November 8, 2014

November 8, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

By listening to the sound of our voice while we speak, we stay, as Skinner recommended, close to the data. We are speaking and listening and we are describing what we are doing. The context in which we have these responses determines whether we will have Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). There is minimal reinforcement for SVB, but Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) responses are almost always reinforced. If it happens, SVB happens at a low rate, but NVB happens at a high rate of responding. If SVB happens, it is apparent, because something different happens than what usually happens, but if NVB happens, nothing unusual happens and consequently, we are less likely to take note of it.

The problem with the distinction between SVB and NVB is that we have no vocabulary to describe it. Although we are verbal, when we start to learn about this distinction, we are basically still nonverbal, like pre-verbal children. Our lack of words to describe this innocence can seem embarrassing to us and frightening, but the repeated instruction, to listen to how we sound while we speak, helps us to not get stuck with the content of what we say. As we are not trying to sound in a certain way and are simply listening to how we sound, we notice that we are usually trying to sound a certain way. 

Usually we produce NVB, but when we don’t produce NVB, we sound very differently because we are not trying to make ourselves sound like this or like that. However, when we don’t sound like how we usually sound, we are inclined to think of this as if we are not ourselves. We are so used to NVB that the sound of it strikes us as normal. Initially, the sound of SVB strikes us as abnormal. However, it is only abnormal since we don’t get to experience it that often and since it is often not reinforced. 

That we are listening to ourselves, is also something unusual and the longer we go on listening to ourselves while we speak, the more evident it becomes to us that we are normally not listening to ourselves, yes, that we almost never normally listen to ourselves, to our sound while we speak. The longer we listen to ourselves, the more we recognize and acknowledge how strange it actually is that we usually don’t listen to ourselves. This strangeness of experiencing our own sound while we speak loses its aversive quality, as we begin to give ourselves the permission to listen to it. 

By listening to our NVB, that is when we sound 'horrible', we effortlessly discover SVB in which we sound 'good'. The words we use to describe this shift are different from person to person. The words don’t matter, but what matters is that everyone, the verbalizer him or herself (as mediator) included, can hear the noticeable change which occurs in the voice of the verbalizer. The verbalizer and the mediator agree with each other each time SVB occurs and each time NVB occurs.

To understand NVB, antecedent stimuli must be explored, but to understand SVB, postcedent stimuli will have to be explored. Since we cannot understand SVB before we can understand NVB, to discover the distinction between SVB and NVB, we must focus on the antecedent stimuli of NVB. 

As Ledoux explains in his book “Running Out Of Time” (2013) on p.243 that particular historical circumstances created the contingency, which stimulated Pavlov to investigate antecedent energy traces of behavior. Since not all behavior could be properly explained by eliciting stimuli, the S-R paradigm was insufficient. This created the contingency that led Skinner to search for another explanation, one which honed in on postcedent variables. Because of its novelty, the discovery of operant behavior then led to a particular tradition in behaviorism that focused first on postcedent and only later on antecedent variables. Although postcedent and antecedent variables play complimentary roles in explaining behavior, this complementariness is, due to historical circumstances, not as much addressed as it should have been, according to this author. 

From the above explanation it is clear that the behaviorological tradition of making antecedent variables less important has had devastating consequences. The lack of acceptance of behaviorology is a consequence of its unnatural focus on postcedent variables. This is apparent when we talk and are aware of antecedent stimuli, of how someone sounds, but when there is no way to address this.

Behaviorologists claim that antecedent and postcedent variables are equally important, but the vast majority sticks to the tradition of giving priority to postcedent stimuli and consequently shy away from the exploration of human interaction while it is happening. Without talking about antecedent and postcedent variables, we were not able to create the contingency that is necessary to discover SVB. The explanatory gap, which has remained between respondent and operant conditioning, could only be closed by engaging in an inclusive conversation. 

Ledoux’s writing stimulates this writer to write about this important, but overlooked issue. Moreover, it altered his understanding about how changes in human interaction are likely to be accomplished. For years, he stubbornly believed change would only come from changing the way in which we talk. This is still true, but only how this is accomplished has changed for this writer. Previously, he limited himself to only speaking about spoken communication and he refused to write about it. By becoming familiar with behaviorology and by acquiring the scientific language to address what he used to only want to talk about, he became convinced that writing about speaking is more likely to change speaking than speaking about speaking. His own speaking has changed because of his writing.

At long last, this writer’s views are now in tune with the predominant intellectual contingency that values written words more than spoken words. This was something he detested before. It is only in retrospect that he realizes that he was always trying to address, while speaking, the antecedent stimuli which elicited NVB. He knows he was not alone in this, because he was reinforced postcedently for his SVB. However, his focus on spoken communication could not convince those who didn’t want to speak and who would only read about it.

This writing is to let everyone know that different contingencies have historically led to different discoveries. These words set the stage for SVB and herald the extinction of our superstitious NVB. 

Yesterday, after his work was done, this writer went for a long walk by himself in the hills of Upper Bidwell Park. After he had climbed the ridge, he sat on a flat rock and overlooked the canyon. Across the valley, the bright sun was setting and stringy clouds in the sky slowly changed their colors. Last night, this writer dreamed about the delight he had felt while explaining SVB. He knew with every word that he said that his language had reached and when those with whom he talked began to speak, they knew that they engaged with him in SVB and he acknowledged this. It was as if they were old friends, who were happy to meet each other again. 

The rising and the setting of the sun is a common event in human history, which was and continues to be witnessed by individuals alone and in groups. Our circadian rhythm is an innate behavior under antecedent stimulus control of the sun. What we do in the absence of light was and continues to be determined by postcedent variables. When the Stimulus-Response respondent paradigm didn’t explain behavior, because it was invisible and thus unobservable, we were in the dark. The Response-Stimulus operant paradigm sheds light on behavior, which had previously remained unexplained. 

SVB brings together both paradigms, because it doesn’t exclusively focus on one or the other. NVB is exclusive in that it creates the contingency which only allows one to focus on one or the other. Thus, in NVB we talk or write about nonverbal or verbal behavior, respondent or operant behavior, the verbalizer’s or the mediator’s behavior, endo or ecto-behavior or, function or structure of behavior. Historical contingencies have determined such an exclusion a long time ago, probably around the time that language began to occur, when human beings sat in caves to protect themselves from the cold and predators. With the ash from their fires they painted their hunting scenes on the walls and began to talk about survival, togetherness and food. Thus, their vocal cords came under environmental control. And so, survival and our need to be safe set the stage for SVB.

November 7, 2014

November 7, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

This writer likes to read and respond to what he is reading. He also likes to listen and respond to what he is hearing. He likes to write and respond to what he is writing and he likes to speak and respond to what he is saying. Reading, listening, writing and speaking are related behaviors, but their relatedness is seldom the topic of what is read, listened to, written or said. 

Attempts at addressing the relatedness of these four behaviors fail when reading, listening, writing and speaking occur at different rates. Integrated understanding results from these behaviors occurring at the same rate. Equalization results from noticing what one is writing in response to what one is reading, from noticing what one is saying in response to what one is hearing, from noticing what one is writing in response to what one is writing and from noticing what one is saying in response to what one is saying. The relatedness of these four behaviors only reveals itself if we are conscious.

One only notices the above when one speaks about them. Speaking makes listening, reading and writing possible. Lack of speaking leads to the disintegration of these four behaviors. Our pretension of speaking can’t bring about integration. Conversations in which talking, listening, reading and writing are linked are needed to solve the problems which result from their separation. 

Our pretention of speaking is Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), because it negatively affects our listening, reading and writing. NVB leads to the pretention of listening, the pretention of reading and the pretention of writing. We are familiar with the pretention of listening, but few of us are familiar with the pretention of reading and writing. Not much is heard about the pretention of reading and writing, because we hardly ever speak about it.

The goal of pretentious reading and writing is to not speak about it, or rather, to only speak about it in a pretentious manner. People may read all sorts of stuff, but it didn’t and it couldn’t lead to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), because SVB can’t be learned by reading and writing. Most people read more than that they write. Others supposedly are writing for them. Similarly, most people listen more than that they speak, because others supposedly do the talking for them. Surely people may speak a lot, but as most of what they say is NVB, they don't . They are the crowd of readers to whom books can be sold. The majority of them doesn’t write. Only those who supposedly are important write.

In spite of our different ways of talking we have never thoroughly analyzed our conversation. This author argues that NVB, our dominant way of talking, is unscientific and that only SVB is scientific. If we keep setting the stage for NVB, we can’t be scientific. This is particularly apparent in disputes between behaviorists and cognitivists. Presumably behaviorists focus on the functional relations between environmental events and behavior, while cognitivists are interested in the structure and organization of behavior. These opposing perspectives also present in our two different ways of talking, but this so-called structural difference obfuscates the functional account of verbal behavior. 

Cognitivists, who purport that behavior is caused by an inner self, keep having the upper hand as long as behaviorists remain closet-behaviorologists. Behaviorists claim to adhere to the natural science of human behavior, but they didn't yet apply it to their own way of speaking. The coming-out of the behaviorists as behaviorologists, requires a new way of talking, which of course goes much further than the verbal behavior alterations in writing, which had to be made to shine the light on the nature of human behavior. The step which hasn’t yet been taken, but which has to be taken to highlight the difference between cognitivists and behaviorists, involves changing the behaviorist's way of communicating. To legitimize themselves behaviorologists must talk differently than behaviorists and cognitivists, but this different way of talking can only be achieved by changing NVB into SVB. 

Behaviorologists, without bothering about structure, that is, without bothering too much about the words they use, should try to address the consequences of how they speak. “It is not what you say, but how you say it” describes why what we say makes sense, because how we say it doesn’t have any aversive effect. The shift from verbal to nonverbal behavior, which occurs when we shift from NVB to SVB, sheds light on the fact that our verbal behavior is a function of our nonverbal behavior. 

Only during SVB will the behaviorological language of antecedent and postcedent stimuli and responses inform us about why we understand each other. We keep distracting each other from what we say as long as we keep stressing each other out with NVB, with a way of speaking in which we aversively affect each other. Our misunderstanding and our unwillingness to understand are consequences of previous misunderstandings and are caused unknowingly by aversive experiences. 

SVB is explained by the three-term contingency: antecedent, response and consequence. What sets the stage for SVB, which only occurs under particular circumstances, is determined by previous consequences. If our attention is only going to what we say, we keep setting the stage for NVB, but in SVB, we can pay attention to what we say as well as to how we say it, because we are aware that we are in a safe environment. In a safe environment our nonverbal and our verbal expressions become aligned. If such an alignment, which is not learned, which naturally occurs, was repeatedly followed by negative consequences, it is less likely to occur in the future, even if the environment is safe.

November 6, 2014

November 6, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

Again and again and again, this writer is reinforced for his Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Everyone who is reinforcing him is also simultaneously reinforcing him or herself. SVB is based on mutual reinforcement. SVB is the interaction in which we meet each other in peace, respect and sensitivity. Many people think that this is impossible, but this writer knows that it is possible. 

Tomorrow it is full moon. This writer thinks about his friend, far away in the Netherlands, because with him he used to meditate, at night, in a park. They sat near a pond, underneath a big tree. The full moon’s night was cool and warm and it was summer. Sometimes a fox would come and other times an owl was singing. They sat there together for hours and wouldn’t say a word. They met and left in silence and all that was heard were their footsteps on the path. 

This friend is someone with whom this writer could be silent. He appreciated the silence as much as this writer did. Yet, they also always talked a lot. They talked sometimes for as long as the whole afternoon, but when they meditated, they experienced and enjoyed their silence together. They were never serious about it and they would laugh a lot, because there was so much to laugh about. One time, a big branch broke off  and fell with a thundering sound right next to them on the ground. His friend and this writer opened their eyes, smiled at each other and continued to meditate. 

When this writer discovered SVB, he spoke about it with his friend, who immediately acknowledged him and said “yes this is great, keep going.” Because of his approval this writer went on with it, although most people rejected him. His friend came to his early seminars and his presence was a steady ingredient of what this writer had to offer. Their joy in meditation, as well as their way of expressing it, created a peculiar match. 

This writer got such a kick out of his friend. They would walk together around town, they would go to the beach, visit churches and musea, meet in the park in the dark by the light of candle, drink tea and visit all sorts of people. They would either talk or be quiet and alert, but they would never fight or argue and this writer was so happy to always be able to say what he meant and felt. Together with his friend he discovered something about their communication and they were exploring and sharing it. Even when his friend was not up to it, he would urge this writer to continue. It was because of his friend's trust that this writer, in spite of much rejection, was able to keep going with SVB.

In his book “Learning” (2013, p.2) Catania writes about the language of learning and behavior. He makes, as others have done, a big deal about words and about how learning is defined, but he also agrees that “there are no satisfactory definitions.” This author agrees with his reasoning that “we can’t have an adequate neuroscience of learning unless we understand its behavioral properties.” To know what happens during learning, neuroscientists must, at least temporarily, be willing to let go of their physiological focus. To understand learning, they must behave like behaviorologists and focus on the behavioral properties of learning. However, more than a change of words is needed, before neuroscientist will begin to refer to the facts about learning and become capable of addressing why individuals behave the way they do. If “behavior will always be our starting point” not only  behavioral properties of what we say are important, but also how we say it must be considered.

As Catania stated, to understand verbal learning, we first need to know how nonverbal learning works. This is where the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction comes in. Only during SVB are the verbalizer and the mediator experiencing the alignment of verbal and nonverbal expressions. Only in SVB will communicators be able to identify and let go of their verbal entrapment. Although it is true “every day vocabulary doesn’t equip us well for discussing” why some of us became behaviorologists, while others couldn't, we need an entirely different way of communicating to answer why most of us think we can “stay out of trouble by telling lies.” 

According to this writer, behaviorology requires that we change our way of talking from NVB to SVB. NVB is our old way of talking in which we ignore our nonverbal learning, because we don't describe is accurately during our conversations. SVB must permanently replace NVB; for SVB to be established, NVB must be extinguished. Each time we go back to NVB, it will continue to interfere with our new way of talking. SVB is fundamentally different from NVB in the same way that behaviorological terminology differs from physiological terminology. Catania writes “it will demand new ways of looking at familiar phenomena.” He refers here to NVB, in which we coerce each other. In SVB we don't demand, but we will listen rather than look at familiar phenomena in a new way, because we have attained a new way of communicating. SVB will completely change our perception.