliable results than statistical group designs, which are still seen as the gold-standard.We have to start with DR of SVB by treating ourselves. Only after we have had DR can we involve others in SR. Furthermore, only those who have been part of SR, like the students in my psychology class, can replicate the study and get the same results in OR.

Contexts in which NVB is more probable will become apparent. To have SVB, such context must be avoided or abandoned. Changing such contexts is a waste of time.Typically, NVB occurs when talking about the things which we like or find important is made impossible, not validated or forcefully stopped. People engage in NVB when what is said or the way in which it is said, is disliked, frustrating, difficult or boring. Also when activities take too long, this may result in acting out NVB behavior. Furthermore, when activities take place in noisy or crowded environments this may elicit NVB. Autistic children are often seen putting their fingers in their ears. This should tell us something. Listening to what they hear is painful for them. What they don’t want to listen to is NVB.

Actually, nobody wants to listen to NVB. Whether we know it or not, admit or not or are aware of it or not, we want to move away from NVB and we do so in every possible way. Distraction from NVB is exploited by entertainment and technology. However, this distraction can’t and doesn't teach us SVB. SVB only happens in the absence of such distraction. Moreover, a change in our routine or a new or unfamiliar situation may also lead to NVB. Carr (2011) talks about traumatic avoidance conditioning in which an autistic kid grabbed the drill from the dentist and was drilled in his cheek. Such aversive experience permanently created problem behaviors each time the child needed to go to the dentist. Often the only way to deal with this is to heavily medicate the child for every dental visit and for each subsequent medical visit, which elicits the same episodes. Rejection of SVB is equally traumatic and common and people self-medicate with alcohol or drugs and become addicted, just to be able to have a conversation. NVB in itself is a form of numbing and intoxication.