![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koganbotThe greatest challenge in understanding the role of randomness in life is that although the basic principles of randomness arise from everyday logic, many of the consequences that follow from those principles prove counterintuitive.... In the mid 1960s, [Daniel] Kahneman, then a junior psychology professor at Hebrew University, agreed to perform a rather unexciting chore: lecturing to a group of Israeli air force flight instructors on the conventional wisdom of behavior modification and its application to the psychology of flight training. Kahneman drove home the point that rewarding positive behavior works but punishing mistakes does not. One of his students interrupted, voicing an opinion that would lead Kahneman to an epiphany and guide his research for decades.
"I've often praised people warmly for beautifully executed maneuvers, and the next time they always do worse," the flight instructor said. "And I've screamed at people for badly executed maneuvers, and by and large the next time they improve. Don't tell me that reward works and punishment doesn't work. My experience contradicts it." The other flight instructors agreed. To Kahneman the flight instructors' experience rang true. On the other hand, Kahneman believed in the animal experiments that demonstrated that reward works better than punishment. He ruminated on this apparent paradox. And then it struck him: the screaming preceded the improvement, but contrary to appearances it did not cause it.
How can that be? The answer lies in a phenomenon called regression toward the mean. That is, in any series of random events an extraordinary event is most likely to be followed, due purely to chance, by a more ordinary one.
--Leonard Mlodinow, The Drunkard's Walk
The issue of regression to the mean is interesting in itself, and it's the motive for Mlodinow's anecdote, but I'd like to focus on the claim of behavioral psychology, that rewarding good behavior works but punishing bad behavior doesn't. Is this true? If so, what do I do with this principle? How do I apply it? On my mind today is that, as I've often saidin a punitive tone of voice, music critics don't know how to sustain an intellectual conversation. And my assumption is that I'm not really going to have many sustained intellectual conversations unless I and people like me teach others how to do it. More immediately, I'm wondering if there's a way to have an impact on the gross dysfunctional behavior that sinks a lot of music discourse - a current example is the stupid commentary at Jezebel and Autostraddle about Taylor Swift, which Alex O. and Erika do a good job of taking apart. Basically, Autostraddle and Jezebel project a virgin-whore dichotomy onto Taylor that Taylor's actual words and behavior don't support at all, then excoriate Taylor for perpetuating the virgin-whore dichotomy. But the real dysfunction in criticism isn't the making of a false inference on the basis of too-little evidence and being too thoughtless to look for further evidence or to notice what contradicts the inference - who doesn't do that at some point (and to be honest I only skimmed the Autostraddle piece myself)? - but rather what comes after, the inability of the overall conversation to take care of this, the many voices being unable to make up for the limitations of the single voice.
I have a bunch of contradictory thoughts:
--In commenting on Taylor, or Jezebel, or Autostraddle, our responsibility is to the reader and to ourselves, to ask questions and communicate visions and to foment thought, not to help improve Taylor or Jezebel or Autostraddle, who haven't asked for our help.
--I think it's important to go out and counter a lot of the bullshit, but my real impulse is to want to ignore the Jezebel shit. But then, my instinct is also that if I create an enclave where I and a few people like me shut out the shit, I end up narrow and ignorant, and my convo not worth all that much.
--Sometimes irl or in our own comment threads we will run into Jezebel types, who may not be intitially hostile to us but will still be spouting this irritating baloney. Can I approach someone like that with the attitude, "Here's a potentially interesting person from whom I might learn something, if we can set aside her dysfunction (or even if we can't)"? I won't say that this is second nature to me.
--Few of us are in position to instruct anyone else in the musicwrite world anyway, or to dole out rewards and punishments. That said, I'm wondering what I can do differently, since what I am doing isn't working anymore. I'm not attracting many readers, and people much smarter than the two women who made those Taylor posts also aren't willing to run with me, or don't know how, and at a higher intellectual level there's still often the same basic species of dysfunction: an inability to notice counter-evidence or to consider alternative explanations.
--Some people (and I'm sometimes one of these, unfortunately) take correction as criticism and they don't hear criticism, instead their mind takes a walk, they feel hurt and fight back but attack straw men. But people really do need correction. I certainly benefit from being told when I've gotten something wrong, even told meanly. And not all misperceptions can be changed by one's own trial-and-error, by experience. The Kahneman example is good because it shows a mistake that day-in-and-day-out experience is going to seem to reinforce, not correct. And prejudices and fears perpetuate themselves by choking off inquiry. If I'm afraid of something, I'm not going to explore it, and if I don't explore it I'll never meet the counter-evidence that challenges my fear.
--On comment threads, my immediate impulse is to correct someone's errors and to challenge ideas where I think I have better ideas of my own. This makes some sense, since agreeing with what was said doesn't keep the conversation going and doesn't seem to add anything to it. Dave had a long, terrific post about the funhouse distorting mirror that the anti-Taylorites create for themselves, but the bulk of my comments were about a brief parenthetical aside of his where he says Taylor doesn't mention God once on Fearless,* my response being to point out the times where Taylor does mention God, on Fearless or elsewhere. So there was nothing in my comments to honor Dave for making a terrific post. I assume that in general Dave does feel recognized by me and that this isn't an issue, but my point is that the basic impulse is to contradict and correct, not praise. Of course, the best response would be to take his idea and elaborate on it.
--Isn't it condescending to withhold correction where you think you might hurt someone else's progress? What makes you think you have the power to hurt or help someone? Imagining yourself into such a role can be a power game you play with yourself - like in "Microwaving A Tragedy," where Rihanna is telling herself that Chris needs her to come and rescue him. (A way to feel strong is to believe that the bullies are really in a lot of pain, and that you could help them out of this pain if only they'd let you. Not to say that this can't be true, but it's still a power play.) The fact is, you do have to hold back at times, and calculate, and pull the strings, but is there a way to do so that doesn't feel like bad faith?
--When someone takes something as punishment rather than correction it's because he doesn't feel you're on his side. Whereas if he does feel you're on his side, you don't have to micromanage your own tone of voice. But how do you get someone to feel that wayespecially if it isn't true especially when you're fundamentally trying to lure that person away from dysfunctional, destructive behavior and into starting over?
--People aren't dogs. Dogs can't comprehend other points of view or ponder alternative explanations or wonder what the world might be if things were somewhat different. Maybe, therefore, reward and punishment works differently for them. Do any or you know anything about behavior mod of the last 50 years, since that Kahneman anecdote?
--The point isn't to evade counterattack or to get someone to like me but rather to help someone feel confident enough to risk giving up cherished ideas and familiar modes of behavior. If I'm to reward someone (reward? how?) it shouldn't particularly be for saying something I agree with but for re-evaluating evidence and for giving a second look and for putting forth interesting ideas one never has heard before.
*I think he may have gotten this not completely correct idea from me, actually.
"I've often praised people warmly for beautifully executed maneuvers, and the next time they always do worse," the flight instructor said. "And I've screamed at people for badly executed maneuvers, and by and large the next time they improve. Don't tell me that reward works and punishment doesn't work. My experience contradicts it." The other flight instructors agreed. To Kahneman the flight instructors' experience rang true. On the other hand, Kahneman believed in the animal experiments that demonstrated that reward works better than punishment. He ruminated on this apparent paradox. And then it struck him: the screaming preceded the improvement, but contrary to appearances it did not cause it.
How can that be? The answer lies in a phenomenon called regression toward the mean. That is, in any series of random events an extraordinary event is most likely to be followed, due purely to chance, by a more ordinary one.
--Leonard Mlodinow, The Drunkard's Walk
The issue of regression to the mean is interesting in itself, and it's the motive for Mlodinow's anecdote, but I'd like to focus on the claim of behavioral psychology, that rewarding good behavior works but punishing bad behavior doesn't. Is this true? If so, what do I do with this principle? How do I apply it? On my mind today is that, as I've often said
I have a bunch of contradictory thoughts:
--In commenting on Taylor, or Jezebel, or Autostraddle, our responsibility is to the reader and to ourselves, to ask questions and communicate visions and to foment thought, not to help improve Taylor or Jezebel or Autostraddle, who haven't asked for our help.
--I think it's important to go out and counter a lot of the bullshit, but my real impulse is to want to ignore the Jezebel shit. But then, my instinct is also that if I create an enclave where I and a few people like me shut out the shit, I end up narrow and ignorant, and my convo not worth all that much.
--Sometimes irl or in our own comment threads we will run into Jezebel types, who may not be intitially hostile to us but will still be spouting this irritating baloney. Can I approach someone like that with the attitude, "Here's a potentially interesting person from whom I might learn something, if we can set aside her dysfunction (or even if we can't)"? I won't say that this is second nature to me.
--Few of us are in position to instruct anyone else in the musicwrite world anyway, or to dole out rewards and punishments. That said, I'm wondering what I can do differently, since what I am doing isn't working anymore. I'm not attracting many readers, and people much smarter than the two women who made those Taylor posts also aren't willing to run with me, or don't know how, and at a higher intellectual level there's still often the same basic species of dysfunction: an inability to notice counter-evidence or to consider alternative explanations.
--Some people (and I'm sometimes one of these, unfortunately) take correction as criticism and they don't hear criticism, instead their mind takes a walk, they feel hurt and fight back but attack straw men. But people really do need correction. I certainly benefit from being told when I've gotten something wrong, even told meanly. And not all misperceptions can be changed by one's own trial-and-error, by experience. The Kahneman example is good because it shows a mistake that day-in-and-day-out experience is going to seem to reinforce, not correct. And prejudices and fears perpetuate themselves by choking off inquiry. If I'm afraid of something, I'm not going to explore it, and if I don't explore it I'll never meet the counter-evidence that challenges my fear.
--On comment threads, my immediate impulse is to correct someone's errors and to challenge ideas where I think I have better ideas of my own. This makes some sense, since agreeing with what was said doesn't keep the conversation going and doesn't seem to add anything to it. Dave had a long, terrific post about the funhouse distorting mirror that the anti-Taylorites create for themselves, but the bulk of my comments were about a brief parenthetical aside of his where he says Taylor doesn't mention God once on Fearless,* my response being to point out the times where Taylor does mention God, on Fearless or elsewhere. So there was nothing in my comments to honor Dave for making a terrific post. I assume that in general Dave does feel recognized by me and that this isn't an issue, but my point is that the basic impulse is to contradict and correct, not praise. Of course, the best response would be to take his idea and elaborate on it.
--Isn't it condescending to withhold correction where you think you might hurt someone else's progress? What makes you think you have the power to hurt or help someone? Imagining yourself into such a role can be a power game you play with yourself - like in "Microwaving A Tragedy," where Rihanna is telling herself that Chris needs her to come and rescue him. (A way to feel strong is to believe that the bullies are really in a lot of pain, and that you could help them out of this pain if only they'd let you. Not to say that this can't be true, but it's still a power play.) The fact is, you do have to hold back at times, and calculate, and pull the strings, but is there a way to do so that doesn't feel like bad faith?
--When someone takes something as punishment rather than correction it's because he doesn't feel you're on his side. Whereas if he does feel you're on his side, you don't have to micromanage your own tone of voice. But how do you get someone to feel that way
--People aren't dogs. Dogs can't comprehend other points of view or ponder alternative explanations or wonder what the world might be if things were somewhat different. Maybe, therefore, reward and punishment works differently for them. Do any or you know anything about behavior mod of the last 50 years, since that Kahneman anecdote?
--The point isn't to evade counterattack or to get someone to like me but rather to help someone feel confident enough to risk giving up cherished ideas and familiar modes of behavior. If I'm to reward someone (reward? how?) it shouldn't particularly be for saying something I agree with but for re-evaluating evidence and for giving a second look and for putting forth interesting ideas one never has heard before.
*I think he may have gotten this not completely correct idea from me, actually.
