spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer reading program)
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/12/2005 9:57:48 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
ecsamhill@... writes:
Oh, and I believe that when doing animal conditioning for a reward the whole
thing only works if the animals are underfed. As we know, bribing kids with
candy and Nintendo time only works when those items are kept in pretty short
supply.
------------------
I bet that was the original meaning of "spoiled" as regards children.
Nowadays it means that the kid wants too much. But in terms of "training," if a
kid has too much stuff you can't bribe and threaten, so you've spoiled the
ability to control his behavior with the promise of food, privilege or material
goods.
When training rats to bar press for food (to touch a pellet-release bar a
certain number of times to get the food to come out---a common psych-lab
experiment in the 60's and 70's, not now), it's important that that's their only
source of food. (They were fed on days there were no labs, but not for some
number of hours before labs.)
Honestly, a lot of the "truths" of conditioning and training and learning
come from lab-rat "proofs." I hadn't thought of that for years and years. We
"proved" things with really hungry rats and people applied the principles to
human children who didn't live in cages.
All that operant conditioning is out of style now in psych studies. I think
the effects remain in schools.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ecsamhill@... writes:
Oh, and I believe that when doing animal conditioning for a reward the whole
thing only works if the animals are underfed. As we know, bribing kids with
candy and Nintendo time only works when those items are kept in pretty short
supply.
------------------
I bet that was the original meaning of "spoiled" as regards children.
Nowadays it means that the kid wants too much. But in terms of "training," if a
kid has too much stuff you can't bribe and threaten, so you've spoiled the
ability to control his behavior with the promise of food, privilege or material
goods.
When training rats to bar press for food (to touch a pellet-release bar a
certain number of times to get the food to come out---a common psych-lab
experiment in the 60's and 70's, not now), it's important that that's their only
source of food. (They were fed on days there were no labs, but not for some
number of hours before labs.)
Honestly, a lot of the "truths" of conditioning and training and learning
come from lab-rat "proofs." I hadn't thought of that for years and years. We
"proved" things with really hungry rats and people applied the principles to
human children who didn't live in cages.
All that operant conditioning is out of style now in psych studies. I think
the effects remain in schools.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Chris Swift
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:40 PM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer reading
program)
> In a message dated 6/12/2005 9:57:48 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> ecsamhill@... writes:
>
> Oh, and I believe that when doing animal conditioning for a reward the
whole
> thing only works if the animals are underfed.
Sandra
Not strictly true.
Positive reinforcement is far more effective as a learning/conditioning tool
than negative reinforcement.
Negative reinforcement would be for instance withholding to the point where
it becomes the dominant focus thought or focus.
With positive reinforcement the focus is on the behaviour you need to change
to get there.
I'm using food as an analogy here. If you starved someone almost their whole
attention/focus will be on getting food. You can get them to do things for
food but don't expect much intelligence or creativity. Which is why you
shouldn't go food shopping when you're hungry.
If you gave them an adequate diet and gave food 'treats' as a reward. Then
intelligence/creativity will shoot up.
Laboratory rats when used for intelligence/mental testing are kept hungry
and interested in food but they're fed an adequate diet.
Because you are reinforcing a behaviour/reward response you don't want to
reinforce or focus on bad habits.
Eating a ton of sweets as a reward for dieting is reinforcing eating sweets
rather than dieting.
Of course this really only applies to behaviours that you want to limit or
encourage, if something is completely unacceptable, then we're into a
different area. I think they use electric shocks with rats and mice, I don't
think that's acceptable with children !
The most effective kind of conditioning is 'random reward' where the reward
is not guaranteed, but is based on random chance with the reward becoming
less and less likely over time or the behaviour needed to get it becoming
more difficult (but still with a random element) , and the desired behaviour
increasing proportionately.
In fact you could regard the whole of adult life as a 'random reward' system
(I think I feel a book coming on).
Chris
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/13/05 4:32:32 AM, Chris@... writes:
<< Negative reinforcement would be for instance withholding to the point where
it becomes the dominant focus thought or focus. >>
No, negative reinforcement is (in the case of rats in cages) electric shock.
Negative reinforcement is punishment.
-=-If you starved someone almost their whole
attention/focus will be on getting food. You can get them to do things for
food but don't expect much intelligence or creativity. Which is why you
shouldn't go food shopping when you're hungry.-=-
The reason not to go food shopping when you're hungry is that you'll buy more
than you need and it will be expensive, not that you won't be intelligent.
<<Laboratory rats when used for intelligence/mental testing are kept hungry
and interested in food but they're fed an adequate diet.>>
We were only training for bar pressing for food, not treats. They were fed
on non-lab days. On lab days they could eat all they wanted, but they had to
press the bar for the food.
-=-If you gave them an adequate diet and gave food 'treats' as a reward. Then
intelligence/creativity will shoot up.-=-
So are you suggesting kids' intelligence and creativity would shoot up if we
rewarded them with treats? Pizza-promises? Grades?
-=-The most effective kind of conditioning is 'random reward' where the reward
is not guaranteed, but is based on random chance with the reward becoming
less and less likely over time or the behaviour needed to get it becoming
more difficult (but still with a random element) , and the desired behaviour
increasing proportionately.-=-
Like gambling.
If the food might come at any time, rats will press the bar when they want
food, and I always imagined them coming up with some kinds of superstition or
religion, as they wonder what they might be doing differently on different
presses.
With my own children, I don't think random reward is a good motivator or goal
either. It seems better to make the food available without any bar pressing
(however figurative or literal) of any sort, so that they press bars when they
want to and they eat when they want to.
-=-In fact you could regard the whole of adult life as a 'random reward'
system
(I think I feel a book coming on).-=-
You could, but there are lots more uplifting models of life. And waiting
for rewards isn't a good overlay for a life of joy and learning.
Sandra
<< Negative reinforcement would be for instance withholding to the point where
it becomes the dominant focus thought or focus. >>
No, negative reinforcement is (in the case of rats in cages) electric shock.
Negative reinforcement is punishment.
-=-If you starved someone almost their whole
attention/focus will be on getting food. You can get them to do things for
food but don't expect much intelligence or creativity. Which is why you
shouldn't go food shopping when you're hungry.-=-
The reason not to go food shopping when you're hungry is that you'll buy more
than you need and it will be expensive, not that you won't be intelligent.
<<Laboratory rats when used for intelligence/mental testing are kept hungry
and interested in food but they're fed an adequate diet.>>
We were only training for bar pressing for food, not treats. They were fed
on non-lab days. On lab days they could eat all they wanted, but they had to
press the bar for the food.
-=-If you gave them an adequate diet and gave food 'treats' as a reward. Then
intelligence/creativity will shoot up.-=-
So are you suggesting kids' intelligence and creativity would shoot up if we
rewarded them with treats? Pizza-promises? Grades?
-=-The most effective kind of conditioning is 'random reward' where the reward
is not guaranteed, but is based on random chance with the reward becoming
less and less likely over time or the behaviour needed to get it becoming
more difficult (but still with a random element) , and the desired behaviour
increasing proportionately.-=-
Like gambling.
If the food might come at any time, rats will press the bar when they want
food, and I always imagined them coming up with some kinds of superstition or
religion, as they wonder what they might be doing differently on different
presses.
With my own children, I don't think random reward is a good motivator or goal
either. It seems better to make the food available without any bar pressing
(however figurative or literal) of any sort, so that they press bars when they
want to and they eat when they want to.
-=-In fact you could regard the whole of adult life as a 'random reward'
system
(I think I feel a book coming on).-=-
You could, but there are lots more uplifting models of life. And waiting
for rewards isn't a good overlay for a life of joy and learning.
Sandra
Chris Swift
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer
reading program)
Sandra
I wasn't suggesting any kind of 'conditioning' was the way to go.
I was just saying in the context of conditioning 'random reward' appears to
be the best.
> You could, but there are lots more uplifting models of life. And waiting
> for rewards isn't a good overlay for a life of joy and learning.
>
What's the difference between an 'uplifting model' and a reward ?
Chris
J. Stauffer
<<<No, negative reinforcement is (in the case of rats in cages) electric
shock.
Negative reinforcement is punishment.>>>
Actually it isn't.
Punishment---I do something mean to you because you do something I don't
like.
Positive Reinforcement---I do something nice to you because you do something
I like.
Negative Reinforcement---I quit doing something mean to you becaue you do
something I like.
Julie S.
shock.
Negative reinforcement is punishment.>>>
Actually it isn't.
Punishment---I do something mean to you because you do something I don't
like.
Positive Reinforcement---I do something nice to you because you do something
I like.
Negative Reinforcement---I quit doing something mean to you becaue you do
something I like.
Julie S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer
reading program)
>
> In a message dated 6/13/05 4:32:32 AM, Chris@... writes:
>
> << Negative reinforcement would be for instance withholding to the point
> where
> it becomes the dominant focus thought or focus. >>
>
> No, negative reinforcement is (in the case of rats in cages) electric
> shock.
> Negative reinforcement is punishment.
>
> -=-If you starved someone almost their whole
> attention/focus will be on getting food. You can get them to do things for
> food but don't expect much intelligence or creativity. Which is why you
> shouldn't go food shopping when you're hungry.-=-
>
> The reason not to go food shopping when you're hungry is that you'll buy
> more
> than you need and it will be expensive, not that you won't be intelligent.
>
> <<Laboratory rats when used for intelligence/mental testing are kept
> hungry
> and interested in food but they're fed an adequate diet.>>
>
> We were only training for bar pressing for food, not treats. They were
> fed
> on non-lab days. On lab days they could eat all they wanted, but they had
> to
> press the bar for the food.
>
> -=-If you gave them an adequate diet and gave food 'treats' as a reward.
> Then
> intelligence/creativity will shoot up.-=-
>
> So are you suggesting kids' intelligence and creativity would shoot up if
> we
> rewarded them with treats? Pizza-promises? Grades?
>
> -=-The most effective kind of conditioning is 'random reward' where the
> reward
> is not guaranteed, but is based on random chance with the reward becoming
> less and less likely over time or the behaviour needed to get it becoming
> more difficult (but still with a random element) , and the desired
> behaviour
> increasing proportionately.-=-
>
> Like gambling.
> If the food might come at any time, rats will press the bar when they want
> food, and I always imagined them coming up with some kinds of superstition
> or
> religion, as they wonder what they might be doing differently on different
> presses.
>
> With my own children, I don't think random reward is a good motivator or
> goal
> either. It seems better to make the food available without any bar
> pressing
> (however figurative or literal) of any sort, so that they press bars when
> they
> want to and they eat when they want to.
>
> -=-In fact you could regard the whole of adult life as a 'random reward'
> system
> (I think I feel a book coming on).-=-
>
> You could, but there are lots more uplifting models of life. And waiting
> for rewards isn't a good overlay for a life of joy and learning.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/13/05 8:23:53 AM, Chris@... writes:
<< What's the difference between an 'uplifting model' and a reward ? >>
One is internal and one is external.
Kirby used to drive a woman home from class every day, when he was taking his
first-ever math class earlier this year. (He's 18.) He didn't do it for
flirtatious reasons; she was 30 years older. He didn't do it for a reward. He
did it just because it seemed a good thing to do.
If reading is for gathering information or for relaxation or fun, then people
will read just as much as they want to, and no more. If reading is for the
purpose of getting faster at reading, or for earning pencils or little plastic
toys or pizza, that is "reward," but it doesn't make the reading more
rewarding at an intrinsic level.
Sandra
<< What's the difference between an 'uplifting model' and a reward ? >>
One is internal and one is external.
Kirby used to drive a woman home from class every day, when he was taking his
first-ever math class earlier this year. (He's 18.) He didn't do it for
flirtatious reasons; she was 30 years older. He didn't do it for a reward. He
did it just because it seemed a good thing to do.
If reading is for gathering information or for relaxation or fun, then people
will read just as much as they want to, and no more. If reading is for the
purpose of getting faster at reading, or for earning pencils or little plastic
toys or pizza, that is "reward," but it doesn't make the reading more
rewarding at an intrinsic level.
Sandra
Chris Swift
Julie
Thanks for that.
Yes I'm wrong you're right.
chris
Thanks for that.
Yes I'm wrong you're right.
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Stauffer" <jnjstau@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer
reading program)
> <<<No, negative reinforcement is (in the case of rats in cages) electric
> shock.
> Negative reinforcement is punishment.>>>
>
> Actually it isn't.
>
> Punishment---I do something mean to you because you do something I don't
> like.
>
> Positive Reinforcement---I do something nice to you because you do
something
> I like.
>
> Negative Reinforcement---I quit doing something mean to you becaue you do
> something I like.
>
> Julie S.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <SandraDodd@...>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 8:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer
> reading program)
>
>
> >
> > In a message dated 6/13/05 4:32:32 AM, Chris@... writes:
> >
> > << Negative reinforcement would be for instance withholding to the point
> > where
> > it becomes the dominant focus thought or focus. >>
> >
> > No, negative reinforcement is (in the case of rats in cages) electric
> > shock.
> > Negative reinforcement is punishment.
> >
> > -=-If you starved someone almost their whole
> > attention/focus will be on getting food. You can get them to do things
for
> > food but don't expect much intelligence or creativity. Which is why you
> > shouldn't go food shopping when you're hungry.-=-
> >
> > The reason not to go food shopping when you're hungry is that you'll buy
> > more
> > than you need and it will be expensive, not that you won't be
intelligent.
> >
> > <<Laboratory rats when used for intelligence/mental testing are kept
> > hungry
> > and interested in food but they're fed an adequate diet.>>
> >
> > We were only training for bar pressing for food, not treats. They were
> > fed
> > on non-lab days. On lab days they could eat all they wanted, but they
had
> > to
> > press the bar for the food.
> >
> > -=-If you gave them an adequate diet and gave food 'treats' as a reward.
> > Then
> > intelligence/creativity will shoot up.-=-
> >
> > So are you suggesting kids' intelligence and creativity would shoot up
if
> > we
> > rewarded them with treats? Pizza-promises? Grades?
> >
> > -=-The most effective kind of conditioning is 'random reward' where the
> > reward
> > is not guaranteed, but is based on random chance with the reward
becoming
> > less and less likely over time or the behaviour needed to get it
becoming
> > more difficult (but still with a random element) , and the desired
> > behaviour
> > increasing proportionately.-=-
> >
> > Like gambling.
> > If the food might come at any time, rats will press the bar when they
want
> > food, and I always imagined them coming up with some kinds of
superstition
> > or
> > religion, as they wonder what they might be doing differently on
different
> > presses.
> >
> > With my own children, I don't think random reward is a good motivator or
> > goal
> > either. It seems better to make the food available without any bar
> > pressing
> > (however figurative or literal) of any sort, so that they press bars
when
> > they
> > want to and they eat when they want to.
> >
> > -=-In fact you could regard the whole of adult life as a 'random reward'
> > system
> > (I think I feel a book coming on).-=-
> >
> > You could, but there are lots more uplifting models of life. And
waiting
> > for rewards isn't a good overlay for a life of joy and learning.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/13/05 8:53:14 AM, jnjstau@... writes:
<< Negative Reinforcement---I quit doing something mean to you becaue you do
something I like. >>
Okay. Got it.
Like something to make the electric shocks stop.
Still a basis for religion. <g>
<< Negative Reinforcement---I quit doing something mean to you becaue you do
something I like. >>
Okay. Got it.
Like something to make the electric shocks stop.
Still a basis for religion. <g>
Chris Swift
Sandra
I understand 'uplifting model' to be in the same category as 'role model',
an 'uplifting model' would be a good 'role model'.
I don't want to get bogged down in words here but a reward is simply a
return for doing something.
That return can be something material or just a feeling.
If it makes you feel good that's a reward.
chris
I understand 'uplifting model' to be in the same category as 'role model',
an 'uplifting model' would be a good 'role model'.
I don't want to get bogged down in words here but a reward is simply a
return for doing something.
That return can be something material or just a feeling.
If it makes you feel good that's a reward.
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer
reading program)
>
> In a message dated 6/13/05 8:23:53 AM, Chris@... writes:
>
> << What's the difference between an 'uplifting model' and a reward ? >>
>
> One is internal and one is external.
>
> Kirby used to drive a woman home from class every day, when he was taking
his
> first-ever math class earlier this year. (He's 18.) He didn't do it for
> flirtatious reasons; she was 30 years older. He didn't do it for a
reward. He
> did it just because it seemed a good thing to do.
>
> If reading is for gathering information or for relaxation or fun, then
people
> will read just as much as they want to, and no more. If reading is for
the
> purpose of getting faster at reading, or for earning pencils or little
plastic
> toys or pizza, that is "reward," but it doesn't make the reading more
> rewarding at an intrinsic level.
>
> Sandra
Pam Sorooshian
People learn to buckle their seat belt to avoid the annoying sound of
the buzzer in their car. A horse learns to turn or stop to avoid the
pressure from a tug on the reins. These are negative reinforcers.
Punishment happens AFTER the behavior and the subject can't avoid it by
changing the behavior at the time.
There are negative reinforcers that just happen in life - it is raining
hard and we scuttle under a shelter to avoid it, etc. And there are
hard-to-avoid punishments - traffic tickets, for example <G> - that
just WILL happen.
There are positive reinforcers that just happen in life.
But those reinforcers that happen in the course of life are not the
same as intentional manipulation by another person. Humans don't like
the feeling of being "trained." We resist. So - a kid may like the
treat or reward just like they might act to avoid negative reinforcers
or future punishments, but underneath that there is also resentment or
apathy brewing.
-pam
the buzzer in their car. A horse learns to turn or stop to avoid the
pressure from a tug on the reins. These are negative reinforcers.
Punishment happens AFTER the behavior and the subject can't avoid it by
changing the behavior at the time.
There are negative reinforcers that just happen in life - it is raining
hard and we scuttle under a shelter to avoid it, etc. And there are
hard-to-avoid punishments - traffic tickets, for example <G> - that
just WILL happen.
There are positive reinforcers that just happen in life.
But those reinforcers that happen in the course of life are not the
same as intentional manipulation by another person. Humans don't like
the feeling of being "trained." We resist. So - a kid may like the
treat or reward just like they might act to avoid negative reinforcers
or future punishments, but underneath that there is also resentment or
apathy brewing.
-pam
Nancy Wooton
On Jun 13, 2005, at 7:48 AM, J. Stauffer wrote:
"something mean" when you do "something I like." Sorry, I had to use
quotes, as I am an animal trainer and use all four reinforcers at
various times. In the case of negative punishment, when a rider puts
pressure on, say, the horse's side with her leg, that's "Positive
punishment"; when the horse moves away from the pressure in the
direction the rider wants to go, the rider releases the pressure, i.e.,
negates it (Negative Punishment). A horse and rider can also be
trained to use a release in the direction of travel instead of pressure
from the opposite side, but it's the combination which is most
effective.
Negative means "off," and Positive means "on." Not "bad" and "good."
Negative Reinforcement means "no reward." The animal is free to try
again; the interplay of positive and negative reward is the basis of
shaping behaviors. Example: I have a horse who is terrified of
plastic grocery bags. I've been using operant conditioning (aka
clicker training) to get her to, of her own volition, touch a bag on
the ground with her nose. (She already knows the "Touch" game with
less scary objects.) She is free to not touch, to leave the area, to
end the game. She may choose No Reward. If she looks at the bag,
she's rewarded. If she takes a step in its direction, she's rewarded.
Gradually, she moves closer. Once she is close enough to touch it,
each attempt is rewarded, until she actually bumps it. Then, she's
given a "jackpot" (remind you of anything?), a huge handful of treats,
a pat, and verbal praise.
The game doesn't stop with the first touch, though ;-) Now, I want to
increase the criteria, as my goal is for her to accept the presence of
plastic bags in all settings; one of those blowing across a trail can
make for a wild ride! So, she touches the bag, which is wrapped around
a rock; then, I pull a bit of bag loose, so it's moving in the wind.
Horse touches that. Eventually, she's pushing it a bit with her nose.
I up the ante; she has to push it, not merely touch, to get rewarded.
Negative reinforcement -- no reward -- encourages her to try again, try
something different. In a few weeks, I hope to have her picking up
empty plastic bags with her teeth <g>
There is a new twist in the clicker training world called "Tag
Teaching," in which the human subject is in on the goal. Instead of
using a clicker to shape an animal's behavior, the click is used to
tell the human they've done the behavior correctly. For example, a
dance teacher can use the sound to let the student know a position is
exactly correct, or a diving coach can mark the correct position for a
quickly moving student. I've used the technique myself with a
horseback riding student. The reward, for a human student who wants to
learn, is the click itself. For an animal, a click must be followed by
a reinforcer/reward of some kind, or they'll lose interest in the game;
you have to play by the rules. (In Negative Reinforcement, the click
is withheld; one never clicks without following with a treat.)
The problem with applying operant conditioning techniques to humans is
they are too smart: they see through the game, weigh the value of the
reward against the effort required to gain it, and opt out if the
reward doesn't measure up. If you don't offer a reward for reading,
reading itself will be reward enough. Put a reward in place, and the
child either strives to get through the reading to get it, or decides
it's not worth the effort. In the end, it's reading that loses --
logically, a book must be less valuable than other things (TV? Video
games?) if a bribe must be offered to get one to read. (FYI -- like
punishment being something bad that follows a behavior to try to
discourage recurrence, a bribe is something that precedes a behavior to
try to encourage it to occur. In operant conditioning, the reward
follows the behavior, which is initiated by the subject/animal. From
the animal's point of view, it's training you.)
I absolutely love clicker training animals -- it provides a language
unique to both participants, and both enjoy the experience. I don't
have to train my horse to eat grass, or roll in soft sand, or kick up
her heels. I do have to train her to get in a trailer, or to stand
still while I get on, or to not spook at plastic bags; I can use a
completely benign, friendly (positive ;-) method to gain her
cooperation for my goals.
(sorry to run on like that -- you hit on one of my favorite subjects!
Talk about gardening for awhile, and I'll shut up ;-)
Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> <<No, negative reinforcement is (in the case of rats in cages) electricThat would be "Positive Punishment." See below ;-)
> shock.
> Negative reinforcement is punishment.>>>
>
> Actually it isn't.
>
> Punishment---I do something mean to you because you do something I
> don't
> like.
>
> Positive Reinforcement---I do something nice to you because you doThat's Negative Punishment, not Negative Reinforcement -- I stop doing
> something
> I like.
>
> Negative Reinforcement---I quit doing something mean to you becaue
> you do
> something I like.
>
"something mean" when you do "something I like." Sorry, I had to use
quotes, as I am an animal trainer and use all four reinforcers at
various times. In the case of negative punishment, when a rider puts
pressure on, say, the horse's side with her leg, that's "Positive
punishment"; when the horse moves away from the pressure in the
direction the rider wants to go, the rider releases the pressure, i.e.,
negates it (Negative Punishment). A horse and rider can also be
trained to use a release in the direction of travel instead of pressure
from the opposite side, but it's the combination which is most
effective.
Negative means "off," and Positive means "on." Not "bad" and "good."
Negative Reinforcement means "no reward." The animal is free to try
again; the interplay of positive and negative reward is the basis of
shaping behaviors. Example: I have a horse who is terrified of
plastic grocery bags. I've been using operant conditioning (aka
clicker training) to get her to, of her own volition, touch a bag on
the ground with her nose. (She already knows the "Touch" game with
less scary objects.) She is free to not touch, to leave the area, to
end the game. She may choose No Reward. If she looks at the bag,
she's rewarded. If she takes a step in its direction, she's rewarded.
Gradually, she moves closer. Once she is close enough to touch it,
each attempt is rewarded, until she actually bumps it. Then, she's
given a "jackpot" (remind you of anything?), a huge handful of treats,
a pat, and verbal praise.
The game doesn't stop with the first touch, though ;-) Now, I want to
increase the criteria, as my goal is for her to accept the presence of
plastic bags in all settings; one of those blowing across a trail can
make for a wild ride! So, she touches the bag, which is wrapped around
a rock; then, I pull a bit of bag loose, so it's moving in the wind.
Horse touches that. Eventually, she's pushing it a bit with her nose.
I up the ante; she has to push it, not merely touch, to get rewarded.
Negative reinforcement -- no reward -- encourages her to try again, try
something different. In a few weeks, I hope to have her picking up
empty plastic bags with her teeth <g>
There is a new twist in the clicker training world called "Tag
Teaching," in which the human subject is in on the goal. Instead of
using a clicker to shape an animal's behavior, the click is used to
tell the human they've done the behavior correctly. For example, a
dance teacher can use the sound to let the student know a position is
exactly correct, or a diving coach can mark the correct position for a
quickly moving student. I've used the technique myself with a
horseback riding student. The reward, for a human student who wants to
learn, is the click itself. For an animal, a click must be followed by
a reinforcer/reward of some kind, or they'll lose interest in the game;
you have to play by the rules. (In Negative Reinforcement, the click
is withheld; one never clicks without following with a treat.)
The problem with applying operant conditioning techniques to humans is
they are too smart: they see through the game, weigh the value of the
reward against the effort required to gain it, and opt out if the
reward doesn't measure up. If you don't offer a reward for reading,
reading itself will be reward enough. Put a reward in place, and the
child either strives to get through the reading to get it, or decides
it's not worth the effort. In the end, it's reading that loses --
logically, a book must be less valuable than other things (TV? Video
games?) if a bribe must be offered to get one to read. (FYI -- like
punishment being something bad that follows a behavior to try to
discourage recurrence, a bribe is something that precedes a behavior to
try to encourage it to occur. In operant conditioning, the reward
follows the behavior, which is initiated by the subject/animal. From
the animal's point of view, it's training you.)
I absolutely love clicker training animals -- it provides a language
unique to both participants, and both enjoy the experience. I don't
have to train my horse to eat grass, or roll in soft sand, or kick up
her heels. I do have to train her to get in a trailer, or to stand
still while I get on, or to not spook at plastic bags; I can use a
completely benign, friendly (positive ;-) method to gain her
cooperation for my goals.
(sorry to run on like that -- you hit on one of my favorite subjects!
Talk about gardening for awhile, and I'll shut up ;-)
Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/13/05 9:09:39 AM, Chris@... writes:
<<
I understand 'uplifting model' to be in the same category as 'role model',
an 'uplifting model' would be a good 'role model'. >>
No, I dont' mean a person who serves as a model, I mean a model of the
universe.
If you say that random rewards would be a mode of adult life, I say there are
better (and more uplifting) ways to see life.
-=I don't want to get bogged down in words here but a reward is simply a
return for doing something.-=-
We only get bogged down when people aren't being clear and thoughtful about
what they write. All we have are words, and so it's worth reading before you
post to be sure you wrote what you meant to write, and that you're willing to
stand by your word choices.
-=-That return can be something material or just a feeling.-=-
So if I feel good about my choice, I have rewarded myself?
That's too much activity for what should be "satisfaction" or "joy."
Rewards come from outside.
Sandra
<<
I understand 'uplifting model' to be in the same category as 'role model',
an 'uplifting model' would be a good 'role model'. >>
No, I dont' mean a person who serves as a model, I mean a model of the
universe.
If you say that random rewards would be a mode of adult life, I say there are
better (and more uplifting) ways to see life.
-=I don't want to get bogged down in words here but a reward is simply a
return for doing something.-=-
We only get bogged down when people aren't being clear and thoughtful about
what they write. All we have are words, and so it's worth reading before you
post to be sure you wrote what you meant to write, and that you're willing to
stand by your word choices.
-=-That return can be something material or just a feeling.-=-
So if I feel good about my choice, I have rewarded myself?
That's too much activity for what should be "satisfaction" or "joy."
Rewards come from outside.
Sandra
Elizabeth Hill
**Like gambling. If the food might come at any time, rats will press
the bar when they want food, and I always imagined them coming up with
some kinds of superstition or religion, as they wonder what they might
be doing differently on different presses.**
I have some interesting superstitious guesses about what might be
causing strange behavior on my computer. There are days when I think
ritual sacrifice might help. (Could a coffee spill be a libation? <g>)
Human beings have a strong ability to "see" patterns in fairly random
events. We seem to have a need to process our experiences and have them
be meaningful. People even do this about school -- that is they say
things that imply "The whole thing was so long and complicated, there
must have been good reasons that I had to do all that stuff." It ain't
necessarily so.
Betsy
PS Speaking of haunted computers, two minutes AFTER I just logged out,
a window popped up that warned me that my logged in session at the
library was about to time out. Seems strange that the library can send
messages to me that pop in front of my face well after I'm
disconnected. Hmmmm.
the bar when they want food, and I always imagined them coming up with
some kinds of superstition or religion, as they wonder what they might
be doing differently on different presses.**
I have some interesting superstitious guesses about what might be
causing strange behavior on my computer. There are days when I think
ritual sacrifice might help. (Could a coffee spill be a libation? <g>)
Human beings have a strong ability to "see" patterns in fairly random
events. We seem to have a need to process our experiences and have them
be meaningful. People even do this about school -- that is they say
things that imply "The whole thing was so long and complicated, there
must have been good reasons that I had to do all that stuff." It ain't
necessarily so.
Betsy
PS Speaking of haunted computers, two minutes AFTER I just logged out,
a window popped up that warned me that my logged in session at the
library was about to time out. Seems strange that the library can send
messages to me that pop in front of my face well after I'm
disconnected. Hmmmm.
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/13/05 12:19:45 PM, ikonstitcher@... writes:
<< The problem with applying operant conditioning techniques to humans is
they are too smart: they see through the game, weigh the value of the
reward against the effort required to gain it, and opt out if the
reward doesn't measure up. >>
When I was teaching 9th grade, one of the brightest and most popular girls
had a bad habit. And being a Jr. High girl, it was a really unfortunate bad
habit. She made a little click with her tongue in the front of her mouth (hard
palate, so a quiet little click) just before she said *anything.* She couldn't
make any utterance without that click first. She would even do it when she
was thinking to herself or muttering under her breath (if she was writing and
made a mistake, she would click and mutter, but we'd only hear the click).
Unfortunately, in that place and time, that noise was also an insult. It was
the equivalent of a big dramatic eye roll. So people who knew her ignored it
(they knew it was not a meaningful utterance in her case, but a habit), and
those who didn't know her had their feelings hurt or were insulted.
One day someone (who liked her and knew her) made fun of her about it in
class, and she got sad and upset and I said if she really wanted to stop we could
help her. She said yes. I got the other kids just in that one English class
to go along with it, and all we did was when she made the noise, others would
make it too. No comment, no laughing or joking, just one "click" met with 25
clicks. She stopped within a week.
We would've quit anytime she'd asked us to.
Most of those kids had known her since she was little. Some of them probably
still know her now.
Sandra
<< The problem with applying operant conditioning techniques to humans is
they are too smart: they see through the game, weigh the value of the
reward against the effort required to gain it, and opt out if the
reward doesn't measure up. >>
When I was teaching 9th grade, one of the brightest and most popular girls
had a bad habit. And being a Jr. High girl, it was a really unfortunate bad
habit. She made a little click with her tongue in the front of her mouth (hard
palate, so a quiet little click) just before she said *anything.* She couldn't
make any utterance without that click first. She would even do it when she
was thinking to herself or muttering under her breath (if she was writing and
made a mistake, she would click and mutter, but we'd only hear the click).
Unfortunately, in that place and time, that noise was also an insult. It was
the equivalent of a big dramatic eye roll. So people who knew her ignored it
(they knew it was not a meaningful utterance in her case, but a habit), and
those who didn't know her had their feelings hurt or were insulted.
One day someone (who liked her and knew her) made fun of her about it in
class, and she got sad and upset and I said if she really wanted to stop we could
help her. She said yes. I got the other kids just in that one English class
to go along with it, and all we did was when she made the noise, others would
make it too. No comment, no laughing or joking, just one "click" met with 25
clicks. She stopped within a week.
We would've quit anytime she'd asked us to.
Most of those kids had known her since she was little. Some of them probably
still know her now.
Sandra
Chris Swift
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] spoiled/supply/conditioning (was Summer
reading program)
> In a message dated 6/13/05 9:09:39 AM, Chris@... writes:
> -=I don't want to get bogged down in words here but a reward is simply a
> return for doing something.-=-
>
> We only get bogged down when people aren't being clear and thoughtful
about
> what they write.
> All we have are words, and so it's worth reading before you
> post to be sure you wrote what you meant to write, and that you're willing
to
> stand by your word choices.
>
> -=-That return can be something material or just a feeling.-=-
>
> So if I feel good about my choice, I have rewarded myself?
> That's too much activity for what should be "satisfaction" or "joy."
>
> Rewards come from outside.
>
I'll give you the OUP dictonary definition of reward as you seem to have a
bit of a problem with it:
Reward. A return or recompense for service or merit.
I always read before I post and if I make errors I apologise for them.
'Rewards come from outside' you didn't say 'I think' but I presume it's an
opinion, that you're not actually redefining the word.
And I wouldn't presume to know what you mean by 'outside', whatever you want
it to mean, right ?
> So if I feel good about my choice, I have rewarded myself?
> That's too much activity for what should be "satisfaction" or "joy."
If anyone has an explanation for what this means please let me know, answers
on postcards only please.
Chris