October 30, 2014

October 30, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

According to behaviorology, it is more important to define our Verbal Behavior response classes by their consequences then by their so-called topographies. No matter how much our verbal behavior may look and sound similar (e.g. Dutch or English), no matter that what we say as well as how we say it are related, these topographies or languages don’t inform us about the cause of our behavior and thus prevent us from changing and improving our way of communicating. 

The Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction is useful because it tells us of what these two response classes are a function. Since SVB and NVB focuses our attention on what we get or what we avoid by these two opposing ways of speaking, this distinction helps us explore and describe what is causing our verbal behavior. By differentiating between SVB and NVB, it becomes clear that it makes no sense for instance to claim that English is better than Dutch or that French is better than German. The inclination to think of our mother tongue as sounding better than other languages has prevented us from becoming more rational, because it kept us confined to an emotional way of communicating.  SVB is a more rational way of communicating than NVB. 

Once people are given the choice, they agree that SVB sounds better than NVB and they acknowledge that the difference between SVB and NVB can only be talked about while we are having SVB. NVB doesn’t allow this distinction to be talked about. SVB only occurs when we are feeling safe and at ease, but when we are feeling threatened or on guard, we are only capable of producing NVB. 

We don’t individually decide, but we have SVB or NVB together depending on what environment we are in. We are not able to understand how or why we communicate the way we do, because we are too busy with what we consider to be our own way of talking. Focus on content has prevented us from paying attention to the context in which we communicate. Attempts to describe context have failed, because we didn’t have nor were we able to create, the stable, safe laboratory environment in which our descriptions could become the explanations that predicted reliable outcomes. 

October 29, 2014

October 29, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

It has often come to this writer’s attention that people who criticize behaviorism, for the most part, don’t understand what they are talking about. In a similar way we hear many students who blame math for being too difficult. People say something about behaviorism without even having mastered its basics. The more vehemently they want to argue against behaviorism, the more they must know about it and when they bring up what they think they have learned, it is clear to those who really know about it, that they have learned anything, but have dropped out of the class. 

The fact that many people are put off by behaviorism doesn’t stop them from adhering to a contextual perspective. As far as they have taken note of the complexity of human behavior, they usually understand that something is fatally flawed with the common notion that individuals cause their own behavior. They actually agree with behaviorism’s contextual approach and they can’t resist the intellectually satisfying temptation to jump on the environmental bandwagon. 

However, their words can’t affect behavioral change. Words affect behavioral change only if they are uttered, repeatedly and deliberately, under the right circumstances. Written words don’t impact us in the same way as spoken words. This difference is apparent only when we talk about it, but it seems to magically disappear when we keep writing and reading.   

Given the high rates of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) responding, it is clear that contingencies of reinforcement currently seldom reinforce Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Contingencies that maintain NVB neither stimulate nor support us in our exploration of how language actually works. The "language games" Wittgenstein (1953) wrote about must be talked about before more writing is going to make sense. Most writing doesn’t make sense because it is based on NVB. Only the writing which is based on SVB makes sense. Neither in spoken nor in written form does NVB make sense. SVB, however, makes sense in written and in spoken form because it bridges writing and speaking. NVB doesn’t make any sense because it separates and distances writing from speaking, but SVB connects these two.

October 28, 2014

October 28, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

Every day we now hear reports about the deadly Ebola virus. Like nothing else, this issue puts the conflict between those who know about science and those who don’t on the table. One can hear on TV how medical experts are trying to talk calmly, while news reporters yank them around with frightening hyped-up scenarios. This context provides a good illustration of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). One would hope that the cooler SVB heads prevail, but given the nefarious NVB reality we live in, it remains to be seen if educated medical personnel will be able to prevent the spread of Ebola in the United States. It was mentioned on the news that some possibly infected nurse, who had returned from working with Ebola victims, had now gone in hiding.

Those who are involved in NVB hide the fact that they don’t communicate. They are able to spread and perpetuate their falsehoods and their fabrications, because only a scientific account of how we communicate can stop them in their tracks. In absence of the knowledge about what is required to have SVB, we are unable to have it. It is like that with health as well. Without the necessary conditions to be healthy and without the knowledge about how to create these conditions, we will be unable to maintain our health and we are bound to make unhealthy decisions. 

To have SVB, it is needed that we communicate., but as we are conditioned by NVB, we don’t know what we are missing. We believe that we communicate, but we push each other around. We can begin to communicate by acknowledging that NVB is not communication. It is just like saying that Ebola is not caused by evil spirits. Effective treatment depends on scientific understanding of how to stop this virus, but superstition is not going help. NVB is not going to help and has never helped us. It has prevented us from solving our problems and it has only made our problems worse. Moreover, as SVB is going to eventually eradicate NVB, in the same way that science is going to eradicate Ebola virus, the superstitions that prevent this must be addressed and dissolved. SVB is the communication of health.

October 27, 2014

October 27, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

This author had a great skype conversation with a Belgian behaviorologist. During this conversation this man assisted him in formulating a behaviorological account for Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). He wondered if SVB and NVB should be explained by Motivating Operations (MO)? This author agreed this was a good idea. The term MO was developed because MOs account for conditions that increase or decrease the effectiveness of a consequence as a reinforcer or punisher. SVB and NVB are definitely explained by the kind of stimuli that communicators want or don’t want. Difference between NVB and SVB is that NVB is coerced and uni-directional, while SVB is mutual and bi-directional.

Those who have NVB produce punishing stimuli for those who have SVB, while those who have SVB produce punishing stimuli for those who have NVB. Only those who have SVB can reinforce those who have SVB, while those who have NVB can be  reinforced by those who have NVB, but also by those who have SVB. This man stated what this author has thought all along, that SVB is a dialogue, while NVB is a/monologue. He saw SVB as a subclass of what Skinner called the autoclitic. 

The autoclitic is verbal behavior that modifies the function of other verbal behavior. The sentences “I think this is SVB” or “I think this is NVB” contain the autoclitic “I think” which moderates the strength of the statement “it is SVB” or “it is NVB.” LIkewise, "I am absolutely sure this is SVB" or "I am absolutely sure this is NVB" contains the autoclitic "I am absolutely sure" which moderates "it is SVB" or "it is NVB" stronger than "I think."

At some point during the conversation he made a sound by hitting a wine glass against a bottle. It was a sharp and unpleasant sound. Then, he knocked his knuckles on the wooden table, which made a darker, more pleasant sound. He then asked if the difference between these sounds was related to NVB and SVB? This writer believes that a majority of people would consider the first sound as more aversive than the second. Likewise, if, and only if, given the choice, most people would experience NVB as sounding unpleasant and SVB as sounding pleasant!! 

Among those who have experimented with NVB/NVB there is 100% agreement. It was a positive conversation. This author will definitely talk with him again. 

On Sunday morning this author went to the gym and had a good work out. While spinning on a seated bicycle, he spoke with a university professor. He spoke with him three times before, but he still can't remember his name. This signifies his lack of connection with this man, who is talkative, but also shallow and distracted. In previous conversations he had spoken with him about behaviorology, the natural science of human behavior. Although at times distracted, he had become interested and praised this author for his knowledge and his results in applying it in his work. Today’s conversation was more serious. He spoke about his brother, who had been successful in a well-paying job and had a happy family, but who got addicted to methamphetamine and lost it all. On top of that, his brother got diagnosed with depression and bipolar disorder. As 9 out of 10 people in the United States, who struggle with mental health, his brother got imprisoned. This is where he finally got clean, but after he got out, he became addicted again. Currently, he was, as is common under such circumstances, living again with his mother. 

This story was typical in that his brother’s environment was reinforcing his maladaptive behavior. As this author explained to professor how conditioning of behavior works and that the so-called treatment of his brother (and many others in similar predicaments) has not worked and is never going to work, he fully agreed and totally understood. After this author had explained that behavior is not caused by us individually, it was as if the light went on in the man, who was frustrated and also very worried about his brother. He shook this author’s hands and left. 

Then this author saw Joe, who would have just walked by if it wasn’t for the fact that this author called his name. This author has known him for some years. Joe  has been to many of his seminars. Long ago, Joe had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and hyper-religiosity. He had been hospitalized multiple times had taken all sorts of anti-psychotic medications for many years, before he had met this author. However, due to better circumstances, Joe at some point began to become normal again. He quit taking his medications, he was no longer hospitalized, he stopped believing that god exists and saw through his own grandiose delusions. 

It was wonderful to talk with Joe right after the heavy conversation with the worried professor. Joe made fun of how he used to believe that god made him do the things he did, like throwing an empty beer can at a church. He felt he was better than anyone else and believed that god was constantly testing him. This made him want to prove himself by doing crazy acts. In his younger years, Joe had been good at math and now he was in the process of becoming a math tutor. He was going to try out this idea by first volunteering as a tutor. This author praised him for the way in which he has seen him change and Joe is an example of someone, who has recovered from mental illness by being busy with something more productive and reinforcing. Joe's interest in SVB is sincere and when he was reminded of SVB by this author, he burst out into a hearty bout of laughter and started telling many jokes. 

On Sunday evening this author had q skype conversation with his behaviorist friend from Colombia. He is preparing an important conference presentation about aspects of the stimulus and did research in which he found there is more going on than what was previously understood about discrimination. Specifically, there appears be an innate tendency to view the composite aspects of the stimulus as a whole, something which earlier had been addressed by gestalt psychologists. This author understood that at any given instance we don’t respond to just one simple stimulus, but to many different stimuli and also our responses are not single, but many. This author talked many times with him and is going to publish a paper with him about SVB. This author and he mutually reinforce each other. 

  

What was interesting and new in yesterday’s conversation was that his friend was doing most of the talking. He was trying out his presentation and this author mostly listened and only asked a question or two. This author was impressed by the intellectual power of his friend and felt more grateful for his support and acknowledgment than before. He feels so fortunate that he is in regular contact with this great behaviorist, who does cutting edge research, which he will present at a conference in Brazil that will be attended by many  behaviorists. What a weekend!

October 26, 2014

October 26, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

The distinction between the two ways in which people behave verbally (no matter whether they are men or women, what language they speak or, what background they come from) is an observable and verifiable scientific issue. 

Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB)are facts fo life and make us realize of what our spoken communication is a function. Specifically, SVB and NVB give knowledge about two variables of which all vocal verbal behavior is a function. We behave verbally very differently in SVB or in NVB.

  

Simply stated, in SVB we sound good, but in NVB we sound threatening. In the former, our voice is experienced by the mediator as a reinforcing stimulus, which enhances and maintains homeostasis, but in the latter, the verbalizer’s voice is perceived as a punishing stimulus, which has a dis-regulating effect. 

In other words, SVB increases, but NVB decreases the rate of our verbal responding. Since the verbalizer’s NVB punishes the verbal behavior of the mediator, it is quite apparent that in NVB the mediator is not truly alive. Even when the mediator becomes the verbalizer in NVB, there is much ignorance and denial about the natural workings of verbal behavior. During SVB, by contrast, complexity is expressed and reciprocated. Consequently, only SVB can shed light on the natural physiological processes involved in the evocation of biologically-oriented verbal responses. Only during SVB do we feel safe and at ease enough to listen. 

This brings us to the issue of parsimony, which states that among competing hypotheses we must select the one with the fewest assumptions. The SVB/NVB distinction is certainly parsimonious, because it makes as few assumptions about spoken communication as possible. Moreover, it effectively rules out the endless supply of pseudo-explanations, which will even prevent us from communicating. The simplest, most accurate explanation for why and how we behave verbally is that verbal behavior is mediated by those belonging to our verbal community. The verbal episode is best explained by the environment in which is occurs; SVB and NVB are modes of communication pertaining to different contingencies. 

Another powerful argument in favor of the SVB/NVB classification is that it shrinks the confounding variables. By focusing on how we sound while we speak, we gain experimental control over relevant variables and decrease the difference between our predictions and outcomes. The sound of our voice while we speak is an important variable that has been and continues to be ignored, but once we take it into account, our communication is no longer as unpredictable as it used to be. 

When many variables must be controlled research is likely to become expensive. Researchers must often settle for controlling fewer variables because of the costs. However, the experimental methodology of this author is cost-effective and yet it increases control. Many people refuse to believe it can be so simple, because they are used to being impressed by the many unparsimonious accounts, which do not offer anything in terms of practical applications and interventions. 

By listening to our voice, while we speak, we become aware of why we communicate the way we do. Ignoring our spoken communication makes even the most ardent behaviorologists revert back to an imaginary self, psyche or mind. Refusal to talk is always based on NVB. SVB is parsimonious; it produces a simple account of why we talk or refuse to talk, which exposes NVB as pseudo-communication.

Much of what goes on in the name of creativity or uniqueness is a demand for escape-route variability, which obfuscates the ubiquity of NVB. It is interesting to notice that spoken communication can reduce variability of written language and that printed words in an indirect way have complicated our human relationship. The reason this author considers variability in spoken communication as a problem is because he views it in terms of predictable outcomes. The less predictable outcomes we have in spoken communication, the more problems we have. To solve problems, we need predictable outcomes. All we must do is focus on our sound while we speak. 

SVB increases our confidence in the accuracy and adequacy of our description of our spoken communication. Our voice is an accessible independent variable, which changes how we verbally behave, because it can evoke novel responses.