April 10, 2016

April 10, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand writes “Acquired religious behavior has in common with irreligious behavior that they are both operants. Unlike irreligious behavior,  acquired religious behavior originates from induced behavior.  Induced behavior serves as the minimal unit out of which acquired religious behavior arises.” Although Strand is not aware of the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), he tries to describe why acquired religious behavior, which he previously characterized as effortful, is yet still distinctively different from irreligious behavior. It is different as it is induced. 

This writer, who knows about the SVB/NVB distinction, reads Strand’s writing through the lens of this distinction. Instead of stating that “Induced behavior serves as the minimal unit out of which acquired religious behavior arises”, he wants the reader to know that although SVB and NVB are indeed induced verbal behaviors, they arise under completely different circumstances. This becomes more apparent when Strand illustrates “the relation between the two classes of religious behavior.” The “cliché” he uses that “speaks to the religion-inducing power” (italics added by this writer) of a situation, is: “in a foxhole, no one’s an atheist.” Anyone who knows about the SVB/NVB distinction immediately realizes that only this ‘so-called’ religious behavior, the verbal behavior that is elicited in a life-threatening situation, will be NVB. 

The person in a fox-hole may have a lot of SVB history, but this  hostile situation requires he fights for his life and kills others before he himself gets killed. He may have some SVB private speech praying he will survive, but a war-situation doesn’t and can’t evoke any SVB public speech. Soldiers kill each other since the communication has broken down. The notion that religious behavior can be arising from such total madness is deeply problematic. SVB can and will only occur in an environment which is free of aversive stimulation.  Thus, effortful NVB is NOT a religious behavior at all, but a behavior that is based on fear of not surviving, of not going to heaven or of not becoming enlightened.

April 9, 2016

April 9, 2016

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader,

In “Religion as Schedule-Induced Behavior” (2009) Strand did a great job in trying to make a stand for a behavior-analytic account of religion. He writes “Distinguishing between these two forms of religious behavior [graceful-effortless and effortful-purposeful- functional] is so fundamental to religious scholarship that to ignore it in the service of explaining religion is to explain something other than religion. And yet the distinction is ignored by traditional behavior-analytic (Schoenfield, 1993) and evolutionary (Dawkins, 2006; Dennett 2006) writers of religion” [parentheses by this writer]. 

Strand wrote about these matters and his writing was of course a function of how he has been speaking about these matters. The lack of specificity of how we are able to talk about these matters is determined by our Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). Stated differently, Strand seems to want to have a Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), that is, conversation about religion. It is interesting to note here that a SVB conversation must be a behaviorist conversation.  

Unless behaviorists acquire SVB, the science of human behavior cannot improve human relationship. Unlike other behaviorists, Skinner had a lot of SVB. Like Skinner, Strand ‘speaks’ with his writing to this writer. He must have had a lot of SVB that he is able to write like that. His distinction between, on the one hand, foundational, effortless religious behavior as “response-independent”, that is, as respondent behavior and, on the other hand, acquired, effortful, religious behavior as operant behavior, makes total sense. Strand’s analysis that acquired religious behavior “are operants that are functional from the perspective of how the individual interacts within the worldly contingencies”, makes it seem as if there are other contingencies than “worldly contingencies.” What he is referring to is, of course, a person’s covert, private speech, mediated by his or her neural behavior. A person’s covert self-talk is a function of the overt public speech he or she has been engaged in. The person who was mainly conditioned by NVB public speech, inevitably acquires NVB private speech. Thus, acquired, effortful religious behavior derives from NVB public speech and foundational, effortless religious behavior derives from SVB public speech.  What SVB and NVB have in common with these two religious behaviors is that they are both induced.

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!