April 1, 2016

April 1, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand describes events which can be “identified as turning points, toward hopefulness and purposefulness and away from despair and aimlessness.” When this writer had found and hit that gong, he experienced such a religious turning point. At that moment, he recognized the sound that he wanted to talk with. He realized that he was already able to make this sound and that nothing should stop him from making it. Unlike the events Strand describes, this was an event this writer would revisit again and again as it was so satisfying.

When he for the first time talked out loud by himself and listened to his own calm sound, this writer realized that he had hardly ever been able to speak  with that sound. A tremendous calm and certainty came over him as he had decided that, from now on, he would only speak with that sound. Little did he know how difficult that was going to be… He lost his sound again and again and only when he became a student of radical behaviorism, did it become clear to him why this was the case: we don’t cause our own behavior. 

As long as environmental stimuli, other people, who, due to conditioning can get underneath our skin, set the stage for Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), there is, except escaping and avoiding them by going away, nothing we can do to prevent this. As long as we keep approaching NVB instead of avoiding it, we will get entangled again and again. Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), the spoken communication which is without aversive stimulation, can only exist if the environment is available that will make it possible. 

Even though he had discovered the importance of listening to himself while he speaks, it would take many years before this writer discovered the science of human behavior, which put this fact on the table. In effect, the religious experience of this writer had set into motion a quest for knowledge, which prompted “an enduring reorganization of behavior.” Now that he is more knowledgeable about radical behaviorism, this writer realizes that he has really discovered two universal response classes of vocal verbal behavior.      

March 31, 2016

March 31, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand sums up various occasions which can trigger religious faith in a person. He mentions “others attribute “being saved”, “reborn”, or otherwise brought back to spirituality to a host of monumental events, including addiction, social rejection, and dangerous compulsions.” This writer has discovered Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) at a time in his life when he was deeply disappointed by how people were talking with him. He felt rejected and lonely and he was so frustrated that he decided he should stay away and be by himself. 

It happened at an odd moment, while he was riding his bicycle. He was on his way to the place where he used to hang out with his friends, but short after leaving his home, he was overcome by a feeling of dreadfulness. He thought (private speech) about his previous conversations and wondered why he should even go there again. At that moment, he stopped pedaling his bicycle….He had been riding along a canal and was enjoying the sight of the seagulls that were flying around. As he stopped pedaling, his bicycle slowly came to a halt and then he stood next to it. This is when he decided he couldn’t go on with it. He couldn’t have another meaningless conversation. 

For a moment, he panicked and he felt he would go crazy, but his self-talk guided him to walk back home. He walked with his bicycle in his hand along the canal. It was a beautiful spring day, but he was worried about what he was going to do when he came home. When he arrived home, he went to the empty attic, where there was only a carpet on the floor. He sat on the carpet and felt okay. He knew the roof wasn’t going to cave in, but he absolutely didn’t know what he was going to do next. It seemed as if he had exhausted all his options and there was nothing else to do than to just sit there. 

He tried to meditate, but he felt restless and he looked around the empty attic. He spotted a small box in the corner underneath the roof. He pulled it out, opened it and saw that there were some old books in it. It also contained a gong and a stick with a ball on it and he hit that gong. Then, he said to himself “sounds good” and realized instantly that he himself sounded good too. It was a tremendous relief that he had found the gong, which had made him listen to himself. He stretched out on his back on the carpet and fell into a feeling of deep relaxation. Lola, the cat came in. Usually she didn’t like to be picked up, but this time she lay on top of his chest and started purring.    

March 30, 2016

March 30, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand writes about the “changes in religiosity”, which “are preceded by monumental life events” such as death.  However, there are other events, which “are bigger than that too”, which “include events that prompt verbal behavior involving life’s big questions.” In this example, Strand, like any other behaviorist, focuses on the content of verbal behavior. It should be noted here that the verbal behavior involved in “life’s big questions” is primarily a person’s private speech.  And, as a person’s private speech is a function of the kind of public speech this person was conditioned by, we should look at public speech for answers. 

This writer wants the reader to focus on public speech. He wants the reader to be able to analyze “monumental life events” by using the Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB)/ Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) distinction, which hones in on how we actually interact with each other. In SVB, we stimulate and prolong our positive emotions, but in NVB we reinforce and express our own and each other’s negative emotions. Obviously, negative emotions play a big role in dealing with death and loss. Also, such negative emotions accompany our questions about the meaning of life which we ask ourselves when we are faced with bitter personal defeat or needless suffering. In other words, these events involve a lot of NVB in both our public as well as our private speech. 

Our ability to cope with negative events will be determined by the amount of SVB that we have experienced, which will be used to interpret these events. In other words, if we don’t have much history with SVB, we will lack the ability to deal with these “monumental life events”.  The fact that people become religious or change their religion due to negative life events, doesn’t explain why, in hindsight”, they are identified as turning points, toward hopefulness and purposefulness and away from despair and aimlessness.”  Rather than looking at “religious behavior as a response class” and viewing it as a response “induced by exposure to monumental life events” (Segal, 1972), this writer wants the reader to think about how we sound, when we are in happy or unhappy circumstances. SVB and NVB are the two response classes which make it possible or impossible to “engage in verbal behavior about a nonmaterial existence that is the basis for religious behavior” (Hayes, 2001).

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