November 26, 2014

November 26, 2014

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Behaviorist

Dear Reader, 

The following comments are additional responses to the MIT lecture by Edward G.Carr (2011) about problem behaviors of children with autism. Carr’s research is so informative because it provides us many clues about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the two ways in which we communicate. As Carr repeatedly reiterates, labelling, isolating and medicating doesn’t help. His approach reserves a special place for spoken communication. He even wrote a whole book about it “Communication-Based Interventions For Problem Behaviors.” This author has read positive reviews about this book. Carr’s relaxed tone of voice makes what he says easy to understand. His lecture is mostly based on SVB and only occasionally he has a moment of NVB.

The reader is urged to verify what this writer means. Google Carr’s lecture (2011) by cutting and pasting this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kkocTdn0iY. This writing is a partial transcription of that lecture, which is used to illustrate SVB and NVB. Human beings across the globe are having trouble communicating. Since there are so many problems, we need to analyze our problem behavior. As our problems can only be known by the way in which we talk about them, ALL problem-enhancing communication is called NVB. Only communication which solves problems or which is without problems, is called SVB. The negative emotions we have, when we have a problem, are noticeable, but they are often not talked about or they are not talked about in such a way that they become less or can completely dissolve. This is especially obvious in the treatment of autism.

Non-autistic communicators can learn from autistic non-communicators that aversive stimulation is stops interaction. As the cause of all domestic, racial, economic, national, political or religious conflicts is based on aversive stimulation, the solution is the  absence of this aversive stimulation in all our interactions. This general approach, however, requires an individualized treatment.  

To understand how we individually contribute to SVB or NVB, we must become scientific about the way in which we communicate. NVB is unscientific in that even when we admit that we have problems, we have no way of solving them, because our so-called solutions are not based on the natural world, but on explanatory fictions, perpetuated by our social and cultural contingencies.

It is often brought up by the behaviorologists that our language itself is unscientific, as it predates our modern scientific findings. Although this is true and although better definitions can help us to better observe, describe, predict and control the outcome of our interactions, our preoccupation with content, with what we say and with how we say it, will still prevent us from finding out why we say what we say and why we say what we say in the way that we say it. Read the preceding sentence three times and listen to the sound of your own voice while you do that. We never randomly say something and we never randomly say nothing, but we are constantly adjusting and responding to our environment. If, as in autism, our overt speech is impaired, lacking or only happening at a very low response rate, then our covert speech, what we say to ourselves privately, cannot be of much use. What we think to ourselves is a function of our public speech. Thus, if we are constantly exposed to and conditioned by NVB public, we will acquire NVB covert speech, negative thoughts, which create many problems. In NVB, we are on automatic pilot, we are involved in mechanical communication. Moreover, in NVB we are unable to make our covert speech overt. We can only do that during SVB.  

Individualized treatment of NVB, our problem behavior is needed. We need to become our own research subject, implement our own treatment and only then compare our notes with others. Carr (2011) states that 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, the same diagnosis and the same problem behaviors. In SR, we give the same treatment to people with a wide variety of ages, diagnoses and behaviors, to establish external validity. In OR other scientists, who may not even trust any of these findings, replicate the study, but get the same results. Single subject designs yield more reliable results than statistical group designs, which are still seen as the gold-standard.We have to start with DR of SVB by treating ourselves. Only after we have had DR can we involve others in SR. Furthermore, only those who have been part of SR, like the students in my psychology class, can replicate the study and get the same results in OR.

Contexts in which NVB is more probable will become apparent. To have SVB, such context must be avoided or abandoned. Changing such contexts is a waste of time.Typically, NVB occurs when talking about the things which we like or find important is made impossible, not validated or forcefully stopped. People engage in NVB when what is said or the way in which it is said, is disliked, frustrating, difficult or boring. Also when activities take too long, this may result in acting out NVB behavior. Furthermore, when activities take place in noisy or crowded environments this may elicit NVB. Autistic children are often seen putting their fingers in their ears. This should tell us something. Listening to what they hear is painful for them. What they don’t want to listen to is NVB.

Actually, nobody wants to listen to NVB. Whether we know it or not, admit or not or are aware of it or not, we want to move away from NVB and we do so in every possible way. Distraction from NVB is exploited by entertainment and technology. However, this distraction can’t and doesn't teach us SVB. SVB only happens in the absence of such distraction. Moreover, a change in our routine or a new or unfamiliar situation may also lead to NVB. Carr (2011) talks about traumatic avoidance conditioning in which an autistic kid grabbed the drill from the dentist and was drilled in his cheek. Such aversive experience permanently created problem behaviors each time the child needed to go to the dentist. Often the only way to deal with this is to heavily medicate the child for every dental visit and for each subsequent medical visit, which elicits the same episodes. Rejection of SVB is equally traumatic and common and people self-medicate with alcohol or drugs and become addicted, just to be able to have a conversation. NVB in itself is a form of numbing and intoxication.         

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).