August 19, 2015

August 19, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is the second response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010). The direct environment(that is, body)-changing effects of the sound of our voice are often ignored as we are inclined to think that ‘cognitions’ play a bigger role than they actually do. Yet, these physiological effects “are induced with latencies on the order of 10 ms and require no substantive cortical mediation”. Neurologically, these sound-effects are “induced by a very short, direct circuit connecting the auditory nerve to brainstem regions controlling whole body arousal and activation: axons in the auditory nerve project to cochlear root neurons in the brainstem, which project to giant neurons in the nucleus pontis caudalis of the reticular formation, from which projections then radiate to a large number of motor neurons in the brainstem and spinal cord. This simple circuit has been studied extensively in rats and cats and is thought to be the same in humans, attesting to its very deep and broadly conserved nature." There is continuity of behavior...

As we are mostly conditioned by Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), we are often unable to go recognize how the listener is actually affected by the speaker’s voice. We may agree what is a sad song and what is a happy song, but as we are mainly engaged in stressful, anxiety–provoking NVB, we don’t acknowledge the SVB/NVB distinction while we speak. In SVB the speaker is his or her own listener, but in NVB others are forced to listen to the speaker, who doesn’t listen to him or herself. As NVB speakers don’t self-listen, they are ‘tone-deaf’; their voice negatively affects the listener. “Sounds of a particular sort are only a few short synapses away from brainstem, midbrain and limbic system regions that regulate major aspects of organismal autonomic function and whole body arousal and activation.” 

In NVB the speaker is not talking with the listener, but he or she is talking at the listener. Thus, the NVB speaker dysregulates the listener, while only the SVB speaker regulates the listener. It is perhaps better to say that in SVB the speaker and the listener co-regulate each other, as the speaker is also his or her own listener; the other listener can also become the speaker, and, the speaker can also become a listener to the listener who became a speaker. If this does not occur, there will be autonomic activation and the  body of the listener will be aroused to flee, fight, or freeze. These subtle physiological changes caused by our conversations are only apparent to those who are listening to themselves while they speak. As long as listeners are forced by NVB speakers to remain only listeners or to only speak in a NVB manner, they focus, anxiously, fearfully and hyper-vigilantly on the speaker, but they don’t have the chance to speak and listen to themselves. 

Speakers must feel safe enough to be able to listen to themselves. SVB can only happen in the absence of aversive stimulation. NVB happens as the speaker doesn’t acknowledge that his or her voice dysregulates the listener. The speaker produces “vocal signals” which “have the capacity to induce a range of affective effects in listeners.” Only the speaker who listens to him or herself while he or she speaks is capable of inducing positive affective experiences in the listener. In NVB the speaker coerces the listener into the direction the speaker wants him or her to go, but in SVB, they produce “signals with smooth onsets and gradually descending pitch”, which “decrease motor activity.” It is the increase of motor activity in NVB, which makes NVB so problematic. In NVB people are stirring the pot...

“Pastoral herders and domestic animal handlers have long capitalized on the impact of sounds to manage the behavior and activity of their animal charges. To capture attention and increase motor activity, they typically use rapidly repeated pulses of signals with abrupt onsets (e.g., tongue clicks and lip smacks) or signals with dramatic frequency upsweeps (e.g., whistles). In contrast, to decrease motor activity, or to soothe excited animals, they use signals with smooth onsets and gradually descending pitch (e.g., whistles or hums).” As we are so used to having NVB it is difficult for us to map these easy examples onto how we talk. Also, as we become more developed, the content of our speech gains in prominence; the more important content becomes, the less inclined we are to pay attention to how we sound. When what we say is most important, then how we say it is often completely ignored. Thus, the SVB/NVB distinction in spoken communication is not as easy to learn as the herding of cattle. It is easier for herders to recognize these sounds, because while they are herding their cattle, they themselves mobilize when they increase the motor activity of their animals and they slow down when they decrease motor activity in their animals. Exactly the same is true for NVB and SVB. In NVB, the speaker arouses him or herself as well as the listener, but in SVB, the speaker calms down him or herself and the listener. Thus, in NVB the speaker dysregulates the listener as his or her voice induces a negative experience (motor-activity) in the listener, which interferes with the perception of what the speaker says.  

“Humans are also responsive to the same sound patterns. We use whistles with a rapid frequency upsweep to capture a companion’s attention, and similar dramatic frequency variations are characteristic of the speech directed to young infants where it serves to focus and maintain attention and modulate arousal.” We should note here that we tend to be much more aware of how we sound when we are around a baby than when we are with an adult. The speaker’s voice is more likely to “maintain attention and modulate arousal” if it concerns a baby, as the baby cries if we don't do this. When we speak with an adult, he or she is expected to be able to maintain his or her own attention and to modulate his or her own arousal. However, this expectation results in NVB. We will only be able to learn to have SVB when we talk with each other as if we are talking to a baby; only when the speaker’s voice is not aversively influencing the listener, only when the speaker adequately and reliably “maintains the attention and modulates arousal” of the listener, can there be SVB. 

“Additional familiar examples in humans” of NVB “include fingernails scraping on chalk-boards, infant crying” and of SVB “contagious laughter”, all of which have direct affective positive or negative effects on listeners. Other NVB examples are: arguing wives, angry fathers, arrogant bosses, slimy sales men, self-centered professors, hate-inciting demagogues, ruthless business leaders, just to name a few. These are extreme examples which are easy to recognize. To recognize subtle differences between positive or negative affect-inducing voices listeners must learn to discern whether a voice demands or gives attention. If the speaker’s voice demands the listener's attention this indicates NVB, but if the speaker’s voice gives or creates attention in the listener, this indicates SVB. The sound of the speaker’s voice determines whether there will be NVB or SVB.