November 4, 2015

November 4, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students, 

Today I will respond to “Effectiveness as Truth Criterion in Behavior Analysis” by Tourinho and Neno (2003). I already previously responded to one of Tourinho’s papers and send him some of my writings, but I have not heard anything back. I like to respond to another one of his papers as his writings can shed light on my extension of behaviorism:  Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

The authors explore similarities between behavior analysis, founded by B.F. Skinner and the pragmatic philosophy of William James. They seem to be attracted to these two great thinkers for the same reason that I am. Tourinho is a giant in his own right, who makes these thinkers understandable to me. The systems created by James and Skinner have “effectiveness as a truth criterion” in common. My distinction between SVB and NVB also has “effectiveness as a truth criterion.” Many of Skinner’s concepts seem to have been inspired by James’ “pragmatic approach.” However, according to the authors “effectiveness” described by Skinner’s radical behaviorism and James’ pragmatic philosophy is not enough. In order to understand James and Skinner, they argue, we must pay attention to ““prior assumptions or beliefs”– coherence – and to their successful working” – effectiveness.” Due to his empirical work, Skinner insists, more so than James I would say, that “the pragmatic truth criterion requires, preliminary, agreement with its basic beliefs concerning behavior.” Coherence is equally fundamental to the SVB/NVB distinction and I agree 100% that “more consistent results may be achieved if the requirements of coherence are observed.”

Let me unpack these words for you. We cannot have SVB, if we don’t know how NVB works. Basically, we keep having NVB since we don’t know how it works. Once we know how it works, that is, once we have discriminated NVB, we will be able to have SVB.  “Beliefs” about interaction always result into NVB, but SVB makes beliefs unnecessary. In the same way that my heart in my chest is not a belief, SVB is not a belief. SVB and NVB involve different kinds of reasoning. In SVB we, the speaker and the listener, will achieve peace with ourselves and with each other, but in NVB the speaker is always dysregulating the listener. 

We don’t really need to know how SVB works.  Although most people don’t know about the SVB/NVB distinction, everyone has their assumptions about the ‘correct way’ of communicating. When people for the first time explore the distinction between SVB and NVB, they find to their own amazement that knowledge about SVB is not all that important. Knowing how NVB works, however, is of great importance, as that allows them to have SVB. Without that knowledge they can’t have SVB. 

The distinction between SVB and NVB is “effective” in the Skinnerian sense as it assists “the scientist in dealing with behavior in a productive way.” The distinction is valid as it is an explanation of “behavioral regularity” that supports the experimenter “in solving the same kind of problems efficiently.” Even if the experimenter is by him or herself, he or she can verify whether the SVB/NVB distinction has any effect on his or her behavior. Skinner wrote back in 1945 “The ultimate criterion for the goodness of a concept is not whether two people are brought into agreement but whether the scientist who uses the concept can operate successfully upon his material –all by himself if need be. What matters to Robinson Crusoe is not whether he is agreeing with himself but whether he is getting anywhere with his control over nature.”  

  

One can experiment with the SVB/NVB distinction by speaking out loud and by listening to one’s own sound. When, as a speaker, one’s voice is experienced by oneself as a listener as an aversive stimulus, one says very different things to oneself as when, as a speaker, one’s voice is experienced by oneself as a listener as an appetitive stimulus. In the former one engages in NVB and in the latter one engages in SVB. After exploration of why this happens, one finds that each time one engages in NVB, one was not really listening anymore to one’s own sound, but one got carried away by words. In SVB, by contrast, one is intimately aware of one’s voice and one is conscious about one’s verbal behavior. 

Attention for your sound keeps you conscious as the production of your sound and listening to your voice happen in the here and now. Since speaking and listening happen simultaneously in SVB, you notice that they are disjointed during NVB. This is discovered after you were able to stop NVB and have SVB. While you were having NVB, you were unconscious. Only when you are conscious, do you realize that you were unconscious. Nobody needs to validate it; it is validated when you synchronize your speaking and listening behavior. As you attain moments of SVB on your own, you realize you instances of SVB in your conversations with others as well. Moreover,  you will find SVB is easier to maintain on your own than with others. In your self-experimentation you find out why that is the case. Listening to yourself while you speak with others is difficult as others are usually not listening to themselves while they speak with you. It would be easy for you to listen to yourself if others did the same. If all the speakers would listen to themselves while they speak, we would all effortlessly engage in SVB. You become pragmatic based on your knowledge of NVB; you can now predict, control and verify the outcomes of your interactions.

November 3, 2015

November 3, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students,

Don’t feel frightened I call myself a verbal engineer. A behaviorist friend called me that and I felt honored. This title makes up for the fact I have no degree in behaviorism. I would love to earn a Ph.D. in behaviorism and teach it, but cannot afford to pay for such a study right now. Had I known what I know now, I would have studied behaviorism from the start, but I discovered it after I had withdrawn from my Ph.D. study. Withdrawing from that ambitious project was a turning point in my life. Circumstances were such that I couldn't continue; I had gotten sick from all the stress I was experiencing. However, I would have never become a psychology instructor or a self-taught behaviorist, if it wasn’t for this difficult and life-altering event. When my Dutch behaviorist friend described my teaching as ‘behavioral engineering’, it made me feel proud and validated.  

It should come as no surprise to you that I have an agenda. I teach the difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). To me this is the very essence of psychology. While I teach you the material from the book, I also make you aware about the fact that we keep going back and forth between instances of SVB and NVB. This slowly, but surely shapes an increase in our rate of SVB and a decrease in our rate of NVB. Something unique is happening in our classes, which is not happening in any other class. I say this as a fact and I do not brag.  

  

In our class we learn we can’t have SVB if we don’t listen to ourselves while we speak. I demonstrate I don’t have it too if I don’t listen to myself while I speak. This happens when the situation gets negative, when you are tired, irritated and frustrated or when my teaching and our interaction has a dysregulating effect on you and me. That is when we have NVB. During those times you are distracted, you are not really paying attention, you talk with your neighbor or you check your face-book messages. It also happens when you let me do all the talking and want to be entertained rather than taught. There is, of course, a big difference between the two. The former can lead to the latter, but the former can also distract from the latter. Since we are used to high rates of NVB, it is more likely to happen entertainment will distract you than that it will focus your attention on what is taught. It can and it will only do that to the extent that we are engaging in SVB. 

It is quite nice to be talking with you in this writing. For various reasons, many things in class cannot be fully explored. Reading my writing may be easier than listening to my speaking as you are not used to experiencing increased rates of SVB. To the contrary, you are used to and conditioned by high rates of NVB. Of course, this is not going to change all of a sudden. It changes slowly and steadily. As the semester goes by, you become more used to it and you will find you become more often involved in it too. SVB and NVB don’t only happen in our class, they happen everywhere: with family, friends, colleagues, students and other teachers. You become aware that higher rates of SVB and lower rates of NVB are only possible under certain circumstances. Changes in rates of NVB and SVB depend on the  contingencies that reinforce such behaviors. If you pay close attention you will find that you can behave differently only under different circumstances.

Perhaps, you will be more inclined to go to these circumstances and to these people, who positively enhance your experiences? Perhaps, you will be able to more skillfully avoid the environments and the people, who have a negative influence on you? Each time you were able to do that, how did that make you feel? And, how did that affect your behavior? And, what happened in negative situations, which, apparently, you weren't able to avoid and weren’t able to escape from either? Or, were you able to escape? How did that affect your behavior? Did escape behavior make you better at avoiding? Did approach behavior result in you having to escape from something? Did proper avoidance behavior decrease your need to escape? 

Does your need to approach decrease, when you get better at avoiding negative situations? Were you over-emphasizing approach behaviors as you didn’t learn how to protect yourself and avoid negative circumstances? Each of these questions have to do with increases or decreases in SVB and NVB. Distinguishing between SVB and NVB gets better as you take time to listen to yourself while you speak. What matters is what SVB and NVB means to you. By relying on your understanding of SVB and NVB, you will engage more often in SVB and less often in NVB. As your accuracy increases, you will only approach what is reinforcing to you. And, as you increase your ability to avoid negative people and circumstances, there is no need for escape any more.  Fine-tuning of your avoidance behaviors produced higher rates of SVB. Since your assessment of what you want to approach is more realistic, you will approach more enhancing circumstances and people. As NVB decreases it becomes apparent that your NVB involved inaccurate descriptions of reality. SVB, however, provides you with the accurate descriptions which make your better capable of navigating your reality.

November 2, 2015

November 2, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Students,

Since I am doing most of my talking with students, I decided to narrow down today’s writing to my students. The other day I read some of my writings and I imagined how my students would like it. I suddenly didn’t like my own writing as it seemed boring from their point of view. I will try to change that. I realize that I have never written to students as my audience and I want to try that this month. This will be my second big audience shift in recent times. Before I was imagining I was writing to behaviorists. Because of the advice of a friend, I changed that focus to people who are listening to me and talking with me. My students are the people who are really listening and talking with me. Although they are mostly listening, they are slowly beginning to talk more and more.  

And, the more they talk, the more Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) they produce. It is exciting to notice the consequences of my teaching, which is an extension B.F. Skinner’s theory of Verbal Behavior. My categories cannot be found in the literature, but they are implicitly mentioned by Skinner and other behaviorists. I am not dealing with what has already been dealt with; I deal with what hasn’t been dealt with: how we are affecting each other while we talk. This functional relationship should be obvious, but as it requires us explore things while we speak, most people cannot approach it. The parsimonious classification system of SVB and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) sheds new light on patterns of vocal verbal behavior, which cannot be brought into focus by writing.  

From a functional account it is absolutely ridiculous to conceive of the speaker without the listener. One only makes sense in relationship to the other; the two should always be mentioned together. A stimulus only makes sense in connection to a response and its consequence. The functional relationship between environmental independent variables, stimuli, and verbal as well as nonverbal behavioral responses, remains incomplete if we don’t include how these responses either increase or decrease due to the social reinforcement or punishment. While we are talking about speaking and listening, this fact is seldom acknowledged. 

Stated differently, only when we acknowledge that our verbal behavior is mediated by others can we have SVB. However, we mostly engage in NVB as we deny the scientific fact that we don’t cause our own speech. The common, but false belief that we cause our own speech prevented us from understanding that human interaction is always a bi-directional phenomenon. It is only to the extent that speech can be bi-directional that it should be stated that our speech is socially mediated; when our speech is uni-directional, it is always anti-social and its consequences are always deeply problematic. 

Punishment often unfortunately equals the end of our conversation. To keep the conversation going reinforcement is needed. Without it there will be uni-directional, that is, a hierarchical ‘relationship’ between the speaker and the listener. In this hierarchical ‘relationship’ the speaker and the listener cannot exist as equals. Moreover, such speaker never simultaneously experiences him or herself as also the listener. Stated differently, in NVB the speaker doesn’t listen to him or herself while he or she speaks, while the speaker in SVB experiences him or herself to be simultaneously the listener. As a consequence of the speaker-as-his-or-her-own-listener, the listener listens attentively to such a speaker.

The listener listens differently to a speaker who listens to him or herself while he or she speaks as such a speaker’s nonverbal behavior, his or her voice (but also his or her gestures and facial expression) induce positive emotions in him or her. In SVB, the voice of the speaker has an immediate regulating effect on the listener, who effortlessly listens to and understands what he or she verbally is saying. As the verbal and the nonverbal expressions of the SVB speaker are aligned, there is no distraction for the listener. In NVB, on the other hand, the speaker’s voice functions like an aversive stimulus to the listener. The NVB speaker is unaware of his or her nonverbal impact on the listener and, consequently, NVB is a mechanical, unconscious way of talking. NVB is more difficult to listen to as there is no nonverbal attunement in NVB. Stated differently, the nonverbal expressions of the NVB speaker cause negative nonverbal responses in the listener, which distract from what this NVB speaker is saying. 

Surely, the NVB speaker has a dysregulating effect on the listener. The only way in which the listener is allowed to respond to the NVB speaker, is by disconnecting from this dysregulating effect. This dissociative effect is not lifted, but emphasized once such a listener becomes him or herself a speaker. Once the listener, as a nonverbal child, responds, first nonverbally then verbally, to such a NVB speaker as a parent, he or she will predictably assert counter-control. When parents practice coercive behavioral control, children of such parents are conditioned to disconnect from nonverbal experiences. This not only causes many communication problems with others, but, also communication problems with themselves, that is, psychopathology. High rates of NVB public speech by parents causes high rates of NVB private speech in children, who will feel covertly stimulated to have overt NVB. In language development external stimuli become internal.

November 1, 2015

November 1, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

                                                                                                                                          

Dear Reader,

Although behaviorism’s understanding of private events of what we think, is slowly evolving, it has yet to acknowledge the behavioral cusp which involves distinguishing Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). A more complete understanding of private events requires deeper involvement in our spoken communication, specifically in how we sound while we speak. In SVB the speaker listens to him or herself while he or she speaks and in NVB the speaker doesn’t listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. The SVB speaker finds him or herself in a very different situation than the NVB speaker. 

We find ourselves in different situations every time we switch back and forth between SVB and NVB. The more often this switching occurs, the higher our rate of SVB will be and the less often this switching back and forth occurs, the higher our rate of NVB will be. However, we can only notice the possibility of this switching back and forth if we acknowledge the difference between SVB and NVB. We already unconsciously go back and forth between instances in our verbal episodes in which the speaker makes the listener feel safe and at ease and induces positive emotions and instances in which the speaker makes the listener feel stressed and fearful and therefore induces negative emotions. We would go through these changes more consciously if we identified the former as SVB and the latter as NVB. This would once and for all make clear to us that in NVB communication actually stops, while in SVB it continues. In NVB talking may continue, but we don’t communicate. 

SVB can only begin to increase once we have repeatedly observed what is preventing this. SVB is not prevented by NVB, but by our lack of skills.  We so often engage in NVB as we simply don’t know anything better. Once we have experienced SVB we know something better and this motivates us to experiment and engage in SVB more often. In that process it will become evident that going back and forth between SVB and NVB in the past couldn’t result in an increase of SVB as most of our attention was still going to NVB. Increase of SVB only occurs once our attention is naturally and effortlessly drawn to SVB. Acknowledging that due to conditioning our attention was drawn to NVB is a necessary step before we can increase our SVB. By noticing our over-involvement in NVB, we slowly but surely withdraw from the circumstances in which this occurs. Most likely, we stop seeking proximity of those with whom NVB keeps happening. Moreover, we will be experimenting with SVB and NVB on our own, since only few people are capable of increasing our SVB. By talking out loud and by listening to how we sound while we speak, we can join and equalize our speaking and listening behaviors, which become so readily disjointed in our conversations with others. 

Due to self-experimentation (N-of-1) we will familiarize ourselves with the SVB/NVB distinction and then we will be able to recognize how others, like us, also continue to go back and forth between SVB and NVB. Since our self-experimentation will make SVB effortlessly available to us, our attention will no longer mostly be going to NVB, as it does in most of our so-called interactions. Even our engagement in NVB will at some point begin to stimulate us to switch back to SVB and our ability to switch, by changing the situation, will also increase. As the rate of switching between NVB and SVB will increase, our involvement in NVB will begin to decrease and our involvement in SVB begins to increase. 

Self-experimentation, in which we can identify and verify the SVB/NVB distinction, is the solution to the problem of inaccessibility of private events to public direct observation. Although Skinner himself was all about self-experimentation, most behaviorists don’t seem to recognize how crucial this is for the implementation of behaviorism. Behaviorism has yet to be fully implemented and disseminated as most behaviorists rather experiment on others than on themselves. How can behaviorists be sure if private events acquire stimulus functions other than by self-experimentation? It should be a central part of education, but it isn’t. 

Behaviorists mainly write about the world that is within our own skin. They don’t talk so much about it. If they did, they would have to refer to the world which is within their own skin, that is, they would have to stop thinking about the world within the skin of someone else. The fact that an observer cannot establish the same contact with the world within the skin as the individual him or herself, is produced by writing, not by talking. Rather than emphasizing they cannot have contact with what happens within the skin of someone else, why don’t behaviorists emphasize that they can have contact with what happens within their own skin? If they did that, they would have something very interesting to talk about. The world to which each person only him or herself has access only makes sense to the behaviorist to the extent that he or she has access to that world him or herself. It is the world to which only we ourselves have access, which can give us a better understanding of the world to which we don’t have access. Since we are always dependent on verbal behavior which we have learned from the members of our verbal community, there is, as far as how verbal behavior is caused, no real difference between public and private stimuli. Different levels of accessibility to these stimuli is determined by our rates of SVB and NVB.