October 14, 2015

October 14, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my eighteenth and final response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The reader may think that it is ridiculous to write a lengthy response like this as the authors of this paper are clearly only interested in “the relation between behavior analysis and neuroscience, particularly with respect to the interpretation of behavior by means of neural networks.” I don’t claim to have the kind of knowledge these authors have, but their writing stimulated me to make my point and I am grateful for their work. Although Skinner was in favor of “building bridges with neuroscience” neither behavioral analysis nor the neuroscience at his time “was on sufficient firm footing to sustain the effort.” A lot has happened. The time is ripe for dialogue.

Since he was having more SVB than these authors, Skinner was more aware of the problems created by language. Although the authors believe “both sciences have matured to the point that such an effort benefits the progress of each”, they haven’t become familiar with the Sound Verbal Behavior SVB/Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction. “Skinner’s admonition to seek that level of analysis which most parsimoniously reveals orderly functional relations applies with the same force to neuroscience as to behavior analysis (Skinner, 1950)”. However, they are not concerned with their own vocal verbal behavior. Even Skinner couldn’t come up with the SVB/NVB level of analysis as he didn’t to explore spoken communication as a behavior in its own right. In SVB the communicators explore spoken communication while they speak. As few behaviorists as non-behaviorists have the behavioral history to be able to acknowledge the tremendous relevance of this distinction. There is nothing to mourn about and realizing this simple fact has been an enormous relief to me as I don’t waste any time anymore with fruitless efforts. SVB doesn’t depend on these authors.    

Like many other behaviorists, they are begging to be acknowledged. “It is our belief that most agree with at least the promise of an integration of behavior analysis and neuroscience.” Only SVB will make it happen.

By remaining ignorant about the SVB/NVB distinction these authors and the behaviorist community at large have remained busy reinventing the wheel. Someone who knows about SVB would never write “The task of providing an integrated account of environment–behavior relations is at a very early stage of development, and requires the concerted efforts of many if its promise is to be fulfilled.” These authors got it all wrong. SVB is at an advanced stage of development, but these authors, as well as many others, have not taken any note of it as they were more interested in and determined by written than by spoken words. This bias is obviously a big problem as it didn’t stimulate more interaction.

Like Skinner, who single-handedly paved the way for an “integrated account of environment-behavior relations”, I too have developed my own account of SVB, which can and should be experienced, measured and replicated. I don’t need these authors or anyone else’s approval for SVB to be true. Moreover, I think it is silly to believe that an “integrated account of environment-behavior relation” is possible without paying closer attention to how we actually talk with each other, which, of course, in turn, determines how we talk with ourselves. For the most part, we don’t really talk and thus, when we talk, we mainly have NVB, the pretention of communication. We have so much NVB as we only know how to have NVB, but we don’t know how to have SVB. If we knew how to have SVB, we would have it. As long as we don’t realize the distinction between SVB and NVB we can’t ‘choose’ to have SVB. 

The ‘choice’ between fresh fruit and rotten fruit is very clear, but the ‘choice’ between fresh SVB and rotten NVB is not clear to us at all. We ‘choose’ NVB as we don’t realize it is making us sick. If we knew that we would ‘choose’ SVB which makes us happy and healthy. Another point to be made is: we don’t have the skill to have SVB. We can’t just have it, but we must first acquire the skill to have it. The autistic is not all of a sudden miraculously going to speak while his or her environment is simply not stimulating him or her. Likewise, we are not going to be able to have SVB unless our environment stimulates it. Behaviorists should acknowledge they too create and maintain environments which mainly give rise to NVB. Behaviorists are only successful in teaching language skills to autistic children to the extent that they capable of achieving and enhancing more instances of SVB. In SVB the listener experiences the speaker as someone who is making him or her feel good, that is, the speaker doesn’t aversively stimulate the listener. Moreover, it is clear in treatment of autism that the speaker stimulates the listener to become the speaker. This is the very essence of SVB. If the speaker doesn’t or doesn’t know how to stimulate the listener to become a speaker, this will separate the speaker from the listener. In this way, autism can be viewed as caused by the separation of the speaker from the listener.

The so-called conversation which occurs when the speaker is separated from the listener is NVB. Thus, NVB creates and maintains autism and many other pathological behaviors. The book Learning and Complex Behaviors (1994) doesn’t say anything about this important matter, which is the elephant in the room of human relationship. I choose to write the way I do as it allows me to report on my experience of verbal behavior directly. With these written words, I don’t claim to be able to stimulate SVB. To the contrary, I argue that we must talk in order to be able to have SVB. I can only stimulate SVB in the reader if I can talk with the reader. Very few behaviorists have been willing to talk with me, but those who did have all acknowledged the SVB/NVB distinction. I have said so in the past and I will repeat it again that my discovery of the SVB/NVB distinction ought to be rewarded with a Ph.D. in behaviorism. My construct is as “tightly constrained as one might wish.” It cuts through all the bullshit, which remains hidden due to our NVB and its partner in crime: written language. SVB is revolutionary as it allows us to experience what human interaction really is. I salute these authors who have stimulated me to write this response. It is unlikely I will talk with them and I am okay with that. I have written what I wanted to say.