Great to hear somebody who truly understands the correct meaning of these terms and concepts. Virtually every other presentation I’ve seen gets at least a few things wrong, often they are completely confused. Probably should’ve touched on higher order conditioning as examples of classical conditioning processes that don’t need to involve an unconditioned stimulus per se.
14:30... 23:58... Stopping at a stoplight.. negative reinforcement because it removes the possibility of getting a ticket or causing an accident. 25:15 ... Positive punishment 27:48... Negative punishment 32:22...chart 38:38...rat... Positive man enforcement because he electric shop is sent to the reward pathways in the brain
Haha thats funny. You can never block outside influence, we are always socially conditioned, which is fine, but most people are highly manipulatively conditioned by ideologies like politics and religion. William Sargant was right, everyone has a breaking point where they can be forced to switch.
The answer to your question I oppose. Because your are looking at salvation through the lens of your sense cortex. It’s the hear, speak, see no evil so therefore it doesn’t exist. Absurd. The hunger instinct is innate. The zygote feeds itself in the womb or it will cease to survive. Often we see the hand and foot already developing an oral fixation in utero thanks to 3D image we have captured this. The salivation you are looking for is not visible the baby is always salivating hence why it eats anything even pennies. You’ve actually been taught to un condition your natural response of salivation and that’s why we have an obesity problem.
Agreed... spanking is positive punishment. But video says pounding on wall to get neighbors to stop playing loud music is negative reinforcement?? How is this different from the spanking example? ADD pounding, loud music behavior DECREASES?
punishment decreases behavior. so if a child was spanked for doing a bad behavior and then stopped that behavior it is punishment because a behavior decreased. It is positive because spanking was added to the situation. If you pound on your wall to stop the noise at your neighbors and it works then in the future when you hear the noise your behavior of pounding on the wall increases. Since your behavior increased, reinforcement has occurred. It is negative reinforcement because your behavior increased (pounding on wall when hear neighbors) because it took away an undesirable situation( noise is now gone). Labeling something as reinforcement or punishment is done by looking at the learners behavior- if it increases it is reinforcement if it decreases it is punishment.
But we should be considering that the behavior being targeted in the wall pounding example is the neighbor noise - not my pounding on the wall. Thus, ostensibly, it would be the neighbor's that are the learners in the example. If you follow that logic you laid our, the neighbor's would be teaching me, via operant conditining, not to pound on the wall (e.g. making me the learner). By that same logic then, if you spank a child for bad behavior to stop the bad behavior, and it works, then in the future when the child does the bad behavior again you will spank them again - so the spanking increases. Since your behavior increased, reinforcement has occurred. It is negative reinforcement. BUT, it is the child's behavior being targeted for change via positive punishment/operant condioning - NOT the parent's.
If the parent resolves to spanking (hitting, causing pain & suffering) the parent has lost control not the child .... both of you have a wonderful intellectual conversation going on, what about this child who is being spanked (a lovely word used disguise pain cause by hitting). Its wrong to strike another person a child is a person. It is the parents behavior that has gone out of control when they need to strike a minor, the child is just being a child in their best ability to be so, the adult should know better and try another approach instead of resorting to violence causing trauma. (promote positive parenting P.P.P) In your argument none of you asked/considered how the child feels after they have being struck and what is it like to be struck by this bigger person. Yes you might get the child to behave but I am pretty positive on my view that this is why we have many many adults today suffering with many many different psychological and emotional problems. That 1 spank (hit) can cause that 1 person disturbance for the rest of their lives conscious or unconscious. "Since your behavior increased, reinforcement has occurred" - well this might be true for now but I will follow that statement with "disturbance to follow". These are little human beings you are coldly talking about. I respectfully ask and appeal to your empathetic side to promote against the spanking (hitting) of minors, there are many many ways to change behavior. I believe in Gary Chapmans 5 love languages and to find the child's love language is the best way to help them behave not beating them up. If you struck (no matter how hard or soft) another adult in the street for spitting their gum on the side walk, or throwing their trash away you can be charged for assault why should if be any different to this offence being carried out to a minor. "BUT, it is the child's behavior being targeted for change via positive punishment/operant condioning - NOT the parent's." How COLD is this statement ? Its the parents behavior that needs to be targeted if they need to resort to violence NOT the child's. Spanking causes trauma which follows us from the moment our bodies are struck throughout our lives. I personally believe there is no extinction to this behavior (SPANKING) for the child/person and it has a profound effect on their personality and childhood development into adulthood. They might recover but it gets buried deep into the unconscious and manifests into many different behaviors like Addictions. Stop promoting Spanking (violence) and start promoting positive parenting, there is not 1 therapists in their right mind who would not agree with me that to cause pain to another person in order to get a response and that by doing this will not have an after effect. Many psychological/emotional issues (obesity, self harm, suicide, addiction etc .. ) in adults can all be traced to traumatic events in childhood or that lovely word a good SPANKING. Promote P.P.P
Negative reinforcement occurs when, following a specific behavior, a stimulus is removed from the environment. As a result, that particular behavior is more likely to occur again in the future. Because the stimuli (such as an unpleasant smell, repeated nagging, or an annoying noise) are undesirable, they reinforce the behavior that leads to their removal. These are labeled negative reinforcers. So following the behavior of banging on the wall, the music stops, which will promote the likelihood of me banging on the wall in the future if I need to
![[PSYC 200] 15. Operant Conditioning](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zR9jX_TXk7M/mqdefault.jpg)
![[PSYC 200] 15. Operant Conditioning](/img/tr.png)
Great to hear somebody who truly understands the correct meaning of these terms and concepts. Virtually every other presentation I’ve seen gets at least a few things wrong, often they are completely confused. Probably should’ve touched on higher order conditioning as examples of classical conditioning processes that don’t need to involve an unconditioned stimulus per se.
14:30...
23:58... Stopping at a stoplight.. negative reinforcement because it removes the possibility of getting a ticket or causing an accident.
25:15 ... Positive punishment
27:48... Negative punishment
32:22...chart
38:38...rat... Positive man enforcement because he electric shop is sent to the reward pathways in the brain
Thank you Jeffrey, i learned so much from the learning techniques you used in this class. Amazing
9:17... There are situations where you can have both classical and operant conditioning...
Couldn't the stoplight one also be positive because you are addition of the stopping on you trip?
Thank you for your explanation of these two theories.
One must think of one's self as a self contained unit. Any and all outside influence must be blocked.
Haha thats funny. You can never block outside influence, we are always socially conditioned, which is fine, but most people are highly manipulatively conditioned by ideologies like politics and religion. William Sargant was right, everyone has a breaking point where they can be forced to switch.
The answer to your question I oppose. Because your are looking at salvation through the lens of your sense cortex. It’s the hear, speak, see no evil so therefore it doesn’t exist. Absurd. The hunger instinct is innate. The zygote feeds itself in the womb or it will cease to survive. Often we see the hand and foot already developing an oral fixation in utero thanks to 3D image we have captured this. The salivation you are looking for is not visible the baby is always salivating hence why it eats anything even pennies. You’ve actually been taught to un condition your natural response of salivation and that’s why we have an obesity problem.
Agreed... spanking is positive punishment. But video says pounding on wall to get neighbors to stop playing loud music is negative reinforcement?? How is this different from the spanking example? ADD pounding, loud music behavior DECREASES?
punishment decreases behavior. so if a child was spanked for doing a bad behavior and then stopped that behavior it is punishment because a behavior decreased. It is positive because spanking was added to the situation. If you pound on your wall to stop the noise at your neighbors and it works then in the future when you hear the noise your behavior of pounding on the wall increases. Since your behavior increased, reinforcement has occurred. It is negative reinforcement because your behavior increased (pounding on wall when hear neighbors) because it took away an undesirable situation( noise is now gone). Labeling something as reinforcement or punishment is done by looking at the learners behavior- if it increases it is reinforcement if it decreases it is punishment.
But we should be considering that the behavior being targeted in the wall pounding example is the neighbor noise - not my pounding on the wall. Thus, ostensibly, it would be the neighbor's that are the learners in the example. If you follow that logic you laid our, the neighbor's would be teaching me, via operant conditining, not to pound on the wall (e.g. making me the learner). By that same logic then, if you spank a child for bad behavior to stop the bad behavior, and it works, then in the future when the child does the bad behavior again you will spank them again - so the spanking increases. Since your behavior increased, reinforcement has occurred. It is negative reinforcement. BUT, it is the child's behavior being targeted for change via positive punishment/operant condioning - NOT the parent's.
If the parent resolves to spanking (hitting, causing pain & suffering) the parent has lost control not the child .... both of you have a wonderful intellectual conversation going on, what about this child who is being spanked (a lovely word used disguise pain cause by hitting). Its wrong to strike another person a child is a person.
It is the parents behavior that has gone out of control when they need to strike a minor, the child is just being a child in their best ability to be so, the adult should know better and try another approach instead of resorting to violence causing trauma. (promote positive parenting P.P.P)
In your argument none of you asked/considered how the child feels after they have being struck and what is it like to be struck by this bigger person. Yes you might get the child to behave but I am pretty positive on my view that this is why we have many many adults today suffering with many many different psychological and emotional problems.
That 1 spank (hit) can cause that 1 person disturbance for the rest of their lives conscious or unconscious. "Since your behavior increased, reinforcement has occurred" - well this might be true for now but I will follow that statement with "disturbance to follow".
These are little human beings you are coldly talking about. I respectfully ask and appeal to your empathetic side to promote against the spanking (hitting) of minors, there are many many ways to change behavior. I believe in Gary Chapmans 5 love languages and to find the child's love language is the best way to help them behave not beating them up. If you struck (no matter how hard or soft) another adult in the street for spitting their gum on the side walk, or throwing their trash away you can be charged for assault why should if be any different to this offence being carried out to a minor.
"BUT, it is the child's behavior being targeted for change via positive punishment/operant condioning - NOT the parent's." How COLD is this statement ? Its the parents behavior that needs to be targeted if they need to resort to violence NOT the child's. Spanking causes trauma which follows us from the moment our bodies are struck throughout our lives. I personally believe there is no extinction to this behavior (SPANKING) for the child/person and it has a profound effect on their personality and childhood development into adulthood. They might recover but it gets buried deep into the unconscious and manifests into many different behaviors like Addictions.
Stop promoting Spanking (violence) and start promoting positive parenting, there is not 1 therapists in their right mind who would not agree with me that to cause pain to another person in order to get a response and that by doing this will not have an after effect. Many psychological/emotional issues (obesity, self harm, suicide, addiction etc .. ) in adults can all be traced to traumatic events in childhood or that lovely word a good SPANKING. Promote P.P.P
Please add more videos on conditioning.
Negative reinforcement occurs when, following a specific behavior, a stimulus is removed from the environment. As a result, that particular behavior is more likely to occur again in the future. Because the stimuli (such as an unpleasant smell, repeated nagging, or an annoying noise) are undesirable, they reinforce the behavior that leads to their removal. These are labeled negative reinforcers.
So following the behavior of banging on the wall, the music stops, which will promote the likelihood of me banging on the wall in the future if I need to
18:45
Can I get that PowerPoint tho? :-(
ok boomer
41 minutes of my life I will never get back