I have a problem with the number of reblogs the cave artists were women!!! post has got
Far too many people are reblogging this post without critiquing the validity of its claims.
I too want to improve the quality of research on women in history and prehistory. However, uncritically accepting spurious claims because they fit my feminist agenda (and yes I have a feminist agenda) is no better than maintaining an androcentric anthropology that marginalises and/or erases women during the Palaeolithic.
When someone eventually comes along and dismantles a spurious claim like this one regarding the significance of women in prehistory it undermines our efforts at validating the existence and agency of women during this time. It makes us looks like we can’t find good evidence for women because there is none, because we were never there except to function as mindless brood mares.
Most of the research on Palaeolithic art is interesting but most of it is also unconvincing. Was it ritualistic? Was it graffiti made by adolescent boys? Did it result from ingestion of psychotropics? Any claims will have to be tentative.
Although I’m encouraged by the fact that someone is out there trying to find Palaeolithic women in the archaeological record, I’m not going to imprudently champion a claim that is founded upon specious or nugatory science just because I like what it has to say.
Critical reading is important guys
Chromosome 2 - What separates chimps from humans?
At the genetic level chimpanzees are almost indistinguishable from humans, so how did the formation of human chromosome 2 lead to our divergence from our primate relatives?
Geneticist Aoife McLysaght heads to Dublin Zoo to explain more…
It’s a chromosome Advent Calendar!!
At the recent International Womenâs Earth and Climate Initiative Summit, Jane Goodall and Vandana Shiva discuss their decades of work devoted to protecting nature and saving future generations from the dangers of climate change.VANDANA SHIVA: ”I was born in a beautiful valley called Doon Valley in the Himalaya. And I took for granted that the forests and rivers I had grown with would be there forever, because they were. And then, in the early ’70s, the streams started to disappear, the forests started to disappear. That’s around the time peasant women of our area just rose and started the movement, Chipko, which means to embrace, to hug. And the movement basically was women saying we’ll put our bodies before the trees so you can’t cut them, because these trees are our mothers, they give us food, fuel, water, but more importantly, they give us soil, water and pure air.”
Always reblog Jane
Conditioning vs Conditioning vs Conditioning
flower-and-animals reblogged your video and added:
Could it be that the dog was conditioned to associate treats with blowing in the face, and perhaps later, the approach of a human face? Could this just be conditioning since treats were given before the dog had a chance to bite/bark?
[In reference to this video post]
This case is certainly a type of conditioning but the distinction between classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and counter conditioning is very important.
- Classical Conditioning (i.e. Pavlov’s Dogs or Little Albert)
This is a type of learning where the trainer takes a Conditioned Stimulus (CS) [e.g. bell tone] and pairs it with an Unconditioned Stimulus (US) [e.g. presentation of food], which causes the subject to automatically exhibit a Unconditioned Response (UR)[e.g. salivation].
After repeated sessions where the CS and US are paired (the bell tone precedes or overlaps with the presentation of food), the subject will exhibit the UR (salivation) when only the CS is presented… in this case the UR is now the Conditioned Response (CR).
The important thing here is that 1) the CS is neutral and would normally cause little or no reaction from the subject, 2) the US is biologically relevant to the subject, 3) the UR is a reflex response to the US, and 4) the UR is called the CR when it occurs only in the presence of the CS.
- Operant Conditioning (i.e. B.F. Skinner or +/- Reinforcement)
Operant conditioning centers around the Law of Effect in regards to Reinforcement. Essentially, “behavior which is reinforced tends to be repeated (i.e. strengthened); behavior which is not reinforced tends to die-out or be extinguished (i.e. weakened).” [x]
Skinner demonstrated positive reinforcement at work by using the creatively named Skinner Box. He would put a hungry rat in a box that had a lever in the side. As the rat moved around the box -anyone with rats knows how curious they are- the rat would eventually knock the lever. Moving the lever would cause a food pellet to immediately be dropped into the box. After a few short sessions rats would go directly to the lever and repeatedly move it in order to obtain food.
Skinner also demonstrated negative reinforcement but you can read the sources / send me an ask if you’d like to know more.
The important thing here is to remember that operant means voluntary or spontaneous. This method deals with altering the frequencies of the operant behavior based on whether the behavior is reinforced or punished.
- Counter Conditioning (change the response by changing the emotional state)
Counter conditioning is the process of getting rid of an unwanted response (e.g. aggressive behavior). BUT unlike extinction in classical conditioning, we are replacing the unwanted response with a wanted response. Here the Conditioned Stimulus (CS) [e.g. blowing on the dogs face] is presented with the Unconditioned Stimulus (US)[e.g. providing treats]. Dogs naturally are food motivated and enjoy treats, so the reflex response to this US is the Unconditioned Response (UR) [e.g. positive association with treat nomming].
The dog in the video has been previously conditioned (through abuse, neglect, or whatever) to respond aggressively to humans. Let’s call that aggression Conditioned Response-1 (CR1). By exposing the dog to a weak version of the fear/aggressive inducing CS and providing an immediate positive US, you are gradually replacing the response to the weaker stimulus (CR1) with the wanted positive response to the stronger stimulus (UR).
When successful, like at the end of the video, the dog exhibits the UR when presented with the CS, even in the absence of the US. In this case the UR (non-aggression) becomes the Conditioned Response-2 (CR2) as the dog is no longer aggressive to having his face blown on, even when he is not provided treats.
This diagram is with a baby’s fear of snakes and love of ice cream… but you get the point.
The important thing here is that counter conditioning is all about changing a negative emotional state to a positive one and that it needs to be done in phases. Desensitization to the stress-stimulus (CS) needs to be done slowly so the positive stimulus (US) is stronger and a positive association is created.
Classical Conditioning [x]
Little Albert [x, x]
Operant Conditioning [x, x]
B.F. Skinner [x]
Dr. Yin’s Animal Behavior and Medicine Videos [x]
ASPCA- Desensitization and Counter Conditioning [x]
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TRAIN A FEARFUL / AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL BY YOURSELF. ALWAYS SEEK THE HELP OF A TRAINED PROFESSIONAL!!!!!
Sorry for the all-caps but I really can’t stress that enough.
I get “fake geek girl” BS in job interviews. I have skipped applying for programming jobs because the ads promote the “bro-centric company culture,” where it is common to drink beer and no one complains about your naughty sense of humor. I have applied at companies that won’t interview me for the position that I’m qualified for because the type of programming that I do is more typical for guys and this other type over here that I don’t do is more typical for girls; in order to show how inclusive of women they are, they strongly encourage me to apply for [girl job] despite me being grossly overqualified for [boy job that I can’t be interviewed for]. I have gone to interviews where it is made clear to me that I’m the affirmative action candidate, that they were intrigued by my claim to play video games [which I was tested on], and then had the technical interviewer act astounded because during my whiteboarding exercise, I followed a coding standard that prevents a security breach and no other applicants did— and then not gotten the job. I have had jobs where my opinion was dismissed by my superiors who were less qualified than me, who repeatedly interrupted me during demos to tell me that I’m doing the demo wrong on a product that the interrupter has never used— and then gotten fired for calmly standing up to him.
So let me tell you why there are so few games with strong female protagonists and so few games with characters that women can identify with as idealized heroes: games are made by men for themselves.
PetticoatDespot (Click for full comment on an also great article)
Yeah but WHY aren’t there more women in the tech center? Must be because of their genetically weird lady brains AMIRITE?!
Not a programmer but you’d be hard pressed to find a woman in STEM who hasn’t had to deal with some level of this.
I am a horrible horrible person
Oh man oh man oh man.
So I JUST noticed something…
Ages ago I set up a gmail account specifically for this blog (email@example.com) but apparently because I didn’t do the mobile verification security code thing it wasn’t actually working like I thought it should.
So, if you sent me any emails asking follow up questions, journal articles (specifically AJP & Animal Behaviour), primate / ethology/ behavior sources, or other similar things I’m SOOOOO SORRY!!!!
I didn’t get your emails like I thought I would, and now I feel like a complete twit for not thinking of checking the email functionality earlier.
If you are still interested in those articles (or other ones) I’ll be happy to send them along… but otherwise I’m just going to continue a bit of self-flagellation for a touch.
I’m a wretched horrible person that apparently fails to deliver on scientific goodies. Ugh.
Here is a little bonobo kiss for you all… cause reconciliation behavior is important.