![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 30. Go back in thread:
Posted by Nickengland on August 27, 2005, at 20:39:24
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by TofuEmmy on August 27, 2005, at 18:46:30
>Another thought on behavior:
>http://www.advicemeant.com/troll/
I can usually spot these a mile off and it does make perfect sense to ignore them as in some respects that is the biggest insult you can do to someone, ignore them that is.
The only benefit of interacting with them is further public exposure of them which they have already done to themselves.
Or if you can turn a "troll" into a "non-troll" but then that would mean you can do it the other way too lol
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Deneb on August 27, 2005, at 21:04:06
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by TofuEmmy on August 27, 2005, at 18:46:30
Are you guys saying I'm a troll? :-(
I don't know if people unintentionally reinforce my bad posts by responding to them...it might be the case, I'm not sure. Maybe I just don't get enough attention with good posts. :-(
Deneb
Posted by sleepygirl on August 27, 2005, at 21:18:10
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by Deneb on August 27, 2005, at 21:04:06
You're not a troll!! unless you like those cute little ones with the funky colorful hair. Your posts were just really scary is all- we still love you.
Posted by 10derHeart on August 27, 2005, at 23:16:27
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by sleepygirl on August 27, 2005, at 21:18:10
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 1:26:38
In reply to Reinforcement of behavior, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2005, at 18:38:30
- A punisher is something that reduces the frequency of behaviour.
- A reinforcer is something that increases the frequency of behaviour.
Ignoring someone is a negative punisher because it is taking away something that the person wants (a reinforcer) in order to extinguish the behaviour.
After delivery of a reinforcer ceases the person basically gets worse for a while. The behaviour becomes more intense, more frequent, and more variable. There can be a danger in this depending on the severity of the kinds of behaviours that are being extinguished.
-Punishment is not as effective as reinforcing a viable alternative behaviour. Presumably the initial behaviour led to the fulfillment of some urge (or drive reduction) and so it may be unethical to extinguish a behaviour where that leads to the unfulfillment of need.
- I think that means figuring out what function the behaviour serves and working out viable alternatives.
- Then one needs to actively reinforce the alternatives.
Or at least, that would seem to be more humane to me...
Posted by rainbowbrite on August 28, 2005, at 2:10:28
In reply to Reinforcement of behavior, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2005, at 18:38:30
wish I saw this earlier
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 3:14:46
In reply to Reinforcement of behavior, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2005, at 18:38:30
Besides which...
There were trigger warnings.
I thought that was what everyone was asking for...
Posted by rainbowbrite on August 28, 2005, at 3:19:11
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 3:14:46
but they were extremely provocative inside
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 3:30:08
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior » alexandra_k, posted by rainbowbrite on August 28, 2005, at 3:19:11
I'm just saying... People asked for trigger warnings. Said it was okay to post stuff but important to post trigger warnings.
That is a clear statement of an acceptable alternative behaviour.
And so the behaviour improved to come into line with what was requested.
And instead of reinforcing people are talking about punishment??????!
Posted by Nickengland on August 28, 2005, at 6:08:20
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by Deneb on August 27, 2005, at 21:04:06
>Are you guys saying I'm a troll? :-(
I'm not saying you're a troll.
>Maybe I just don't get enough attention with good posts. :-(
This does explain to me why you maybe wrote 3 *trigger* messages in a row. Trigger messages sometimes, although warn others, also draw attention to others posters, I think. Although other posters may not reply, people do still read trigger messages.
I'll open a trigger message, but the *trigger* part in the title doesn't do anything to stop me or warn me personally, its what inside I read and what I respond too.
When you say about writing good posts, I have quite afew times written large posts and in them they have contained information that is personal to me and took quite alot out of me to write at the time. No one responded. I did think to myself why? At least someone could acknowledge what i've said, but to have nothing. Then I realised, but what i had said was enough, and people didn't feel they needed to respond to it after reading it. Theres many reasons why people don't respond to peoples good posts. Try not to worry about the approval of others when writing good posts, but when writing *trigger* posts, then worry, or take more thought about the approval of others.
Your messages didn't upset me, as I think you understood my replies to them.
Take care
Nick
Posted by Dinah on August 28, 2005, at 9:51:44
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 3:30:08
Trigger warning or not, the FAQ prohibit joking about death and suicide.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html
I'm going to let Dr. Bob handle it because there was an apology and I'm not sure how he wishes to act. I've emailed him about this, and hopefully he'll get to the board soon.
In the meantime, everyone remember to be civil themselves.
Posted by 10derHeart on August 28, 2005, at 16:12:05
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 28, 2005, at 9:51:44
Posted by gardenergirl on August 28, 2005, at 16:38:06
In reply to Re: extinction of behavior and negative punishment » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 1:26:38
> - A punisher is something that reduces the frequency of behaviour.
>
> - A reinforcer is something that increases the frequency of behaviour.
>
> Ignoring someone is a negative punisher because it is taking away something that the person wants (a reinforcer) in order to extinguish the behaviour.
>
> After delivery of a reinforcer ceases the person basically gets worse for a while. The behaviour becomes more intense, more frequent, and more variable. There can be a danger in this depending on the severity of the kinds of behaviours that are being extinguished.
>
> -Punishment is not as effective as reinforcing a viable alternative behaviour. Presumably the initial behaviour led to the fulfillment of some urge (or drive reduction) and so it may be unethical to extinguish a behaviour where that leads to the unfulfillment of need.
>
> - I think that means figuring out what function the behaviour serves and working out viable alternatives.
>
> - Then one needs to actively reinforce the alternatives.
>
>
> Or at least, that would seem to be more humane to me...
>
>
Go for it! I'm certainly not an expert behaviorist, and assessing one's needs and drives via the internet would pose complications beyond which I have energy for.And meanwhile, I can choose to ignore that which I do not wish to continue so as not to reinforce that behavior.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 17:14:30
In reply to Re: extinction of behavior and negative punishment » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on August 28, 2005, at 16:38:06
> And meanwhile, I can choose to ignore that which I do not wish to continue so as not to reinforce that behavior.
Absolutely. Though more effective still is reinforcing the behaviour you would prefer to see.
>Assessing one's needs and drives via the internet would pose complications beyond which I have energy for.Sure.
>I'm certainly not an expert behaviorist
Oh, me neither. Repeat after me 'I am NOT a behaviourist'.
It is just that I remember something about how attempting to extinguish a behaviour can be a little like playing chicken. And I worry about that... Especially given the lack of IRL supports...
I guess where I'm coming from...
I used to do this.
I didn't realise just how negative other peoples responses to me were going to be.
Sometimes I intended to be a bit provocative, yeah, but I never intended people to be very upset.So how does one learn?
Slowly...
Change is hard.
And it can be really very hard to find appropriate alternative means of expression...
Posted by gardenergirl on August 28, 2005, at 18:15:46
In reply to Re: extinction of behavior and negative punishment » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 17:14:30
> Change is hard.
> And it can be really very hard to find appropriate alternative means of expression...very true
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 18:30:48
In reply to Re: extinction of behavior and negative punishment » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on August 28, 2005, at 18:15:46
> > Change is hard.
> > And it can be really very hard to find appropriate alternative means of expression...
> very trueyeah. and it can be really hard to figure it out. hard for the person who is doing it. hard for the other people who are trying to help the person understand. hard work. lots of effort. not a lot of visible improvement. progress can seem slow. can seem non-existent at times. it can feel like you are bashing your head up against a brick wall... going round in circles, getting worse even...
but how much worse for the person who feels alienated and like they are ununderstandable?
i wouldn't go back there for worlds...
and its the hardest thing in the world to try and face by yourself
:-(
it is hard...
and improvement... does happen. the frequency of episodes. the duration of episodes. the intensity of episodes.
its just that sometimes its not as fast as we'd like / hope and so we don't see the improvement.
i'm not trying to explain it away.
just saying that attempts at understanding
or at the very least compassion
are never wasted.thats not to say that people don't have to face the consequences of their behaviour...
its just to say that that is hard enough without other people blaming...
not that i think you are.
i'm just worried that others might be...
Posted by henrietta on August 28, 2005, at 18:46:02
In reply to Reinforcement of behavior, posted by gardenergirl on August 27, 2005, at 18:38:30
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that behaviorist approaches such as those under discussion here assume that the behavior in question is voluntary, and under the explicit control of the actor (for want of a better word).
I am not at all certain we can make that assumption in this case.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 19:00:56
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by henrietta on August 28, 2005, at 18:46:02
> Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that behaviorist approaches such as those under discussion here assume that the behavior in question is voluntary...
actually... the opposite is actually the case.
welcome to the law of effect:if an organism emmits a behaviour and that type of behaviour is reinforced then the organism is more likely to emmit that same type of behaviour in the future.
if an organism emmits a behaviour and that type of behaviour is punished then the organism is less likely to emmit that same type of behaviour in the future.and it is considered to be irrelevant what that organism believes, desires, wants, thinks, hopes, imagines, is aware of etc etc.
except...
that following 'rules in the head' f*cks things up a bit...
(sometimes people aren't sensitive to the reinforcement contingencies as they should be - they seem to be reinforcing / punishing themselves)and there is a problem with respect to defining 'kinds' of behaviours in a way which isn't circular... they typically say that a type of behaviour can be defined functionally with respect to what the function of a token instance is and if different tokens have the same function then they count as instances of the same type...
a problem is that all behaviour would seem to have the same function: attainment of a reinforcer.so... i guess whosoever works out the schedule of reinforcement determines the 'kinds' of behaviours that there are as well...
i dunno...
its hard to find people willing to talk about behaviourist theory...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 19:06:06
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior » henrietta, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 19:00:56
I just mean to say that they don't make a volountary / involountary distinction.
People can be unaware of the function of their own behaviour. Whether someone is aware or unaware of the function of it isn't supposed to matter.
But of course...
Behaviourism works best for small children, people with autism, and animals for a reason: it is about right so far as it goes but wait! Theres more! We have higher mental functions as well!
(As to small children, people with autism, and animals to a certain extent - behaviourism can't quite explain some phemonena over there either unless you translate some of the cognitivists insights back into the language of behaviourism).
But the upshot is - why bother?
Behaviourism is yesterdays news.
On with the cognitive revolution.
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 19:46:31
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 19:06:06
>and there is a problem with respect to defining 'kinds' of behaviours in a way which isn't circular... they typically say that a type of behaviour can be defined functionally with respect to what the function of a token instance is and if different tokens have the same function then they count as instances of the same type...
a problem is that all behaviour would seem to have the same function: attainment of a reinforcer.Crap. Thats not quite right. It is very hard indeed to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with behaviourism... There is a problem of circularity. But it isn't true that the function of all instances of behaviour is to attain a reinforcer (because not all behaviour tokens are reinforced).
Incase anyone is interested I found this on the net somewhere... Its a summary from "Skinner Skinned" and article in "Brainstorms"
>However, Dennett does not think behaviorist psychology will be able to explain human intentional action
1. the problems have to do with novelty and generality (76a-b)
Dennett uses the example of being held up for his wallet (76b)a. since he has never been a victim of armed robbery before, one cannot say that his behavior in this case was "reinforced"
b. Skinner would try to say that this behavior was not really new at all, but simply an instance of a more general type of behavior that has been reinforced
c. say the only time Dennett has been threatened before was in response to something he said1.) in these instances, his response was to apologize
2.) but that's not how he would respond to a hold-up!
4. Skinner would have to say that one's present "threat stimuli" must be similar to some threat stimuli one received in the past, which were followed by responses similar to that which one is making nowa. to make this move, however, is to posit an "external" dormitive virtue
b. that is, Skinner does not know but merely infers a person's past history of stimuli in precisely the same way that Skinner accuses others of inferring mental statesJ. When Skinner turns from pigeons to people, his explanations and predictions tend to postulate such speculative histories ofreinforcement (77a-b)
1. as long as Skinner is dealing with pigeons in the lab, he knows their reinforcement history (77a)
2. but when it comes to people, he has to make it up
3. Dennett makes an analogy with chess-playing computersa. we might give intentional explanations of its behavior -- e.g, it wants to capture a rook
b. But Skinner would have to record every move and whether it was "reinforced"
c. Assume we were to let two computers that are capable of learning from mistakes play each other unobserved by us (77b)1.) we could still predict their moves in the same way we would predict those of a human player who is new in town (77b)
2.) Skinner would either not be able to, or have to cheat by predicting its moves the same way we do but saying that it must have been reinforced to make those moves
3.) But he would have no grounds for doing this except to save his theory
4. Skinner is on no stronger grounds when he attributes a reinforcement history to a person to explain his behavior
5. if he complains that mentalistic explanations are too easy, the same can be said of his inferred histories of reinforcement (77b-8a)
6. Skinner is playing the "same game," only using "more cumbersome terminology" (78a)
K. for Dennett, what would count as "unmasking" human intelligence in the way that Skinner unmasks that of animals might include showing that people still turn over their wallets to gunmen even when accompanied by police, etc.
L. Skinner fails to show that there can be a psychology that wholly dispenses with mentalism
Posted by alexandra_k on August 29, 2005, at 1:52:41
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 19:46:31
got side-tracked again...
Posted by henrietta on August 29, 2005, at 7:00:53
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by henrietta on August 28, 2005, at 18:46:02
No worries. My comment was a personal take, not an educated one. I just can't see how a person can modify behavior in response to punishment if he/she can't control the behavior.
But I realize that opens up a can of worms that we probably don't need to grapple with right now.
:) (The image of grappling with worms is kind of interesting, now that I think about it....)
Posted by henrietta on August 29, 2005, at 8:46:13
In reply to Re: extinction of behavior and negative punishment » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on August 28, 2005, at 18:30:48
Hi again, Alex. I just want to say I think you've said a lot of compassionate and important things around this issue, and I want to thank you for saying them.
hen
Posted by alexandra_k on August 29, 2005, at 15:31:02
In reply to Re: Reinforcement of behavior, posted by henrietta on August 29, 2005, at 7:00:53
Ah. No matter how much shaping you do... You can never reinforce someone into flapping their arms and flying...
So there are limits yes.
But then some things which aren't typically under volountary control (e.g., salivation) can be altered via reinforcement.
Thanks for what you said.
Glad you are back :-)
Posted by Damos on August 29, 2005, at 17:38:56
In reply to Re: extinction of behavior and negative punishment » alexandra_k, posted by henrietta on August 29, 2005, at 8:46:13
> Hi again, Alex. I just want to say I think you've said a lot of compassionate and important things around this issue, and I want to thank you for saying them.
> henI'd really like to second that. How much you care for each individual and the community as a whole really shows. Thank you.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.