April 26, 2016

April 26, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Today(04/26/2016) I was listening to Rush Limbaugh. Rush has a hearing aid and can’t hear anything without it. He was talking about yesterday’s presentations by the republican candidates. Trump and Kasich had done their presentation and then it was Cruz’s turn. While he was talking, suddenly TV viewers didn’t hear Cruz through the microphone in front of him, but through a microphone that was placed at the dinner tables. One could hear the clashing of knives and forks on plates and one could hear people eating, but one could only vaguely hear Cruz. Of course, this was not just some accident, but a carefully orchestrated attempt to disturb Cruz’s presentation. According to Rush, the sound of people eating, was meant to make viewers and listeners believe that Cruz’s message was not interesting. As Rush has a hearing aid, the change of the noisy sounds stood out for him and other people only picked up on it after he had talked about it. They had not consciously registered that the sound had changed, but they may have been unconsciously influenced by it. Also the fact that people were busy eating during Cruz’s presentation, but not during Trump’s or Kasich’s presentation, indicates that this dinner was planned to change the way in which Cruz’s speech was perceived. I find all of this very amusing since this occasion deals with an attempt, by those who are against Cruz, to change the way in we perceive his sound. Cruz’s sound was literally drowned out by the dinner table sounds, the clashing of knives and forks. I think that Rush Limbaugh was correct in assuming that this deliberate disturbance of Cruz’s sound was meant to change the way in which people perceived his message. What is striking is that it takes someone with a severe hearing problem, like Rush, to pick up on this change of sound. Rush described the event as if, all of a sudden, he was only hearing loud noise. The distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) also deals with the difference between how we sound while we speak. This election event demonstrates the problems which are involved when there are competing sounds.  

NVB is essentially the kind of interaction in which speakers compete with each other’s sound. I am reminded of another example I saw on TV a while ago. In this program Van Jones was having a heated debate with Jeffrey Lord over whether or not Trump divides the nation when it comes to matters of race. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this argument, it was clear that Jones raised his voice and was repeatedly ripping into Lord. Although Jones was obviously upset and Lord acted as if he was cool, the two men didn’t give an inch to each other and were both involved in NVB. Lord was standing his ground and gave it right back to Jones, who kept attacking and accusing him. The point of this example is to illustrate that it is really actually about the competition of our sounds and not, as is so often believed, about the argument. 

The importance of our sound becomes all the more clear when we see and hear how primates interact with each other. The less dominant one produces a louder, high pitched sound than the dominant one. Such an annoying sound is difficult to habituate to and is also produced by a baby, who is trying to attract the attention of the mother. Demanding each other’s attention with our sound characterizes childish NVB. In SVB there is no need to attract each other’s attention. In SVB, we don’t demand each other’s attention as we are already paying attention to each other. For grownup humans, who, unlike animals, have language, only SVB is a mature way of communicating, but NVB is an immature way of communicating. As long as we continue to demand each other’s attention with our sound, we cannot really focus on what we are saying. If we distract each other from what we are saying by how we sound, we can’t make much sense. 

The pre-verbal, attention-seeking nature of our NVB is extremely detrimental to our relationships, which can only thrive to the extent that we attain SVB in which our way of speaking, that is, how we sound, makes what we say clear. In NVB how we sound distracts us from what we say. The response to NVB is always unknowingly to how we sound and not to what we say. This is the truth, which is indisputable. By indisputable, I simply mean unarguable; in other words, when we have SVB, we have stopped arguing.  We sound totally different when we argue and when we don’t argue. Everyone who has become familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction agrees that we sound much better when we don’t argue. Those who don’t know about this distinction don’t care about how they sound. 

I have another example of NVB. The other day I was listening to National Public Radio. A soft-spoken reporter interviewed a female protester, who had been screaming outside the hotel at which Trump was speaking in New York. The reporter wondered what she was trying to achieve. He didn’t think screaming was going to change anyone one’s mind. The protester answered that she wanted Trump to get a loud and clear message that he is not appreciated. The reporter mentioned the increase of intense protests and the numerous disturbances that had been created by other protesters. He then asked if the protester was against violence. Although she had been screaming at the top of her lungs, she still insisted that sheswas against violence. Presumably, she is not violent because she is against Trump’s hate speech. The point here is to illustrate how ignorant we are about our involvement in NVB. Once we have a better understanding of the distinction between SVB and NVB, we will be able to engage in SVB, an entirely new way of interacting. We simply don’t want to believe that we are continuously involved in NVB. We haven’t had any ongoing SVB, but once are having ongoing SVB, we will acknowledge this crucially important fact.

The protester, who raised her voice, believes she communicates a peaceful message which is against Trump’s hateful message, but she engages in NVB. Every time we engage in an argument or a debate, we engage in NVB. In SVB there is no argument, there is no debate as there is no struggle for attention. This is another thing which is hard to believe. We are conditioned by NVB, but once we have SVB, we agree that SVB occurs as there is no aversive stimulation and no struggle. Only in SVB will we talk in such a way that our problems can be addressed and solved and that the speaker and the listener agree on the solution.

SVB is unbelievable in that it is not a matter of belief. We first experience and then we understand the solutions which are offered by SVB. Such experience was always missing in NVB and the solutions offered by NVB never worked. We speak of a compromise, but this meant that our negative feelings continued. In SVB we don’t need to compromise as we agree on and accept and respect our differences. In SVB our negative feelings have ended and our positive emotions are expressed and maintained. This is possible and we are all capable of it.