October 15, 2015

October 15, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

I have read “Operant Variability and the Power of Reinforcement” (2009) by Neuringer. The author presents research about reinforcing behavioral variability. In the case of a person with ADHD there is too much behavioral variability, while in the case of someone with autism there is too little. Therefore, the former will be helped by contingencies which decrease behavioral variability, but the latter is benefitted by contingencies which increase behavioral variability. I find myself on the ADHD side of the spectrum and I am benefitted from consistent direct reinforcement, which, according to the literature decreases behavior variability.  However, inconsistent reinforcement and uncertainty about reinforcement again increases behavioral variability and exacerbates ADHD-like phenomena. 

This is what I seem to be experiencing in one of my classes in which students reinforce me at lower rates than in my other three classes. My nervousness in that class and my behavioral variability appear to go hand in hand. Students in that class respond much less than students in my other three classes. They can be viewed as being on the autistic side of the spectrum. I am going to increase their behavioral variability by reinforcing it and by decreasing my own behavior variability.  I was trying all sorts of things, but it didn’t work so well. I think I should be doing less so that they are stimulated to do more. I am happy I read this as it makes clear to me what is happening. This writing also decreases my behavioral variability. I think that my Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) also increases my behavioral variability, while my Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) decreases it. 

I have never looked at NVB from this positive perspective. NVB, by decreasing my own behavioral variability, makes my life easier, while SVB, by increasing behavioral variability, makes life more complicated. The more bored I am, the better my life seems to get. I haven’t had sex for two months. It is relatively new to me, not to masturbate, but, surprisingly, I don’t seem that strong of an urge for it. Yet, I am feeling intimate with my wife and it doesn’t feel as if I am missing anything. To the contrary, a sense of restlessness has settled. My high behavioral variability has to do with my sexuality. I notice a calming down about things which used to upset me. They are now memories from the past and these bad memories are far removed from how I live my life today.  

I want to write about how writing decreases my behavioral variability. It really calms me down and that is why it is so reinforcing. It is a form of hygiene, to write something every day. I have gotten used to writing about three pages a day. I don’t worry at all about what I write. When I respond to a paper, the things I write about SVB and NVB pop up. This discovery that I like, and perhaps even need, a certain amount of NVB, so that I don’t go overboard with my creativity and philosophizing, is something I want to further explore. I still think, however, that the increase of behavioral variability by SVB, is quite a different matter than the increase of behavioral variability that is caused by NVB. I think that ADHD symptoms are primarily a consequence of NVB, but not of SVB. Likewise, I also claim that autism symptoms are a consequence of NVB and not of SVB. My attraction to SVB is because it makes consistent reinforcement available.

The autistic is attracted to SVB as it increases behavioral variability so that there will be more opportunity for reinforcement. SVB stimulates less speech and calmness in those who say too much and more speech in those who don’t speak or say too little. The manic bipolar patient can calm down with SVB, while the depressed patient perks up and comes out of his or her hole or rut. The maintenance of bipolar and depressive symptoms is based on the high rate of NVB in the client’s verbal repertoire. Movement to the middle and melioration of various pathological conditions is possible as our speaking and listening behavior happen at the exact same rate in SVB. 

Each person, depending on his or her behavioral history has a different experience of coming to SVB. The different psycho-pathologies emerging from NVB are also of course due to different ontogenetic and phylogenetic behavioral histories. It is because are used to looking at our maladaptive behaviors through the lens of NVB that we cannot consider these behaviors as adaptations. Only with SVB can these behaviors be reliably reduced and eventually extinguished. The behavioral variability that is made available by SVB sets the stage for recovery from the many problems created by NVB. 

I want to end today’s writing by reflecting on the fact that writing limits my behavioral variability and makes my behavior more effective. It feels good to have written something that makes sense to me. I am reminded how I discovered SVB by speaking out loud and by listening to myself. At that time, it felt so good to listen to myself, but now I find more comfort in writing and reading what I have written. Soon I am going to make this writing available to others, but for now I am keeping it to myself. It is a feeling of freedom that I feel of not being in hurry to share it. This is another behavior that is slowly becoming more prominent in my repertoire:  self-management. It involves planning, thinking things through, writing things out, weighing the pros and cons and getting a better understanding of what is best for others. What is best for others, their successes, their interests and their joys is what reinforces me.

October 14, 2015

October 14, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my eighteenth and final response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The reader may think that it is ridiculous to write a lengthy response like this as the authors of this paper are clearly only interested in “the relation between behavior analysis and neuroscience, particularly with respect to the interpretation of behavior by means of neural networks.” I don’t claim to have the kind of knowledge these authors have, but their writing stimulated me to make my point and I am grateful for their work. Although Skinner was in favor of “building bridges with neuroscience” neither behavioral analysis nor the neuroscience at his time “was on sufficient firm footing to sustain the effort.” A lot has happened. The time is ripe for dialogue.

Since he was having more SVB than these authors, Skinner was more aware of the problems created by language. Although the authors believe “both sciences have matured to the point that such an effort benefits the progress of each”, they haven’t become familiar with the Sound Verbal Behavior SVB/Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction. “Skinner’s admonition to seek that level of analysis which most parsimoniously reveals orderly functional relations applies with the same force to neuroscience as to behavior analysis (Skinner, 1950)”. However, they are not concerned with their own vocal verbal behavior. Even Skinner couldn’t come up with the SVB/NVB level of analysis as he didn’t to explore spoken communication as a behavior in its own right. In SVB the communicators explore spoken communication while they speak. As few behaviorists as non-behaviorists have the behavioral history to be able to acknowledge the tremendous relevance of this distinction. There is nothing to mourn about and realizing this simple fact has been an enormous relief to me as I don’t waste any time anymore with fruitless efforts. SVB doesn’t depend on these authors.    

Like many other behaviorists, they are begging to be acknowledged. “It is our belief that most agree with at least the promise of an integration of behavior analysis and neuroscience.” Only SVB will make it happen.

By remaining ignorant about the SVB/NVB distinction these authors and the behaviorist community at large have remained busy reinventing the wheel. Someone who knows about SVB would never write “The task of providing an integrated account of environment–behavior relations is at a very early stage of development, and requires the concerted efforts of many if its promise is to be fulfilled.” These authors got it all wrong. SVB is at an advanced stage of development, but these authors, as well as many others, have not taken any note of it as they were more interested in and determined by written than by spoken words. This bias is obviously a big problem as it didn’t stimulate more interaction.

Like Skinner, who single-handedly paved the way for an “integrated account of environment-behavior relations”, I too have developed my own account of SVB, which can and should be experienced, measured and replicated. I don’t need these authors or anyone else’s approval for SVB to be true. Moreover, I think it is silly to believe that an “integrated account of environment-behavior relation” is possible without paying closer attention to how we actually talk with each other, which, of course, in turn, determines how we talk with ourselves. For the most part, we don’t really talk and thus, when we talk, we mainly have NVB, the pretention of communication. We have so much NVB as we only know how to have NVB, but we don’t know how to have SVB. If we knew how to have SVB, we would have it. As long as we don’t realize the distinction between SVB and NVB we can’t ‘choose’ to have SVB. 

The ‘choice’ between fresh fruit and rotten fruit is very clear, but the ‘choice’ between fresh SVB and rotten NVB is not clear to us at all. We ‘choose’ NVB as we don’t realize it is making us sick. If we knew that we would ‘choose’ SVB which makes us happy and healthy. Another point to be made is: we don’t have the skill to have SVB. We can’t just have it, but we must first acquire the skill to have it. The autistic is not all of a sudden miraculously going to speak while his or her environment is simply not stimulating him or her. Likewise, we are not going to be able to have SVB unless our environment stimulates it. Behaviorists should acknowledge they too create and maintain environments which mainly give rise to NVB. Behaviorists are only successful in teaching language skills to autistic children to the extent that they capable of achieving and enhancing more instances of SVB. In SVB the listener experiences the speaker as someone who is making him or her feel good, that is, the speaker doesn’t aversively stimulate the listener. Moreover, it is clear in treatment of autism that the speaker stimulates the listener to become the speaker. This is the very essence of SVB. If the speaker doesn’t or doesn’t know how to stimulate the listener to become a speaker, this will separate the speaker from the listener. In this way, autism can be viewed as caused by the separation of the speaker from the listener.

The so-called conversation which occurs when the speaker is separated from the listener is NVB. Thus, NVB creates and maintains autism and many other pathological behaviors. The book Learning and Complex Behaviors (1994) doesn’t say anything about this important matter, which is the elephant in the room of human relationship. I choose to write the way I do as it allows me to report on my experience of verbal behavior directly. With these written words, I don’t claim to be able to stimulate SVB. To the contrary, I argue that we must talk in order to be able to have SVB. I can only stimulate SVB in the reader if I can talk with the reader. Very few behaviorists have been willing to talk with me, but those who did have all acknowledged the SVB/NVB distinction. I have said so in the past and I will repeat it again that my discovery of the SVB/NVB distinction ought to be rewarded with a Ph.D. in behaviorism. My construct is as “tightly constrained as one might wish.” It cuts through all the bullshit, which remains hidden due to our NVB and its partner in crime: written language. SVB is revolutionary as it allows us to experience what human interaction really is. I salute these authors who have stimulated me to write this response. It is unlikely I will talk with them and I am okay with that. I have written what I wanted to say.

October 13, 2015

October 13, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writing is my seventeenth response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The following statement explains that even Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) public speech can reinforce Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) private speech, which, once said out loud, becomes SVB public speech. Although NVB communicators punish those with SVB, this can strengthen SVB communicators to create the circumstances which will permit SVB. 

The “interpretation of punishment provided by the unified reinforcement principle predicts that aversive stimuli should be able to function as reinforcers under some circumstances: If the operant that precedes the aversive stimulus is topographically similar to the responses elicited by the aversive stimulus, then the aversive stimulus should strengthen the operant.” The NVB speaker’s voice is “topographically similar to the response” that is “elicited” in the listener. Mostly, NVB public speech will elicit NVB overt speech in the listener if he or she speaker, but, it will also elicit covert speech. To the extent that the listener has had a history of SVB public speech, he or she will have SVB covert speech which will compete with the NVB private speech that is elicited by the speaker’s NVB public speech.

Also the SVB speaker can be experienced as punishing by the listener with strong a NVB history and strengthen this behavior in him or her as a speaker. The listener then experiences NVB private speech that overrules the SVB private speech elicited by the SVB public speech. If the speaker can express his or her NVB, he or she will make the SVB of the speaker impossible, but if prevented, he or she will be affected by the SVB public speech and accumulate more SVB private speech, which will then begin to counteract his or her NVB private speech. I have very often experienced this phenomenon and have been puzzled about it.

Most people who came to my seminars were attracted to it in the first place due to their behavioral history of high rates of SVB. In psychology class, however, I work with a more diverse population: there are those students who have behavioral histories with high rates of NVB and there are those who have high rates of SVB. I am no longer interested in giving one-time-event seminars as I found teaching more rewarding. It is also much more challenging, but this keeps me on my toes. I can only keep the attention of the class by creating as much room for this variability to be expressed and acknowledged. By patiently explaining the SVB/NVB distinction again and again, my students are shaped into having more SVB and less NVB. The rule is that NVB, like cussing, is simply not allowed in my class. Although those with a strong NVB history will once in a while say disturbing things, this happens less and less as the semester proceeds as it is discriminated that this is NVB. Moreover, the punishment of those with more NVB history by those who have more SVB history is very mild and therefore more effective as even the most aggressive, closed, defensive and dominating students are becoming gradually becoming more mellow, friendly and social.

With the sound of our voice, human beings signal, like primates, when it is safe to affiliate. By engaging in SVB they begin to discriminate the possibility of “internal reinforcement.” NVB is not internally reinforced and demands a constant external approval. In NVB, the speaker forces the listener to listen to him or to her and the listener feels coerced to listen to the speaker. Since the attention of both the speaker and the listener is on ‘the other’, NVB is based on our outward, ‘other-directed’ attention. Stated differently, NVB excludes expression of the speaker-as-own-listener, while SVB is based on it. “The availability of more extensive circuitry for mediating internal reinforcement would reduce the difference between the rate of acquisition of CRs and Rs and, in so doing, enable aversive stimuli to more readily function as reinforcers for some operants.” We have not merely evolved to have language, but we have also evolved to be able to punish NVB and to attain SVB.

Our “vulnerability to the temptations of aversive stimuli” is created by our growing up in a verbal community that punishes behaviors of those who don’t adhere to the existing hierarchy. Some time ago, European kings and queens ruled by divine right, but this dominance changed and the king of the Netherlands is now only a representative of his country. Our “vulnerability to the temptations of aversive stimuli” may make us decide that we should only punish NVB and reinforce SVB, in the same way that English people only reinforce spoken and written English language in their verbal community. As humans developed language, verbal behavior was selected and reinforced while the primitive non-verbal behavior was punished. “The greater demands placed on the internal reinforcement mechanism by the need to modify the connectivity of the larger, more deeply layered brains of primates (including ourselves) may have exacted a price—vulnerability to the temptations of aversive stimuli.” Is “vulnerability” why we have mental disorders as we are tormented by the inability to reinforce ourselves?

The worst part of NVB public speech is that it becomes NVB private speech, in which people constantly punish themselves as their covert speech is replete with “aversive stimuli”. While punishment was done by others, things were straightforward: You got your head chopped off, you were tortured, executed or imprisoned, you were hit or you were shamed publicly if you misbehaved, but how do we find out that we do this to ourselves in NVB? If we can’t our NVB causes psychopathology. During NVB we are unable to “modify the connectivity of the larger, more deeply layered brains.” Indeed, all we are doing is making things worse. For a long time, using brutal force was adaptive, but that is no longer the case. Survival of modern men depends on the ability to become more refined. This requires us to become knowledgeable about how these “internal mechanism of reinforcement” actually work. To discriminate the workings of the modification of our “deeply layered brains”, we need to be able to make our unconscious private speech overt, so that we can hear it and become conscious about it.  

October 12, 2015

October 12, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This writing is my sixteenth response to “The Unit of Selection: What Do Reinforcers Reinforce?” by J.W. Donahoe, D.C. Palmer and J.E. Burgos (1997). The reader should know that I only review this paper to explain the importance of the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction. The link between behaviorism and neuroscience was never a concern of Skinner, who was not going to wait for neuroscience to explain what behavior really is. Moreover, he was very clear about the fact that neuroscience and behaviorism are two separate subject matters and didn’t consider it the behaviorist’s duty to bring them together in a third discipline. The authors, however, are trying to create this link, but they are not successful as they don’t have any knowledge about the SVB/NVB distinction. There hasn’t been, isn’t going to be and cannot be an adequate conversation between the disciplines as long as NVB isn’t analyzed first and changed into SVB.  

No amount of neuroscience can educate us about the fact that NVB is a response to a stimulus, that is, how we speak with others is determined by how others have spoken with us. The voice of the speaker induces positive or negative affect in the listener, who, as speaker will express SVB or NVB. I agree with Skinner and these authors that consequences are more important than antecedents. Yet, the rejection of behaviorism by psychology, and by academia at large, is a consequence of NVB. Consequences become antecedents and this is especially true for how people interact with each other. The authors have absolutely no clue about the extent to which their verbal behavior is determined by NVB.

Their verbal behavior is not an actual conversation, only more writing about more writing. “A number of commentators raised questions about the treatment of aversive stimuli within the context of a unified reinforcement principle (viz., Dworkin & Branch; Field; Vaughan).” In fact, their paper-writing-verbal-behavior signifies their isolation, which is caused by the absence of conversation. As such it is a product of NVB. Stated differently, these authors, who presumably are so scholarly busy trying to fill the gap between behaviorism and neuroscience, don’t make any difference as their work doesn’t and can’t produce SVB. If they had asked their questions while they were talking, they might have identified the difference between SVB and NVB, but they are only concerned with written verbal behavior and so they write: “How can the same principle be consistent with both response strengthening (reinforcement) and response weakening (punishment)?” The great difference doesn’t seem to bother them the least and they proudly argue in favor of a theoretical construct, the “unified reinforcement principle”, which at the same time reinforces and punishes a response.

In NVB, the listener is often not even allowed to become a speaker and thus he or she is punished by the speaker for speaking. It could be said that this reinforces the listener’s private speech, which, covertly, may go something like this: ‘I can’t speak with you because you won’t let me, but I can talk with others with whom I can have SVB. Moreover, I am not interested in your NVB anyway as I know from my previous experiences that talking with someone like you has not worked for me.’ While SVB is always punished by NVB speakers, they also inadvertently reinforce it as they motivate the listener to be have SVB with those with whom it is possible. Avoidance and decrease of NVB makes increase of SVB possible. However, there is no aversive stimulation, no punishment once we have SVB. The authors, who are conditioned and intellectually impaired by NVB, are unfamiliar with this kind of interaction. Although they write about the “unification principle”, such writing prevents them from SVB, from talking about it, and, more importantly, experiencing it.

Once we are familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction it will become clear that NVB should no longer to be considered as communication. In NVB the voice of the speaker is experienced by the listener as an aversive stimulus. “Aversive stimuli are stimuli that, by definition, evoke escape or withdrawal responses.” Whether we acknowledge this or not, it will happen anyway. Thus, in NVB the listener separates him or herself from the speaker. The phony oneness of the speaker and the listener in NVB is always based on the fact that the listener is intimidated, overawed, forced, overwhelmed and sold by the speaker. None of this is the case during SVB, which requires the total absence of aversive stimulation.

Read carefully what these authors have written as it will help us to clarify the SVB/NVB distinction. “Recall that reinforcers have two effects with operant contingencies in our formulation: (a) Reinforcers lead to the acquisition of both the operant (R) and the reinforcer-elicited response (UR). (b) The conditioned response (CR) is acquired before the R. In the case of an aversive eliciting stimulus, the UR is withdrawal and successfully competes with the operant, thereby preventing the operant from being strengthened by the aversive elicitor, which would otherwise be the case (LCB, pp. 114–115).” This  tells us why NVB pushes out SVB. Let me re-word what the authors write: insensitivity disregards sensitivity. Because of their awareness about how environmental variables cause behavior, behaviorists are more sensitive than those who don’t view behavior that way. Also, as  they don’t assume inner agents to be causing our behavior, behaviorists are considered threatening by to those who believe in this superstition. All of this has increased NVB responding. “According to the proposal, punishment is produced by the more rapid acquisition of conditioned withdrawal responses than operants.” NVB prevents SVB, but only SVB can extinguish NVB.