Contiguity

[Jones]

Contiguity is a term I learned in dog training that has been on my mind for a while because of a relationship I feel may exist between it and how the PTB’s may be influencing or controlling our actions and I feel it’s important to understand all facets of how this control might manifest in our lives.

Contiguity in the training sense describes the time relationship between an action and the consequence of that action for best, maximal or most efficient learning. I’m not sure what human contiguity factors are, but for dogs and I’m assuming other 2D animals the contiguity factor is:

0 – 1 second between an action and its consequence = best, most efficient learning.
Example touching something hot and getting burned. The consequence is immediate and fewer repetitions of the action are needed to in order for learning to take place.

1 – 3 seconds between an action and its consequence = Learning will still take place, but it is somewhat sloppy and may require more repetitions.

3 – 10 seconds between an action and its consequence = A very grey area. Learning may still take place, but it may not paired with the initial action of the animal that attracted the consequence. A large number of repetitions are required to change the target behaviour.

The interesting thing about contiguity, is that it can be used in two ways.

The first is that if you want efficient learning in order for the animal to change its behaviour, then you control the circumstances so that the consequences are delivered immediately. For those areas where the consequences cannot be delivered immediately, then reward markers and non reward markers are classically conditioned so that you can communicate to the animal that a reward will be forth coming or withheld to mark particular actions.

Next, and the one that seems to be playing on my mind the most, is that if you do not want an animal to pair a particular action with what might be an unavoidable consequence then the best way to do that is to separate the action and the consequence of the action by a minimum of 10 seconds.

For example, if I do not wish for my dog to engage in chasing behaviours, then I would not give him his dinner inside 10 seconds after he has engaged in that behaviour. Or if I have a dog that is reactive to other dogs, I would act to change the environment to reduce his aggressive or fear reaction, then wait 10 seconds before I touch or talk to him because I don’t want him to perceive anything I do as a reward or punishment for the behaviour or emotional state he was engaging in. If he perceives my actions as a reward, then he may gain confidence in the behaviour because his perception is that he did the right thing. If he perceives my actions as a punishment, he may become more reactive in similar circumstances because I’ve added an additional stress factor for him to cope with.

I believe there are many areas where contiguity is used to control our actions and emotions.

Speed cameras are one example. Once when being issued a fine for speeding was dependent on being pulled over by a policeman, the consequence was immediate. There was a more intense emotional aspect of maybe embarrassment, shame, fear or anger plus the immediate delivery of the ticket indicating how much you would have to pay. With the advent of speed cameras however, you may not even know that you’ve been caught for more than a week. So there may still be some reaction emotionally, but it isn’t at the same intensity – well for me anyway.

But the thing it is often said that speed cameras are just revenue raisers because they haven’t significantly decreased the rate of accidents since speed is neither the only, nor the most frequent contributing factor to accidents. So I wonder whether governments keep funding speed cameras knowing full well that they will not make significant changes to behaviours in this regard, in order to keep collecting revenue but at the same time dressing it up for us to believe that they are doing something in the interest of our safety. And at the same time in accepting the speed cameras, we are also being habituated to the possibility of having our every move recorded a la Big Brother.

I’m sure there are plenty more examples where the contiguity between actions and their consequences are manipulated in order to either control our behaviours or in fact keep us asleep to what is really going on. And of course, the effects of operating outside of contiguity, or decreasing the chances that we will pair actions with consequences, are enhanced by keeping us distracted by other things.

 

[Niall]

Contiguity is a term applied to many areas. From Wiki:

A contiguity is a continuous mass, or a series of things in contact or in proximity. In a different meaning, contiguity is the state of being contiguous.[1] The concept was first set out in the Law of Contiguity, one of Aristotle's Laws of Association, which states that things which occur in proximity to each other in time or space are readily associated.

Used in the context you describe, Contiguity reminds me of Transmarginal Inhibition. Have you read this?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/136090-Transmarginal-Inhibition

But the thing it is often said that speed cameras are just revenue raisers because they haven’t significantly decreased the rate of accidents since speed is neither the only, nor the most frequent contributing factor to accidents. So I wonder whether governments keep funding speed cameras knowing full well that they will not make significant changes to behaviours in this regard, in order to keep collecting revenue but at the same time dressing it up for us to believe that they are doing something in the interest of our safety. And at the same time in accepting the speed cameras, we are also being habituated to the possibility of having our every move recorded a la Big Brother.

Like most everything else governments do, it's almost certainly about control, not concern for public welfare.

 

[Jones]

Used in the context you describe, Contiguity reminds me of Transmarginal Inhibition. Have you read this?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/136090-Transmarginal-Inhibition

No I hadn't read the linked article, thanks for that.

While I was thinking about contiguity I'll admit that transmarginal inhibition crossed my mind. I think that they are similar in that they can both be used/abused to affect behaviour, the ability to learn and emotional states, but contiguity doesn't necessarily depend on harming or stressing the animal/human in order to manipulate learning or behaviour where as it seems that harm or stress is necessary to transmarginal inhibition.

I could be wrong but I think that the use of transmarginal inhibition may be more likely to be utilized where either large numbers of people need to be manipulated in a very short space of time, or in conditioning specific agents outside of the public eye. The downside of using TMI on the masses would be the risk of loss of 'worker bees' who need a recovery period before returning to productivity.

Manipulating contiguity however, can be much more subtle on a mass scale, not draw as much attention - but still assist or prevent learning or behavioural change over time. In fact I'm leaning towards thinking that in contrast to TMI, manipulating contiguity may be used in those instances where limiting stress or harm may best suit the agenda of the PTB, where maximimising productivity during the changes is optimal.

 

[truth seeker]

Manipulating contiguity however, can be much more subtle on a mass scale, not draw as much attention - but still assist or prevent learning or behavioural change over time. In fact I'm leaning towards thinking that in contrast to TMI, manipulating contiguity may be used in those instances where limiting stress or harm may best suit the agenda of the PTB, where maximimising productivity during the changes is optimal.

If we're speaking strictly in the context of the ptb and what you've said above, it would seem that contiguity and tmi would essentially be two sides of the same coin then?

I'm not so sure that I would say that a more covert means of manipulation is less harmful than an overt one, however. Quite often, it seems that covert manipulation (eg. covert narcissitic wounding) actually harms more if for no other reason than one has greater difficulty seeing it for what it is. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you or maybe we're saying the same thing?

 

[lake_george]

Hello Jones,

Thank you for starting this thread. It is very interesting to think about!

The example of the speed cameras:

Speed cameras are one example. Once when being issued a fine for speeding was dependent on being pulled over by a policeman, the consequence was immediate. There was a more intense emotional aspect of maybe embarrassment, shame, fear or anger plus the immediate delivery of the ticket indicating how much you would have to pay. With the advent of speed cameras however, you may not even know that you’ve been caught for more than a week. So there may still be some reaction emotionally, but it isn’t at the same intensity – well for me anyway.

It seems like the result the PTB will get is more revenue with less grief and opposition from the person caught speeding - since, as you observe, there is not the reaction of being 'caught in the act.' Also with the speed cameras, there is, on the surface, a perception of it being more fair - since the camera will take the photo of everyone speeding. Of course, it could well be that some people just don't mind paying for the privilege of speeding, and ALSO - there is no way to know who 'they' have really sent a bill to! Why not have a list of license plates of people who are 'too big' to get a ticket.

But in regard to the idea of contingency as it may be used either intentionally or inadvertently by the PTB to model human behavior, I guess one way to determine how it might be used is to look at what are the possible interventions. I am not sure that there is really much consequence from our 'social world' that would be very immediate except: reactions from other people who are witnessing the behavior, response by police, response by one's employer. Otherwise it just seems that there is just 'control by paranoia' - perhaps hearing enough about what is happening to others, what are the powers of the authorities, inhibits behavior and expression.

 

[Jones]

Manipulating contiguity however, can be much more subtle on a mass scale, not draw as much attention - but still assist or prevent learning or behavioural change over time. In fact I'm leaning towards thinking that in contrast to TMI, manipulating contiguity may be used in those instances where limiting stress or harm may best suit the agenda of the PTB, where maximimising productivity during the changes is optimal.

If we're speaking strictly in the context of the ptb and what you've said above, it would seem that contiguity and tmi would essentially be two sides of the same coin then?

Possibly, I’d like to explore that idea a bit further though. There are elements where they seem to be two extremes on a line of continuum, and elements where they seem to be opposites. The line of continuum seems to take into account the temperament of the subject.

I’ll admit that my view may be limited at this time and I may be wrong in what I’m about to say.

I believe that as noted in the article that Kniall linked TMI operates more in the domain of Classical or Pavlovian conditioning which seeks to manipulate emotions and reflexive responses, while Contiguity operates more in the domain of Operant or Instrumental conditioning which seeks to manipulate outward behaviours and actions. With TMI, the learning is dependent on a given emotional state. As an example and to perhaps paraphrase the article, TMI relies on the subject to be in a certain emotional state so that a suggestion can be made that will be believed, and this belief will then influence behaviours and attitudes.

But with Contiguity, the emotional state within certain parameters isn’t as important so long as the subject still has the ability to adapt or change actions or behaviours under the influence of punishers and reinforcers. I believe that the PTB use manipulation of contiguity where they want to protect our ability to function. Where with TMI they are more after a reflexive emotional response to certain triggers that they implant. This still affects behaviours and attitudes. The dogs mentioned in the article that were transmarginally inhibited were probably in a state where trying to teach them to fetch (an operant/instrumental function), for example, would have been useless because their ability to learn at that time would be severely reduced.

I'm not so sure that I would say that a more covert means of manipulation is less harmful than an overt one, however. Quite often, it seems that covert manipulation (eg. covert narcissitic wounding) actually harms more if for no other reason than one has greater difficulty seeing it for what it is. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you or maybe we're saying the same thing?

No I don’t believe we were saying the same thing, but I see your point and I agree. To clarify if the PTB are manipulating contiguity delivering what we perceive to be punishers and reinforcers outside of human contiguity, whatever that may be, then we are less likely to be able to match our behaviours with the consequences they attract. And you’re right there is still some harm in this but it is perhaps of different intensity though it still has accumulative effects which may in turn produce TMI depending on the temperament of the subject.

Perhaps harm was not the right term but rather ability to function or choose our behaviours which I believe is negatively impacted in the case of TMI. TMI gives us no choice over what we learn because it implants reflexive emotional triggers, OSIT. Contiguity if it is within the parameters of efficient learning, then we have a choice. As lake_george says, some might still choose to risk speeding fines for the act of speeding. If Contiguity is outside the parameters of efficient learning, then we still have choice but we are much less likely to be able to associate our actions or behaviours with the consequences they attract. Like trying to hit the moving target.

 

[bngenoh]

A very fascinating topic Jones,

It is quite synchronous as well, as I was thinking along these lines yesterday, and even into today.

The first is that if you want efficient learning in order for the animal to change its behaviour, then you control the circumstances so that the consequences are delivered immediately. For those areas where the consequences cannot be delivered immediately, then reward markers and non reward markers are classically conditioned so that you can communicate to the animal that a reward will be forth coming or withheld to mark particular actions.

[...]

I believe there are many areas where contiguity is used to control our actions and emotions.

[...]

I’m sure there are plenty more examples where the contiguity between actions and their consequences are manipulated in order to either control our behaviours or in fact keep us asleep to what is really going on. And of course, the effects of operating outside of contiguity, or decreasing the chances that we will pair actions with consequences, are enhanced by keeping us distracted by other things.

It's all about control, but the name of the game is influence, osit, but without a balancing force, influence is by default control. Circumstance or setting is a very big factor in persuasion, which is probably why any time a country has been on the path of true socialism, the control system has kicked in with its enforcer the US to remove that influence from the minds of the masses.

Manipulating contiguity however, can be much more subtle on a mass scale, not draw as much attention - but still assist or prevent learning or behavioural change over time. In fact I'm leaning towards thinking that in contrast to TMI, manipulating contiguity may be used in those instances where limiting stress or harm may best suit the agenda of the PTB, where maximimising productivity during the changes is optimal.

If we're speaking strictly in the context of the ptb and what you've said above, it would seem that contiguity and tmi would essentially be two sides of the same coin then?

I'm not so sure that I would say that a more covert means of manipulation is less harmful than an overt one, however. Quite often, it seems that covert manipulation (eg. covert narcissitic wounding) actually harms more if for no other reason than one has greater difficulty seeing it for what it is. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you or maybe we're saying the same thing?

As I see it, both of you are correct in the above, I remember a quote "subtle energies are powerful and the most powerful energies are subtle." To give an example, look at how control over the masses has changed over millenia, it used to be much more overt, but "they" have learned well, and now achieve much better results with much less effort.

Bertrand Russel comes to mind:

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study... This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.

[...]

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished... Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

In the past, we can say, that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. There’s been the political revolution, the economic revolution . . . the religious revolution. All these aimed as I say not directly at the human being but at his surroundings, so by modifying his surroundings you did achieve – at one remove – an effect upon the human being.

Today, we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ‘Ultimate Revolution’ – the ‘Final Revolution’ – where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time, but this has generally been of a violent nature. The techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial, and people have employed them with more-or-less ingenuity, sometimes with utmost crudity, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired with a process of trial and error – finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonments, constraints of various kinds . . .

If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely, it can function for a fairly long time; but sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

Well it seems to me the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy – who have always existed and will presumably always exist – to get people to love their servitude. This is the ultimate in malevolent revolution...

There seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of Ultimate Control, this method of control, by which people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy; the enjoyment of servitude . . .

I am inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future – and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world – will be probably a good deal nearer to the Brave New World pattern than to the 1984 pattern. They will be a good deal nearer, not because of any humanitarian qualms in the scientific dictators, but simply because the ‘brave new world’ pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other. That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they are living – the state of servitude – if you can do this, then you are likely to have a much more stable, a much more lasting society; much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs, and firing squads and concentration camps.

Good ol Edward Bernays:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society... Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

And to finish of:

The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work, with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.

 

[Iron]

I believe that as noted in the article that Kniall linked TMI operates more in the domain of Classical or Pavlovian conditioning which seeks to manipulate emotions and reflexive responses, while Contiguity operates more in the domain of Operant or Instrumental conditioning which seeks to manipulate outward behaviours and actions. With TMI, the learning is dependent on a given emotional state. As an example and to perhaps paraphrase the article, TMI relies on the subject to be in a certain emotional state so that a suggestion can be made that will be believed, and this belief will then influence behaviours and attitudes.

But with Contiguity, the emotional state within certain parameters isn’t as important so long as the subject still has the ability to adapt or change actions or behaviours under the influence of punishers and reinforcers. I believe that the PTB use manipulation of contiguity where they want to protect our ability to function. Where with TMI they are more after a reflexive emotional response to certain triggers that they implant. This still affects behaviours and attitudes. The dogs mentioned in the article that were transmarginally inhibited were probably in a state where trying to teach them to fetch (an operant/instrumental function), for example, would have been useless because their ability to learn at that time would be severely reduced.

How can you exclude the emotional component of conditioned learning?
Because as far as I can tell I see no diference between TMI and Contiguity, other than scale. Both are learned responses to avoid distress, or to seek pleasure.

No I don’t believe we were saying the same thing, but I see your point and I agree. To clarify if the PTB are manipulating contiguity delivering what we perceive to be punishers and reinforcers outside of human contiguity, whatever that may be, then we are less likely to be able to match our behaviours with the consequences they attract. And you’re right there is still some harm in this but it is perhaps of different intensity though it still has accumulative effects which may in turn produce TMI depending on the temperament of the subject.

Even if we could match our behaviours with the consequences they attract, what good would this deliver? I'm failing to see where your line of thinking is leading.

Perhaps harm was not the right term but rather ability to function or choose our behaviours which I believe is negatively impacted in the case of TMI. TMI gives us no choice over what we learn because it implants reflexive emotional triggers, OSIT. Contiguity if it is within the parameters of efficient learning, then we have a choice. As lake_george says, some might still choose to risk speeding fines for the act of speeding. If Contiguity is outside the parameters of efficient learning, then we still have choice but we are much less likely to be able to associate our actions or behaviours with the consequences they attract. Like trying to hit the moving target.

Efficient learning being be more efficient slaves?
What choice, if there were "artificial" punishers and rewards in place? I can only see a illusion of choice, where the PTB would change punishers and rewards in real time as much as was needed for you to have a illusion of "choice" in this context.
I see it as just TMI with a different flavor, more subtle for different purposes but equally as damaging.

 

[bngenoh]

Efficient learning being be more efficient slaves?
What choice, if there were "artificial" punishers and rewards in place? I can only see a illusion of choice, where the PTB would change punishers and rewards in real time as much as was needed for you to have a illusion of "choice" in this context.
I see it as just TMI with a different flavor, more subtle for different purposes but equally as damaging.

Another way to make more efficient slaves, yes, if that is how one chooses to use it. But I see it as not equally damaging, but more so than TransMarginal Inhibition, subtly is the key as to why, osit.

 

[truth seeker]

Another way to make more efficient slaves, yes, if that is how one chooses to use it. But I see it as not equally damaging, but more so than TransMarginal Inhibition, subtly is the key as to why, osit.

I'm just curious, how would it be less damaging if viewed in the context of controlling others? What would be the difference between a slave who fights their servitude versus one who comes to 'love' it? In other words, who benefits?

 

[bngenoh]

Another way to make more efficient slaves, yes, if that is how one chooses to use it. But I see it as not equally damaging, but more so than TransMarginal Inhibition, subtly is the key as to why, osit.

I'm just curious, how would it be less damaging if viewed in the context of controlling others? What would be the difference between a slave who fights their servitude versus one who comes to 'love' it? In other words, who benefits?

It would be more, I think the way I worded it might be to blame. :/

 

[lake_george]

I remembered a little anecdote that I think may be an example of behavioral change through use of 'contiguity.' This was told to me in a class on behavioral psychology. It seems that a professor of psychology somehow gave students in his class sufficient motivation to play a trick on him. The professor was one who walked back and forth while lecturing. The students colluded together to listen attentively only when he was moving towards the left, and to chat or otherwise act distracted and bored when he was moving towards the right. Before the end of the class period, the professor was standing by the wall on the left side of the room.

So, the responses were subtle, immediate, and the professor was not caused any harm - except for being manipulated. I have no idea whether this 'alteration' in the professor's behavior persisted at all. I am thinking, most likely not. But it sure does have me wonder how much I alter my behavior 'in sleep' in order to get along, to interact with others smoothly, etc. Perhaps this is how indoctrination can begin, very subtly, when one person is brought into a group that is already behaving/indoctrinated into some rigid, group-think, mind-prison state.

 

[Buddy]

I remembered a little anecdote that I think may be an example of behavioral change through use of 'contiguity.' This was told to me in a class on behavioral psychology. It seems that a professor of psychology somehow gave students in his class sufficient motivation to play a trick on him. The professor was one who walked back and forth while lecturing. The students colluded together to listen attentively only when he was moving towards the left, and to chat or otherwise act distracted and bored when he was moving towards the right. Before the end of the class period, the professor was standing by the wall on the left side of the room.

I recall reading about that, so I can confirm the story! A good example of how system 1 is paying attention and responding to environmental feedback even when system 2 is in its own narrative world. :)

 

[Jones]

Bngenoh:

To give an example, look at how control over the masses has changed over millenia, it used to be much more overt, but "they" have learned well, and now achieve much better results with much less effort.

Yes. I’ve read that STS is lazy, but maybe that is not as true as they just got smarter because they needed their livestock to provide food in multidimensional ways.

Bertrand Russell:

Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

And it would be much harder to promote the illusion if the methods were more overt or crude, unless of course the illusion that is promoted is that the population that you wish to use more overt or crude methods with are a threat to the original illusion.

How can you exclude the emotional component of conditioned learning?
Because as far as I can tell I see no diference between TMI and Contiguity, other than scale. Both are learned responses to avoid distress, or to seek pleasure.

I believe that there is always an emotional component to learning. Some behavioural science of the past sought to separate emotional states from outward actions and behaviours and this is apparent in the work of Skinner. The critics of Skinner whose work was with operant/instrumental conditioning, of whom Noam Chomsky was one, claimed that Skinner believed that memory, past experience, emotion etc had no effect on learning or behaviour. I believe it does, but I also find that it is sometimes useful to separate the two in order to get a clearer understanding about what is happening.

An example of where it is helpful to separate emotion and behaviour is in the case of a dog- aggressive dog in a club atmosphere. This type of dog if it is not overtly aggressing, might be at least giving another dog a hard stare, his body might be very tight and rigid. A trainer could still ask this dog to sit (operant/instrumental) and the dog might comply while still in that tense emotional state (classical/pavlovian) . If the trainer rewards that dog for the sit at that time, not only is he/she reinforcing the sit, but he/she is also reinforcing the emotional state of the dog. That which is reinforced tends to increase in intensity or regularity. So it could be expected that this dogs aggression would increase. So, dividing what you see into emotional states and actions/behaviours can give a clearer picture about what is actually happening and how to proceed.
I guess that is why I see differences between TMI and Contiguity, to my current understanding TMI is more reliant on Classical/Pavlovian conditioning and Contiguity is more reliant on Operant/Instrumental conditioning.

Iron:

Even if we could match our behaviours with the consequences they attract, what good would this deliver? I'm failing to see where your line of thinking is leading.

If we can match our behaviours with the consequences they attract then we can change our behaviours and we can do that efficiently. But if we can’t make that match then we may not change our behaviours at least for a much longer time, as both individuals and as groups. The longer the time lapse between an action and a consequence, the less likely that efficient learning will take place and if learning does take place, it will need many more repetitions for the pattern to be understood.
If you touch something hot and you feel the pain of the burn immediately, then you can associate the pain with the fact that you touched the hot thing. There is much more efficient learning and adaption – if you don’t like the pain you will avoid touching hot things.

But if you touched something hot, and the pain doesn’t appear until a month later, you are much less likely to make the association – you might keep touching hot things and getting burnt.


This is more of a group learning example than an individual one, but think of thalidomide and the effect it had on individuals and families.

If the consequences of taking thalidomide, the effect it had on babies that were developing in womb, had been immediately apparent – if the affected baby had been born within 10 seconds of the mother taking the drug, then perhaps thalidomide would have been identified as the cause of that babies physical deformities much sooner.

As it stood, thalidomide as I understand was taken somewhere in the first three months of pregnancy, and it was another six months at least before it was known that there was a problem with the baby. When the very first pregnant mothers started taking thalidomide during the next six months how many other mothers actually took thalidomide, before those first mothers actually had their babies. The time distance between the action of taking thalidomide and the consequences of taking thalidomide was too great for the effects to be learned and behaviours changed accordingly in a more immediate fashion.

Iron:

What choice, if there were "artificial" punishers and rewards in place? I can only see a illusion of choice, where the PTB would change punishers and rewards in real time as much as was needed for you to have a illusion of "choice" in this context.

I think there is still choice – but it is dependent on knowledge and awareness. I believe that in manipulating contiguity the PTB seek to prevent knowledge and awareness where that would negatively impact their goals.

Being aware of a consequence doesn’t necessarily mean that you will choose to either avoid or accept it.
In the above example of the thalidomide, had mothers been aware of the later effects of the drug, most would have chosen endure the physical discomfort morning sickness in order to prevent harm to their babies.

In the instance of getting burnt, even if you understand that touching something hot causes pain, there may be times when you would choose to accept that pain. There are countless examples of people rushing into burning buildings to save another.

 

[Iron]

If we can match our behaviours with the consequences they attract then we can change our behaviours and we can do that efficiently. But if we can’t make that match then we may not change our behaviours at least for a much longer time, as both individuals and as groups. The longer the time lapse between an action and a consequence, the less likely that efficient learning will take place and if learning does take place, it will need many more repetitions for the pattern to be understood.
If you touch something hot and you feel the pain of the burn immediately, then you can associate the pain with the fact that you touched the hot thing. There is much more efficient learning and adaption – if you don’t like the pain you will avoid touching hot things.

That surely does not apply to the real world. Because pain often comes entwined with pleasurable chemicals, specially in the context of PTB fabricated distress. And often the subject does not even consider that he is in pain, or trivializes it.
This example is rather poor.

But if you touched something hot, and the pain doesn’t appear until a month later, you are much less likely to make the association – you might keep touching hot things and getting burnt.

Even if the pain comes along a experience, chances are high that people will keep on getting burned.
If what you say were true, there would be no damaging relationships.

This is more of a group learning example than an individual one, but think of thalidomide and the effect it had on individuals and families.

If the consequences of taking thalidomide, the effect it had on babies that were developing in womb, had been immediately apparent – if the affected baby had been born within 10 seconds of the mother taking the drug, then perhaps thalidomide would have been identified as the cause of that babies physical deformities much sooner.

As it stood, thalidomide as I understand was taken somewhere in the first three months of pregnancy, and it was another six months at least before it was known that there was a problem with the baby. When the very first pregnant mothers started taking thalidomide during the next six months how many other mothers actually took thalidomide, before those first mothers actually had their babies. The time distance between the action of taking thalidomide and the consequences of taking thalidomide was too great for the effects to be learned and behaviours changed accordingly in a more immediate fashion.

I may be dense perhaps, but the way I see, you are trying to fit much larger and complex events in a single theory, the "Contiguity theory".

I think there is still choice – but it is dependent on knowledge and awareness. I believe that in manipulating contiguity the PTB seek to prevent knowledge and awareness where that would negatively impact their goals.

I insist. If there is manipulation (the promisse of punishing X reward in this case) in the scenario, there is no choice, only illusion of choice. The only choice is to remove yourself from the manipulation to put yourself in a larger scenario with more options.

Being aware of a consequence doesn’t necessarily mean that you will choose to either avoid or accept it.
In the above example of the thalidomide, had mothers been aware of the later effects of the drug, most would have chosen endure the physical discomfort morning sickness in order to prevent harm to their babies.

In the instance of getting burnt, even if you understand that touching something hot causes pain, there may be times when you would choose to accept that pain. There are countless examples of people rushing into burning buildings to save another.

I agree with that. However I don't see how those correlate with contiguity. In the first example is a choice based on awareness. I dont see how subtle conditioned learning plays a part in this choice. Perhaps if such choice was made not because of deliberate intent, but just because a perceived reward ( social acceptance for being a caring mother, etc) or perceived punishment ( social/religious guilt due to a aborted fetus) was foreseen.

I am perhaps dense, but I still not "getting" your line of thinking.