Vote 0 Votes

Interesting enough people can be taught to behave or do things in a particular way using a similar method as B.F. Skinner used to train numerous animals with a clicker back in the 1940s. This was done by a gymnastic instructor who used it to train her athletes how to correctly complete moves and did so in an effect non-insulting way. Even though there was some opposition from a concerned parent this seemed to be an effective method of teaching any animal (human or not). I'm curious as to what else this could be applied to and how effective it would be. It is already somewhat popular with dancers and gymnast but is mostly limited because of people closed mindedness on the idea. If people were more open to trying this technique it could speed up and perfect almost any physical movement and could even be applied fields such as mathematics and lab sciences.


| Leave a comment

Although there is evidence that clickers work, I think it is odd for people to learn using clickers. People should be able to use emotional cues and language in order to learn. I understand that it is a positive reinforcement, but how do the children feel rewarded from a clicking noise?

I wonder how effective training would be in activities that aren't physical actions like gymnastics or training animals. It seems like to me there would need to be more than that in order to improve somebody's functioning in math or science.

I agree with the first comment in that it seems strange to use clickers to "train" humans and that positive reinforcement is much more effective. I get how it can help enhance physical activities, but I don't completely understand how it could be used for math or science.

I also agree with the first comment. With our extremely complex minds, we should be able to find some other way to be "trained" for certain activities. Do you know of any specific examples in math and science?

I think the reason why clickers aren't necessarily good for humans is because we can actually comprehend language (usually). The clicker is more of a unique auditory cue for an animal, but for a human it's nothing more than just noise.

But at the same time, for small infants we praise them with over joyous praise and scold for bad behavior. Which isn't much different from a random noise. Consistency seems to be the most important aspect here.

I agree with J (above). Clickers work well, but so does any consistent sound one can connect with a well-done task. In the gym instructor's case a clicker is consistent, but also a little demeaning implying that another person's child is similar to a dog. I she could make simple changes in the sound to make everyone happy.

I also agree with most of you that it seems demeaning to humans to have to use clickers. To me I think of clickers being most useful to animals that either can't or are very slow at understanding language(dogs, monkeys, etc). To people the object is almost pointless. That's not to say that the clickers aren't good, because it's been seen that they work, more that the clickers aren't necessary for people. With that being said I wonder if people who have language comprehension issues due to an accident later in life respond better to these clickers than an "ordinary" person?

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by stewa712 published on February 27, 2012 3:48 PM.

Behaviorism and Baby Albert was the previous entry in this blog.

Animal training is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.