Friday, January 21, 2011

behavior without reinforcement?

I think that this class impact me a lot. After class, I found that when I behave
something, I automatically match my all of behaviors or thoughts with reinforcement. I
didn't strongly agree with skinner's world in the class and I wanted prove it when I blog but I failed. I couldn't find my behavior without reinforcement :( It was frustrating but it was amazing too. I thought that that's why skinner is one of big theorists and skinner was right... haha


Even in the relationship with my boyfriend, it was not just a relationship with only "love", but there were both positive reinforement and negative reinforcement in our behaviors. I believe that he will also have both of them even though I cannot know what is his reinforcement.
Also, I found another example. I've sent $10 every month for children in Africa for 5 years. I
believed that it is a kind of altruistic behavior. But after this class, I thought about this example again and I realized that it was not only altruistic behavior! There were surely reinforcements. They often sent me a lovely letter and I showed it to my friends or parents to get good words. Also, even though it was sometimes burden for me, I could not quit it because I didn't want to have bad feelings (I realized that it was the choice to avoid negative reinforcement.).

Is there behavior without reinforcement? I really wanted to find a good example of behavior without reinforcement to argue with Skinner and Glassman but I realized that it is almost impossible. haha.. It's really amazing and I even became to like Skinner's theory.. Also, this question brought me another question that if a reinforcement is internalized and I behave something without thinking the reinforcement, is it still considered as reinforcement?


4 comments:

  1. I really don't think there is such a thing as behavior without reinforcement. Even in seemingly altruistic acts, we are positively reinforced by others' positive behavior ("Oh that was so nice of you!"). Even if we do not get positive reinforcement from others, we feel good about ourselves because we have done something that society says is good.

    I have an experience similar to your donation to children in Africa. Everytime I go to Petsmart to buy cat food, the checkout scanner asks you to donate money to homeless pets- and I do everytime! I can't say no! The same thing happens for me when I see the APSCA commercials with the sad music and sad animals. Now I donate regularly to the ASPCA. And they constantly send me emails to petition representative/senator so-and-so about animal rights issue - and I do it! I would feel guilty if I didn't and would feel so sad for the poor little animals! Donating seems to lessen the negative feelings I get when thinking about sad, hungry, homeless animals. Call me heartless, but commercials about hungry kids do nothing for me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well reinforcement can stop but we still keep doing the activity. This is what is called learned behavior. The activity will go on for some time, but eventually it will become extinct.

    The bigger question in Lieny's post is can there be anything beyond reinforcement that drives our behavior. The answer is both No and Yes I think. The argument Skinner is trying to make is that reinforcement is not all there is, but it is all we can know. This idea that there must be something more is very poignant. I think sometimes there must be something more because so many people believe in this and hang on to it. And I am not sure Skinner would argue. What he would say is that it is dangerous to try and know this more, that it is beyond us, and we get lost in a cloud of illusions. It is this certainty that we can know that causes so much pain in life, much of it through manipulation of this belief in the form of negative reinforcement.

    You can take William James solution which is to believe in both but keep them completely separate. When dealing with the material world only act based on what you can know. When dealing with the spiritual side of life you are able to delve in to belief and mysticism, but these should not define or drive your actions in the material world.

    Here is an interesting story. There is only one time William James tried to combine the spiritual and the material. On his deathbed he told his brother Henry James that if there was an afterlife he would return to his grave within a week. It was a promise. Henry James waited by the grave for a week, even having people bring him food and drink and then left.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You know Jennifer I think you are sooooo right about the animal thingee. My puppy is sitting right behind me and I sometimes give him a piece of cheese and then he looks so happy I wind up giving him another piece of cheese. But you know, it's funny, I never given the dollar at PetSmart because I feel like I didn't get any positive reinforcement, I just lost a dollar.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's interesting because since Summer is 7 now and has grown a mouth, I've been trying to use this whole idea of positive reinforcement with her. And while I feel like I did a lot with both of the kids when they were toddlers, the older they got the easier it was to use negative reinforcement to stop a behavior rather than to reward the behaviors that I wanted to them to repeat. And I have noticed that she's been trying a lot harder to please me and less to argue with me. (Thank God). So my question is, why does it seem like it's common sense and learning/childrearing etc. should be based on these ideas - even throughout adolescence - but so many educational programs, like DARE and sex ed., ignore this? Is it just the whole idea that there are no freedoms that scare people? Because I thought that Christian society was based on the principle that God is all knowing - he knows what you do before you even do it - so wouldn't that in itself mean that we are not truly free? It just doesn't seem scary to me I guess because I think that the path your life takes is already planned, and that you are presented with every situation for a purpose. Now I'm rambling. I guess this is my justification of the lack of freedom in Skinner's theory. But I really like it :)

    ReplyDelete