January 26, 2015

January 26, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

It is becoming clear that Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the spoken communication which is going on everywhere, twenty-four-seven, is the language of coercion. During NVB communicators have the opposite effect on each other than in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), in which their verbal behavior is under bi-directional reinforcing postcedent control. In NVB, communicators are punishing each other, threatening and intimidating each other with punishment or they are oppressing, bullying and frightening each other by withholding reinforcement. 

In chapter 16, about “Aversive Control” in the book  “Running Out Of Time” Ledoux states the obvious, but often overlooked fact that “Control by both coercion and added reinforcers has always been with us.”  (2014, p. 357). We can deduce from this simple observation there must also be and there have always been two entirely different ways of communicating: SVB, the verbal behavior which is controlled by added reinforcement, and NVB, the verbal behavior which is controlled by coercion. Moreover, the ubiquity of NVB not only indicates that “our verbal behavior about control overemphasizes aversive control”, but it also signifies our bias towards what “pre-scientifically” seems to be “the most obvious kind of control, as if it were the only kind of control” (Ledoux, 2015, p.357). 

Stated more succinctly, SVB, based on added reinforcement, has to be our scientific way of communicating.  SVB is a much better way than NVB of controlling behavior verbally.  Unless we address the great difference between SVB and NVB and acknowledge that only the former can make scientific thinking possible, while the latter will keep us stuck in various pre-scientific coercion traps, we will neither be stimulated nor inspired to begin to replace NVB by SVB.

This writer, who was at the receiving end of a lot of aversive control while growing up, who, like many others who grew up under such circumstances, has been profoundly affected and deeply troubled by this, is relieved to have found Skinner’s radical behaviorism and now Ledoux’s behaviorology. 

Without the scientific knowledge about how his behavior is and has always been a function of environmental variables, he wouldn’t have been able to come to terms with his problems. He is well aware that many others, like him, are struggling with similar problems, but can’t make any progress because they are not taught behaviorology. All they receive in the name of mental health, is NVB, coercive communication. 

This writer has studied psychology and has worked in mental health for more than ten years and has seen and heard NVB over and over again. It is not intentional, as it is the contingency of reinforcement which keeps NVB and SVB going. Even with the best of so-called intentions or unconditional positive regard, even with all the so-called knowledge involved in ‘eclectic’ approaches, practitioners are still producing mainly NVB, while they are pretending to have SVB. 

Interestingly, behaviorologists and behaviorists have repeatedly been accused of circular thinking. They were blamed for insisting on and thus repeating their scientific explanations and coming up with even better and improved scientific explanations. Yet, the empirical data they accumulated doesn’t speak for itself and is unfortunately mostly ignored.  How can this be? Scientific explanations of behavior cannot be comprehended as long as people are not taught about it and changed by it. In other words, teaching requires a new way of communicating. NVB will not and cannot bring about the changes which require SVB. Although radical behaviorists like Skinner and behaviorologists like Ledoux, have amassed irrefutable evidence, they haven’t and couldn’t  begin to address the much-needed new way of communicating: SVB.