October 31, 2015

October 31, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Reader,

I have had a lovely sleep because I went to bed early. The cat is sitting on my lap and is purring. She does that every day while I write in the early morning. She looks at me intently and I look at her and we are so happy to have this wonderful moment together. When I get up from my bed, she is immediately there and follows me to the office, where I sit on the floor with my legs crossed. She walks so close to my legs that I have to be careful not to trip over her. After she has sat with me for a couple of minutes, either I or she has had enough. When I say ‘okay’, she immediately jumps off. At other times, like today, she jumps off just before I say that and sits underneath the chair where she licks herself.

The above description involves, among many other things: waking up, movements, seeing, hearing, touching, breathing, key-boarding and, of course, talking, which happens covertly, as the potential observer cannot notice it. The fact that I can describe these behaviors depends on my behavioral history with a verbal community, which taught me how to speak, read and write. Without that ability these descriptions could neither be thought nor written. However, even if all of this is in place, I will still not be able to produce this description, if I don’t attain Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Naturally, I would only be able to acquire such behavior, if my verbal community would reinforce it. To be able to reinforce SVB, it would have to be a peaceful and well-rested verbal community. However, most verbal communities aren’t peaceful at all.

Most of our verbal communities condition high rates of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and, as a consequence, they can only reinforce low rates of SVB. We don’t realize that our verbal behaviors are response products of our verbal communities, that is, we don’t view what we say to ourselves covertly, during our private speech, as a function of what others have said to us overtly, during our public speech. However, our belief in an autonomous self, which presumably is independent of our external environment, is equally conditioned by our verbal community. 

The distinction between SVB and NVB depends on a social environment which reinforces overt expressions of our covert responses. Although  private speech was and continues to be caused by our public speech, as long as it is excluded from public speech, we are bound to think of it as existing on its own. This self-concept is false and as it is false it causes many problems. In SVB it becomes instantly clear that private speech is a function of public speech. Attainment of SVB is such a relief as it corrects falsehoods that were perpetuated by NVB. NVB conditioned us to consider private speech, that is, our thinking, as separate from public speech. In NVB, by contrast, what we think off as individuals is treated as irrelevant. 

NVB teaches us that if we want to have ‘good’ communication with others, we should keep most of what we think to ourselves. It should come as no surprise that the exclusion of private speech from public speech gives rise to mental health problems.  The opposite is much needed: the inclusion of private speech into public speech is the solution for mental health problems. I have tried this with many clients who were diagnosed with depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder, post-traumatic-stress-disorder, anxiety, bulimia, as well with many others and SVB has always worked. 

Those in the United States who are afflicted by mental health problems  for the most part have been exposed to the social contingencies of reinforcement that make covert responses overt. The problem is not that people don’t have the verbal repertoire which allows them to describe their proprioceptive and interoceptive experiences. What is lacking is an understanding of the SVB/NVB distinction. As we don’t recognize or acknowledge the extent to which private speech is tossed out by NVB public speech, we are continuously conforming to cultural norms and dogma and shooting ourselves and each other in the foot. 

Although this is an empirical matter that must be further addressed, it is apparent to me that in The Netherlands, my country of origin, the rates of SVB are much higher than in the United States. In other words, different cultures have different rates of SVB and NVB. Consequently, the Dutch express overtly more often, but also more accurately what is experienced covertly than most Americans. It is not that Americans can’t do this, they can, but this will only happen if the rates of SVB are increased and the rates of NVB are decreased, or, stated squarely, if the environments in which most Americans communicate can become less aversive. To the extent that this is happening, we can already begin to hear the rates of SVB increasing in the USA. As more people become aware of the SVB/NVB distinction, the shift towards SVB is inevitable. 

The most important aspect of SVB is that it links thinking with speaking.  Many people think that they can speak their ‘mind’, but the fact is that their way of talking determines what and how they think. During SVB we can trace back stimuli of which our verbal interaction is a function. Interestingly, this functional relationship will then enhance many other functional relationships. In NVB, by contrast, we are prevented from tracing back the stimuli which causes our thinking, as private speech is prevented from being part of public speech. Only in SVB can it become apparent that NVB private speech was caused by NVB public speech.