operant conditioning

operant conditioning

operant conditioning does not solely depend on positive and negative
reinforcement

positive and negative reinforcement are relative, what stimulates one
positively or negatively, may not stimulate another

so, first you must define what is stimulation for one

to drive someone truly (to condition an operant), you must know their
lights (their ambitions)

a light is the realistic expectation that someone might be able to open a
door of reality

and the keys to the door are the actions necessary to open or close the
door

to block a light (negative reinforcement), you take the keys to the door,
you make it socially and/or physically impossible for them to open the
door, then they have no light (ambition) for that door

to open a door (positive reinforcement), you give them the keys (you
enable them to reach their ambition)

to drive (condition), you must block all doors that you do not want one
(an operant) to open, and only leave them with the keys to the door you
wish them to enter

closing many doors, may take significant socialism, a CABAL would be
better suited than say one psychiatrist, that is, if you want the operant
conditioning to be permanent, if you leave doors open, then the operant
is free to open them, once they leave your influence, this is why operant
conditioning, under the secular paradigm is flawed

--
Dale * w w w .vedantasite.org
see website for real email address

Re: operant conditioning


"Dale Kelly" <THIS_IS_A_SPAMTRAP@comcast . net > wrote in message
news:DIydnR5skvO0LAPbnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@comcast . com ...
> operant conditioning does not solely depend on positive and negative
> reinforcement
>
> positive and negative reinforcement are relative, what stimulates one
> positively or negatively, may not stimulate another
>
> so, first you must define what is stimulation for one
>
> to drive someone truly (to condition an operant), you must know their
> lights (their ambitions)
>
> a light is the realistic expectation that someone might be able to open a
> door of reality
>
> and the keys to the door are the actions necessary to open or close the
> door
>
> to block a light (negative reinforcement), you take the keys to the door,
> you make it socially and/or physically impossible for them to open the
> door, then they have no light (ambition) for that door
>
> to open a door (positive reinforcement), you give them the keys (you
> enable them to reach their ambition)
>
> to drive (condition), you must block all doors that you do not want one
> (an operant) to open, and only leave them with the keys to the door you
> wish them to enter
>
> closing many doors, may take significant socialism, a CABAL would be
> better suited than say one psychiatrist, that is, if you want the operant
> conditioning to be permanent, if you leave doors open, then the operant
> is free to open them, once they leave your influence, this is why operant
> conditioning, under the secular paradigm is flawed

You have made the common mistake of confusing the concepts of positive and
negative reinforcement with rewards and punishments.

Positive and negative reinforcement, in the world of operant conditioning
you discussed, concerns the results in terms of change or maintenance of the
frequency of the target behavior. The reinforcing event can be positive or
negative, pleasurable or aversive, it doesn't matter. All that matters is
the result.

Similar to a tendency to confuse positive and negative reinforcement with
reward and punishment. In systems theory, any response that increases
deviation or change from what was the norm, is positive reinforcement. If
it reduces change or deviation (in words keeps the status quo) is a negative
reinforcement.

Punishment, on the other hand, is aversive and it typically stops a
behavior. But maybe not for long. A positive or pleasurable response might
increase a behavior but it might also decrease it.

card xii
Master of the detrevnI Buckyball

Re: operant conditioning



Card XII wrote:
>
> "Dale Kelly" <THIS_IS_A_SPAMTRAP@comcast . net > wrote in message
> news:DIydnR5skvO0LAPbnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@comcast . com ...
> > operant conditioning does not solely depend on positive and negative
> > reinforcement
> >
> > positive and negative reinforcement are relative, what stimulates one
> > positively or negatively, may not stimulate another
> >
> > so, first you must define what is stimulation for one
> >
> > to drive someone truly (to condition an operant), you must know their
> > lights (their ambitions)
> >
> > a light is the realistic expectation that someone might be able to open a
> > door of reality
> >
> > and the keys to the door are the actions necessary to open or close the
> > door
> >
> > to block a light (negative reinforcement), you take the keys to the door,
> > you make it socially and/or physically impossible for them to open the
> > door, then they have no light (ambition) for that door
> >
> > to open a door (positive reinforcement), you give them the keys (you
> > enable them to reach their ambition)
> >
> > to drive (condition), you must block all doors that you do not want one
> > (an operant) to open, and only leave them with the keys to the door you
> > wish them to enter
> >
> > closing many doors, may take significant socialism, a CABAL would be
> > better suited than say one psychiatrist, that is, if you want the operant
> > conditioning to be permanent, if you leave doors open, then the operant
> > is free to open them, once they leave your influence, this is why operant
> > conditioning, under the secular paradigm is flawed
>
> You have made the common mistake of confusing the concepts of positive and
> negative reinforcement with rewards and punishments.
>
> Positive and negative reinforcement, in the world of operant conditioning
> you discussed, concerns the results in terms of change or maintenance of the
> frequency of the target behavior. The reinforcing event can be positive or
> negative, pleasurable or aversive, it doesn't matter. All that matters is
> the result.
>
> Similar to a tendency to confuse positive and negative reinforcement with
> reward and punishment. In systems theory, any response that increases
> deviation or change from what was the norm, is positive reinforcement.

I have to ask.
If you were training a chicken to peck at food to release food, the
number of times the chicken pecks at the button is a positive because
their normal pecking has been increased?

Norm is then based on the individual baseline count?


> If
> it reduces change or deviation (in words keeps the status quo) is a negative
> reinforcement.

How can the status quo be a status quo, if the R- is changed or
decreased as in your example?


>
> Punishment, on the other hand, is aversive and it typically stops a
> behavior. But maybe not for long. A positive or pleasurable response might
> increase a behavior but it might also decrease it.

What is an example of a R+ decreasing behavior??

>
> card xii
> Master of the detrevnI Buckyball

Re: operant conditioning


"Hoofprints" <equsphotogphr@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:469FE649.CA214D55@hotmail . com ...
...
>
> I have to ask.
> If you were training a chicken to peck at food to release food, the
> number of times the chicken pecks at the button is a positive because
> their normal pecking has been increased?
>
> Norm is then based on the individual baseline count?

I assume you are talking about the systems theory use of the word
"reinforcement."

The "norm" is the baseline, basically. But not necessarily that of the
individual, perhaps that of a group, society, etc. Negative reinforcment
then is responses that bring the individual's response frequency or nature
of responses closer to those of the relevant reference, and positive
reinforcement takes it farther away.

>> If
>> it reduces change or deviation (in words keeps the status quo) is a
>> negative
>> reinforcement.
>
> How can the status quo be a status quo, if the R- is changed or
> decreased as in your example?

If the responses have become different from those of the reference group,
either greater or lesser in number, or intensity, or something, how they
change determines if you call it positive or negative.

If an individual drinks 7 Dr. Peppers a day, that is more than normal for
the community. Negative reinforcement would result in a decrease in the
number consumed, perhaps only 3 a day. Positive reinforcement would result
in even more consumption, perhaps 10 bottles a day!

If the average person drinks 1 bottle of pop a day, and the individual
started drinking 2, then it would have been a result of positive
reinforcement. In increase away from the norm, you see. If the individual
had been drinking 1 a day, like most people and then began drinking only
half a pop, and only then once a week, there would also have been positive
reinforcement. You see, again the deviation would be further from the norm,
only in the opposite direction.

It doesn't matter what the valence of the change is, only whether it
increases of increases deviation.

>> Punishment, on the other hand, is aversive and it typically stops a
>> behavior. But maybe not for long. A positive or pleasurable response
>> might
>> increase a behavior but it might also decrease it.
>
> What is an example of a R+ decreasing behavior??

Take the case of a kid who likes to eat peas. But their mom hugs the kid
for eating all the peas. As a response, the rebellious kid quits eating
peas anytime except at school, but never at home. The behaivor has become
decreased as a result of a positive experience.

But these are two separate ways of using the terms and should not be
confused.


card xii
Master of the detrevnI Buckyball

Re: operant conditioning



Card XII wrote:
>
> "Hoofprints" <equsphotogphr@hotmail . com > wrote in message
> news:469FE649.CA214D55@hotmail . com ...
> ...
> >
> > I have to ask.
> > If you were training a chicken to peck at food to release food, the
> > number of times the chicken pecks at the button is a positive because
> > their normal pecking has been increased?
> >
> > Norm is then based on the individual baseline count?
>
> I assume you are talking about the systems theory use of the word
> "reinforcement."

I don't understand the term 'systems theory'.

>
> The "norm" is the baseline, basically. But not necessarily that of the
> individual, perhaps that of a group, society, etc. Negative reinforcment
> then is responses that bring the individual's response frequency or nature
> of responses closer to those of the relevant reference, and positive
> reinforcement takes it farther away.

You are saying then that the group the individual identifies with
dictates what is normal?
Even if their ideal of norm, isn't norm?

>
> >> If
> >> it reduces change or deviation (in words keeps the status quo) is a
> >> negative
> >> reinforcement.
> >
> > How can the status quo be a status quo, if the R- is changed or
> > decreased as in your example?
>
> If the responses have become different from those of the reference group,
> either greater or lesser in number, or intensity, or something, how they
> change determines if you call it positive or negative.

then it is all about how the individual viewing the group, considers to
be the norm?
That is a big bitch against MHP, by antiMHP people.

>
> If an individual drinks 7 Dr. Peppers a day, that is more than normal for
> the community.

I am so glad you said 'if'. I don't drink that many soft drinks in a
year, much less a day.

> Negative reinforcement would result in a decrease in the
> number consumed, perhaps only 3 a day.

so the individual that doesn't care about how many sodas they consume
per day would view a diet as a negative, instead of a positive?


>Positive reinforcement would result
> in even more consumption, perhaps 10 bottles a day!

Not for this individual, consuming that many sodas a day would make me
ill.
So it is hard for me to conceive that anyone would consider 10 bottles
of pop per day would be a good thing, because it is a negative thing,
especially by dietitians etc.

>
> If the average person drinks 1 bottle of pop a day, and the individual
> started drinking 2, then it would have been a result of positive
> reinforcement.

The positive seems to me, to be a increase in sales of soda, so the only
people who are reaping the benefits of increasing from 1 to 2 sodas per
day is positive for the manufacturers or owners of the soft drink
corporation.

> In increase away from the norm, you see. If the individual
> had been drinking 1 a day, like most people and then began drinking only
> half a pop, and only then once a week, there would also have been positive
> reinforcement. You see, again the deviation would be further from the norm,
> only in the opposite direction.

The soft drink companies would consider this to be a negative from a
sales point of view.

>
> It doesn't matter what the valence of the change is, only whether it
> increases of increases deviation.
>
> >> Punishment, on the other hand, is aversive and it typically stops a
> >> behavior. But maybe not for long. A positive or pleasurable response
> >> might
> >> increase a behavior but it might also decrease it.
> >
> > What is an example of a R+ decreasing behavior??
>
> Take the case of a kid who likes to eat peas. But their mom hugs the kid
> for eating all the peas. As a response, the rebellious kid quits eating
> peas anytime except at school, but never at home. The behaivor has become
> decreased as a result of a positive experience.

Isn't that reaction and age dependent reaction?
Children do go through the normal of 'mom don't fuss over me' attitude
in their pursuit of becoming an independent adult.

>
> But these are two separate ways of using the terms and should not be
> confused.

Thank you for your response.

>
> card xii
> Master of the detrevnI Buckyball

Re: operant conditioning

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:14:01 +0000, Card XII wrote:

> All that matters is
> the result.

in order to reinforce a behavior, you need to know what ambitions or
lights a person has in order to appeal or disappeal to them

the current mindset, is that everyone doesn't like electric shock, and
that everyone likes food or drugs or something

fact is, there are no universal reinforcements

--
Dale * w w w .vedantasite.org
see website for real email address

Re: operant conditioning

In <DIydnR5skvO0LAPbnZ2dnUVZ oPinZ2d@comcast . com >, Dale Kelly
THIS IS A SPAMTRAP@comcast . net said:
: operant conditioning does not solely depend on positive and negative
: reinforcement
:
: positive and negative reinforcement are relative, what stimulates one
: positively or negatively, may not stimulate another

Even Skinner himself would agree with this.

: so, first you must define what is stimulation for one
:
: to drive someone truly (to condition an operant), you must know their
: lights (their ambitions)
:
: a light is the realistic expectation that someone might be able to open a
: door of reality

I thought you gave up LSD?

: and the keys to the door are the actions necessary to open or close the
: door

Like dropping acid.

: to block a light (negative reinforcement), you take the keys to the door,
: you make it socially and/or physically impossible for them to open the
: door, then they have no light (ambition) for that door

The government is conspiring against all upstanding LSD users.

: to open a door (positive reinforcement), you give them the keys (you
: enable them to reach their ambition) to drive (condition), you must block
: all doors that you do not want one (an operant) to open, and only leave
: them with the keys to the door you wish them to enter

You're really talking about extinction here.

: closing many doors, may take significant socialism, a CABAL would be
: better suited than say one psychiatrist, that is, if you want the operant
: conditioning to be permanent, if you leave doors open, then the operant
: is free to open them, once they leave your influence, this is why operant
: conditioning, under the secular paradigm is flawed

There is no cabal, just communities concerned about crackers who
fry their brains using LSD.

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

Re: operant conditioning

Kali wrote:

> There is no cabal, just communities concerned about crackers who
> fry their brains using LSD.

LSD does not 'fry brains'. Try looking up the medical facts before you
make such assertions.

This Dale Kelly fellow was BORN with a fried brain, and LSD is in no
way, shape, or form responsible for the raving nutter he was before he
ever took it.

--
--Sean
* spclsd223.livejournal . com /

Cameron: McDonald criteria requires six months to make a definitive
diagnosis.

House: Oh, who cares about McPherson? I hear he tortured kittens.

Foreman: McDonald.

House: Oh, McDonald. Wonderful doctor, loved kittens.

Re: operant conditioning

In <Ud4qi.100715$LE1.61512@newsfe13.lga>, Sean Carroll seanc130
@hotmail . com said:
: Kali wrote:
:
: > There is no cabal, just communities concerned about crackers who
: > fry their brains using LSD.
:
: LSD does not 'fry brains'.

Ignorant opinion stated as fact.

: Try looking up the medical facts before you
: make such assertions.

* snipurl . com /effectlsd

: This Dale Kelly fellow was BORN with a fried brain, and LSD is in no
: way, shape, or form responsible for the raving nutter he was before he
: ever took it.

That's the alternative hypothesis.

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

Re: operant conditioning

On Jul 27, 10:57 am, Kali <k...@powder.keg> wrote:
> In <Ud4qi.100715$LE1.61...@newsfe13.lga>, Sean Carroll seanc130
> @hotmail . com said: : Kali wrote:
>
> :
> : > There is no cabal, just communities concerned about crackers who
> : > fry their brains using LSD.
> :
> : LSD does not 'fry brains'.
>
> Ignorant opinion stated as fact.
>
> : Try looking up the medical facts before you
> : make such assertions.
>
> * snipurl . com /effectlsd
>
> : This Dale Kelly fellow was BORN with a fried brain, and LSD is in no
> : way, shape, or form responsible for the raving nutter he was before he
> : ever took it.
>
> That's the alternative hypothesis.

Doesn't seem like the hypotheses are mutually exclusive. It's possible
he was born cross-wired, then fried what little cerebral cortex he had
with lsd or other drugs. There! Now you can both be happy. :)

marcia

Re: operant conditioning

In <1185548614.154419.22930@z28g2000prd.googlegroups . com >,
marcia design1@insight.rr . com said:
: On Jul 27, 10:57 am, Kali <k...@powder.keg> wrote:
: > In <Ud4qi.100715$LE1.61...@newsfe13.lga>, Sean Carroll seanc130
: > @hotmail . com said: : Kali wrote:
: >
: > :
: > : > There is no cabal, just communities concerned about crackers who
: > : > fry their brains using LSD.
: > :
: > : LSD does not 'fry brains'.
: >
: > Ignorant opinion stated as fact.
: >
: > : Try looking up the medical facts before you
: > : make such assertions.
: >
: > * snipurl . com /effectlsd
: >
: > : This Dale Kelly fellow was BORN with a fried brain, and LSD is in no
: > : way, shape, or form responsible for the raving nutter he was before he
: > : ever took it.
: >
: > That's the alternative hypothesis.
:
: Doesn't seem like the hypotheses are mutually exclusive. It's possible
: he was born cross-wired, then fried what little cerebral cortex he had
: with lsd or other drugs. There! Now you can both be happy. :)

You are correct. ;)

: marcia
:

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

Re: operant conditioning

Kali wrote:
> Sean Carroll seanc130 @hotmail . com said:

> : LSD does not 'fry brains'.

> Ignorant opinion stated as fact.

Stop talking about yourself!

> : Try looking up the medical facts before you
> : make such assertions.

> * snipurl . com /effectlsd

Oooookay ... and where on those hundreds of pages does it talk about
'frying'? Or were you just hoping the flood of links would overwhelm me
and I would just ASSUME that buried somewhere in there are facts that
support your assertion that a drug that has never killed anyone and that
has not been shown to have ANY permanent negative health effects (except
for the possibility of triggering preexistent latent psychotic
conditions) can be described as 'frying one's brain'?

Oh, lemme guess. It comes from the same source as the old study in the
Sixties that claimed LSD caused chromosome breakage, but failed to point
out that it only happened in a test tube when the LSD was placed in
direct physical contact with the chromosomes (which never happens in the
body), and that MILK causes the same exact effect under the same exact
conditions?

People are always trying to come up with a new scare story about the
awful things LSD does to people. Why? Because it's illegal, and
politically unpopular. Never mind the fact that it's not addictive, does
NOT cause brain damage or any other long-term physiological effects, and
was the subject of hundreds of scientific papers in the Fifties and
early Sixties on how tremendously it was HELPING people in a therapeutic
setting, without the negative effects of other drugs -- until the
research was stopped by the Big Bad Federal Government, who came in and
said, 'You can't study this drug anymore unless you can find something
bad to say about it!'

> : This Dale Kelly fellow was BORN with a fried brain, and LSD is in no
> : way, shape, or form responsible for the raving nutter he was before he
> : ever took it.

> That's the alternative hypothesis.

No, it's the obvious default hypothesis favoured by Occam's Razor,
against which there is absolutely no evidence.

--
--Sean
* spclsd223.livejournal . com /

Wilson: That smugness of yours really is an attractive quality.

House: Thank you. It was either that or get my hair highlighted.
Smugness is easier to maintain.

Re: operant conditioning

In <46A7667D.218B1D01@hotmail . com >, Hoofprints
equsphotogphr@hotmail . com said:
:
:
: Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA wrote:
: >
: > From : Hoofprints <equsphotogphr@hotmail . com >
: > Message-ID : <46A4ED4F.DA739CFE@hotmail . com >
: >
: >
: > >Who ever was complaining about kimcunt telephoning their home, that is
: > >nothing, they were also calling here asking for Two Steps when he lived
: > >here
: >
: > I hope my spirit didn't leave *there* without paying the rent.
:
: Your spirit left here without paying the rent..and food, and whatever
: else was on the bill you are ignoring.
: Damages were not included in the bill. Like ripped off shelves that
: left holes etc. [you left in a tizzy and a hurry and also drunk].

What do you expect from a gay bohemian?

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

Re: operant conditioning



Kali wrote:
>
> In <46A7667D.218B1D01@hotmail . com >, Hoofprints
> equsphotogphr@hotmail . com said:
> :
> :
> : Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA wrote:
> : >
> : > From : Hoofprints <equsphotogphr@hotmail . com >
> : > Message-ID : <46A4ED4F.DA739CFE@hotmail . com >
> : >
> : >
> : > >Who ever was complaining about kimcunt telephoning their home, that is
> : > >nothing, they were also calling here asking for Two Steps when he lived
> : > >here
> : >
> : > I hope my spirit didn't leave *there* without paying the rent.
> :
> : Your spirit left here without paying the rent..and food, and whatever
> : else was on the bill you are ignoring.
> : Damages were not included in the bill. Like ripped off shelves that
> : left holes etc. [you left in a tizzy and a hurry and also drunk].
>
> What do you expect from a gay bohemian?

You really are not that bright yaknow.
If he came back here he would be in handcuffs tied to the pool table
legs. I will throw a mattress on the floor and kick his bowl over to
him periodically.
I would tie him to the sink in the bathroom, but he knows how to get out
of that hold.


>
> Kali
> --
> "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
> research, would it?"
> - Albert Einstein

Re: operant conditioning

In <46A8BDB7.7976E0C@hotmail . com >, Hoofprints
equsphotogphr@hotmail . com said:
:
:
: Kali wrote:
: >
: > In <46A7667D.218B1D01@hotmail . com >, Hoofprints
: > equsphotogphr@hotmail . com said:
: > :
: > :
: > : Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA wrote:
: > : >
: > : > From : Hoofprints <equsphotogphr@hotmail . com >
: > : > Message-ID : <46A4ED4F.DA739CFE@hotmail . com >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > >Who ever was complaining about kimcunt telephoning their home, that is
: > : > >nothing, they were also calling here asking for Two Steps when he lived
: > : > >here
: > : >
: > : > I hope my spirit didn't leave *there* without paying the rent.
: > :
: > : Your spirit left here without paying the rent..and food, and whatever
: > : else was on the bill you are ignoring.
: > : Damages were not included in the bill. Like ripped off shelves that
: > : left holes etc. [you left in a tizzy and a hurry and also drunk].
: >
: > What do you expect from a gay bohemian?
:
: You really are not that bright yaknow.
: If he came back here he would be in handcuffs tied to the pool table
: legs. I will throw a mattress on the floor and kick his bowl over to
: him periodically.

Kinky!

: I would tie him to the sink in the bathroom, but he knows how to get out

Oh, you tried that already?

Kali
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein