December 3, 2014
Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer
Dear Reader,
This writing is a response to “Our Overt Behavior Makes Us
Human” (2012) by Howard Rachlin. Nowhere is the effect of our overt behavior more obvious than during our spoken communication. “The
abstract pattern of overt behavior”, which “occurs in the world outside the
organism”, which Rachlin equates with consciousness, is described by this
author as Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Stated differently, SVB is “a
temporal [pattern]:…as the notes are to
the melody.” Moreover, SVB is defined by “contingencies of reinforcement”,
which are entirely different from those, which are the setting event for
Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which keeps us unconscious. SVB and NVB are two response classes, which have not
yet been considered by behaviorists.
SVB is definitely a way of communicating, which is “more
useful than others” and behaviorists ought to be able to recognize the
pragmatism of the old saying that one catches more flies with honey than with
vinegar. The mostly NVB of Searle, Chomsky or Pinker is the opposite of
the mostly SVB of Skinner or Carr. The reader is urged to listen to the tone of voice of these men. Certainly “there has not yet
been enough research on behavioral patterns” but, since we don’t need to
reinvent the wheel again and since we can at least agree on calling a spade a spade, we can,
in the light of our failed attempts to convince others, perhaps acknowledge
the important of the SVB/NVB distinction.
Not only is the SVB/NVB distinction “true because it is useful to
behave as if it were true”, it is true in a less philosophical sense, because in every language individuals alternatively
communicate with positive or negative emotions. Nowhere will anyone
simultaneously express stress and relaxation. It is not in the nature of
things. Although no behaviorist can deny this, it is quite another
matter to determine - while we are talking - what part of our interaction is a function of the presence
of punitive, aversive stimulation, which decreases behavior
and what part of our interaction is a function of positive, reinforcing stimulation, which increases, shapes and maintains “fine-grained”
behavior.
Since our environment is “the source of our consciousness” it
“would be our overt [verbal ] behavior, not our neural behavior, that is in
direct contact with the source.” The "source" is people who are belonging to our verbal community.
The communication of our group’s relative sense of security and its
organization selects “at the level of classes of patterns” resulting in SVB and
NVB.
We have a lot of evidence indicating that selection “acts at
the level of innate behavior” and “[may] act[s] as well at the level of learned
patterns within the lifetime of a single organism.” However, only SVB includes
“our long-term patterns of behavior, including sobriety, moderation,
rationality, as well as the language that reflects (and at the same time
imposes)” the “organization” of our overt behavior. By contrast, NVB is
elicited and maintained by “long-term patterns of behavior” that include our
drunkenness, our lack of restraint and boundaries, our traumatized emotions “as
well as the language that reflects (and at the same time imposes)” our
abuse, dysfunction and the disconnect between what we say and
what we do. In other words, NVB disorganizes, while SVB organizes our overt behavior.
Schlinger gets close to SVB, when he mentions
“a..circumstance that probably evokes the term conscious most often, and the
one that is of most interest to consciousness scholars and laypeople alike, is
the tendency to talk…to ourselves about both our external and internal
environments, and our own public and private behavior…” During SVB, verbalizers
listen to themselves while they speak. SVB is the mediator’s perspective of how
the verbalizer behaves. Moreover, during SVB verbalizers are their own mediator and the speaker is the listener.
Rachlin ends his paper by describing someone who is listening to music
by Mozart. He writes “you may study a person’s behavior (or the person himself
may study it) as a function of or in the presence of musical notes, of melodies
or passages of music, of classical music, of music.” He seems to be talking
about a “fine-grained behavior”. It is interesting he should end his paper with a listener’s
perspective of music behavior, which is very close to what this author means by
SVB. Rachlin elaborates on the musical metaphor by saying “Some of your descriptions
may be made with precision (albeit probabilistic precision) on the basis of
relatively brief observations; some will require many extended observations and
highly abstract terms.” He refers to verbal behavior when he mentions
“descriptions” and differentiates
between “brief” and “extended observations”. If musical talent had been
applied to verbal behavior, it would have been clear a long time ago that
the sound of our voice informs us of what what
we say, and how we say it, is
function. Without even knowing it, Rachlin, inspired by music, describes
SVB: “As your descriptions progress from the particular to the abstract, they
will be getting closer and closer to that individual’s consciousness.” SVB
makes and keeps us conscious and NVB makes and keeps us unconscious, yet, in
Rachlin’s description sound, which is “Overt Behavior That Makes Us Human, is
only mentioned, indirectly, at the very end.
If this writer in his younger years would not have had an English teacher, who
read poems in class, he might not have appreciated poetry. The
teacher was laughed at by most students. He used to get very upset when they
wouldn’t listen. Years later, this author had to go somewhere on his bicycle,
but it was raining hard. To make his trip as short as possible, he raced
on his bicycle through the park, instead of around it. To his surprise, he saw
a lonely man, who was walking slowly in the rain. It was this author’s
old teacher. He had recognized him by the way he walked. He asked him why he
was walking in the rain and the old teacher explained that he
had retired from teaching, because of his mental health problems. This author asked him to come with him and to have a cup of coffee and
they had a brief conversation in a nearby coffee house. The teacher related he had gone crazy and that he had always been too much for his
students, but this author thanked him and said that he had always liked him very much.
There were tears in the old teacher’s eyes and this author told him “you are
not crazy.” He remembered a poem this teacher had recited with great furor. It was
about the war by some British poet. The students had been making fun of him and
he had gotten angry, but this author had enjoyed his poem and he had praised him.
This author walked his old teacher back to his home.
It was inevitable that this author at one point would also
try to write a poem. He tried, but in his Dutch native language all that came
out was a rambling story, not a poem. Then, because his wife is American and
he had gotten used to speaking English, he decided to translate his thoughts
in English. This is how his first poem emerged and then for a period, he wrote
many poems.
me
this is myself originally me
there is nothing that I try to be
just being is the key
this goodness and peace that I feel
that
is my nature I know it for real
only
now I am having the choice
to
scream or to sing with my voice
the
only thing that I like to do
is
to share my heart with you
