= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on The Power of Reinforcement - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (467)
(No, I said I would shun kisses delivered under those circumstances. No cutting and pasting of my keywords for the sake of hyperbole thanks.)
If people use their affection in a way that is obviously intended to systematically manipulate me to do things that I do not, in fact, wish to do then yes, of course those instances of affection I will shun. While I know some people are more tolerant to that kind of blatant disrespect I would expect you to at least be able to comprehend the subset of people that will not.
I'm afraid that all women who want kisses to serve the role of doggy treats within our relationship are out of luck. I have yet to experience a problem with having that policy. My model of myself predicts that rewarding hostile-to-my-interests-reward-training with increased compliance or acceptance would leave me with relationships that were far less satisfying and in particular far less enjoyment of displays of affection.
The question is not whether positive reinforcement is effective in changing your behavior. The question is whether kisses are positive reinforcement in particular contexts.
Suppose your spouse says, "Please pick up my prescription from the store" and you don't want to, but you do it anyway. When you get back, spouse says "Thanks for dealing with that." Do you really think continued experiences like that won't increase the frequency of the behavior "Run an errand even when I don't want to"?
I think it depends a lot on her intention. If she says 'thank you' for the purposes of positive reinforcement, I mean if she thinks about her 'thank you's' that way, then I think she's being manipulative.
If she says 'thank you' to say what those words mean, namely, that she's grateful, then even if this does have the effective positive reinforcement there's nothing wrong about her behavior.
I find the idea of endorsing manipulative behavior if and only if I remain unaware of the fact that it's manipulative behavior deeply troubling.
It strikes me as similar to saying that hurting people is OK as long as I don't know I'm hurting them. No, it isn't. If hurting people is not OK, then it follows that I ought not hurt people, and learning to recognize when I'm hurting people is part of that, and I ought to learn to recognize it. The behavior doesn't suddenly become "not OK" the moment I learn to recognize it... it never was OK, and now I know it and can improve.
Conversely, if hurting people is OK, then it's OK whether I know I'm doing it or not.
The same goes for manipulating people. Whether I know I'm doing it or not isn't the determiner of whether I'm doing good or ill.
To my mind, the determiner of whether I'm doing good or ill is whether, when I'm done doing it, we're all better off or worse off.
Awareness of side effects isn't equivalent to intentionality. You can thank someone to express genuine feelings of gratitude. If you wouldn't do that in a counterfactual world in which the gratitude was absent, then I wouldn't call that behavior intentionally manipulative regardless of whether you know about positive reinforcement.
Suppose I am not in the habit of expressing gratitude when people do nice things for me. Never mind why... maybe I was raised wrong. For whatever reason, I'm not in that habit. I feel gratitude, certainly, I just don't express it.
Then one Monday, I learn that expressing gratitude to people for doing nice things for me will increase the odds that they will do it again. Suppose I want people to do nice things for me, and I therefore conclude that I ought to expressing gratitude when people do nice things for me, in order to get them to do it more, and I therefore start expressing gratitude when people do nice things for me, whether I feel gratitude or not.
Then on Wednesday, I learn that this only works when I genuinely do feel gratitude... when I express gratitude I don't actually feel, I get bad results. (Again, it doesn't matter why. Maybe I'm a lousy liar.) So I stop expressing gratitude when people do nice things for me when I don't feel gratitude, but I continue doing so when I do, since that still gets me stuff I want.
If I've understood you correctly, you would call me intentionally manipulative on Tuesday, but not on Thursday. I'm happy to restrict the term "intentionally manipulative" to Tuesday behavior and not Thursday behavior, if that makes communication easier, though I don't use those words that way myself.
Regardless of what words we use, presumably we agree that on both Tuesday and Thursday, I am doing something with the intention of causing changes in other people's behavior, and am doing so without their awareness or consent. Yes?
Do you endorse this on Tuesday?
Do you endorse this on Thursday?
For my own part, I find the idea of endorsing that behavior on Thursday but not on Tuesday deeply troubling, for many of the reasons I listed before.
Obvious remark is obvious: you might disapprove of the behavior on Tuesday because it involves lying.
I agree with your point, but I think that "manipulate" needs to be tabooed. If we define manipulate as "acts that tend to change the behavior of others" then I agree with your implicit point that it is impossible to interact with others without changing their behaviors, and there is nothing wrong with thinking about how I would like someone else to behave when considering how I interact with them.
That said, there are connotations of manipulate as the word is ordinarily used that are not captured by the way you (and I) are using the word.
Sure. I'm perfectly happy to drop the word altogether and instead talk about changing the behavior of others.
If you don't know you're manipulating someone, you're not manipulating someone. Manipulation is an intentional behavior, like lying, or congratulating, or taking a vow. Knowing what you're doing is part of doing it.
Yeah, I pretty much disagree with this statement completely.
That's... incredible to me. Do you disagree that there is such a category (i.e. actions you have to know you're doing in order to be doing them at all), or that manipulation falls under it?
I disagree that manipulation falls under it.
Do you agree that manipulation can be intentional (lets call this Imanipulation) And that what Luke is advising is the intentional kind?
I agree that manipulation can be intentional, certainly.
I agree that the examples Luke is talking about are intentional ones, but I suspect that's rather incidental. To talk about it as "the intentional kind of manipulation" strikes me as misleading in the same sense that, while I agree that his example of Anna and Alicorn manipulating Eliezer was manipulation of a man by women, I would consider it misleading to refer to it as "the heterosexual kind of manipulation."
For example, if I practiced positive-reinforcement conditioning so assiduously that I started doing it without having to form explicit intention to do it (in the same way that I don't always form the explicit intention to catch a ball flying at my face before catching it), I expect that Luke would endorse doing it just the same; the fact that it's intentional in one case and not the other just wouldn't matter.
Actually, now that I think about it, what's your take on that? That is, if I practice modifying others' behavior until I reach the point where I can do it instinctively, without an overt intention-forming stage, does it suddenly become ethically acceptable for me to do so? (Since, after all, it's no longer manipulation, on your account.)
This exchange may be helpful to understand TheOtherDave's point.
Thanks, that is helpful.
.... And what about helping other people without knowing you helped them? /sly look/
Similarly, if helping people is OK, it's OK whether I know I'm doing it or not, and if it's not OK, it's not OK whether I know I'm doing it or not.
Yes. But maybe there is a correlation that people who know what they are doing, are doing it more.
If that's true, then it would make sense to criticize intentional manipulation more.
Well, only if doing it is worth criticizing in the first place.
Neither of those seem to be the question - at least neither of those are the question I'm asking when I evaluate whether a given trend of behaviors constitutes a Defection::Manipulation.
That is kind of me and it would all else being equal be somewhat rude if she didn't thank me for doing a favour like that. (This assumes a weak instantiation of 'want' such that I reflectively endorse doing the errand but experience emotional reluctance. If I reflectively endorse not doing the errand but still do then that is not kind but weak.)
Being influenced isn't something to be universally avoided. Having negotiated boundaries subverted by the strategic use of kisses as doggy treats is. That way leads to madness - often for both parties.
I seem to have more sympathy for your point of view than most here, but I'm not sure I have the thing articulated.
I think a piece of it is that a kiss given in order to get a spouse to do a routine chore seems very different from a kiss given out of affection or lust.
Intuitively, a kiss given out of enthusiasm for help received seems like a different sort of thing than a kiss given as part of a program to get behavioral change.
I agree. That said, this is similar to saying that me going to work because they pay me is a different sort of thing than me going to work because I enjoy my job. In practice, the lines between expressions of enthusiasm and attempts to manage behavior are rarely that clearcut.
From a different context
Would it be different and less risky if the reward were M&Ms rather than kisses? If both partners were using reinforcement schemes on each other? The latter seems to have some comic potential, but in a way that isn't quite coming into focus.
Do diabetes, arteriosclerosis and dental costs count as 'risks'?
I assume we're talking about something like a dozen M&Ms/day, which wouldn't be a large risk for most people (I agree they'd be a bad idea for diabetics). Unless the person otherwise would eat no sweets at all, I can't see the M&Ms making a difference.
EY must be saying lots of nice things if that's a non-negligible risk.
For my part, I didn't experience the positive reinforcement description in the article as being about subverting negotiated boundaries, but about changing what seem likely to be unthinking habitual behaviors that the person is barely aware of.
I don't know of anyone that I wish to be associated with who specifically desires to leave dirty clothes on the floor instead of in the hamper, it's just something that is easy to do without thinking unless and until you are in the habit of doing something differently.
If the husband in question had actually negotiated a boundary about being able to leave his clothes on the floor, or even expressed reflective hesitancy about using the hamper as a theoretically desired or acceptable action, then I would agree that the author's behavior was highly unethical, and as the husband, if I became aware of it, I would have a problem.
A more typical scenario is one in which the husband would reflectively endorse putting dirty clothes in the hamper on principle, but has a previously developed habit of leaving clothes on the floor and does not judge it important enough to do the hard mental work of changing the habit. Positive reinforcement in this scenario basically represents the wife attempting to do a big portion of the work required to change the habit in the hopes it will get him over this threshold.
In this case, I am having trouble imagining a situation in which one would have reflective desire not to use an existing hamper for dirty clothes.
Everyone here who has comment on the subject of dirty clothes, myself included, has mentioned that they much prefer to put them in a designated repository. However, the precise nature of the example is not important and precisely where the boundaries of responsibility have been set in someone else's relationship are not my business to determine.
Of course it is not our business to determine those boundaries in someone else's relationship.
Yet my reaction to the behavior described is very largely determined by what I imagine as the relationship context. The reason I did not have your reaction to this story is because I implicitly assumed that there was no boundary the husband had set about the fact of having clothes end up in the hamper by his hands.
I was somewhat troubled by the story, and the conversation in this subthread has clarified why -- the relationship context is crucial to determining the ethics of the behavior, and the ethical line or the necessary context was not discussed seriously in the article. While I find it unlikely that this particular example was crossing a line in their relationship, similar strategies could easily be used in an attempt to cross explicit or implicit boundaries in a way I would find abhorrent.
There is one point on which I am not clear whether we are drawing the line in the same place.
In the absence of any prior negotiation one way or another, do you consider the wife's behavior unethical? That seemed to be what you suggested with your initial comment, that it would only be acceptable in the context of a prior explicit agreement.
I think I fall on the side of thinking it is sometimes acceptable in some possible middle cases, but I'm not completely comfortable with my decision yet and would be interested in hearing arguments on either side.
I am clear (and think you will agree) that it is ok to use this strategy to reinforce a previous agreement, and NOT ok to use it to break/bend/adjust a previous agreement. It is the situation with no prior agreement that I am interested in.
To describe it semi-formally.
Party A wants to use positive reinforcement on party B in order to get them to do X
Middle cases I consider to be important (aside from there being some explicit agreement/boundary)
Party B has given some indication (but not an explicit statement/agreement) that doing X would be acceptable or desirable in principle --- PR OK
Party B has given some indication (not explicit statement/agreement) that doing X would be a undesirable in principle --- PR NOT OK
Party B has given no indication one way or another -- ??
In this last case, are social expectations relevant? In the particular case of clothes in hamper, there are clear social expectations that most people normatively desire clothes in hamper. Perhaps our difference lies in whether we consider social expectations a relevant part of the context.
My tentative line is that where no indication has been given, reinforcing social expectations is acceptable, and violating social expectations is at least dubious and probably not OK without discussion.
If social expectations matter, then questions about which social circle is relevant come into play. If party A and party B would agree about which social expectation is relevant, then that is the correct one.
The interesting subcase would be where the relevant social expectations are different for party A and for Party B. My current position is that party A's best information about what party B would choose as a relevant set of social expectations should determine the ethics.
So, I have to ask: do you in fact have a wife?
The phrases "of course" and "blatant disrespect" imply a shared frame of reference that doesn't seem to be in evidence. While it might be considered rude to you, it's pretty much human nature. The phrase "thank you" is, as near as I can tell, pretty much entirely meant as a positive reinforcer.
So, having established that we have different frames of reference, can you go in to WHAT behaviors bother you? Is it the use of specific actions as reinforcers ("thank you" is okay but kissing is not?) or is it just the deliberate (as opposed to socialized and subconscious) application of these techniques? Or something else that I'm missing?
Since positive reinforcement can only be applied after you already do a thing, then presumably, you at least wished to do it once. So, how is providing you with a bonus to something you've already done, manipulating you to do something you don't "wish to do"?
Caveat: I don't know why the husband in question doesn't just put his damn clothes in the hamper. Doesn't the idea of having soiled clothes lying around repulse him anyway? Especially when sharing the space with another. I mean... ewww. But now back to assuming the target behavioral territory is not already granted by the obvious shelling point or prior arrangement.
It seems you wish to unilaterally accept rewarding behavior as positive. I don't. I have no trouble detecting when rewards are being used as "approximations" towards a behavioral landscape that I clearly don't want or, especially, have previously declared that I would not accept. I am also able to predict - by reference to past experience and knowledge of my own preferences - that encouraging that reward pattern gives undesired outcomes. As Vaniver mentioned, an important skill to develop is the ability to detect the difference between desired and undesired manipulations.
As a somewhat separate issue, excessive use of physical affection (kisses, hugs, sex) as a "reward" for good behavior changes the experience of those activities - and not in a good way.
Could you elaborate on that? I'm entirely okay with physical affection being used as a "reward", as long as it's also clear that the person genuinely wants affection with me, and initiates it "just because" too (actually I'd probably be entirely okay with a strictly reward-based system of affection, as long as it was explicit...)
You seem to be assuming, in the example, that the husband doesn't WANT to be modified to put away his laundry. Is that correct?
If so, is it correct that your objection is "you're manipulating me in to a state I don't desire" rather than simply "you're manipulating me"? Given that you PERSONALLY find soiled clothes disgusting, would you PERSONALLY appreciate reinforcement that helped you overcome such a habit?
Yes.
Yes.
Hm. You quoted a question I asked, and then proceeded to not answer it in any way. The question was:
Instead of answering that question, you supplied various generalizations whose referents in physical reality I can't ascertain. Please give an example of a situation where somebody being, say, happy that you did something, means that they are manipulating you to do something you don't "wish to do" (your previous words).
Well, I'm not wedrifid, but OK.
Suppose there's a crisis at work, and in response to that crisis I step in and solve a problem.
Suppose, as part of solving that problem, I take some steps (X) that I don't enjoy doing and don't wish to do again.
Suppose my boss notices that I did X and was effective at it and decides that she wants me to do X more regularly, and being familiar with the uses of positive reinforcement decides to hand me a large bonus at our next status meeting. Further, she praises me to the skies in public for having done X, and does so in a way that communicates the (entirely accurate) message that my continuing to receive such praise is contingent on my continuing to do X.
I assert that, in this scenario, my boss is applying positive reinforcement techniques with the goal of increasing my likelihood of doing X, by providing me with a bonus to something I've already done, where X is something I don't wish to do.
Do you agree?
As to whether, in so doing, she's manipulating me... (shrug) I've already had that discussion once too often this week. If our only remaining point of disagreement about that scenario is whether the word "manipulating" properly applies to it, I'm happy to leave that point unresolved.
So? Are you saying this is a bad thing? That's what I'm asking wedrifid. Are you offended by said boss doing this?
Ironically, in your scenario, your boss is actually elevating your status: trying to please you in order to obtain a consent that in principle could be had by simply ordering you to do more X. So I don't think it's analagous to the situation that upsets wedrifid here.
So, you asked for "an example of a situation where somebody being, say, happy that you did something, means that they are manipulating you to do something you don't "wish to do"," and I gave you one.
Apparently, you also wanted an example where the person isn't also elevating my status in the process, isn't trying to please me, and isn't trying to get me to agree to something that they could order me to do. I didn't realize that, sorry.
No, I can't think of any coherent examples where someone tries to use positive reinforcement to alter my behavior by doing something that doesn't please me.
Tapping out now.
As am I. I refer any interested observers to the previous comments by myself, TheOtherDave, Vaniver and others, as well as the details of the originally quoted example, including the emphasis on successive approximation. I expect that everyone who wishes to understand will from existing comments and that further engagement would be both futile and constitute a reward of an interaction style which is undesirable.
Nope, that was a side comment. The main point is that wedrifid said this was a bad thing, and I was asking him. So, it's actually an answer from someone other than wedrifid that didn't meet my criteria. ;-)
It depends on why TheOtherDave doesn't like doing whatever. If it's something that he could get to like or at least tolerate by being more familiar with it, no biggie.
If it's just aggravating and he doesn't get used to it, but it doesn't come up often enough to make him miserable, then it's one of those things which is apt to happen in jobs.
If it's something that takes so many additional hours that he's running himself ragged, then reinforcing him for doing it would be bad for him in the long run.