4 ms·

That doesn’t make sense at all. That interpretation would make “positive reinforcement” and “negative punishment” redundant, and it would make “positive punishm

That doesn’t make sense at all. That interpretation would make “positive reinforcement” and “negative punishment” redundant, and it would make “positive punishment” and “negative reinforcement” contradictory. It’s very difficult to effectively reason about modes of operant conditioning when you throw that much nuance out of the window.

tpoacher 5y ago
I don't see why. a) the word "punishment" is misleading, since not all negative stimuli are punishments in nature. b) if removing a stimulus is reinforcing behaviour in some way, then it is reinforcement. The argument isnt to reverse the meanings of existing labels containing the word punishment. The argument is that the four categories should be, e.g.: 1. "Positive": Reinforcement of behaviour from positive stimulus 2. "Antipositive" (or similar term): Reinforcement from reversal of positive stimulus 3. "Negative": Reinforcement of behaviour from a negative stimulus 4. "Antinegative": Reinforcement from reversal of a negative stimulus.
- ascar 5y ago
  The thing is punishment is not reinforcing behavior, it is prohibiting behavior. Reinforcing means increasing the likelihood (by adding something liked or by removing something disliked) while punishment refers to reducing the likelihood (by adding something disliked or removing something liked). If you look at it from a logical point of view both reinforcing stimuli are positive (in the sense of good for the subject, i.e. directly good or not bad) while punishing stimuli are both negative for the subject (in the sense of bad for the subject, i.e. directly bad or not good). The language problem and common mistake comes from the usage of positive and negative with a different meaning from the usual meaning in the context of behavior. Thinking of it like additive and subtractive is more helpful. But making the meaning of reinforcement less specific isn't really helpful.
  - tpoacher 5y ago
    I think we'll agree to disagree, since this is literally playing on words. To me "reinforcement" alludes to a reinforcement of behaviour, not likelihood of action vs inaction. So it's a case for increasing the specificity of the word, not decreasing it. If every time you try to open the door you get an electric shock, this is a "negative/punishing" stimulus that reinforces a particular behaviour of avoiding doors. Similarly if you used to get a treat every time you opened the door which then reinforced a door-opening behaviour, and then you suddenly stop giving treats, then this is the removal of a "positive/rewarding" stimulus, which 'weakens' the particular, previously reinforced behaviour of opening doors. At the very least we should be talking about 'reinforcement vs weakening', 'positive/rewarding stimuli vs negative/punishing stimuli', and 'application vs removal of stimulus'. So, linguistically speaking, using the term "negative reinforcement" to mean "weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" rather than "reinforcement via application of a negative stimulus" is simply misleading, and bad choice of terminology.
    - ascar 5y ago
      I do agree that the terminology isn't ideal and easily misleading, that's why it's so commonly used incorrectly. And weakening might be more fitting than punishment. > So, linguistically speaking, using the term "negative reinforcement" to mean "weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" rather than "reinforcement via application of a negative stimulus" is simply misleading, and bad choice of terminology. Using your terminology "Negative reinforcement" actually means "reinforcement by removal of a negative stimulus". "Weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" is the description of negative punishment. The crux of the problem is that positive and negative are not a descriptive property of the stimulus in this context, but just synonyms for additive/subtractive and I agree that this is misleading.

tpoacher 5y ago

I don't see why. a) the word "punishment" is misleading, since not all negative stimuli are punishments in nature. b) if removing a stimulus is reinforcing behaviour in some way, then it is reinforcement. The argument isnt to reverse the meanings of existing labels containing the word punishment. The argument is that the four categories should be, e.g.: 1. "Positive": Reinforcement of behaviour from positive stimulus 2. "Antipositive" (or similar term): Reinforcement from reversal of positive stimulus 3. "Negative": Reinforcement of behaviour from a negative stimulus 4. "Antinegative": Reinforcement from reversal of a negative stimulus.

ascar 5y ago
The thing is punishment is not reinforcing behavior, it is prohibiting behavior. Reinforcing means increasing the likelihood (by adding something liked or by removing something disliked) while punishment refers to reducing the likelihood (by adding something disliked or removing something liked). If you look at it from a logical point of view both reinforcing stimuli are positive (in the sense of good for the subject, i.e. directly good or not bad) while punishing stimuli are both negative for the subject (in the sense of bad for the subject, i.e. directly bad or not good). The language problem and common mistake comes from the usage of positive and negative with a different meaning from the usual meaning in the context of behavior. Thinking of it like additive and subtractive is more helpful. But making the meaning of reinforcement less specific isn't really helpful.
- tpoacher 5y ago
  I think we'll agree to disagree, since this is literally playing on words. To me "reinforcement" alludes to a reinforcement of behaviour, not likelihood of action vs inaction. So it's a case for increasing the specificity of the word, not decreasing it. If every time you try to open the door you get an electric shock, this is a "negative/punishing" stimulus that reinforces a particular behaviour of avoiding doors. Similarly if you used to get a treat every time you opened the door which then reinforced a door-opening behaviour, and then you suddenly stop giving treats, then this is the removal of a "positive/rewarding" stimulus, which 'weakens' the particular, previously reinforced behaviour of opening doors. At the very least we should be talking about 'reinforcement vs weakening', 'positive/rewarding stimuli vs negative/punishing stimuli', and 'application vs removal of stimulus'. So, linguistically speaking, using the term "negative reinforcement" to mean "weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" rather than "reinforcement via application of a negative stimulus" is simply misleading, and bad choice of terminology.
  - ascar 5y ago
    I do agree that the terminology isn't ideal and easily misleading, that's why it's so commonly used incorrectly. And weakening might be more fitting than punishment. > So, linguistically speaking, using the term "negative reinforcement" to mean "weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" rather than "reinforcement via application of a negative stimulus" is simply misleading, and bad choice of terminology. Using your terminology "Negative reinforcement" actually means "reinforcement by removal of a negative stimulus". "Weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" is the description of negative punishment. The crux of the problem is that positive and negative are not a descriptive property of the stimulus in this context, but just synonyms for additive/subtractive and I agree that this is misleading.