Michael Scoles wrote: > The replies to this question that cite Seligman (actually Overmier and > Seligman) and Guthrie have me confused. The question of what is "learned" in > learned helplessness is a problem, but seems to have little relevance to one > experience with porcupine quills. One could make the case that, if the > experience stopped the ongoing behavior of chasing and catching a porcupine, > Guthrie might consider this as potentially reinforcing. > > My quip about Guthrie referred to his emphasis on one-trial learning (which these dogs weren't doing). Chris Green ============ > >>>> "Jean-Marc Perreault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/29/07 5:19 PM >>> >>>> > An interesting question arose a while back... > > Why do dogs, after biting into a porcupine (which is a very unpleasant > event, with sometimes harsh consequences, <<such as having needles that > are shaped as fish hooks pulled out of the mouth with pliers>> keep > going after other porcupines later on? > > Would one argue that instinctual behaviour (that of chasing small > critters) overcome, or even prevent, learning? > > I'm quite interested in the answer to that one... > > Cheers! > > Jean-Marc > >
--- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
