March 17, 2016

March 17, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) quotes Hineline (1980), who wrote “The behaviorists’ interest in language extends to their own scientific language, and serious attempts are made to emit language that is based on empirical relationships, and to stay close to the observed data.” One wonders why nobody has come up with the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction? Aren’t people talking either as a function of positive or negative emotions? Isn’t it by now an empirical fact that human animals are innately inclined to move away from aversive stimulation? Doesn’t NVB, in which the speaker’s voice is perceived by the listener as a negative stimulus, make the listener want to move away from the observed data, from what is said? Isn’t SVB, in which the speaker’s voice is perceived by the listener as an appetitive stimulus, the only response class which should be considered as scientific speech, and shouldn’t NVB be seen as unscientific speech? Isn’t it important for the behaviorist to speak, to be listened to and to be understood? Shouldn’t the serious attempts to emit a scientific language have made behaviorists embrace SVB as their only way of communicating, because NVB is always elicited? How far can we really say that behaviorists have extended their interest in language to their own way of talking? Is it scientific to equate scientific language only with written and not with spoken language?