Are we learned behaviors that together make up who we are and the choices we make? Are these behaviors changeable and is so then does that make the entirity of a person changeable?

Or are we who we are first and our actions ans choices second?

Are we learned conditioned behaviors that together make up who we are and the choices we make? Are these behaviors changeable and is so then does that make the entirity of a person changeable?

Or are we who we are first and our actions ans choices second?

Yes, yes and yes.

Are we learned conditioned behaviors that together make up who we are and the choices we make? Are these behaviors changeable and is so then does that make the entirity of a person changeable?

Or are we who we are first and our actions ans choices second?

Yes, yes and yes.

How, yes? The internal thoughts that we say make up ourself are conditioned? So, we couldn't be who we are if we had not been conditioned frist, so yes, yes, and no?

Im sorry but im not quite sure im understanding the question. =x

Based on what i gather the question is I would say we are of course conditioned from childhood (and throughout our lives), which affects our choices in adulthood. These things can only be changed if one decides to explore why we are responding to certain things in certain ways and/or reconditioning. Although I personally think reconditioning should only follow after you source why you act/think in a certain way.

So far I've understood it, behavior is influenced by: genetics and hormones (approx. 40%) + environment (approx. 60%)

Nienke

So far I've understood it, behavior is influenced by: genetics and hormones (approx. 40%) + environment (approx. 60%)

Nienke

lost me

Are we learned behaviors (conditioning) that together make up who we are and the choices we make? Are these behaviors changeable and is so then does that make the entirity of a person changeable?

Or are we who we are first and our actions ans choices second?

The conditioned behaviours are changeable. One definition of freedom would be the ability and fluidity of making any behavioral choice completely free from social conditioning.

So far I've understood it, behavior is influenced by: genetics and hormones (approx. 40%) + environment (approx. 60%)

Nienke

Where you getting your figures from Nienke? Would be good to see the breakdown.

I do agree that the interaction of both nature, nurture and environment influences behavior. We have genetic components but without nurture + environmental influences we will not advance as individuals. Negative influences also can hinder development.

In our childhood if nurture or environmental influences are negative it will most likely affect us into our adulthood, even if we are unaware of how it is affecting us. Adverse reactions to certain situations, places, smells, etc. Or extreme emotional reactions outside of the norm. (Extreme anger instead of irritation/frustration, etc)

In our childhood if nurture or environmental influences are positive/encouraging, esp if leaning towards one aspect (such as music for example) then the child will most often have more developed traits in this area.

Of course that just a simplified version..we are all so complex in our thinking and behaviors. But, nearly always our reactions, behaviors and traits are based on childhood events. Self-analysis, professional-analysis, and/or cognitive re-conditioning is only the way i know of to change/adapt behaviors/traits.

Are we learned behaviors (conditioning) that together make up who we are and the choices we make? Are these behaviors changeable and is so then does that make the entirity of a person changeable?

Or are we who we are first and our actions ans choices second?

The conditioned behaviours are changeable. One definition of freedom would be the ability and fluidity of making any behavioral choice completely free from social conditioning.

Changeable yes, but difficult to become aware of them. I think most people are not aware of the concept of self-analysis or self-change. I think most would dismiss the notion of working out how they react to situations etc and changing their train of thought, as psycho-babble mumbo-jumbo. =/

Self-analysis, professional-analysis, and/or cognitive re-conditioning is only the way i know of to change/adapt behaviors/traits.

Agree. Self awareness is very important. Modifying (subtly or dramatically) ones conditioned response to everything consistently (days weeks months) also helps loosen social conditioning.

Changeable yes, but difficult to become aware of them.

aye, its a difficult and often painful process involving facing fears and other murky stuff.

Edited October 14, 200718 yr by Grover

Frued get ya coat!

Frued

Now was that a Freudian Slip

Moss

Is that really a cigar, that he is smoking?

I Do Not Behave, Therefore I Do Not Exist....call me the Invisible Man

Is that really a cigar, that he is smoking?

In his words,

" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar "

I Do Not Behave, Therefore I Do Not Exist....call me the Invisible Man

+ a naughty boy

Thank You!

Existential philosophy....not!

Is that really a cigar, that he is smoking?

Ah but is he smoking it? Or merely holding it? I see no smoke. In fact, he cannot smoke it, for it is not really a cigar, tis only the photographic representation of a cigar.

..and there is no spoon.

Or, you know, wutever.

We do, however, choose our behaviour. That being the case, change is always possible.

We do, however, choose our behaviour. That being the case, change is always possible.

Ah, I am glad you have joined my friend!! Do we choose our behavior. Skinner would say no, behaviorism would say no. Think of reinforcement. Say a person is speaking to a class ot students. No one is really paying attention and the speaker just drones on at the podium. Now, say that everytime he stepped away from the podium the class looked up and paid attention, until he moved back to the pudium. Now, let's say that each time the class did this the speaker would each time get further and further away from the podium, until he never really stood by it at all. Is he really choosing his behavior? Or is a behavior he is engaging in just being reinforced? This was a real experiment by the way.

We do, however, choose our behaviour. That being the case, change is always possible.

Ah, I am glad you have joined my friend!! Do we choose our behavior. Skinner would say no, behaviorism would say no. Think of reinforcement. Say a person is speaking to a class ot students. No one is really paying attention and the speaker just drones on at the podium. Now, say that everytime he stepped away from the podium the class looked up and paid attention, until he moved back to the pudium. Now, let's say that each time the class did this the speaker would each time get further and further away from the podium, until he never really stood by it at all. Is he really choosing his behavior? Or is a behavior he is engaging in just being reinforced? This was a real experiment by the way.

Interesting, let's give it a try:

If this goes unconciously, it's a form of classical conditioning. Positive reinforcement: Man moves (away from podium) is trigger, attention of class is reward (add something pleasant), moving (= behavior) increases.

Classical and operant conditioning, I come across it on a daily basis with the dog training. Important to know, but not an easy subject.

Nienke

We do, however, choose our behaviour. That being the case, change is always possible.

Ah, I am glad you have joined my friend!! Do we choose our behavior. Skinner would say no, behaviorism would say no. Think of reinforcement. Say a person is speaking to a class ot students. No one is really paying attention and the speaker just drones on at the podium. Now, say that everytime he stepped away from the podium the class looked up and paid attention, until he moved back to the pudium. Now, let's say that each time the class did this the speaker would each time get further and further away from the podium, until he never really stood by it at all. Is he really choosing his behavior? Or is a behavior he is engaging in just being reinforced? This was a real experiment by the way.

Interesting, let's give it a try:

If this goes unconciously, it's a form of classical conditioning. Positive reinforcement: Man moves (away from podium) is trigger, attention of class is reward (add something pleasant), moving (= behavior) increases.

Classical and operant conditioning, I come across it on a daily basis with the dog training. Important to know, but not an easy subject.

Nienke

Nicely put Nienke. However, we are talking about choosing behaviours here. So add this to the senario - the man can still 'choose' to step back to the podium and lose the attention of the class! Granted the man would have to know what's going on, ie be aware of the effects of the behaviour. This opens up a whole new senario...

We do, however, choose our behaviour. That being the case, change is always possible.

Ah, I am glad you have joined my friend!! Do we choose our behavior. Skinner would say no, behaviorism would say no. Think of reinforcement. Say a person is speaking to a class ot students. No one is really paying attention and the speaker just drones on at the podium. Now, say that everytime he stepped away from the podium the class looked up and paid attention, until he moved back to the pudium. Now, let's say that each time the class did this the speaker would each time get further and further away from the podium, until he never really stood by it at all. Is he really choosing his behavior? Or is a behavior he is engaging in just being reinforced? This was a real experiment by the way.

Interesting, let's give it a try:

If this goes unconciously, it's a form of classical conditioning. Positive reinforcement: Man moves (away from podium) is trigger, attention of class is reward (add something pleasant), moving (= behavior) increases.

Classical and operant conditioning, I come across it on a daily basis with the dog training. Important to know, but not an easy subject.

Nienke

Nicely put Nienke. However, we are talking about choosing behaviours here. So add this to the senario - the man can still 'choose' to step back to the podium and lose the attention of the class! Granted the man would have to know what's going on, ie be aware of the effects of the behaviour. This opens up a whole new senario...

Oh my Gawd! This is a nice one and difficult:

Uuuhhhh ... Suppose man becomes aware of the process, that is when he moves away from the podium he gets that what he wants and that's the attention of his students. On the other hand, when he chooses to stick to the podium he will not get what he wants.

So, if he is smart he will trigger the behavior of his students, that is the attention, by moving. I wonder, though, if it is the moving alone vs. being static, then the moving AWAY from the podium that triggers the attention.

As soon as the man becomes aware of the trigger and conciously will use this to get what he wants or not want, that is he conciously will move and, thus adds something that is received by the students as nice/pleasant/interesting/positive, he conciously can establish that their behavior (= attention) increases. Here we are talking about operant conditioning and positive reinforcement.

Or .... the man conciously adds something that is received by the students as nice/pleasant/interesting/positive, for which he is rewarded with attention, and thus, his behavior will increase. That is him moving around. Again, operant conditioning.

How about this, am I close? I sure as hel_l need to bend over my books again.

Anyway, for operant conditioning there is positive reinforcement (add something nice) and negative reinforcement (take something unpleasant away) which establishes an increase in behavior. A decrease of behavior is established by adding something unpleasant (positive punishment) or taking something pleasant away (negative punishment).

Nienke

Interesting post Nienke. It doesn't really deal with the behaviour 'choices' he has. Say as an experiment he doesn't care whether or not he has the attention of the students, he could then choose the behaviours he wants regardless of the 'attention' result.

If he wasn't aware of the choices he would 'inadvertantly' do what gave the best result and perhaps not understand why!

We are now moving into 'learned behaviours' and the problems they can cause when they are not understood.

It would be more intereting to see how he could modify his behavior to gain the classes attention without moving away from the podium.

This doesn't make sense to me or I do not undestand what you (Suegha) mean.

If the man chooses a behavior regardless the 'attention' result, he can choose what ever he wants: he can choose to chew chewing gum, stand on his head, swing on a rope through the class room or just think of any behavior that he can do, while at the same time he keeps on telling his story.

As in the example 'attention of the classroom' was mentioned, I went on with that.

The man does something and that has a behavior from himself (moving away from the podium or not) and from the students (giving attention or not) as a result. Anything else is not mentioned in the example and, thus, is not relevant in this example.

Usually a choice to a certain behavior is based on success or failure, a good or a bad feeling, etc. If attention of the classroom is what the man desires, then conciously or unconsiously he will modify his behavior to get this result. Whether, that is moving away from the podium, just moving around, changing his voice, using lots of body language, telling funny stuff in between his boring story, or whatever, we will not know as it has not been mentioned in the example.

Suegha says: If he wasn't aware of the choices he would 'inadvertantly' do what gave the best result and perhaps not understand why! As I conclude from the example that 'the best result' is the attention of the students, then in this case, if I understood it well from my studies, we are talking about classical conditioning.

In response to Lannarebirth: i think one first needs to figure out why the man doesn't get any attention while staying on the podium. Maybe he is standing there as a statue and talking in monotone voice. However, in the example this has not been described, so it only will be guesswork.

Nienke

Easy....put on a Groucho Marx eyeglasses/nose set, and ask the students about their last viewed favorite movie.....

This could be termed "Slapstick Reinforcement"; the technique was pioneered by the noted behaviorialist Harpo.

Interesting post Nienke. It doesn't really deal with the behaviour 'choices' he has. Say as an experiment he doesn't care whether or not he has the attention of the students, he could then choose the behaviours he wants regardless of the 'attention' result.

If he wasn't aware of the choices he would 'inadvertantly' do what gave the best result and perhaps not understand why!

We are now moving into 'learned behaviours' and the problems they can cause when they are not understood.

Behavior choices? How would you view the thought process through which the man goes through to arrive at a choice? Are these thoughts not as well just reinforced behaviors? If he wants the attention of class and sees he gets it when he moves away from the podium, he doesn't have to be aware of why but when he actively 'makes' the decision he is still engaging an a reinforced behavior, so where is his choice? Even if he choices to stay at the podium, and is aware he is losing the attention of the class there is a reason he does this, right? Would that choice once again be a reinforced beahvior?

This doesn't make sense to me or I do not undestand what you (Suegha) mean.

If the man chooses a behavior regardless the 'attention' result, he can choose what ever he wants: he can choose to chew chewing gum, stand on his head, swing on a rope through the class room or just think of any behavior that he can do, while at the same time he keeps on telling his story.

As in the example 'attention of the classroom' was mentioned, I went on with that.

The man does something and that has a behavior from himself (moving away from the podium or not) and from the students (giving attention or not) as a result. Anything else is not mentioned in the example and, thus, is not relevant in this example.

Usually a choice to a certain behavior is based on success or failure, a good or a bad feeling, etc. If attention of the classroom is what the man desires, then conciously or unconsiously he will modify his behavior to get this result. Whether, that is moving away from the podium, just moving around, changing his voice, using lots of body language, telling funny stuff in between his boring story, or whatever, we will not know as it has not been mentioned in the example.

Suegha says: If he wasn't aware of the choices he would 'inadvertantly' do what gave the best result and perhaps not understand why! As I conclude from the example that 'the best result' is the attention of the students, then in this case, if I understood it well from my studies, we are talking about classical conditioning.

In response to Lannarebirth: i think one first needs to figure out why the man doesn't get any attention while staying on the podium. Maybe he is standing there as a statue and talking in monotone voice. However, in the example this has not been described, so it only will be guesswork.

Nienke

You are working along the same line I am. I just don't want give the game away for I want real thinking here to help me better understand the subject matter myself. If you are aware of Classical Condition you must know B.F. Skinner, so are you aware of Behaviorism?

In response to Lannarebirth: i think one first needs to figure out why the man doesn't get any attention while staying on the podium. Maybe he is standing there as a statue and talking in monotone voice. However, in the example this has not been described, so it only will be guesswork.

Nienke

Whatever the cause, he seems to be making the wrong behavioral choice. The audience only acts as a mechanism for him to see that. He needs to dig a bit more in the behavioral choice bag in order to change his behavior. Assuming he doesn't want to always be in a reactive mode.

In response to Lannarebirth: i think one first needs to figure out why the man doesn't get any attention while staying on the podium. Maybe he is standing there as a statue and talking in monotone voice. However, in the example this has not been described, so it only will be guesswork.

Nienke

Whatever the cause, he seems to be making the wrong behavioral choice. The audience only acts as a mechanism for him to see that. He needs to dig a bit more in the behavioral choice bag in order to change his behavior. Assuming he doesn't want to always be in a reactive mode.

I should clear up somethings I guess. The experiment I have used was real, the students planned to only respond, look up, when the porfessor, known for not moving from the podium, moved from the podium. So, the students would always look down, away when he went back to the podium.

Exactly! If the situation is purely hypothetical, we will bring in different inferences based on our own assumptions. So, for example, I may choose to decide that the choices he makes in moving away from the podium result in his getting more attention from the audience. If however he is not motivated by the audience, he may choose behaviours that result in, well, what might look like a failure on his behalf, a disengaged audience. He can still make those choices.

Very interesting thread bops!