September 12, 2015

September 12, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my seventh response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Behaviorists have lamented conventional superstition in the same way that non-behaviorists have been against wars, destruction of the environment, inequality and poverty.  Although they have a better  understanding of behavior than non-behaviorists, the behaviorist’s way of talking is not in any significant way different from the non-behaviorist. Both are mainly engaged in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which what they say is more important than how they say it. This may not be very obvious, but it is a fact as far as I am concerned. I have made many attempts to contact behaviorists to talk with them about the possibility of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), in which what we say becomes more important because of how we say it, but most of them (like everybody else) are simply not interested.  

My comments on this paper, as well as my comments on many other behaviorist papers, are to explain and promote SVB and behaviorism. I am a self-taught behaviorist. It explains how SVB works. We will only have SVB when we let go of the pre-scientific idea that we cause our own behavior. To the extent that behaviorists continue to produce NVB and are incapable of having SVB, they maintain and strengthen the mystical assumption that people cause their own behavior. This is not an accusation, but a fact, described in each of my writings. Any talk about “the survival of humanity, in balance with the welfare of individuals” only makes sense if we achieve and maintain SVB. 

In his way of talking, Skinner was far ahead of most other behaviorists. He stated that “The absence of this balance” (between humanity and individual) “would be an example of bad design (Skinner (1971/2002).” Since he “does not advocate survival of cultures at the expense of tyrannical, coercive, or exploitative practices” Skinner is in favor of SVB and therefore against NVB.  “The science of behavior” predicts that SVB “cultural practices will have the higher chance of being effective.” By recognizing NVB, we acquire a behavioral technology which helps us intervene on “problems arising from human susceptibilities that have been phylogenetically inherited.” Under certain circumstances we can’t help having NVB. Unless such aversive circumstances are addressed and changed SVB cannot occur. The extent to which we have been in safe and stable SVB environments determines whether we will be able to bridge “the gaps between immediate and delayed contingencies.” 

Our ability to endure NVB is in direct proportion to the amount of SVB that we have experienced. Only to the extent that our culture provides us with multiple SVB opportunities can there be development of “flexible cultural practices (that may be stable and, at the same time, amenable to innovation depending on the contingencies)”. Since the distinction between SVB and NVB is still unknown, matters such as education are emphasized, which would only flourish if SVB were to occur more often. “Education would be extremely important to achieve these objectives. Creative behavior, problem solving, and freedom from certain kinds of control that compete with adequate environmental control, may be produced by a technology of teaching.” The authors are not mentioning the importance of our way of talking in all of this. They don’t acknowledge that NVB, coercive control, competes with SVB,  appetitive and therefore more “adequate environmental control.”  

Something has changed in my writing. When I read a paper, I copy and paste each section in my writing and then I comment on it, sentence by sentence. This not only allows me to better understand what I read, but it also stimulates a more coherent response, which explains SVB. As a consequence, although I write very slowly, I am much happier about my writing. Another aspect is that my writings have only been read by me and have not been published. As I continue to write, the anticipation of other people understanding it increases. I find this inspiring. Because I have produced so much good writing, I feel confident. It seems to me as if I have a bank account from which I can draw because I have plenty. Lastly, through the writings of my fellow behaviorists, I have become more and more convinced of the importance of my discovery of SVB. 

 

“Since Skinner considers behavior to be determined by histories of variation and selection at three levels, he attributes many current behavioral problems to characteristics of the processes of variation and selection (Skinner, 1966/1969a, 1975/1978, 1981, 1990).” Although everything he has discovered is of great importance, Skinner couldn’t bring into focus the SVB/NVB distinction. His success always provided him with an audience, who would listen to him. As he was so good at self-management, he was reinforced by most of what he did. Except for his ‘dark year’, earlier in his life, he was not confronted with major setbacks. In other words, there was never a real need for him to ‘reinvent himself.’ In my life path, on the other hand, there have been many challenges and it is due to these challenges that I discovered SVB. Stated differently, I felt so troubled by NVB that it took me many years before I could give words to it. My mother often gave me SVB, but my father often gave me NVB. I was confused and upset about how that could be. Skinner came from a stable SVB environment, but I came from an unstable SVB environment, in which one moment it was there and the next moment it was gone again. Overall, there was a lot of NVB in my family. For many years I unknowingly longed for SVB stability. I have experienced a noticeable increase in SVB stability over the years.