January 24, 2016

January 24, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Skinner writes in “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” (1971, p.24) that “almost all our major problems involve human behavior and they cannot be solved by physical or biological technology alone.” He is right, but he could have been more specific. In this book he addresses our misunderstanding about human behavior in general, but he doesn’t single out our verbal behavior as our biggest problem.  Certainly, “what is needed is a technology of behavior”, but without getting a technology of spoken communication, we will not get such a technology. The science of human behavior requires another way of talking. Our old way of talking is riddled with concepts which are imagined and therefore cannot bring us in touch with reality.  

In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) we are in constant pain and anguish about our lives. We accept forceful ways of talking as the norm as we don’t understand how to maintain an interaction which is free of aversive stimulation.  Only such a conversation is Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB).  The role of the environment in explaining behavior is obscured due to explanatory fictions perpetuated by our way of talking.  In any conversation a selection process is at work. Depending on the presence or the absence of aversive stimuli different behaviors will be selected. This evolutionary process determines that although there is a place for SVB within every culture, NVB is mostly reinforced due to hostile environments.  Spreading knowledge of behavioral science is important, but as long as our speaking and listening behaviors continue to be traced to “states of mind, feelings, traits of character, human nature and so on” we will engage in NVB.  

To engage in SVB, we will have to become scientific about how we talk. SVB is explained by behaviorism, but to accomplish it doesn’t require knowledge of behaviorism. What is needed is an environment free of aversive stimulation. Such an environment can only come about and be maintained if all the communicators can experience and enjoy the reinforcing benefits from such an environment. Neither SVB nor NVB is the result of the “autonomous man of traditional theory.”

January 23, 2016

January 23, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

It is 1-23-2016. On TV you can see and hear the debates among the Republican and Democratic candidates.  Some of them produce more Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) instances than others, but all of them express more Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) than SVB. People say politics is a blood sport. What they mean is that politicians attack each other, one-up each other as they try to win the debate.  Politicians are believed to be smart, shrewd and calculated or they are said to be weak, lacking in leadership and presidential material.  This is all inaccurate nonsense. However, when they are said to be playing to the base, we are getting a bit closer to a behavioral account.  Then we follow the link between their behavior and the environment of which their behavior is a function. Since representatives of each party want to bring victory to their constituency, an aversive environment is created and maintained.  The so-called reaching across the aisle doesn't increase of SVB.  The compromise that is made when ideologies collide, only preserves, deepens and increases the divide.  Also, this metaphor or this rhyme is useless. The frequency of NVB has increased and the frequency of SVB has dropped to an all-time low.  As a consequence, legislation that is written and passed is utterly meaningless in controlling the behavior which is good for the culture, behavior which enhances and maintains the culture.  Less and less legislation is passed on which most people can agree. It seems as if agreeing about anything is something only for the weak. An increase of SVB and a decrease of NVB will dismantle our backward ideologies. If we would really listen to both sides of the debate, we would begin to distinguish between SVB and NVB. Neither Democrats nor Republicans could argue in favor of SVB as it would make them realize and abandon  their unscientific explanations about human behavior. There are no inner selves that are causing us to behave the way we do.  This explanatory fiction is perpetuated NVB, in which the speaker appears to exist separate from the listener. In SVB, there exists neither a speaker nor a listener, but our speaking and listening behaviors will be joined.

January 22, 2016

January 22, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Not too long ago, I couldn’t think that one day I would enjoy writing as much as I do today. This winter break between the Fall and the Spring Semester allows me to take it easy for a couple of weeks. I am at home alone and that sets the stage for this writing. Skinner opens his book Verbal Behavior (p. 1, 1957) with the sentence: “Men act on the world, and change it, and are changed by it in turn by the consequences of their action. Certain processes, which the human shares with other species, alter behavior so that it achieves a safer and more useful interchange with a particular environment.” 

I enjoy my break so much because the Fall Semester was a great success. As a teacher, I have acted on the world, that is, I have acted on my students. In turn, I am changed by their positive feedback about my teaching. Skinner makes an important point by focusing on behavior that “achieves a safer and more useful interchange with a particular environment.” This relates to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). We only create a “safer and more useful interchange” with SVB. In NVB we don’t feel safe and we cannot have “a more useful interchange.” The “particular environment” which causes SVB is different from “a particular environment” which causes NVB. 

In SVB as well as NVB speakers assert an indirect effect upon their environment, that is, “upon other men”, but only in SVB do they do so without any aversive stimulation. In NVB, the coercive speaker may also accomplish a so-called “useful interchange” by means of threat and intimidation, but he or she doesn’t create any safety. The “useful interchange” made possible by safety is only achieved during SVB.    

January 21, 2016

January 21, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

I didn’t like the tone with which others were talking and each time I tried again to interact with those whose tone I didn’t like, I didn’t like my own tone either. The only communication which mattered to me was one in which my tone as well as the tone of others was enjoyable. This was a huge problem for me as the sound of the voice of others was not like that at all.  When I talked out loud by myself, however, I liked my own voice and I came to terms with my problem of rejection and misunderstanding. 

I was severely and to some extent still am handicapped as I was only able to understand what someone was saying if this person spoke with a voice which had a positive effect on me. When, out of deep frustration, I gave up on trying to talk with others, I began to listen to and hear myself. Around age 35 I identified the sound with which I wanted to speak. As this writing illustrates, I wasn’t stimulated to listen to my own voice as long as I was struggling with the negative effects of the voices of others.  This phenomenon is experienced by millions of people, who have never been able to put their finger on it and who are believed to have attentional problems, low self-esteem or all sorts of so-called mental illnesses. The fact is that this communication issue remains completely unaddressed.  

I don’t feel that big of an urge to talk with others anymore. I know that most people aren't able to have much Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). As I became older, my need to talk out loud with myself also subsided. Then, as I started to write about these matters, my writing was first as intense as my speaking, but as the years went by that tension dissolved. Today’s writing is a milestone as it feels that tension has completely disappeared. I still like to write these words, which are meant to be read by others. If they read these words and hear their own sound they will recognize SVB.

January 20, 2016

January 20, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In the past, I often experienced an incredible urge to talk. Talking was absolutely the most important thing for me. One can imagine how this must have affected others. To most people my intensity level was off-putting and as a consequence I felt rejected. This in turn made talking even more important to me. At one point, I got so frustrated by the fact that nobody wanted to talk with me in the way that I wanted to talk, that, to prevent more rejection, I completely stopped talking with others. This was the period in which I discovered that I was able to talk with myself. 

At first, it was sad to be talking out loud by myself as it seemed to me as if I had been condemned to it, but soon I found out that this created an opportunity for me that didn’t exist before. I could be alone and not cause any havoc. To my surprise, I was able to say many things I had not been able to say during my conversation with others. I enjoyed talking with myself so much that I spend hours of doing this and I made hundreds of audio-recordings of it. I found it as intriguing to talk out loud with myself and produce these recordings as to listen to these recordings. 

You could say I really got to know myself by listening to the conversations with myself which I had recorded. During this exploration, I figured out what went wrong in my conversations with others. While being alone, I particularly enjoyed the fact that I was able to produce the sound which I wanted to have. As I was alone, I felt stimulated to listen to myself. My circumstances made me aware that nobody apparently had been capable of making me listen to myself. By talking out loud by myself, however, I began to listen to myself. I was fascinated by the fact that others couldn’t make me listen to myself, but that I was capable of doing what they couldn’t.