April 3, 2016

April 3, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand quotes Skinner (1957) and Palmer (1998), who set the stage for Hayes’ Relational Frame Theory (RFT). Verbal fixation is the inevitable outcome of the stress that is felt when what one writes is more important than what one says. It goes without saying that under such circumstances even if one were to speak that what one says is more important than how one says it. We may agree on written definitions, but such verbal agreement couldn’t change how we talk. 

“The frame may subsume various individual acts, similar to how grammatical frames subsume various words.” This focus on what we say ignores that meaning expressed in vocal verbal behavior is a function of how we sound. In effect, many behaviorists have turned away from religious experience. Strand put religious behavior in a broader perspective by stating that “The ubiquity of religious behavior is illustrated by the fact that even declaring oneself an atheist is likely a religious act.” Yet, it has nothing to do with atheism as a “response to the possibility of an afterlife”, but rather with the necessity to communicate with utmost sensitivity, that is, without aversive stimulation. 

Schoenfield (1993) comes closer to this reality by noting that “religious and irreligious behaviors represent competing alternatives.” Where and how do they compete, one wonders? Where else but in our public speech, and, consequently, in our private speech? All noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is defined by this competition. In NVB our private speech is separated from our public speech. In SVB, by contrast, there is no separation between private speech and public speech. Thus, SVB public speech is more subtle (religious) and effective. Obviously, SVB and NVB “represent competing alternatives.” 

Only SVB allows for interaction as a response to “self-as-infinite”, while NVB limits our conversation to “self-as-finite.” As we investigate the SVB/NVB distinction while we talk, we will notice that the low and high response rates for SVB and NVB perfectly parallels the “laboratory-based research on concurrent schedules that pits delayed and probabilistic reinforcers against immediate and definite reinforcers (e.g. Chaudhuri, Sopher, & Strand, 2002: Silverstein, Cross, Brown & Rachlin, 1998). However, distributing “activities across these competing response alternatives” is only possible for those who have learned about the environments which set the stage for SVB and NVB.

April 2, 2016

April 2, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand quotes Segal (1972) who stated that “Religious behavior may be a class of responses induced by exposure to monumental life events.” The exact same can be said about Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), which should therefore be classified as a religious behavior. It is so interesting that reading Strand’s paper reminds this writer about this origin. Stated differently, to solve our communication problems it is of utmost importance that we include the spiritual dimension. Without it we clearly don’t stand a chance to make any real progress. 

This analysis leads to another way of defining Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). During NVB, we are presumably not spiritual, or to put it more plainly, not sensitive. The fact is, however, that we are only pretending not to be sensitive. As religious behaviors always involve superstitions, many had to move away from it as it was incompatible with scientific knowledge.  

Although people on a large scale have left their religion, they haven’t switched as massively from NVB to SVB, from coarse-grained way of talking to a fine-grained way of communicating. Even Hayes , who labels “the class self-as-infinite”, doesn’t mention the distinction between SVB and NVB, which is needed to make it possible to notice that “it emerges as a function of verbal training in perspective taking (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, 2001). 

While Hayes (1984), Schoenfield (1993) and others have agreed in writing on a description of religious behavior as a class of “responding in accordance with the self extended beyond a material existence”, this didn’t and couldn’t lead to SVB, the refinement of our way of talking.  Hayes (1984) is absolutely  wrong when he writes “It is important to note that the deictic response class, self-as-infinite, cannot be defined in terms of topography; membership is unconstrained by form. It is a verbal frame involving if-then relations.” 

Both SVB and NVB could only be defined in terms topography as they involve different sounding speakers. Without paying attention to this topographical difference, we keep being stuck with written hypothetical “if-then relations,” with wishful-thinking which is created and maintain by more scriptures.

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).