January 26, 2016

January 26, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In his book “Freedom and Dignity” (1971, p. 58) Skinner writes “We recognize a person’s dignity or worth when we give him credit for what he has done. The amount we give is inversely proportional to the conspicuousness of the causes of his behavior.” The word conspicuous comes from the Latin verb conspicere, which means “to look at.” Since the cause of someone’s behavior is often not easy to see or notice, we are inclined to attribute the behavior to the individual, who is visible.  We then say that someone is attractive, intelligent or impressive.  In each case, we make the mistake of giving credit to what the person presumably has done, while in reality he was only able to do what he did because he was in an environment which stimulated him to do what he did. We should take note here of our mistake of attributing the invisible causation of behavior to a visible person. 

Skinner states “we try to gain additional credit by concealing the reasons why we behave in given ways or by claiming to have acted for less powerful reasons.” When we say a person is hiding his feelings, we think we refer to the obfuscation of the cause of his behavior. However, any talking in which we credit a person for what he has done will be Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) as it prevents us from discriminating the environmental independent variables of which his behavior is a function. As long as we are looking instead of listening for these variables, we are not going to be able to find them. In NVB, because we don’t listen to how we sound while we speak, we get carried by what we say, and, consequently, we maintain the belief that an inner self is responsible for causing our behavior. 

When we say, ‘his voice gave him away’, we mean his sound was more veridical and was telling us more about the cause of his behavior than his words.  The word veridical comes from the Latin verb veridicus, which means us (ver) true + i + (dicus) speaking. In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) we listen while we speak to the environmental variables which cause us to communicate the way we do.  In doing so, we speak the truth. We are not communicating the way we do because we are causing our own behavior; we are communicating the way we acknowledge that we are each other’s environment and are having a positive effect on each other!

January 25, 2016

January 25, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In his book “Freedom and Dignity” (1971, p. 25) Skinner explains that “a scientific analysis shifts both the responsibility and the achievement to the environment.” His writing is a form of public speech and a teacher will speak about behaviorism with his or her students.  Depending, however, on whether this teacher finds him or herself in a hostile or safe environment, he or she will teach about behaviorism in a Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) or a Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) manner.  

These two different ways of teaching will select different behaviors in students. Those who were taught in a NVB manner acquire different values and use behavioral technology to another end than those who were taught in a SVB manner.  Someone who was taught in a SVB manner will not be interested in power and prestige. He or she will turn away from such harmful stimuli, which are ubiquitous in academia. This operant conditioning process is called negative reinforcement as avoidance and escape behaviors occur in environments which aversively affect the organism.  Behaviorists who were taught in a NVB manner aren’t even aware of how they are affected by negative environments, yet, they are continuously struggling. In spite of their behavioristic knowledge they act just like everyone else: as if their behavior is caused by an autonomous self. 

On the other hand, if one was taught behaviorism in a SVB fashion, avoidance behavior would be emphasized as the royal path to relationship, sanity and health.  Skinner’s life signified that he was not interested in constructs like self and freedom, which don’t explain behavior. His explanation of freedom as a biological mechanism to reduce aversive stimulation becomes apparent if we apply it to how we communicate.  We all have a natural tendency to turn away from NVB. Denial of this and other natural human tendencies cause us enormous problems.  Skinner is absolutely correct in stating “the struggle for freedom is mainly directed toward intentional controllers – toward those who treat others aversively in order to induce them to behave in particular ways.”  We have not yet fully acknowledged how others condition us to remain in their NVB environments.

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.