how should I fix a confidence problem?

[artyemi]

HAHAHAHA. Thanks for answering that Shhh... otherwise, obviously, I would have to.

BTW, I think the Barry Manilow version of this song sucks...

Woa! So how many versions are there?

[shh!]

OnlyVirgins: I am not arguing that things SHOULDN'T be the way you describe, but rather I am arguing that this is, in fact, the way it really IS. And lest you think I am being sexist, I believe that I have already posted somewhere in this forum that I think girls ALSO should be independent before attaching themselves to someone as an adult. Being self-sufficient is a necessary step for actualizing your full potential. Of course there are exceptions, and there will be girls who will take anything because they are desperate to attach to someone, but let's not pretend that lack of drive will attract hoardes of women. It won't.

And quit saying I/my posts are stupid; you know very well that is not true, and I have thus far been able to make my point without being intentionally insulting.

[shh!]

HAHAHAHA. Thanks for answering that Shhh... otherwise, obviously, I would have to.

BTW, I think the Barry Manilow version of this song sucks...

(blushing) Ummm... Sorry - I didn't know that anyone here posted this line from the song for their signature. My apologies - the song is not for dorks.

[artyemi]

Being self-sufficient is a necessary step for actualizing your full potential.

That is a great quote.

[Promise]

Quite right on both points. And if we didn't want to help, we wouldn't bother answering. Better than those who just want to argue about HOW we answered...

P.S. I had to laugh.. Whoever thinks that Einsteins quotes are trivial has obviously never read his works. By the way, Einstein was at Princeton, not Harvard (and he did his graduate work in Europe).

To base the functioning of what you say upon what someone else said, and probably never actualized in reality is not trivial, but naive and idiotic. Thing is though, if you actually read and studied his books/work, you'd understand that the man's life in a whole was a contradiction; he said many things, and did many things that was hypocritical to what he wrote. Also, nobody said he was at Harvard, or even anything relative to his biographical life... So I advise before you make a fool of yourself again to read clearly, before trying to be so witty, because the laugh is upon you.

To everyone else that agrees negative reinforcement or in this case to agree upon symantecs, "the truth", is the way to ameliorate someone's problem, let me give you a great example of what positive reinforcement can do. Let's take someone who is "fat" and "ugly", but wants to be "thin" and "beautiful". Do you help them by telling them they have to realize that they are "fat" and "ugly" and nobody wants them and all the other ammenities that come along with that fact to make their situation better, and in effect believe they will take that as a stepping stone to becoming "thin" and "beautiful" or to where their goals are? I certainly do not believe that that nature is natural of people, therefore, we must make them believe, and thus in our own, believe that they are beautiful, and there is no exact definition of thin, before they can take the step to becoming their idealistic weight and look; for with everything and anything it has to be a natural complusion and resolve to want to do something, not one that is fabricated by another.

[shh!]

I admit I am trying to use a negative reinforcement technique, but I believe you are using the term "negative reinforcement" incorrectly as it appears that you are attaching a negative value to it. Negative reinforcement strengthens a positive behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior. (Note that the result in the end is a POSITIVE good.)

A common example is driving in heavy traffic, which is a negative condition for most of us. You leave home earlier than usual one morning, and don't run into heavy traffic. You leave home earlier again the next morning and again you avoid heavy traffic. Your behavior of leaving home earlier is strengthened by the consequence of the avoidance of heavy traffic. It is repeating a behavior to avoid unpleasant consequences. I fully advocate avoiding unpleasant consequences.

Positive reinforcement, on the other hand, rewards a desired behavior AFTER it is demonstrated, so in this case, the original poster would have to take an action and then receive a reward. What you are really doing is offering encouragement, which is the sort of thing a good friend would do. What I believe you are trying to accuse me of is PUNISHING the original poster (assuming you are referring to Alfred Skinner's ideas about operant conditioning, where the terms originate).

Check your Psych 101 book.

[Promise]

I admit I am trying to use a negative reinforcement technique, but I believe you are using the term "negative reinforcement" incorrectly as it appears that you are attaching a negative value to it. Negative reinforcement strengthens a positive behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior. (Note that the result in the end is a POSITIVE good.)

A common example is driving in heavy traffic, which is a negative condition for most of us. You leave home earlier than usual one morning, and don't run into heavy traffic. You leave home earlier again the next morning and again you avoid heavy traffic. Your behavior of leaving home earlier is strengthened by the consequence of the avoidance of heavy traffic. It is repeating a behavior to avoid unpleasant consequences. I fully advocate avoiding unpleasant consequences.

Positive reinforcement, on the other hand, rewards a desired behavior AFTER it is demonstrated, so in this case, the original poster would have to take an action and then receive a reward. What you are really doing is offering encouragement, which is the sort of thing a good friend would do. What I believe you are trying to accuse me of is PUNISHING the original poster (assuming you are referring to Alfred Skinner's ideas about operant conditioning, where the terms originate).

Check your Psych 101 book.

What your talking about is not even parallel to what I was trying to exemplify. Maybe you should check with an English professor, because negative conditions and negative reinforcement don't even pertain to relevance to one another in this matter. Maybe then, when you come to comprehend these parallels, you'll be able to construct a more logical reasoning to your arguement. Until then, you'll remain obsolete in my book.

Also, no I'm not not using the term "negative reinforcement" incorrectly, but I think it's you who is using it incorrectly, because negative reinforcement does have a negative vaule to it. Let me exemplify if you haven't been coherent enough to comprehend, when parents use physical violence as a means to make their children follow certain distinctions, do the children follow after being punished? Yes, of course, for the concern of being hurt again forces them to tolerate orders. But, even though they follow orders at those certain moments, give them a moment of liberty to self express themselves, and they will retaliate with the same ordinance, if not even more increasingly violent. This negative reinforcement technique is nothing more than a pseudo fix to problems, because it's the most naturally inclined thing to do.

Maybe you should pick up some literature upon John D. Rockafeller and Charles Schwab, read and see what positive reinforcement did for them. If you don't know, John D. Rockafeller is one of the richest man to ever live with currency fluxuation discrepency in place. Well, and Charles Schwab.. find out why he was paid more than 3 million dollars a year in today's money to do... you guessed it, find a way to make people work more efficently, and he found that positive reinforcement got them there.

[shh!]

Yeah, right - don't take my word for it. Just read and become enlightened.

[url]http://psychology.b.dictonarypage.co.uk/positive+reinforcement/[/url]Positive reinforcement:
The strengthening of a tendency to behave by virtue of the fact that previous responses in that situation have been followed by presentation of a desired reward.

[url]http://psychology.b.dictonarypage.co.uk/negative+reinforcement/[/url]
Negative Reinforcement:
The strengthening of a tendency to exhibit desired behavior by virtue of the of the fact that previous responses in that situation have been rewarded by the removal of an aversive stimulus.

Please note that both have positive outcomes.

Your example of abusive parent is an example of punishing behavior as defined by Alfred Skinner, who, as I already mentioned, put forth these models.

Amateur.

[shh!]

I've decided to self-edit my snarky post in reply to "promise".
Have a nice day.
:-D

[Promise]

I've decided to self-edit my snarky post in reply to "promise".
Have a nice day.
:-D

Snarky? Amateur? You've based your whole arguement upon a single sentence on some webpage. Here, I've read, seen, and witnessed living proof of what positive reinforcement can do and has done. Funny thing your example of negative reinforcement isn't even relevant to your definition if you want to be meticulous about logistics and symantecs.

Nobody here is more of an amateur but yourself.

Ignored.

[shh!]

Methinks "promise" doth protest too much. Hmmm... Could it be that the armchair psychologist is a 27 year old, unemployed man living at home with his momma?

[Only-virgins]

Methinks "promise" doth protest too much. Hmmm... Could it be that the armchair psychologist is a 27 year old, unemployed man living at home with his momma?

and I have thus far been able to make my point without being intentionally insulting.

And you have finally failed. Im not getting into this postive/negative reinforcement. Probably because I do not care enough...but I fail to see how anyone out there who has even a slight ability to logic and reason would judge someone on their "independence" and "wealth". What happened to all the romantics who live in the moment?

[shh!]

And you have finally failed.

Ahh, but not with you! Besides, you can clearly see I was provoked. I even edited out my REALLY nasty response so as not to unduly embarrass our resident "psychologist".

What happened to all the romantics who live in the moment?

I think you are the only one left, darling. It is one of your more endearing qualities, though, so don't change on my account.
:-)

[indigosoul]

To base the functioning of what you say upon what someone else said, and probably never actualized in reality is not trivial, but naive and idiotic. Thing is though, if you actually read and studied his books/work, you'd understand that the man's life in a whole was a contradiction; he said many things, and did many things that was hypocritical to what he wrote. Also, nobody said he was at Harvard, or even anything relative to his biographical life... So I advise before you make a fool of yourself again to read clearly, before trying to be so witty, because the laugh is upon you.

Ahahahahah! Promise, you are hilarious. I could have such fun with you. You have NO idea... ahahahaha. Lets just say I have certainly read his books. And about the Einstein Harvard-thing... I just wanted to see if you just wanted to argue. Its called a "psych" and you got reeled in. And, like Einstein, I don't care if anyone else thinks I'm a fool or a contradiction. Certainly not some gormless stranger. Thinking ppl can decide for themselves.

To everyone else that agrees negative reinforcement or in this case to agree upon symantecs, "the truth", is the way to ameliorate someone's problem, let me give you a great example of what positive reinforcement can do.

I believe that the first step to solving a problem is knowing there is one. In this particular case, the problem was pointed out bluntly, but not destructively, IMO. I would rather have honest Shh, than you for a friend anyday... you pretend to be "sensitive" but all your other posts contradict this. Since we were discussing "contradictions"...

[indigosoul]

What your talking about is not even parallel to what I was trying to exemplify. Maybe you should check with an English professor,

Nah, don't listen to this Shh. English profs are bitter b/c they don't get any decent funding for the "work" that they do. And maybe theres a good reason for this. Try someone w/there feet firmly planted on the ground... a prof in the sciences, engineering, or business.

Promise, you are an idiot. Noone here has said that positive reinforcement is a bad thing. Both negative and positive reinforcement work and are useful techniques for changing behaviour. Oh, and I think you are doing a WONDERFUL job at helping to point all this out to us, BTW!!


Ahahahahahaha!!