Underlying message: Behave and No Pain; Don’t Behave and Pain.
Let us summarize.
R has claimed the driveway as his.
L has denied his claim.
R resorts to Behavior X to defend his claim from attack.
R has used Behavior X many times to achieve his ends.
What is Behavior X?
Raising the voice, jutting the chin out, implying some type of punishment or consequence for misbehaving.
Does this sound like a parent-child relation?
This is a reflection of R’s own upbringing, which, of course, is a reflection of a reflection of his parent’s upbringing and his grandparent’s parent’s upbringing, etc.
So what are the underlying messages?
You will experience pain, if you don’t behave. If you don’t want to experience pain, then behave. This is a classic statement of behavior modification.
Let B = Behaving
Let P = Pain
If Not Behave, Then Pain ~B -> P
If Behave, Then Not Pain B -> ~P
Contra-positive:
If (~Pain) Then Behave (~P) -> B
Top-down organization unstable because based in External Force
R employs force to enforce cooperation. This is top-down organization. This is based upon fear of reprisal. It is not based upon self-motivation. Because it is not self-motivated, it easily reverts when the external force is withdrawn. Because of this it is only as stable as the external force. If external force is applied, then there is compliance. If the external force is withdrawn then it is uncertain whether the compliance will continue.
Let F = External Force
F -> Compliance
~F -> Indeterminate
As an example: the king issues an unpopular decree that will be punishable by death. For instance: everyone must follow my religion. As soon as the force is removed, i.e. enforcement is relaxed or a new decree is passed, many revert to their old religion. This is what happened in the Communist states when they collapsed. Top Down organization is unstable for 2 reasons: 1) The cells have not gone through any internal change. 2) The external force requires energy to maintain it.
Perception of success:
A function of internal criteria and external behavior
Let us examine what this means in terms of our example.
We have our basic equation for positive and negative reinforcement, + & –.
PN(X) = XN/D + KPN-1(X)
X is the behavior, while PN(X) is the Probability of this behavior X occurring at any point in time, N.
While XN is the relative success or failure of behavior X, to achieve its result - whatever it may be, from changing a light bulb, to protecting a driveway space, to removing the leader of a country. The perception of success, XN, is a function of the internal criteria of the Source of behavior X, and the response of the external environment.
From our example:
XN = f(Internal criteria of R, External Behavior of L)
In this case R is the Source, while L is the Responder. The evaluation of the success of behavior X at moment N is based on the extent to which L behaves the way R wants her to.
R’s Success: Change L’s Probability Vector
In this case, R has defined success as changing L’s Probability vector as regards his trailer. To do this R employs intimidation behavior X.
At Time 0, L’s probability vector was pointed towards a high probability of saying something, if anything obstructed her driveway. With negative reinforcement R was attempting to change L’s probability vector - so that at Time 1, her probability of speaking up would be greatly reduced. Thus R’s goal was to exert enough personal force so that L’s vector would change.
Extreme Pain and Pleasure drastically alters Behavior Probabilities
We mentioned that one way a probability vector changes is gradually through repeated experience. This is the type of change that R was going through with his behavior X. Every time the behavior was successful it increased the probability of its repetition. This was represented symbolically by our decaying average equation -> PN(X) = XN/D + KPN-1(X). In this case we said that the perception of success XN was either a 0 for failure or 1 for success.
A probability vector can also change dramatically if the Individual is subjected to extreme Pain or Pleasure (or the threat of extreme Pain or the potential for extreme Pleasure). R was attempting to drastically change L’s Probability Vector thru the threat of extreme Pain, his Intimidation behavior. This was different than R’s simple success or failure model in terms of his Angry behavior. In this case R was trying to give L an extreme negative on her behavior to radically change her Behavior Probability. The perceived success of L’s response, i.e. R would move his trailer, would still be given a 1, while the perceived failure, i.e. R would leave his trailer, would still be given a 0. However because of the threat of physical pain, the perception of the response could be given a response that is much less than 0. The response is not just unsuccessful; it also yields a great potential for pain. Let’s look at the algebra.
Let Y = L’s Response to R’s behavior X
Let YN = L’s perception of success of Behavior Y to achieve its goals
Let LN(Y) = L’s Probability of behavior Y at moment N
Then LN(Y) = YN/D + KLN-1(Y)
In R’s simpler success/failure scenario, his evaluation of success would be between 0 and 1, 0 < XN < 1. However in L’s pain/pleasure scenario, her evaluation could be far below zero with great pain resulting from her behavior, or far above 1 if she derived great pleasure from her behavior, (YN < 0) = Pain Or (YN >1) = Pleasure.
As an example: The child has a fun time riding a horse or bike. However once they fall off and hurt themselves, their Probability vector is immediately inverted unless the child gets back on the bicycle or horse.
With an extremely painful response, or the threat, all past experiences and the probabilities that they have generated might be discounted or entirely discarded, because the negative of the experience overwhelms the past probabilities. Alternately the extreme pleasure derived from certain drugs can overwhelm all the sensible probabilities of behavior that someone has grown up with. While our Probability vectors change gradually most of the time, these living vectors can change radically with the potential or experience of extreme pain or pleasure. This is what R was hoping for with his strategy of intimidation towards L.
In these extreme cases it could be said that the perception of potential for pain or pleasure would be unlimited and thereby overwhelm anything that went before.
If painful YN -> -∞. If pleasurable YN -> +∞.
If painful, the Probability of repetition would approach zero, LN(Y) -> 0.
If pleasurable, the Probability of repetition would approach certainty, LN(Y) -> 1.
Home The Firing Process V. Differentiation Previous Next Comments