Lecture #2 (Chomsky vs Skinner)

How did Behaviorists React to Chomsky’s Reaction Paper?

Felt exposed bc their key terms were empty

Behaviorism

Only looks at observable behavior + physical reactions of the brain; Argues that talk of the mind, representations, etc is unscientific + that we can just talk about the paired stimulus and response - all behavior is conditioned

Opposite of cognitivism

Cognitivism

Dominant approach in cog sci; Can study internal aspect of the mind without knowing how it physically works; Views the human mind as an information processor that receives, organizes, stores, and retrieves information

To understand human behavior, we need to talk about what happens inside the mind - ling notions like meaning, reference, grammar + related psych notions like thought, knowledge, concepts are req to formulate probs being studied

Opposite of behaviorism; Came to after behav disproved

What did Chomsky’s paper set the stage for?

Cog sci + ling to focus on internal, mental phenomena + meaning/reference

Pavlov Classical Conditioning with Dogs Summary

Pavlov rang a bell before feeding dogs, eventually dogs salivated when they heard bell, even if no food came

Bell also has no innate connection to food - was an arbitrary stim paired with food

Pavlov Classical Conditioning with Dogs Unconditioned Stim

Food

Pavlov Classical Conditioning with Dogs Unconditioned Response

Salivating

Pavlov Classical Conditioning with Dogs Conditioned Stim

Bell

Classical Conditioning

Pairing a response to the conditioned stimulus; Works by co-representing 2 stims

The response to the unconditioned stim “rubs off” on the conditioned stim

Association

Simple; No rational thought just brute association - the “rubbing off” of the unconditioned stim on the conditioned stim; A learning process where a neutral stimulus is paired with a biologically potent stimulus until it triggers the same physical response

Ex. 1st word you think of after salt is pepper

How can you test the strength of an association?

By seeing how long + intense the response is during extinction

Extinction

Presentation of conditioned stim without the unconditioned stim - how long will resp continue? how intense is it?

Ex. Bell without the food → amt of saliva + how long will dog salivate without food (theory says dog will stop eventually)

Little Albert Experiment (Behaviorism) Def

12 month old babies are scared by loud noises, so when loud noises made in the presence of furry obj (lab rat, rabbit, Santa mask), Albert became scared of fur

Little Albert Experiment (Behaviorism) Conclusion

Human behavior can be explained via classical conditioning (according to behaviorism)

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

More sophisticated; Increase/decrease stim-resp pairing through reinforcement + punishment to try and shape behav

4 Possibilities:

1. Positive Reinforcement (+ good)

2. Negative Reinforcement (- bad)

3. Positive Punishment (+ bad)

4. Negative Punishment (- good)

Reinforcement

Adding something good or removing something bad; Reward to encourage

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Punishment

Adding something bad or removing something good; Supposed to reduce/discourage behav

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) 4 Possibilities

1. Positive Reinforcement (+ good)

2. Negative Reinforcement (- bad)

3. Positive Punishment (+ bad)

4. Negative Punishment (- good)

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Positive Reinforcement

+good

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Negative Reinforcement

-bad

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Positive Punishment

+bad

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Negative Punishment

-good

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Skinner Box

A controlled laboratory apparatus used to study animal behavior and operant conditioning - Contains an active element like a lever, bar, or pecking key that the animal (usually a rat or pigeon) can manipulate

Actions yield consequences - such as a food pellet reward or the removal of an unpleasant stimulus like an electric current

Operant Conditioning (Skinner) Def

Prob with Behaviorism

What is associated with what exactly?

The classical associationism answer would be that a mental rep/idea of the bell is being associated with the food, but behaviorism doesnt like mental reps

Classical Associationsm on Pavlov Dog/Bell

A representation (idea) of the bell is associated with the representation of food; 2 internal mental reps are being associated

Behaviorist Goal

Getting rid of ideas + focusing only on behav

Is all behavior conditioned according to behaviorism?

Yes

Stimulus

Thing out there in the world that the creature is exposed to

Behaviorism

Response

Observable behavior

Behaviorism

2 Main Parts of Behaviorism

1. No appeal to mental status - only stim-resp pairings

2. No appeal to anything innate beyond (only instinct + drives)

Instinct

Unconditioned response pairings - part of innate factor

2 Main Parts of Behaviorism

Drives

Hunger, etc. - part of innate factor

2 Main Parts of Behaviorism

Why did Skinner add drives to the innate category of 2 main parts of behaviorism?

Bc drives create motivation for reinforcement (ex. food) + punishment - anything reducing drive is GOOD

2 Main Parts of Behaviorism

3 Reasons why Behaviorism wants to explain all behavior with such simple tools List

1. Empirical Motive → Move beyond “introspective” psych

2. Philosophical Motive → Exorcise the “ghost in the machine” (aka avoiding mind body dualism)

3. Physicalism + Scientific Worldview → Req not positing a mind

3 Reasons why Behaviorism wants to explain all behavior with such simple tools Empirical Motive

To move beyond “introspective” psych

3 Reasons why Behaviorism wants to explain all behavior with such simple tools Philosophical Motive

To exorcise the “ghost in the machine” → aka to avoid mind-body dualism/mind-body prob, so had to limit psych to physical observation

Mind-Body Problem

Puzzle of how our intangible thoughts, feelings, and conscious experiences relate to our physical bodies and brains

3 Reasons why Behaviorism wants to explain all behavior with such simple tools Physical + Scientific Worldview

Physicalism + sci worldview req not positing a mind

Scientifically Respectable Counterex to Behav

Lang → rich, sophisticated, unpredictable, distinctively human, + expresses thought

Explaining lang without ref thought is a very difficult challenge for behaviorism

Verbal Behavior by Skinner

Radical extension of behaviorism to complex human behavior

How do behaviorists view mind?

As a black box

Stim in Skinner Box

Light flash

Response in Skinner Box

Bar press

Reinforcer in Skinner Box

Food

Punishment in Skinner Box

Shock

Are stimulus, response, reinforcer, and punishment well def in Skinner Box?

Yes

Chomsky’s Critique Core Point

Technical terms like “stimulus”, “response”, and “reinforcer” are not adequately defined

Chomsky’s 2 Horns Dilemma

1. These terms (stim, resp, and reinforcer) are used with their technical meanings (like the Skinner Box), and the theory is obviously false OR

2. They are vague and empty, and secretly smuggle in mental states

1st Horn in Chomsky’s 2 Horn Dilemma

These terms (stim, resp, and reinforcer) are used with their technical meanings (like the Skinner Box), and the theory is obviously false; If Skinner means these terms literally and precisely, then his theory just doesn't work for complicated human behavior → same stim can lead to dif resp in lang!

Ex. For “Stimulus” → the rule is that there must be a lawful relationship b/w stim + resp

When you look at a painting and say “Dutch”, whats the stim? the painting?

Same stim as when you say “clashes with the wallpaper” → meaning there is no lawful stim + resp pairing (same stim leading to mult resp in lang → if it were conditioned we would say one answer consistently without even thinking about it)

2nd Horn in Chomsky’s 2 Horn Dilemma

These terms (stim, resp, reinforcer) are vague + empty + secretly smuggle in mental states

What would it look like if lang was really conditioned?

Like if we saw prof and instantly said their name every time we see them without thinking

How does Skinner explain the “Stim” lang counterex of Horn 1?

The painting contains dif stimuli, because it corresponds to extremely subtle properties of the painting → smuggling in horn 2

How does Skinner’s counter to lang producing dif responses fit horn 2?

Bc deciding what property of the painting is relevant depends on whats in the persons mind → behaviorism has secretly become mentalistic

Ex. Maybe looking at lighting, colors, etc - all depends

Proper Name

A specific name for a particular person, place, or thing

Proper Names according to Skinner

Verbal responses that are “under the control of a specific person or thing”

You are constantly stimulated by yourself

Chomsky’s Refute to Skinner’s Def on Proper Nouns + Horns Involved

You can use names for people you have never interacted with directly, like Chomsky; You’re constantly “stimulated by”/exposed to yourself, and yet not constantly saying your own name (no stim “control)

If we are talking abt Chomsky + he isnt there, it seems like we are referring to a mental rep of Chomsky

Seems like control is a misleading paraphrase here for denote or refer

Horn 1 or 2

Horn 1 for Chomsky’s Refute to Skinner’s Def on Proper Nouns + Horns Involved

If “stimulus/control” has a strict technical meaning → it doesn't explain why you can say “Chomsky” when Chomsky isn't present

Horn 2 for Chomsky’s Refute to Skinner’s Def on Proper Nouns + Horns Involved

If “control” gets broadened to mean something like “the word refers to Chomsky” → it's vague and sneaks in the very semantic/mental concepts behaviorism wanted to avoid

How is Resp Strength measured in the Skinner box?

Measured by rate of bar presses during extinction

How is Resp Strength measured in lang according to Skinner?

Volume, pitch, speed, amount + rate of repetition, low delay, size (in writing), and overall freq/probability

Skinner → If we are shown a beautiful work + say beautiful! the speed and energy is not lost on others

Chomsky on Skinner’s Idea of Resp Strength + what Horn

It is equally effective to look at the art silently (with long delay) and mutter “beautiful” → which is by def very low resp strength

1st horn

Skinner on what the reinforcer is in doing novel creative behav (music, writing, talking to self, etc) (what is reinforcement for creative)

We do it for its impact on other people; Verbal behav may reach over centuries/thousands of people, so the writer may not be reinforced often or immediately, but his net reinforcement will be great

Chomsky on Skinner on what the reinforcer is in doing novel creative behav (music, writing, talking to self, etc) (what is reinforcement for creative) + what Horn

But future readers arent reinforcing the stimulus bc theyre not a stimulus at all

Future readers are reinforcing bc author WANTS them to read book → horn 2

Chomsky’s 2 Deeper Probs for Behaviorism

1. Syntax is NOT observable (you dont hear the full syntactic structure of a sentence by looking at words but behaviorism wants to explain with observable behav)

2. Lang Acquisition doesnt work in a reinforced way (no form of conditioning could explain novel but rule gov behav)

Syntax

Form of a sentence; You dont hear the whole syntactic structure of a sentence

Syntax is Not Observable Chomsky’s Issue with Behaviorism (2 Deeper Probs) + Horn

Behaviorism wants to explain all with observable behav but syntax is NOT observable - you cant see underlying structure by looking at words

How can you be sensitive to the syntactic dif when theres no difference in physical structure? → infers mental rep (HORN 2)

Ex.

1. John is easy to please

2. John is eager to please

3. Its easy to please John

4. *Its eager to please John

1+2 hv identical form but dif syntax → theres a hidden structure that says in 1 john is BEING pleased and in 2 john IS pleasing, but surface level doesnt reveal that

3+4 have identical form but dif syntax → 3 works 2 doesnt

How quick is Operant Conditioning?

Slow + incremental

Lang Acquisition Chomsky’s Issue with Behaviorism (2 Deeper Probs)

Children hear scattered lang + do not learn from explicit instruction or reinforcement; No form of conditioning can explain novel but rule-gov behav

We understand + produce grammatical sentences that we have never heard

Poverty of Stim + Universal Grammar

Poverty of Stim

The idea that the actual data you have access to for lang is very impoverished compared to what you learn → the way you form sentences is not exactly the same as others do, you can produce your own unique sentences that you havent heard

So there MUST be something about you to learn lang (like you come in with potential to learn any lang, just depends on where you are)

Lang Acquisition Chomsky’s Issue with Behaviorism (2 Deeper Probs)

Universal Grammar

How people overcome pov of stim; Born with enough info of what syntax/lang should be like to learn from fragments to form new sentences

Lang Acquisition Chomsky’s Issue with Behaviorism (2 Deeper Probs)

Knowing a Lang according to Chomsky

Knowing a set of well-formed sentences, learned through unknown mechanisms with an unknown innate component

Lang Acquisition Chomsky’s Issue with Behaviorism (2 Deeper Probs)

What does Skinner say what is acquired when you learn to speak?

A bunch of conditioned resp

What does Chomsky say you acquire when you learn to speak?

A grammar of your language

Grammar (according to Chomsky)

A mechanism that provides an enumeration of sentences in a lang

How do we acquire the grammar according to Chomsky?

A child is like a scientist trying to theorize what the lang is in their brain + gathers data from the outside world to piece it together

The child who learns lang has constructed the grammar for himself on the basis of his observation of sentences