February 26 , 2016

February 26 , 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

Today’s writing concludes my comments on Skinner’s book “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” (1971).  Since I know about the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction, I don’t find it “hard to imagine a world in which people live together without quarreling, maintain themselves by producing food, shelter and clothing they need, enjoy themselves and contribute to the enjoyment of others in art, music, literature, and games, consume only a reasonable part of the resources of the world and add as little as possible to its pollution, bear no more children than can be raised decently, continue to explore the world around them and discover better ways of dealing with it, and come to know themselves accurately and, therefore, manage themselves effectively (p. 214).” 

It amazes me Skinner is not more adamant about changing the way in which we talk.  How else could we accomplish any of the things he mentions? Fact is, we couldn’t and we haven’t.  The assumption that it would be “hard to imagine” is based on NVB. Someone who is familiar with SVB would never say that.  Although he unknowingly referred to it, Skinner didn’t know SVB.  When the “experimental analysis shifts the determination of behavior from autonomous man to the environment – an environment responsible both for the evolution of the species and for the repertoire acquired by each member”, there must occur a change in the way we talk together. 

We are each other’s environment and regardless of what we say, we influence each other positively or negatively.  When we talk about the environment, we are inclined to think of weather or the forests, but we don’t consider ourselves as the most important part of the environment on which everything else depends. As long as we keep influencing each other negatively, we set the stage for NVB, but to the extent that we influence each other positively, we create and maintain a new environment in which SVB is possible. “Early versions of environmentalism were inadequate because they could not explain how the environment worked, and much seemed to be left for autonomous man to do (p. 215).” Indeed, NVB was the real reason that the issue of our identity was never properly discussed. 

There is no need for “autonomous inner man” to be abolished as our inclination to hang on to such an imaginary construct was a function of an aversive environment.  By listening to ourselves while we speak we change the environment in such a way that the speaker and the listener will be experienced as one. The oneness of our environment can be communicated accurately only during SVB. Man “is indeed controlled by his environment, but we must remember that it is an environment largely of his own making.  The evolution of a culture is a gigantic exercise in self-control (p. 215).” 

We either contribute to SVB or to NVB. In the former, we manage ourselves and each other with love and care, but in the latter we force ourselves and each other to do all sorts of things. Obviously, we do to others what we do to ourselves, but what we do to ourselves was done to us by others. Nobody is to be blamed for his or her NVB or is to be praised for his or her SVB. When we have SVB, we all participate in it and when we have NVB, we are also all part of it. 

I agree with Skinner that “A scientific view of man offers exciting possibilities”, but I strongly disagree with him that “We have not yet seen what man can make of man (p. 215). I have seen and, more importantly, I have heard what SVB will do to people. I have taught  hundreds of students who can tell you about the positive effects of SVB. In my classroom I create the environment in which all students reliably experience an increase SVB and a decrease NVB.  This result can be obtained by anyone who knows about the SVB/NVB distinction. There is nothing mysterious about it. SVB is the science of vocal verbal behavior.  Its results are predictable and replicable.    

February 25 , 2016

February 25 , 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In the final pages of Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 213) Skinner writes “We have seen how the literatures of freedom and dignity, with their concern for autonomous man, have perpetuated the use of punishment and condoned the use of only weak punitive techniques, and it is not difficult to demonstrate a connection between the right of the unlimited individual to pursue happiness and the catastrophes threatened by unchecked breeding, the unrestrained affluence which exhausts resources and pollutes the environment, and the immanence of nuclear war.” Although this is certainly true, our way of talking plays a much bigger causal role than what has been written; “the literatures of freedom and dignity.” 

If Skinner had attempted to address the great importance of how we influence each other by our way of talking, he would have had to account for the positive and negative emotions, which are the collateral effects of how we talk. Obviously, as long as autonomous man was reinforced for how we spoke with one another, we felt positive emotions and we weren’t the least concerned with him, but since this non-existent autonomous man was in fact punished so many times that we were practically unable to feel real to the point that we were almost constantly involved in asserting counter control. 

Counter control became our way of defining ourselves due to our Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB).  In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), there is no counter control as no one elicits it. The fact that speakers and listeners together maintain SVB puts the speaker’s attention on the listener. In SVB, the speaker-as-his-own-listener fine-tunes and connects his or her speaking and listening behavior.  Also, in SVB, the listener who is not the speaker, hears a sound that bridges speaking and listening behavior. Consequently, there is no separation between the speaker and the listener in SVB. Our so-called “unlimited pursuit of happiness” could never lead to the merging of our speaking and listening behavior.  To the contrary, it constantly set apart the speaker and the listener as separate entities, presumably caused by this autonomous inner man. We may have been in pursuit of happiness, but we were never able to achieve it with our NVB. Our pursuit of happiness has remained limited by hostile environments. 

Unlimited pursuit of happiness involves reinforcement of our ability to create and maintain safe, supportive and stable environments. Our freedom of speech is only meaningful to the extent that we are able to listen ourselves and that listeners will hear speakers who listen to themselves, that is, to the extent that we together engage in SVB.  As long as our NVB didn’t and couldn’t transform into SVB, we weren’t happy and we couldn’t be happy. For a long time we have been able to avoid the issue of how we interact with each other. 

The literature of freedom and dignity is negatively reinforced as it takes our attention temporarily away from the ubiquity of NVB. NOT because of the literature of freedom and dignity, but because of NVB are we heading toward “the catastrophes threatened by unchecked breeding, the unrestrained affluence which exhausts resources and pollutes the environment, and the immanence of nuclear war.” The only way to change things around is by creating environments in which SVB can happen, where our so-called identity is no longer an issue because we are not threatened. 

Although we may continue to believe otherwise, our books and our written words play no causal role in the perpetuation of our punitive behavioral control.  It is our way of talking which drives many of our other behaviors. In NVB punishment is executed by what we say and by how we speak. It is therefore useless to write about extinguishing the common belief in autonomous man. Unless we talk about it, that is, unless we engage in SVB nothing can or will change.  In SVB it is evident that there can be no inner self. During SVB we realize that we have continued an inaccurate way of describing ourselves and each other. In SVB we come to terms with the fact that NVB was an unconscious, mechanical, unscientific and negative way of talking.

February 24 , 2016

February 24 , 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971) Skinner explains that reality doesn’t change because our theory about reality changes. Reality stays the same and theories are only as good as they can bring us in touch with reality.  By being in touch with reality we create control. On page 213 he writes “What does change is our chance of doing something about the subject of our theory. Newton’s analysis of the light in a rainbow was a step in the direction of the laser.” The “subject of our theory” is how we communicate.  The Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction allows us to permanently change and improve the way in which we talk. 

Due to SVB we will have no more problems with ourselves or with each other and we will understand ourselves and each other. In NVB, the opposite is the case. In NVB we keep creating problems. Another benefit from SVB is that we perceive saying as doing.  The separation between what a person says and does or, what a person believes or does, is based on the assumption that saying is not doing. Saying is doing and we do a lot of harm by what we say. If we were aware of what we do to ourselves and what we do each other by how we speak, we would be stimulated to talk in a different way. 

Each moment this awareness sets in, a person’s NVB effortlessly transforms into SVB.  SVB is a conscious, sensitive and flexible way of talking, but in NVB we are insensitive, inflexible, mechanical and on automatic pilot.  In SVB, our focus is effortless and effective, but in NVB, we struggle with ourselves and each other to get the attention and to pay attention. Skinner is absolutely correct by stating that the traditional conception of man “was designed to build up the individual as an instrument of counter control, and it did so effectively but in such a way as to limit progress (p.213).” However, this counter control is only asserted during NVB, it is not elicited in SVB, which reinforces all the communicators and supports progress.

February 23 , 2016

February 23 , 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 212) Skinner explains why we have trouble seeing ourselves as part of the natural environment. “What do people do about such a scientific picture of man is call it wrong, demeaning, and dangerous, argue against it, and attack those who propose or defend it. They do so not out of wounded vanity but because the scientific formulation has destroyed accustomed reinforcers.” Mostly people change the conversation when it is no longer reinforcing to them. What goes on unnoticed is that such a change is always from Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), in which people felt reinforced, to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which they continuously judge, argue and attack one another. 

Although it is true that we don’t feel reinforced by something we don’t believe in, the shift from SVB to NVB has more to do with how things are being said than about what is being said. In Skinner’s written analysis the focus is on what is being said, but by fixating on the verbal and by asserting counter control, he inadvertently enhances NVB even though in his speech he mostly had SVB. “If a person can no longer take credit or be admired for what he does [read: what he says], then he seems to suffer a loss of dignity and worth, and [verbal] behavior previously reinforced by credit or admiration will undergo extinction” (p. 212) [italics & words added].

When things are not how we believe them to be, we are said to be lost for words. When our explanation, our theory, our belief, our verbal behavior turns out to be wrong, this always dramatically changes the conversation. Under such circumstances our verbal behavior is a function of threatening stimuli.  On the cover of Verbal Behavior (1957) an illustrative incident is mentioned.  Skinner was at a dinner sitting next to the famous philosopher Whitehead. He tried to explain to him that science can account for our verbal behavior, but Whitehead basically ended the conversation by challenging him and expressing his doubt. 

Whitehead said to Skinner “Let me see you account for my behavior as I sit here saying no black scorpion is falling upon this table.” What should be noticed here about this event is that Whitehead had no answer to Skinner’s claim that science can in fact account for our verbal behavior and ended the conversation with him by throwing in a nonverbal threat, a curveball as they say. It was clearly Whitehead who changed the conversation from SVB to NVB. 

As the story goes, the rest is history and “Next morning Skinner began this book.” Thus, Skinner wrote his book Verbal Behavior (1957) in response to Whitehead, who had changed the conversation from SVB to NVB. Skinner proved his point which becomes more clear when behaviorists consider the SVB/NVB distinction.  In none of the papers that were written by behaviorists this incident has been analyzed in this manner. Whitehead clearly tried to intimidate Skinner. How can anyone have missed that? Whitehead must have perceived Skinner’s science of human behavior as threatening, why else would this scholar say something so unnecessarily attacking? 

The SVB/NVB distinction demonstrates that our belief in logical arguments is utterly flawed as it never did or could prevent hostile interaction. Why would there have to be any hostility if we are only concerned with the facts? The fact is, however, that we get upset every time we are no longer in touch with the facts. Also, the fact is that most human interaction, as demonstrated by the dialogue between Skinner and Whitehead, is to not about the facts, but about human emotions.  As long as these negative emotions generated by NVB are continued, we cannot get to the facts. Only with positive emotions, which are expressed during the SVB of Skinner, can we get to the facts. 

With all respect for Skinner, it is NOT true that “No theory changes what a theory is about. Nothing is changed because we look at it, talk about it, or analyze it in a new way (p. 213).” When we engage in SVB and extinguish NVB, we find our that SVB talking and analyzing changes things a great deal. In SVB we fluidly change how we talk and change the way we think as we are no longer feeling threatened.  The fact that we haven’t been able to create the safe environments in which SVB could continue is based on our ignorance about how SVB actually works. We have all had instances of SVB, but we did not engage in SVB reliably, skillfully, predictably, consciously and continuously.  Our reality of conflicts and problems is not going to change as long as we keep talking about it, like Whitehead did, in a NVB manner.

February 22 , 2016

February 22 , 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1971, p. 211) Skinner writes “The direction of the controlling relation is reversed: a person does not act upon the world, the world acts upon him.” Indeed, “in the scientific picture a person is a member of a species shaped by evolutionary contingencies of survival, displaying behavioral processes which bring him under the control of the environment in which he lives (p. 211).” To bring about this “sweeping change” in our “traditional way of thinking” there MUST be a change in how we communicate which is as incredible as when we transitioned from vocalizers to verbalizers. 

Since this shift from Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) couldn’t yet occur, Skinner’s operant science unfortunately is known only by a small group of academics and is not as accepted and validated as Darwin’s theory of evolution.  In part the reason for this is that how we speak is considered to be of less importance than what is written.  Once we discriminate the two universal response classes SVB and NVB that occur in each language of the world, we realize that “our traditional way of thinking” could not change as long as our way of talking didn’t change. 

Our vocalizations became verbalizations in relatively comfortable environments, in caves, where there were no threats. Our high rates of NVB and our low rates of SVB indicate that we must be stimulated repeated by aversive environmental stimuli.  These threatening stimuli are certainly there, but our NVB way of talking doesn’t allow us to discriminate them as such. Likewise, our generally low rates of SVB indicate there aren’t many peaceful and stable environments which are conducive to higher rates of SVB. Rather than blaming each other or ourselves as we usually do, we must begin to look to the environment as to why human interaction is such a big problem around world. Only in NVB do we consider it a “loss of dignity and worth (p. 212)” that we can no longer “take credit or be admired” for what we do in our place in the natural world. In SVB, on the other hand, we realize how childish this actually is and we grow up. Our NVB temper tantrums will be extinguished once we have more SVB and create a new culture.