April 3, 2016

April 3, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand quotes Skinner (1957) and Palmer (1998), who set the stage for Hayes’ Relational Frame Theory (RFT). Verbal fixation is the inevitable outcome of the stress that is felt when what one writes is more important than what one says. It goes without saying that under such circumstances even if one were to speak that what one says is more important than how one says it. We may agree on written definitions, but such verbal agreement couldn’t change how we talk. 

“The frame may subsume various individual acts, similar to how grammatical frames subsume various words.” This focus on what we say ignores that meaning expressed in vocal verbal behavior is a function of how we sound. In effect, many behaviorists have turned away from religious experience. Strand put religious behavior in a broader perspective by stating that “The ubiquity of religious behavior is illustrated by the fact that even declaring oneself an atheist is likely a religious act.” Yet, it has nothing to do with atheism as a “response to the possibility of an afterlife”, but rather with the necessity to communicate with utmost sensitivity, that is, without aversive stimulation. 

Schoenfield (1993) comes closer to this reality by noting that “religious and irreligious behaviors represent competing alternatives.” Where and how do they compete, one wonders? Where else but in our public speech, and, consequently, in our private speech? All noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is defined by this competition. In NVB our private speech is separated from our public speech. In SVB, by contrast, there is no separation between private speech and public speech. Thus, SVB public speech is more subtle (religious) and effective. Obviously, SVB and NVB “represent competing alternatives.” 

Only SVB allows for interaction as a response to “self-as-infinite”, while NVB limits our conversation to “self-as-finite.” As we investigate the SVB/NVB distinction while we talk, we will notice that the low and high response rates for SVB and NVB perfectly parallels the “laboratory-based research on concurrent schedules that pits delayed and probabilistic reinforcers against immediate and definite reinforcers (e.g. Chaudhuri, Sopher, & Strand, 2002: Silverstein, Cross, Brown & Rachlin, 1998). However, distributing “activities across these competing response alternatives” is only possible for those who have learned about the environments which set the stage for SVB and NVB.