I think I caused some confusion, let me try and restate:
Imprinting is not learned behavior, it is inborn programming. The classic experiment involved goslings exposed to a moving silhouette overhead. None of the little birds had ever witnessed flight and were in isolation following birth. The silhouette stimulus was two spread wings with short and long protrusions representing the head and tail between the wings. When the Stimulus travel in a direction with the short end forward the young birds panicked. The same stimulus reversed it’s direction there was no problem. Presumably with short-neck-long-tail was a hawk silhouette, while the long-neck-short-tail was a goose. It was concluded that behavior could not have been learned, and was termed “imprinting.”
Concerning avoidance learning in SR theory -- Dogs, rats, or whatever were placed in a Skinner box. A light was turned on and the subjects shocked unless they pressed a leaver. Soon they learned the appropriate avoidance response – press the leaver and avoid pain. Funny thing, after the response was learned, actual negative reinforcement was discontinued. Guess what? The rats kept on pressing the leaver when the light came on. On the other hand, when he establish positively reinforced behavior, such as a food pellet reward when the leaver was pressed, as soon as the positive reinforcement was removed learning continued and the habit was slowly extinguished.
What do you think would happen if negative and positive reinforcement for the same behavior were randomized?
Those are the type situations I was trying to describe in my earlier posting. And yes there are experimental psychologists arguing the dubious theoretical details as we speak.
Your points are well taken and thought provoking. Brainwashing, etc., very interesting. How can this help us predict market behavior?
Ted |
