Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms

ck wrote:
Wolf wrote:
ck wrote:
[...]
[..]
Its interesting to see GS ask for definitions of positive
reinforcement, when even Father Skinner acknowledged what
applies for one person won't necessarily apply to another.

Erm, by this reasoning, bridge building has the same problems. What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. Except of course for general principles. Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. You, for example, have certainly been positively reinforced to behave politely, etc -- all the behaviours that make it possible for people to get along with each other. I mean, you weren't born with them, were you? Most of that reinforcement occurred below your level of consciousness, by which I mean you weren't aware that your behaviours were reinforced, nor which ones, only that you were getting along nicely with some other person(s).

General principles aside, my point is how do you know what is
positive, from what is negative?

"By their fruit ye shall know them."

From Wikipedia:
"There are two types of behavioral reinforcers and two types of behavioral punishers.

* Positive reinforcement is an increase in the likelihood of a behavior due to the addition of a reinforcer after a behavior. Giving (or adding) food to a dog contingent on its remaining in a sitting position for a specified length of time is an example of positive reinforcement (if this increases the likelihood of the dog sitting in the future).

* Negative reinforcement is an increase in the likelihood of a behavior when the consequence is the removal of an aversive stimulus. Turning off (or removing) a shock when a rat presses a bar is an example of negative reinforcement (if this increases the likelihood of the rat pressing the bar in the future)."

As Skinner himself said
there are no fixed rules for what one person will take to as
positive or negative.

So what?

Is tension a positive or a negative force in a bridge? Ie, will it tend to bring down the bridge, or to hold it up? Depends on the design of the bridge, actually. Presumably, what one person will take as positive or negative depends on how (s) he is "designed", ie, on how his or her genome and environment interacted to produce what you see before you.

I suppose observation would be key, but
then what would one be observing, if it isn't also the observer.

Huh????

When it comes to people watching, this science is as much about
the observer as it is about the observed.


On a practical level, out amoungst the masses there wouldn't
be any room in its practice to recognize the subjectivity of
this area. Its a science of models and probabilities looking
to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth.

Huh???? Without some example of what you have in mind by "subjectivity in this area", I can't parse this comment. Kindly elucidate. The second sentence is no clearer than the first. What do you mean by "preordained behaviour"? What do you man by "looking to make truth [of something]"? And if by "routine to prove its worth" you mean something like the tedious gathering of data in repeated experiments and observations, well, that's a price paid in all sciences that I have knowledge of (and did lab work in in my younger days.) If you means something else, kindly elucidate.

Ok, an explanation. I am talking from the point of view of the
application of this science, where it is asked to produce a
particular behavior, or make a judgment of behavior.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. You waffle on with no concrete examples whatever. Your talk is so vague and general, that without the context of this thread the above sentence could just as well apply to physics, or pharmacology, or whatever.

My understanding is this science, [at least post skinner], is
based on a form or empiricism, a collation of cause and effect
leading to classifications of behaviors.

Er, do you know of any science that isn't a form of empiricism?

(BTW, "collation" doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you want is probably "correlation". Or maybe "collocation". Hard to tell, since your talk has no grounding in any kind of observable reality.)

I am saying those who
follow this science will turn those classifications into
expectation, hard and fast rules.

Examples, please.

Almost as if to validate
these models, the same behaviors would be sought. Leading to
a kind of paradox since the observer is not immune to the
model. In that way behavior becomes preordained, limiting.
When i talk of making truth, i am really talking about this
validation of the model, and the need to make the behavior
fit the model we think we know.

This doesn't make sense. Give an actual example.

I'll ask you about one: How do you go about getting people to put their litter in litter boxes?

Its worst if your function was limited to finding behavior x,
as oppose to just charting all the behaviours you saw before
you.

Have you actually read any papers describing an experiment in shaping behaviour?

For that matter, have you ever trained a dog?

Have you ever taught a child to wait for the green light before crossing the street?

IOW, do you have any idea of what you are talking about??

Again the practice is riddled with subjectivity. As for
the point about repetition, i am talking here of a kind of
self interest, this science is only justified if it can
deliver what it claims, behavior.

Once again, you confuse a science and a technology. Behaviourism doesn't "deliver behaviour", it attempts to describe general laws of how behaviours change as organisms live their lives in their environments. That includes humans of course. Or do you believe that humans aren't organisms?

The particular point is we
are talking about people and a science which needs people to
be predictable.

But people _are_ predictable. Thank goodness. I wouldn't want to drive on a highway in which one of the other drivers' behaviour was predictable.

How do you achieve this? Needless to say this science supplies
the answers. Again the point is about the applied science.

Do you object to any kind of training? Teaching? Learning?

As for agenda, our cleric GS would do well to consider the
future proscribed by Father Skinner.

I suggest you look up the difference between "proscribed" and "prescribed." You are saying something quite contrary to your intentions, insofar as I can infer them from your comments above and in previous posts.

ah hum... yes i of course meant "prescribed".

Except that Skinner didn't prescribe anything. He did however suggest that we could train children to become much better people than we ourselves are, however we wish to define "better". You may wish to debate that.

--
Wolf
'Just because it's true doesn't mean it's the right answer.'
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What applies to one bridge doesn't necessarily apply to another. ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ... then what would one be observing, if it isn't also the observer. ... to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What implications do you want to discuss? ... receiving end of this science, ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ... to make truth of the preordained behaviour, a science which fundamentally needs routine to prove its worth. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A preliminary look at Spoonerisms
    ... What implications do you want to discuss? ... coercive use of that science, and given the instincts of the human ... the differences between them and us, the observer and the observed. ... Positive reinforcement is a general principle of behaviour modification, and it works whether or not the subject is aware of the reinforcer. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)