October 31, 2015

October 31, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Reader,

I have had a lovely sleep because I went to bed early. The cat is sitting on my lap and is purring. She does that every day while I write in the early morning. She looks at me intently and I look at her and we are so happy to have this wonderful moment together. When I get up from my bed, she is immediately there and follows me to the office, where I sit on the floor with my legs crossed. She walks so close to my legs that I have to be careful not to trip over her. After she has sat with me for a couple of minutes, either I or she has had enough. When I say ‘okay’, she immediately jumps off. At other times, like today, she jumps off just before I say that and sits underneath the chair where she licks herself.

The above description involves, among many other things: waking up, movements, seeing, hearing, touching, breathing, key-boarding and, of course, talking, which happens covertly, as the potential observer cannot notice it. The fact that I can describe these behaviors depends on my behavioral history with a verbal community, which taught me how to speak, read and write. Without that ability these descriptions could neither be thought nor written. However, even if all of this is in place, I will still not be able to produce this description, if I don’t attain Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Naturally, I would only be able to acquire such behavior, if my verbal community would reinforce it. To be able to reinforce SVB, it would have to be a peaceful and well-rested verbal community. However, most verbal communities aren’t peaceful at all.

Most of our verbal communities condition high rates of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and, as a consequence, they can only reinforce low rates of SVB. We don’t realize that our verbal behaviors are response products of our verbal communities, that is, we don’t view what we say to ourselves covertly, during our private speech, as a function of what others have said to us overtly, during our public speech. However, our belief in an autonomous self, which presumably is independent of our external environment, is equally conditioned by our verbal community. 

The distinction between SVB and NVB depends on a social environment which reinforces overt expressions of our covert responses. Although  private speech was and continues to be caused by our public speech, as long as it is excluded from public speech, we are bound to think of it as existing on its own. This self-concept is false and as it is false it causes many problems. In SVB it becomes instantly clear that private speech is a function of public speech. Attainment of SVB is such a relief as it corrects falsehoods that were perpetuated by NVB. NVB conditioned us to consider private speech, that is, our thinking, as separate from public speech. In NVB, by contrast, what we think off as individuals is treated as irrelevant. 

NVB teaches us that if we want to have ‘good’ communication with others, we should keep most of what we think to ourselves. It should come as no surprise that the exclusion of private speech from public speech gives rise to mental health problems.  The opposite is much needed: the inclusion of private speech into public speech is the solution for mental health problems. I have tried this with many clients who were diagnosed with depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder, post-traumatic-stress-disorder, anxiety, bulimia, as well with many others and SVB has always worked. 

Those in the United States who are afflicted by mental health problems  for the most part have been exposed to the social contingencies of reinforcement that make covert responses overt. The problem is not that people don’t have the verbal repertoire which allows them to describe their proprioceptive and interoceptive experiences. What is lacking is an understanding of the SVB/NVB distinction. As we don’t recognize or acknowledge the extent to which private speech is tossed out by NVB public speech, we are continuously conforming to cultural norms and dogma and shooting ourselves and each other in the foot. 

Although this is an empirical matter that must be further addressed, it is apparent to me that in The Netherlands, my country of origin, the rates of SVB are much higher than in the United States. In other words, different cultures have different rates of SVB and NVB. Consequently, the Dutch express overtly more often, but also more accurately what is experienced covertly than most Americans. It is not that Americans can’t do this, they can, but this will only happen if the rates of SVB are increased and the rates of NVB are decreased, or, stated squarely, if the environments in which most Americans communicate can become less aversive. To the extent that this is happening, we can already begin to hear the rates of SVB increasing in the USA. As more people become aware of the SVB/NVB distinction, the shift towards SVB is inevitable. 

The most important aspect of SVB is that it links thinking with speaking.  Many people think that they can speak their ‘mind’, but the fact is that their way of talking determines what and how they think. During SVB we can trace back stimuli of which our verbal interaction is a function. Interestingly, this functional relationship will then enhance many other functional relationships. In NVB, by contrast, we are prevented from tracing back the stimuli which causes our thinking, as private speech is prevented from being part of public speech. Only in SVB can it become apparent that NVB private speech was caused by NVB public speech.

October 30, 2015

October 30, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Reader, 

Today, a lot a waiting took place before I started writing. I didn’t want to write about what I was thinking and waited until thoughts appeared which I found worth my while. Such waiting increases the response rate of SVB, but writing or saying something without waiting would increase the response rate of NVB. I am able to wait as I have engaged in so much SVB that I notice the difference between SVB and NVB, even in my own unexpressed private speech. There was a time, when I needed to first express my negative self-talk before I was able to recognize and acknowledge as such. NVB private speech is of course caused by NVB public speech and SVB covert speech is of course caused by SVB overt speech. I am familiar with these analyses and don’t need to think about them anymore. I have thought about them already and they have been validated by my interactions with others. 

It is a natural aspect of our language development for our public speech to recede to a private level. When we say our first words, like ‘mommy’, ‘pappy’ or ‘doggy’, we are reinforced for our verbal behavior, but once we have learned how to speak, read and write, most verbal behavior becomes private, that is, most verbal behavior occurs silently when we are thinking and covertly talking with ourselves. Ideally such thinking is a function of SVB public speech and results into positive self-talk, but, as we all know, very often our self-talk is negative. An increase of the response rate of our negative thoughts of our covert speech, is always a consequence of our involvement in and exposure to overt NVB speech. 

These contingency relations exist and evolve over time. Our response to a given situation is not necessarily determined by antecedents which are available to us. A person’s history of reinforcement determines the behavioral momentum of his or her habitual thoughts. Thoughts that are a consequence of NVB public speech are mechanical and will go on without any awareness, but thoughts which are a consequence of SVB public speech are conscious and discriminate between SVB and NVB. 

The environmental changes which occur during SVB and NVB are very different. SVB public speech modifies the environment which is within our own skin. It does that because the speaker is listening to him or herself while he or she speaks. Due to the feedback mechanism of the speaker-as-own-listener, the speaker has an entirely different effect on the listener as the speaker, who depends on the listener for feedback.   The NVB speaker demands and dominates the listener’s attention and wants them to listen to him or to her. The listening that is involved in SVB is completely different than the listening that is involved in NVB. In the former, the environment within the skin of the listener is affected by the induction of positive emotions, but in the latter, all attention is drawn to what happens outside the skin of the listener. What happens inside the skin of the listener is of no importance to the NVB speaker. Not surprisingly, the NVB speaker induces negative emotions in the listener. The listener who is made to listen to the NVB speaker is taught to tolerate these negative feelings, by distancing him or herself from his or her private speech. Stated differently, NVB speakers condition the listener to dissociate from what he or she is thinking. Thus, conditioned by NVB, we disconnect from our negative emotions and we use others to experience positive emotions. All of this continues to occur because NVB prevents us from bringing our private speech into public speech.   

In SVB the issue of bringing back our private speech into public speech doesn’t even arise as the two are considered to be functionally related. Moreover, as SVB conditions positive self-talk, the environment within our own skin will begin to modify the environment outside of our own skin. Although we should never lose sight of the fact that public speech causes private speech, private speech of course also affects our public speech. Initially, these temporal effects seem difficult to trace as we are used to and conditioned by NVB. However, when we engage in SVB, it becomes apparent that these effects occur. Oddly enough, as in most of us low rates of SVB were conditioned and high rates of NVB, it may seem to many of us that SVB is the problem. The consequences of SVB certainly don’t reinforce NVB. To the contrary, consequences of SVB decrease our rate of NVB. This is accomplished as NVB is more and more avoided, put on a time out, like I did when I started today’s writing. I so often had SVB that I can wait without getting troubled for the fog of NVB private speech to lift. I know it will lift as it has lifted so many times before. Reinforcement of SVB requires us to avoid NVB as much as possible. B.F. Skinner (1969) was right: reinforcement is always contingent on some properties of responses. If I produce responses which meet criteria for NVB that response class will be reinforced by NVB speakers. “A set of contingencies defines an operant” (Skinner, 1969). By all means, let us verify that SVB and NVB are maintained by “contingencies which are established on particular properties of responses.” Contingencies for how we talk can be detected by listening to how we sound while we speak.

October 29, 2015

October 29, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Reader,

In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) there is a bi-directional relationship between the speaker and the listener as the speaker can become the listener and the listener can become the speaker. This turn-taking is needed to explore the fact that how we talk is determined by others, who are stimuli in both our current and our previous environments. It is evident in the language development of children that they don’t start with words, but sounds. We are born nonverbal and we become verbal during our development. Also in many other species vocalizations play a big role in conspecific communication. Sounds of the members of our group gave rise to language as our vocal cords came under functional control of our environment. In SVB we pay attention to how we sound.

By listening to ourselves while we speak we experience that language is rooted into biology. Absence of aversive stimulation is something we have only temporarily experienced. Most of our so-called interaction is based on aversive stimulation. Most Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is based on hierarchical differences that existed throughout evolutionary history, but which, ever since the arrival of language, began to shift. In different cultures, languages, countries, cities and communities, that is, in different environments, different populations have achieved very different levels of SVB and NVB. Even within environments there are individuals who have higher rates of NVB and those who have higher rates of SVB. We  only have SVB if our survival is no longer threatened. 

The difference between a perceived threat and a real threat cannot be determined as long as we keep having NVB. In NVB, a perceived threat is considered to be just as real as a real threat. In SVB, however, we can finally let go of the perceived threat, which was not real, but stayed with us for so long as it has helped us to survive. In our evolutionary history it was adaptive to act on every notion of threat. The arrival of language must have been made possible as our relative sense of safety, support and community allowed us to begin to behave verbally. This is as true today as it was since the emergence of language. We can only talk with each other as long as we feel safe, but we stop talking the moment that we feel threatened.

That we feel threatened doesn’t all of a sudden turn us again into nonverbal babies (although such effects do occur), but it definitely impairs our ability to communicate. We still talk when we are afraid, intimidated, angered, distrustful, hurt, upset, frustrated, violated and overwhelmed, but such talking falls into the NVB category. During SVB there are only positive emotions and these can continue as there is no aversive stimulation. 

Hierarchical differences among people which we still see and hear everywhere in our world are maintained by NVB and they will be acknowledged, understood, dismantled and prevented by SVB. It is only after we have had enough SVB that we realize how much of our problems were caused and maintained by our involvement in NVB. If you worry a lot about the amount of negativity in this world, this doesn’t and can’t translate into a new way of talking. The shift from NVB to SVB will only be made if special attention is given to how we sound when we create and maintain a safe, supportive environment. 

You are so busy with what you or other people say that you don’t have a chance to connect with your nonverbal experience while you talk.

Lack of connection with and awareness about your voice causes a separation between what you say and how you say it. This separation is apparent when you as a speaker disconnect from what you as a listener experience. Although you don’t pay much conscious attention to this, you always experience yourself while you speak. The extent to which you are aware of this signifies your rate of SVB and the extent to which you are unaware of this signifies your rate of NVB. In SVB, you become a conscious communicator, but in NVB, you are on ‘automatic pilot.’

Three of your habits, which listeners reinforce, are: 1) fixation on words, 2) outward orientation and 3) struggle for attention. You find that your voice doesn’t sound so good when what you say is considered to be more important than how you say it, that is, when you fixate only on the words. You also sound quite horrible, to yourself as well as to others, when you are trying to impress others. Those who are trying to impress you sound just as terrible as you. If we are outward oriented, we want others to listen to us. When others force us to listen to them, their voices grab, stab, pull, push and drain. That is why it is called NVB. 

As we are arguing, as we are trying to win, as we are trying to defend,  as we are trying to distract and as we are trying to ‘play the devil’s advocate’, we struggle to get and hold each other’s attention. Our nonverbal voice sounds demanding, coercive and aggressive when we struggle to score points with our verbal acrobatics. The listener also struggles with the conflicting verbal and nonverbal expressions of the NVB speaker. And, different speakers struggle together as they want to address their different topics. At times it seems as if all of our human interaction is one endless struggle. However, this struggle stops when we attain SVB. In SVB we listen to ourselves and because of that we listen to each other. In SVB we have no problems listening or speaking.

October 28, 2015

October 28, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Reader, 

Now that I am addressing you individually, my writing has changed. It is under control of a different, more positive set of circumstances. I like to write in this way much more than when was trying to address a broader audience than just you. That was a whole different set of circumstances which somehow excluded you. Not that there was anything wrong with that kind of writing, but it was not personal. I feel more involved in this kind of writing and I am curious where it is going to take me. I led it take me wherever it wants to go. It reminds me of times that I was making audio-recordings of myself. I would start the tape-recorder and just began talking about anything that came to my ‘mind.’ I do the same now while writing to you. In those days I was trying to speak with you on an audio-tape, but now I am speaking with you with written words.  

Looking back on the experience of making audio-recordings of myself, it now seems that I wasn’t really talking with you. I was primarily talking with myself. I needed to talk with myself as I was still trying to find you. This writing is different as I have now found you. Since it is more personal, it is less about me and more about you. Yes, you read that correctly: the more personal we get, the less we will be concerned with ourselves and the more we will be concerned with each other. The opposite is also true: the less personal we get, the less concerned we are with each other. We are not concerned with each other as we are so impersonal. This goes together with my attempts to be scientific.

I was determined to find scientific proof for what I call Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). I have found this proof in Radical Behaviorism, which explains behavior as a function of the environment. I direct these words to you as I am teaching you that how you talk is determined by your environment. If you feel safe, accepted, validated and supported, you will engage in SVB, because it is possible, but if you feel threatened, on guard, defensive and stressed, you can only have NVB, because only SVB is impossible. Your efforts of ‘trying to be the better person’ are based on the false notion that you can cause your own behavior. That is why you always fail, even though, like a politician you make it seem to others as if you have succeeded. When you learn about the natural science of human behavior, you will come to terms with the scientific fact that you don’t and can’t cause your own behavior. Language is the clearest example of what should have been, but what until now hasn’t and couldn’t be the focal interest of behaviorism. We all accept that a child is born nonverbal and that the verbal community in which it is born is his or her environment from which he or she learns his or her language. This goes for every other behavior. What we do is not caused by some imaginary inner agent, by a self, but by our parents, our family and our community members. 

Our environment equals other people with their specific cultural ways. These other people are stimuli who set the stage for how, when and how much we will behave. Others punish and decrease or reinforce and increase our behavior. What many of us don’t know and can’t seem to acknowledge is that behaviors which are punished cannot and will not be increased, while only behaviors which are reinforced will increase. Such is the lawfulness of human behavior. When we notice an increase in our own or someone else’s behavior, we must assume that something, most likely a person, is causing it.  We don’t have much SVB as we don’t know how to have it. We have it only for a little bit as we only know how to have it for a little bit. 

To have SVB more often requires us to get better at stopping Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), that is, we must learn to create and maintain the environments in which SVB can and will reliably occur. We will only have SVB once our NVB has come to an end. Every time NVB comes to an end we will have SVB. You already had SVB and your NVB already came to an end, but it didn’t last long enough for you to be able to continue with SVB. You cannot continue with SVB as long as you don’t recognize why it stops again. However, it didn’t stop because of you. It stopped because of others, who didn’t allow you to have SVB. You were conditioned by others to have mostly NVB and only a little bit of SVB. Even if others allowed you to have SVB, they did so in spite of their misunderstanding about the causation of behavior. They may believe that their behavior was caused by ‘a higher power’ or by trust in an ‘inner self’, but their ability to reinforce your behavior or the behavior of others depended on the extent to which they themselves were reinforced by others. 

Since I am more reinforced for my SVB these days than when I was making these audio-recordings, I am better capable of reinforcing you with this writing. SVB is really the science of spoken communication. In SVB, the speaker and the listener take turns and because of that they co-regulate each other. In NVB, by contrast, we are always dealing with a biased speaker, who forces his or her listeners to listen. In NVB there is no turn-taking; only the speaker is allowed to speak and the listener remains the listener. In NVB there is a hierarchical difference between the speaker and the listener, which ignores turn-taking. In the absence of turn-taking, NVB is uni-directional. The speaker and the listener will dysregulate each other in NVB as there is no real connection.