The New Pavlov’s Dogs
5/30/2033
Classical conditioning (also respondent conditioning and Pavlovian conditioning) is a behavioral procedure in which a biologically potent physiological stimulus (e.g. food) is paired with a neutral stimulus (e.g. the sound of a musical triangle). The term classical conditioning refers to the process of an automatic, conditioned response that is paired with a specific stimulus.
The Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov studied classical conditioning with detailed experiments with dogs, and published the experimental results in 1897. In the study of digestion, Pavlov observed that the experimental dogs salivated when fed red meat. Pavlovian conditioning is distinct from operant conditioning (instrumental conditioning), through which the strength of a voluntary behavior is modified, either by reinforcement or by punishment. However, classical conditioning can affect operant conditioning; classically conditioned stimuli can reinforce operant responses.
Classical conditioning is a basic behavioral mechanism, and its neural substrates are now beginning to be understood. Though it is sometimes hard to distinguish classical conditioning from other forms of associative learning (e.g. instrumental learning and human associative memory), a number of observations differentiate them, especially the contingencies whereby learning occurs.
Together with operant conditioning, classical conditioning became the foundation of behaviorism, a school of psychology which was dominant in the mid-20th century and is still an important influence on the practice of psychological therapy and the study of animal behavior. Classical conditioning has been applied in other areas as well. For example, it may affect the body's response to psychoactive drugs, the regulation of hunger, research on the neural basis of learning and memory, and in certain social phenomena such as the false consensus effect.
The Pavlov dogs experiment showed that dogs could be conditioned
to salivate at the sound of a bell if that sound was repeatedly presented while
they were given food. First, the dogs were presented with the food, and they
salivated. The food was the unconditioned stimulus and salivation was an
unconditioned (innate) response.
While the conditioning response in the experiment was positive, in theory, a similar stimulus could be produced or used to influence society to produce the result the “tester” wanted to produce. Social media is doing that now with word phrases and claims that some make that make salivate in favor of ineffective legislation and legislation that does nothing to solve any problem except kick the can down the road for someone else to clean up later.
Social media is doing that now with a single word phrase and false claims that it makes youth salivate in favor of what you think is effective legislation that it creates. That phrase: rebuttable presumption of shared parenting.
If you dig into the legal meaning and the legal definition of those words and the phrase in question it becomes obvious how much some are falling for the confusing message that too many organizations are promoting. This is intentional misuse of legal terminology to intentionally to disguise the true intention of non-profits and hide the weakness of their arguments in supporting what they want to be changed in state laws. The intentional misuse by organizations is to fool the young into believing that certain organizations are getting new laws passed that in reality have no legal effect on current parenting laws.
As soon as I hear someone say that a state needs “shared parenting” I wonder if that person has ever looked at that state’s statutes. Know the history, California was the first state to pass a shared parenting law and New York was the last to add it. Ohio moved to the shared parenting model in 1981.
Social media has many believing that “shared parenting” is
the same as equal custody. This is what social media and organizations that
profit from claiming to change the law get away with because people don’t
verify the information that they push on people. I watched members of an
organization get repeatedly reminded that they were testifying about an alleged
“equal custody” bill in Ohio and they when they kept saying “shared parenting”.
This misuse of legal terminology is why there is no real progress and it is why
the laws are still the same.
There are no shortcuts to changing family law and you
need to know current law and what you want your proposed bill to do. If you
have a bill that has been introduced you need to know what every aspect of that
bill does. If you can’t answer a question when asked by a legislator or in
committee testimony don’t try to bluff your way through with a bullsh*t answer
it will blow up in your face.
Thinking about the current and past “trendy” bills will do, many have forgotten that there is an oppositional legal argument to what you are proposing. They are not testifying to support you and are arguing contrary to what you are saying. They are not your friends. Missing that part of the big picture is why you fail. Trying to support with social data alone has been a decades long failure. Those in opposition already know what you are going to say because they have heard it before.
I can hear the screaming now, “This guy has no clue
what he is talking about. Every report I have read says it is best that a child
is with both parents.” You would be wrong. Just on our website we have over 600
reports, pro and con, that I have read everyone. Have look for yourself.
While so many are celebrating and congratulating Missouri and Florida for becoming what they perceive as “equal custody states” perhaps we need to look at the language that was changed and just what was changed.
The only change was to add rebuttable to the already existing presumption. A quick read of Black’s Law will tell you that all presumptions are rebuttable.
Ohio has had a presumption of equality in custody cases since 1981. Applying the thought pattern that some have with these changes, every divorced or never married parent in Ohio should have equal custody unless they abused the child or did not want it.
Those of us that have been a round for years have long recognized that the problems are in the lack of definition of what Best Interest of the Child is, the evidentiary standard used, and the factors used to determine custody.
It is past time to stop shortcutting changes and it is time to buckle down and get to work on making all the changes that need to be made.
Ray R. Lautenschlager
Legislative Director
440-281-5478
president@ohiofamilyrights.com
