operant conditioning does not solely depend on positive and negative
reinforcement

positive and negative reinforcement are relative, what stimulates one
positively or negatively, may not stimulate another

so, first you must define what is stimulation for one

to drive someone truly (to condition an operant), you must know their
lights (their ambitions)

a light is the realistic expectation that someone might be able to open a
door of reality

and the keys to the door are the actions necessary to open or close the
door

to block a light (negative reinforcement), you take the keys to the door,
you make it socially and/or physically impossible for them to open the
door, then they have no light (ambition) for that door

to open a door (positive reinforcement), you give them the keys (you
enable them to reach their ambition)

to drive (condition), you must block all doors that you do not want one
(an operant) to open, and only leave them with the keys to the door you
wish them to enter

closing many doors, may take significant socialism, a CABAL would be
better suited than say one psychiatrist, that is, if you want the operant
conditioning to be permanent, if you leave doors open, then the operant
is free to open them, once they leave your influence, this is why operant
conditioning, under the secular paradigm is flawed

"Dale Kelly" <THIS_IS_A_SPAMTRAP@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DIydnR5skvO0LAPbnZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@comcast.com...
operant conditioning does not solely depend on positive and negative
reinforcement

positive and negative reinforcement are relative, what stimulates one
positively or negatively, may not stimulate another

so, first you must define what is stimulation for one

to drive someone truly (to condition an operant), you must know their
lights (their ambitions)

a light is the realistic expectation that someone might be able to open a
door of reality

and the keys to the door are the actions necessary to open or close the
door

to block a light (negative reinforcement), you take the keys to the door,
you make it socially and/or physically impossible for them to open the
door, then they have no light (ambition) for that door

to open a door (positive reinforcement), you give them the keys (you
enable them to reach their ambition)

to drive (condition), you must block all doors that you do not want one
(an operant) to open, and only leave them with the keys to the door you
wish them to enter

closing many doors, may take significant socialism, a CABAL would be
better suited than say one psychiatrist, that is, if you want the operant
conditioning to be permanent, if you leave doors open, then the operant
is free to open them, once they leave your influence, this is why operant
conditioning, under the secular paradigm is flawed

You have made the common mistake of confusing the concepts of positive and
negative reinforcement with rewards and punishments.

Positive and negative reinforcement, in the world of operant conditioning
you discussed, concerns the results in terms of change or maintenance of the
frequency of the target behavior. The reinforcing event can be positive or
negative, pleasurable or aversive, it doesn't matter. All that matters is
the result.

Similar to a tendency to confuse positive and negative reinforcement with
reward and punishment. In systems theory, any response that increases
deviation or change from what was the norm, is positive reinforcement.

If
it reduces change or deviation (in words keeps the status quo) is a negative
reinforcement.

Punishment, on the other hand, is aversive and it typically stops a
behavior. But maybe not for long. A positive or pleasurable response might
increase a behavior but it might also decrease it.

card xii
Master of the detrevnI Buckyball

All that matters is
the result.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:14:01 +0000, Card XII wrote:

All that matters is
the result.

in order to reinforce a behavior, you need to know what ambitions or
lights a person has in order to appeal or disappeal to them

the current mindset, is that everyone doesn't like electric shock, and
that everyone likes food or drugs or something

fact is, there are no universal reinforcements

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:14:01 +0000, Card XII wrote:

All that matters is
the result.

in order to reinforce a behavior, you need to know what ambitions or
lights a person has in order to appeal or disappeal to them

the current mindset, is that everyone doesn't like electric shock, and
that everyone likes food or drugs or something

fact is, there are no universal reinforcements

--
Dale http://www.vedantasite.org
see website for real email address

I have to ask.
If you were training a chicken to peck at food to release food, the
number of times the chicken pecks at the button is a positive because
their normal pecking has been increased?

Norm is then based on the individual baseline count?

If
it reduces change or deviation (in words keeps the status quo) is a
negative
reinforcement.

How can the status quo be a status quo, if the R- is changed or
decreased as in your example?

Punishment, on the other hand, is aversive and it typically stops a
behavior. But maybe not for long. A positive or pleasurable response
might
increase a behavior but it might also decrease it.

What is an example of a R+ decreasing behavior??

"Hoofprints" <equsphotogphr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:469FE649.CA214D55@hotmail.com...
...

I have to ask.
If you were training a chicken to peck at food to release food, the
number of times the chicken pecks at the button is a positive because
their normal pecking has been increased?

Norm is then based on the individual baseline count?

I assume you are talking about the systems theory use of the word
"reinforcement."

The "norm" is the baseline, basically. But not necessarily that of the
individual, perhaps that of a group, society, etc. Negative reinforcment
then is responses that bring the individual's response frequency or nature
of responses closer to those of the relevant reference, and positive
reinforcement takes it farther away.

If
it reduces change or deviation (in words keeps the status quo) is a
negative
reinforcement.

How can the status quo be a status quo, if the R- is changed or
decreased as in your example?

If the responses have become different from those of the reference group,
either greater or lesser in number, or intensity, or something, how they
change determines if you call it positive or negative.

If an individual drinks 7 Dr. Peppers a day, that is more than normal for
the community.

Negative reinforcement would result in a decrease in the
number consumed, perhaps only 3 a day.

Positive reinforcement would result
in even more consumption, perhaps 10 bottles a day!

If the average person drinks 1 bottle of pop a day, and the individual
started drinking 2, then it would have been a result of positive
reinforcement.

In increase away from the norm, you see. If the individual
had been drinking 1 a day, like most people and then began drinking only
half a pop, and only then once a week, there would also have been positive
reinforcement. You see, again the deviation would be further from the norm,
only in the opposite direction.

It doesn't matter what the valence of the change is, only whether it
increases of increases deviation.

Punishment, on the other hand, is aversive and it typically stops a
behavior. But maybe not for long. A positive or pleasurable response
might
increase a behavior but it might also decrease it.

What is an example of a R+ decreasing behavior??

Take the case of a kid who likes to eat peas. But their mom hugs the kid
for eating all the peas. As a response, the rebellious kid quits eating
peas anytime except at school, but never at home. The behaivor has become
decreased as a result of a positive experience.

But these are two separate ways of using the terms and should not be
confused.

card xii
Master of the detrevnI Buckyball

in order to reinforce a behavior, you need to know what ambitions or
lights a person has in order to appeal or disappeal to them

From : "Card XII" <blotsparade@sciencefrontiers.com
Message-ID : <zv4oi.12524$B25.7718@news01.roc.ny


A great example is the "Greenspoon effect," in which simple nods or grunts
in response to some verbal behavior, without the awareness of the subject, can
lead to the subject's increasing the verbal behavior

Crikey Dr*dirty*Dan*, I had some of that *Greenspoon effect* on Saturday nite
There was lotsa grunting and verbal behavior, but *I* prefer to call it the *porking effect*

Reach out *stoopid*, you need professional help now..

--

HPVTS OA
*I* care

--

HPVTS OA
*I* care

Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA wrote:

From : "Card XII" <blotsparade@sciencefrontiers.com
Message-ID : <zv4oi.12524$B25.7718@news01.roc.ny


A great example is the "Greenspoon effect," in which simple nods or grunts
in response to some verbal behavior, without the awareness of the subject, can
lead to the subject's increasing the verbal behavior

Crikey Dr*dirty*Dan*, I had some of that *Greenspoon effect* on Saturday nite
There was lotsa grunting and verbal behavior, but *I* prefer to call it the *porking effect*

Family visiting the area from out of town???
I do hope Ms Piggies mother didn't require an ambulance from nearly
o.d.ing after being given 2 30 mgs caps of Dalmane..

Reach out *stoopid*, you need professional help now..

--

HPVTS OA
*I* care

--

HPVTS OA
*I* care

Hoofprints wrote:

Honorable Professeur Von TwoSteps OA wrote:

From : "Card XII" <blotsparade@sciencefrontiers.com
Message-ID : <zv4oi.12524$B25.7718@news01.roc.ny


A great example is the "Greenspoon effect," in which simple nods or grunts
in response to some verbal behavior, without the awareness of the subject, can
lead to the subject's increasing the verbal behavior

Crikey Dr*dirty*Dan*, I had some of that *Greenspoon effect* on Saturday nite
There was lotsa grunting and verbal behavior, but *I* prefer to call it the *porking effect*

Family visiting the area from out of town???
I do hope Ms Piggies mother didn't require an ambulance from nearly
o.d.ing after being given 2 30 mgs caps of Dalmane..

And that was against medical advice as I told you that 30 mg was the
highest dose manufactured by the pharma co. and that 2 was overdose.
But *you* NEVER listen to anything I have to say, ever....



Reach out *stoopid*, you need professional help now..

--

HPVTS OA
*I* care

--

HPVTS OA
*I* care

From : Hoofprints <equsphotogphr@hotmail.com
Message-ID : <46A4ED4F.DA739CFE@hotmail.com


Who ever was complaining about kimcunt telephoning their home, that is
nothing, they were also calling here asking for Two Steps when he lived
here

I hope my spirit didn't leave *there* without paying the rent.

If it did,
it was just an oversight from rushing to get back to my body *here*

--

HPVTS OA
*I* care