Continued from:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,655492,656053#REPLY

This a rather long discussion of operant conditioning...

Anagramy–

This is not meant to offend you...

Your posits are very interesting. Here's my thoughts on the subject:

I am interested in the studies where you found this information, could please give me a link, title or something that will allow me to read these studies? The name of the National Geographic documentary?

I would like to posit that the behaviors you describe are a “function of environmental histories of reinforcing consequences” (B.F. Skinner, see source infra) resulting in operant conditioning.

Operant conditioning is one of the main ways the morg uses to control their members.

The dog didn’t know, by your body language, that there is food in the bucket. The human’s repeated use of the behavior leading to the food reward conditioned the dog for what to expect.

“(Women's) Intuition” (Intuition: the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. Apple OSX dictionary.) gleaned by associating with people who can hurt her/im is, also operant conditioning. The first time a person directed a certain behavior toward a woman/man s/he had no way of knowing what the outcome would be. When a negative outcome resulted, a step was made to conditioning the wo/man to expect a negative outcome when that behavior was displayed.

"Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others." At:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201107/women-s-intuition-myth-or-reality

Most abused people have developed ‘hypervigilance’. Usually through PTSD. Being hypervigilant means you can recognize behaviors you have been conditioned to associate with negative out comes, etc quickly. My dad used to beat me on a regular basis. He changed his methods and means once I learned to anticipate a beating, based on my conditioning. When he changed his methods, I had to learn to associate a new behavior with a negative outcome. Usually only took 2 or 3 times, because I was hypervigilant.

“Hypervigilance is an enhanced state of sensory sensitivity accompanied by an exaggerated intensity of behaviors whose purpose is to detect threats.” At:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervigilance

“Diagnostic symptoms for PTSD include re-experiencing the original trauma(s) through flashbacks or nightmares, avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, and increased arousal—such as difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger, and hypervigilance. Formal diagnostic criteria (both DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10) require that the symptoms last more than one month and cause significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. ISBN 0-89042-061-0. At:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#cite_note-DSM4-1

Could you give a study, anything, that supports your assertion that women are better at recognizing sexism? A definition of sexism would be helpful, too.

Why would minorities be better at recognizing racism? What is racism? Is a black person making a racial slur against a white person racism?

Woman and minorities MAY have more experience in being the victims of racism and sexism and may be hypervigilant of behaviors by others that lead them to expect a negative outcome. I say, "may be hypervigilant" because these terms are so vague and subjective to me that I find them meaningless They have to be conditioned to associate the behavior with a negative outcome. The first time they encounter a behavior, they have no idea what the outcome will be.

Behavior is not thought to be genetic. Personality traits - blue eyes, blonde, etc - are.

The Characteristics of Learned Behavior & Inherited Traits | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5379968_characteristics-learned-behavior-inherited-traits.html#ixzz27zQh7iAn

“B.F. Skinner called his particular brand of behaviorism "Radical" behaviorism. Radical behaviorism is the philosophy of the science of behavior. It seeks to understand behavior as a function of environmental histories of reinforcing consequences. Such a functional analysis makes it capable of producing technologies of behavior (see Applied Behavior Analysis). Unlike less austere behaviorisms, it does not accept private events such as thinking, perceptions, and unobservable emotions in a causal account of an organism's behavior.” (About Behaviorism Ch. 1 Causes of Behaviour § 3 Radical Behaviorism B. F. Skinner 1974 ISBN 0-394-71618-3) At:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

Operant conditioning is one of the main ways the morg holds power over their members.

In the study described in the article I'm linking to, dogs were better at reading social cues THE FIRST TIME (not in response to being trained) than apes or human toddlers or wolves.

http://www.moderndogmagazine.com/articles/how-dogs-read-human-body-language/278

Here are a few paragraphs, if you don't want to read the whole thing:

The experimental set-up used to test for such perception in animals is quite simple. Start with two inverted bucketlike containers. Place a morsel of food under one of them while the subject of the test is out of sight. Of course you must make sure that both containers have been rubbed with the food so that there is no scent difference. Now bring the subject in and give some sort of social cue to indicate which bucket actually contains the food. The most obvious cue would be to tap the container with the food. Less obvious would be to point your finger toward it. An even more muted signal would be to tilt your head or body toward it without pointing. The subtlest signal of all would be not to move your head or body but to simply look with your eyes toward the correct container. If the subject chooses the right container he gets the food. Simple, huh? Don't bet on it.

Surprisingly, Daniel J. Povinelli, a psychologist at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, found that our closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, were initially quite poor at this task. (Actually, so were three-year-old human children, though they were better than the apes.) However, both the chimps and the kids could quickly learn to read the correct cues. The real surprise came when a team led by Robert Hare of Harvard University ran the same test on dogs. The dogs could immediately interpret the signals indicating the location of the food four times better than the apes, and more than twice as well as the young children, even if the experimenter was a stranger.

Now the real question is: where did dogs get this talent? The first guess might be that since dogs are descended from pack-hunting wolves, the ability to pick up social signals evolved to help coordinate the hunt. If so, one would imagine that wolves should be at least as good at the bucket task as dogs. However when Hare tested wolves at the Wolf Hollow Wolf Sanctuary in Massachusetts, he found that they were actually worse than chimpanzees and a lot worse than dogs. The next guess might be that dogs learn to read human body language because they hang out with and watch their human families. This would suggest that young puppies, especially those still living with their littermates and not yet adopted into human families, should be poorer at picking up human signals. Wrong again! Even nine-week-old puppies, still living with their mother and littermates, do better than wolves or chimps. "The punch line is that this ability was not inherited from the last common dog-wolf ancestor, and it does not take tremendous exposure to humans," said Hare in a recent conversation.

Hi, ex...

My thoughts on your post...

The meat under the bucket was found as a function of the dogs ability to smell and operant conditioning. The olfactory senses of a dog are "...about 1,000 to 10,000,000 times more sensitive than a human’s.

Given his sense of smell, he would be able to tell the difference between the smell from a bucket smeared with food and a bucket with food underneath it. When I was working, I saw a golden retriever search dog 'air scent' where a body went into the water.

The 'gestures' are operant conditioning. Eventually, eventually the dog will look at you, then go to the bucket you indicate to get the food reward.

The article doesn't say what they did after they went to the bucket with the food under it. Want to bet the dog knocked over the other bucket, to see if there was food there? The dog goes to the indicated bucket after he is conditioned by our repeated actions. Actually, he goes to both buckets, because he doesn't understand the human concept that there is only one bucket with food under it. After, all, the other bucket - ostensibly - smells the same. So, why shouldn't the dog assume the other bucket has food underneath it, too?

That I can see, the article doesn't mention how many times the gestures where used or if operant conditioning was involved.

If there were food in neither bucket, you can bet the dog would not repeat the behavior; because the dog is cued by smell (as the article says), as well as operant conditioning.

I tried this with one of my dogs. 2 out of 3 times, he had no idea where the food was, even when I directly pointed to it. The 3rd time, he went directly to the biscuit, because he knew it was there - in other words, I had conditioned him to believe there was hidden food... All 3 times, before or after he found the food, he looked in the other hiding place for more food. All three times, he looked at me for cues and I gave them to him. Didn't seem to increase the level of success. I am pretty certain, if I did this enough times, he would connect my pointing with the food's location - operant conditioning. The dog doesn't know what the cue means the first time he sees it. The magazine doesn't say how many dogs they used or how many times they tried. My results are anecdotal.

Further, there is an inherent bias in the source of this information. Dog owners don't like to be told dogs are dumb. They like to be told that dogs are smart. The magazine, wanting to drive hits, tells them that dogs are not just smart, but smarter than their neighbor's chimpanzee.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2012 08:23PM by John_Lyle.

I didn't see it as saying that dogs are smarter than chimps, just that they are better at reading human body language. To me, those are not the same thing at all, but I guess other people may not see it the same way.

I also wondered about the smearing of the food on both buckets--it sounds like a good idea, but do they really know that it rendered the dog's sense of smell useless for this task? Maybe a dog can smell the difference between the two buckets anyway. I have a basset hound with a really good nose. I might try this out with her. She can certainly smell food in tiny amounts, and she can smell food that isn't there anymore (went after bananas that had been in the same grocery bag as lunchmeat for example.) But can she smell the difference between just a smear, and a smear that is next to an actual piece of food? You know, as I am thinking about this, I suspect that she can. She doesn't go after things like bananas or the tablecloth if there is actual food around, only when those items are the only things that smell like food.

As I read the article I had a lot of questions about the dogs used. Were they family pets? Were they lab animals? How many? Which breeds? How many trials did each dog do?

They do learn pretty quickly. If they are looking for an innate skill and not a learned behavior, I think they'd be able to do it only once with each dog. My impression from reading the article was that the dogs got it right immediately, while the chimps learned quickly after just a couple of trials.

When I was teaching my dog the "leave it" command, I did it by putting down a treat, telling her to leave it, and then rewarding her with a different treat. After the 2nd time, she caught on to the fact that I was putting down the 'leave it' treat with my left hand and giving her the reward with my right hand, so she started ignoring treats from my left hand. That wasn't what I had intended to teach her, but that was the pattern I'd been using without even thinking about it. So that also makes me wonder if there were some other cues that the dogs were picking up on that the researchers weren't aware of.

I think Willard goes along because he was raised Mormon and he is really connected to his dad. I don't think he necessarily takes all the doctrine and rules all that seriously. He can go boating on Sunday, no problem.

On the other hand, I think Harry Reid, being a convert, does take it seriously. Hence his being appalled when Willard lies/fudges on his taxes, and his statement that Willard's dad would be ashamed of him.

The Bain party videos, Willard's "pranks", his total disdain for the less fortunate, and many other accounts make it clear his emotional and social development was arrested long ago. Willard is just not mature at all. He is used to having his own way in everything. It never occurs to him to consider others' feelings. And keep in mind that many wars were started as a result of hurt feelings.

That's my take on it.

He could be a narcissist. Narcissists take advantage of anyone and everyone around them, sucking up to them as needed, but their views change with the wind, acc. to whatever will help them get the advantage they want/need.

I don't know Romney personally, so cannot say if he is or isn't a narcissist. One of hte traits of a narcissist is they always have to get their way. And they don't care who they step on to get it.

They are exceptionally good at sucking up to people to ask them for things and put on a really good show to get others to have sympathy for them. They usually don't understand that some people can see right through them. They think they can fool everyone. But when they come up against someone whom they cannot fool, they just steer clear of said person(s).

Is he like this? I'm curious. If he's just ADD, well... that's interesting. Does he have treatment for it? If not, I'm not sure I'd want him going around talking to other leaders including world leaders and blurting out things due to out of control ADD.

The documentary about dogs is called "Dogs Decoded" and you can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM1JsGr76Ro


I am not interested in going over a broad question like "What is Racism" or "What is gender discrimination."

My point is that victims of abuse (and discrimination is a form of abuse) are more sensitive to body language. You may disagree, which is fine.


Anagrammy


A

Sorry I posited the questions about sexism and racism inartfully. They were meant to rhetorical.

I agree that some people recognize things faster than others. As I used in my example, I learned real fast to read cues from my father that I was about to get beaten.

Hypervigilance would tend to support what you say, wouldn't it?

I was trying to explain a different theory why I thought the distinctions made were due to a particular phenomena - operant conditioning.

Sorry I offended you...

Please look at his history during the Sonia Johnson time up through the Sept 6. In the late 80's many Mormon women were fed up with the church's treatment of women. Ann seems to be clueless to real women.Oh, to be so thspecial!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2012 12:27AM by hellonwheels.

Sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, bipolar - genetic disorder seen in many people from polygamist ancestry. One has to recognize anyone who feels they are royalty because their ancestor slept with many women, tried to form and rule their own nation and start a war with the US,is not right in the head. Not even to begin to speak of the murders of unarmed women, children and men - these decedents of early polygamist are not royalty and have bad genes to begin with, or they would have recognized they were NOT royalty early on.

Denial, self-aggrandizement, entitlement are keystones in the Mormon experience and is long lasting to those who descend from it.

The predisposed disorders are made worst by the social conditioning of the Mormon culture, often lasting a lifetime.

Even getting around people raised in the Mormon Community is enough to give someone PTSD. Yikes, totally scary people, and they never like the truth told about them. Deflection and denial are the air they breath.

I agree with/that "Most Mormons Are Mentally Ill."

Even after discovering TSCC is a cult, and even after officially resigning from it, I would have strongly disagreed that most Mormons are mentally ill. But now, in the last two years, I have come to that conclusion, myself. My GA, polygamy-based, Joseph Smith's neighbors, family is very dysfunctional. Looking so "nice" on the surface, my brothers abused me, stole from me and others, were selfish and pretentious to the core. My parents were cold, critical, authoritarian, selfish, and were in denial that anything was wrong with us. My parents complained that the reason I had severe stomach aches, was stick-thin, nervous, and sick, was that "it was all in my imagination." They thought I was exaggerating my brother's fierce attacks on me. My father beat me for fighting back, or even complaining. My parents did not love us--just criticized and called us names--and they did not protect me or keep me safe and healthy. When I left that house (the day after graduation), the stomach aches and insomnia went away. The whole Mormon way of life was toxic for me!

I went on a few dates with Mitt Romney's brother (He was older and too wild for me at the time.) My mother dated George Romney. Our families were acquainted. It scares me to think that maybe Mitt was raised basically the same way my brothers were raised.

Forestpal - Sorry you had such a sappy dad, but that is the way Mormon dads are. Yes, denial, lack of conscience, exploitation and a need to become part of and form cliques to mob people are incessant in the Mormon multi-generational Mormon psyche. The need to victimize the helpless, like the disarmed men, women and children of the Mountain Meadows Massacre - Mormons seeing them as God sent victims to rob and enrich themselves off of, is the forerunner of the Mormon need to scam and exploit unwilling and helpless victims everywhere.

I am so glad my dad was a spunky man who took little from robbing braggarts choosing to send the packing , and although not a perfect man, taught honesty and NOT to harass and mob people, as well as, not to let people get away with it when they do whether- they are in the church or out of it.

Mitt has a serious case of ADHD - and uses other people's talents - so much for his talents of organization.

Ha, ha, Mitt would use the presidency to corrupt, just as he and his friends have done in every position they have ever had.

Mitt's ADHD - and as Ann Romney said, she is worried about Mitt's mental health. Unstable personalities in the Romney family.

Never met so many cruel and mentally challenged than the people in the LDS Church, nor so many cruel people as many of the ones who left the LDS Church.

I hate to say it, but Romney's father was a beter man. He challenged the church.

I have family members who have worked for Mitt Romney. I was involved in the SLC Olympics and have been in meetings with him. Yeah Mitt is a mormon but he's also a very good organizer and manager. Mitt is a high energy type person. He has to do something or it would drive him crazy.

I actually could care less that Mitt is Mormon. I really don't think he would use the presidency to push the church on the country. I think if anything, the church will keep a low profile because a US President no matter who they are get a ton of negative attention. I don't think the church wants to be tied in with that.

>Could you give a study, anything, that supports your assertion that women are better at recognizing sexism? A definition of sexism would be helpful, too.

Why would minorities be better at recognizing racism? What is racism? Is a black person making a racial slur against a white person racism?"

You seem to have read up a lot on behaviorism and biology but know virtually nothing about the humanities. if you are really interested in these subjects buy yourself some texts on sociology or race/gender studies.