Jon Krispin posted at length regarding the subject line above and I'll not
attempt a response to all of it. However, a couple of points do draw some
comments.
Jon cited me below...
>>On my part, I believe that every human being is in absolute
>>control of his or her own behavior. That said, can someone
>>put a gun to my head and coerce me into doing something I
>>wouldn't ordinarily do? Of course, but in the last analysis
>>I am the one doing the doing.
And Jon then goes on to observe...
>Here is a perfect example of an antecedent (gun to head with demand being
>made) that is very effectively paired with a consequence (a negative,
>IMMEDIATE, certain consequence). As Fred points out, the likelihood that
>this antecedent will be successful at influencing behavior is very high.
>This also illustrates what I described in my previous post on behavioral
>psychology as negative reinforcement. The behavior that results,
>compliance with the demand, is often referred to as escape or avoidance
>behavior. We will work to reduce or remove (avoid) the aversive condition
>(antecedent), and no more. As soon as the threat is removed, the behavior
>which it "motivates" will stop.
Now before I comment, let me make clear that I am not going to criticize
what Jon wrote nor do I intend being overly "picky" but I do aim to
clarify something.
Nowhere in what I said did I say that the gun to my head influences my
behavior. I will acknowledge that my actions are intended to avoid
getting shot and, eventually, removing the threat posed by the gun to my
head. But my behavior is under my control. It grows increasingly
important in my own thinking to draw a distinction between my behavior and
my actions. My actions and, frequently their effects, are observable and,
under suitable conditions, controllable by others. My behavior is not
entirely observable and it is not at all amenable to control by others.
Indeed, attempts to control my behavior will engender conflict whereas my
actions are quite often very negotiable.
Note: This distinction between behavior and actions derives
from Perceptual Control Theory as developed and
articulated by William T. Powers. The best source is
his 1973 book, Behavior: The Control of Perception.
(If any of you have been to my articles web site and
read the systems poem there, you will note the influence
of this point of view.)
So, not to be unnecessarily picky, but I think it is helpful to
distinguish between behavior and actions. Just exactly why will be
apparent in a moment.
Later in his post, Jon writes...
>Remember from my previous post on the behaviorist perspective
>that consequences that follow behavior either strengthen/reinforce the
>behavior (positive and negative reinforcement) or weaken/balance it
>(extinction and punishment).
Technically (and "pickily") speaking, that is simply not the case. There
is no way consequences strengthen or weaken any preceding behavior or
actions. Consequences might be conveniently spoken of as "shaping" future
actions in similar situations, but the behavior and actions that occurred
previously are gone off into the past where they are not influenced by
anything, not even the vagaries of memory. The same is true of any
consequences that might be seen as linked to our earlier actions. We do
remember--and we learn. We change and we adapt. But in no way is a
behavior or action at one point in time shaped by its immediately
following consequences.
[Host's Note: Fred, what if Jon is talking about future behaviors, saying
that consequences of behavior either bring more of that behavior in the
future (reinforcing) or less of it in the future (neg, balanceing)? Any
reactions to that reading of Jon's post? ...Rick]
To repeat my earlier stipulation, I am not trying here to be critical of
Jon nor do I believe I am being overly picky. I simply think that there
are tremendous errors in thinking that are invoked by blithe acceptance of
the proposition that behavior is shaped by its consequences.
(Excuse me while I go don my full suit of body armor in anticipation of a
full frontal assault from all quarters.)
[Another Host's Note: Well, you won't need much armour here... For real
jousting ("full contact"??), I think you'll have to try other spots on the
net. ...Rick]
--Regards,
Fred Nickols Distance Consulting http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>