| Return to: | |
| Tom Creed, Wizard | Principles of Learning and Behavior |
| CSB/SJU page | |
| |
OK so like Dr. B. makes me keep a journal like I don't have enough to do for this class already. Sheesh! But anyway I guess if I haveta here it is. |
Muffy walks the dog.Dear Dr. Behavior--Like, the parental units really bummed me this time I mean just because I didn't take my dog Fluffy for a walk they said I can't like drive the car for a whole week so I mean how are me and Buffy supposed to get to the Galleria to check out the guys I mean like we're supposed to walk or something but when I told my Cooperative Learning group about this as an example of punishment they like said "Major bummer, Muff", but they weren't quite sure it is punishment so I go 'Well, let's like ask Dr. Behavior since he's the one getting all the big bucks for knowing this junk, OK?" and they go "OK" so what's going on here, Dr. B.?-- Muffy. | |
| Dear Muffy--Your CL group is correct, in that this is problematic if you are trying to explain it as punishment. Remember Muffy, a science of behavior has the goal of trying to describe lawful relationships between observable events-- observable behavior and observable changes in the environment. In your example, you have a non-event, not walking Fluffy, followed by another non-event, your not driving the car. Nothing has happened! We are constantly not doing an infinite number of things, and an infinite number of things are not happening to us. The better way of looking at this is as an example of positive reinforcement-- when you walk Fluffy, you get to drive the car. Your example does point up the arbitrary nature of the terms we use, and no matter what we call this example, it does show that the key to understanding your future behavior is in your past history, and knowing your past history allows us to predict your future behavior. Dr. Behavior is willing to predict that you will increase your frequency of walking Fluffy in the future! | |
Muffy gets it in gear.Dear Dr. Behavior--Like, when I drive my boyfriend to work at the feedmill, y'know and his Camaro floods whenever I try to restart it and even though I like know what I'm doing already it still won't start right away and I have to wait to try to start it and sometimes I have to wait for a minute and sometimes even a little longer and I told this example to my group as an example of Variable Interval since the time I have to wait varies from a minute or two but they weren't quite sure so I go 'Well, let's like ask Dr. Behavior since he really gets off on knowing this junk, OK?" and they go "OK" so I'm like, what's going on here, Dr. Behavior?--Muffy. | |
| Dear Muffy--You are almost correct. It is an interval-based schedule since trying
to start it before the gas in the carburetor has vaporized will not be reinforced.
And if this were an example of an interval schedule, it would be most like a Fixed interval,
rather than variable. Although the time does vary some, it still has
a fairly narrow range, and would tend to produce
FI type behavior, rather than
VI. Variable schedules (and this applies to ratio as well) tend to have a range of
several multiples of the lowest value of the range (e.g.- a
VI 2 min. would have a range of 10 sec.-4 min.) The best way of figuring out whether a
schedule is more fixed or variable is to look at the behavior it generates--if it generates
dichotomous behavior, then it is more fixed than variable. However, there's a little something extra going on here that makes this more like another type of schedule rather than a true interval. Rather than being an FI, it's what behaviorists call a DRL schedule (Differential Reinforcement of Low rates). In this type of schedule, you must wait for a period of time before you can make a response-- any response occurring before the time is up causes the interval to start over, thereby punishing responding too quickly. Recall, in an interval schedule, responses occurring before the interval comes due have no effect. In your example, trying to restart the car too soon will reflood it, making you start the waiting period all over again. This type of contingency produces very low responding, since responding too soon is negatively punished.--Dr. Behavior. | |
Muffy brings home the bacon. Dear Dr. Behavior--I mean like just when I thought I finally understood all this junk along comes schedules of reinforcement which is even more lame-o than that stuff about me not walking Fluffy I mean why schedule reinforcement why not get it all the time but anyway here's my problem I mean I like work about 35 hours a week but some weeks 30 and some weeks 40 and since my time working each week varies I figure this has gotta be a VI schedule but my CL group isn't so sure so I'm going "What's going on here, Dr. Behavior?"-- Muffy | |
| Dear Muffy-- Your CL group is right, this is not a VI schedule. A common confusion that people have about schedules concerns the role of time in interval schedules. While you put in time at work, time only matters in interval schedules in that reinforcement becomes available after the passage of a certain amount of time. What is confusing about your example is that you really haven't specified what behavior is being reinforced, or what the reinforcer is. In your example, there is an interval component--but the behavior that is being reinforced is picking up your paycheck, and it is reinforced on an FI schedule. Your hours at work are more like an FR schedule. I know this sounds confusing since hours are time, and time implies interval schedules, but each hour of work can be viewed as a single unit of behavior, and the more you put in per week (i.e.- the higher your rate of response), the more money you make. In reality, then, you are really operating on a compound schedule--receiving your paycheck is on an FI schedule, but the quality of your reinforcement is determined by how hard you work (a ratio schedule).-- Dr. Behavior. | |
| Muffy cleans up big time.
Dear Dr. Behavior--Well I mean like I was saying last time about after I drop my boyfriend off at the feedmill and I like go to work myself because I haveta have some spending money and so I work at the gym where I'm like a janitor or something and its like my boss expects me to work my butt off and I like to talk to my friends maybe too much so when my boss tells me to get to work I go "well, I got my friends to talk to already! Sheesh!" and but like my boss at least the mean one says "Work! Work! Work!" so I got him figured out because he always jiggles his keys when he's coming so I know it's time to look busy when I hear keys jiggling but my friends also have keys that jiggle so I'm not sure whether this is a case of stimulus control (I mean, what a dorky name) or not and I just don't get all of these SDs, SRs, CSs and junk and how can this one stimulus be like all three at once 'cause aren't things just one thing and if not why not so I'm going "What's going on here, Dr. Behavior?"-- Muffy. | |
| Dear Muffy--This is an interesting situation you present, and yes, there certainly is stimulus control operating in this example. Your boss's keys are functioning as an SD, in that your behavior is controlled by this stimulus since when you hear the keys, you alter your behavior from talking to working. My guess is that you have also probably come to discriminate between your boss's key jiggling and that of other peoples. Even though the distinction between the two stimuli is subtle, you probably make it because the distinction is important--only his keys signal potential aversiveness. You do probably do generalize some to the sound of other's keys jiggling, though. Remember, Muffy, the reason one event can serve as different things is that what it is functioning as (SD, Sr, CS) is a function of the perspective we are taking on the behavior. In truth, all are functioning simultaneously. Therefore, the jiggling is also acting as a CS, in that you probably have a Pavlovianly conditioned fear response when you hear the keys, and the key jiggling acts as a conditioned punisher (S-r) in that you will do things to get out of its presence. Finally, your example points out that an SD does not have to be a physically potent stimulus, but its power to control our behavior is dependent upon the importance of the information it conveys. | |
|
Does Jason Count?
Dear Dr. Behavior--Well I mean like this time you like really topped yourself y'know with all this weird stuff and I think I'm going mental or something but anyway I guess I haveta come up with an example of constrained learning (this is like just too weird for words already!) so I was thinking about my boyfriend and he had this really tough time in football last season whenever we played Albany because they had this like giant noseguard who like scared the bejesus out of my boyfriend and Jason (my boyfriend) would always pull out of his stance on long counts and get a penalty and I thought it was because Jason had a tough time counting past three but now I think that this might have been a form of constrained learning but not everyone on the team got called for false starts all the time so how could this be constrained learning if not everybody did it and besides there couldn't possibly be a genetic predisposition for being called for penalties could there (?) and but then maybe its a physical constraint rather than a learned constraint and how do I draw the line and why can't things be just like dogs salivating or something and why does it all have to be so complex because I thought when I signed up for this course it was going to be real simple stuff like dogs salivating and so I'm going "What's going on here, Dr. Behavior?" -- Muffy | |
|
Dear Muffy -- This is an interesting situation you present, and yes, there certainly is constrained learning in your example. You have actually pointed out a good example and your analysis shows real insight. We do learn early in life, and quite quickly, that objects coming at us present danger, and we learn to get out of the way of them without thinking much about it. In fact, it is such strong conditioning, that it becomes difficult to learn a different response in the presence of the stimulus (this is why we use the term constrained learning--you are constrained, evolutionarily, to learning a specific way of responding to the situation). Consider the difficult task Jason has in front of him (sorry -- bad pun). He must remain motionless while somebody who is threatening to harm him makes feint attacks at his person. Anyone's natural response is to move out of the way, yet he must remain motionless. Another example is in baseball. The reason that a good curveball is so hard to hit is because it begins coming right at your head. You have learned to duck under such circumstances, yet you must hang in there if you are going to be an effective hitter. The difference between a good minor league hitter and major leaguer is their ability to handle a curve. Now, the second part of your question, regarding whether all members of the species must show the behavior for it to be an example of constrained learning, the answer is "Yes!" What you should think about is the general principle that is represented by the example. In this case, not everyone is an offensive lineman, but everyone does show the tendency to flinch when an object is moving towards their face. Also, we tend to view this as constrained learning rather than a physical constraint because it deals with our past experience rather than something that we are just physically not capable of doing.
One other point to keep in mind is that terms like reflex and instinctual behavior are hypothetical constructs--they don't really exist as unique events, but are our way of trying to make sense out of a complex situation. The main point with both is that reflexes and instinctual behavior exist because they involve forms of behavior that are necessary, yet must occur with a minimum of learning. -- Dr. Behavior | |
| Return to: | |
| Tom Creed, Wizard | Principles of Learning and Behavior |
| CSB/SJU page | |
