The correct answer is
Fuck Pavlov
Motherfucker is like the Hitler of dogs. It’s a shame his name is remembered for the conditioning and not the mutilation. Dude was a monster.
Submitted 11 months ago by STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f65d1c08-c9ec-4b18-8176-216789ea2caa.jpeg
The correct answer is
Fuck Pavlov
Motherfucker is like the Hitler of dogs. It’s a shame his name is remembered for the conditioning and not the mutilation. Dude was a monster.
Wait really? Ive never been told about this
Yeah, he cut holes in their throats so food would fall out and added additional holes along the digestive tract to collect various “gastric juices”. He also, apparently, started a business harvesting and selling said juices as a cure for indigestion… not sure how that worked, seems like it would cause more than it cured.
I guess Piccolo was right to curse out Pavlov.
But the mutilation was part of the research I thought
Such an existential question in so few words.
Or… it’s just an obvious “yes”…
There is a joke about that:
Pavlov is sitting in a bar enjoying his beer. The phone rings. Pavlov jumps up: “Damn! I forgot to feed the dogs!”
My dog trained me to get him water by lifting the toilet bowl lid. He doesn’t want to drink out of it, but he knows I’ll get up to stop him and check his water on the way. Now he’ll lift the lid then go stand by the water dish.
Alternatively: your dog has learned how to effectively communicate with you to ask for water.
Pavlov’s dog is not notable for showing that dogs could be conditioned (bell = food time)
What it did was show that a conditional response (bell = food time) could cause a reflexive response (saliva)
Classical conditioning is not the same as associative learning.
Pavlov’s dog is not about associating Thing A with Thing B - that didn’t need a russian scientist to prove.
I didn’t know that! Also apparently the Barenaked Ladies had it right when they wrote Brian Wilson:
It’s a matter of instinct It’s a matter of conditioning and a matter of fact You can call me Pavlov’s Dog Ring a bell and I’ll salivate
What’s haunting about this question?
i suppose it’s that his intent was to train (essentially to control) something apart from himself, but he likely trained himself in the process (created something within himself that he did not control, at least for as long as the response was conditioned).
Assuming he was conditioned by the sound of the bell. Which might not be the case.
Your brain being altered without your consent/awareness?
Fuck, damn. 🤔
Pavlov Pavloved Pavlov
Deep
Image Transcription: Twitter Post
Jeremy Parish, probably, @gamespite
Out of nowhere, my nephew just asked, “Do you think Pavlov thought about feeding his dog every time he heard a bell ring?” and now I’m going to be haunted by this question
The mice will see you now.
Xanthrax@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I mean, no joke, a dog whining/ begging is conditioning you.
I beg. You give me food. I look cute.
I beg. You don’t give me food. I cry.
Next time I beg, will you give me the food?
ikapoz@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I seem to remember reading that domesticated dogs evolved more expressive eyebrows that proved to be a survival advantage in this process.
Xanthrax@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Found the article: www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820653116
That is super neat, you’re right! It was bread into them due to human preference.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 months ago
I’ve seen a few things that have shown many animals have developed a sense of “cuteness” specifically to deal with us.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Too bad it’s not Pavlovian conditioning afaik
harmsy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Replace every instance of dog with cat and you’ve got the reason I give out treats at night before I start cleaning dishes.