Prof. Thomas Zentall (Zentall) and his partners in the Department of Psychology at the University of Kentucky research cognition, behavior patterns and learning of animals, and have published nearly 300 groundbreaking articles and books in the field. After almost 15 years of research on pigeons, they had a strange, surprising and disturbing discovery - given conditions of uncertainty and a variety of possible outcomes, the pigeons exhibited the distinct behavior of addicted gamblers.
By: Shimon Bogan
Noah's experiment with the raven and the dove hints at the possibility that there is a behavioral difference between animals in the manner and intensity of risk-taking. In a period much closer to the present day, behavioral researchers chose to focus on more basic processes of response and result, such as operant conditioning, as Ivan Pavlov did with dogs and bells or Frederick Skinner with rats and pigeons in "Skinner boxes". This is how the behaviorist approach took shape, which introduced us to the concepts of "positive reinforcement", "negative reinforcement" and "indirect reinforcement" in learning and motivating people. Opponents from among the community of psychologists and the public called the approach "taming", "brain control tricks" and "robotization of humans".
It is important to understand that operant conditioning is indeed a goal-oriented behavior change method, a goal set by the operator of the method who manipulates the needs and actions of the patients.
Only recently has it occurred to a number of groups of researchers to think outside the box (literally), and examine the self-directed and independent behaviors of animals in similar circumstances of "Skinner boxes", in order to reveal responses arising from the subjects' free will and give them expression. In the advanced behavioral studies, the reward system in the brain is re-examined. Unlike the behaviorists, who treated the brain as a "black box", today a combined examination of the physiology and biochemistry of the brain is done regarding behavior and decision-making processes.
Prof. Thomas Zentall (Zentall) and his partners in the Department of Psychology at the University of Kentucky research cognition, behavior patterns and learning of animals, and have published nearly 300 groundbreaking articles and books in the field. After almost 15 years of research on pigeons, they had a strange, surprising and disturbing discovery - given conditions of uncertainty and a variety of possible outcomes, the pigeons exhibited the distinct behavior of addicted gamblers.
In the research setup, the pigeons were given the opportunity to learn through trial and error the results of pecking on two different keys, in the form of stimuli and winning a prize of tasty and attractive food tablets:
Left key - red light, 10 second delay, 10 tablets. 5 time in 20, XNUMX% chance.
Green light, 0 tablets. 4 times out of 5. 80% chance.
Right key - blue or green light, 3 tablets each time. 100% chance.
In the full article, the researchers illustrate how they took care to neutralize any "noise" factor and bias. For example, by crossing the location of the keys. (Link).
It is very hard to believe, but with 35% more pecking actions to obtain food, the pigeons preferred the key that allowed them to win the jackpot, and ignored the safe and boring option. It turns out that pigeons don't remember places where they didn't find food and remember very well places where they found plenty of food.
Even more surprising is the discovery that the same attitude was obtained among compulsive gamblers when they were placed in front of a computer game with the same characteristics, with the aim of winning points / tokens. It turns out that humans have a natural tendency to suppress losses and intensify feelings of profit and victory...
The studies in the field are nothing less than amazing, especially for anyone interested in the implications and insights that arise from them:
Prof. Elliot Ludwig's group, University of Warwick, England (Link).
Prof. Marsha Spatch's group, University of Alberta, Canada (Link)
Insights and implications, partial list:
- Gambling is a very early survival behavior in evolution, before the separation between mammals and birds. Over the years, the evidence and studies on the tendency to gamble also among rats and dolphins have multiplied. Above all, the monkeys star as born gamblers. It was found that the tendency to gamble is inherent in the DNA of all primates, as it is hidden in sequences that regulate dopamine levels in two areas of the brain and have earned the inclusive nickname "the gambling gene". (Link).
- Arousal is an involuntary response to a stimulus. The catastrophe begins in an internal area of the brain called the insula - the center of reward, satisfaction and pleasure, a flood of the neurotransmitter dopamine develops in the frontal cortex, and turns into a snowball of wild spontaneous behavior, making irrational, impulsive decisions, difficulty in rejecting gratification, taking excessive risks, etc.
- The pigeon's brain is small and simple, therefore easier to maneuver and handle. Studies on behavioral changes, on the weakening or removal of the urge to gamble will be short in time and resources, will be focused and will allow for close and precise control. Such studies will make it possible to formulate effective protocols for providing assistance, treatment and rehabilitation to compulsive gamblers and for dealing with victims of addictions of any kind all the way to complete detoxification.
- Gambling as a natural evolutionary behavior corresponds with the life's work of Nobel laureates Prof. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in the field of behavioral economics, and with the researches of Prof. Dan Arieli, his partners and colleagues in Israel and abroad on the topic of irrationality.
Reading recommendation - BRAINSTORM, Dr. Dan Siegel, Tarcher 2014. Bestseller about thrills, disruptions, coping and learning until mental maturity.
"An Inside-Out Guide to the Emerging Adolescent Mind, Ages 12 to 24"
Dedicated with love to my daughter Avital Kirchberg, graduate of criminology studies, who gave me the inspiration for the term Crimibiology
10 תגובות
Miracles
True, there is no debate here.
Nature is a complex integrated system, beyond our understanding, every part of it is influenced by one and the other.
There are 10 times more bacteria (from hundreds of types) in our bodies than cells, as well as parasites and different viruses, each and every one works to exist
But it depends forever on the existence of other types and those types depend on others and so on ad infinitum.
It is not possible to understand the reasons for the behavior of the "individual", what we define as an "individual" is actually an organism that is part of an organism and so on. There is no bad or good, right or wrong, justice or injustice, equality or inequality in the organism/nature.
These are concepts and many others that man "in his wisdom" invented and defined as culture, as parameters in the test to define the non-animal human person. There is no difference between a dog chasing its tail and a person who perceives justice, honesty, equality, truth, etc.
These are concepts invented by people who did not know themselves.
Ori
I agree with what you say. What I am arguing is that these instincts were assimilated into us (and other animals) because they contributed to reproduction. That is, the need for a leader is a result of the contribution of this need to reproduction.
I'm not sure what we disagree on. All I'm saying is that the basic trait of flocking after a leader gave a survival advantage in the past, i.e. more offspring. Today, this trait has been "taken out of context", like many other traits, for example: love, jealousy, sports, hair styles, music and religious belief.
Miracles
You probably agree with the fact that we define, explain and understand nature through "our poor" and when we see that a certain creature is fighting for its life, for its offspring, for the chance to win a female, we are sure that it is acting under a certain logic. I claim that they arise from instincts that were built and developed and imprinted in us during millions of years of evolution.
ל
“*6==/_89
If the need for a leader is a natural trait, then all that is left for the human being is to choose a suitable leader,
Similar to drug therapy, finding a leader, whose character "appearance, speech, movements, etc." fit our natural needs, man invented delusional reasons in his imagination, such as political, economic, social, and other kinds of dreams...which are not actually the main motive that brings us to flock after a leader.
Uri, you are right.
For example Israel, everyone votes for Bibi because they are afraid of Iran. But Israel will continue to succeed and prosper even with Iran having nuclear weapons. And no state or Bibi sanctions will prevent a country that wants atomic weapons from obtaining such a weapon. For example, Pakistan is a country with less education than Iran, and poorer than Iran developed an atomic weapon. So enough if Bibi's rule of fear.
Ori
Really, really not. You wrote "In our opinion, it seems logical that following a leader blindly increases the chance of survival" - this is not related to logic, rather, this is what the theory of evolution says. A child who is told "don't enter the river because there is a crocodile there" will only survive if he is obedient. The children who do not obey their parents - become extinct. A tiger cub that does not learn from its mother how to hunt - will not survive. A chick that does not sit quietly in the nest - will not survive. An elephant that does not wander with the head of the herd - will not survive. There are also cases where it is not like that: schools of fish for example, starlings for example. For these, staying in the group gives the survival advantage.
You wrote "But it seems to me that herds, flocks and groups living together are similar to an organism or a body. Therefore, the flocking for a leader is automatic/natural" - absolutely not. Imagination is not an explanation for anything, and phenomena cannot be explained with it. Of course the analogy is also wrong - there is nothing in the body that controls the rest of the body. The mind does not control - it makes sure that the body's actions are adjusted to what the body feels. That is, it is a control mechanism and not a control mechanism.
You wrote "In fact, the existential struggle for survival is of and for the group, the organism and not the individual." Again - absolutely not. There is no struggle - there is culture. Any phenomenon that results in reproduction, and that is hereditary, will be passed on. Take a swarm of bees for example. Only the queen reproduces - and as soon as her reproduction rate exceeds the death rate of the entire flock - there will be a culture and there will continue to be flocks.
I will say again - all that is interesting in life is the rate of reproduction over time. Everything that contributes, and is hereditary, will be passed on to descendants. That's all 🙂
Poker news...nice
Miracles
It seems logical to us that following a leader blindly comes to increase the chance of survival. But it seems to me that herds, flocks and groups living together are similar to an organism or a body. Therefore, the flocking for a leader is automatic/natural. In fact, the existential struggle for survival is of and for the group, the organization, and not the individual.
It also explains the hundreds of millions of people who, throughout human history, went to wars and sacrificed themselves for a commander-in-chief and more, it explains the fanatical attachment of the majority of voters in the world, to the movement and to the leaders.
Ori
In evolution the question is "cui bono". I mean, what's the gain in following a ruler, as you say.
I really think you are right, and I also think it is indeed true that there is a survival advantage in going after a ruler.
Reactions or behavior of humans that are usually defined as "strange" "irrational", often originate from urges and needs that were rooted in us during evolution.. I claim that the blind faith in a leader such as a king or a god, was a need that was also rooted in us during evolution. This is absolutely, a necessary existential need of every individual in a herd or group. Not all creations in nature live in groups and likewise some humans do not need much if any for a leader.
There was a study that statistically showed that American Jews tend to gamble more than the rest of the population. This can be explained by the fact that the pressure to succeed is higher among Jews, in light of the stigma of "smart Jews" or "rich Jews". The frustration leads to this destructive behavior!