April 8, 2016

April 8, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand quotes Merton (1948), who describes the a-volitional quality of genuine or graceful religious experience as follows: “And no one can believe these things merely by wanting to, of his own volition. Unless he receive grace, an actual light, and implosion of the mind and will from God, he cannot even make an act of living faith.” The reader needs to understand this quote in that he or she will only be able to have Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) if his or her experience is of greater importance to him or her than his or her understanding. 

Understanding our experiences still refers to our own volition, but experiencing it transcends this idea that we cause our own behavior. Such experiencing during our interaction will only occur if we maintain an environment which is free of aversive stimulation. Speakers can force listeners into Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), but they can’t force SVB on the listener. In the natural world, the speaker only receives “grace” from the listener, who can and who does also speak. What is in fact the potential of genuine human interaction has been construed as a religious experience. 

SVB is based on the premise that human interaction can only happen when nobody is coercing anybody else. Rather than considering it “an act of living faith”, it should be considered an act of genuine knowledge. Merton (1948) seems to be describing NVB when writes about effortful religious acts: “ And, therefore, even when we are acting with the best of intentions, and imagine that we are doing great good, we may be actually doing tremendous material harm and contradicting all our good intentions…the only answer to the problem is grace, grace, docility to grace” (p.206). Besides sublimating real interaction into an imaginary conversation with God, religious people, like Merton, and Strand too, separate “graceful and effortless” verbal behavior from verbal behavior that is “effortful, purposeful and functional.” According to this writer, however, this distinction only exists because of our NVB way of communicating in the first place. As we discover SVB, we will find that we can be purposeful and functional in a graceful and effortless manner.   

April 7, 2016

April 7, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand writes about the two types of religious behavior scholars have written about.  There are “foundational, genuine, or graceful religious expressions” and, on the other hand, there are “effortful religious behaviors.” These two classes map perfectly onto Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), which are best described as effortless and effortful behavior. Strand insists that “these classes are distinguished not in terms of their form of topography, but rather in terms of their controlling variables.” However, this writer believes the SVB/NVB distinction only makes sense if we explain it in terms of its topography; only by listening to themselves while they speak will people focus on their sound and discriminate between these two classes. 

The SVB/NVB distinction must be distinguished in terms of its topography.  Knowing about it in terms of its controlling variables is only of secondary importance. Here, Strand’s operant orientation gets in the way of what is foundational to religious experience: the sound of our voice. However, his explanation of religious behavior “in terms of controlling variables” is useful as it fits with SVB and NVB.  He writes “Unlike foundational, religious behavior [=SVB], effortful religious behavior [=NVB] is controlled by its consequences. It is effortful [=NVB]and intentional in the sense that it is directed toward and dependent on obtaining or experiencing tangible reinforcers. It [=NVB] weakens if not reinforced. In contrast, foundational religious behavior is unaffected by consequences.” 

NVB speakers always demand attention, praise, subservience, approval, respect and acknowledgment of their presumed higher status than the listener, but SVB speakers don’t speak to maintain such hierarchical effects. Unlike the NVB speaker, who always talks AT his or her audience, the SVB speaker takes turns and talks WITH his or her listener.  The former, who always dominates, therefore has to be effortful, but the latter “does not arise out of the efforts of the person who seeks it.” This fit is no coincidence!

April 6, 2016

April 6, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand writes “religious behavior resembles instinctual behavior – it is responsive to antecedents in the apparent absence of reinforcement. This explains why attempts to punish religious behavior may have the paradoxical effect of increasing it.” Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), two ways of talking, which involve the expression of positive or negative emotions, are, of course, instinctual behaviors! This author doesn’t think that punishment, the decrease of SVB, is the real problem. Although SVB is often punished and not reinforced, people need to get along and therefore still continue SVB. 

NVB appears to be like religious behavior, in that it is increased by attempts to punish it. When persecution of religion “takes the form of threat of death” it stimulates “verbal behavior concerning immortality.” When NVB, on the other hand, is threatened, it often leads to grandiose claims of power. In the face of threat, people who want to hang on to NVB, basically pretend as if they are God. Infatuation with one’s own belief is also often seen in those  afflicted with mental disorders (hyper-religiosity only being one of them).

As long as punishment remains our preferred mode of behavioral control, we will see an increase in mental disorders, religious fanaticism, divisiveness, despotism, and, of course, NVB, which is how implement coercive behavioral control. Why do we reinforce NVB and why do we punish SVB? We know how to reinforce NVB, but we don’t know how to reinforce it SVB. Once we know how to reinforce SVB, we will gain control of our instinctual behavior. Instinctual behavior is giving us trouble as we believe it is determined by consequences, when, in fact, it is only sensitive to antecedents. Like religious behavior, the SVB and NVB patterns of responsiveness, are “consistent with schedule-induced behavior” (Segal, 1972). Thus, the response classes SVB and NVB are NOT socially mediated, but are “evoked by certain antecedents” while they are at the same time “unresponsive to tangible reinforcement.” Our sound is the antecedent which determines if we will have SVB or NVB.

April 5, 2016

April 5, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand explains religious behavior as arising “in the context of exposure to response-independent schedules of reinforcement. That behavior and its persistence are induced (i.e. emergent) in a complex response that was not specially shaped into existence.” This writer, however, believes there are other “reinforcement-resistant” behaviors, which overlap with religious behavior and, therefore, have the exact same origin. Many behaviors, which are usually called symptoms of those who are afflicted with mental disorders, are resistant to reinforcement as they are neither caused nor shaped by reinforcement. 

Not much ground can be gained in successfully altering mental health problem behaviors as long as they are viewed from the operant paradigm. Moreover, the wrong etiology of behavior is especially obvious in how we talk about it. It is no coincidence that the two universal response classes: Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), are still unknown to behaviorists, who give short shrift to respondent conditioning.

The “reinforcement-resistant” nature of mankind’s ways of talking deals with how we sound and predates the arrival of language. Indeed, our sounds set the stage for SVB and NVB. These simple “behaviors and its persistence are induced (i.e. emergent).” It is only because we are fixated on the verbal that SVB and NVB, religious behavior as well as pathological behavior (!?), seem to be “a complex response that was not specially shaped into existence.” 

Once we analyze the SVB/NVB distinction from a classical conditioning paradigm, we become clear on mankind’s biggest problems: communication, superstition and mental health problems. The tenacity and ubiquity of NVB is explained by one thing only: aversive environments. The absence or the relatively low rates of SVB is explained by the lack of safe environments. As long as we are not aware of the SVB/NVB distinction, we make it seem as if hostile environments are safe and as if safe environments are threatening. Religion has been our way of making it seem as if unsafe environments are safe. Truly safe environments are function of SVB, which is a scientific way of communicating. Without the SVB/NVB distinction our religious explanatory fictions will continue as our analysis of speech is operant and incomplete.

April 4, 2016

April 4, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand describes behavior “that persists despite being counter-functional” as “falling into a class of behavior that includes instincts, emotions and sign tracking (auto-shaped behavior.” When we TALK about the two universal subclasses of our vocal verbal behavior, called Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), it becomes apparent that our two ways of TALKING are innately determined; only in SVB we feel safe, in NVB we feel threatened. It is only when we pay attention to how we sound WHILE WE SPEAK that the speaker-as-own-listener is able to differentiate between SVB and NVB. 

“Segal (1972) has described such behavior as induced, as occupying a middle ground between pure operant and reflexes.” We should take note of the fact that “Induced behaviors have in common that they are not shaped into existence, but instead emerge in the context of exposure to response-independent reinforcement.” Segal (1972) thinks induced behavior includes “topograhpies that are neither clearly reflexive nor clearly operant, that is, which appear to be under complex stimulus control and not so tightly bound to stimuli as classic reflexes are, and yet not obviously under the control of reinforcement contingencies” (p.10).  In SVB we can talk about that. 

As behaviorists have not given attention to the topographies of SVB and NVB, they were unable to make sense of “complex stimulus control.” They have focused on everything else except on how the speaker sounds to him or herself.  Of course, this is more obvious to the listener, who is not the speaker. However, this listener, who is not the speaker, is only able in SVB to let the speaker know how he or she experiences his or her sound. It is only during SVB that we can look back and realize that we were engaging in NVB. During NVB the speaker is not open to receiving feedback from the listener. Neural behavior that mediates the speaker-as-own-listener is not activated during NVB as NVB was conditioned by a speaker who was coercive and insensitive to the listener. Thus, rather than being under complex stimulus control, SVB and NVB are classic examples of classical conditioning.