September 21, 2015

September 21, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my third response to “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. Although in yesterday’s writing I mentioned the auditory illusion, on which I shall write some more later, my writing remains under control of the reading of this paper. The authors wrote “however, it should be noted that whenever a person’s behavior produces long-term consequences to many members of the culture, we are talking about ethical self-control. As in individual self-control situations, the delayed effect is central to the definition.” This criterion, “the delayed effect is central to the definition” indicates that the authors have an inadequate understanding of the verbal behavior, that is, the public and the private speech, which has to be involved in the conditioning and the maintenance of “ethical self-control.”

The centrality of delayed effects is a consequence of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), by contrast, the listener is aware of the immediate effects of the speaker on him or herself. Without this immediate effect there cannot be any “ethical self-control” in the future. The absence of “ethical self-control” is a consequence of our NVB way of talking in which the benefits are believed to occur later. There can and will only be benefits of “ethical self-control” later, if there are benefits of “ethical self-control” now. In other words, immediate consequences of “ethical self-control” are the necessary condition for “ethical self-control” to be possible later on.  Postponement of happiness in favor of a belief in some future benefit has befooled mankind for a long time. The auditory illusion, called “ethical self-control” has remained only wishful thinking, but it has been proven again and again that immediate consequences drive behavior. Only SVB has immediate positive consequences on the listener. 

“In ethical self-control, the adjective ethical describes any behavior that benefits the culture, i.e., produces delayed positive reinforcers (or removes/avoids aversive stimuli) for many members of the culture, in current or subsequent generations.” This clarification shows the authors are not paying attention to how things are said. They are eager to define the word ethical. This verbal focus obfuscates the nonverbal auditory illusion. Reinforcers are always delayed only in NVB, which makes people hope and work for a better future, which often never materializes. In SVB, on the other hand, there are immediate and long-term reinforcing consequences. The long-term benefits of SVB are embedded in and made possible by immediate benefits.  Developmentally and throughout the lifespan nonverbal shaping result into verbal behavior (“ethical self-control”). 

The authors link “ethical self-control” with the person who is benefitted from this behavior. As is common with those who are determined by NVB, the person who is benefitted from ethical behavior is someone other than the ethically behaving person. In NVB the speaker focuses on the other, on the listener, on someone else than the speaker him or herself and not, as Skinner has called it, on the speaker-as-own-listener. In SVB, however, it is the speaker-as-own-listener who practices the “ethical self-control.” In SVB the speaker experiences immediate reinforcement and this will set the stage for reinforcement in the future. This different way of speaking which makes reinforcement in the future possible has yet to be more accurately described. “Therefore, we do not use ethical to characterize values or patterns of behavior that are reinforced in a culture as adequate or good behavior (for this, see Skinner, 1953/1965). Thus, the term here does not imply a judgment of value on behavior, but rather identifies the beneficiary of the behavior.” To the extent that the speaker experiences immediate reinforcing effects as his or her own listener, the listener who is not the speaker will be benefitted by the “ethical self-control” of this speaker.

After I was done teaching my class, one of the students stayed behind to ask a question. She was very serious. She wanted to know about her identity, her true self and wondered how this ties in with SVB. She was thinking out loud, she listened to herself while she spoke and she answered her own question. By exploring SVB, she concluded there is no self, but only an ongoing flux of stimulation. She was delighted and relieved to recognize that she is never the same and acknowledged that our usual way of talking,  doesn’t permit this. Moreover, she discovered that people like her would have to talk more often to be able to hear themselves, while others would have to talk less in order to have SVB. I confirmed her discovery by smiling and by nodding and she went on to say that SVB completely changes who she believes herself to be. She also recognized that, in SVB, her way of thinking about herself was determined by how she talked and not, as she used to think, in NVB, the other way around. 

As this example of the workings of SVB makes clear, the term “ethical self-control”, which these authors are trying to define “does not imply a judgment of value on behavior, but rather identifies the beneficiary of the behavior,” that is, in SVB, the speaker identifies him or herself as his or her own listener. The listener in the same skin as the speaker is benefitted from SVB. The speaker-as-own-listener is simultaneously a subjectively experienced and objectively experienced phenomenon. By nodding and by smiling, I was able to non-verbally affirm what she was saying to herself and to me verbally and non-verbally.  Nobody cares about “delayed positive reinforcers” in the future if there is SVB, but in NVB, we are stressing, fighting and arguing for something which never comes. Supposedly, in NVB we will have things our way in the future, but the fact is that we never do. NVB is an auditory illusion, in which we, in order to make others believe in us, try very hard to believe in ourselves. In SVB, the often talked about belief in ourselves is not a point of discussion at all. As long as we keep acting the way in which we talk, we don’t and can't speak with our natural sound, which expresses our well-being. I engineer a new culture by introducing people to SVB. If we are going to experience well-being while we talk, we are developing the repertoire we need to be able to have SVB in the future.

September 20, 2015

September 20, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my second response to “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. These authors use Rachlin’s ridiculous example of “ethical self-control” of a person’s ability to follow “a diet free of sugars and fat.” How does that have anything to do with “ethical self-control?” Supposedly, giving in to one’s urge for instant gratification is more reinforcing than “delayed effect of better health.” This nonverbal version of failure of “ethical self-control” leaves out completely that the person who mainly eats sugars and fat is constantly experiencing out of control private speech. 

Unhealthy food consumption is not an unconscious act, but a behavior that is mediated by a person’s private speech, which is bound to be negative if this person has been primarily exposed to NVB. The antidote for this unhealthy behavior is SVB due to which the person accumulates positive self-talk. The behavioral momentum of SVB private speech is proportional to our exposure to and involvement in SVB public speech.   Teaching such a person healthy food habits is not going to cut it and dieticians can attest to the total failure of such educational attempts.  “Self-controlled responses”, that “would have the delayed effect of better health and lowered risk of obesity-related illnesses or heart problems throughout life (see Rachlin, 2000)”, deal only with one person, who is having these problems, but who are and more importantly, how were they talking with? Obviously, this person is not listening to him or herself and is trapped by his or her  NVB. 

Rachlin’s absurd emphasis on larger, better quality reinforcing consequences, which are delayed, depicts an isolated and lonely human being. Apparently, he is familiar with this “delayed effect.” He seems to taking pride, like others who believe that suffering has meaning, in the fact that “self-control” can only be truly considered “self-control” if the struggling person can withstand the torment of the “delayed effect.” This is outdated, aversive, deprivation crap, which behaviorists ought to steer away from. Reiterating coercive behavioral control is a dead end. Besides, how in the world does this have anything to do with ethics?

That question is definitely not answered by his statement that “When these self-controlled responses produce delayed consequences that are favorable to the culture, we can refer them as ethical self-control.” The individual who supposedly sacrifices satisfying his or her urges for the greater good is presumably having “ethical self-control.” What blatant nonsense is that? How is this imaginary goal achieved? Can it even be achieved? What happened to shaping behavior every step of the way? Rachlin abandons behaviorism in favor of “altruism”, an explanatory fiction, but the authors don’t see any problem, because Skinner had “described it as ethical self-management.” However, Skinner’s “ethical self-management”, unlike Rachlin’s unreal “ethical self-control,” is pragmatic. Skinner insisted one can only control oneself by controlling one’s environment. Therefore one essentially has to learn how to reinforce oneself. Thus, without calling it that Skinner talked about SVB, because in SVB the speaker is reinforcing him or herself with his or her own sound. The speaker who listens to him or herself while he or she speaks joins his or her speaking and listening behaviors and produces a sound which is uniquely reinforcing to him or to her.  The central role for the “delayed effect” of “individual self-control” derives from NVB.

In the class I teach we talked about visual illusions, perceptions of things that don’t correspond to reality. People see something when the reality is quite different. For instance, two equally long lines appear to have different lengths due to inward or outward facing fins. Also, an artist may draw an abyss on the pavement, which looks so real that people don’t walk over it, because they fear to fall into it. Such images are used by skillful artists to create a visual effect. Likewise, there is also an auditory illusion in which the sound of someone’s voice induces and emotion, such as anger, fear, sadness or excitement. An example of this is a preacher, who, by modulating the sound of his voice affects the mood of his parish. However, such a fabricated, projected voice is not conducive to SVB. To the contrary, such a dramatizing voice creates and maintains NVB. Such was the voice of Martin Luther King. Few seem to realize his dream was merely an auditory illusion, that is, a conditioning process, which has been going on in black churches for a long time. With all respect for what King was trying to do, his way of talking could not and did not bring us closer to SVB. In NVB, speakers predetermine what they say by how they say it. In other words, regardless of whether the speaker speaks about peace or war, he or she uses his or her voice, that is, a nonverbal technique, to bring his or her message across. Thus, the listener is affected by the emotions, which are induced by the speaker’s voice. Regardless of whether the speaker induces positive or negative emotions, these emotions are not conducive to SVB, because they are auditory illusions, not real. We are crying or laughing when  someone is acting, but acting is not the same having a genuine conversation. We have not yet made the distinction between acting as if we are having a real conversation and having a real conversation. Yet, this difference between NVB and SVB is of tremendous importance.             

September 19, 2015

September 19, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writing is my first response to the paper “Establishing the Macrobehavior of Ethical Self-Control in Arrangement of Macro Contingencies in Two Macro Cultures” (2014) by Aécio Borba, Emmanuel Zagury Tourinho and Sigrid S. Glenn. I will use the writings of these authors to point out my distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Although this distinction is not yet acknowledged by most behaviorists, we will soon realize that this distinction is of tremendous importance for survival of the culture. The authors, in line with Skinner, write about “ways in which behavioral science could intervene in culture by arranging behavioral contingencies in order to solve problems” (see Skinner, 1982/1987). I claim that SVB, like nothing else will put our attention on the arrangement of behavioral contingencies which will not only solve, but also prevent our problems. Moreover, discrimination of SVB and NVB will make us at long last recognize the contingencies which cause and maintain our problems. In other words, SVB will prevent us from creating or contributing to NVB contingencies. SVB eventually will extinguish NVB. This process urgently needs to be speeded up. 

“Many of the problems noted by Skinner (1971/2002, 1982/1987) can be described as problems of ethical self-control (see Borba, Silva, Cabral, Souza, Leite & Tourinho, 2014; Tourinho, Borba, Vichi, & L

eite, 2011; Tourinho & Vichi, 2012).” I think this description isn’t very helpful. I strongly believe that it is much more pragmatic to describe our problems as communication problems. “Ethical self-control” then is part of our private speech, which, of course, if a function of public speech. Stated differently, covert self-talk is caused by overt speech. Problems with “ethical self-control” must be considered as a failure of public speech (NVB), and must be corrected by public speech (SVB).   

     

“Rachlin (1974, 2000) defined self-control as the response, within a

choice situation, that produces reinforcers of greater magnitude but with a longer delay. The self-control response is an alternative to impulsive responses, which produce more immediate reinforcers of lesser magnitude.” Jumping on the popular,mentalistic, freedom-choice bandwagon isn’t pragmatic either, as it obfuscates where the rubber hits the road, namely in conversation. The idea of choice makes us think of one individual, but verbal behavior takes two to tango. Besides, the reinforcers are delivered by others, who mediate our verbal response. Mankind is still trapped by NVB, as we all want instant gratification and don’t care about delayed consequences.

Our choices are a byproduct of how we talk, but SVB, paradoxically, is the way of talking that “produces reinforcers of greater magnitude”, but without delay, instantaneously. As the speaker in SVB induces of positive affective experiences in the listener, he or she immediately reinforces, that is, regulates the speaker. Moreover, since the listener in SVB can become the speaker and since the speaker can become the listener, since each speaker in SVB is also his or her own listener,  since each speaker in SVB listens while he or she speaks, since speaking and listening are joined in SVB, the speaker and the listener co-regulate each other in a bi-directional manner due to turn-taking. The exact opposite happens in NVB, in which the speaker induces a negative affective experience in the listener. In NVB the speaker dis-regulates the listener with a uni-directional, hierarchical way of talking.

There is no turn-taking in NVB, nor is the NVB speaker listening to him or herself while he or she speaks. To the contrary, the NVB speaker coerces the listener to listen to him or to her. Thus, the NVB speaker wants others to listen to him or her, but he or she is not listening to him or herself. Consequently, in NVB the emphasis of the so-called conversation is always on listening to others. However, this NVB other-listing excludes self-listening, but in SVB self-listening includes other-listening. In SVB other-listening is made possible due to self-listening. I refer to what Skinner called the speaker-as-own-listener.

It is only when speaking and listening are joined that the speaker is also his or her own listener. As long as speaking and listening happen at a different rate, they are not joined and one is happening at a higher rate of responding than the other. The speech which results from the fact that we listen more than that we speak or speak more than that we listen is deeply problematic and is causing psycho-pathology. I call such speech NVB. NVB causes negative self-talk, but SVB causes positive self-talk. Because of its immediate positive effects, SVB bridges the gap between short-and long-term consequences. Stated differently, physical changes to the body of the speaker will produce a different way of perceiving the environment outside of the speaker’s skin. In other words, “reinforcers of greater magnitude” become accumulatively available to us and as we become better at recognizing NVB, that is, by better understanding the contingency which doesn’t reinforce us, which needs to be avoided, we are less in need of reinforcement from others, as we, like to play our flute and are automatically reinforcing ourselves. The contingency that makes SVB possible is created and maintained by the speaker, who develops the behavioral cusp to listen to him or herself while he or she speaks.

The “impulsive responses” Rachlin refers to results from NVB, but the “self-control”, on the other hand, can only be achieved by SVB. Only to the extent that we have experienced instances of SVB will we be able to have self-control, that is, our private speech will only have a regulating effect on our public speech if it is positive self-talk. Negative private speech, a product of NVB public speech, has a dis-regulating effect on our public speech. It doesn’t matter whether we as speakers are capable of acknowledging this or not, as others, the listeners will always experience our NVB forcefulness. And, even if the listener has been conditioned to accept our NVB, which is a form of abuse, if he or she is no longer in the aversive contingency created by the NVB speaker, he or she will realize that he or she was negatively affected by a previous environment, that is, by an energy-draining speaker. Such speakers condition impatience, anxiety and stress in the listener. “Reinforcers of greater magnitude” are a cheap sales-pitch, which we are sold on and buy into. If we had more SVB this would not occur. SVB dissolves our interest in these imaginary future events, which supposedly will bring us “reinforcers of greater magnitude.” The SVB instances in our verbal episodes will increase due to each small step.

September 18, 2015

September 18, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The following writing is my thirteenth response to “Some Relations Between Culture, Ethics and Technology in B.F. Skinner” by Melo, Castro & de Rose (2015). Skinner tentatively states that “An educated man is perhaps better able to adapt himself to his environment or adjust to the social life of his group, and a culture which emphasizes education is probably more likely to survive. . .” Behaviorist education without Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) is not going to cut it. If survival of the culture is the goal, SVB is a must. However, he didn’t and couldn’t have formulated it, because there was no empirical evidence to back it up. I have given hundreds of seminars in which SVB was achieved by all the participants. In each seminar the participants from all walks of life agreed when someone was having SVB or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). In spite of our conditioning, we can still recognize our SVB by listening to ourselves while we speak. This allows us to join speaking and listening behavior, which in NVB happen at a different rate.

“According to Skinner (1968), the behavior of the entire system

influences educational policy.” The “entire system” is maintained by NVB. The “global and local problems” different cultures have yet to face can be summarized as the ubiquity of NVB. The “cultural practices to solve these problems” must be defined as forms of SVB. “Techniques that promote development of SVB” are simple, easily obtainable and without any costs. SVB has to be understood as the new way of talking in which we co-regulate instead of dis-regulate each other. “Skinner (1953/1965) claimed that science can accelerate the practice of changing practices. He asserted that science can make remote consequences of behavior effective. He, as well as many behavior analysts, stressed the urgent need that science and technology speed up the design of practices with positive survival value.” Did it happen?

It didn’t and couldn’t happen as neither Skinner, nor other behaviorists proposed we should aim to change the way in which we talk. Our high rate of NVB and our low rates of SVB prevents the “practice of changing practices.” Stated squarely, NVB is a coarse-grained behavior, which simply lacks the precision that is needed to be specific and scientific.

Denying “the ontological distinction between values and facts” is great in theory, but unless we adhere to this while we interact with each other, it will not become part of our reality. It has not become part of our relationships as we didn’t yet address the importance of how we talk with each other. We keep addressing what we say, but how we talk with each other determines whether what we say makes any sense. In NVB our senses are not stimulated in the same way as in SVB. When we know about the SVB/NVB we will agree that NVB made us senseless.

“The main value prescribed by Skinner is the good of the culture, that

should be in balance with the welfare of individuals in a well-designed culture.” But, how do we talk with each other in such a culture? It can’t be our usual way of talking. Our way of talking needs to change if any of this is to become reality. Not a word about that in this paper. It appears as if this balance is going to come about just by itself. “As Richelle (1993/2003) points out, “Individual happiness converges here with the future of the species: education, as concerned with the future of society, should aim at preserving diversity, which is recognized as an essential factor in survival, in a Darwinian sense” (p. 175). Emphasis on education is in the right direction, but is not addressing the talking that is needed to teach this. In my talks with behaviorists, I have found they are not tolerant of diversity. Their NVB focus is only on what they say and how they say it doesn’t seem to matter. In this way behaviorists are just like everyone else. Those knowledgeable about the science of human behavior should be leading the way, as Skinner did, with SVB.   

If there is anything important people who don’t have developmental disabilities should learn from “the education and treatment of children with developmental disabilities” it is that such education requires a different way of speaking than the way of speaking we are all familiar with. What works for the developmentally disabled also works for us.

“It is doubtful, however, that behavioral technology has developed sufficiently enough to support the design of a whole society, as advocated by Skinner, especially in his early works.” I agree and I feel like the authors that this reference to Skinner’s earlier works holds the key. Although “whole schools have been designed based on behavioral technology, with promising results”, such experiments simply aren’t comprehensive enough to the much-needed “designing the education of a whole culture.” A topic of broader reach needs to be addressed.

The authors reason that “applying a behavioral technology to a whole society would still raise the questions of who would set the goals, who would make decisions, and how?” This question will be answered by SVB. I hope I am able to talk with them. If people have the choice between SVB and NVB, they will choose SVB all the time. Currently, they have no choice as nobody has ever pointed out the SVB/NVB distinction. The behavioral technology will only be working to “make individuals free” if it is taught with SVB, but as long as it is taught with NVB it will only “benefit those in charge of controlling agencies.”

Let’s make no mistake, the NVB speaker only uses the listener as a means to his or her ends. A NVB speaker is not the least interested in bi-directional communication with the listener, which dissolves the hierarchical relationships which are phylogenetically determined. Only a SVB speaker is fully verbal because he or she invites the listener to speak and allows him or her to listen to him or herself. SVB behavioral technology “is not devoid of values.” SVB is “not ethically neutral” as it is always against NVB. Within every culture there is a battle between SVB and NVB. In every culture there is more NVB than SVB. The reason this is so is because we don’t know how to have more SVB. If we have a choice, we would choose SVB, but we don’t yet have that choice. That choice will only be ours if we become more familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction. This writing cannot make us familiar with that distinction. No writings or readings could have affected the way in which we talk with each other, because talking and listening behavior is maintained by other independent variables than reading and writing behavior.