Is operant conditioning a coercive method of behaviour modification?

Laminations

I think it is due to its use of usually explicit contingencies and external rewards and punishments, as opposed to modifying intrinsic motivation for behaviour (values, interests). A 'friend' of mine disagrees and instead likens it to teaching, suggesting it is merely a learning theory, What do you think? I'll give you a lollipop if you agree with me

Valmont

Laminations wrote: »

I think it is due to its use of usually explicit contingencies and external rewards and punishments, as opposed to modifying intrinsic motivation for behaviour (values, interests). A 'friend' of mine disagrees and instead likens it to teaching, suggesting it is merely a learning theory, What do you think? I'll give you a lollipop if you agree with me

You changed the question, removed the context, and purposefully misrepresented my posts from the politics forum. What do you want?

Laminations

Sorry does operant conditioning change its meaning in different contexts?

Valmont wrote: »

Operant conditioning has nothing to do with coercion; it is simply a fundamental law about how humans and animals learn. People and animals tend to repeat certain behaviours that lead to rewards. Please don't try and twist this into an anti-capitalism rant.

Valmont wrote: »

I believe it is called teaching in some circles.

Honestly, using a pejorative synonym for an otherwise benign term is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Valmont wrote: »

Operant conditioning isn't simply a method of changing behaviour; it is a law of nature. It exists independently of any explicit manipulation by some crazy scientist. If you can fix your broken television by kicking it then you are more likely to kick it the next time it breaks. There is no agent of control in this situation. No one is using anything. No one is explicitly modifying anything. It is simply a fact of human and animal behaviour that they will learn from the consequences of their actions. So there is no need for the nefarious mystique of some libertarian maniac consciously manipulating all of society to advance his own agenda. Allowing people to take responsibility for their actions is not coercive. Not as I understand the definition anyway.

According to your logic, any social or economic policy is 'coercive' simply because it uses the age old method of changing the consequences for certain actions. That renders the word completely meaningless.

You are mixing up operant conditioning which USES consequences to modify behaviour and discrimination or associative learning which recognises that consequences or anticedants or coincidence CAN modify behaviour. The latter is the theory, the conditioning part is using the theory for the purpose of modification

Myksyk

Sorry but that's not quite right. Both are operant conditioning. You are simply drawing a distinction between intentional and unintentional learning/conditioning. I learn through operant conditioning that hitting a light switch results in a light going on or off. It is a fundamental law in relation to the acquisition and shaping of behaviour. How does it become coercive if applied intentionally, unless of course there is something intrinsically wrong with what is being taught? It would seem obvious that any intentional shaping of behaviour can be coercive but is not so by default.

Laminations

The light switch example you give is closer related to a reverse S-R case of incidental learning or classical conditioning. It does not become operant conditioning unless the light coming on modifies (positively reinforces) the behaviour of pressing the switch. You are right that it isn't innately coercive but aversive conditioning, for exemple prison or in this case using dire consequences alone to regulate a financial market is coercion, no?
Any example of operant conditioning i have read relates to the use of consequences to modify behaviour, not just the mere fact that they can modify behaviour.

Myksyk

Laminations wrote: »

The light switch example you give is closer related to a reverse S-R case of incidental learning or classical conditioning. It does not become operant conditioning unless the light coming on modifies (positively reinforces) the behaviour of pressing the switch.

Sorry it isn't classical conditioning which involves the conditioning of reflexive physiological mechanisms. I am assuming in my example that when we learn how a light switch works, it is because our behaviour is modified/selected by its consequences i.e. we 'learn' through operant conditioning. It would indeed be odd if a young child randomly flicking a switch failed to to become operantly conditioned to its use.

You are right that it isn't innately coercive but aversive conditioning, for exemple prison or in this case using dire consequences alone to regulate a financial market is coercion, no?
Any example of operant conditioning i have read relates to the use of consequences to modify behaviour, not just the mere fact that they can modify behaviour.

Am I missing something? I would have thought it painfully obvious that it is possible to modify behaviour through punishment (the contingent presentation of aversive stimuli) or through negative reinforcement (the contingent withdrawal of negative stimuli). This does not make the process of conditioning coercive, it just means that it can be used coercively. I'm baffled as to what connection you are attempting to make between the validity of the conditioning laws of behaviour and how they might be used or abused by conscious beings??

How we should use certain knowledge has precisely nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of the knowledge itself. You can use genetic laws immorally/unethically but what has this got to do with the laws of genetics? It sounds to me like you have some valid, if obvious, questions regarding the use of certain behavioural knowledge. These are ethics questions, unless of course you are talking about the comparative usefulness/effectiveness of modifying behaviour one way over another but I don't think this is what you were getting at.

Valmont

Myksyk wrote: »

Sorry but that's not quite right. Both are operant conditioning. You are simply drawing a distinction between intentional and unintentional learning/conditioning. I learn through operant conditioning that hitting a light switch results in a light going on or off. It is a fundamental law in relation to the acquisition and shaping of behaviour. How does it become coercive if applied intentionally, unless of course there is something intrinsically wrong with what is being taught? It would seem obvious that any intentional shaping of behaviour can be coercive but is not so by default.

If only I could have hit the nail on the head so eloquently!

Kooli

Well if Valmont is trying to say that operant conditioning is not used deliberately to influence/manipulate others' behaviour, then that's not right.

But if Laminations is saying that operant conditioning is only used to influence others' behaviour, then that's not right either.

It's not one or the other, it's both. It happens in natural and benign circumstances - like touching a hot surface and burning your hand, thereby never touching that surface again. But it also can be used deliberately to manipulate the behaviour of others, such as rewarding employees who come to work early and leave late.

Valmont

Kooli wrote: »

Well if Valmont is trying to say that operant conditioning is not used deliberately to influence/manipulate others' behaviour, then that's not right.

Please read the thread in question before making an assumption on what I was trying to say! I've spent too many hours studying Skinner to stand for such a blatant misrepresentation.

Kooli

I'm only using what was quoted above.

If this belongs in another thread, then maybe it should stay in the other thread?

ultain

Valmont wrote: »

Please read the thread in question before making an assumption on what I was trying to say! I've spent too many hours studying Skinner to stand for such a blatant misrepresentation.

:rolleyes: of course skinner, yada yada.

Valmont

ultain wrote: »

:rolleyes: of course skinner, yada yada.

That makes no sense.

Kooli wrote: »

I'm only using what was quoted above.
If this belongs in another thread, then maybe it should stay in the other thread?

Of course it belongs in the other thread, that is my point. You could also read the thread in question before commenting on any opinions expressed therein.

The random quotes above are in response to different assertions, omitted from the OP, about the status of operant conditioning as a form of coercive social and economic policy (a ridiculous topic, I know).

ultain

Valmont

Kooli wrote: »

It's not one or the other, it's both. It happens in natural and benign circumstances - like touching a hot surface and burning your hand, thereby never touching that surface again. But it also can be used deliberately to manipulate the behaviour of others, such as rewarding employees who come to work early and leave late.

Would you consider it coercive to reinforce punctual behaviour?

Laminations

Valmont wrote: »

Would you consider it coercive to reinforce punctual behaviour?

How would it be reinforced? with the threat of being fired? I'd count that as coercive. Coercion doesn't have to be limited to extreme tactics like torture, it happens everyday. In fact I hate getting up at 7 in the morning for work, if it was completely voluntary then I wouldn't but I am aware of the consequences - and someone highlighting the undesirable consequences of my actions or inactions - is using operant conditioning to maintain my punctuality or attendance or productiveness. Once the motivation for my actions becomes externalised or incentivised I'm left at the risk of the possiblility that those motivators can be abused.

I will concede that operant conditioning also describes a method of learning, I was wrong to phrase it as I did. Although in saying that I'd say the natural law you were refering to was more Thorndikes Law of Effect rather than Skinners capitalising on this for operant conditioning. I suppose where I differ is that I'd call the method of learning 'instrumental learning' and the use of this method to modify behaviour 'operant conditioning'. This I'll admit is a preference thing as I've seen the labels used interchangeably. But I still think the light switch example is a very poor example of operant conditioning, it is an example of instrumental learning.

My point in the other thread was against the sole use of consequences to regulate a market as individuals in that market are not always influenced by undesirable consequences as they may have complex approach-avoidance conflicts that underlie their behaviours (take smokers or gamblers or people who commit suicide)

Valmont

Laminations wrote: »

How would it be reinforced? with the threat of being fired? I'd count that as coercive.

Well the threat of being fired is not a reinforcing stimulus. Within the scope of Skinner's work, reinforcement usually means rewarding desirable behaviours as opposed to punishing undesirable ones. Skinner's research demonstrated that punishment was a relatively inefficient means of altering behaviour as positive reinforcement works much better.

Laminations wrote: »

You talk about incentives, interests, expectations. These are the tools of operant conditioning, a most explicit form of coercion

My issue here is how you use coerce as a pejorative synonym for influence, trying to make operant conditioning seem evil or nefarious
which is simply not true.

Take your example above, we have an employer who, rightfully, wants his employees to arrive in work on time. It is perfectly reasonable for him to remind them that if they can't make it to work on time they will be fired. Calling this 'coercion' is simply re-labeling a relatively benign and everyday occurrence to seem, as the word coercion implies, wrong or immoral.

Laminations wrote: »

My point in the other thread was against the sole use of consequences to regulate a market as individuals in that market are not always influenced by undesirable consequences...

That is a good point and I don't really know how that issue could be circumvented or embraced. That might be an interesting thread for the economics or politics forums.

Kooli

Valmont wrote: »

Take your example above, we have an employer who, rightfully, wants his employees to arrive in work on time. It is perfectly reasonable for him to remind them that if they can't make it to work on time they will be fired. Calling this 'coercion' is simply re-labeling a relatively benign and everyday occurrence to seem, as the word coercion implies, wrong or immoral.
.

Yeah I agree with that, but I was talking more about the employer who rewards the staff who arrive early, stay late, work weekends etc. This feels more like 'coercion' than the above example, and is slightly less benign, but happens all the time.

JuliusCaesar

Kooli wrote: »

Yeah I agree with that, but I was talking more about the employer who rewards the staff who arrive early, stay late, work weekends etc. This feels more like 'coercion' than the above example, and is slightly less benign, but happens all the time.

So? You want the rewards (overtime pay, promotion) you do it. You feel it's wrong? Talk to your trade union- that's why we have labour laws and protection for workers.

JuliusCaesar

Kooli wrote: »

Yeah I agree with that, but I was talking more about the employer who rewards the staff who arrive early, stay late, work weekends etc. This feels more like 'coercion' than the above example, and is slightly less benign, but happens all the time.

So? You want the rewards (overtime pay, promotion) you do it. You feel it's wrong? Talk to your trade union- that's why we have labour laws and protection for workers.

Kooli

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

So? You want the rewards (overtime pay, promotion) you do it. You feel it's wrong? Talk to your trade union- that's why we have labour laws and protection for workers.

Yeah of course but I don't really see the relevance in a discussion about operant conditioning. We're not talking about a real situation here or looking for advice, just giving an example where operant conditioning can be viewed as coercive. What someone does about that is another story.

Valmont

I think this argument stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'coerce', as I understand it anyway.

• From the Collins English dictionary

Coerce: To compel or restrain by force or authority without regard to individual wishes or desires.

• From thefreedictionary.com

Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.

Within the scope of operant conditioning one has the opportunity to choose to respond. There is nothing forceful about it. You respond if you want the reward. There is always a choice and this would seem to contradict any definition of coercion I can find. If operant conditioning can be coercive, then there must be some form of punishment (in line with the description of intimidation, pressure and threats we are given) and this simply isn't the case. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

So? You want the rewards (overtime pay, promotion) you do it. You feel it's wrong? Talk to your trade union- that's why we have labour laws and protection for workers.

I can't imagine any trade union or labour laws disagreeing with the practice of rewarding good workers.

Kooli

Valmont wrote: »

I think this argument stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'coerce', as I understand it anyway.

• From the Collins English dictionary

Coerce: To compel or restrain by force or authority without regard to individual wishes or desires.

• From thefreedictionary.com

Coerce: To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.

Within the scope of operant conditioning one has the opportunity to choose to respond. There is nothing forceful about it. You respond if you want the reward. There is always a choice and this would seem to contradict any definition of coercion I can find. If operant conditioning can be coercive, then there must be some form of punishment (in line with the description of intimidation, pressure and threats we are given) and this simply isn't the case. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

I'll buy that.

Gibs

Perhaps this debate is arising more from an argument over semantics than anything else? "Coercion" does seem to have an emotive, loaded quality when describing anyone's behaviour towards another. In a way, I think that is the actual nub of this debate. I think we need to separate the intention (coercion, persuasion, encouragement, political influence, greed, revenge, love/hatred, benevolent/evil dictatorship, enlightened self-interest etc etc) in employing a particular strategy (such as operant conditioning) from the mechanism of action of the strategy itself (e.g. the way that operant conditioning pairs stimuli and response to produce an associative learning and reinforcement effect).

Coercion to my mind implies intentionality. If I coerce someone into doing something, there needs to be a capacity for intentionality on at least the side of the coercer, if not also on the side of the coerced. You can use many strategies in order to coerce people into doing things, but that does not make the strategy itself coercive. There is nothing about the structure or function of operant conditioning that has any inherent coercive properties. It seems to me that it is simply the means by which an intentional being can make certain behaviours more likely or less likely to recur under certin conditions in another being (who does not necessarily need to be an intentional being).

I think the question of whether operant conditioning is coercive is an example of a category error. I think a more coherent (though rhetorical) question would be to ask whether or not operant conditioning can be used in a coercive way by someone who has nefarious intentions. But you could also ask the same question about laws, or probably all other forms of behaviour control or modification.