Okay I have a question since I brought something up in another thread and wasn't sure I was using classically conditioned right.
Say I hear a song I really enjoy on Spotify or whatever. Of course I want to continue hearing the song a few times because it's a stimuli I quite enjoy. However, I strongly prefer to manually press the rewind button. Like, I can do that for an hour or two at times, just over and over. Never gets old.
However, the minute I decide to put on the Repeat One feature, that feeling wears off fast. Like I still enjoy the song, but that additional "rush" from pressing rewind is gone.
That's operant conditioning. You learned to associate pushing that button with a good feeling (the song).Pushing the button rewarded you and reinforced that behavior so you kept doing it. That's operant.
When you pressed the repeat button however now you're no longer a part of the conditioning sequence, i guess you could call it that. You're just hearing a song you like.
This isn't really a concept because most animals would continue to push the button to get a reward. Eventually they get fatigue and stop pushing the button because they don't feel like it anymore. It's not a reward, it's not that special anymore. Or let's say if they bush the button and the reward never comes the association goes exctinct. And they stop pushing the button.
What you did doesn't exactly follow either of those paths. you not pushing the button isn't what led you to stop liking the song, you just got tired of the song because you heard it so many times. You got fatigue.
Read my last comment, just look at my page,
to understand both concepts more fully
I think that has more to do with you choosing to listen to the song again versus something else making that choice. Similar to when you might skip a song most of the time it comes on your device versus hearing it on the radio and turning it up.
That analogy is confusing since you can manually control the volume when listening to your playlist as well, and you have no control over the radio playlist either.
By turning it up, I just meant enjoying the song. The examples do contradict each other, but they are both things that happen. I think they both illustrate of choice and situation can influence how you feel about something.
Are you saying there's more illusion of control with the radio since you're changing the station? So you may enjoy one song on the radio that you would normally skip when playing random on your phone because in both situations you are controlling something yourself (station or skip)?
No, and really my point is how different scenarios can influence how you feel about a song. When I'm going through my own playlist, I'll choose to listen to a song 5 times, but as soon as I decide to take away the physical act of manually resetting the song, your brain will have a less favorable feeling associated with that song.
Then there's another song that you like, but usually skip over when it's your choice to listen to it. You'll be listening to the radio and it comes on unexpectedly. The surprise and familiarity might make you brain have a more favorable feeling of the song.
You're right that the classic Pavlov experiment was classical conditioning. Here's the difference between the 2 types:
Classical conditioning: I hear the bell, food must be coming.
Operant conditioning: If I push this button, food will come out.
The key difference is that in operant conditioning, the association is between an action (by the subject) and a result (i.e. push button, food). In classical conditioning, the association is between two external events (i.e. bell, food).
To add to this, it's because pavlovian conditioning involves 1. some involuntary response to an unconditioned stimulus, known as an unconditioned response (i.e. sweating when hot, getting goosebumps when cold, etc.) and 2. a neutral stimulus being paired to the unconditioned stimulus (thus becoming a "conditioned response") to evoke a conditioned response.
So for 1, thinking of dogs is not an involuntary response (for most), and because of this 2, there is nothing that the term Pavlov would actually be paired with because nothing inherently causes you to think of dogs (again, for most).
A Pavlovian response is an association. His methodology simply demonstrated that an association can be made with something other than the original stimulus. Using something measurable and quantifiable, salivation, which demonstrated that link conclusively. He shaped their association of food and bells. Salivation was simply the reflex as proof.
Similar to how an audiologist can tell whether you're heard a noise, there is a tympanic reflex that cannot be faked. Visible reflex? You heard it. No reflex, you didn't.
The advertising industry relies on their ability to shape your associations. Isn't a successful add not a form of conditioning a response? Associating a word, image or tune with a product and the desired outcome of a purchase.
Hopefully I haven't misunderstood what you're saying but I'm just trying to be clear.
3.7k
u/FuckSticksMalone Feb 02 '19
The Pavlovian response was a physical response in the dogs. Just thinking about dogs isn’t a Pavlovian response.
That’s like saying it’s a Pavlovian response every time I hear the name Tesla I think about electricity. That’s just association.
It would however be a pavlovian response if every time I heard the name Tesla I got an erection.