March 24, 2016

March 24, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

This writer read the paper “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” by Paul Strand (2009) and decided to comment on this paper with the Constantia font. In the abstract this writer noticed something, which immediately spoke to him. Strand writes “that a class of religious behaviors exists that is induced, for prepared organisms, by specific stimuli that are experienced according to a response-independent schedule” (italics by this writer). By saying nice things and by being friendly, we use response-independent reinforcers to build rapport or strengthen our relationships. This refers to increasing the amount of Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) instances in our verbal episodes. In SVB we exchange positive emotions. Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), by contrast, is characterized by the absence of such niceties. 

If the listeners to a NVB speaker would pay attention to what they are actually feeling (something they are not very inclined to), they would acknowledge that the NVB speaker induces negative emotions in them. Interestingly, Strand identifies two “minimal units out of which functional behavior may arise.” The two classes of religious behavior he identifies are: “non-operant schedule-induced behaviors and operant behaviors.” 

Strand mentions that religious many scholars and philosophers have described the “non-operant schedule-induced behavior” as  “graceful” and “operant behaviors”  as “effortful.” This description matches perfectly with SVB and NVB. SVB is an effortless way of speaking, which is effortlessly understood by the listener. NVB, on the other hand, is effortful for both the speaker and the listener. According to Strand’s analysis then, SVB is a non-operant schedule-induced behavior while NVB is an operant behavior. 

Reading of this paper made this writer think of spoken communication as a religious experience. Almost everyone who was introduced to the SVB/NVB distinction has said that SVB made them feel like and think of having a religious experience, while NVB made them deny or long for having such an experience.  Also this writer would say he experiences SVB as a religious behavior, but he doesn’t find spirituality in NVB. He has never thought that his strong urge to pursue exploration of SVB was a religiously motivated behavior. Only now does he suddenly realize that his intense objection against NVB was religiously motivated. This writer was raised in a Catholic family and community, in which the foundation for SVB was conditioned.  

March 23, 2016

March 23, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

I am so happy that I am writing about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and that you, my the reader, can share in this happiness with me. Once we know the difference between SVB and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), we no longer emphasize what we think over what we experience, while we talk. However, our emphasis on experience, which is expressed in SVB, transcends both the one who experiences as well as the experience itself. This is ultimately why so few people can continue with SVB: you hang on to a sense of self, an ego or, whatever you may call it. Of course, all of this happens, because nobody in your environment stimulates you to have SVB, that is, nobody knows how to talk without performing the old trick of getting identified with whatever you believe to be. The one person who stimulated me into having this conversation with you didn’t care at all about having this conversation with me. I would have never discovered SVB, if he had accepted my strong inclination to talk with him about this matter. At the time, I was feeling very upset and confused about his refusal to talk with me, but now I can understand him and I am thankful that he did. Not who I am, but that I am, makes experience possible. My body and your body will one day disintegrate. No experiences are needed to return to where we came from. During SVB, we realize this, but during NVB, we pretend as if we are immortal and this is not going to happen.

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,