lthough it is common to speak of properties as stimuli (1), the presence of a property in the position of a stimulus is a certain indication that a pseudo-conditioned reflex is really in quesiton. A property alone cannot be used in either true type because it implies extinction; most of the real stimulus must be relegated to SG, and the requirement that the value of SG be negligible cannot therefore be satisfied.
I take it, if there is a need, the property might have the same effect?
This point may require some comment. In the present use of the term a drive is an inferred variable of which the strength of a group of reflexes is a function (2). Hunger, for example, is a variable (H) a change in which is responsible for concurrent changes in the strength (a) of all unconditioned reflexes concerned with the ingestion of food, (b) of all conditioned reflexes (of either type) in which the reinforcing stimulus is concerned with the ingestion of food, and (c) to a much lesser extent of all "investigatory" reflexes. In Paradigm I, Example a (lever - pressing) is originally a function of H to some slight extent under (c) above. After conditioning it varies with H according to (b), over a wide range probably equal to that of any unconditioned reflex under (a). Conditioning of Type I is really the becoming attached to a group of reflexes varying as a function of some drive. This is a much more comprehensive description of the process than to define it as an increase in strength, where the drive is assumed to remain constant at a significant value. But the identity of H in the present case is [p.70] determined only by our choice of a reinforcing reflex. Given (S1 - R1) of another drive, say thirst, then (So - Ro) will become conditioned by attaching itself to the group varying with thirst, and will not vary with H except to some slight extent under (c).
A strong example of positive reinforcement.
It is a tempting hypothesis that II is not an authentic type but may be reduced to a discrimination based on Type I. But this has not been shown; we have not reduced the pseudo type to Type II or vice versa. Nor have we come very near it. The present pseudo-reflex which resembles II most closely requires of that type for its establishment. It is probably more than a coincidence that [p.75] a discrimination based upon Type I has so many of the properties of II, but the reduction to a single type appears from our present evidence to be highly improbable, desirable though it would be as an immense simplification. The differences that we have noted are not easily disposed of. Still more improbable is a reduction of I to II, since the first step supplied by the pseudo type is then lacking.
Interesting take of the science. pseudo type being only valuable in this situation, but helps widen the perspective of other radical behavior.
Thus while a reflex of Type II prepares the organism, a reflex of Type I obtains the food for which the preparation is made. And this is in general a fair characterization of the relative importance of the two types. As Pavlov has said, conditioned stimuli are important in providing saliva before food is received, but "even greater is their importance when they evoke the motor component of the complex reflex of nutrition, i.e., [p.7 6] when they act as stimuli to the reflex of seeking food." (1, p.13).[9] Although "the reflex of seeking food" is an unfortunate expression, it refers clearly enough to behavior characteristic of Type I.
A trigger and response. Defined by certain perimeters of positive and negative reinforcements and punishments.
n Type I there is no substitution of stimuli and consequently no signalization
No positive or negative conditionaling.
Pavlov
I connect a lot of Skinner's and Pavlovs work together. Taking different perspectives.
Merely putting the dog into the stand again should elicit salivation according to Paradigm II. In practice this is a disturbing effect, which must be eliminated through extinction. So long as it occurs, any actual case of Type II must be formulated as a pseudo-conditioned reflex.
positive reinforcement to trigger a need.
stimulus
positive reinforcement
lower
I understand this as positive punishment
intensity of the tone
Again radical behavior.
Here we are invariably able to neglect the extinguished member beca
I understand this to be apart of Skinner's radical human behavior thought.
Let the presentation of the light be followed by a shock to the foot until the light alone elicits flexion.
Understanding and documenting this finding was huge in the progression of psychology.
his is a confusion with Type II which obviously arises from a neglect of the extinguished reflex.
I imagine this is a bit of 'hangry' status. Not getting the enjoyable reward, creates conflict.
The relation between the light and the response to the lever might be called pseudo-conditioned reflex
This is helping me understand how the light is a factor. At first I was really struggling to understand the importance.
no possible distinction
Triggers reinforcement?
Paradigm
The ultimate definition of behaviorism. Skinner studied something that we do and effect us everyday, so to understand how the human mind is conditioned is something that touched each and every human if not animal. The importance of the work, attributes to condition on what is triggered and what to expect when certain cues are completed.
shock
Not enjoyable. Triggers all the senses, but no reward.
food
Enjoyable consequence.
1935
To understand human conditioning as really not that long ago. Showing another example of how modern study of psychology is still taking the academia to the next level as we learn more about us.
Given such a sequence, where [S1-R1] ~ = 0,[2] conditioning occurs as a change in [So-Ro] - an increase in strength (positive conditioning) in (a) and a decrease (negative conditioning) in (b).[p.67]
Interesting perspective. Break down, in scientific terms of something experience multiple times a day.