Non-rewarding, Non-aversive Reinforcement?

[Erny]

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.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

If I was trying to take notes at a meeting and the pen clagged out and I had no other pen, I'd stop "writing" meeting notes I guess.

I thought the definition of a re-inforcement was something that "encouraged" the behaviour ie increased it.

I also thought that talking to a dog was attention on the dog, and the dog tends to find that encouraging, hence ignoring it and saying nothing when you don't want to encourage a behaviour like jumping on you. (they're now recommending this technique for training children - go figure).

Sorry - what was the question again?

PS, I imagine there would be a limit on how far a behaviour could be increased. Eg you can't make dog run faster than that dog can run. You can train it to run flat out on command but not faster than its own max speed.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[Aidan3]

I thought the definition of a re-inforcement was something that "encouraged" the behaviour ie increased it.

I also thought that talking to a dog was attention on the dog, and the dog tends to find that encouraging, hence ignoring it and saying nothing when you don't want to encourage a behaviour like jumping on you. (they're now recommending this technique for training children - go figure).

The definition is any stimulus which increases or maintains rate of responding. It doesn't need to be good or bad or wanted or unwanted or encouraging or discouraging, i.e it doesn't have to be something with a valence or something that elicits an emotional response. It just needs to increase or maintain the behaviour.

Talking to a dog might reinforce the dog's behaviours, or it might not. If the rate of responding is increased or maintained, then it it is a reinforcer. The problem is that people are fairly poor judges of rate of responding unless it is really obvious, so the practical advice that gets dished out is usually fairly general - "don't talk to your dog if he's jumping on you" - there's a good chance that if your dog is like most dogs, this will be a reinforcing consequence. There's also a good chance that something else is maintaining that behaviour, but at least we ruled out the talking and fussing.

[PAX]

I think it's about the ink coming from the pen that is a low level self reinforcing act, you continue to write, if the pen ran out of ink, that ends the behavoiur of writing with that pen, you would chuck it out or I would . It wouldn't matter if it was a pencil, if the pencil broke, thats the end of the writing, unless you had a sharperer. I think you are reading too much into Kathy's example.

I thiink she is using the writing article as the example, not speaking of the actual reward of writing.

Hope that made sense.

[PAX]

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.

Exacdtly, well said.

[Jigsaw]

Hope this clears it up for people! My bolding.

Transcript from Kathy Sdao Unplugged: (I've just found the part and she has started discussing the difference between a reward and a reinforcer)

"A reinforcer doesn't need to be pleasurable. Mike is being reinforced because ink is flowing out of his pen. Is that thrilling you Mike?"

Mike: "um, no. It's just taking notes helps me to remember what's happening"

Kathy: "His note taking is helping him focus on what I'm saying and he will remember it. But that's all in the future.

In this moment in time, that ink flow is a reinforcer he's not even noticing."

Mike: "right, I'd stop it if it "

Kathy: "Exactly! The only time it will change his behaviour is if the ink stops flowing and then he'll have an extinction burst to try to getit going again and he'll shake it and then he'll get another pen."

Kathy continues: "My microphone working is going to keep me talking. If it stops I'm going to stop and get another battery and figure out what is wrong"

[corvus]

I think you are reading too much into Kathy's example.

Of course I am! But isn't that the point of discussing subtle aspects of learning theory? :D

Thanks Jigsaw.

[m-j]

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]

I use this anology along with others, to explain some of the basic terminology in my classes all the time.