October 26, 2014

October 26, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

The distinction between the two ways in which people behave verbally (no matter whether they are men or women, what language they speak or, what background they come from) is an observable and verifiable scientific issue. 

Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB)are facts fo life and make us realize of what our spoken communication is a function. Specifically, SVB and NVB give knowledge about two variables of which all vocal verbal behavior is a function. We behave verbally very differently in SVB or in NVB.

  

Simply stated, in SVB we sound good, but in NVB we sound threatening. In the former, our voice is experienced by the mediator as a reinforcing stimulus, which enhances and maintains homeostasis, but in the latter, the verbalizer’s voice is perceived as a punishing stimulus, which has a dis-regulating effect. 

In other words, SVB increases, but NVB decreases the rate of our verbal responding. Since the verbalizer’s NVB punishes the verbal behavior of the mediator, it is quite apparent that in NVB the mediator is not truly alive. Even when the mediator becomes the verbalizer in NVB, there is much ignorance and denial about the natural workings of verbal behavior. During SVB, by contrast, complexity is expressed and reciprocated. Consequently, only SVB can shed light on the natural physiological processes involved in the evocation of biologically-oriented verbal responses. Only during SVB do we feel safe and at ease enough to listen. 

This brings us to the issue of parsimony, which states that among competing hypotheses we must select the one with the fewest assumptions. The SVB/NVB distinction is certainly parsimonious, because it makes as few assumptions about spoken communication as possible. Moreover, it effectively rules out the endless supply of pseudo-explanations, which will even prevent us from communicating. The simplest, most accurate explanation for why and how we behave verbally is that verbal behavior is mediated by those belonging to our verbal community. The verbal episode is best explained by the environment in which is occurs; SVB and NVB are modes of communication pertaining to different contingencies. 

Another powerful argument in favor of the SVB/NVB classification is that it shrinks the confounding variables. By focusing on how we sound while we speak, we gain experimental control over relevant variables and decrease the difference between our predictions and outcomes. The sound of our voice while we speak is an important variable that has been and continues to be ignored, but once we take it into account, our communication is no longer as unpredictable as it used to be. 

When many variables must be controlled research is likely to become expensive. Researchers must often settle for controlling fewer variables because of the costs. However, the experimental methodology of this author is cost-effective and yet it increases control. Many people refuse to believe it can be so simple, because they are used to being impressed by the many unparsimonious accounts, which do not offer anything in terms of practical applications and interventions. 

By listening to our voice, while we speak, we become aware of why we communicate the way we do. Ignoring our spoken communication makes even the most ardent behaviorologists revert back to an imaginary self, psyche or mind. Refusal to talk is always based on NVB. SVB is parsimonious; it produces a simple account of why we talk or refuse to talk, which exposes NVB as pseudo-communication.

Much of what goes on in the name of creativity or uniqueness is a demand for escape-route variability, which obfuscates the ubiquity of NVB. It is interesting to notice that spoken communication can reduce variability of written language and that printed words in an indirect way have complicated our human relationship. The reason this author considers variability in spoken communication as a problem is because he views it in terms of predictable outcomes. The less predictable outcomes we have in spoken communication, the more problems we have. To solve problems, we need predictable outcomes. All we must do is focus on our sound while we speak. 

SVB increases our confidence in the accuracy and adequacy of our description of our spoken communication. Our voice is an accessible independent variable, which changes how we verbally behave, because it can evoke novel responses.