October 16, 2015

October 16, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writing is a first response to “What do Animals Mean?” (2009) by D. Randall, M. Owren & M. Ryan. I use the evidence gathered by these animal researchers to point out the biological origins of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). It doesn’t come as a surprise that “animal communication studies” are as much troubled by metaphoric “constructs such as information encoding and transfer”, (which don’t map onto the biological world), as human communication studies. The term ‘anthropomorphism’ has neither prevented us from anthropomorphizing nor has it enhanced our understanding of the situation in which we are inclined to get carried away by our verbiage.

The SVB/NVB distinction, however, is aligned with these researchers, who “focus instead on concrete details of signal design as they reflect and interact with established sensory, physiological and psychological processes that support signalling and responding in listeners.” Only of SVB we can say that the speaker supports “signaling and responding in listeners”, that is, only the SVB speaker evokes the listener to become a SVB speaker as well. The NVB speaker doesn’t “support signaling and responding in the listeners.” Moreover, the NVB speaker prevents the listener from speaking or will condition him or her to speak in a NVB manner. These authors explain aspects of SVB and NVB because “the alternatives we advocate also explicitly acknowledge the different roles and often divergent interests of signallers and perceivers that can yield fundamental asymmetries in signalling interactions, and they therefore shift the focus of interpretations of animal communication from informing others to influencing others.” It is of crucial importance for  our understanding of human communication that we “shift the focus” from “informing others to influencing others” as this is what we as human do every day. The SVB/NVB distinction will facilitate this shift.  

The information-processing paradigm, which dominates both animal research and human communication research, uses metaphors to obfuscate the fact that humans, like primates, influence each other with their sound. For example, “Dall et al. (2005, page 192) recently observed that ‘evolutionary and behavioural ecologists do not adopt consistent, rigorous concepts of information… [instead] informal use of the term information is the norm’. Dall et al. go on to consider how such traditionally loose and informal concepts of information are now inadequate for many of the emerging problems in behavioural ecology.” Unless we adopt the SVB/NVB distinction, that is, unless we adopt a standard for our human nonverbal interaction, we will keep on beating (nonverbally) around the (verbal) metaphoric bush.

As we think our communication problems are verbal, we continue to believe that “consistent, rigorous concepts of information” will be the solution. The SVB/NVB distinction shows that our communication problems are nonverbal and can only be solved if we pay attention to how we sound while we speak. The authors don’t object to the fact that they remain verbally preoccupied. Their “arguments are prompted by the same problem because research in animal communication similarly suffers from the lack of clear and rigorous definitions of information, yet none the less affords the construct a central explanatory role.”

Instead of grooming they are just splitting hairs; the latter is NVB, the former is SVB. It is irrelevant whether “Hauser (1996, page 6) defined signals as ‘[carrying] informational content, which can be manipulated by the sender and differentially acted on by the perceiver’”, or whether “Bradbury& Vehrencamp (1998, page 2) characterized communication as ‘provision of information from a sender to a receiver’, going on (page 3) to say that ‘true communication’ is ‘information exchange’ from which both sender and receiver benefit.” All of this is based on verbal fixation, which characterizes NVB. In SVB there is a connection between what we say and how we say it. Authors who know about SVB will not over-emphasize the verbal and only pay lip-service to the nonverbal.

The use of “informational and linguistic constructs in animal research” was never really the problem. The problem is always the exclusion of the nonverbal, the environment with which the verbal human interacts. This sets the stage for NVB. However, like most scientists, these authors seem to think it is merely a matter of developing more well-defined constructs. They write that “Grounding the idea of communication in undefined informational constructs renders both those constructs and others that flow from them untenable.” Of course, they have a point, but they miss the more important point: how humans talk with each other will determine how they will think about animal communication.

When it comes to human interaction there is simply no such a thing as as a verbal “quantifiable information construct” by itself. Regardless of what is said or read, our verbal behavior is always accompanied by our nonverbal behavior. We again and again make the big mistake that our verbal behavior can be considered by itself and by doing so we engage in NVB. By acknowledging that our verbal and our nonverbal behavior cannot be separated from each other, we will engage in SVB, which is characterized by alignment of our verbal and nonverbal expressions.

The authors drew a great picture of two monkeys sitting opposed from each other. One is the “signaler” and the other the “receiver.” A cloud above the first monkey (the signaler) contains “reprerepresentational… ideation…generate message…encode…transmit”, while the cloud above the other monkey (the receiver) contains “retrieve representation…

recover message…decode…receive.” Between the monkeys is a cylinder with the word “information” on it and an arrow going from the sender to the receiver. This simplistic drawing of uni-directional interaction is a visual image of NVB. In SVB, in which the speaker is also the listener and the listener is also the speaker, there is always bi-directional interaction. This picture might as well be about human beings. The authors wrote “The burden of communication falls squarely on the disembodied ‘packet of information’ encoded in the signal flowing from signaller to receiver.” That they wrote this demonstrates ignorance about SVB, which deals with both the verbal as well as the nonverbal.

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.