March 22, 2016

March 22, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Right now, I am in total silence. Things have been arranged in such a way that I am peaceful. I didn’t think that this was going to happen and yet it is happening. It is happening as it could happen. It is quite extra ordinary not to have any thoughts or feelings. Although I am writing this, there is nothing to write. Kayla the cat is sitting in front of me and is licking herself. I am not waiting for anything. A sense of self that was still there yesterday is now gone. This stillness is meditation.  Although there is nothing to write about, I can write about anything. This writing is recording an unusual experience. I am not like this most of the time, but today I am like this. The cat just got up and left the room. These words describe to the reader what is going to happen when one engages more often in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). My body has been affected by the SVB, which somehow continues, even if I don’t say anything. I resonate while these written words do not make any sound. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) has become a thing of the past. It has happened, but it is like a bad dream from which I have woken up. It too had its effects on my body, but these effects are no longer there. These effects were only there as long as I was asleep, but they are gone now that I am awake. It is early in the morning and pretty soon the darkness of the night will be gone. Things will be visible, which just before were invisible.

March 21, 2016

March 21, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

Neuringer concludes paper “Humble Behaviorism” by writing that “Humility is difficult when fighting for grant funds, laboratory space, research support, faculty positions, and students.” He literally describes all the usual aversive contingencies which inevitably give rise to Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Such environments could never give rise to Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) as SVB requires the absence of aversive stimulation. Presumably, under such circumstances, writing a paper about humility is the best anyone can do. The fact however remains that writing about “Humble Behaviorism” is an exercise in utter futility, which doesn’t translate to the real world. Whether they like it or not or are capable or not, behaviorist must speak with others. If they engage in SVB, then and only then, “Humble Behaviorism” will be realized. At that time, however, when we acknowledge and enjoy SVB, nobody will care about “Humble Behaviorism” anymore. It will be a moot point. Behaviorists (or anyone else for that matter) only care about being humble when they realize the enormous price they pay for not being humble. The suffering they endure, by staying in these toxic academic environments, doesn't make them humble. A humble person doesn't try to be humble. Similarly, it is only the unhappy person who is trying to be happy. The bottom line is, things are only going to change unless the environment changes. SVB is not going to magically occur. Lastly, there cannot be, such a thing as “Humble Behaviorism”, there can only be a humble behaviorist. Although fictional papers can be written about “Humble Behaviorism”, as soon as the behaviorist opens his or her mouth, NVB is going to come out as the contingency didn’t change at all.    

March 20, 2016

March 20, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) writes “Humble behaviorists attempt to substitute if-then contingency statements for the easily uttered “rights” and “wrongs”, and “oughts” and “shoulds.” This is just like changing the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is very clear that Neuringer, like any other scientist, keeps fixating on the words, which is a characteristic for Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). If we are going to stop arguing, we will have Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). However, we will not have SVB as long as we are trying to stop NVB. Once we have SVB then NVB and all of its problems is no longer our concern. What makes Neuringer write: “rights” and “wrongs” and “oughts” and “shoulds” are “easily uttered?” He writes about speaking! There is no difference in difficulty in saying these things or in making if-then statements! The difference is only in whether we are arguing or not, whether we are having NVB or SVB? Neuringer keeps verbally beating around the nonverbal bush. Neuringer quotes Reichenbach (1951) who wrote “Statements of the descriptive form – Do not speed – contain either implicit or explicit contingencies.” This is another example NVB. Aren’t we threatened with a speeding ticket? “The behaviorist’s goal is to specify contingencies, through research.” Why can't Neuringer admit that we always engage in NVB when we are in a threatening environment? Why isn't it obvious to him or other behaviorists that we can only engage in SVB when we feel safe and when we are treated with sensitivity? When it comes to statements of descriptive form, such as "Do not speed", he readily admits that they "contain implicit and explicit contingencies," but he, as he only writes about such matters, he forgets that he can and should talk about implicit and implicit contingencies,     

March 19, 2016

March 19, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) suggests “Rather than arguing about the best language, all would profit from the more difficult but productive activity of translation.” He admits that behaviorists are “arguing”, but he is not aware that that is Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Also, he doesn’t realize that successful “translation” would have to involve Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) which signifies the end of the argument. Not surprisingly, Neuringer considers the productive activity of translation more difficult than arguing, As all scientists, he too only limits himself to written language. Moreover, he cannot become familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction as he abdicates and underestimates the importance of spoken language. When we have SVB, however, we find it is not more difficult than NVB. To the contrary, SVB is easier than NVB. Moreover, once we have SVB, there is no need to translate anymore as we communicate in the most sensitive, intelligent and effective manner. Although Skinner (1974) and “many others have also attempted translations across disciplines”, they have all focused mainly on writing and in doing so dismissed the importance of speaking. Ironically, Neuringer asks his students “not to talk or write in a particular way, but instead to communicate." He seems to be getting at something. In Holland we would say he heard the sound of the bell, but doesn't know where the clapper hangs. He insists that communication "often requires that they use a language grounded in observations of behaviors and events.” However, his insistence on written, not spoken words. I stimulate my students to talk and they end up having SVB and their writing as a function of their experience of SVB while speaking.   

March 18, 2016

March 18, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Humble Behaviorism” Neuringer (1991) acknowledges that “There has arisen, however, a correlated tendency to maintain that “our” language is better than others, for example, the language of philosophers, Freudian psychologists, and cognitive psychologists, to name a few.” Of course, the behaviorist’ language is better than others as it is the only language that accurately describes the science of human behavior. The fact that all sorts of unscientific ways of talking have continued unabated is because writing is considered as the foundation for scientific language, for behaviorists as well as non-behaviorists. Furthermore, when a speaker speaks in such a way that he or she is better than the listener, he or she will aversively affect that listener. This is a typical example of Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which has been going on forever to establish and maintain hierarchical ‘relationships’ in which the roles of speakers and listeners are fixed. Actually, hierarchy always signifies the absence of relationship; in NVB the speaker speaks at and not with the listener. Only in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), there is bi-directional interaction due to the turn-taking that goes on between the speaker and the listener. For those who know the difference between SVB and NVB, it is evident that NVB is inherently biased and therefore unscientific as the speaker coerces the listener, no matter what he or she is saying.