March 29, 2016

March 29, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand writes “Believers remain faithful for better or worse, through thick and thin, for richer or poorer, and oftentimes report increased fidelity arising from trials and tribulations. It is this steadfastness that captures our attention and demands an explanation.” The same thing can be said about the tenacity of a person’s mental disorder. Anyone who has worked with those who are suffering from mental health problems knows that there is overlap between these two. 

The person who is depressed or schizophrenic believes in and doubts his or her depression or psychosis with the same fervor as someone who believes in God. This is not a mystery if one focuses on the history a person’s verbal behavior. Although not all the environmental variables can be obtained, it is fairly simple to figure out whether someone has experienced a history of more Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) than Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). 

The person with mental health problems always turns out to have a history in which the rates of NVB were significantly higher than among those who didn’t develop a mental disorder. It follows that the most effective way to ‘cure’ such a person’s so-called mental illness is to simply increase his or her exposure to and his or her involvement in SVB and to decrease his or her exposure to and his or her involvement in NVB. This author has done this and he will continue to do this as the effects are absolutely remarkable.

Depressed or psychotic behavior, like religious behavior, comes about due to how others, who are our environment, interact with us. What is needed to create a different behavior is to engage in a different way of talking. Stated differently, NVB causes and maintains mental health problems and SVB causes and maintains mental health. The issue of “creed revision” always involves an individual’s dissatisfaction with the old creed and his or her attraction to another belief, which makes him or her feel better.  Thus, the person’s change of religion, like a person’s recovery from mental health problems or from addiction, is made possible and explained by a decrease in NVB and an increase in SVB. “If change occurs, it is in response to shifting reinforcement contingencies. No other mechanism of change is proposed.” It is by shifting from NVB to SVB that we shift “reinforcement contingencies.”

March 28, 2016

March 28, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

The question why religious behavior is so stable obfuscates the role our way of talking plays in this process.  In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand explains “At first glance, stability in the context of shifting reinforcement contingencies may seem contrary to the socially mediated reinforcement hypothesis; but it is not. That is because, according to this view, malleability occurs primarily in childhood, after which beliefs become fixed as contingency-based behavior gives way to rule-governed behavior.” 

Whether we end up having more Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) or Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) depends how others talk with us. Likewise, whether we end up having a Christian, Jewish or Hindu belief is determined by the fact that others speak with us. However, what keeps escaping even most behaviorists is that it makes a great difference to what extent our religious behavior was taught with either SVB or NVB. The person who was taught Christianity with a lot of SVB, but with little NVB is very different from the Christian who was taught with a lot of NVB, but with little SVB. 

As we all know, there are very loving, but are also very hateful Christians. A person’s love has nothing to do with his or her religion, but has everything to do with the extent to which he or she was talked at or talked with, while he or she was growing up.  The former is an example of NVB and the latter is an example of SVB. The Jew who grew up experiencing and enjoying a lot of SVB will be entirely different from the Jew who was mostly involved in NVB. 

Schoenfield’s statement (1993) that “Environment molds men, brainwashes him from infancy, and instills religious habits of such strength that they persevere in the face of powerful counter-active pressures” is seen in a  different light when we are familiar with the SVB/NVB distinction. The strength of our belief is a function of the NVB, the coercive communication, which was used to brainwash us. To the extent to which we engaged a lot in SVB, we are more open to other ideas than the ones that we grew up with

March 27, 2016

March 27, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand describes that “these personal experiences are the truest and most genuine expressions of faith, out of which less genuine, acquired expressions arise.” How can it be, that out of something genuine, something less genuine arises? This writer knows exactly how this happens. It happens because of how we talk about our religious experiences. The subtlety of the experience is lost as our way of talking makes it disappear.  Things even get worse when we write about our religious experiences.  We would write about them more accurately, if we could speak about them more accurately, but as long as we haven’t really acknowledged that writing about them is a function of our inability to speak about them, this is not going to happen. The less genuine version of our religious experience, that is, most of what has been written about it, does NOT arise out of our genuine experience.  Indeed, the less genuine version emerges from the absence of and a longing for genuine religious experience.

Another question needs to be asked: why is it such a problem to talk about the subtle experiences, which we call religious experiences? Many so-called spiritual people, those who are believed to have reached enlightenment or self-realization, insisted we shouldn’t even try to talk about these religious experiences and that we should remain silent. Why is it that our meditation ends the moment we open our mouths? It is not because of the fact that we are talking, but it is because of how we talk. If we would talk in a meditative, sensitive way, we engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), but if we talk  in a mechanical, insensitive way, we have Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

NVB cannot give rise to SVB and SVB cannot give rise of NVB. When we have SVB, NVB stops. Likewise, when we have NVB, SVB stops. The environment inside and outside of our skin changes at any given time and these environmental changes are causing our SVB or NVB. If we knew about the SVB/NVB distinction, we would be able to continue with SVB, but since we don’t know about this difference, we keep unknowingly swinging back and forth between SVB and NVB, while we are mostly engaging in NVB.

March 26, 2016

March 26, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” ( 2009) Strand quotes Hood & Merton (1948) and Tillich (1957), who describe that the “foundation of faith is based on private, personal experiences; not socially mediates ones.” These authors state “these personal experiences are the truest and most genuine expressions of faith, out of which less genuine, acquired expressions arise.” Merton and Tillich are not behaviorists and therefore they don’t and can’t explain our religious experience in terms of verbal behavior. Instead, they describe this experience as caused by an inner self. 

Merton and Tillich acknowledge “not all religious behavior is equal” and distinguishe between “acquired religious behavior” that is “motivated by and can be understood in terms of social contingencies” and “foundational religious behavior”, which “falls outside the control of socially mediated reinforcement.” Note, that the former is explained from an environmental or behaviorist perspective, while the latter is explained from a behavior-causing inner agent perspective.  However, any behaviorist would say that Merton and Tillich are of course both determined by environmental variables. 

Schoenfield (1993), a behaviorist, rejected “the notion of a non-social personal-experiential foundation of faith.”  Dawkins (2006), who is not a behaviorist, stated   “those behaviors that involve faith – that disregard reason – [that] are really pernicious.” Religious behavior remains a conundrum as religious scholars, writers, continued to identify “faith” or “believing the incredible” as “a foundational expression” (Chesterton, 1986). 

Strand writes that “a complete scientific account of religious behavior” can be accomplished by his writing, but this writer insists that we must talk instead of write about religious experience in order to become clear about it. The only way in which we will be able to talk coherently about our diverse religious experiences is when we achieve Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), the spoken communication that is based on the absence of aversive stimulation. There is nothing incredible about religious experience once we talk about it.

March 25, 2016

March 25, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

By embracing the distinction between “graceful” and “effortful” religious behaviors, described by Paul Strand in “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009), we learn a lot about how we talk with each other. When we talk about these matters, we agree that only the “graceful” way of talking can be considered as a religious behavior, but that our “effortful” way of talking involves the absence of and at best the longing for religious behavior. Stated differently, “Many aspects of religious experience and behavior” have been “overlooked or disregarded,” as we have not paid any attention to religious vocal verbal behavior versus non-religious vocal verbal behavior. 

Only religious scholars, who mostly do not talk with each other about these matters, accept the written distinction between “graceful” and “effortful” religious behavior. However, once they engage in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) about this topic, it would become clear that “effortful” religious behavior is of course a contradiction. This contradiction has continued to exist as writings have blurred the lines between “graceful” and “effortless.” 

Strand is just another one those religious scholars, who states “Religious behavior is no different than other operant behavior; it occurs to the extent that is confers political, economical and social advantages.”  What can be glanced from this definition is that it refers to “effortful” religious behavior and not to “graceful” religious behavior. “Graceful” behavior only has to do with mutual “social advantages”, but not with “political” or “economical advantages.” In other words, our “graceful” religious behavior only maps onto SVB, while our struggle for “political” or “economical advantages” always requires our involvement in Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). 

It should be stated squarely that our non-religious way of talking, NVB, is an operant behavior, “a behavior that was established through reinforcement” which, as we all know, “eventually becomes resistant to extinction.” Our SVB, on the other hand, is a non-operant schedule-induced behavior.  As “a rule-governed behavior” it is not susceptible to consequences and it persists regardless of circumstances. In spite of the ubiquity of NVB, SVB continues.