May 15, 2015

May 15, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

I am interested in the bigger picture. Why do many people still believe in a higher power? Why is radical behaviorism, which teaches there is no self, not accepted, let alone, known as a science? There is a reason why in spite of all our scientific progress mankind has remained immune for scientific evidence. However, the problem is not and has never been religion or our so-called belief in a higher power. The problem is and has always been with our belief in an inner self. Due to our belief in an inner self our way of talking is distorted.

As long as people believe their behavior is caused by an inner agent, their way of talking will instill fear. This way of talking didn’t come out of the blue and has been going on for eons of time. Those who keep making others afraid were themselves made to feel afraid. Our way of talking will only transform when fear is not elicited. This happens occasionally, but not consistently, predictably, deliberately and skillfully. Once it happens, however, there will be nobody to be convinced about anything anymore. When talking makes us feel safe, there will be nothing to do for a higher power or an inner self.  

Conversations that stimulate and maintain feelings of safety and well-being are different from those in which these positive emotions don't happen. There are two ways of talking: in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) the speaker influences the listener in a positive manner and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the speaker influences the listener in a negative manner. In SVB, the sound of the speaker’s voice is experienced by the listener as an appetitive stimulus, but in NVB, the voice of the speaker is experienced as an aversive stimulus. We respond to the each other’s sound while we talk. We fear aversive stimulation.

One of the tasks of behaviorists is to develop parsimonious explanations for why people talk the way they do. Under the contingencies of naturalism, behaviorists, like other scientists, adhere to the simplest of explanations and terminology that pertains to their field. Scientific language is different from ordinary language, because describing, explaining, predicting and controlling a complex process such as our vocal verbal behavior or our way of talking requires a terminology which accurately captures what is actually going on. 

Although many behaviors have been explained by behaviorist terminology (e.g. stimulus, response, reinforcement, etc.), analysis of the interaction between speaker and listener has been limited, as the sound of our voice while we speak has not been given enough consideration. The distinction between SVB and NVB allows for a level of analysis, which hasn’t yet happened. This is an  in-vivo analysis, that is, one which only makes sense during our interaction. Behaviorist terminology must be expanded with these two subsets of our vocal verbal behavior, so that, at long last, behaviorists can have the conversation which isn’t biased by inner agents. Yes, behaviorists who engage in NVB are just as troubled by non-existing inner agents as those who believe in them.

SVB is the vocal verbal behavior in which there is no inclination to refer our so-called inner self, as nothing stimulates it. In NVB, on the other hand, we constantly refer to our inner selves, presumably out of need, despair, danger,  neglect, oppression, anxiety, stress, anger, disrespect, out of whack, out of tune, out of our body, out of revenge and out of aversive stimulation. NVB doesn't and can't fulfill our needs or resolve our fears, stress, anger and confusion. Scholarly papers make it seem as if we have transcended these negative effects. Behaviorists write, but don’t talk about Motivating Operations, which increase or decrease the effectiveness of consequent stimuli. It is during our vocal verbal behavior, during parenting or teaching, that the establishing operations increase the reinforcing or punishing qualities of a stimulus. 

The stimulus mentioned in the establishing operation is heard and felt only while we talk. Indeed, the listener directly experiences the speaker’s voice as a reinforcing or punishing stimulus. Since nonverbal organisms have similar responses as verbal organisms to what they perceive as aversive or as appetitive sounds, it is evident that humans as verbal organisms, can also be deprived or satiated from unconditioned reinforcers or can be deprived or satiated from conditioned reinforcers. Thus, the belief in a behavior-causing self could even persist in those who had a behaviorist scientific education, as the ongoing experience of safety which can only be maintained by SVB was hardly ever there. The concept of SVB and NVB takes us out our reading-seat and puts us with both of our talking-feet on the ground, because it relates to our biology. Our phylogenetic endowment determines that certain stimuli, certain sounds, are experienced as aversive. This isn’t changed by the fact that people can be coerced to listen to aversive-sounding speakers in NVB.

SVB and NVB are neither metaphors nor hypotheticals. SVB is called that way as we are aware of our sound. By contrast, in NVB, we are not aware of our sound. As we don’t listen to ourselves while we speak, we produce a sound which is noxious. Thus, lack of self-listening sets the stage for NVB. Naturally, self-listening refers to the speaker as his or her own listener. It is apparent to the speaker that there is no self when he or she listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. It can be verified while talking that identification with a self occurs during NVB, but dissolves in SVB. People from all walks of life have acknowledged the existence of and the difference between SVB and NVB. 

Once the distinction between SVB and NVB has been made, it is impossible to not know about it anymore. It is possible due to the prevailing contingencies to produce NVB, but once NVB has been recognized as NVB, the contingencies will be changed to make SVB possible. This process will continues as SVB is so very beneficial. The more success one experiences in creating the contingencies for SVB, the more motivated and capable one will be to stop NVB and discriminate it as such. Lack of success at contingency management is due to our overemphasis on written verbal behavior. Our ability to change the contingency would improve if we focused on our vocal verbal behavior. 

Although during SVB we will effortlessly transcend our belief in a self, which presumably caused our behavior, we neither challenge ourselves nor each other about what we believe. The change which occurs in how we sound is sufficient to dissolve our assumptions about ourselves and each other. Only while SVB is experienced can the understanding and interpretation of its importance reveal itself. We need to talk with each other to understand SVB and reading about it will not evoke that experience. Unbelievable as this may sound, the change of any kind of belief about our self will reliably happen as we engage in SVB. Unless we achieve SVB, we will not be able to acquire the analytical sophistication that is needed to understand our thoughts, our private speech, which is a function of the public speech which we were repeatedly exposed to and involved in. Only to the extent that we have been involved in and conditioned by SVB will we be able to have positive thoughts and feel no urge to hang on to our unfulfilled, needy, demanding, but imaginary self.