December 17, 2015

December 17, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

Today is my first response to “The Personal Life of the Behavioral Analyst” by Darrell Bostow (2011). The title of this paper attracts me as I want to write about my personal life. I want to illustrate the reinforcing consequences of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and the relief which comes with the ability to discriminate, avoid and decrease our involvement in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Bostow is concerned about global warming. We need to recognize that critics who are disclaiming the human cause of global warming are ignorant about and, consequently, against behaviorism. They can’t believe human behavior, that is, their behavior, can cause something at such a large scale. 

“It is widely believed that technology will solve predicted energy problems, a belief that is nurtured by our media as well as governmental leaders.” Global warming is caused by how we talk. Our belief in technology is maintained by high rates of NVB. It is unbelievable that even behavioral analysts have not yet caught on to this. As long as we don’t address the SVB/NVB distinction, we keep going around in circles. The author seems to describe what prevents the acknowledgment of the SVB/NVB distinction: “We cannot trust feelings themselves as a guide to those contingencies that have desirable strengthening of behavior because the referents for feelings are not yet subject to an objective scientific analysis. In the present discussion, pleasing versus strengthening is a rough vernacular distinction between the byproducts of reinforcement contingencies. The former term emphasizes respondent byproducts; the latter emphasizes the future utility of operant behavior.” 

SVB and NVB are “byproducts of reinforcement contingencies.” Moreover, the former “emphasizes the future utility of operant behavior” while the latter “emphasizes respondent byproducts.” However, in SVB we trust “feelings themselves” to inform us about “the contingencies that have desirable strengthening of behavior”. Since we are benefitted by SVB each time we engage in it, we don’t depend on the approval from “objective scientific analysis”. It is precisely because SVB is so “pleasing” to us that it “strengthens” our behavior. “Replacement” of “byproducts of operant strengthening (sometimes called satisfaction)” by “the pursuit of pleasurable by-products called “pleasurable feelings”” was brought about by something else than “technological advances”: genuine communication. Stated differently, “Pleasing consequences eclipsed strengthening ones” because of how we talk.

December 16, 2015

December 16, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my sixteenth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). Unfortunately, these authors seem to be thinking that they have “traced the epistemological barriers that a student or scientist encounters on his or her path to the study of human behavior.” The fact is, however, they completely overlooked the biggest obstacle, namely: how do we actually talk about radical behaviorism? How does the radical behaviorist teacher, as a speaker, affect the student, the listener? And,more importantly, how does the speaker affect him or herself as the speaker-as-own-listener? 

Lack of interest in this question tells us other things are considered to be more important. I am interested in how our way of talking can make radical behaviorism more available to a wider audience. Although radical behaviorism is only one part of the Principles of Psychology class that I teach, I teach that perspective and everyone knows this.

The semester has come to an end and almost all my students are telling me how much they love being in my class, where they are challenged to experiment with themselves and verify the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). The SVB/NVB distinction is practical and they have written and spoken about the validity this new knowledge has for everyday life. In yesterday’s last class there was an atmosphere of gratitude, peace and celebration and the cumulative effects of my teaching were noticeable and audible. 

What matters for teaching radical behaviorism also matters for the teaching the SVB/NVB distinction: “the student should be forewarned that this is an approach that challenges many popular beliefs and may initially seem strange.” Only the teacher who knows about SVB will be able to “contact the student at the place where the student begins.” Like Skinner, I also “wish to testify that, once you are used to it, the way is not so steep or thorny after all (Skinner, 1975, p. 49).” I am proud of my students, who know about radical behaviorism because of SVB. They know, while radical behaviorists don’t know, that SVB is a radical behaviorist construct. They also know more than any therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist or teacher and they have acknowledged over and over again that these professionals don’t know about the SVB/NVB distinction, which is needed to achieve a better spoken communication.

December 15, 2015

December 15, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my fifteenth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). Not much progress has been made or could be made in helping the students “overcome barriers to radical behaviorism” as long as the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) was not made. Even those who teach behaviorism have overemphasized the importance of written words and underestimated the importance of spoken words. Although these “epistemological barriers” need to be pointed out, the elephant in the room is: they could not be properly addressed as long as we didn’t pay closer attention to how we talk. Regardless how many empirical studies have been done, no matter how many papers and books have been written, published and studied, nothing has been achieved that significantly improved our way of talking. One would think these “epistemological barriers” should stimulate behaviorists to become more alert about how they talk, but this dilemma is neither felt nor addressed in academia. 

Not a paper has been written that describes NVB, which occurs in spoken and written form. This has prevented behavioral science from being accepted. It is not enough for teachers of radical behaviorism to explicitly acknowledge that “their position deviates from what is commonly taken to be true.” Having such predetermined “position” sets the stage for NVB and so, unfortunately, even in the name of radical behaviorism, NVB has been increased. “Good teachers” should extinguish NVB and promote and increase SVB, but as of yet I am the only teacher who is capable of doing that. I could teach other teachers how I teach, but that will only happen if they read this and decided that they would like to be taught. The chances of that are very slim.

More likely my students or face book friends will read this and become inspired to explore SVB. I only write for those who want to learn SVB. The authors seem to believe they can reason others into behaviorism, but this is intellectual wishful-thinking. It hasn’t, it couldn’t and it didn’t happen. If someone became interested in radical behaviorism, it was because the person who taught it taught with passion. Although it is great if students can take a class in learning theory and “get in contact with the reinforcing properties of prediction and control” by conditioning pigeons, experience of the difference between SVB and NVB is of a different order as it requires self-experimentation.

December 14, 2015

December 14, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my fourteenth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). I agree with Skinner’s “intense focus on single subjects” and I am interested in “the conditions under which an organism will emit a type of response and the likelihood of that event changing as a function of manipulating the environment (Skinner, 1956, 1963, 1971).” However, unlike most behaviorists, I am more interested in self-experimentation than in other-experimentation. 

The distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) can only be made if the single subject focuses on him or herself. SVB and NVB are universal response classes which occur “as a function of manipulating the environment.” Only if you experiment on yourself will you be able to recognize that your voice sounds totally different in SVB and NVB. In order to have SVB someone must stimulate you to listen to yourself while you speak. Focus on single subjects is definitely a step in the right direction as this brings your attention to the set of stimuli that cause you, the organism, to behave, but unless you begin to experiment on yourself, by listening to yourself while you speak, you will not understand the workings of SVB. 

Unless you know under what circumstances your experience of your own voice changes from positive to negative emotions and vice versa, you will be unable to make the necessary environmental arrangements which make SVB possible. Thus, in absence of your own involvement in it SVB cannot be achieved. In other words, as long as the single subject is not you, but someone else, you will try to listen to others or try to understand others, you will try to make others listen to you or you will try to make others understand you, but you will not be listening to yourself. 

Focus on the other, a process I call outward orientation, prevents you from listening to yourself while you speak. Of course, your hyper-vigilant outwardly-directed behavior is your reaction to an aversive and punitive environment. When you feel threatened by someone or something, you are always on guard. Threatening stimuli set the stage for NVB. If, on the other hand, you feel safe and supported, reinforcing stimuli that make you feel relaxed and at ease set the stage for SVB. Due to your sense of well-being your speaking and listening behavior will occur at the same rate and become joined.   

December 13, 2015

December 13, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Students,

This is my thirteenth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” (O’Donohue et al., 1998). The following statement is of great importance for what I have already addressed in yesterday’s writing. I mentioned that the speaker needs to take time to listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. In other words, the speaker must be alone, so that it becomes very easy for him or her to listen to him or herself while he or she speaks. Stated differently, the speaker must create his or her own environment to achieve Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) all by him or herself. This is not to say that he or she can’t have SVB with others, but that it is necessary to first achieve and explore SVB on our own. 

The group-talk we are used to is Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) and our pre-occupation with others prevents SVB. In NVB we, as speakers, want others to listen to us or, as listeners, we try very hard to listen to others, but, as speakers as well as listeners, our focus is on the other and not on ourselves. This communication conundrum, or rather, the simple fact that we have been conditioned by NVB, is the reason that the science of human behavior, behaviorism, until this very day is tossed out in favor of folk psychology.

Our NVB way of talking presumes an inner behavior-causing agent. Dismantling this myth of the inner-self-causation of behavior will only occur when we listen to ourselves. “The final obstacle, the assumption of folk psychology that science is best accomplished through group design research, contrasts with the radical behavioral emphasis on the use of single subjects experimental design.” By listening to yourself while you speak, while are alone, you will be able to create the “single subject experimental design,” that is needed to synchronize and join your speaking and listening behavior.

When you are by yourself there is no such thing as a speaker or a listener, there is only simultaneously: speaking and listening. In your conversations with others, however, you are rarely capable of joining speaking and listening behavior and therefore you are seldom experiencing the unity of the speaker and the listener. When you talk with yourself it is apparent to you that this joining can and should also happen when you speak with others. Moreover, when you achieve SVB by yourself you realize that others have prevented you from having it.