February 2, 2016

February 2, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 125) Skinner writes “The struggle for freedom and dignity has been formulated as a defense of autonomous man rather than as a revision of the contingencies of reinforcement under which people live.” 

I argue “the struggle for freedom and dignity has been formulated as a defense of” a particular way of talking rather than “as a defense of autonomous man.” Because of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the illusion of “autonomous man” can be continued, but once we engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), this illusion disappears. Only in NVB do we struggle, not to defend “autonomous man”, but to continue NVB. 

This is a paradoxical phenomenon: we struggle to formulate, to verbalize, to communicate, only to be able to continue the struggle; NVB never gives rise to SVB. Only when NVB, the communication that involves struggle, has been recognized and stopped, can SVB begin. 

The rates of SVB and NVB determine a culture. Skinner writes (p.131) “We tend to associate a culture with a group of people. People are easier to see than their behavior, and behavior is easier to see than the contingencies which generate it. (Also easy to see and hence often invoked in defining a culture, are the language spoken and the things the culture uses, such as tools, weapons, clothing and art forms)” (bold italics added). 

Skinner’s emphasis on seeing instead of on listening prevents behaviorists from paying attention to how we sound while they talk. Consequently, they have remained ignorant about the two most obvious response classes which occur in every language of the world: SVB and NVB. Even if we formulate, write, read and study their accurate descriptions, the contingencies which generate SVB or NVB cannot be seen; they can only be observed by speakers who listen to their own sound while they speak.