July 22, 2016

July 22, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my thirty-seventh response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). The general focus of research in psychology on group design is not because of folk psychology, but because of how we talk. In Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), one’s subjective experience apparently doesn’t matter, but in Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) our subjective experience make us objective about how we talk.

“Skinner argued that the intense focus on single subjects provides the researcher the information psychologists generally want to know about organisms: The conditions under which an organism will emit a type of response and the likelihood of that event changing as a function of manipulating the environment” (Skinner, 1956, 1963, 1971). It is only during SVB that we discriminate the difference between SVB and NVB.

As I explored the role of my own voice and my way of communicating and how I, as N-1, was affected by the communication of others, I began to realize that in every language there are in fact two languages: SVB and NVB. The increase of my SVB and the decrease of my NVB, which is apparent in all my relationships and activities, is not the result of my participation in groups, but of my solitary, self-management approach.

Unless one adopts Skinner’s self-management approach, unless one is able to be alone, one will not be able to discriminate between SVB and NVB. Regardless of how individualistic people in Western cultures believe themselves to be, it is the denial of the individual which continues to give rise to NVB in which we cannot be ourselves as all the communicators fight and struggle to demand and dominate each other’s attention.

In SVB there simply is no need to struggle and everyone is aware that they are benefitted by this. SVB, which is the speech of those who are at peace with their own lives, is much less common than NVB. Unless people explore SVB on their own, they will continue to have NVB. Dissatisfaction with the artificiality of NVB sets the stage for one’s development of SVB.

July 21, 2016

July 21, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my thirty-sixth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). I enjoy quoting Skinner as his words really help me to explain the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) to you. 

“The practical problem in continuing the struggle for freedom and dignity is not to destroy controlling forces but to change them, to create a

world in which people will achieve far more than they ever have achieved before in art, music, literature, science, technology, and above all in the enjoyment of life” (Skinner, 1975, p. 47).

If Skinner had known SVB he would, of course, have never said this. SVB is the absence of any kind of struggle. As long as our conversation is based on struggle, we produce NVB. It doesn’t really matter what we are struggling for. Although I know what Skinner is referring to and agree with his insistence on considering the environmental variables that cause our behavior, I think that “the practical problem” is our way of talking in which we struggle to get the attention, that is, NVB.

SVB is possible due to different “controlling forces.” It is the sound of the voice of the speaker which either sets the stage for SVB or NVB. Unless we pay attention to how we sound while we speak, we will only be able to hypothesize about creating “a world in which people will achieve far more than they ever have achieved before in art, music, literature, science, technology, and above all in the enjoyment of life.”

Skinner’s way of talking demonstrates he means what he says as he is having much more SVB than anybody else. As far as I can tell, he refuses to engage in NVB and considers it a total waste of his time. Although I am well aware of its negative consequences, I don’t think that my involvement in NVB has been a waste of time. To the contrary, it has made me long for another way of communicating. The problems with my authoritarian father have made me discover the difference between SVB, non-hierarchical speech and NVB, hierarchical speech.

July 20, 2016

July 20, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my thirty-fifth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). “To study human behavior, the radical behaviorist asserts that all behavior is caused by environmental variables.” However, many people are bound to read the invalidation of their private speech in such a statement. This statement may appear to “deny so much of what is seemingly uniquely human” and seems to reject outright “what people value”, as it aligns with Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), in which the speaker separates him or herself from the listener and in which our public speech excludes our private speech.

The joining of the speaker and the listener and the inclusion of our private speech into our public speech can only occur during Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB). Although most people are unaware of the SVB/NVB distinction, they have a sense of how they are affected by previous conversations.  It is so difficult to figure out how we are affected by public speech as NVB doesn’t allow us to link our private speech to our public speech. We have all been frustrated about our inability to identify the “environmental variables” of which “our inner world” is a function, as NVB has continued and increased that struggle.

It is only in SVB that our struggle is absent. Unknowingly, Skinner was talking about SVB. He said “the fact that behavior is determined gives humans the opportunity to reciprocally affect their environment.” Such reciprocal effects do only occur during SVB. In NVB, on the other hand, the speaker talks at instead of with the listener. Therefore, NVB is a uni-directional process, but SVB is a bi-directional process.

I agree with Skinner that “Humans can arrange contingencies that will further the species and the values that members may hold, such as freedom and personal dignity”, but I disagree with “To accept the task is to change, not people, but rather the world in which they live" (1975, p. 48). I think our way of talking must be changed from NVB to SVB. The world in which we live is primarily the world of our private speech and the only way to change that world is by changing our pubic speech.

July 19, 2016

July 19, 2016 

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my thirty-fourth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). Skinner has stated "A behavioristic analysis does not question the practical usefulness of reports of the inner world that is felt and introspectively observed. They are clues (1) to past behavior and the conditions affecting it, (2) to current behavior and the conditions affecting it, and (3) to conditions related to future behavior" (1974, p. 31).

Let me translate this in terms of the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). What you think, that is, your private speech, is, of course, a function of public speech. A person’s negative self-talk is a “clue to that person’s past behavior.” Thus, NVB public speech always irrevocably results into NVB private speech and SVB public speech always results SVB private speech.

Only the person who has been exposed to and was involved in NVB public speech will acquire cognitive distortions; in NVB the separation is stimulated and maintained between the speaker and the listener. This separation occurs as NVB is a function of aversive “conditions affecting” the relationship between the speaker and the listener.

“The current behavior and the conditions affecting it” involves the speaker’s sound which directly influences the listener’s affective experiences. The speaker’s sound creates and maintains the “current condition” for the listener. A non-threatening or a threatening speaker’s sound creates two different situations for the listener.

Depending on how often speakers and listeners have been exposed to non-threatening or threatening environments determines how they are going to speak and listen in the future. As only the individual him or herself has access to that part of the environment which is within his or her own skin, we must take note of the “practical usefulness of reports of the inner world”, as NVB, by separating the speaker from the listener, also separates our private speech from our public speech.

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Behavioral Engineer

Dear Reader,

This is my thirty-fourth response to “Epistemological Barriers to Radical Behaviorism” by Donohue et al. (1998). Skinner has stated "A behavioristic analysis does not question the practical usefulness of reports of the inner world that is felt and introspectively observed. They are clues (1) to past behavior and the conditions affecting

it, (2) to current behavior and the conditions affecting it, and (3) to

conditions related to future behavior" (1974, p. 31).

Let me translate this in terms of the distinction between Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) and Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB). What you think, that is, your private speech, is, of course, a function of public speech. A person’s negative self-talk is a “clue to that person’s past behavior.” Thus, NVB public speech always irrevocably results into NVB private speech and SVB public speech always results SVB private speech.

Only the person who has been exposed to and was involved in NVB public speech will acquire cognitive distortions; in NVB the separation is stimulated and maintained between the speaker and the listener. This separation occurs as NVB is a function of aversive “conditions affecting” the relationship between the speaker and the listener.

“The current behavior and the conditions affecting it” involves the speaker’s sound which directly influences the listener’s affective experiences. The speaker’s sound creates and maintains the “current condition” for the listener. A non-threatening or a threatening speaker’s sound creates two different situations for the listener.

Depending on how often speakers and listeners have been exposed to non-threatening or threatening environments determines how they are going to speak and listen in the future. As only the individual him or herself has access to that part of the environment which is within his or her own skin, we must take note of the “practical usefulness of reports of the inner world”, as NVB, by separating the speaker from the listener, also separates our private speech from our public speech.