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!

If he is aware of the what the class is doing and then he makes a choice a question pops up about why he would make the choices. Why would he choose to ignore the class or why would he want the classes attention? Is either his choices his, or just reinforced behavior?

I believe the actual decision is his, but the choice he eventually makes will be influenced by his conditioning (i.e. experiences).

It is not a case of either/or I think.

I believe the actual decision is his, but the choice he eventually makes will be influenced by his conditioning (i.e. experiences).

It is not a case of either/or I think.

Right, so he would make whatever choice he made based on his history of reinforcement. Now, what if he wasn't aware of the students only looking at him when he moved away from the podium? He still responded to the reinforcement, right? Now, what does that say about behavior, our thoughts and free will. Mind you I am not trying to prove anything nor am I withholding some secret to the riddle here. I am really thinking this through.

Ok, here some more brain storm:

With classical conditioning (Pavlov) there is case of involuntarily learning. It is a unconcious way of learning: an automatic response following a stimulus. It concerns reflexes, biological and physical circumstances. No free will.

With operant or instrumental conditioning (Skinner) the learning process is based on an connection of positive and negative feelings as an immediate result of a action with that action itself. Free will.

In other words, classical conditioning forms an association between two stimuli, and the behavior follows after the stimulus.

Operant conditioning forms an association between the human's response (behavior) and the stimulus that follows (consequence). So, here the behavior preceeds the stimulus that influences the increase or decrease of that behavior.

Therefore, my initial thought of classical conditioning was incorrect, and there is case of operant conditioning: when the man moves away from the podium(behavior) and the students give attention (stimulus). Unless the professor does something that will provoke an involuntary physical reaction as well, next to the attention of the students, such as suddenly slam on a table, resulting in an increased heartbeat and breathing of the students, then the involuntary reaction is classical and the attention is operant.

It is possible the professor is not conciously aware of his behavior causing the stimulus, but still unconciously reacts in this.

It is also possible that the professor is not aware at all that his behavior causing the students to pay attention. In that case it is important to find out first what triggers his movements. This can be anything: he sees a bird outside, there is a scary spider on the podium, he has had a bad/traumatic experience while standing on a podium in front of people, etc.

In both examples, I think there is still still case of free will, even when the professor is not conciously aware of it.

Now, what you think of this brain storm

Nienke

P.S. reading back the posts: it can be that the professor IS aware of his own behavior causing the students to attend, hence his moving away from the podium. However, it is also possible that he feels so much more comfortable on the podium, that each time he is moving BACK to the podium. His choice of moving back is triggered by a feeling of comfort. His moving away is triggered by the attention of the students. Poor professor. Did he like to teach?

In all examples, the behavior is reinforced by the stimuli.

If this was an experiment, that should have been made clear from the start, together with the parameters and objectives of the experiment. Getting information piecemeal only serves to confuse the issue IMO. Maybe you could start over? Or maybe it's just me...

Ok, here some more brain storm:

With classical conditioning (Pavlov) there is case of involuntarily learning. It is a unconcious way of learning: an automatic response following a stimulus. It concerns reflexes, biological and physical circumstances. No free will.

With operant or instrumental conditioning (Skinner) the learning process is based on an connection of positive and negative feelings as an immediate result of a action with that action itself. Free will.

In other words, classical conditioning forms an association between two stimuli, and the behavior follows after the stimulus.

Operant conditioning forms an association between the human's response (behavior) and the stimulus that follows (consequence). So, here the behavior preceeds the stimulus that influences the increase or decrease of that behavior.

Therefore, my initial thought of classical conditioning was incorrect, and there is case of operant conditioning: when the man moves away from the podium(behavior) and the students give attention (stimulus). Unless the professor does something that will provoke an involuntary physical reaction as well, next to the attention of the students, such as suddenly slam on a table, resulting in an increased heartbeat and breathing of the students, then the involuntary reaction is classical and the attention is operant.

It is possible the professor is not conciously aware of his behavior causing the stimulus, but still unconciously reacts in this.

It is also possible that the professor is not aware at all that his behavior causing the students to pay attention. In that case it is important to find out first what triggers his movements. This can be anything: he sees a bird outside, there is a scary spider on the podium, he has had a bad/traumatic experience while standing on a podium in front of people, etc.

In both examples, I think there is still still case of free will, even when the professor is not conciously aware of it.

Now, what you think of this brain storm

Nienke

P.S. reading back the posts: it can be that the professor IS aware of his own behavior causing the students to attend, hence his moving away from the podium. However, it is also possible that he feels so much more comfortable on the podium, that each time he is moving BACK to the podium. His choice of moving back is triggered by a feeling of comfort. His moving away is triggered by the attention of the students. Poor professor. Did he like to teach?

In all examples, the behavior is reinforced by the stimuli.

Free will aside, he still moved because the students reinforced the behavior of his movement. So, even if he knew that the students paid more attention to him when he moved, thought not why, and thus decided to move he still was reinforced to move from the students. So, let's say the students keep reinforcing this behavior and therefore he does it for years, is this behavior of walking away from the podium an aspect of his self or a seperate behavior he engages in?

Which begs the question what is our personality and what is just behavior we engage in? Are they one and the same?

If this was an experiment, that should have been made clear from the start, together with the parameters and objectives of the experiment. Getting information piecemeal only serves to confuse the issue IMO. Maybe you could start over? Or maybe it's just me...

I didn't give anything piece meal. Students decided to only pay attention to the teacher when he moved away from the podium thus he moved away from the podium more and more. I suppose I could another example and start from there but this all really simple. Have you ever heard of Applied Behavior Science? That is what I am poking about with here. To ABS whatever we do is behavior. So what am I thinking about is if there is a difference between behavior and, what, core personality?

I think it's important to define behavior: what is behavior?

From what I've learned behavior = genetics + hormones + environment (i.e. learning experiences)

When talking about core personality, isn't that then the genetic part?

Nienke

I think it's important to define behavior: what is behavior?

From what I've learned behavior = genetics + hormones + environment (i.e. learning experiences)

When talking about core personality, isn't that then the genetic part?

Nienke

I am not sure. How have genetics shown to affect behavior? According to ABS even a beating heart is a behavior. However, it seems that they think a behavior can be changed. So, there is no bad person or damaged person, like they talk about in therapy, but a unacceptable behavior that needs to be modified.

I think it's important to define behavior: what is behavior?

From what I've learned behavior = genetics + hormones + environment (i.e. learning experiences)

When talking about core personality, isn't that then the genetic part?

Nienke

I am not sure. How have genetics shown to affect behavior? According to ABS even a beating heart is a behavior. However, it seems that they think a behavior can be changed. So, there is no bad person or damaged person, like they talk about in therapy, but a unacceptable behavior that needs to be modified.

There is no bad / damaged people? Im afraid that this is where this line of thinking rational academic reasoning and reality depart.

The sad truth is that there are truly evil people in this world, whose behavior will never be modified.

I think it's important to define behavior: what is behavior?

From what I've learned behavior = genetics + hormones + environment (i.e. learning experiences)

When talking about core personality, isn't that then the genetic part?

Nienke

I am not sure. How have genetics shown to affect behavior? According to ABS even a beating heart is a behavior. However, it seems that they think a behavior can be changed. So, there is no bad person or damaged person, like they talk about in therapy, but a unacceptable behavior that needs to be modified.

There is no bad / damaged people? Im afraid that this is where this line of thinking rational academic reasoning and reality depart.

The sad truth is that there are truly evil people in this world, whose behavior will never be modified.

There are many aspects about behavior that are still unknown. For example: what is exactly the genetic influence on behavior? What (part of a) gene carries what kind of information? It is so difficult to understand as there are many genes responsible for behavior.

How our brains work is affected by our genes. In turn our hormones are affected by our brain. All the factors taken in composition affect our mind's. And then on top of this there's the influence of the environment.

E.g. Genes control instinct and fixed behaviors like hunger thirst, mothering, but there is also a genetic imprint for, for example, bringing oneself into safety.

In the dog world it is possible to produce more manageable and more docile dogs through selective breeding. The opposite happens as well: for instance, rottweilers that are very confident will show beautifully in the show ring (ears up and forward, tail up, high body posture). However, when you breeed with these dogs chances are high that the off-spring will be high confident dogs as well. That are not the easiest dogs to handle and often not suitable for just being pet dogs, unless the owner is very capable of authorizing these kind of dogs.

E.g. Hormones

My sister's best friend and her almost husband were attacked by robbers in the middle night. He died in her arms of knife wounds. She couldn't safe his life while she was an excellent nurse and he (was) a doctor. She can not remember whatsoever that also she was severely stabbed. This enormous traumatic experience has done permanent damage to, from what I've understood, her adrenal gland. The adrenal gland is responsible for the production of cortisone (adrenocorticotropic hormone or ACTH) which is related to increased excitability or anxiety, and the corticosteroids production that has a moderating influence on excitability. Although, after pretty much 10 years she is living a fairly normal life again, due to this damage she has hard times handling even the slighest startling. Her behavior has permanently changed since then.

E.g. Nutrients

Nutrients have an significant influence on our brains as are chemicals.

For instance, just this morning I was reading an article: (if I understood well) following a study performed in prisoners and mental patients which showed that people with aggression and impulse-control problems tend to be deficient in omega-3s, an Italian study was done by veterinarians who wondered whether there might be a biochemical or nutritional basis for aggression in dogs as well. They found that, compared to normal dogs, the aggressive dogs had lower levels of omega-3 DHA and higher omega6/omega-3 ratios, which is critical to brain cell membrane function. DHA deficiency is associated with depression and aggression in humans.

Also certain amino acids or the lack of it have an profound influence on how our brain works and certain chemicals can change the DNA.

I do believe people may not have been bad at birth, but there are many that have been damaged in one way or another during their lives, during pregnancy and/or as a result of DNA changes caused by chemicals. In some, or maybe even many, of these cases, treatment can help.

I'm afraid that when one really wants to understand all these processes s/he has to do a complete study including genetics, hormones, nutrients and chemical that can influence both, learning processes etc, etc.

I have been studying dog behavior (I'm a dog behaviorist and dog trainer, and there are many things quite similar to human behavior) already for several years, however, each time something new pops up making this a never-ending study. Super fascinating that is.

Nienke

Woh, trying to catch up on what has happened in this thread has been no easy task. A lot of detailed discussion and very interesting read. Just trying to take it all in. Neinke I have to say i am most impressed reading your views. You obviously have either studied psychology academically or much personal research. Im sure if I were to meet you i would we rapt listening to what you have to say on the subject. As a dog behaviorist I imagine you must be very successful. (I particularly respect your last post.)

Anyway. With regards to the experiment surely the teachers reaction is classical conditioning? ONLY if he becomes aware of what is happening could it become operant and of free will?

If this was an experiment, that should have been made clear from the start, together with the parameters and objectives of the experiment. Getting information piecemeal only serves to confuse the issue IMO. Maybe you could start over? Or maybe it's just me...

I didn't give anything piece meal. Students decided to only pay attention to the teacher when he moved away from the podium thus he moved away from the podium more and more. I suppose I could another example and start from there but this all really simple. Have you ever heard of Applied Behavior Science? That is what I am poking about with here. To ABS whatever we do is behavior. So what am I thinking about is if there is a difference between behavior and, what, core personality?

But it's just an experiment. there is no mechanism for the speaker to change his behavior to grasp the classes attention while standing at the podium, because they've been instructed not to give it. They're just ######ing with the guy.

What if they'd been instructed to only give their attention if the speaker were to stand on one leg and sing it to them? Should the speaker change his behavior for that?

I think it's important to define behavior: what is behavior?

From what I've learned behavior = genetics + hormones + environment (i.e. learning experiences)

When talking about core personality, isn't that then the genetic part?

Nienke

I am not sure. How have genetics shown to affect behavior? According to ABS even a beating heart is a behavior. However, it seems that they think a behavior can be changed. So, there is no bad person or damaged person, like they talk about in therapy, but a unacceptable behavior that needs to be modified.

There is no bad / damaged people? Im afraid that this is where this line of thinking rational academic reasoning and reality depart.

The sad truth is that there are truly evil people in this world, whose behavior will never be modified.

Okay, perhaps that statement was too general I am sure it could be agrued, but what I meant was that a person who suffers from depression is not damaged just engaging in reinforced behavior that is damaging. Does that make more sense?

I think it's important to define behavior: what is behavior?

From what I've learned behavior = genetics + hormones + environment (i.e. learning experiences)

When talking about core personality, isn't that then the genetic part?

Nienke

I am not sure. How have genetics shown to affect behavior? According to ABS even a beating heart is a behavior. However, it seems that they think a behavior can be changed. So, there is no bad person or damaged person, like they talk about in therapy, but a unacceptable behavior that needs to be modified.

There is no bad / damaged people? Im afraid that this is where this line of thinking rational academic reasoning and reality depart.

The sad truth is that there are truly evil people in this world, whose behavior will never be modified.

There are many aspects about behavior that are still unknown. For example: what is exactly the genetic influence on behavior? What (part of a) gene carries what kind of information? It is so difficult to understand as there are many genes responsible for behavior.

How our brains work is affected by our genes. In turn our hormones are affected by our brain. All the factors taken in composition affect our mind's. And then on top of this there's the influence of the environment.

E.g. Genes control instinct and fixed behaviors like hunger thirst, mothering, but there is also a genetic imprint for, for example, bringing oneself into safety.

In the dog world it is possible to produce more manageable and more docile dogs through selective breeding. The opposite happens as well: for instance, rottweilers that are very confident will show beautifully in the show ring (ears up and forward, tail up, high body posture). However, when you breeed with these dogs chances are high that the off-spring will be high confident dogs as well. That are not the easiest dogs to handle and often not suitable for just being pet dogs, unless the owner is very capable of authorizing these kind of dogs.

E.g. Hormones

My sister's best friend and her almost husband were attacked by robbers in the middle night. He died in her arms of knife wounds. She couldn't safe his life while she was an excellent nurse and he (was) a doctor. She can not remember whatsoever that also she was severely stabbed. This enormous traumatic experience has done permanent damage to, from what I've understood, her adrenal gland. The adrenal gland is responsible for the production of cortisone (adrenocorticotropic hormone or ACTH) which is related to increased excitability or anxiety, and the corticosteroids production that has a moderating influence on excitability. Although, after pretty much 10 years she is living a fairly normal life again, due to this damage she has hard times handling even the slighest startling. Her behavior has permanently changed since then.

E.g. Nutrients

Nutrients have an significant influence on our brains as are chemicals.

For instance, just this morning I was reading an article: (if I understood well) following a study performed in prisoners and mental patients which showed that people with aggression and impulse-control problems tend to be deficient in omega-3s, an Italian study was done by veterinarians who wondered whether there might be a biochemical or nutritional basis for aggression in dogs as well. They found that, compared to normal dogs, the aggressive dogs had lower levels of omega-3 DHA and higher omega6/omega-3 ratios, which is critical to brain cell membrane function. DHA deficiency is associated with depression and aggression in humans.

Also certain amino acids or the lack of it have an profound influence on how our brain works and certain chemicals can change the DNA.

I do believe people may not have been bad at birth, but there are many that have been damaged in one way or another during their lives, during pregnancy and/or as a result of DNA changes caused by chemicals. In some, or maybe even many, of these cases, treatment can help.

I'm afraid that when one really wants to understand all these processes s/he has to do a complete study including genetics, hormones, nutrients and chemical that can influence both, learning processes etc, etc.

I have been studying dog behavior (I'm a dog behaviorist and dog trainer, and there are many things quite similar to human behavior) already for several years, however, each time something new pops up making this a never-ending study. Super fascinating that is.

Nienke

Wow, great post! Great points! So, I guess a question I should is nature or nurture? You seem to support that more bahavior is nature more than nuture. Maybe a simple question, but let's get it out of the way.

If this was an experiment, that should have been made clear from the start, together with the parameters and objectives of the experiment. Getting information piecemeal only serves to confuse the issue IMO. Maybe you could start over? Or maybe it's just me...

I didn't give anything piece meal. Students decided to only pay attention to the teacher when he moved away from the podium thus he moved away from the podium more and more. I suppose I could another example and start from there but this all really simple. Have you ever heard of Applied Behavior Science? That is what I am poking about with here. To ABS whatever we do is behavior. So what am I thinking about is if there is a difference between behavior and, what, core personality?

But it's just an experiment. there is no mechanism for the speaker to change his behavior to grasp the classes attention while standing at the podium, because they've been instructed not to give it. They're just ######ing with the guy.

What if they'd been instructed to only give their attention if the speaker were to stand on one leg and sing it to them? Should the speaker change his behavior for that?

That would not have really worked, who sings during a lecture. No, the point was to show that a persons behavior can be shaped. This professor was of the opinion that such ideas in ABS were bunk, and the students proved hiim wrong by shaping hsi behavior during his lecture. Skinner did the same thing with someone else during a debate who said such idea held no water as well. He did it right fornt of everyone and only the man talking, the one who didn't believe, was unaware. I think it was reinforcing the man in raising his hand. Skinner looked him in the eye only when he raised his hand during the debate and thus the man raised his arm alot. So, shaping works.

The Buddha suggested that to experience ultimate freedom (my term) it is best to abandon ALL doctrines of self.

What people are doing here is constructing doctrines of self...they are interesting doctrines of self (some of them) but the Buddha advised to drop them.

Chownah