The difference between a methodological and radical behaviorism comes down to one question. What is a reinforcer? For a methodological behaviorist, a reinforcer is any event virtual or real that changes any attribute of behavior, from rate to intensity to form. For a radical or biological behaviorist, a reinforcer is a positive change in a specific neurologic state that is embodied by an affective tone or feeling. The latter definition was proposed by the radical behaviorists John Donahoe and David Palmer in 1994, and was independently confirmed by the affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge (with his added stress on the affective nature of reinforcement) in the same and following decades. Donahoe and Palmer proposed a neurologically grounded definition of reinforcement. Reinforcement reflected a discrepancy principle, when behavior is continually mediated by the activity of dopamine neurons elicited by continuous correction error between predictions and outcomes. Dopamine scales with the importance of the reinforcer, and is responsible for a feeling of energy and arousal, but not pleasure. The reinforcement principle from methodological behaviorism is still the guiding principle of present-day behaviorists or behavior analysts, but discrepancy principles are now core to incentive motivation theories in radical behaviorism as reflected by modern affective neuroscience. The difference between these two principles is stark in both principle and practice. Whereas a methodological behaviorist is concerned about the effectiveness of reinforcers, a radical behaviorist Is concerned about how reinforcement induces affect. To a teacher, parent, society, or politic, the effectiveness of reinforcement is paramount. However, for an individual, affect in reinforcement is of first importance. The latter is reflected in the recent work of Berridge, who emphasized that behavior change must be oriented to eliciting continuous positive affect, which is epitomized by an active and meaningful life. With this perspective where individual feelings are critical for motivation and positive affect or ‘happiness’, the metric for success for behaviorists is not behavioral control, but individual freedom, and a behaviorally engineered society that focuses on constructing the avenues that enrich the meaning or value of life, or an individual’s fully realized self-control in a free society. John Donahoe: Behavior Analysis and Neuroscience www.scribd.com/document/426400833/Behavior-Analysis-and-Neuroscience-1 The Joyful Mind: Kringelbach and Berridge sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/743/2019/10/Kringelbach-Berridge-2012-Joyful-mind-Sci-Am.pdf ‘A Mouse’s Tale’ Learning theory for a lay audience from the perspective of modern affective neuroscience www.scribd.com/document/495438436/A-Mouse-s-Tale-a-practical-explanation-and-handbook-of-motivation-from-the-perspective-of-a-humble-creature
The difference between a methodological and radical behaviorism comes down to one question.
What is a reinforcer?
For a methodological behaviorist, a reinforcer is any event virtual or real that changes any attribute of behavior, from rate to intensity to form.
For a radical or biological behaviorist, a reinforcer is a positive change in a specific neurologic state that is embodied by an affective tone or feeling.
The latter definition was proposed by the radical behaviorists John Donahoe and David Palmer in 1994, and was independently confirmed by the affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge (with his added stress on the affective nature of reinforcement) in the same and following decades. Donahoe and Palmer proposed a neurologically grounded definition of reinforcement. Reinforcement reflected a discrepancy principle, when behavior is continually mediated by the activity of dopamine neurons elicited by continuous correction error between predictions and outcomes. Dopamine scales with the importance of the reinforcer, and is responsible for a feeling of energy and arousal, but not pleasure. The reinforcement principle from methodological behaviorism is still the guiding principle of present-day behaviorists or behavior analysts, but discrepancy principles are now core to incentive motivation theories in radical behaviorism as reflected by modern affective neuroscience.
The difference between these two principles is stark in both principle and practice. Whereas a methodological behaviorist is concerned about the effectiveness of reinforcers, a radical behaviorist Is concerned about how reinforcement induces affect. To a teacher, parent, society, or politic, the effectiveness of reinforcement is paramount. However, for an individual, affect in reinforcement is of first importance. The latter is reflected in the recent work of Berridge, who emphasized that behavior change must be oriented to eliciting continuous positive affect, which is epitomized by an active and meaningful life. With this perspective where individual feelings are critical for motivation and positive affect or ‘happiness’, the metric for success for behaviorists is not behavioral control, but individual freedom, and a behaviorally engineered society that focuses on constructing the avenues that enrich the meaning or value of life, or an individual’s fully realized self-control in a free society.
John Donahoe: Behavior Analysis and Neuroscience
www.scribd.com/document/426400833/Behavior-Analysis-and-Neuroscience-1
The Joyful Mind: Kringelbach and Berridge
sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/743/2019/10/Kringelbach-Berridge-2012-Joyful-mind-Sci-Am.pdf
‘A Mouse’s Tale’ Learning theory for a lay audience from the perspective of modern affective neuroscience
www.scribd.com/document/495438436/A-Mouse-s-Tale-a-practical-explanation-and-handbook-of-motivation-from-the-perspective-of-a-humble-creature
Please how do I earn a certificate after watching
I wish we would be able to provide all of you with certificates. lol! Join our courses starting September 1st. =0)
@@ultimatebehaviorresource Thanks
very confusing!! and messy