| | |
| | Understanding Ourselves and Our Universe: How Psychology Can Turn the "Mysteries of Human Nature" into Useful Tools for Self Improvement and Success in Life |
| Part 2: More Detail about Human Learning - BeMod and Rfs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Again, by way of recapitulation, arguably the most important task our genes perform is to pre-program ("hardwire") our nervous systems to learn from environmental experience. Without learning, humans would not develop to levels much beyond that of reptiles (lower animals), and people whose brains are prevented from learning by genetic defect or severe trauma, or lack of learning enviornment rarely progress beyond what is called a "vegetative state" (meaning not being capable of "human" interactions or adaptations to their environments). Some examples of the kinds of genetic defects and intrauterine trauma that could cause such a severe or profound degree of psychological dysfunction are microencephaly (where the skull case prematurely hardens, restricting the normal growth of the brain inside---though microcephally has been in caused by encasing the baby's head in iron casing after birth as in Jhang Pakistan » Dauley-shah-kay-Choohay » ; by or strict narrow-minded religious extremist and fundamentalist learning can cause a virtual- microcephaly!) ; or anencephaly (where large parts of the brain simply never develop at all). Great progress has been made in the past 50 years in the early diagnosis, treatment, and even prevention of many of the most severe psychopathologies (brain diseases), but without extraordinary care, such people have very short life expectancies. But for the sake of the remaining discussion in this discussion, let's assume that we're talking about our good "intact" (normal) human, with adequate genetic pre-programming and not too much trauma. [WARNING! Because so many important psychological terms are lengthy and complicated, the next few discussions will make heavy use of acronyms (briefs like C « » for consequene, and « Cs » for Consequences). Of course, for participants new to this material, that means you must not only learn the terms and concepts, but also which acronym stands for which term. In order to prevent "acronym shock" (routinely forgetting what each acronym stands for), we will use the full term and the acronym the first time it is used in each paragraph. We will also provide a ready reference glossary of acronyms, just to make learning the acronyms even easier.] Situational stimuli are called antecedents (As), and encourage or discourage particular Bs, based on prior learning experiences in similar situations. Adaptive psychological development is mostly a matter of learning which As predict as to which Bs will be reinforced (based on similar past consequential experiences) -- and thus trying to do those Bs as much as possible ... and which Bs will be nonreinforced (based on similar past consequential experiences) -- and trying not to do those (Bs : behaviors, cognitions, and emotions.) as much as possible. Our trusty brains keep track of all our associated A -> B -> C sequences, and normal brains do a good job of motivating us toward reinforced Bs and away from nonreinforced Bs most of the time (and supernormal brains do a great job, and subnormal brains do a poor job of this) throughout our lives. We'll address the causes and effects of supernormal and subnormal brains later in the study, but first let's cover the critical terms and concepts that explain how and why Cs and As influence human learning and development so powerfully. First, lets consider the details and critical features of antecedents (As) and consequences (Cs) that give them their power to develop, change, and eliminate any and all aspects of one's psychological repertoire. We'll start with consequences, for reasons that will quickly become clear. (NOTE: As a reminder, we'll still use the shorthand C or Cs for consequences, A or As for antecedents, and B or Bs for behaviors, cognitions, and emotions.) Consequences is the generic term we'll use for all possible results of any possible behavior (B). As we've noted, all possible Cs can be divided into positive or negative, and it is this positive or negative impact that naturally controls whether that B (behaviour) increases or decreases in the future. (An important theorem about consequences is that we can virtually ignore the possibility of a "neutral" C! While it is theoretically possible that such a totally neutral consequence could occur -- or that multiple positive and negative consequences could perfectly cancel themselves out, producing perfect neutrality -- in practice this almost never occurs because every stimulus is to at least some slight degree positive or negative to the person experiencing it, and even the slightest degree of affective value is not responded to by the human brain as "neutral". We'll address this point again later under "extinction".) All possible consequences can be divided into five types, and we'll now review their definitions, critical features, and effects, and give examples of each one. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Positive" in this context means getting something good -- and "negative" means losing something bad -- as a consequence of the behavior (B). Both positive reinforcement (+Rf) and negative reinforcement (-RF) are "good consequences" and leave the person better/happier for having done that B in that antecedent (A) situation. The Natural Law of Reinforcement is that when an A -> B is followed by any Rf (positive reinforcement), the probability of that B occurring again in the same or similar situations in the future increases -- always, for every person, for every A, every B, and every Rf, every time, with no exceptions! (There aren't many of these "always and forever" natural laws in psychology, so let's enjoy the few we have!) The impact of Rfs on future A -> Bs is proportionate; i.e., small Rfs produce small probability increases, moderate Rfs produce moderate increases, and large Rfs produce large increases. We can thus designate four different levels of +Rf as small (+rf), moderate (+Rf), big (+Rf!), and huge (+Rf!!), and use the same designations for -Rfs; i.e., -rf, -Rf, -Rf!, and -Rf!!. As was noted in the initial definition, whether or not a reinforcement (Rf) is actually reinforcing (good, pleasant, desirable, positive) -- which totally determines the effects of the consequence (C) -- is evaluated solely by the subject; i.e., the person receiving the C. While there are classes of Cs that almost everyone finds Rfing (called generalized Rfs) -- such as food when we're hungry, water when we're thirsty, money almost any time, positive regard (smiles, compliments, kind words) from people we care about, being allowed to do something we enjoy, etc. -- many Rfs are idiosyncratic. That simply means that something that one person finds Rfing, another person may not (or not at that time, or not in that situation, or not from that person, or not that much, or not that little, etc.). |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You approach a colleague who is angrily yelling at others and say, "Please hold it down. The boss may hear you." Then they quiet down and the boss comes by and smiles. We actually have two A -> B -> C sequences here : n the first case, for you, your colleague's yelling behavior (A) produces your asking politely to quiet down (B) which is negatively reinforced (C) by stopping the aversive noise (-Rf). Because your "politely asking" behavior in this situation pleased you by removing an aversive stimulus, you will be more likely to handle similar situations in a similar way in the future. But let's also diagram this situation from your angry colleague's viewpoint. Your asking politely to quiet down and warning about the boss (A) led to him stopping his yelling (B) which resulted in the boss smiling when she came by (C), which is another example of +Rf. But in both these cases, Rfs for behaviors (one by taking something bad away = the aversive yelling, and one by presenting something good = the boss's smile) will increase those Bs in similar situations in the future. Such serial ABC sequences naturally occur very often, and are very useful in BeMod. Or, perhaps you ask shy little Angie to play the piano (A) for your overly demonstrative Aunt Harriet, and Angie plays (B), and Harriet "reinforces" her with a big hug and a wet, sloppy kiss (C). What would you predict Angie will do the next time you ask her to play for loud, gregarious brother George? This is supposed to be an example of where Aunt Harriet intends to Rf Angie, but doesn't. Since no positive consequence follows the "playing the piano" B, it should not increase -- but decrease -- the next time a similar situation (e.g., playing for another obnoxious relative) presents itself. (And that is called "transfer," or generalization of learning among similar situations, and it's something human beings as learners are very good at!) (If you didn't already know these Natural Laws of Reinforcement, observing other people's behaviors during your dinners with the family or friends, future trips to the supermarket or mall, family reunions, and many other everyday observation opportunities for human interactions are going to be a lot more fun ... and a lot more insightful!!) Some other basic theorems of the principles of reinforcement (for later) are: 1. To stress an earlier relevant point, only the subject (S) decides what is reinforcing for him or her, and what is not (It may be a natural way, or they have been programmed or trained this way by their cultures or families). Thus, the better you know your S - and their likes and dislikes -- the better BeMod you can work with them. 2. Rfs often don't work when the S believes someone is trying to intentionally manipulate them using consequences. This is called reactance or counter control, it is very common, and it apparently makes the Rf much less Rfing to the S. 3. Being Rfed by someone -- or in some situation, or at some time -- that is not pleasant can significantly reduce the effectiveness of a C. The old saying "timing is everything" applies especially well to learning! (Being told you're good by a guard in prison is much less Rfing than being told the same thing by a near relative or family of your wife. 4. Being inconsistent with Rfs -- i.e., Rfing a B some times, but not Rfing the same exact B at others -- often produces inconsistent and even negative results. 5. No matter how consistent one is in Rfing a particular B, if that B occurs in other situations or is subject to other Cs -- as is almost always the case -- the B will follow the sum of the total Cs, not just those being administered by that one person. So apparently Rfed Bs won't increase if they're mostly not Rfed overall. 6. Another major factor in reinforcement principle is intrinsically reinforcing behaviors. For some subjects, at some times, just doing the an act, a behavior itself is reinforcing, regardless of what external Cs may follow. Such behaviors are extremely difficult to change. As was noted, these are general theorems of BeMod (Behavior modification or behavior management or behavior therapy) and apply equally to all forms of reinforcement and nonreinforcement (see the next section), for most people, in most situations, most times. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. __._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___