for believing that people

[3andnomore]

shouldn't be doing something (nothing in particular right now) because on just shouldn't , rather because one fears punishment?

If you go for a bath you will be punishing us with a withdrawal of your attention which will make us stop saying things you don't like because there will be no one reinforcing us so you will win.

I do have the odd Undignified Moment, ds1 is very opinionated, I can't think where he gets it from

They would see that the behaviour is different of course they would but would be more concerned with whether it achieved its purported aim.

Example from my work...

1.)Two kids are self injuring in exactly the same way more or less.Functional analysis reveals that one is doing it for attention,the other to escape task demands

Same topography,different function

2.)Two more kids.
One escapes from the classromm repeatedly,another one constantly teases another child. Functiona analysis reveals that they are both doing it to elicit more adult attention.

Different topography,same function.

Well as long as I win, Scummy, that's the main thing

'just shouldn't' how would you define this?
I suppuose if one takes a normative stance - believing that there are such things as abstract moral rights and wrongs then you would expect/want people to do 'whats right' rather than to avoid punishment.

Personally I find the normative theorists a bit too Utopian and Niave. People do what works best for them. Even those of us who like to take the moral high ground and claim that we do things because they are 'right' or 'good' actually behave in that way for rewards/to avoid punishment.

Your reward might be getting into heaven, it might be getting a smile from your parent/partner/teacher, it might be having people around you to socialise with or support you (friends). Reward doesn't have to mean financial in any way.
Similarly punishment might be as simple as NOT getting a smile/kiss/approval from society or important individuals.

I prefer to think about it in these terms because I find that any other attempt to justify or enforce 'moral' behaviuor relies too much upon something outside of every day life and society. I don't want to believe there is an abstract moral force which decides what is good and bad. If that was the case it casts me in the role of an uncomprehending child, unable to contribute to the rules, unable to express my own views, I must merely obey.

I want to believe that the society I live in decides the rules which work best for it. Because I am part of that society so I get a say in what those rules are. As an individual who wants to be part of that society I then have motivation to obey the rules and do what is considered 'right' by my society or to work to change them. (as Rosa Parks did when she refused to give up her seat, even though it was considered morally acceptable for blacks to be treated differently)

Yes Sunny.
I remember working out when I was about 14 that we are only friendly with people for what they give us (in other words,something about these people is intrinsically reinforcing) and mentioning it to my teacher.
She was horrified and argued that we like people because we just do.

I was a teenage behaviourist me.

We each have our own highly idiosyncratic reinforcer/punishment system going on. The skilled behaviour analyst has to work it out and take it from there.

This is really very interesting and I am only just getting my head round it as. Please could you give me some examples of:

positive and negative reinforcement
positive and negative punishment

How do you withdraw approval from a child without them feeling you are withdrawing love? How do you teach that bad actions have consequences, whether they be directly on you or on someone else? How do you/ should you teach a recognition of authority/ obedience (particularly at a young age before 'reason' kicks in)?

If everything boils down to 'behaviourist' then I am assuming there are no other options...didn't seem like that at the beginning of this thread.

so, any theories then why adults find it sometimes so difficult to follow simple rules unless they are scared of punishment or can't break the rules because of change of circumstances....

Wow, brilliant thread - I am learning! I have this intuitive distrust of pasta jars, yet I know that I'm constantly shaping dd1's behaviour (she is 2).

Jimjams, your story about holding wrists being a positive reinforcer really resonated for me, because I'm battling with exactly that sort of puzzle with dd1. She's NT so I realise that our general experiences are very different, but I feel I have to be constantly on my toes to figure out which bits of my reactions are unintentionally reinforcing.

Just as a matter of interest - did you see the Scientific American articles on autism recently? Mirror neurones which I guess you know all about, and a suggestion that autism could be diagnosed very very early on the basis of that and lack of imitation.

Gah,it's late and work tomorrow but will give it a whirl.

Positive reinforcement = something added to a situation that increases relevant behaviour.

So..kid does something,gets praised and he does it again.
Or....you masturabate and orgasm so you do it again (I aim to make examples memorable!!)

Negative reinforcement = somethng taken away from a situation that increases relevant behaviour.

So..you want your kid to clean his teeth b ut every time you get the toothpaste out,he runs away screaming.You put the toothpaste away so of course he is more likely to scream and run away next time.
Or..you put on sunglasses to avoid glare of sun.It works so you do it again next time.

Positive punishment =something added to a situation that decreases relevant behaviour.

So...your kid has his list of chores added to when he behaves badly.
Or...you touch a hot stove with the result that you get burned.You are less likely to do it in future.

Negative punishment=something removed from a situation that decreases relevant behaviour.

So..your kid hits his brother.He is then not allowed to go swimming with you.
Your dh approaches you for sex. You get out of the bed in a huff.

It is really quite difficult to tease it all out.Also,many different reinforcement contingencies working at same time.

I haven't yet read Kohn's book (but will) Essay was only a 500 word personal reflection on a quote fro it.

You could almost map that as a 2X2 grid, reinforcement/punishment along the top, positive/negative down the side.

Then in the middle if a situation, you think: what square am I in now? what square should I be in now? as a quick way of figuring out what you're doing.

mirror neurones are so interesting wellie- when we were concerned about ds3 we knew that if he was autistic then he would be higher functioning than ds1 because he's always been able to imitate. I still can't quite believe that ds1 can imitate- he was doing it again this morning and it just wows me.

M beef wiith AK is that he didn't seem to understand that his methods were just using social reinforcement - although admitedly I haven't read much- the bit I did read did seem to be using social reinforcement though. No he doesn't use tangible rewards, but social rewards fulfil the same function (providing the person they're directed at is reinforced by social things- if they aren't then you have to use tangible rewards or you simply won't get anywhere- full stop).

Behavioural programs tend to work towards social reinforcement anyway- any program would prefer to use social reinforcement where possible, sometimes you have to start with something that is more motivating for that particular child though. The first thing you do in any program is suss out your reinforcers, and you need to keep doing that repeatedly. You have a hierarchy, when we started we had about one reinforcer- chocolate buttons- so they're cut into quarters and used. First ds1 would get one for sitting at the table when told, then for copying someone putting an object into a box/for clapping etc . If he did it then hoorah chocolate button plus loads of swinging round- swinging round quickly became another strong reinforcer. Now 3 or 4 years later he gets reinforcement from imitation itself- he understands the social pleasure of imitating someone- even his brother- he enjoys the game itself- although he still loves to be cheered when he gets it right. Of course you don't actually need to do all that with NT children because they don't have to be taught imitation. But you can still have situations (like that I described with ds2 at the dinner table) where you start by using social reinforcement- if that;s strong enough- if it isn't use something stronger which will probably be tangible- and by doing that and getting the child to participate they discover the pleasure of the activity itself.

I don't agree aviatrix- I've worked wiith the 16-19 age group and found on the whole they were fairly well balanced, decent individuals. Most wanted to do well in exams becuase they wanted to do their best for example. Yes in some cases people are still being rewarded by some form of payment, but that may be the nature of the child rather than anything else. As I think Aloha said earlier a lot of this stuff is developmental (empathy certainly is), and so will follow its own developmental pathway in each child. For some children that sort of understanding may take a long time. Most people do start to become reinforced by social things because we are social creatures and want approval from the group in general (so as long as the group from which you are seeking approval has a strong moral code....) If someone isn't reinforced that way then you have to use some sort of payment system - you don;t have any choice- or you'll end up with someone unsocialised. The "payment" could be something like "well done" though.

My main problem with sticker charts etc is that they are often used too much, or without a real understanding of reinforcement. I think they're usually faded when they can be because they're quite hard work to keep going.

I find it fascinating to think that theory of mind, empathy, "do as you would be done by" ethics - complicated, subtle stuff that is the essence of social living - all have their basic starting point in simple imitation.

Brilliant news that your ds1 has cracked it jimjams.

it is fascinating isn't it. I suppose without it you don;t understand that anyone else's actions can apply to you (and vice versa).

although the weird thing is he's been able to tease for years- which shws some understanding of other minds....

Wellie,that is exactly how it is mapped out!!!!

Aviatrix,at present we have just written a short piece in response to a quote.I could send it to oyu when I get it back if you are interested.I will read the whole thing asap.

Exactly JJ,people forget that reinforcers refer to anything which is, well.....reinforcing!

It could be a chocolate button,it could be a clap,it could be a swing or it could be a quiet 'Well done!'

On top of that,you then have to work out what is a conditioned and unconditioned reinforcer and what is a conditioned and unconditioned reinforcer........

Yikes.

wot's "conditioned" then? Does it mean something learned over time?

i will piss my kecks when your kids are 13 and your saying calmly. now please don't do drugs. i have presented you with the information and the facts.

blah de blah

you airy fairy bunch of shytes

Yes Wellie.
So an unconditioned reinforcer is something like sex (no learning involved really to make it fun!) whereas conditioned would be money.

Unconditioned punisher is something like a parking fine or even a sharp reprimand to a child. Unconditioned punisher is something like a smack!

Sorry,I mean a fine or a sharp word is a conditioned punisher.

custardo.

For teenagers and drugs, I'm thinking the "positive punishment" square.

Will invest in a large cattle prod when the time comes.