Title: There's a Monster in my Kitchen: Using Aversive Feedback to Motivate Behavior Change
Author: Ben Kirman, Conor Linehan, Shaun Lawson, Derek Foster, and Mark Doughty
Summary
This article deals with several concepts centric to Skinner's behavioral theories, including positive and negative reinforcement, and conditioning. The theory supporting their research suggests that behavior stems from environmental stimuli. Unlike some of Skinner's work however, this paper emphasizes something the author's term Persuasive Technologies. Systems implementing this technology use a feedback loop in order to modify routines based on the success or failure of the current routines. In this way, behavioral systems are tailored to each individual. In particular, the system discussed by the article was named Nag-Baztag.
Discussion
As mentioned in the summary, this article draws heavily on Skinner's work. Skinner, however, spent most of his time trying to standardize automated learning systems. He believed strongly in determinism, and I don't think he would have liked the idea that everyone needs a unique approach. In this regard, the approach used in this article is similar to treating the symptoms, as they say. Additionally, while I found the negative reinforcement examples humorous, I think I would quickly become desensitized to them. Unfortunately it is difficult to find negative reinforcement implementations that are not so severe as to be damaging or traumatizing on repeated application, but also not so mild as to eventually go ignored. I do think that negative reinforcement can be useful, but not in an interval based conditioning system. In general, negative reinforcement is best saved for severe lapses in judgement, and should not be used in any system where the individual is expected to learn in an ongoing process. For example, negative reinforcement works great in law enforcement, but the majority of citizens never or rarely spend time in jail. In this way, this type of reinforcement is reserved for severe infractions.
As mentioned in the summary, this article draws heavily on Skinner's work. Skinner, however, spent most of his time trying to standardize automated learning systems. He believed strongly in determinism, and I don't think he would have liked the idea that everyone needs a unique approach. In this regard, the approach used in this article is similar to treating the symptoms, as they say. Additionally, while I found the negative reinforcement examples humorous, I think I would quickly become desensitized to them. Unfortunately it is difficult to find negative reinforcement implementations that are not so severe as to be damaging or traumatizing on repeated application, but also not so mild as to eventually go ignored. I do think that negative reinforcement can be useful, but not in an interval based conditioning system. In general, negative reinforcement is best saved for severe lapses in judgement, and should not be used in any system where the individual is expected to learn in an ongoing process. For example, negative reinforcement works great in law enforcement, but the majority of citizens never or rarely spend time in jail. In this way, this type of reinforcement is reserved for severe infractions.
No comments:
Post a Comment