The replies to this question that cite Seligman (actually Overmier and Seligman) and Guthrie have me confused. The question of what is "learned" in learned helplessness is a problem, but seems to have little relevance to one experience with porcupine quills. One could make the case that, if the experience stopped the ongoing behavior of chasing and catching a porcupine, Guthrie might consider this as potentially reinforcing.
I will got along with the Breland reference. Dogs do what dogs do, whether it makes sense to us or not. My mother's westie (yappy little monster) "caught" a skunk recently. An unpleasant event for her, but she is sure he would do it again. Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology & Counseling University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 501-450-5418 >>> "Jean-Marc Perreault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/29/07 5:19 PM >>> An interesting question arose a while back... Why do dogs, after biting into a porcupine (which is a very unpleasant event, with sometimes harsh consequences, <<such as having needles that are shaped as fish hooks pulled out of the mouth with pliers>> keep going after other porcupines later on? Would one argue that instinctual behaviour (that of chasing small critters) overcome, or even prevent, learning? I'm quite interested in the answer to that one... Cheers! Jean-Marc --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
