September 12, 2015

September 12, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my seventh response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Behaviorists have lamented conventional superstition in the same way that non-behaviorists have been against wars, destruction of the environment, inequality and poverty.  Although they have a better  understanding of behavior than non-behaviorists, the behaviorist’s way of talking is not in any significant way different from the non-behaviorist. Both are mainly engaged in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which what they say is more important than how they say it. This may not be very obvious, but it is a fact as far as I am concerned. I have made many attempts to contact behaviorists to talk with them about the possibility of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), in which what we say becomes more important because of how we say it, but most of them (like everybody else) are simply not interested.  

My comments on this paper, as well as my comments on many other behaviorist papers, are to explain and promote SVB and behaviorism. I am a self-taught behaviorist. It explains how SVB works. We will only have SVB when we let go of the pre-scientific idea that we cause our own behavior. To the extent that behaviorists continue to produce NVB and are incapable of having SVB, they maintain and strengthen the mystical assumption that people cause their own behavior. This is not an accusation, but a fact, described in each of my writings. Any talk about “the survival of humanity, in balance with the welfare of individuals” only makes sense if we achieve and maintain SVB. 

In his way of talking, Skinner was far ahead of most other behaviorists. He stated that “The absence of this balance” (between humanity and individual) “would be an example of bad design (Skinner (1971/2002).” Since he “does not advocate survival of cultures at the expense of tyrannical, coercive, or exploitative practices” Skinner is in favor of SVB and therefore against NVB.  “The science of behavior” predicts that SVB “cultural practices will have the higher chance of being effective.” By recognizing NVB, we acquire a behavioral technology which helps us intervene on “problems arising from human susceptibilities that have been phylogenetically inherited.” Under certain circumstances we can’t help having NVB. Unless such aversive circumstances are addressed and changed SVB cannot occur. The extent to which we have been in safe and stable SVB environments determines whether we will be able to bridge “the gaps between immediate and delayed contingencies.” 

Our ability to endure NVB is in direct proportion to the amount of SVB that we have experienced. Only to the extent that our culture provides us with multiple SVB opportunities can there be development of “flexible cultural practices (that may be stable and, at the same time, amenable to innovation depending on the contingencies)”. Since the distinction between SVB and NVB is still unknown, matters such as education are emphasized, which would only flourish if SVB were to occur more often. “Education would be extremely important to achieve these objectives. Creative behavior, problem solving, and freedom from certain kinds of control that compete with adequate environmental control, may be produced by a technology of teaching.” The authors are not mentioning the importance of our way of talking in all of this. They don’t acknowledge that NVB, coercive control, competes with SVB,  appetitive and therefore more “adequate environmental control.”  

Something has changed in my writing. When I read a paper, I copy and paste each section in my writing and then I comment on it, sentence by sentence. This not only allows me to better understand what I read, but it also stimulates a more coherent response, which explains SVB. As a consequence, although I write very slowly, I am much happier about my writing. Another aspect is that my writings have only been read by me and have not been published. As I continue to write, the anticipation of other people understanding it increases. I find this inspiring. Because I have produced so much good writing, I feel confident. It seems to me as if I have a bank account from which I can draw because I have plenty. Lastly, through the writings of my fellow behaviorists, I have become more and more convinced of the importance of my discovery of SVB. 

 

“Since Skinner considers behavior to be determined by histories of variation and selection at three levels, he attributes many current behavioral problems to characteristics of the processes of variation and selection (Skinner, 1966/1969a, 1975/1978, 1981, 1990).” Although everything he has discovered is of great importance, Skinner couldn’t bring into focus the SVB/NVB distinction. His success always provided him with an audience, who would listen to him. As he was so good at self-management, he was reinforced by most of what he did. Except for his ‘dark year’, earlier in his life, he was not confronted with major setbacks. In other words, there was never a real need for him to ‘reinvent himself.’ In my life path, on the other hand, there have been many challenges and it is due to these challenges that I discovered SVB. Stated differently, I felt so troubled by NVB that it took me many years before I could give words to it. My mother often gave me SVB, but my father often gave me NVB. I was confused and upset about how that could be. Skinner came from a stable SVB environment, but I came from an unstable SVB environment, in which one moment it was there and the next moment it was gone again. Overall, there was a lot of NVB in my family. For many years I unknowingly longed for SVB stability. I have experienced a noticeable increase in SVB stability over the years.

September 11, 2015

September 11, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my sixth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). “The prescription of the good of culture as a supreme value in Skinnerian writings raises some problems” as the authors are conditioned by and conforming to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It is the absence of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) makes them reason that “the election of good of the culture seems tautological.” In other words, these authors (actually, behaviorists and non-behaviorists alike) interpret Skinner’s SVB in a NVB manner. Predictably they argue that “Radical Behaviorism as a philosophy of the science of behavior states necessary but not sufficient assumptions for the election of the good of culture.” NVB always goes against SVB and will never acknowledge it, but SVB acknowledges NVB and transcends it.

With SVB it is impossible “to use the theoretical and technological framework of the science of human behavior for purposes other than the good of the culture”, but with NVB “purposes other than the good of culture” form the speaker’s motives. For instance, the speaker wants the listener to listen to him or to her, but he or she is not even listening to him or herself. Thus, the dominating and intimidating NVB speaker induces negative affect in the listener with his or her aversive-sounding voice. In SVB, by contrast, the speaker’s voice is an appetitive stimulus which induces positive affect in the listener. The culture created by the NVB speaker is different from the culture created by the SVB speaker. NVB creates a sick culture, while SVB creates a healthy culture. Stated differently, we create a sustainable culture to the extent that we have SVB, but to the extent that we have NVB we create a culture which is doomed to collapse. Culture is maintained by how people talk together.

Skinner is not putting any effort in trying to “convince us otherwise.” He would be doing that if his speech was NVB, but he mainly has SVB.

In NVB we are always trying to convince someone of something, which involves a great deal of effort. In SVB, on the other hand, there is no need to convince anyone and our conversation is effortless. The reader is asked to pause for a moment and think about how often talking with someone or listening to someone requires effort. This effort signifies how often we are involved in NVB. The time when our conversations went effortlessly and when we had a taste of SVB, were accidental, haphazard, occasional, once in blue moon. We have never had SVB in a predictable, skillful, consistent and deliberate fashion.

Skinner’s way of talking is more in line with SVB than with NVB, but as stated in my previous writing, his emphasis was not on how he spoke, but on what he said. This common focus, which I call verbal fixation, usually sets the stage for NVB. Along with outward orientation (the aforementioned tendency to dominate others) and struggle (for attention), we must discriminate three basic behaviors which make SVB impossible. Our voice changes when we are inattentive to how we sound while we speak. This occurs because we try to impress others with what we say. Also, the sound of our voice changes when we try to dominate others. And, the sound of our voice changes when we argue. NVB creates a culture of hostility and distrust, but SVB creates a culture of mutuality and support. SVB sounds good, but NVB sounds terrible.

I agree with the authors, who state that “the prescriptive aspect of Skinner’s theory does not necessarily stem from the descriptive aspect.” My interpretation is that “the prescriptive aspect of Skinner’s theory” does not necessarily derive from what he has written (“the descriptive aspect”), but from what he has said. The authors seem to be reasoning from a NVB perspective when they consider the Third Reich as an evil culture. Regardless of how awful the Third Reich was, it was a culture, which survived for a certain period of time, just like any other culture. “We may even accept that survival is the only value according to which a culture will eventually be judged. However, since we are not inclined to accept any culture that survives, it is questionable whether survival should be the main value to guide cultural planning.” Skinner, in my opinion, spoke of the survival of a SVB culture. He stated that “Personal sacrifice may be a dramatic example of the conflict of interests between the group and its members, but it is the product of a bad design. Under better contingencies behavior which strengthens the culture may be highly reinforcing. (Skinner, 1969b, p. 41).”  When Chiesa states that “the philosophy and scientific practice of behaviorism do not inevitably lead to the promotion of survival as a value (…) Surely the values do not emerge from the meta-ethics” (Chiesa, 2003, p. 296, our translation),” she is also, like the authors, speaking from a NVB perspective. In the “highly reinforcing culture” Skinner was thinking about the values do arise from the meta-ethics. Of course, both the authors and Chiesa respond to the content of Skinner’s speech, but not to how he said it. As already mentioned, such fixation on the verbal, which strips Skinner’s words from their context, from how he sounded, that is, from the nonverbal experience, is characteristic for NVB.  

“In Skinner’s prescriptive ethics, we would have a well-planned culture, by means of a technology of behavior.” Such a well-planned culture has to be based on SVB and must identify and control for NVB, because only a SVB culture is “able to solve the problems which it faces and, at the same time, does not require personal sacrifice from its members, thus guaranteeing survival and happiness (e.g., Skinner, 1948/2005).” Moreover, only a NVB culture requires and demands “personal sacrifice from its members”, whereas SVB guarantees “survival and happiness.”  

Behaviorist shouldn’t promote survival of NVB, but, unfortunately, they do. In a same way parents reinforce their child’s acting out behavior by giving it attention, behaviorist continue to promote NVB, by trying change the way in which we speak about behavior. They focus on content rather than context. The how of what they say has not become  important. Although, in theory, they agree that “Happiness or well-being of individuals that make up the culture should be assured”, while speaking, that is, in practice, they still mainly produce NVB. They may aspire to “Good cultural planning” which “would not demand personal sacrifice”, but they elevate behaviorist’ jargon above engaging SVB. 

September 10, 2015

September 10, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

The following writing is my fifth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Skinner’s interest in “solving human problems with the help of behavior analysis” wouldn’t make any sense without “moral relativism.” Although his “behavioral technology is ethically neutral, because nothing in a methodology determines the values that govern its use”, he insists that “We are concerned here, however, not merely with practices, but with the design of the whole culture, and the survival of a culture then emerges as a special kind of value” (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 150, our emphasis). To contrast the emphasis added by the authors, I have underlined my emphasis. Skinner was not thinking about only one specific kind of culture, but he was deeply concerned about culture as such, as a force in the selection of human behavior. 

Since his focus was on predicting and controlling behavior, he placed  his emphasis on accurately describing --in his writing-- what happens. Although his contribution to science has been enormous, it didn’t and it couldn’t lead to discovery of the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). To make that happen scientists must remain focused on they sound while they speak. Skinner wants the same scientific treatment for every culture. If we are,  going to have a conversation in which this objectivity is expressed, we are going to have SVB, but as long as our so-called conversation is clouded and distorted by our conventional superstition, which makes us identify with our own particular culture, we are going to have NVB. 

These authors have only read what Skinner has written. That is why they write “We understand from statements such as this that Skinner argues that moral neutrality cannot, or should not, exist in the sphere of cultural planning.” In other words, they are inferring from his writing what he meant by what he said. However, a lot of what Skinner meant cannot be found in his writings. It can only be found in the sound of his voice, that is, in his gentle demeanor. There is nothing relativistic about his verbal conduct, which was exceptionally consistent. I consider most of his vocalizations as examples of SVB. I agree with the authors, who seem to feel where Skinner was coming from as he was not randomly doing something. “It does not make sense to intervene without an objective, without an idea of what is best to be done. The behavior of whoever intervenes is guided by a prediction of the intervention’s consequence.” Skinner certainly isn’t neutral about the fact that only radical behaviorism can enhance our culture, nor is he neutral about the superstitions which prevent such enhancement. Although I agree with Skinner and with the authors that “The moral relativism of a science of values is no longer in place”, I place the emphasis on how we talk, because without SVB we can’t improve our relationships.

The authors seem to be referring to SVB when they write: “Therefore, in the sphere of social intervention, there should be a special value that governs the use of technology, helping to define what is good and what is bad.” SVB is good and NVB is bad. With SVB, we are going to use our technology to enhance instead of diminish our relationships. Either we are going to do that or we don’t. If we don’t, this means that we can’t, as we keep having NVB. “The special value” has to be a new way of talking. Skinner is referring to this indirectly. “ this value is the good of culture, the survival of the culture (that would be ultimately defined by survival of humanity, because Skinner does not prescribe any type of competition between cultures), that should be above other values.” SVB happens without aversive stimulation. Unless we acknowledge the SVB/NVB distinction, we will get stuck with NVB.  We are still bogged down by NVB because this understanding and experience is lacking.

According to Ruiz and Roche (2007), “in Skinner’s naturalistic ethics, survival emerges as the ultimate value and criterion by which to assess the worth of cultures and individual cultural practices” (p. 1-2). Skinner (1971/2002) argues that this good should govern the behavior of those who are in a position to design cultural practices.” Without SVB, that is, with NVB, we are heading for self-destruction. “Those who are in the position to design cultural practices” are least likely to be open to the difference between SVB and NVB. Their position of power is acquired and maintained by NVB. The person ideally positioned to teach about SVB and NVB has to be someone who is not invested in power. This is not a saint, but someone knowledgeable and capable. Skinner was very knowledgeable, but incapable of identifying the difference between SVB and NVB. Behaviorists should be interested in the fact that we are each other’s environment. Only in SVB do we co-regulate each other, but in NVB we dis-regulate each other. As long as “naturalistic ethics” doesn’t address a different way of talking, it is only theoretical. In other words, “naturalistic ethics” only makes sense as a behavior.

We should not expect these “new cultural practices” to “occur “naturally” through “happy accidents”, but we should be deliberate about “cultural revolution.” SVB only happens if it can happen and if it can happen, it will happen. If NVB happens, this means that SVB can’t happen. Most people who are introduced to the SVB/NVB distinction are surprised to realize that only SVB is deliberate, while NVB happens on automatic pilot. NVB is an unconscious, mechanical way of talking. The “cultural planning” professed by Skinner is not going to happen as long as behaviorists themselves continue to have NVB and find no time for the necessary exploration of SVB. Skinner, however, alludes to SVB when he states that “a well-designed culture is “a set of contingencies of reinforcement under which members behave in ways which maintain the culture, enable it to meet emergencies, and change it in such a way that it will do these things even more effectively in the future” (Skinner, 1969b, p. 41). Once we practice SVB things will rapidly get better.

September 9, 2015

September 9, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my fourth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). The authors state “This science seeks to explain why each individual advocates for, claims to possess, or has the behavior governed by certain values.” How do individuals do this? They do this by talking with each other! When behaviorist, in their effort to explain and predict behavior, write about this or read about what others have written about this, they are not talking about it.  These authors write “We call these events “good”. Therefore we say that some values have phylogenic origin”, but the fact is, they haven’t said anything. Skinner was also writing about speaking, but his speaking was different from other behaviorists. His public speech became over time more and more guided by a very refined private speech and that is how he was able to practice self-management and do his discoveries.

I say this to introduce the reader to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) in which public speech includes and is guided by private speech. Let there be no mistake, private speech is, of course, a function of public speech. Therefore, the kind of private speech one acquires depends on the kind of public speech one was exposed to. It seems to me that Skinner had a lot of positive self-talk, which derived from high levels of SVB he was exposed to while growing up. Since his view of the world was shaped by these positive emotions, he was capable of maintaining and prolonging his positive experiences with his own behavior. This was particularly apparent in the way he spoke and sounded. His speech was entirely under control of radical behaviorism. This cannot be said about most of the other behaviorists. Many learned about operant conditioning by reading and studying his work, but few were able to interact with him. And, those who did cared more about what he said then how he said it.

Skinner cared deeply about what he said as well as how he said it. He had in his younger years wanted to become a writer, but his private speech guided him towards a scientific career, which was simply more reinforcing to him. His behavior was under control of “the good of others” in that he wanted to improve the world. His whole science consists of contingencies which “are established to generate behavior under control of what is reinforcing to others.” Naturally, what is “good for others” was also good for him personally. The connection between the “the personal good” and “the good for others” brought into view “the good for the culture.” How can something be good for the culture if it is not good for the person? How can something be good for others if it is not good for the individual? Of course, these values are related and must be embedded into each other to have any meaning.

“Skinner points out that feelings associated with ethical behavior do not cause the behavior. “Stimuli are reinforcing and produce conditions which are felt as good for a single reason, to be found in an evolutionary history. Even as a clue, the important thing is not the feeling, but the thing felt (Skinner, 1971/2002, p. 107).”” Only this rootedness in evolutionary history can explain the complexity and congruence of our behavior. I like to remind the reader here that “the thing felt” while we speak is how we sound. It is the sound of the speaker’s voice which induces positive or negative emotions in the listener. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) we get carried away by feelings, because we don’t pay attention to “the thing felt”, in other words, to how the speaker sounds.  We take it personal when our feelings get hurt, but this always happens when someone sounds threatening, intimidating and aggressive to us. 

During most of Skinner’s speech there is no aversive stimulation at all and what he is saying is easy to understand. Skinner is aware of the power that is involved in the control of reinforcers. He disagrees with those who have this power and who use it in a way that only benefits themselves. His science, like SVB, has the potential to change all of that. “Governments, religions, and capitalistic systems, whether public or private, control most of reinforcers of daily life, they must use them, as they have always done, for their own aggrandizement, and they have nothing to gain by relinquishing power.”  His science opens the door to a whole new way of life, but this will not be possible as long as our way of talking, which is mainly NVB, maintains this power structure. “Other social contingencies may lead us to act for the good of the culture as a whole and not just for the good of an “other,” or an “other” organized as a controlling agency (Skinner, 1971/2002).” Skinner refers to SVB, in which the speaker induces and maintains a positive affective connected experience with the listener. SVB involves “other social contingencies,” but NVB doesn’t and can’t. However, SVB doesn’t involve “the “other” as an organized group, as the controlling agencies.” SVB is only possible when the speaker and the listener are one within the speaker as the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks. When we listen to ourselves while we speak, the separation between the speaker and the listener (outside of the skin of the speaker) dissolves, because the speaker reinforces the listener and the listener reinforces the speaker.

“An important feature of Skinner’s meta-ethics is moral relativism. There is no absolute good or evil. Events acquire functions and classifications for an individual as a result of her/his phylogenic repertoire and of contingencies to which she/he is submitted along ontogenesis, particularly social contingencies.” This moral relativism is not specific to Skinner’s work. It pertains to all scientific behavior. SVB is a manner of speaking which is in synch with what we scientifically know. It works as it is the same for everyone who experiences and engages in it. This means that when the contingencies are such that it is possible, it will happen, like water evaporating at 100 degrees Celsius. The lawfulness of SVB and NVB will not be apparent as long as we remain stuck with our false belief in good and evil. It is for this very reason that we haven’t accepted the SVB/NVB distinction and keep going circles when it comes to how human beings actually interact.