Non-rewarding, Non-aversive Reinforcement?

[corvus]

I was watching Kathy Sdao on a dvd today and she wanted to make the point that reinforcement could be neither good nor bad in some circumstances. She used the example of ink coming out of a pen when it is put to paper as reinforcement for the behaviour of writing. I have to say, the more I think about this the less certain I become about it. I guess that the behaviour of writing is maintained by ink coming out of the pen in some sense, but if nothing came out of the pen, wouldn't we just write with a stick in the dirt? Or with a dry pen in wax or something? Isn't the drive behind this behaviour to communicate rather than to make an ink stroke? What do you think?

[Jigsaw]

I've recently watched a DVD of hers where she says that, so possibly the same DVD (Kathy Unplugged?) I thought she meant the ink coming out of the pen was reinforcing because you were trying to write notes at that time about what she was talking about and because the ink keeps coming out we keep writing. If the ink stopped running we'd probably swear and throw the pen away and use a pencil and may not use that brand of pen again! I didn't think she was talking about the drive to communicate so much as we often don't think about how some things are naturally reinforcing like having a pen where the ink flows. If we had to stop and shake the pen or find another one, that would not reinforcing the act of writing. Anyway that was my take on that bit!

[corvus]

It was Advanced Clicker Training. Think that's what it's called.

Yes, I could see where she was going with it, but I guess I am not entirely convinced ink flowing reinforces writing. How can we say writing is more likely to occur in the future because ink flows from pens? Is writing with a pencil a different behaviour to writing with a pen?

[m-j]

How can we say writing is more likely to occur in the future because ink flows from pens?

It would if you wanted to write on something that a pen would work on i.e. not on a black board or black pen on black paper.

Is writing with a pencil a different behaviour to writing with a pen?

I imagine if you wanted to write something in a gravity free environment, your behaviour and emotions would be different if using a pen, to using a pencil

[m-j]

oops double post

Edited March 28, 2011 by m-j

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Susan Garrett says as part of her game "itsyerchoice" that just looking at a handfull of food is "reinforcing" to a dog. Or encourages it. So you flash the handful of food when the dog is doing what you want, and the dog will do more of that behaviour it connects with the sight of the food.

So it's being rewarded by the sight of the food and encouraged by it but doesn't actually get to eat anything.

I think the ink example assumes a lot of things about what people find rewarding.

Some people will write even when they have no reader as far as they know.

And some people will write with a shell or their finger in the sand - something totally transient.

And some people will scratch up a wall with the nib even when the ink or paint from their pen has run out.

Some people will draw with their finger in the air. Not even a transient mark.

It's like if the tree falls in the wood and nobody is there to hear it, does it make any noise?

reinforcement - increases a behaviour. I would associate the good or bad of it with the resulting behaviour - is that a behaviour you want to encourage (ie good) or discourage (bad).

Is a bit like a forum post. Lots of views is usually re-inforcing (if the writer notices), lots of responses may or may not be depending on how the poster receives them. Does the poster want friendly reaction, or a big drama?

[Aidan3]

How can we say writing is more likely to occur in the future because ink flows from pens? Is writing with a pencil a different behaviour to writing with a pen?

Yes, writing with a pen is writing with a pen. Writing with a pencil is writing with a pencil. Ink flowing does not reinforce writing with a pencil.

[JoeK]

I was watching Kathy Sdao on a dvd today and she wanted to make the point that reinforcement could be neither good nor bad in some circumstances. She used the example of ink coming out of a pen when it is put to paper as reinforcement for the behaviour of writing. I have to say, the more I think about this the less certain I become about it. I guess that the behaviour of writing is maintained by ink coming out of the pen in some sense, but if nothing came out of the pen, wouldn't we just write with a stick in the dirt? Or with a dry pen in wax or something? Isn't the drive behind this behaviour to communicate rather than to make an ink stroke? What do you think?

Unless she meaning the motivation or drive to do the writing. Perhaps if the pen dont work you dont do the writing with something else because you rather use the pen, you give up and say bugger the pen, I dont do writing now because the pen dont working? To understand her logic about the pen, really need to know in the dog training what she was doing for the relationship of pen and dog for what she talking about?

Joe

[corvus]

I was watching Kathy Sdao on a dvd today and she wanted to make the point that reinforcement could be neither good nor bad in some circumstances. She used the example of ink coming out of a pen when it is put to paper as reinforcement for the behaviour of writing. I have to say, the more I think about this the less certain I become about it. I guess that the behaviour of writing is maintained by ink coming out of the pen in some sense, but if nothing came out of the pen, wouldn't we just write with a stick in the dirt? Or with a dry pen in wax or something? Isn't the drive behind this behaviour to communicate rather than to make an ink stroke? What do you think?

Unless she meaning the motivation or drive to do the writing. Perhaps if the pen dont work you dont do the writing with something else because you rather use the pen, you give up and say bugger the pen, I dont do writing now because the pen dont working? To understand her logic about the pen, really need to know in the dog training what she was doing for the relationship of pen and dog for what she talking about?

Joe

*head esplodes*

I guess the litmus test is does the behaviour increase if ink flows? I would argue it doesn't, but it is maintained, which I guess is also in the definition of a reinforcer. If ink stopped flowing, my guess is the writing-with-a-pen behaviour would cease, suggesting that the ink flowing reinforces it. Having said that, I have scratched away with a pen with no ink flowing because I really needed to write and I had nothing else to write with. It is extremely frustrating, but what else do you do? In that case, perhaps my motivation to write overcomes the negative reinforcement of no ink flowing?

[Cosmolo]

Am i the only one who thinks it is hilarious that there is a thread on pen writing and inks subsequent reinforcement inthe training section.. LOL :D

I get what you are talking about.. but i still think its funny!!!

[corvus]

Am i the only one who thinks it is hilarious that there is a thread on pen writing and inks subsequent reinforcement inthe training section.. LOL

This is critically important to dog training! Absolutely critical!

[Vickie]

Am i the only one who thinks it is hilarious that there is a thread on pen writing and inks subsequent reinforcement inthe training section.. LOL

No, you are not the only one. Not by a long shot I would imagine

[corvus]

Actually, I'm most surprised I actually got some replies.

[poodlefan]

I'm still trying to figure out how something that neither encourages nor discourages a behaviour can be "reinforcer".

[corvus]

Me too. I guess what Kathy is getting at is a reinforcer can be just good enough to maintain a behaviour but not good enough to increase its occurrence? Say for example when you say "good dog" but don't pair it with any other reinforcer. If it hasn't been paired with another reinforcer, it may still mean something to a dog simply by the body language and the tone that accompanies it. But if it's just a soothing "gooood dog" it's unlikely to be something a dog will work for, but it may be something that maintains a behaviour the dog performs under low distractions. I almost never rewarded my previous dog with food, but she often got a "good girl" when she naturally did something I wanted her to do. I taught her to shake the water out of her coat on cue by saying "shake" a moment before I thought she was going to do it and "good girl" if she actually did. It didn't produce great reliability, but it did work in as much as she was more likely to shake on cue than not on cue and if you crammed it in there a moment after she got out of the water you might escape a drenching. Maybe. Of course, it's difficult to say how reinforcing "good girl" was to her in light of the fact it was often all she got in the way of positive reinforcement from me. There may have been an element of -R in there for a dog like her that was very devoted for all I know.

[Aidan3]

I'm still trying to figure out how something that neither encourages nor discourages a behaviour can be "reinforcer".

I think this is why Kathy Sdao brought it up.

A reinforcer is a stimulus that maintains or increases responding. If your pen ran out of ink and it was the only pen you had, you would stop using it. Actually you'd probably keep trying to get some ink out of it for a little while, scribble it back and forth really hard (extinction burst), then chuck it in the bin. Unless ink comes out of the pen, you don't bother to write with it. In other words, you only write with a pen if it puts ink on the paper.

Mind you, I won't write with a pen that leaves big blobs of ink on the page. I find that really punishing.

[poodlefan]

I'm still trying to figure out how something that neither encourages nor discourages a behaviour can be "reinforcer".

I think this is why Kathy Sdao brought it up.

A reinforcer is a stimulus that maintains or increases responding. If your pen ran out of ink and it was the only pen you had, you would stop using it. Actually you'd probably keep trying to get some ink out of it for a little while, scribble it back and forth really hard (extinction burst), then chuck it in the bin. Unless ink comes out of the pen, you don't bother to write with it. In other words, you only write with a pen if it puts ink on the paper.

Mind you, I won't write with a pen that leaves big blobs of ink on the page. I find that really punishing.

I hate ballpoint pens. Not sure what that means.

[Aidan3]

I hate ballpoint pens. Not sure what that means.

Are there any bald authority figures in your life?

[poodlefan]

I hate ballpoint pens. Not sure what that means.

Are there any bald authority figures in your life?

There aren't any authority figures in my life.

Well, other than Troy.

Edited March 31, 2011 by poodlefan

[corvus]

In other words, you only write with a pen if it puts ink on the paper.

If I look at in terms of antecedent -> behaviour -> consequence it makes more sense. Mind you, what's the antecedent of writing? Receiving important information?? Someone saying "write this down"? I'm a compulsive drawer. Literally, put a piece of paper and a pen in front of me and I will draw something on the paper. For me, the antecedent maybe is just the presence of pen and paper? That's getting more like the point I think Kathy was making. I wouldn't draw if the pen didn't make a mark, but I would write if the pen didn't make a mark.