June 27, 2015

June 27, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my seventh response to “A Rose by Naming: How We May Learn How to Do it” by Greer and Longano (2010). Reading this paper makes clear to me that learning about the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is exactly the same as how autistic children are taught about language. All the science is there, but now it needs to be applied to the so-called normal people. 

Yesterday, I was reading another paper “What is wrong with daily life in the Western world?” (1986), in which Skinner writes “Contingencies of reinforcement are an important field in the experimental analysis of behavior, and what is wrong with daily life in the West is precisely the field of Applied Behavioral Analysis” (underlinging added). What is wrong is our way of talking. This wrong way of talking in which our behavior is under control of contingencies of punishment rather than of contingencies of reinforcement is NVB. Skinner writes “We see, hear and taste things in the world around us, and we feel things with our bodies.” This is also the case while we talk. I disagree with his statement “The sense organs with which we feel are not as easily observed as those with which we see things in the world around us.” It only seems that way as our orientation is outward due to our NVB. In SVB we change our outward orientation as we listen to ourselves while we speak. When we do that, we are able to observe the world around and within us. Inward orientation – while speaking – includes outward orientation, but outward orientation – while speaking – excludes inward orientation. 

In NVB, in which we don’t listen to ourselves, there is no inward orientation and there cannot be. When Skinner writes “And we cannot report what we feel as accurately as what we see, because those who teach us to do so lack information about the body we feel”, he is basically saying that he has difficulty talking about his feelings. This is a typical feature of NVB. As he recognizes the influence of American culture with which lots of things are wrong, he correctly views the weakness of not being able “to report what we feel as accurately as what we see”, as a verbal behavior that is caused by our environment. Since others, “who teach us”, are our environment, but “lack information about the body we feel”, we can only report what we feel in our own body ourselves. This is what the speaker-as-own-listener does and by doing so he or she will find SVB. Skinner asks “What is felt when we are not enjoying our lives?”, but I am interested in the question of what is felt when we are not enjoying our own way of talking or someone else’s way of talking? Since we are simultaneously the speaker and the listener, we find that listening to ourselves while we speak couldn’t happen because the contingencies maintained only our dominant way of talking: NVB.  

Although Skinner is aware that “The human species took a unique evolutionary step when its vocal musculature came under operant control and language was born”, he doesn’t understand that “What is to be changed if we are to feel differently” is our way of talking; not what we say, but how we say it.  Skinner thinks it is only what we say that determines that “much of the strengthening effect of the consequences of behavior has been lost.” He emphasizes “The association of reinforcement with feeling is so strong that it has been said that things reinforce because they feel good or feel good because they reinforce” and he points out the great difference between the “pleasing effect of reinforcement” versus the “strengthening effect.” 

As the discoverer of SVB, however, I tell you with certainty that our fixation on words, in addition to the previously mentioned outward orientation, causes and maintains our NVB. Thus “The evolution of cultural practices has miscarried” and “the erosion of the contingencies of reinforcement” happened as we keep talking ourselves deeper into this mess. NVB erodes the strengthening effect of the consequences of our vocal verbal behavior, but SVB stimulates the strengthening effects of the consequences of our vocal verbal behavior.  Although “we have moved toward a way of life that is free from all kinds of unpleasant things”, we have created more and more NVB and less and less SVB.

There were only a couple of things I still wanted to write about Greer and Longano’s paper, but I got side-tracked by Skinner's paper and now want to respond to that. I am intrigued by his remark that in the West we have gone so far in freeing ourselves from aversive conditions that “As a result, there is very little left to escape from or act to prevent. The strengthening consequences in negative reinforcement that we enjoy as relief have been lost. We are suffering from what might be called libertas nervosa.” 

When people discover SVB their reaction is always two-fold: on the one hand, they are relieved it is still possible, but on the other hand, they realize that SVB is against the current culture. It is this dual aspect which strengthened my desire to investigate it. 

Interestingly, Skinner recognizes that “The strengthening effect of reinforcement is eroded when people do things only because they have been told to do them” (underlinging added). NVB goes right along with the “expansion” of “rule-governed behavior.” The consequences that follow when you don’t do what someone tells you to do or what you are supposed to do, are always negative. In NVB people do what someone else tells them to do or what they are supposed to do, as they will otherwise be punished. They engage in NVB to escape from punishment and their behavior is thus negatively reinforced. However, SVB is more than the escape from NVB, as in SVB the speaker controls the behavior of the listener with an appetitive contingency.  

In our talking we experience the immediate positive or negative consequences that strengthen or weaken our behavior. “Formal education is largely a kind of advice, but little of the behavior shaped and maintained in the class room is ever subsequently reinforced in daily life.” It is not reinforced because we have NVB without even knowing it. If it is true that SVB happens more often in the class room than in daily life, we must try to arrange daily life more like a class room, that is, if we want to have SVB in our daily life. When SVB is reinforced in daily life, we will be more open to “scientific advice” of which “the consequences are often long deferred.” Although “the gains are great” because of our NVB “the strengthening effect is often missing.” 

The rules and laws which “enable people to please and avoid displeasing others without submitting to possibly punitive consequences and to respond in appropriate ways when pleased or displeased” have entrenched us in NVB due to which “reinforcing consequences are further eroded.” NVB, just like “the laws of governments and religions are maintained primarily for the sake of the institutions.”  SVB will create a totally different order in society. Although “security or peace of mind” resulted from cultural practices, “following of ethical rules or obeying the laws of government or religion” led to “personal strengthening consequences” which didn't and couldn't improve relationships.  

NVB is often justified as it promises that we will eventually have SVB, but this is not true. The important question which needs to be asked, talked about and agreed upon is: what kind of behavior is reinforced? In  pursuit of “things we call interesting, beautiful, delicious, entertaining and exciting”, our culturally celebrated approach behaviors are reinforced, while our need for avoidance behaviors – which make escape behaviors no longer necessary – are ignored. As avoidance behaviors are central to our stability and well-being and only properly working avoidance behaviors can decrease our need for escape behavior, “What is wrong with life in the West is not that is has too many reinforcers, but that they are not contingent on the kinds of behavior that sustain the individual or promote the survival of the culture or species.” 

Our Western infatuation with and overemphasis of approach behavior goes hand in hand with an increase of escape behavior and a decrease of avoidance behavior, and, of course, an increase of NVB. Many escape behaviors should be considered as failed attempts at avoidance behavior. While avoidance behaviors are not reinforced and while escape behaviors are reinforced, there is no reinforcement for SVB, which is based on avoidance behavior. 

In SVB our escape behaviors are kept at a minimum, avoidance behaviors (of aversive stimulation) are kept at a maximum and approach behaviors are only reinforced to the extent that they don’t result in having to escape from what was approached. All of this is accomplished by SVB. NVB reinforces excess approach behavior and escape behavior, but punishes avoidance behavior.  

Skinner was unaware of the SVB/NVB distinction. “Where thousands of millions of people in other parts of the world cannot do many of the things they want to do, hundreds of millions in the West do not want to do many of the things they can do. In winning the struggle for freedom and the pursuit for happiness, the West has lost his inclination to act” (underlining added). 

Struggle in any way, shape or form, in addition to the already mentioned outward orientation and verbal fixation, always sets the stage for NVB. Surely, the West is the biggest proponent of NVB. Skinner wonders “there seems to be no word, metaphorical or otherwise, for strength itself.” He writes “it is possible that a word is lacking because behavior is often regarded as a mere sign or symptom.” He is concerned with terms as “will”, “compassion” or “libido”, which “are said to happen in the inner world of feelings and states of mind.” However, he doesn’t write or speak about SVB, the way of talking that improves “the strengthening contingencies of behavior.” When we are reinforced for our first SVB response, “we bring a new operant into existence.”