I was going to respond to this in its original thread, but it is enough of a tangent that I bring it here instead. The exchange here is between Beleth, first, who is responded to by Cleopatra:
Much of this is seen, in the behaviorist literature, as "superstitious behavior", and much has been written on it. I hasten to add, though, that this label is used as a technical term, not in any derogatory sense. These behaviors are ones in which we act as if there is a causal connection between our actions and the things we are trying to influence, when in fact there is no such causality (at least, at first--but wait for the next paragraph). The textbook example is of the superstitious ritual an athlete goes through before a game, or before a particularly important moment in a game. If their performance was dependent on that ritual, we would see imitation of successful rituals, ritual coaches, how-to books on better rituals...but of course, different athletes each have their own. It is not the specific behaviors that matter.
Ah, but if you stop them--if you do not allow them to complete their ritual--their performance suffers! What is the deal here? The straightforward behavioral description is that the ritual has become a discriminative stimulus, a signal to act in a particular way. Without that signal (and no, it need not be something you are completely aware of), the subsequent behavior is less fluid, more rule-governed and less contingency-shaped, less automatic. It is as if the traffic lights are gone--the drivers know how to drive, but it is much more difficult now.
In some cases, discriminative stimuli need not be consciously perceived, while in others they may be. (In each circumstance, there may be a number of discriminative stimuli--you may be aware of only some. Oh...I should add that there is also a classically conditioned component to the emotions in each situation, but I do not intend to write a thesis here...see Rescorla & Wagner for that literature.) My thoughts are, about some of our more important rituals, that they are often very conscious and intentional, that they are discriminative stimuli which help us to focus our attention on what is important in our lives.
When Cleo, in her example above, lights a candle and asks God not to let her be cruel and unjust to anybody during the day...it is because that is very important. So important that it deserves the intervention of God, whether that god is assumed to be external or the internal manifestation of what is good and important (see Beleth's thread for the discussion on this which prompted my comments here. It might help if I linked it. Cleopatra and Beleth's exchange, especially on page three, are what I am speaking of.) When I make a wish on a star, or on a wishbone, or whatever (and I do, I admit unabashedly), I do so believing that it is a good thing to focus my attention on what is important enough to use a wish on if in fact such wishes worked.
The concept of "stimulus control" in behaviorism refers to putting a particular behavior under the control of a salient stimulus, rather than allowing it to remain under the control of more capricious environmental stimuli. In behavioral interventions with habits, for instance, one method is to allow the person to perform the habit, but only in the presence of a particular stimulus (broadly defined, this could be anything from an object to a particular time of day). The habit may be engaged in freely, but only when the stimulus is present. Step two would be to fade, or slowly reduce or eliminate, the stimulus. If step one was done properly, step two makes eliminating the habit much easier. Anyway...one of the ways to make the stimulus more effective is to make it salient. "Drawing a bright line" is how one source puts it--make a noticeable difference between these important situations and the less important stuff of our lives. Cleopatra's candle does this. Prayer, for some people, does this (I qualify that statement, because I know people who will utter a prayer for virtually any old thing--"lord help me get the dishes done...", and this does not allow for a "bright line" between important and unimportant). Wishes, if treated seriously, do this. New Year's resolutions should do this, but often don't last through January.
Anyway...I guess this is the very very long version of agreeing with Cleo's assertion that it is not a contradiction to believe that good comes from people, and to ask God for help. I hope I do not offend any by referring to god as a discriminative stimulus, or by suggesting that there is a very good and important dimension to ritual and superstition.
Just my 2 cents....comments?
This got me thinking, in my atheist/behaviorist manner, about something which I have often thought about before, the importance of ritual in our lives. I do not mean (necessarily) ritual in the sense of organized religion, although I believe that much of that ritual will overlap with what I am talking about (depending on the individuals involved). Rather, I mean our little personal rituals--lighting a candle, saying a prayer, making a wish on a star...everything from the trivial to the sacred.
Much of this is seen, in the behaviorist literature, as "superstitious behavior", and much has been written on it. I hasten to add, though, that this label is used as a technical term, not in any derogatory sense. These behaviors are ones in which we act as if there is a causal connection between our actions and the things we are trying to influence, when in fact there is no such causality (at least, at first--but wait for the next paragraph). The textbook example is of the superstitious ritual an athlete goes through before a game, or before a particularly important moment in a game. If their performance was dependent on that ritual, we would see imitation of successful rituals, ritual coaches, how-to books on better rituals...but of course, different athletes each have their own. It is not the specific behaviors that matter.
Ah, but if you stop them--if you do not allow them to complete their ritual--their performance suffers! What is the deal here? The straightforward behavioral description is that the ritual has become a discriminative stimulus, a signal to act in a particular way. Without that signal (and no, it need not be something you are completely aware of), the subsequent behavior is less fluid, more rule-governed and less contingency-shaped, less automatic. It is as if the traffic lights are gone--the drivers know how to drive, but it is much more difficult now.
In some cases, discriminative stimuli need not be consciously perceived, while in others they may be. (In each circumstance, there may be a number of discriminative stimuli--you may be aware of only some. Oh...I should add that there is also a classically conditioned component to the emotions in each situation, but I do not intend to write a thesis here...see Rescorla & Wagner for that literature.) My thoughts are, about some of our more important rituals, that they are often very conscious and intentional, that they are discriminative stimuli which help us to focus our attention on what is important in our lives.
When Cleo, in her example above, lights a candle and asks God not to let her be cruel and unjust to anybody during the day...it is because that is very important. So important that it deserves the intervention of God, whether that god is assumed to be external or the internal manifestation of what is good and important (see Beleth's thread for the discussion on this which prompted my comments here. It might help if I linked it. Cleopatra and Beleth's exchange, especially on page three, are what I am speaking of.) When I make a wish on a star, or on a wishbone, or whatever (and I do, I admit unabashedly), I do so believing that it is a good thing to focus my attention on what is important enough to use a wish on if in fact such wishes worked.
The concept of "stimulus control" in behaviorism refers to putting a particular behavior under the control of a salient stimulus, rather than allowing it to remain under the control of more capricious environmental stimuli. In behavioral interventions with habits, for instance, one method is to allow the person to perform the habit, but only in the presence of a particular stimulus (broadly defined, this could be anything from an object to a particular time of day). The habit may be engaged in freely, but only when the stimulus is present. Step two would be to fade, or slowly reduce or eliminate, the stimulus. If step one was done properly, step two makes eliminating the habit much easier. Anyway...one of the ways to make the stimulus more effective is to make it salient. "Drawing a bright line" is how one source puts it--make a noticeable difference between these important situations and the less important stuff of our lives. Cleopatra's candle does this. Prayer, for some people, does this (I qualify that statement, because I know people who will utter a prayer for virtually any old thing--"lord help me get the dishes done...", and this does not allow for a "bright line" between important and unimportant). Wishes, if treated seriously, do this. New Year's resolutions should do this, but often don't last through January.
Anyway...I guess this is the very very long version of agreeing with Cleo's assertion that it is not a contradiction to believe that good comes from people, and to ask God for help. I hope I do not offend any by referring to god as a discriminative stimulus, or by suggesting that there is a very good and important dimension to ritual and superstition.
Just my 2 cents....comments?
