March 20, 2016
Written by Maximus
Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer
Dear Reader,
In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “Humble
behaviorists attempt to substitute if-then contingency statements for the
easily uttered “rights” and “wrongs”, and “oughts” and “shoulds.” This is just like
changing the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is very clear that Neuringer, like
any other scientist, keeps fixating on the words, which is a characteristic for Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). If we are going to
stop arguing, we will have Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). However, we will not have SVB as
long as we are trying to stop NVB. Once we have SVB then NVB and all of
its problems is no longer our concern. What makes Neuringer write: “rights” and
“wrongs” and “oughts” and “shoulds” are “easily uttered?” He writes about
speaking! There is no difference in difficulty in saying these things or
in making if-then statements! The difference is only in whether we are
arguing or not, whether we are having NVB or SVB? Neuringer keeps verbally
beating around the nonverbal bush. Neuringer quotes Reichenbach (1951) who wrote
“Statements of the descriptive form – Do not speed – contain either implicit or
explicit contingencies.” This is another example NVB. Aren’t we threatened
with a speeding ticket? “The behaviorist’s goal is to specify contingencies,
through research.” Why can't Neuringer admit that we always engage in NVB when we are in a threatening
environment? Why isn't it obvious to him or other behaviorists that we can only engage in SVB when we feel safe and when we are treated
with sensitivity? When it comes to statements of descriptive form, such as "Do not speed", he readily admits that they "contain implicit and explicit contingencies," but he, as he only writes about such matters, he forgets that he can and should talk about implicit and implicit contingencies,
These rights, wrongs, shoulds all relate back in times to the Beatitudes and people often confused humble with alien or from other than this earth. They were saying it's an alien construct and take with it science including theories of an expanding universe and dismiss the fundamental, in my learning, existential construct of being-in-the-world, a concept brought up in some of Husserl's last writing.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore what I think can be inferred are the Beatitudes are not correct as they are but that we can thus conceive the humble shall inherit the earth; this is reason enough for some to fight over inheritance historically, yet we've come to see that in psychosis many of our points such as alien, can trigger psychosis, and forthwith claiming we have further transcended such notions, in transcendence alone, or furthermore as laughter, which given a religious superstition in delusion leads to Isaac in the Bible can be triggered extraneously as a telling of history and inheritance we are at a difficult obligation to ourselves with culture.
DeleteCorrect being in the world to being within the world, sorry.
DeleteIn these examples through to the conclusion I can't help thinking these constructs like sound verbal behavior is hypocracy. For example what does it mean to be humble, what reasons, what thoughts are really existing? Also is the Bible correct. I think hearing things out in a healthy dialogue is nurishment to the fruition of ideas implicit and unrealized is either by faith or trust; but trust, or shared understanding, is not truth.
DeleteThe question if opinion is truth than ____ will happen? Is like a dare or misunderstanding or otherwise validating true reason, is it not? If true is good this seems to me true, but is true good? I know at some levels it's not, so I can be told it is, but deduce it's not. We are always ourselves, hence what is confused in Being in Heidegger is not what Husserl is saying, and that's why being within the world is so profound.
DeleteIt's when one sees a pathology in the mundane that this turns into NVB or psychosis when we are placated with alienated in society. Another trigger could be capitalizing or hierarchical schemes. When one sees pathology one is incomplacent with ingenuity and innovation and at all levels psychosis is the only reasonable answer to mitigating and moderating these exploitative trends. I've come to accept that the world is dangerous, but also that I want to live, and like a healthy dialogue also thrive, sometimes it's the suffering of what is true, and how real that is that prevails, regardless, communication is inherently a sensitive subject.
DeleteHusserls point was that even if we make it to space we are within the world we know and don't know. Science claims to be looking for other worlds, but we know we are within.
DeleteDear Dionysus Derive, thank you for reading my work and for writing numerous responses. I will try as best as I can to respond to what you have written to me. Thank you for linking my work with phenomenology and Husserl. I can tell that you have studied a lot. I think you will find that the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) will clarify of lot of what you already know. As long as we engage in NVB we are impaired and dissociated from our environment, the world. Please keep in mind that these written responses both from you as well as from me are not the same as when we speak with one another. However, in both written and in spoken form our verbal behavior may be a function of feeling safe or feeling threatened and thus, SVB and NVB can be expressed as vocal verbal behavior as well as textual verbal behavior.
DeleteDear Dionysus Derive, I agree with you that trust and shared understanding is not truth. The laws of human behavior as formulated by B.F. Skinner cannot be arrived at by having SVB. However, SVB is more likely to inspire people to study the different schedules of reinforcement than NVB.
DeleteHeidegger and Husserl don't know Skinner's operant conditioning paradigm. Like Skinner, however, they were also affected by the world in which NVB happens at a high response rate and SVB happens at a low response rate. If we allow ourselves to think of their work as something which they like, which reinforces them, we may conclude that their relative clarity as to how behavior actually works derives from how much SVB they were able to have. I would say that Husserl definitely had more SVB than Heidegger, but then again, I would also say that Skinner had more SVB than Husserl.
DeleteThe SVB/NVB distinction makes us look at psychosis as a form of verbal behavior private speech which always derives from public speech. English-speaking can't become Russian-speaking in psychosis. We might agree that in psychosis it is not the language which changes but only the tone. Of course, we are only able to hear this if we listen to the psychotic and the psychotic him or herself can only hear it if he or she listens to him or herself. From what I have heard and I have had many conversations with schizophrenics, you are absolutely correct in stating that psychosis "is the only reasonable answer to mitigating and moderating these exploitative trends" of NVB.
DeleteTo live, we have to practice self-management, that is, we have to arrange our environment in such a way that we can function properly. Being safe and stable is important, but this requires relationships in which we can experience high rates of SVB. Our suffering is only useful to the extent that we become more sensitive to which people and which situations we must avoid and stay away from. Our "choice" for better environments is possible as we no longer look within ourselves but outside ourselves. It is our environment and, most likely, other people, who make us behave the way we do. With those with whom our dialogue thrives there is no suffering as there is continuation of SVB. The SVB/NVB distinction makes clear that we haven't had ongoing SVB, but this is absolutely possible. Indeed "communication is inherently a sensitive subject."
DeleteHusserl's point that "even if we make it to space we are within the world we know and don't know" refers to how we talk with ourselves, which is always a function of how others have talked with us. If we grow up in an Italian verbal community we will not all of a sudden miraculously have self talk in Chinese. The behaviorist acknowledges that our nervous system was altered and is conditioned, by previous and current environments. "Looking for other worlds" hasn't and couldn't produce SVB. Science will only produce SVB if we investigate and discriminate what environments make it possible.
DeleteIf meek is a quiet and gentle nature, not argumentative, then meek and humble are confused in society in such a way that excludes the question, "then what do the meek inherit?" This is an interesting parable of our time.
ReplyDeleteLast reply, to assume the answer to the parable lies in SVB is meek and negating its contestation as humble but not that I think the answer lies with the humble, but that I'm not convinced that is does lie in SVB, and if it doesn't as a scientist I might entertain NVB because science cannot research all that scientist want and are required to which is noxious. An answer as simple as the answer to a parable could be in the realm of NVB, provided the answer is out there, but not everyone is suited for such an endeavor/job. That is their wisdom and to assume you can do without it is not of this world, the world we are within, as regards reality and situationalism.
DeleteCorrect situationalism to situationist.
DeleteThis endeavor is difficult for some since it resides in the socio-forensic of situations, which can be done for good but some obliviously vehemently are guarded to it.
ReplyDeleteThey are guarded to the ignorance or naïveté of the good.
ReplyDeleteAs well as the imposition in psycho-locution, environmentally establishing.
DeleteBecause of this the situationist entertains the psycho-geographical. The End
DeleteAn example of psycho-geography is knowing Trinidad exists off the coast of West Africa, when it is really an island in the carribean, or in dreams a building is different than it is in waking life.
Deleteand spiritual erudition, whether or not it is reasonable to the correlatively viable in reality.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Dionysus Derive, this is my response to "If meek is a quiet and gentle nature..." It is very interesting to analyze these old parables in terms of the SVB/NVB distinction. Now that we have a scientific account of how we talk with each other we are no longer enthralled with promises which don't come true. In science we deal with observation, description, prediction and control. It is not a matter of whether SVB is going to happen or not. It will happen if the circumstances permit. Although NVB speakers have been able to get away with their forceful speech, they could never enjoy the healthy, happy, sensitive, creative and intelligent conversation of SVB speakers. Thus, it is only the meek who engage in SVB. This is a fact and not a promise. As long as there wasn't any scientific understanding about how we actually communicate there was confusion about it, which has been and which continuous to be exploited by those NVB speakers who dominate the conversation. Another fact which has yet to be fully acknowledged is that NVB sets the stage for psycho pathology. Those who seem to be having "mental health problems" often refuse to accept NVB as the norm. It is not surprising that they are the most open to experiencing and exploring SVB.
ReplyDeleteDear Dionysus Derive, I wish you Happy Easter. Now I give my response to your writing of March 31, 2017....You wrote "This endeavor is difficult for some since it resides in the socio-forensic of situations, which can be done for good but some obliviously vehemently are guarded to it.They are guarded to the ignorance or naïveté of the good." I understand the reservation one is having as we have all been punished for Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and praised for our Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB)...."As well as the imposition in psycho-locution, environmentally establishing. Because of this the situationist entertains the psycho-geographical. The End"....I do not know if I understand correctly what you are trying to convey, but I will try to respond to it. The SVB/NVB distinction is not imposing anything on anyone. It explains what happens to our way of speaking in safe vs threatening environments. The patterns of vocal verbal behavior emerging from such environments are totally different, but are the similar across cultures. Although NVB rates are higher than rates of SVB in every culture, different cultures have different rates of SVB/NVB,resulting in different ratios......."An example of psycho-geography is knowing Trinidad exists off the coast of West Africa, when it is really an island in the carribean, or in dreams a building is different than it is in waking life..and spiritual erudition, whether or not it is reasonable to the correlatively viable in reality"....with this blog I aim to clarify that Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) are objectively verifiable response classes that effect our everyday lives. I look forward to talking with you about this as talking (more than writing and reading about it) will allow us explore the process referred to in this writing. Also, I highly recommend to take some time and listen to the videos available on You Tube if you simply google Sound Verbal Behavior. You will hear and see different people talking about it and this illustrates its validity better than anything written. Thank once again for your responses.
ReplyDelete