November 25, 2014

November 25, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

 

As Carr (2011) is saying, most problem behavior isn’t planned, it is unconscious. This precisely describes the workings of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is more like trial and error. Because it works and is reinforced, individuals lock onto it and it becomes their pattern. We are conditioned by NVB. Since Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) contingencies are difficult to maintain, as only very few people have the behavioral histories that would allow them to do so, we live in contingencies that produce NVB approximately 95% of the time and SVB only 5% of the time.  

This author has thought about how we can measure SVB and NVB. Research on autism gives him ideas of how to go about it. We must closely observe what is going on in our spoken communication. That in itself is a daunting task, since much of what goes on is covert. How are we to know what each communicator is thinking? If task avoidance correlates with having a temper tantrum, we are going to manipulate aspects of the environment, we are going to do an experiment. We hypothesize that as task demands increase, temper tantrums will increase and then we put our hypothesis to the test. We are not inclined to think of the expression of our own feeling as an increase in task demand, but that is exactly what it is. We are not that good at describing our nonverbal experience with words.  

We can deal with the threatening NVB of others by moving away from them. If it is not physically possible, we move away ‘psychologically’, that is we get distracted when our covert speech is completely different from the overt speech that is going on. This also signifies a discrepancy between our verbal and our nonverbal behavior, between what we say and what we do. Each time a teacher has to deal with the anger outburst of the unruly child, he or she is more inclined to back off. In effect, the child’s behavior is negatively reinforced. When we move away from each other’s NVB,  we reinforce it. The function of the child’s tantrum is the avoidance of having to do the work and the function of the NVB verbalizer is the avoidance of having to communicate, that is, to have SVB. 

What is being taught in communication classes is that if someone argues well, they usually get what they want. However, while they may win the debate or the court case, they produce and maintain NVB, which is identical to a child who acts out to get what it wants. Indeed,  NVB is a childish and unsophisticated behavior. There can be different reasons why a temper tantrum occurs. May be it happens because of task avoidance, social avoidance, may be it has to do with the need for homeostasis? One must probe each of these possibilities by changing aspects, independent variables, in the environment, to find of what the tantrum, the dependent variable, is function. The social avoidance that is involved in NVB is quite obvious. However, it is covered up by and justified with habits to conform to hierarchy. The boss, leader, authority or anyone who is supposedly ‘above’ us, only gives the impression to be social, but doesn’t need to be socially engaged. If someone steps out of line, as they most certainly would in the case of SVB, it becomes embarrassingly clear that what went on the name of our spoken communication was mainly a process in which people coerce each other into behaving in a subservient and compliant manner. In NVB people supposedly ‘know their place’, but the fragile order this creates falls apart at the drop of a hat.  How different is the order which is created by SVB. That order is only there when SVB is there. It is not separate from SVB.

       

You must know about the circumstances in which you can have SVB. It is also important to know the contingencies that produce problem behavior: NVB. After a behavioral analysis, you can develop a treatment which decreases and prevents occurrence of tantrums. After you analyze the situation in terms of what the triggers are, you can modify them. You can only begin to modify the situation of your covert speech with your overt speech, if your overt speech is a function of SVB. However, if your overt speech is a function of NVB, this will negatively impact your covert speech.   

    

This brings us to the setting event as an important aspect of why we behave in a certain way. At any given moment, one may be tired or in pain and this affects how one will behave. One’s behavior is always embedded in a broader context and is based on more than what happens in the present environment. By specifying this broader context, one is capable of predicting when one will behave a NVB way or in a SVB way. Things which normally may be only mildly aversive may under certain circumstances become very aversive. For instance, the variance of one’s behavior may be accounted for by whether one had a good or a bad day at work.

Knowing the difference between SVB and NVB involves recognizing that NVB is the problem behavior and SVB is the replacement behavior. It is useful to follow standard procedure. When analyzing NVB, one must deal with setting events (e.g. noise), triggers or discriminative stimuli (e.g. reading task), responses (e.g. aggression) and consequences (e.g. reading task removed). The broader context of the setting events can be subdivided into three different categories: social setting events (e.g. recently teased), activities setting events or routines (e.g. having to make transitions) and biological setting events (e.g. side effects of medication). These setting events mediate the arousal levels and are directly responsible for either the evocation of SVB or the illicitation of NVB. 

Carr (2011) interviewed many parents and asked them what social setting events were most likely to cause their children’s aggressive behavior? The probability they explode in problem behavior (e.g. anger and self-injury)is 80% if they are denied access; 50% for communication; 30% for getting the  attention; 30% for having a disagreement; 30% for being disciplined; 25% bad day; 20% being hurried; 10% being teased. Carr explained that 10% teasing doesn’t mean it isn’t important; it is very important for the 10% of families who see teasing as a major trigger for the problem behavior of their children. Few people see NVB as a problem, but this doesn’t make it any less real. Aforementioned social setting events produce states of arousal and this in turn mediates problem behavior and NVB. Without these social setting events, explosive problem behaviors or NVB are less likely to occur.

The data are screaming at us: horrible relationships and poor rapport cannot do anything else, but create a context for NVB, mankind’s major problem behavior. Troublesome relationships are acquired over time due to inescapable, repeated, negative NVB interactions. A child is going to act out more often if it is continuously aroused by NVB. Problem behaviors and NVB are not happening out of the blue, but are especially likely to occur when the child wants something, when it has a specific goal. There is also a difference in the roles fathers and mothers play in raising children. Mothers function mostly as caregivers, but fathers are more like play mates. Ratings given by fathers on teasing are more than twice as high (20%) than mothers (8%). It is evident from the data that fathers are clueless about what sets off their children, while mothers, who are more involved in setting limits on the behavior of their children, have a better sense of what sets them off. Unless we are dealing with single fathers, most fathers have less exposure to their children than mothers and thus are less familiar with their problem behavior. This is evidence that mothers are more involved in the teaching SVB, while fathers are more involved in teaching NVB. However, adult men and women are equally involved in NVB, while children are generally more likely to engage in SVB than adults.

November 24, 2014

November 24, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorst

Dear Reader, 

The objective of this writing is to explain to the reader in plain language the immense difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The reader is asked to keep on reading and to familiarize him or herself with these two new constructs, which are bound to become more and more clear. Amazingly, nobody has yet made this distinction. When this author first made it, he couldn’t believe that he was the only one who had ever done this. It seemed to him  almost impossible that he had discovered something of such great importance. However, during his many years of studying psychology all he could find were indirect references to what is indisputably the very essence of human interaction. The great difference between SVB and NVB tells us whether we are communicating with each other or not. Once we know and agree what SVB and NVB is, we can measure the rate of responding, which determines whether we are having a relationship or not, whether we understand each other or not, and, yes even whether we will behave intelligently or not. 

      

The research on autism that was done by Edward G. Carr (2011), which this author is about to discuss, interestingly contains many of the basic facts about SVB and NVB. This writing is a transcription of the lecture given by Carr. Listen to it and go to Google and cut and paste this link: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Edward+G.+Carr+behaviorism&tbm=vid When this author heard how Carr speaks, he was reminded of the kind and calm voice of B.F. Skinner, who, with the way in which he speaks, has the same exact pleasant impact on this writer. These wonderful human beings instantly make this author feel at ease. Moreover, because he feels so at ease, he understands what they are saying and is interested in learning more about their work. The vocal verbal behavior of these fine scholars is as close to SVB as this author has ever heard. However, although he deeply appreciates their dedication and knowledge, they don’t speak of SVB or NVB. 

   

The work of these behaviorists illustrates what SVB and NVB is. This author is not interested in convincing the reader that SVB or NVB exist, rather, he is delighted to have found the evidence which fits so perfectly with his findings. With SVB and NVB, it isn’t up to this writer to convince the reader, but it is up to the reader to convince him or herself and to verify that SVB and NVB are real.

Most problem behavior isn’t planned, but is unconscious. It is like trial and error. Because it works, because it pays off and reinforced, individuals lock onto it and it becomes their pattern. We have to find a way of measuring it. For this we must observe closely what is going on. If task avoidance correlates with having a temper tantrum, we are going to manipulate aspects of the environment, in other words, we are going to do an experiment. Most likely, as the task demands increase, temper tantrums increase. Consequently, each time a teacher has to deal with the anger outburst of the unruly child, he or she is more inclined to back off. In this way, the child’s behavior is negatively reinforced. The function of his or her tantrum is the avoidance of having to do the work (Carr, 2011). 

What is taught under such circumstances is that when the child acts aggressively, it gets what it wants. Of course, there can be different reasons why the temper tantrum occurs. May be it is task avoidance, social avoidance or may be it has to do with homeostasis? One must probe each of these possibilities by changing aspects, independent variables, in the environment to find out if the tantrum, the dependent variable, is function of the manipulation of these variables. After a behavioral analysis, we can develop treatment which decreases and prevents occurrence of tantrums. After we analyze the situation in terms of what the triggers are, we modify them (Carr, 2011). 

Another aspect of the causation of behavior is the setting event. One may be tired or in pain and this affects how one behaves. One’s behavior is always embedded in a broader context and is based on more than only what happens in the present environment. By specifying this broader context, one is more capable of predicting when one will behave a certain way. Things which normally may only be mildly aversive may, under certain circumstances, become incredibly aversive. The variance of one’s behavior may be accounted for by whether one had a good or a bad day at work (Carr, 2011). 

When analyzing behavior, one must deal with setting events (e.g. noise), triggers or discriminative stimuli (e.g. reading task), responses (e.g. aggression) and consequences (e.g. reading task removed). The broader context of the setting events can be subdivided into three different categories: social setting events (e.g. recently teased), activities setting events or routines (e.g. having to make transitions) and biological setting events (e.g. side effects of medication). All of these setting events mediate arousal levels. Parents were interviewed and asked what social setting events were most likely to cause their children’s aggressive behavior? The probability that they explode in problem behavior (e.g. anger and self-injury) is 80% if denied access; 50% if someone is communicating; 30% getting the attention; 30% having disagreement; 30% being disciplined; 25% bad day; 20% being hurried; 10% being teased. Ted Carr (2011), who collected these data, explained that 10% teasing doesn’t mean that it isn’t important; it is very important for the 10% of families who see teasing as a major trigger for problem behavior. All of these social setting events produce states of arousal and this in turn mediates problem behavior. Important to realize is that without these social setting events there is no arousal and explosive problem behavior is less likely to occur (Carr, 2011).

Not surprisingly, horrible relationship and poor rapport create a context for problem behavior. These troublesome relationships are acquired over time due to repeated negative interactions. A child is going to act out more often if it repeatedly is aroused by this. Problem behavior are not happening out of the blue, but are especially likely to occur when the child wants something,  when it has a specific goal. There is also a difference in the roles that fathers and mothers play in raising children. Mothers function primarily as caregivers and fathers function as play mates. Consequently, ratings given by fathers on teasing are more than twice as high (20%) than mothers (8%). It is evident from the data that fathers are pretty clueless about what sets off their children. Mothers, who are more involved in setting limits on the behavior of their children, have a better sense of what sets them off. Unless we are dealing with single fathers, most fathers have less exposure to their children than mothers and are consequently less familiar with their problem behavior (Carr, 2011).  

The establishment of generality in a single subject design is accomplished by three approaches: 1) direct replication (DR), 2) systematic replication (SR)and 3) operational replication (OR). In DR we treat a person of the same age, with the same diagnosis and the same problem behaviors. In SR we give the same treatment to people with a wide variety of ages, different diagnoses and different behaviors, so as to establish more generality, more external validity. In OR, another scientist than the one who did the initial research, who may not even trust the findings, replicates the study and gets the same results. The single subject design, common in behaviorological research, yields much more reliable results than group statistical designs, which are nevertheless still considered by most to be the gold standard (Carr, 2011).



 

November 23, 2014

November 23, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

There has been a lot of talk about how progress is supposed to be made. Once in a while we hear scientists speak about bringing different disciplines together, increasing collaboration and informing each other about what is going on in their neck of the woods. To the knowledge of this writer, none of this has ever led to making the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Among scientist there is an implicit assumption of objectivity. By presenting data, integration of disciplines is miraculously believed to occur. The unity of science, based on the fact that scientists are dealing with the natural world, is only an issue because of NVB. The lack of  interaction between the different fields, which has led to fragmentation, is based on absence of SVB. 

The presence of problem behaviors attracts our attention, while the absence of problems behaviors receives little or no attention at all. NVB is problem behavior, while SVB is communication that is  without any problems. Most people find SVB hard to imagine, but SVB can’t be imagined, while NVB is imagined. NVB is based on guess work, while SVB is based on empirical evidence. There is no need to explain SVB, because it is evident that it works. Only in SVB do we understand each other and agree with each other. Only in SVB do we realize that NVB is a total waste of time. All we need to know about NVB is that it is not SVB. It is the distinction itself which matters, not SVB or NVB. 

Whether we are dealing with a head-banging autistic child, a drug addict, an alcoholic, a criminal, a mental health patient, or an incompetent parent, problem behaviors make everything that is good go down the drain. As long as the difference between SVB and NVB has not been made clear, we will remain stuck with NVB. SVB derives from the basic research that was based on nonverbal animal models. We may not like to hear this, but we are animals. Animals are non-verbal and our verbal behavior has a non-verbal origin. Likewise, head banging, addiction, criminality, mental health issues and incompetent parenting signify problems that are involved in the transition from being nonverbal to becoming verbal. People behave in problematic ways, because they don’t have any other way of communicating. Although they may not lack in verbal ability, their nonverbal expressions cause them problems because they acquired a verbal bias, which makes them deaf to their own sound. 

Functionally speaking, there is no real difference between the self-injurious behavior of the autistic, the food-obsession of the morbidly obese, the suicidality of the chronically depressed, the overdosing addict, the hyper active,  unfocused child, the recidivating, cunning criminal or the physically, emotionally or sexually abusive parent. All of these behaviors may look as if they are irrational, but they are not. There are lots of rational reasons why people actually act this way, but in order to fully understand this, we must first need to achieve a different way of communicating. Only SVB will allow us to acknowledge that these behaviors are in fact actual attempts to communicate something. 

All our human problem behaviors fall into the category of NVB, which signifies the absence of SVB, that is, the absence of real communication. Thus, our problems can be solved and prevented if we have SVB. As long as the aforementioned behaviors continue, NVB continues. Problem behaviors have continued, because we haven’t viewed them as being a function of how we communicate. Failed attempts at solving problem behaviors have demoralizing effects on those who tried to effect change. Only those who know the difference between SVB and NVB will not be disappointed, because they see the change that is possible and they know how to implement that change. 

  

The less choices we have, that is, the less behavioral variability, the more problems we accumulate. NVB can viewed as the institutionalization of our spoken communication. It has given us less and less choices and, consequently, more and more people are acting out. SVB, by contrast, liberates us from the rigid, hierarchical, predetermined, coercive ways in which we have been expected to talk.

During SVB we can talk simultaneously or we can experience confrontation. Rather than preventing confrontation, this enhances our interaction, which becomes more lively and interesting. SVB proves that NVB has prevented the confrontation and didn’t allow us to be alive while we communicate. 

Focus on problems, a basic characteristic of NVB, has hijacked all communication. Supposedly, we are better off once our problems are gone. NVB is the perpetuation of and the preoccupation with pathological behavior. NVB makes it seem as if we address and solve problems, but NVB doesn’t and can't replace what was problematic. We merely distract ourselves and take our attention away from the problem, but we fail to understand what sets off or what pays off the problem? NVB has been going on forever, because it is reinforced. If we don’t understand how the success of NVB prevents SVB, our behavior will continue to get worse. We must understand the triggers and pay offs for NVB.

A common trigger of aggression in autistic children is increased academic demands. Similarly, when people are in a learning situation for SVB, acting-out-NVB-habits are triggered. Any environment of positivity, openness, calmness, sensitivity and focus, which is necessary for and maintained by SVB, is taken advantage of and instantly trashed by people with negative NVB habits. Unless enough SVB has occurred to extinguish these NVB habits, there will be more and more episodes of NVB.

The classes of controlling variables, the pay-off for NVB, cut across all people. They neither depend on race, gender, culture, SES, language, nationality, religion, education or profession. All people are motivated in precisely the exact same way to have NVB or SVB. This is why it is so important to look at why we behave either way. Our overrated different back grounds don’t involve our common ancestry. To understand how we interact with each other, function or biology is much more important than form or topography. Why we say things is more important then what or how we say things. 

When we look at why we communicate the way we do, we talk about reinforcement, function, motivation, purpose or intend. When two persons sit across from each other at the dinner table and a burning candle is standing in between them,  one of them can blow out the candle. Regardless who does this, both will be in darkness when this happens. If neither one of them blows out the candle, they have their conversation by the light of the candle. The candle is either burning or it is not. There is light or there is darkness. Such is the lawfulness of the natural world. Blowing out the candle compares to NVB, but keeping it burning is SVB. This is not a metaphor, but a scientific fact.

Attention-seeking in autism can involve someone is banging his or her head at a wall, slapping his or her own face or poking his or her own eyes. In NVB we demand, divert, get or dominate the attention with our verbal and our nonverbal expressions. Although we are verbal, our responses are primarily caused by respondent rather than by operant behavior. We may continue to talk until we are blue, but our conversation isn’t going anywhere, because we are trying to avoid rather than connect with each other. Task and social avoidance are quite apparent in autism, but not in our NVB, in which they are equally present. People escape from the conversation as long as there is aversive stimulation.

In SVB there is no aversive stimulation. Only in SVB do we really communicate. The central message of NVB is: “leave me alone”, but the central message of SVB is “let’s talk.” NVB may get us off the hook, but it ignores the fact that we are poor communicators. The mother of the child who collapses on the floor and throws a temper tantrum in the supermarket because it wants candy, is inclined to cave in, because the child stops screaming and the embarrassment towards the people who see the child misbehave is avoided. Likewise, because we don’t want to create a scene, we give others what they want and cave in to their attention-seeking demands, but we inadvertently reinforce NVB.

Just as the child learns to accelerate its behavior responses high enough, by screaming and by rolling on the floor, to get what he or she wants, we also intensify the punitive effects of our NVB, to force others into submission, humiliation and into giving us what we demand. Our NVB is forceful, harsh and punishing, while our SVB is reinforcing. 

This author wonders why many people enjoy playing violent video games and watching violent movies and reality shows? It seems clear that also non-autistic people seek sensory reinforcement. The autistic tries to create interesting sensory displays with his or her stereo typical behaviors, while most us support NVB, because we too crave stronger and stronger forms of stimulation. These forms of stimulation are legitimized because they are provided by our entertainment and our computers.

Another question this author has, is why so many people nowadays are addicted to noise? Is it, just like the autistic’s rocking behavior, an attempt to find homeostasis? If over-stimulation and under-stimulation is aversive and if rocking is maintained by automatic negative reinforcement, is it then not plausible that NVB is also the consequence of our need for homeostasis? In NVB we are either over-stimulated or under-stimulated, but we are never stimulated in the way that optimizes our performance. Since SVB is so rare in our lives, our bodies are often dis-regulated by stress. What we consider to be our comfort zone is either a demand for stimulation or a demand for the absence of stimulation. In both cases our NVB maintains a need for stimulation which is absolutely unhealthy.

It is believed that autistic individuals experience endogenous stimulation as a consequence of their self-injurious behavior. This biological process also seems to be happening in the bodies of those who engage in NVB. Even when we are not literally hurting ourselves, why do we still get a kick out of seeing other people getting hurt? This biological process occurs in sports, politics, wars, crime and in psychopathology. In addition, we self-torture in the name of our religion, which, according to this author, also prevents our SVB. What this comparison of autistic behavior with NVB hopefully shows is that these behaviors are not just random, but always have a purpose. To understand both autistic behavior and NVB, we must analyze the multiple functions it can serve. We keep having NVB because we don't know how to have SVB. Once we know how to have SVB, we stop having NVB.