January 31, 2015

January 31, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer 

Dear Reader, 

 

The distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the two universally present ways of behaving verbally, is apparent everywhere when people talk. When people talk with each other, they are having SVB, but when they talk at each other, they are having NVB. During NVB, people may pretend to be talking with each other, while in fact they are talking at each other. The distinction between SVB and NVB allows for the skillful and replicable separation between real human interaction and false, fabricated mechanical communication. 

 

This writer arrived at this distinction inductively, not deductively. He wants the reader to arrive at it inductively as well. The reader has also engaged in and listened to many conversations. From this, the reader should be able to recognize that when people have real conversations, they take turns, that is, they are alternatively speakers and listeners. This switching back and forth between speaking and listening, due to which all the communicators can talk, are listened to and are part of the total conversation, because they speak and listen, is called SVB.

  

If our spoken communication is most satisfying, most interesting, most effective, most likely to lead to actions which reflect and enhance the bi-directional benefits of such a conversation, then it is reasonable to interpret the so-called conversation in which this turn-taking doesn’t or can’t happen, because one person does, or only very few people do all the talking and many are not supposed to or not even allowed to speak, as fictitious communication.  Horrible-sounding, dialogue-preventing, monologic, coercive verbal behavior that is typified by hierarchical divisions, is make-believe communication, which this writer calls NVB. 

We need to know what it means to have real interaction. To teach SVB one has to know what it is. It is ridiculous to believe that SVB, or Chinese for that matter, can be understood or taught based on just one description, which supposedly will tell us all we need to know. Many instances of SVB l have to occur before SVB is understood and many occasions of SVB need to be presented by someone who knows SVB so that others can learn it too.  There is, of course, no such a thing as SVB. Any referent which only relates to one instance is not enough to learn SVB, just as translating one word would not be enough to speak Chinese. Thus, the definition and understanding of SVB is arrived at inductively, by describing the situation in which it makes sense to have SVB.  Such a situation is not hard to imagine. When we are supporting each other, reciprocating each other, sensitive to each other, respectful to each other, when we are at ease with each other, when we feel safe with each other, when we feel good with each other, we sound good. In SVB we all sound good.

There are observable, measurable variables or contingencies which act on the way in which we communicate. Stimuli which are occurring in certain situations make the use of a phrase such as SVB meaningful. Likewise, Cantonese wouldn’t make any sense when spoken or written to someone who wasn't in the learning situation, such as taking a class or going to China, in which he or she could learn how to speak or write in Cantonese. This writer has always insisted on talking about SVB because he wanted to stay, like Skinner, close to the data. His aim was to familiarize people with the situation in which the discriminative stimuli are available that control the process of SVB.  Once in this situation, once in the conversation with this writer, understanding SVB is very easy.

Only in a SVB-situation will the communicator respond to the term SVB with “I get why you call it SVB.” The statement "When it can occur it will occur and when it can’t occur it won’t occur” applies. We are referring to independent variables, to stimuli that make SVB, the dependent variable possible.  In the  absence of independent variables the dependent variable cannot occur, but when independent variables are discriminated and thus become available, SVB will reliably and effortlessly occur. 

Similarly to B.F. Skinner, this writer arrived at his thesis inductively. Anyone who becomes familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction will attest to its parsimony, which derives from the fact that it de-emphasizes theory. The question “what would happen if the conversation continued in which the verbalizers and the mediators take turns and agree that from a mediator’s perspective the verbalizer continues to sound good?” resulted in SVB. Variation of behavior is enhanced by the SVB/NVB distinction. SVB seeks out sources of variation in individual behavior and wants to study and explain it, but NVB treats variation as noise to be eliminated. NVB is defined operationally, since verbalizers produce noxious sounds, noises which prevent SVB, real communication. 

Everybody can learn to effectively develop the skills that are necessary for SVB with the step by step instructions provided by this writer. SVB is acquired by what Skinner called programmed instruction.  Listening to ourselves while we speak paves the way for SVB. The schedules of reinforcement for SVB have to be different for different individuals because each individual has a unique behavioral history and genetic predisposition. SVB can be predicted, controlled, scientifically studied and validated. If the verbal behavior of the verbalizer produces reinforcing consequences in the mediator, we can say that it was effective. By contrast, responses which decrease the probability of certain response classes are considered ineffective. Thus, if the probability of the SVB response class was increased, it may be considered to be effective, but this is only the case for those who see SVB as effective. However, an increase in the probability of the NVB response class is considered to be effective only for those who consider NVB to be effective. It helps to remember that the effectiveness of SVB and NVB depends on the same criteria that determine the effectiveness of French or Italian. We are dealing here with two entirely different verbal communities.  

As Skinner has repeatedly pointed out, the selective process that is involved in the operant conditioning of verbal behavior, or in any other sort of behavior for that matter, is identical to the modification of topographies that are revealed during the evolution of a species. In his book Verbal Behavior (1957, p. 160) Skinner states “our belief in what someone tells us is…a function of, or identical with our tendency to act upon the verbal stimuli which he provides.”  Whether the mediator believes in the verbalizer’s statement has nothing necessarily to do with whether a statement accurately corresponds to the reality or not. Moreover, whether the statement is considered to be ineffective by the mediator, meaning, whether it is rejected by the mediator, doesn’t depend at all on whether it is true or not. And, the mediator’s response to what the verbalizer says can also be viewed in terms of whether it is real or not. As long as our verbal behavior produces reinforcement it is considered to be effective. The so-called truth of a statement then depends on the extent to which it assists the mediator “to respond effectively to the situation which it describes”(Skinner,  1974, p. 235).  It only makes sense to tact SVB and NVB from a SVB perspective.

January 30, 2015

January 30, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

The question why most human behavior across the globe is still governed by coercive processes and  why we are so inclined to punish instead of reinforce, is not answered by the fact that “punishment is an effective procedure, when it occurs in certain way, and especially in the short term.” (Ledoux, 2014, p. 359). Punishment can only result in this immediate effect of decreasing a behavior as long as it is accompanied by a punitive way of communicating, what this writer calls Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

Without laws, verbally behaving organisms wouldn’t be able to achieve any “seizable decrease in the punished-behavior rate” by punishing “immediately” and “consistently” and with the “necessary intensity.” Of course, laws are written versions of what people supposedly agree on with each other. When we ask ourselves why coercive control, in spite of its tremendously negative long-term consequences, continues to be our standard, we must also look at how these punishment procedures and our common way of communicating, NVB, are codified by the law. 

In this writing, however, this writer brings the reader’s attention to the fact that NVB is an inevitable part of and necessarily needed for the implementation of punishment. Thus, NVB and coercion is perpetuated by law. However, it is also quite evident that without the law there would be  chaos. If, on the other hand, Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), better and improved communication, would ensue, we would create very different laws, which would reinforce other behavior. In the short-term SVB is often punished by NVB, but in the long-term SVB is reinforced and will counteract and replace NVB punishment.

Punishing SVB reinforces NVB. If a parent doesn’t know how to reinforce the child, that parent, in one way or another will punish their child. Sadly, when the child who is hit by its parents immediately obeys and decreases its defiant behavior, this postcedent consequence reinforces the hitting behavior of the parent. Likewise, the consequences of punishing NVB is the reinforcement of its use. “While the long-range effects of punishment involve those problems of emotional effects and escape, avoidance; and countercoercion (among others), one immediate effect of punishment involves the quick and substantial reduction of the punished behavior” (Ledoux, 2014, p. 359). The question may arise: why do we punish SVB? If it is so beneficial and having such wonderful long-range consequences, why are we not reinforcing it? The short answer is: we don’t know how to reinforce it. The longer answer is: NVB keeps us trapped into short-term thinking. Also, emotional effects, escape and avoidance in others, which were caused by our NVB, give us a sense of power and make us believe that we are not like that. Since NVB is hierarchical, there is always someone above us and below us. Due to our status we may be able to deal with the punishment which we receive or self-inflict a little differently, but at best we only imagine that we are not on the receiving end of NVB.  

This writer, who has worked with many powerful, capable people, knows from their personal stories that they too experience emotional effects, escape and avoidance. The more powerful people became in their lives, the more conditioned punitive NVB effects appear to be. They could only get to their place of power, because they were praised continuously for their ability to punish others and their so-called discipline is based on being punitive to themselves. They punish SVB so harshly, because it exposes how they escape and avoid themselves and don’t know how they really feel.

January 29, 2015

January 29, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

 

Punishment is a “postcedent process or procedure” which “occurs either as an addition or subtraction of stimuli” (Ledoux, 2015, p.358). Because of his knowledge about how punishment by subtraction works in our spoken communication, this writer has often endured punishment by addition. For more than twenty five years he has been focusing on the two response classes of vocal verbal behavior between which all human interaction constantly meanders: Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). This writer became interested in the process of punishment by subtraction, when he became aware that NVB decreases SVB. Simply stated, NVB is the language of coercion and punishment, but SVB is the language of added reinforcement. Unless we realize how often we punish instead of reinforce SVB, it will never increase. SVB has not and could not be increased, because it was and is continually decreased by NVB. This important issue must be addressed head on. 

The ubiquity of NVB is made possible by the functional reduction of the ongoing rate of SVB. Although SVB is made increasingly impossible, it is becoming more and more evident that we can’t do without it. Without SVB  human relationship disintegrates. NVB and the fall-out of coercion must be stopped before SVB can begin to occur. Unless NVB, the communication which involves forceful control of human conduct, is brought to an end, we will not be able to have positive relationships.  Behaviorology, the natural science of human behavior, predicted this outcome since its incursion. This writer is not a doom-preacher, but a behavioral engineer, who is 100% capable of creating and maintaining environments in which SVB will occur. Moreover, all the people who participate with him in SVB, will know that it is happening and will be aware of the contingency which makes this happen.

The rate of SVB can be deliberately and reliably increased due to the positive energy traces that are coming from postcedent stimuli. Only if we are positively reinforced for SVB will it increase. NVB can’t do that. When communicators are repeatedly in environments in which increases of SVB and decreases of NVB are experienced, their nervous system structure will be transformed such that the antecedent stimuli that typically evoke SVB will begin to function more effectively. That is, the sound and impact of someone’s voice will more likely engage us in SVB, because our body was changed over time by SVB’s regulating effects. The opposite is true for NVB, which decreases SVB.  NVB disregulates our nervous system and makes us feel ashamed, embarrassed, not taken serious, weak, rejected, nervous and walked over, each time we produce SVB. Such punishing consequences then will make us produce less SVB. 

NVB is of course also postcedently reinforced either by added or by subtracted reinforcement. That is, our NVB is increased or strengthed by its consequences. No matter how alluring these so-called added benefits of NVB may be, they always go together with decrease of SVB. Moreover, they replace SVB and our need for SVB with something else. Supposedly, because of the much-praised benefits of NVB, such as income, career, security, fame, status and power, SVB doesn’t matter anymore, can be forgotten or can be forever postponed.   It should be clear to anyone who is reading this text that the insane, widespread, coercive, pre-scientific, unethical, immoral and inhuman control of human behavior, continues because of our NVB, which forever distracts and dissociates us from our SVB. There is not a shred of evidence in behaviorology that our mandatory way of speaking, NVB, is going to help us to raise our children, improve our relationships or provide world peace. Only SVB can reliably do that. 

When we look more closely at the so-called added reinforcement of NVB, it becomes apparent that we are completely mistaken. Although it looks as if NVB is maintained by added reinforcement, it is in fact maintained by subtracted reinforcement. Just as driving within the speed limit is reinforced (more likely to occur in the future) by a speeding ticket, which would subtract money from our bank account, we are also threatened into NVB, because we would lose all the perks that supposedly signify positive reinforcement; we are enslaved by NVB. 

Because punishment procedures and coercion form the essence of NVB, we must take a closer look at NVB in terms of what it decreases. When we say that NVB decreases SVB, we mean that it limits everything that makes us human. Indeed, NVB “induces disabling emotional anxieties and exaggeration of some subsequent operant reactions. It compels those on the receiving end to get away from the punisher (including any person providing the punishment), to stay away from the punisher, and to get even with the punisher. In technical terms we refer to these last three major effects of punishment – getting away, staying away, and getting even – as escape, avoidance, and countercoercion.” (Ledoux, 2014, p.358-359). 

Whether we know it or not, show it or not, admit it or not or, are aware of it or not, we are trying to get away from each other or we are trying to take revenge on each other during NVB. The sound of our voice in NVB signals distraction, struggle or attack. The latter often elicits counter attack, but struggle and distraction “often takes an exaggerated form due to emotional components.” (Ledoux, 2014, p. 359). Accurate expression of emotions is impossible in NVB. Furthermore, because NVB is a hierarchical way of communicating, when fighting back or attacking is not possible, we take it out on those below us or on ourselves.

January 27, 2015

January 27, 2015 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer 

Dear Reader, 

It takes a person like this writer, who struggled throughout his life with the way in which coercive control conditioned and respondently limited his operant behavior, to long for a solution. Each time this writer found something that was reinforcing, he ran with it and took it as far as he could. At one point in his life he studied years of classical singing and aspired to be tenor-singer in the opera. During those years he learned to listen to nuances of his voice and sense with his body when his voice was resonating. Although he was quite successful, he didn’t want to continue because spoken communication was more satisfying and intellectually stimulating to him than singing. 

This writing is to remind the reader that his discovery of listening to his voice while he speaks, which is SVB, didn’t come out of the blue. After he had left his study in singing, he went through a poetry-phase and for the first time began to express as precisely as possible what he really felt and thought. Although he was strongly reinforced for his poetry, it didn’t translate into better communication with others. How he wanted to communicate was determined by a sound of his voice which he was only seldom capable of producing in his interactions with others. This intrigued him. Why was it so difficult to speak with that particular sound which made him feel so good? Why did he keep losing his voice? 

It took him many years to find out that his sound was affected by his environment and always expressed what was happening in his immediate surroundings. Consequently, in aversive environments he produced NVB, but in safe and supportive environments, he produced SVB. Slowly, but surely, he began to figure out that our way of communicating is, mostly without us knowing it, primarily based on how we sound. Due to how he grew up, this writer was conditioned to escape and avoid any aversive tone of voice. He was only able to learn from those whom he liked and those who had a negative impact on him began to trouble him less and less.   

Skinner in “The literature of freedom and dignity emphasizes ending that kind of [coercive] control, but largely ignores, even denies, the vital effects on our existence of added-reinforcement, an ignorance that can lead to disastrous global outcomes.” [word added] (Ledoux, 2014, p. 357). Compared to this writer, Skinner grew up under much more reinforcing circumstances. Since added reinforcement contrasts with punishment and since Skinner was so ingeniously effective in managing his environment, mankind’s need for added reinforcement at best became a literary topic, which was emphasized artistically as long as his verbal behavior was under control of the contingency of becoming a writer (this was Skinner's past passion). To further the cause of the science of human behavior, radical behaviorism, it was more effective to hit back at the field of psychology with the negative consequences of coercion. It is interesting to note that it was only at the very end of his life that Skinner gave his approval for behaviorology to establish itself as a separate science. And, of course, it also took someone with a history like Ledoux, to establish behaviorology and to increasingly focus more on added reinforcement. 

In spite of all the developments in which others explored the workings of operant conditioning, something has prevented behaviorologists from recognizing that even they must learn to talk in a different way. Unless  added reinforcement would change the way in which they communicated, they remained oblivious of the two response patterns or rather, the two entirely different environments that are involved in producing SVB and NVB.  Because they were so busy writing and studying, they never even bothered with the “ever present and always operating” vocal verbal behavior  involved in “behavioral control” which “comes in two flavors, which we call positive control and negative control.” (Ledoux, 2014, p. 357). This important distinction dovetails perfectly with SVB and NVB.