sulphur crestred nail clipping

[TexDot33]

I had a Behaviorist prof. (back in the days ...) who showed us a 10 minute video of a rat in a "Skinner Box" and how he trained the rat to push a lever to acquire a food pellet ... just dropped the rat in the box and in like ten minutes had that rat pushing the lever ... then he changed the intervals of the "payout" (much like a slot machine) and the rat CONTINUED to push that lever (kinda like the old ladies at the casinos just putting the quarters in and pulling the levers and waiting for the payout ... God, I am going to hell for that one ... ) 1 in 3 ... 1 in 5 ... 1 in 10 and the rat still pushed.

So, yes, I know what you are saying as to the motivation factor ... but the IDEAL (at least for me) is to get them to "perform" because they want to ...

(p.s. My strength is in Educational Psychology, which tends to have a lot of the behaviorist theories behind them mixed with a lot of Developmental Psychology and some Abnormal Psych in there too ... )

 

[Auggie's Dad]

If an organism WANTS to do a behavior there is no need to train it. Anything that requires training is something the organism doesn't naturally do at a high frequency. Therefore any behavior that needs training requires a reinforcer to make the behavior happen.

Its a bit of a semantic argument however as our verbal praise is itself a reinforcer. If it wasn't then it would not serve any purpose in training. So when Mac or Hamlet are not doing something just because they "want to" but they are doing it in order to get that praise or approval from you which serves as the reinforcer. Implying that they "want to" do it more for your praise versus a treat means only that in that case the praise is a more effective reinforcer.

In any training situation you would want to use the most effective practical reinforcer.

Pure altruism simply doesn't exist. No organism does anything just to make another happy. Behaviors only exist or persist if they are followed by SOME SORT of reinforcement.

Even the wonderful caring people who volunteer their time at the hospital to help a stranger, they do it because it makes them feel good (reward).

 

[TexDot33]

(Oh, an intellectual conversation ... I haven't had one in so long (aside from with Christy, and she is so much smarter than I am) ... it's what happens when you work with children all day ...)

I agree the semantic issue ... but, isn't it a known fact that intrinsic motivation is exponentially stronger factor than extrinsic motivation when it comes to behavior. So, yes initially, that almond acts as an extrinsic motivator but over the course of time the reason the behavior starts to be performed is because of INTRINSIC motivation ...

Example: A judge hands down a Community Service sentence to a defendant ... that person takes his time at an elderly house and helps out. During the course of his sentence the person starts to enjoy his time there and even becomes upset when some of the residents succumb to "the major downfall of being a carbon based life-form". Even though his sentence is completed the individual continues to go to the house because he enjoys his time there ... now here is an example of an example of an extrinsic motivator becoming an intrinsic one with intrinsic rewards (enjoying the time spent there).

Now, if we can take this to the training level with our animals, we should be able to get them to perform a behavior simply because it makes them happy ... and if we can do that, what does it say about animals cognitive ability, they have the choice to do something and they do it because they want to and it makes them happy ...

*Oh my gawd, I'm spent ... I can't keep this up ... but thank you for entertaining my thoughts here ... *

 

[Auggie's Dad]

I feel a philosophical difference coming on...

but, isn't it a known fact that intrinsic motivation is exponentially stronger factor than extrinsic motivation when it comes to behavior.

Is it a known fact? Cite your source. And if they are to be discussed intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation must be defined.

they have the choice to do something and they do it because they want to and it makes them happy

They have the choice also when you are offering the treat, and getting the treat makes them happy, and therefore they do it because it makes them happy. How does the presences of a treat eradicate their free will?

NO behavior happens in the absence of a reinforcement contingency, with the exception of a behavior undergoing extinction in which it was previously under a reinforcement contingency. [In fact if we want to get real deep into neurophysiology even under behavioral extinction there are electrochemical events which do serve as reinforcers.]

If engaging in a behavior makes an organism "happy" it is because that behavior is under a reinforcement contingency. "Happy" and "Want to" are no-no phrases even in human behavioral science, how can you measure them? While these words are useful in everyday conversation of behavior if we are to delve into functional analyses they must be left behind.

 

[Lori]

OK I know im slow but how did I miss this with orgasims and all the positive behavior. Now I know how to be happy thanks guys for the lesson.

 

[Auggie's Dad]

OK I know im slow but how did I miss this with orgasims and all the positive behavior. Now I know how to be happy thanks guys for the lesson.

*** Checks through posts... ***

Did I miss an "n" somewhere?

 

[zarafia]

Well I suppose that is one way to reward good behavior.

 

[NicoleN]

DAMN ... one of my posts was lost in this thread ... and I don't have the patients right now to repost it ...

Hem..Hem...


Since Tex is quick to point this out in posts that other people make, I thought I'd let you know that noone is perfect!


:jumping40