crown@dukempd.UUCP (Rick Crownover) (04/08/88)
Regarding the question of whether "any" behavior is hard wired. I recall reading about behavior-response pairings which were apparently not possible. Something about rats being able to associate electric shocks with a visual stimulus, but not nausea with a visual stimulus? Some of you "cognitive psych" people must be familiar with the experiment. If no one has heard of it, I'll dig out a reference. The conclusion drawn by the people who did the experiment (I'm going to find the reference anyway-- the frustrations of distant memory!) was that some stimulus-response (that is what I meant in the second line) pairings were hard wired in some cases. Their intent seemed to be demonstration of an Achilles heel in Skinner's theory of behavior. Anyone heard of this experiment, and remember the details? Aloha, Rick ~ -- Rick Crownover 1-919-684-8279 Duke University Dept. of Physics crown@dukempd.uucp Durham, N.C. 27706 mcnc!duke!dukempd!crown
fordjm@byuvax.bitnet (04/11/88)
> Regarding the question of whether "any" behavior is hard wired. >I recall reading about behavior-response pairings which were apparently >not possible. Something about rats being able to associate electric >shocks with a visual stimulus, but not nausea with a visual stimulus? >Some of you "cognitive psych" people must be familiar with the experiment. I think that the study you are referring to has to do with Seligman's concept of "preparedness." He claimed that certain organisms may find it "easier" to learn a particular type of S-R connection (e.g. visual-pain avoidance) because of their evolutionary history (or genetic background). I can't track down the reference right now either. SR psychology is not particularly useful for the kinds of things I'm doing, so I don't keep sources around. John M. Ford fordjm@byuvax.bitnet
ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) (04/12/88)
In article <2495@geac.UUCP> sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm) writes: > >The whole Conditioning-Only argument as "proof" that an animal has not >exhibited intelligence behaviour is also becoming a tired one (in my humble >opinion). ... >I mean every single one of us only understands and does what we do because of >the example set by some other human(s) at some time in our life. Does this mean Bingo! Seems to me that much of what happens in elementary school (and beyond, for that matter...) can be explained as Conditioned Response. I know that the multiplication tables are for most folks. And dates in history. And answers to all sorts of 'factual' questions ... Does this mean that elementary and high school students lack human intelegence? Proof at last!!! :-) The fact that my ducks liked to run onto the patio when I wasn't around to chase them off, but went JUST TO THE EDGE of the patio to quack at me when I would appear; the fact that my dog SLINKS out the open gate and acts guilty when caught, but goes boldly through when on a leash; and many other similar events all lead me to believe that they have lots of intelegence and use it much as a child does. Speach is not language, ask any signing deaf person. 'Body language' and posturing is widely used among mammels and birds; so are 'calls and crys'. They have language, it's just a question of complexity and form. E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
dorst@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Dorst) (04/14/88)
Reply-To: ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 33 >In article <2495@geac.UUCP> sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm) writes: >> >>The whole Conditioning-Only argument as "proof" that an animal has not >>exhibited intelligence behaviour is also becoming a tired one (in my humble >>opinion). >... >>I mean every single one of us only understands and does what we do because of >>the example set by some other human(s) at some time in our life. Does this mean > >Bingo! Seems to me that much of what happens in elementary school (and >beyond, for that matter...) can be explained as Conditioned Response. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is a technical term that you are using incorrectly. "Conditioning" is the more correct term. However, the teaching profession does not use conditioning in attempting to teach academic subjects. They often use it to control classroom behavior. >I know that the multiplication tables are for most folks. And dates in >history. And answers to all sorts of 'factual' questions ... I think I understand the point you are trying to make which is that what goes on in the classrooms of elementary and high schools is not education, but a primitive form of training know as memorization. Memorization expresses itself as "parroting" or repeating back to the teacher exactly what the teacher had stated earlier. Education, "the process of becoming educated," often begins with exploring and ends with the person learning something. Developing a school system that ties in to children's natural curiosity (Yes, I do mean that "curiosity" is part of human nature.) is difficult to do. Memorization curriculums are much easier to design. > >Does this mean that elementary and high school students lack human >intelegence? Proof at last!!! :-) Not fair! Adapation is one of the elements of intelligence. If a student successfully adapts to an environment, I wouldn't imply that that person is stupid. That person may not be particularly creative, but definitely not stupid. > >The fact that my ducks liked to run onto the patio when I wasn't around to >chase them off, but went JUST TO THE EDGE of the patio to quack at me when >I would appear; the fact that my dog SLINKS out the open gate and acts >guilty when caught, but goes boldly through when on a leash; and many >other similar events all lead me to believe that they have lots of >intelegence and use it much as a child does. Speach is not language, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >ask any signing deaf person. 'Body language' and posturing is widely ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >used among mammels and birds; so are 'calls and crys'. They have language, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >it's just a question of complexity and form. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I had a hard time believing I was actually reading this! NO, "body language," "calls and crys" are not language, a form of language or have anything to do with what psychologists and linguists term as language. I suggest a class in elementary linguistics or psycholinguistics. During the first week, the instructor will give the definition of a language, so you won't need to wait long. A language 1) has a set of elements or words and 2) a grammar, a set of rules to interconnect the elements and 3) no, I repeat because this is important, set patterns. Sign language conforms to these constraints. (Although there are linguists who do question whether American Sign Language is actually a language. This came as a result of the controversy of whether Washoe actually "said" something.) There are some other subtle aspects to defining what is a language, but these aspect further constrain the definition, not widen it. > >E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems > >'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney > >This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but >not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war) > > Gary Dorst AT&T Bell Labs Human Factors ihnp4!ihlpf!dorst