You Are Not So Conditioned

David McRaney has a great post on the You Are Not So Smart Blog.

He’s talking about conditioning, and our ability to act with “free will,” specifically in his post, with regards to diet.

McRaney mentions the work of BF Skinner, the “father” of Operant Conditioning.

“Skinner became convinced conditioning was the root of all behavior and didn’t believe rational thinking had anything to do with your personal life. He considered introspection to be a “collateral product” of conditioning.”

I’m not sure if that’s 100% true or not, but it’s an interesting viewpoint.

There is leverage, I believe, in what you choose or disagree to become conditioned to/by.

The author makes a distinction between three types of conditioning states:

Classical Conditioning – An “unconditioned stimulus” (a neutral stimulus such as a bell ringing) is used in coordination with a “conditioned stimulus” (one that generates a certain response, such as meat) to create a “conditioned response.” The classic example is Pavlov’s dog salivating with the ringing of the bell. Food was placed before the dog (conditioned stimulus), and a bell was rung (unconditioned stimulus) when the dog began salivating. Over time, the dog would salivate merely when the bell was rung (conditioned response).

Operant Conditioning – The alteration of behavior punishment or reward (“reinforcement”) of normal behavior. For instance, give the pigeon a food pellet every time it presses a lever, or a shock if it presses the “wrong” lever. Obviously, animals usually seek behaviors that lead to reinforcement responses, and avoid behaviors that lead to punishment responses from their environment.

Extinction – Is an element of Operant Conditioning in which a behavior is neither punished nor rewarded. The behavior declines in frequency.

An “extinction burst,” according to the author, is when you have a strong negative reaction to the lack of expected response from your environment.

The author finishes by saying:
“To give up overeating, or smoking, or gambling, or “World of Warcraft,” or any bad habit which was formed through conditioning, you must be prepared to weather the secret weapon of your unconscious – the extinction burst.

Become your own Supernanny, your own Dog Whisperer. Look for alternative rewards and positive reinforcement. Set goals, and when you achieve them, shower yourself with garlands of your choosing.

Don’t freak out when it turns out to be difficult. Habits form because you are not so smart, and they cease under the same conditions.”

Yes, I couldn’t agree more with this. But how do you do that? How do you “weather the storm?”

Goal-setting has always seemed extremely arbitrary, and less than motivating to me. The process has always been my concern – right here, right now.

I prefer to focus on something that grounds me to the present in order to weather my “extinction bursts.”

For me, that comes from a practice of increasing sensitivity, and awareness, or sensitive-awareness, through deeper connection to my physical being (which, for me, is also – spiritual, mental/emotional, environmental, communal/social).

I think this practice also leads to the shedding of “unnatural” habits.

And then something happened…

We like to think that we have it all figured out all the time.

Or that we don’t have anything figured out, and that we’re totally helpless.

It seems infrequent that we actually play in the grey areas – where we might actively admit what we really do know, and what we really do not, and let the rest lie, or fall where it may.

Life is surprising, beyond our comprehension, and we pay it so little attention, that we really shouldn’t be approving or disapproving of different circumstances, or things that occur. It really doesn’t make sense to claim an understanding of “cause and effect” where we have none.

However, in every action, or event, we create this idea that we had some control over it. Or, even, that we planned the event.

And it passes. And it is forgotten. And we do it again.

Instead of participating in this post-facto justification – which may be the single purpose for our neo-cortex – instead, do something else…

Listen…

Listen to what’s actually occurring around you, and within you, now. Listen deeply. Listen to the whisper of the blood in your veins. It’s audible. You just have to listen.

Listen to the traffic out on the street, and then listen further. How many blocks away can you listen? How far out can you stretch that awareness?

Listen to the people speaking to you in your life. Stop doing other things. Stop text-messaging during an in-person conversation. Stop trying to “multi-task” (you can’t, anyway). Stop speaking in your own head when the other person is talking, and listen.

Listen.

Teaching, Communication, Animal Behavior

A few weeks ago I commented on a blog post by my friend JR Atwood.  He had posted a brief clip from the Uncommon Schools‘ teacher training methodology.  My comment, essentially, was “That looks just like dog training!”

In a private response, he mentioned that it would be interesting to see a comparison of the two – teaching methods for children vs. dog-training methods.

True to my word, I hit the books over the course of the past couple of weeks and read two dog-training texts.  One of them, was Lew Burke’s “Dog Training”

Burke's book is about very specific techniques...

Ready for the comparison?

The first rule of dog training is that dogs require clear (matching your training method with your desired outcome from the dog), concise (one word), and consistent (always the same command for the same desired outcome) communication.

Regarding this first video from Uncommon Schools, we can focus on the “clarity” bit.  But there’s another point, I’ll share with you after you’ve enjoyed this video:

Reward is a better motivator than punishment.  More importantly, it’s crucial to discriminate between normal communication (acknowledgment, above), and praise.  This is true for dogs as well.  Giving a dog a friendly word is different from giving a dog a treat.

Only give a dog a treat when it has done something to deserve it.

Dog training actually goes a little deeper than that, but you have to earn that lesson…

Strong Voice

It is important to use proper TONE when speaking to your dog.

NLP literature points out that 87% of communication is body language, 10% is the tone of your speech, and only 3% of your communication is conveyed in the actual content of your words.  (I’m guesstimating those percentages…too lazy to look up the exact reference right now).

This lesson carries over to dog training as well.  Your dog will discern a lot about you from the way you hold yourself.  Raise a fist to strike it, and it isn’t going to respond kindly.  Act wildly, and it will think you’re unreliable.

Tone is equally important for dog-training.  Most people who have ever had a dog have used the old trick of saying a bunch of nasty names or things about their dog in a candy-sweet voice.  The dog invariably wags its tail, not connecting the content to the tone.

Few dogs – showdogs, mostly – have the range of vocabulary to really understand that last 3% of human communication anyway…

Now watch this:

Eye contact is used here.  In dog training, the books used for this post mention that either direct eye contact, OR removal of attention, can be used equally well to convey your “leadership” status.

For instance, when giving the dog food, you might look directly (and seriously) into its eyes as you give the “sit” command.  Again, the dog must earn everything it gets from its leader (you).

Or, you might say “sit” and look away from the dog, removing your attention (a valuable thing to a dog).  When it does sit, you can bring your attention back to the dog, lavish it with praise, put the food down, and leave it to eat.

Cold Call

A dog must respond to your command any time you issue it.  It cannot be sporadic response.

That being said, once a dog has learned a skill, the best way to reinforce it is through random reinforcement.

More Thoughts

Now, before you go yelling at me, telling me how insensitive I am to suggest that children are just like dogs, think about this for a second.  First, I’m not just talking about children here (read my previous post on the difference between “children” and “adults”).  Second, and more importantly, I think it’s time we begin looking at how we actually behave, instead of how we’d like things to be.

The use of motivational tactics is nothing new.  I’ve seen plenty of parents these days with leashes on their children!

I think what is (relatively) new in our culture is the lack of consistent understanding about how animals (dogs, pigs, cattle, human beings, monkeys, whatever) behave, and how to treat animals if you want something from them.

In older times (here I go, romanticizing the past…) we dealt with animals quite a deal more.  We also had very real “survival” demands to take care of (for instance, if we were farmers).  Now that we’re removed from those things, we think there is some sort of “distance” (real and figurative) between us human beings and the other animals in the kingdom of animalia.

Do you think so?

I’ll leave you with this, a quote from Nicholas Dodman’s book, “The Well-Adjusted Dog”:

“Think about it.  You have removed your pet’s need to hunt by supplying food.  You have removed his romantic interests by neutering him.  You have removed his social needs by depriving him of pack interests and competition.  He can’t even wander and explore his outside territory, let alone try to resolve his own problems – because there aren’t any…So what’s a poor dog to do?  Channel his energy in unacceptable ways, that’s what.” pg. 136

Indeed!

Cults

Posted this reponse to John Sifferman’s latest blog entry about Crossfit.  While I agree with John about Crossfit, I think it’s important to find the deeper needs that people are trying to fulfill through their actions, and speak to those, instead of battling on the surface all the time.

Here it is:

Hi John,

Good post.  I encounter this in many areas of my life on a daily basis.  Trainers are often just as (if not, at times, more) guilty of “cult-following” as any trainee.  Trainers in the cults of Chek, Verstegen, Sonnon (no offense intended!), Pavel, etc., only look at training through the lens of their leader’s viewpoints.

I think the bottom line with these cults harkens back to the definition of the word.  Cult means “religion,” in Latin, and, as such, a cult is a “community of like-minded individuals.”

By the very nature of this type of structure, it is exclusive, and exclusionary – it seeks to pit itself over/above/against any other group.

Does that make it right?

Not at all.  But for the people in the cult, all they see is their cult-ure.  Their fellow cultists are constantly there to back them up.

It’s kind of a useless battle to fight.

Instead, I’m always interested in the background for the cult’s beliefs.  What is/are the need/s that is/are being fulfilled by/through the cult, through membership in it, and also through the exclusivity of the cult?

When I look at it from that perspective, I become more empathetic.  I understand that the person is trying to feel connected to something, they want to achieve an image of themselves that they feel the cult offers, they want to belong to something that supports them, etc.

If I can offer them those feelings from my own heart, then we can have a meaningful dialogue about it.  Till then, though, we just butt heads.

Josh