February 1, 2016

February 1, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 108), in Chapter 6 about Values, Skinner writes “A fact is no doubt different from what a person feels about it, but the latter is a fact also.” However, acknowledgment of the latter is more difficult as it deals with how we talk about our feelings. Although Skinner states “What causes trouble here as elsewhere, is the appeal to what people feel,” he doesn’t explain that verbal behavior regarding our feelings is often inaccurate due to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which occurs due to the presence of aversive stimuli. 

Only during Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), in which we feel safe and supported, can we become accurate in our verbal descriptions about what we feel. Indeed, “conditions of the body are much more important.” And, “to make a value judgement by calling something good or bad is to classify it in terms of its reinforcing effects.” Thus, to make a value statement is really to describe the condition of our body. 

Skinner states that the “person who is teaching a child to distinguish among his feelings is like a color-blind person teaching a child to name colors. The teacher cannot be sure about the presence or absence of the condition which determines whether a response is to be reinforced or not.” It would be more accurate to say that such a teacher is more or less tone-deaf; unless he listens to himself while he speaks, he cannot hear what the speaker-as-own-listener is hearing. The color-blind metaphor is not working. “The language of emotion is not precise” as long as we don’t listen to ourselves while we speak and inadvertently engage in NVB.  Surely, “We describe our emotions with terms which have been learned in connection with other kinds of things, almost all the words we use were originally metaphors.” However, we need to discriminate the two universal response classes: SVB and NVB.     

January 30, 2016

January 30, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

The Framers weren’t behavioral scientists, but believers in God who did the best they could in writing a document which would “first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself” (The Federalist). Had they been behavioral engineers, they would have only written about the “external control of government” and leave the “internal control on government” to their angels and God. Benjamin Franklin, who believed in a “beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being”, espouses Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) as he has “so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence.” The fact is that priest and politicians have attempted, but failed at behavioral engineering. 

  

Also, George Washington, who stated “The adoption of the Constitution will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it,” is carried away by religious make-believe, which has nothing to do with how environmental variables determine the behavior of those who govern as well as those who are governed. Although it says in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” our behavior is not determined by an imaginary higher power, but by our surroundings, that is, by other people. 

The person who grows up in an abusive environment is, of course, negatively affected. The laws about human behavior trump religious fantasies about “unalienable Rights.” Besides, there is nothing “self-evident” about how schedules of reinforcement determine the frequency of behavior. To know about this requires study which is only possible if we suspend pre-scientific beliefs about the causes of behavior.  America has produced a B.F. Skinner, but it still hangs on to a Declaration of Independence, which firmly relies on “the protection of divine Providence” and states  that “the character” of “the Prince”, who answered “our repeated petitions” for “redress” only “by repeated injury”, is defined as “a Tyrant,” who is “unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” It is time to let go of these Founding Fathers and to honor and respect Skinner’s work.

January 29, 2016

January 29, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

George Washington reportedly said to the Constitutional Convention delegates “If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our world. Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God.”  He was trying to say something about the necessity and consistency of how things had to be framed. Due to his growing up he must have had many instances of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) which made him focus on what the Founders as well as the people agree on, but which also allowed him to acknowledge and anticipate the likelihood of discord between the government and the governed, which is, of course, is a version of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

Washington was in his own way trying to point out the need to identify NVB and to go back to SVB, to “repair” the agreement if it got lost as that is the “wise and honest” thing to do.  However, this is not a matter of defending “our world”, but of having no need to defend, as SVB can only occur in the absence of aversive stimulation. Thus, SVB is not and “event” that “is in the hands of God”, to the contrary, it is a natural phenomenon which humans either accomplish or fail to accomplish. 

Stated differently, “the wise and honest”, which couldn't be anyone else but behavioral scientists, either are really knowledgeable about behavior and therefore “can repair” or these behavioral engineers are humble enough to accept that they don’t know and can’t repair the interactions between the government and the governed. There is no place for “God” in this picture as we are talking about what human beings do each other. 

Without SVB neither the government nor the people are capable of controlling themselves. In “The Federalist” (essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison) it is written “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls of government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Certainly,  “angels” and “God” have nothing to do with control of behavior, but neither has “internal” control or the causation of behavior by an inner self.

January 28, 2016

January 28, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

If you were a student in the class where I yesterday did a presentation, you would have experienced the sound of my voice. This can’t be accomplished with written words, but it can still be described. I spoke to this group of students as I had first spoken with their teacher. In our brief conversation, she had become so excited and intrigued that she had invited me. The class was well-prepared and when I arrived all her students were present. Initially she had said my presentation could last about twenty minutes to half an hour, but the interaction with her class went so well that she signaled me to continue and complete the whole hour. 

I had made a hand-out which was visible on the screen and I read part of what I said from what I had already written. This gave me a focus which made my presentation more powerful. I could see, hear and feel that everyone was really impressed. The questions that were raised and the remarks that were made were all meaningful and making things even more clear. As I explained the difference between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) the students became more involved. Since I had written down the main points, the words I spoke came out in an organized, succinct and powerful manner. 

I had sent her the hand-out in an email attachment, but for some reason she wasn’t able to open it.  Because of this I pulled up the email and we read it together from the big screen. Perhaps this was a lucky coincidence and things might have been very different if students would have had the hand-out in their hands. They were reading from the screen with me and when they were asking questions and making remarks they rephrased what they read on the screen. Also, the fact that this teacher allowed me to keep going for the entire duration of her class gave me a sense of confidence and approval. I just received an email from her in which she stated that she had been thinking about these matters her entire life and that my analysis had made things clear to her which had never been clear to her before.  She thanked me and stated that I had put into words an important process which could only be understood in the behavioristic way in which I had explained it.

January 27, 2016

January 27, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In his book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” (1971, p. 61) Skinner explains “This strange state of affairs can be understood only by looking at the way in which organisms respond to punitive contingencies”(Italics added). It is not so strange that especially people “who defend freedom and dignity” emphasize punishment of unwanted behavior by others, because they find that to be reinforcing. Since they don’t include listening as an observing behavior in their study of punitive contingencies, they continue the false belief in holding a person accountable for his or her criminal behavior. However, in the long-term punishment doesn’t decrease criminal behavior. Although in the short-term punishment results into a decrease of unwanted behavior, in the long-term the punished person will misbehave as he or she gets better at escaping and avoiding the punishment. 

As these short-term consequences are incredibly reinforcing to the punisher, the punishment behavior is increased. The common belief is that “a person who has been punished is less likely to behave in the same way again”, but this is simply not true.  Moreover, as long as we only look at what a person does, rather than listen to what a person says in response to what we say, we will never get clear on the true role that is played by our verbal behavior in punishment procedures. 

Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is a punishment procedure in which the speaker aversively influences the listener with the sound of his voice.  When the speaker coerces the listener into compliance by communicating his presumed authority or superiority, the speaker is reinforced for punishing the listener and because of this “strange state of affairs” the punished listener is always only getting better at escaping and avoiding the punishing speaker over time. However, when the punishing speaker listens to himself while he speaks, he will notice that he is having this effect on the listener, because he is now himself that listener.  When a speaker notices that he is punishing himself by expressing a certain voice, there instantly occurs a change of his sound due to which he is able to produce Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) in which his voice becomes reinforcing to him and others.