February 16, 2016

February 16, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 187) Skinner writes “The inner gatekeeper is replaced by the contingencies to which the organism has been exposed and which selects the stimuli to which it reacts.” Skinner and other behaviorists, who did the experiments with pigeons in which they made them “attend to one object and not to another, or to one property of an object, such as its color, and not to another, such as its shape (p.187)”, acquired what is commonly described as confident behavior.  In Skinner it seems very evident that confidence also generalized to the way in which he spoke. 

In spite of the recognition which Skinner received, it didn’t lead to an environment in which he or other behaviorists began to pay closer attention to the importance of how we speak with one another. Prior hostile contingencies affect us in such a way that we fixate on the verbal, remain on guard and stay on the surface and therefore are unable to explore the vocal aspects of what we say while we speak. 

 

Since we don’t know under what circumstances we have SVB, we don’t often have it. As long as we feel threatened or negatively affected during our conversations, we are not able to learn the skills necessary for SVB.  We produce high rates of NVB and low rates of SVB as we don’t know how to decrease the former and increase the latter.  “The fact remains that it is the environment which acts upon the perceiving person, not the perceiving person who acts upon the environment (p. 188).” As this remains unaddressed, we continue to increase our NVB.  It makes no difference whether we are dealing with hostile politicians, scientists who are struggling to get funds for their research or people who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder; they are all trapped by contingencies that give rise to NVB.

February 15, 2016

February 15, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 185) Skinner suggests “We must know how the environment works before we can change it to change behavior. A mere shift in emphasis from man to environment means very little.” Although Skinner went to great length to explain why in the science of human behavior “the environment takes over the function and role of autonomous man (p. 185)”, he never spoke of the two ways of talking, which emphasize or ignore this science. 

Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which the speaker aversively influences the listener, is simply too coarse to address the complexity of environment-behavior functional relations.  The public speech which is necessary to convey radical behaviorism is Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB).  Only in the absence of aversive stimuli do we and can we engage in SVB. Moreover, SVB can only be prolonged to the extent that we can maintain the environment in which it occurs. 

Although he has never talked about this, Skinner’s public speech contained a lot of SVB and relatively little NVB. Most behaviorists, however, were mainly affected in their private speech, but not in their public speech. Their public speech contains as much NVB as non-behaviorists. The fact that they became knowledgeable about behavioral science makes them have more NVB than people who are not that adamant about what they know. 

Novice behaviorists learn how to write and speak in their new language, but their NVB public speech was never addressed, let alone corrected. Consequently, most rejection of behaviorism in academia has nothing to do with resistance against behaviorism, but with the way in which its representatives have talked about it.  Most criticism is based on misunderstanding of behaviorism. Why did this misunderstanding occur? Why do many people still demonize it? The misunderstanding of behaviorism in particular and of science in general is a function of our unscientific way of talking called NVB.

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.