[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Pavlovian Humans

[Into It]

I have been considering using a small amount of chocolate to reward myself for any behavior that I deem desirable, and perhaps a cigarette for completing the more onerous bits of work.

Chocolate releases endorphins, and possibly serotonin (does anyone know for sure?) And nicotene has similar effects (does anyone know what neurotransmitters nicotine targets?); either of the above would be suited to physiologically train any intelligent being to crave the chosen behavior/s.

Now, what makes something addictive? I can think of two factors off of the top of my head, but feel free to add to this.
1) The amount of pleasure recieved following the given behavior.
2) The amount of time that elapses (inversely correlated) between the behavior and the reward.

Both of these requirements can be "artificially" recreated by administering the drug immediately after the positive behavior is executed and realized.

Another note for anyone who is not familiar with classical conditioning:
If a behavior is conditioned successfully, and the conditioning stimulus is removed over time, an "extinction" of the conditioned behavior will occur. The brain will regard the relationship between the response and the stimulus as no longer relevant. However, this is not to say that constant reinforcement is required to keep a response conditioned. It is just as effective to supplant the conditioning stimuli with *nothing* for random intervals, provided that the brain is reminded of the stimulus from time to time.

I'm not a gourmand, and though I could rationalize ingesting copious amounts of chocolate in the pursuit of creating a "Better Me," I think it is only necessary to use as much chocolate as is required for me to taste it. And for my humble abnegation of eating more chocolate than is necessary for the experiment, perhaps I will reward myself with more chocolate .

All of our behaviors are ultimately driven by reward. Some find it rewarding to analyze; others, to compliment. Still others recieve joy from more perverse activities, and it is the case that the more often these behaviors are repeated, the more deeply entrenched into one's psyche they become. We condition ourselves thousands of times daily with our interactions with our environment. It seems simple enough to manipulate these conditions in a methodical fashion so that one may recieve her desired result.

In order to actually carry out these gambits, I would need clearly defined hypotheses and variables, as well as a structured routine. Routines are not my bailiwick, but if this idea piques a few people's interests then I would be happy to work out the details and perform the experiment.

Any questions or comments appreciated.

 

[Into It]

Rereading this, I see I should have been much more concise. I estimate that 95% of you understand conditioning, so I shouldn't have gone into it, and a lot of that isn't relevant anyway.

But nobody is excited by the prospect of "programming the great biological computer?" Or have you just considered doing this already and thought the idea was silly for some reason?

 

[Kalach]

It seems like more work than actually deciding what is and isn't worth doing with your day. Because you'll have to do that anyway or the training won't work: your sense of not doing the right thing will provide negative reinforcement even as the chocolate makes you feel bodily okay.

But, y'know, if you're thinking sensory pleasure as a reward, then you'll be better off training an Se user.

And--wait, omigod! Oh, my God.

Oh my God!

You fiendish, fiendish ENFP! You're trialing it on yourself first, even though you know it won't work! And then you'll use it on some poor Se user who isn't as in control of Se as, say, some Se-Dom. Because an Se-Dom would have been all over chocolate ages ago. Oh. My. God.

Whoever this poor sap is you have in your targets, I'll just say, sex'll work better.

 

[sculpting]

OP, I have been thinking about this much lately. well not with choclates as you cant train NTs with chocolate.

What about narcisstic supply? It is as addictive potentially. My guess it that with Ns in general you could apply training but you have to tap into thier brains not thier sensual desires. It isnt in thier best interest though, but I bet you could apply conditioning quite broadly.

Although sex would work on Kalach.

 

[Into It]

OP, I have been thinking about this much lately. well not with choclates as you cant train NTs with chocolate.

My guess it that with Ns in general you could apply training but you have to tap into thier brains not thier sensual desires.

As an Ne, Se should theoretically be the function that requires the most energy for me to use, and in my case this is completely true. I can sense my environment for a second or two, but then my Ne springs up in its place. I would not say it is within my grasp to use Se for five consecutive seconds without Ne obtruding.

BUT, the purpose of this experiment would be to train the self in a very different way: an unconscious way.

Se is not required for the chemical reactions that occur when eating chocolate or smoking. SP's don't have a better sense of taste or hearing than we do. If it appears that they do, this is because they have been paying so much attention to tangible observations that the nuances of flavor or sound have become more apparent with "practice."

I would think that this method would work for all people of different types and lifestyles equally for one intuitive reason: I would imagine this method working well on dogs (though that would be dangerous) or chimps or pigs, and even though our cognition somehow took a giant leap forward, we are still composed of the same relative biological reward system as any other complex life is. Just notice how we will compromise ourselves for the chance to procreate!

What you are saying is not without merit, though, because I believe the "brain" as you put it should be taken into consideration. Therefore, a reward should be given at two specific points: the second being when the task is completed, and the first beingwhen the decision is made that a task will certainly be carried out.

In this way, the "brain" is "tapped into" without abandoning the necessarily physiological element that is the basis of the experiment.

 

[Into It]

Whoever this poor sap is you have in your targets, I'll just say, sex'll work better.

If sex is the means, then what could possibly be the ends??:rolli:

 

[Kalach]

See what happens when you put Te in the hands of feelers? Shortcuts! Always with the shortcuts!

(a) to be the trainer, the trainee has to already have agreed to be trained--that is, agreed to accept a master. Yer normal N user would start to perceive the imbalance of power and work against you otherwise. And S people would probably know already that something foolish was afoot.

(b) if you want the program to work on yourself, you have to devalue the satisfaction you normally attain from doing well at something you've chosen to do, for after all, how do you know when to reward yourself if you haven't recognised the end point of the set task?

(c) you can't use chocolate to train dogs--they die.


And in summary, the genuine reward available for good action is in the recognition that the action is good. Train your Fi instead. Practice making good feeling judgments. Live a healthy and rewarding life. Stop talking to Fe users, they'll only make you crazy.

I find this to be a thoroughly good plan because it means I can have chocolate whenever you feel like it. Sex actually is not that much more expensive, but it sure is taxing and the whole intermittent reinforcement thing just makes it all the more crazy.

The end.

 

[nightning]

Now, what makes something addictive?

Not sure... but correlational studies suggest people are more likely to become addicts (to alcohol, illicit drugs, cigarette etc) if they have higher tolerance for the substance. Which means it's not just the exposure to the drug that matters... the body also plays a role.

Any questions or comments appreciated.

I believe there's a study done in elementary students suggesting physical positive re-enforcement only works so long as the rewarding stimuli is there. Once it's removed, behavior becomes WORSE than before the training. Perhaps you'll have more luck like using psychological motivators... A job well done ought to be sufficiently motivating...

 

[Kangirl]

you cant train NTs with chocolate.

Yes, yes you can.

 

[Kalach]

I find this to be a thoroughly good plan because it means I can have chocolate whenever you feel like it.

Hmmm. HmmMMMM! HuuhhhhmmmMMMM!

Freudian slip? Mere drafting error? OR...

MY GOD!!! It's started!

They did something! Those ENFPs! They did something to the Internet!

Turn away, people! Turn away from your monitors now!

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!

 

[Into It]

Hmmm. HmmMMMM! HuuhhhhmmmMMMM!

Freudian slip? Mere drafting error? OR...

MY GOD!!! It's started!

They did something! Those ENFPs! They did something to the Internet!

Turn away, people! Turn away from your monitors now!

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!

Hey, thats pretty funny! You've earned a piece of chocolate.

 

[sculpting]

1) Intermittant rewards will work much, much better than consistant rewards. If you give the rat sugar everytime it pushes the button it will stop pushing the button very quickly when you stop supplying. However if once you have the rat trained, you make the reward inconsistant, it will never quit clicking the button. As an inconsistant enfp parent I have learned this lesson the hard way. I am so flaky that it takes a lot of Se "noise" for me to notice a "need". Thus I have the whiniest children, fish, turtles, cats, and dogs ever. If they just keep "clicking" they eventually get a response, but they can never be sure how much clicking will be required.

2) pick your motivating rewards correctly, then reward inconsistantly. SJs want recognition and status (My SJ boss keeps promising me a new office w a window) , SPs want pleasure/money/recognition (my SP boss keeps giving me more money), NTs and NFs are a little harder.

3) If you want to stregnthen Se I'd suggest midful meditation as working better than chocolate, well maybe chocolate and mediatation combined.

 

[ptgatsby]

I believe there's a study done in elementary students suggesting physical positive re-enforcement only works so long as the rewarding stimuli is there. Once it's removed, behavior becomes WORSE than before the training. Perhaps you'll have more luck like using psychological motivators... A job well done ought to be sufficiently motivating...

Yup! But;

1) Intermittant rewards will work much, much better than consistant rewards.

Helps a lot with that problem.

2) pick your motivating rewards correctly, then reward inconsistantly. SJs want recognition and status (My SJ boss keeps promising me a new office w a window) , SPs want pleasure/money/recognition (my SP boss keeps giving me more money), NTs and NFs are a little harder.

This, however, I don't agree with. Social rewards can work, however they operate very differently from conditioning. The examples above are all carrots on a stick, where it's better to not actually get rewarded (ratchet effect, hedonistic preferences adjustment). It's a similar problem that is being dealt with in 1).

Also, conditioning in RL is a lot harder than it seems. For instance, many are "conditioned" to go to starbucks in the morning, but it doesn't make you like mornings any more. The actual connection can be tricky. Putting the reward right next to the behavior is effective, but only in a "that's interesting" kinds of way. An example of this is smoking only while working - it doesn't take much to decouple the work-drug connection and reduce it to smoke-drug connection. The exact behavior that is conditioned is pretty "smart" - it reduces the behavior quickly.

You also cannot have control over the supply. That's the hardest part. Oh, and withholding it tends to cause serious issues - that's the problem with 'addiction' in the first place. (Meaning, having a friend/so do the inconsistent thing is dangerous!)