September 26, 2015

September 26, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my eight response to “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. Although these authors believe that they are scientific about the culture, they are biased towards directly acting variables, which are causing most behavior. To take into account these antecedent events would require a new way of talking: Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). The notion that it is difficult or even impossible to take into account every variable that pertains to the way in which we talk derives from Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).

During NVB we remain insensitive and we are talking at instead of with each other. Talking with each other in SVB is possible by the sound of our voice. In SVB the voice of the speaker is perceived as an appetitive stimulus, but in NVB the sound of the speaker is perceived by the listener as aversive. When the speaker talks at the listener his or her voice grabs, stabs, pushes, pulls, drains, chokes, upsets, intimidates and dysregulates the listener.  Such a way of talking is not conducive to tracing the variables of which speech is function. Only during SVB, in which the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks, can the listeners become the speaker, who can detect antecedents which determine NVB. In NVB listeners can only refer to antecedents that inaccurately describe the negative emotions which the speaker induces. In SVB our conversation becomes so refined then that we can detect the real antecedents, which dissolves our urge to fill in the blanks with explanatory fictions.

It is remarkable how these (and many other) authors keep beating around the bush. “Malott and Glenn (2006) emphasized that when describing a macro-contingency we refer to the operants of multiple individuals that generate a cultural cumulative effect in addition to the individualized consequences of each response. An intervention in a cultural problem of this nature would involve establishing contingencies to alter individual operants.” Which contingencies can alter individual operants? How can their cultural interventions be effective if they overlook the importance of why people talk the way they do? They are obviously oblivious of the SVB/NVB distinction, which brings into view, or rather, within hearing range, contingencies that set the stage for SVB and NVB. They write about vague matters such as meta-contingencies.

Their example of limiting “the number of fast food restaurants in each zone of the city” as “an intervention to reduce the number of individuals whose diets are rich in sugar and fat” is typical in that it represents a bias to visual stimuli. Although, of course, visual stimuli are very important, our attention for visual stimuli often takes attention away from our ability to pay attention to what we hear when we speak with each other. Culture is transmitted by our vocal verbal behavior.

The authors fantasize about the workings of the macro-contingencies. “However, it is possible that an individual sensitive to traffic congestion or the pollution caused by traffic congestion would prefer not to drive his or her own car to work, thus producing a consequence that is beneficial to the culture. In these cases, individuals are likely to behave this way because these phenomena are associated with other social contingencies, such as the existence of ethical sanctions contingent on impulsive responses.” It is possible, but only likely if they are reinforced for making choices which are “beneficial to the culture.” People make choices based on what is good for them individually and “other social contingencies, such as the existence of ethical sanctions contingent on impulsive responses” are punishments, not reinforcements. Stated differently, the authors advocate NVB instead of SVB and I disagree with that. Aversive control of behavior has been practiced for way too long. Only as a side-note they write “However, opportunity for verbal interaction among participants appears to enhance the frequency of self-controlled responses.” The observed effects could be explained entirely by the “verbal interaction among participants”, which is a more parsimonious explanation than meta-contingencies. Interestingly, the condition which was manipulated in the experiments which were done by Borba et al. (2014), was whether participants could interact verbally and had access to each other. This directly maps onto SVB. In NVB, on the other hand, we cannot interact and have no access to each other.

Although it may seem as if people are interacting in NVB, participants don’t “have access to one another’s choices in real time.” During NVB, we are scheming, dominating, manipulating and faking it. It comes as no surprise “The results revealed a higher number of self-controlled responses in the groups exposed to Conditions 2 and 3, i.e., those in which there was a possibility of verbal interaction.” Although we keep mainly having NVB, there is occasionally a possibility to have SVB and this is how culture evolved. Cultures around the globe have different rates of SVB, but this is not recognized. In Holland, my country of origin, I experienced higher rates of SVB than in the USA. “The microculture that could interact verbally throughout the entire experiment produced self-controlled responses reaching 100% in most sessions.” However, it goes unnoticed that the microculture is more likely to set the stage for SVB. When people are given the choice to have SVB or NVB, they will choose SVB each time. Santana and Tourinho (2011) found “the results demonstrated the importance of verbal behavior in the implementation of ethical self-control responses.” Although the authors don’t address why cultures transmit high rates of SVB or NVB, it is a start that at least they address the importance of verbal behavior. If they knew about the vocal SVB/NVB distinction they would have linked the “opportunity for verbal interaction among participants” with SVB, because only SVB “appears to enhance the frequency of self-controlled responses”.