This is a free preview and your progress is not being tracked. Purchase access to complete this module for CEUs.
…providing a context in which the child is likely to respond to these combinatorially entailed relations of equivalence between being bigger and terms like more popular.
I’m hoping this will be answered in future slide: The child has entailed a FALSE equivalency between “bigger” and “more popular” – similar to the FALSE response that the white duck is “smaller” than the yellow duck. I would consider these formations of relational frames to be a result of instructor error . . .????
I think the purpose of these examples is to demonstrate how relationships are derived arbitrarily based on history of reinforcement and contextual control (white/yellow ducks). This is sort of discussed when the lesson mentioned that relational frames are not always arbitrarily applied as we do often use physical attributes to derive relations. This is my understanding of this page. This specific example of the dogs is more focused on Cfuncs, at some point the child may have derived relations that bigger is more popular (i.e., think of it like deriving a relationship- Basketball players are bigger than others, NBA Basketball players are famous and popular, therefore the child may have applied that relationship to this situation). I think you comment is on point and it does show that this specific relationship that is being derived is based on each individual’s learning history as previously mentioned in Generalized Operants (I think)
since your specific learning history there is no correlation between bigger and popular.
This section is for the civil and public discussion of the content of this page. We reserve the right to moderate and remove comments that are irrelevant, disrespectful, hateful, harassing, threatening, or spamlike. If you are experiencing a technical issue, please contact our helpdesk for assistance.
I’m hoping this will be answered in future slide: The child has entailed a FALSE equivalency between “bigger” and “more popular” – similar to the FALSE response that the white duck is “smaller” than the yellow duck. I would consider these formations of relational frames to be a result of instructor error . . .????
I think the purpose of these examples is to demonstrate how relationships are derived arbitrarily based on history of reinforcement and contextual control (white/yellow ducks). This is sort of discussed when the lesson mentioned that relational frames are not always arbitrarily applied as we do often use physical attributes to derive relations. This is my understanding of this page. This specific example of the dogs is more focused on Cfuncs, at some point the child may have derived relations that bigger is more popular (i.e., think of it like deriving a relationship- Basketball players are bigger than others, NBA Basketball players are famous and popular, therefore the child may have applied that relationship to this situation). I think you comment is on point and it does show that this specific relationship that is being derived is based on each individual’s learning history as previously mentioned in Generalized Operants (I think)
since your specific learning history there is no correlation between bigger and popular.
Thank you so much for your response!