第四课(耶鲁大学-心理学导论讲稿)(3)

want my kid to do something, I should say yes one out Unfortunately, that's the StudentProfessor Paul Bloom: The discussion was over using things like poker chips for exactly right. Since the connection with the poker chips is established Student: [inaudible]

Professor Paul Bloom: As far as I know, Skinner and Skinnerian psychologists were never directly involved in the creation of prisons. On the other hand, the psychological theory of behaviorism has had a huge impact and I think a lot of people's ways of thinking about criminal justice and criminal law has been shaped by behaviorist principles. So for instance, institutions like mental institutions and some prisons have installed token economies where there's rewards for good behavior, often poker chips of a sort. And then you could

耶鲁大学开放课程《心理学导论》 讲稿 第四课

cash them in for other things. And, to some extent, these have been shaped by an adherence to behaviorist principles.

Okay. So, here are the three general positions of behaviorism. (1) That there is no innate knowledge. All you need is learning. (2) That you could explain human psychology without mental notions like desires and goals.

(3) And that these mechanisms apply across all domains and across all species. I think it's fair to say that right now just about everybody agrees all of these three claims are mistaken.

First, we know that it's not true that everything is learned. There is considerable evidence for different other animals is built-in.

Is it true that animals need reinforcement to learn? No, and there's several Professor Paul Bloom鈥 entirely contrary to the behaviorist idea exploit and might channel, but essentially, they do have certain natural ways of acting towards the world. We know that not all stimuli and responses are created equal. So, the Gray textbook has a very nice discussion of the Garcia effect. And the Garcia effect goes like this. Does anybody here have any food aversions? I don't mean foods you don't like. I mean foods that really make you sick. Often food aversions in humans and other animals can be formed through a form of association. What happens is suppose you have the flu and you get very nauseous and then at the same point you eat some sashimi for the first time. The

耶鲁大学开放课程《心理学导论》 讲稿 第四课

connection between being nauseous and eating a new food is very potent. And even if you know intellectually full well that the sashimi isn't why you became nauseous, still you'll develop an aversion to this new food. When I was younger 鈥 when I was a teenager 鈥 I drank this Greek liqueur, ouzo, with beer. I didn't have the flu at the time but I became violently ill. And as a result I cannot abide the smell of that Greek liqueur. Now, thank God it didn't develop into an aversion to beer but-- [laughter] Small miracles. But the smell is very distinctive and for me--was new to me. And so, through the Garcia effect I developed a strong aversion.

special to taste and nausea. It doesn't extend more generally.

there are certain phobias that we're specially evolved to humans and chimpanzees, for history.

his "Review of Verbal Behavior." prominent intellectuals alive. He's still a intellectual endeavor.

Verbal Behavior, talks about the question of why pleasant And Skinner says that they all involve reinforcement; those are all reinforced He doesn't literally mean even that when we talk to ourselves somebody pats us on the head and says, "Good man. Perfect. I'm very proud." What he means, for instance, in this case is well, talking to yourself is self-reinforcing or giving bad news to an enemy is reinforcing because it makes your enemy feel bad.

Well, Chomsky says the problem is not that that's wrong. That's all true. It's just so vague as to be useless. Skinner isn't saying anything more. To say giving bad news to an enemy is reinforcing because it makes the enemy feel bad doesn't say anything different from giving bad news to an enemy feels good because we like to give bad news to an enemy. It's just putting it in more scientific terms.

耶鲁大学开放课程《心理学导论》 讲稿 第四课

More generally, Chomsky suggests that the law of effect when applied to humans is either trivially true, trivially or uninterestingly true, or scientifically robust and obviously false. So, if you want to expand the notion of reward or reinforcement to anything, then it's true. So why did you come--those of you who are not freshmen--Oh, you--Why did you come? All of you, why did you come to Yale for a second semester? "Well, I repeated my action because the first semester was rewarding." Okay. What do you mean by that? Well, you don't literally mean that somebody rewarded you, gave you pellets and stuff. What you mean is you chose to come there for the second semester. And there's nothing wrong with saying that but we shouldn't confuse it with science. And more generally, the problem is you can talk about what other people do in terms of reinforcement and punishment and operant conditioning and classical conditioning. But in way that in the end you're not saying anything scientific.

us a richer understanding of certain learning mechanisms, particularly Mechanisms like habituation, classical conditioning and operant they can be to on Wednesday actually, behaviorists have provided training particularly for young children and babies and also want to help autistic or the severely