February 14, 2016

February 14, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 182) Skinner writes “It is not the benevolence of a controller but the contingencies under which he controls benevolently which must be examined. All control is reciprocal, and an interchange between control and counter-control is essential to the evolution of culture. The interchange is disturbed by the literatures of freedom and dignity, which interpret counter control as the suppression rather than the correction of controlling practices.”  

I identify Skinner’s benevolent controller’s way of talking as Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB).  During SVB, the speaker affects the listener with an appetitive contingency.  I don’t believe the interchange was suppressed by the literature, by the written forms of verbal behavior.  Skinner, like most academics, has overestimated the power of the printed word, but underestimated the power of the spoken word. 

Interchange between control and counter control was never suppressed by the literature of freedom and dignity, but by hostile environments which gave rise to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). During such spoken communication, the speaker controls the listener with an aversive contingency. The “misinterpretation” then, which, according to Skinner,  led to “the suppression of counter control rather than the correction of controlling practices” signifies the high rates of NVB and the low rates of SVB.  It is an artifact of academia that printed words are seen as more important than spoken words. 

In the United States, the conservative supreme-court judge Scalia just died. He had made it his life work to defend the Constitution and lived by what is written rather than by what is said.  His departure will expose the big gap between spoken and written communication. Skinner wrote “In spite of remarkable advantages [our constitution], our culture may prove to have a fatal flaw [words added (p. 183).” It is not only America’s flaw, but it is the misinterpretation of modern man to think that what is written is of greater importance than what is said. Talking and listening are lawful behaviors which can only be explored and acknowledged while we engage together in SVB.

February 13, 2016

February 13, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 172) Skinner describes how someone like me is able to devote his life to the exploration and the implementation of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). He writes “A person who designs a piece of equipment for his own use presumably takes the interest of the user into account, and the person who designs a social environment in which he is to live will presumably do the same. He will select the goods or values which are important to him and arrange the kind of contingencies to which he can adapt.” 

I design social environments by arranging as often as I can the contingencies which make SVB possible and which will decrease and ultimately extinguish Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). I do this as SVB feels comfortable to me. My only interest in NVB is in enhancing my ability to avoid the environment in which it happens.  

Skinner writes (p. 177) “What is needed is more “intentional” control, not less, and this is an important engineering problem. The good of a culture cannot function as the source of genuine reinforcers for the individual, and the reinforcers contrived by cultures to induce their members to work for their survival are often in conflict with personal reinforcers.” If the culture adopts SVB, however, it will “function as a source of genuine reinforcers for the individual.” 

SVB solves the “engineering problem” as it evokes the “intentional” control that Skinner is referring to. The fact that the goods of previous cultures could not “function as the source of genuine reinforcers for the individual” was determined by the way in which people have talked; they have predominantly engaged in NVB. Stated differently, the contingency that made SVB possible was never an “intentional” part of the culture.  The contingency that set the stage for NVB, created a conflict between personal reinforcers and those which guarantee the survival of our culture, but SVB will solve this conflict.

February 12, 2016

February 12, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 171) Skinner writes “The great problem is to arrange effective counter control and hence to bring some important consequences to bear on the behavior of the controller.” As described in yesterday’s writing, the counter control that is elicited by the Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) speaker in the listener, when he or she becomes a speaker, only increases the NVB response rate. Our participation in NVB only enhances it, but doesn’t and can’t decrease it. 

Although occasionally there may be some moments in which the NVB speaker allows the listener who becomes a speaker to express some Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), this will only be used by the NVB speaker to strengthen his or her control over the listener. The only way in which NVB can be reliably decreased is by not participating in it. Stated differently, NVB can only be decreased by the extent to which we are able arrange for the circumstances which will create and maintain our SVB. Nothing can be done directly about NVB.  

As SVB increases, NVB will decrease. The lawfulness of this fluctuation can be observed in our own lives. Although at any given moment we will be experiencing increases of NVB and decreases of SVB, the more we discriminate between these two response classes, the more we will notice a steady increase in SVB and a decrease in NVB. This occurs because we get better at recognizing and avoiding NVB. 

Interestingly, Skinner notes (p.172) “Self-government often seems to solve the problem [of counter control] by identifying the controller with the controlled. The principle of making the controller a member of the group he controls should apply to the designer of a culture.” By becoming a member of the SVB culture, the controller will have solved the issue of counter control. In NVB, the controller cannot identify with the controlled and, consequently, the issue of counter control will only be further exacerbated.

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.