August 20, 2015

August 20, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my third response to Chapter 5.4 “Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others” by Rendall and Owren, (2010). When I read this chapter I was intrigued and flabbergasted. I was intrigued by the findings in support of the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). However, I was also flabbergasted and baffled by the lack of reasoning of these researchers.

My reasoning is a function of the SVB/NVB distinction of which these researchers are only indirectly aware. They write “Non-human primates are an especially interesting group in which to consider the potential affective influence of vocalizations on listeners.” They are an "interesting group" because of their “phylogenetic proximity to humans.” Humans must have a lot in common with primates. The authors state “The neurophysiological substrates for affective influence are clearly very broadly conserved and, indeed, humans who have even larger brains and (presumably) more sophisticated cognitive capacities than any of the non-human primates show considerable susceptibility to affective influence. Therefore, it is likely that affective influence is also an important part of the vocal signals of non-human primates.” This reasoning is upside down. Since humans are affectively influenced by vocal signals, primates must possess the same neurophysiological substrates which gave rise to language in humans. And, since primates can only use vocalizations to influence each other, they must be able to affectively influence each other with vocalization. The authors state that it is “likely” “affective influence is also an important part of the vocal signals of non-humans primates”, but I think it is out of the question. The fact that affect-inducing influences exist in many species should make us less inclined to fixate on these “” higher-level” cognitive processes that [presumably] organize communication behavior in primates.”

“The alarm vocalizations that are produced during encounters with predators are structurally similar across a range of primate species, and they preserve acoustic features that are well-designed for capturing and manipulating attention and arousal in listeners.” For these vocalizations to be effective, they must have an immediate affective effect. “Alarm calls tend to be short, abrupt-onset, broadband calls. These punctuate designs of alarm calls make them stand out against background noise and make them easy to localize.” During NVB the listeners are aroused because they are made to believe that they are being threatened. 

In NVB the speaker is always localizing a predator and his or her speech creates, maintains and exploits the threat, which presumably is upon the listener. Currently, Trump is high in the poles, because he appeals to the notion that the country is being threatened and going down the drain. His confrontational style of speaking is appealing and effective as he localizes and blames those who are supposedly causing this. Democrats understand that Trump is fear-mongering and deliberately stirring his listeners, but many republican listeners have favorable responses that “involve immediate orienting in the direction of the calls, coupled with reflexive movements preparatory to flight.” Trump’s speech directly appeals to the “functional sensitivity to punctuate sounds in ancestral vertebrates as an aid in identifying and localizing predators, and for capturing prey.” As this presumably strong and capable man is saying that he is going to make America great again, he, like any other demagogue, activates the most ancient parts of the brain. “Developmental studies in primates have shown that such generalized startle responses to species’ alarm calls are induced even in very young infants in the absence of significant experience with either the calls or predators, as would be expected from the operation of widely conserved and low-level brainstem and subcortical processes associated with sound localization, orienting and autonomic responding.” If we know about NVB, Trump's success is a real no-brainer, so to speak!

“Such evolved sensitivity to certain kinds of sound naturally creates additional opportunities for signalers to use vocalizations to engage others by influencing their attention, arousal and concomitant behaviors in many contexts, sometimes even overriding their ability to resist such influence.” Especially the last part of this sentence is very important for how biological processes effect how we speak. We are constantly overwhelmed by NVB and SVB is again and again easily dismissed. However, this always involves a speaker, who dysregulates the listener. I say dysregulate to emphasize that when the speaker elicits a fear response in the listener, SVB is impossible even if the listener wants to or tries to have it. SVB will and can only occur in the absence of aversive stimulation. The voice of the SVB speaker is an appetitive stimulus to the listener, but the voice of the NVB speaker is an aversive stimulus to the listener. A NVB speaker will override a SVB speaker, but a SVB speaker cannot override a NVB speaker. This is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Although SVB speakers can self-regulate, they are unable to prevent the aversive effects from the NVB speaker. 

No matter how well-intended and controlled the SVB speaker may be, when he or she is in the company of a NVB speaker, he or she is bound to experience the negative consequences of the NVB speaker’s influence. The only way to not have these experiences is to move away from this NVB speaker, which is our natural, biological response. We must recognize these are implicit, autonomic processes, which are effective because they don’t require any cognitive input. Thus, we are never inclined to question NVB influences, which so often surround us. Such questioning usually only happens when we decrease our proximity to the NVB speaker. This allows us to attend to our private speech which can then catch up with our public speech. In NVB our private speech is excluded from our public speech, but in SVB our private speech is included. Also, in NVB our private speech is considered as causing our public speech. Of course, our NVB public speech causes NVB our private speech. The only moment that we can actually listen to our NVB private speech is when we say out loud what we really think. Only then can we begin to recognize NVB due to our SVB.