September 22, 2015

September 22, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my fourth 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. The authors are limited by what their cultures has afforded them to know about “ethical self-control.” Their emphasis on “delayed positive reinforcers” indicates their culture was dominated by a way of talking, which I call Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) in which we suffer and hope to have it better later on. Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), by contrast, creates positive emotions and reinforcing interaction right away and only our current ability to practice it will determine the future likelihood that we will have it. Without today’s practice it is not going to happen in the future and it never happened in our imaginary future, because there was no practice in which we could have learned it. The authors write “In some instances of ethical self-controlled behavior, the individual will not make contact with the consequences that benefits the culture. This may result from the fact that it is not his/her generation that will be there when the consequence is delivered. This poses the need to discuss further contingencies that play a role in promoting such repertoires.” I don’t think this only happens “in some instances”, I think it happens all the time. Hoping for a better future has not and could not result in the promotion of the repertoire called SVB. It perpetuated the cycles of violence brought forth by NVB, from which mankind has yet to emancipate. That entire generations weren’t able to  experience the positive consequences of their actions is deeply troubling and inhuman.  

Of course, the aforementioned is a rather exaggerated and bleak picture, which doesn’t accurately depict what is really happening. No matter how vicious the struggle for survival may be, there are always positive immediate reinforcers, which make people wait, hope, pray, and, experience some instances of SVB, which stimulate them to find ways in which they can make their lives better. Wars had to be fought, but must ultimately be prevented. They couldn’t be prevented as long as scientist had not yet analyzed the way in which we talk. As long as we didn’t understand illnesses, there was no medical cure and as long as we believe in false explanations about our interactions we cannot prevent conflict. The SVB/NVB distinction pertains to every culture.

There are cultures which have higher rates of SVB than others. Stated differently; there are more violent and more peaceful cultures. The relative peacefulness of a society is determined by the rates of SVB among its people.  Although this level of analysis is easily understood by people from different cultures, nobody has addressed it, as it puts into question all we have believed in up until now.  The fact that millions have died in vain, that there was nothing to benefit from for the next generation and that our struggles were utterly meaningless, entrenches us deeper into NVB. Here the link between NVB and psycho-pathology becomes apparent. Those who are presumably mentally ill are always  convinced about their way of viewing the world. “Most probably, the process undergoing such phenomena involves more than the role played by the culture’s beneficial consequence (perhaps, members of the culture may punish non-ethical behavior).” Indeed, those who have experienced SVB, who yearn for it, are “punished” and are branded as “non-ethical”, while those within the culture, who reach the position of authority from which they can define what is ethical and punish those who, according to them, are non-ethical, keep the hierarchical NVB going. “It should be noted that it is not a culture behaving in benefit of another culture, but a generation behaving in ways that benefit the same culture’s subsequent generations. This remains a topic to be further developed in cultural behavior analysis.” Such analysis depends on SVB.

The authors state “One person who impulsively behaves selfishly would hardly produce a social problem such as environmental destruction or overpopulation.” However, one person can change the conversation from SVB to NVB. One person can make SVB impossible. One person can produce a tremendous social problem or one person can be the initiator of SVB. One person’s way of talking can spoil the atmosphere for others or one person can positively enhance others by how he or she speaks. If we keep thinking about social problems in terms of the functioning of groups, this does not and cannot result in changing the behavior of individuals. I disagree with the idea that “a social problem appears when a large number of individuals frequently engage in practices that have deleterious effects on many members of a culture.”

A social problem has already appeared even when only just one person “frequently” engages “in practices that have deleterious effects on many members of the culture.” The reason we don’t recognize this is because the authors, but also the readers, are conditioned by and used to NVB. One person can positively determine the fate of many others if he or she knows about the SVB/NVB distinction. Such a person is able to analyze events differently than everyone who is still stuck with and entrenched by NVB. Those who are unaware of this distinction remain fearful, stressed, upset and defensive. Even if they are positive, they worry about that, as they never knew about the SVB/NVB distinction.  Although they may have been praised, promoted and have achieved positions from where they could influence others, they were never supported in listening to themselves while they speak and thus the understanding of SVB was missing. The authors probably disagree with me, but it doesn’t make any difference to me. I still think that what I not only write, but also say, is true. I challenge these authors to have a conversation, not an argument, with me in which we can verify what I am referring to. At a leadership seminar I met someone who apologized to me for using foul language, but I explained to her that she uses such language only because people are threatening her and she can feel this.  She broke out in tears as I acknowledged what she had been up against.

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.