February 11, 2016

February 11, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 170) Skinner writes “Reciprocal control is not necessarily intentional in either direction, but it becomes so when the consequences make themselves felt.” The Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) speaker coerces the listener and consequently is unable to take turns with the listener. If the listener speaks at all, it is only to the extent that he or she is allowed by the NVB speaker. Naturally, when such a listener speaks, he or she will also produce NVB. By contrast, the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) speaker invites the listener to become a SVB speaker, which is a speaker who takes turns with the listener. A SVB speaker becomes a listener when the listener becomes the speaker. 

During SVB there is no struggle between the listener and the speaker about who is doing the speaking, for how long and about what. The NVB speaker, however, who aversively controls the listener, always elicits counter-control, that is, NVB, from the listener when this listener becomes a speaker. In SVB, the speaker regulates the listener and the listener regulates the speaker; in other words, in SVB the speaker and the listener co-regulate each other. In NVB, on the other hand, the speaker dis-regulates the listener and when the listener speaks, he or she dis-regulates the initial speaker. In NVB the speaker and the listener are in constant competition about who gets the attention. 

Struggle for attention is one of the three main characteristics of NVB. Another characteristic of NVB is that while NVB speakers demand others listen to them, they are not listening to themselves. As a consequence, the listener must strain him or herself to listen to the verbally-fixated NVB speaker. Moreover, such a verbally-carried-away NVB speaker is not aware of him or herself. He or she prevents others from paying attention to their own experience. Thus, in NVB the speaker as well as the listener remain outward or other-oriented.   

February 10, 2016

February 10, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 169), Skinner writes “the relation between the controller and the controlled is reciprocal.” The scientist not only controls the behavior of the pigeon, “the behavior of the pigeon has determined the design of the apparatus and the procedures in which it is used.” Skinner explains the bi-directional nature of science which is necessary for the understanding of human behavior. “In a very real sense, then, the slave controls the slave driver, the child the parent, the patient the therapist, the citizen the government, the communicant the priest, the employee the employer, and the student the teacher.” Although it is absolutely true that Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is maintained by both the powerless as well as the powerful communicators and Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) is maintained by those who are equals, Skinner would not have written this, if he had known about the SVB/NVB distinction. 

If we consider hierarchical differences in terms of who is doing most of the talking or listening, it is evident that control is mainly exerted by the speaker. Thus, slave drivers, parents, therapists, governments, priests, employees and teachers do most of the talking. That is, if we were to have more SVB among equals, the hierarchical structure of society would change. It would have to change to accommodate SVB speakers. In NVB there are only a few speakers who do all the talking, but in SVB there are many speakers who speak more often as their speech is listened to. 

In NVB only a few people are speaking and even fewer are listening. In SVB, although many are speaking, many are listening. The relationship changes which are occurring because of SVB are so positive that we find it hard to believe we were insensitive to the SVB/NVB distinction. Fact is, biologically, we have never been insensitive to the workings of SVB and NVB. Whether we were aware of it or not, we have all been troubled by the forceful, ubiquitous presence of NVB and the absence of SVB of genuine human interaction. Most of our problems are based on theories which don’t explain our behavior.  We have always been affected by SVB and NVB, but we lacked the skill to talk about this.

February 9, 2016

February 9, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971), Skinner writes “The only hope is planned diversification, in which the importance of variety is recognized (p. 162).” This cannot come about without recognizing the interaction which sets the stage for this. Without Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) there can be no “planned diversification.” 

Absence of SVB means presence of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).  NVB prevents “planned diversification.” The world we live in is mainly determined by NVB.  Unless we change, as Skinner suggests, the reinforcers, we cannot create environment in which SVB will occur.

I disagree with Skinner on how new contingencies come about. The change of reinforcers will come about due to how we talk with each other and not, as Skinner and behaviorists have believed, due to what we write and read. The statement “the problem is to design a world which will be liked by people not as they now are but by those who live in it (p. 164),” is made without any awareness about SVB. 

While unknowingly responding to the ubiquity of NVB Skinner seems to assume that we cannot talk about these problems.  Due to NVB the world is not liked by people as “they now are,” but due to SVB the world would be liked by people “as they now are.”  Moreover, SVB is made possible because the contingencies of reinforcement can be adjusted and attuned by how we speak. Thus, a man would only “deliberately go mad to prove his point (p.165)” during the kind of spoken communication in which the negative contingencies are forced on him. “Out of control behavior” is not to be taken as if “madness were a special kind of freedom or as if the behavior of a psychotic could not be predicted or controlled (p.165),” but should be considered as a form of NVB. Similarly, NVB, which  is about negative emotions, is also described by “the bitterness” with which the “libertarian discusses science and technology of behavior.”

February 8, 2016

February 8, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

Read the book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971) by B.F. Skinner, as it will help you to understand my insistence on the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction.  When people talk excessively about their feelings (like I used to do before I learned about behaviorism), they are basically trying to do the best they can in saying what is wrong about the contingencies.  As long as they experience aversive environments, they will inevitably engage in NVB, but once they experience people, who create sensitive, supportive and reinforcing environments, they naturally engage in SVB. Skinner is right “behavior can be changed by changing the conditions of which it is a function (p.150).” 

SVB and NVB are functions of different environments, which are created by people, who have been reinforced for different vocal verbal behavior.  I disagree with Skinner, who states “We have the physical, biological, and behavioral technologies needed “to save ourselves”; the problem is how to get people to use them (p. 158).” We lack the technology about how we talk.  The SVB/NVB distinction is unknown even to behaviorists. People will not be using behavioral technologies as long as NVB is the behaviorist’s main way of talking. One of the problems Skinner identifies is that scientists must start with simple experiments to be able to advance to complex problems. 

“Our progress often does not seem rapid enough.” Skinner argues that “early physicists, chemists and biologist enjoyed a kind of natural protection against the complexity of their fields.” Unlike the modern behavioral scientists, they didn’t have to fight back against the “well advanced” formulations.  We only simplify by increasing our SVB and decreasing our NVB. This is needed to break down our communication problems and to solve them in a pragmatic manner.

February 7, 2016

February 7, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In the final paragraph of “Beyond Words: Human Communication Through Sound” (2016), Kraus & Slater, without knowing it, describe Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB. “An important aspect of synchrony is that it is a natural signature of emotion, since the potent neural chemistry of emotion can trigger activation across multiple brain regions within a very short space of time (Scherer, 2013).” This describes SVB. Since “synchrony” refers to absence of activation of “basic signaling mechanisms underlying flight or fight behavior”, this latter part is a description of NVB. 

“Interpersonal synchrony” always builds on SVB as it “implies shared emotion.” Certainly, the “social bonds between individuals”, which are made possible by “blurring the boundaries between self and other (Tarr et al, 2014), is what communication is all about.” Thus, as long as we remain engaged in NVB, our “words” merely “scratch the surface”, but only in SVB will the sound of the speaker be able to “move” the listener “beyond words.” In NVB, by contrast, the speaker’s voice is experienced as an aversive stimulus by the listener. 

One of the “future issues” which is suggested by these authors is “identification of distinct components of rhythmic processing” to better understand “connections between music and language skills.” However, only SVB is one of the “components of rhythmic processing.” In NVB, the link with between music and language is lost as the speaker’s voice pushes, pulls, punches, suffocates and drills the listener. Their suggestion is most needed: “Further investigation of dynamic synchrony, for example, two people speaking in unison, may help reveal predictive mechanism important for speech.” The SVB/NVB distinction is necessary as it is precisely about how we are actually affecting each other while we speak. Let’s listen to that