Author Archives: Adair M Mccabe

Conditioning My Dog

Operant conditioning, as explained in class, is when an association is made between behaviors and the events that follow as a result. These behaviors produce consequences, which range from bad, neutral, to good.  By using operant conditioning, one can teach or “train” someone or something to perform a task.  After learning about this type of conditioning in class, I realized that I demonstrated this when I trained my dog.

As the trainer, I used shaping and positive reinforcement to train my dog to ring a bell on the door to let us know that he needed to be let out to do his businesss.  During “potty-training” my dog, I chose to not use punishment. Instead of punishing him when he had an accident in the house, I instead used positive reinforcement.  I had a bell hung low enough on the door so that he could reach it with his nose.  My final goal was for him to be able to ring it before he had an accident in the house.  If he had an accident in the house, I would simply coax him over to the bell, tap his nose against it, and let him outside.  Then, I started “shaping” him. At first, he started to just walk over to the door but did not get the point of ringing the bell.  Every time he would go to the door, I would give him a treat.  Then, following that, I would tap his nose against the bell and give him another treat before I let him out.  This demonstrates successive approximations.  After a few of these treat rewards, he began ringing the bell before he had an accident in the house.  I gave him a treat every time and then let him out.  By using positive reinforcement, and presenting treats as a positive stimuli, his behavior went up. Even after he learned and I stopped giving him treats, his behavior continued.  This may be because he later found the power in the bell and how he could use it to his advantage to be let out or get attention at any time he wished.  Now, he not only rings the bell to be let out to do his business, but also to be let out for enjoyment. 

 

Extraordinary Memory

As I sat in class and learned about the memory and encoding process, I started thinking about how everyone processes things differently.  Specifically, when we talked about Stephen Wiltshire, someone particular came into mind.  Stephen Wiltshire’s memory is extraordinary, and nobody can seem to explain what is simply turned on or off in his brain that gives him such a talent.  His retention and ability to see and encode details allow him to simply look at a whole city for fifteen minutes and then draw it with the most minute details included.  The average person cannot do this. While talking about Wiltshire, my Uncle came into my head.  Wiltshire is considered an autistic savant, and was diagnosed as autistic at a very young age. Although my Uncle has not been tested for autism, I believe he is an autistic savant with an extraordinary memory and encoding system.  Like Wiltshire has great visual encoding, my Uncle has great acoustic encoding.   He can hear a song played and can play it on the piano simply based off hearing.  He has listened to a Mozart or Bach piano song and has played it just by listening to it.  He actually cannot even read sheet music. His encoding and storage part of his memory process must be unique in some way to have this talent.  He can also retain this information, suggesting that hearing music for a short time creates a long term memory in my Uncle’s head.  This must be extraordinary acoustic encoding since he can replay things he hears, not sees (visual) or has memories with (semantic).  He pays attention to minute details in songs, just as Wiltshire does with visual pictures.  Just as Wiltshire lacks social skills, my Uncle does also, but makes up for it in his abilities. We know how the memory process works, but we do not understand the unique abilities of encoding in each.  I wonder what makes everyone’s different?  My Uncle may have a unique pattern recognition from sounds or auditory things (echos).  Since he has never been tested or observed for any of his talents and recognition abilities, I do not know the capacity or duration of his memories.  I do know that he has a talent that no matter how long you practice, you cannot attain.  He was born with a unique memory and ability to perceive and encode sounds.

http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/biography.aspx

Nature vs. Nurture

There are many different ways that psychology, the scientific study of behavior and mental processes, has been interpreted and studied.  The Greeks first brought up the ideas of Nativism and Empiricism.  Nativism is the viewpoint that people are the way they are because of genetics.  Nativists, who take this “nature” approach, believe that human characteristics, thoughts, and ideas are all gained hereditarily, through genetic code.  Empiricism, also known as the “nurture” approach, is the belief that experiences create who a person is and somewhat mold a person.  Empiricists think that a person’s beliefs and actions are a direct correlation to how they were nurtured and raised as a child. Empiricism and nativism are two opposite approaches to determining how people are “programmed” and in response how they act. This argument is often called “nature vs. nurture”. (Wede Psych 100 Lecture 2)

At first, thinking about nurture and nature, I would assume that nurture has the biggest impact on a person.  However, when thinking from personal experience, of being around my aunts who happen to be fraternal twins, I think that nature has the greatest effect on people.  Personally, I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that people are simply born programmed to be a certain way, but the facts around me that they are indeed are extremely evident.  My aunts were both born and raised in the same place and the same values were instilled in each.  Neither was favored over the other and neither excelled in school or athletics more than the other.  That being said, today they are polar opposites in every aspect of life.  If nurture determined how they acted and what they believed, then being brought up the same, theoretically, from an empiricism view, they should be the same.

Although they are twins, they differ in genetic makeup because they are fraternal.  My Aunt Becky happens to be very outgoing, lesbian, and democratic.  My Aunt Krista, on the other hand, is introverted, straight, and republican. They are both very independent, yet their lifestyles differ drastically.  Aunt Becky, for example, went to school for architecture and moved to Alaska on a whim; however, my Aunt Krista was an English major and is now a professor.  Krista leads a very organized life and keeps to herself, while Becky is outgoing and enjoys doing things that are unplanned.  The two were raised almost identically and yet those same experiences led to two completely different personalities.  Their ideas and characteristics must have been inborn, and nurture, while probably playing a tiny role, did not change their paths.  The two are so much opposites, that they often “butt heads”.  The views of nativism and nature have to have some sort of influence on a person.  Genetics is the only thing that could be used to describe the reasoning for such different personalities, beliefs, and thoughts between my aunts, if indeed it was an argument of nature vs. nurture.