Milking bullet ants to extract venom that causes the "worst pain known to man"

[crenquis]

They need to cross it with platypus venom to create the most pain that lasts the longest with no relief from pain meds.

[popobawa4u]

@shaddack

In this specific case, they are spot-on from the beginning.

In the beginning they were rewards, because it was the work of psychologists and behaviorists who were conducting conditioning experiments. In these contexts, in the lab, the use of the term makes perfect sense.

“worthy or unworthy behavior” was not determined by the subject, the worth was determined by the experimenter. That’s what “desired behavior” and “positive reinforcement” refer to. The desire and reinforcement are those of the researcher.

Which is why the term is misapplied when referring to the organism itself, or its natural environment. Unless its natural environment involves actual behavioral conditioning. This happens (parenting, fooling prey), but it is situational rather than general.

@shaddack

Drift happens.

That’s what CRCs are for!

[shaddack]

@popobawa4u

“worthy or unworthy behavior” was not determined by the subject, the worth was determined by the experimenter.

The reward was selected by the experimenter from the set that the experimental subject considers rewarding.

Your own definitions above in about half the cases do not contain anything that would even hint at the intentionality being required for the definition.

@popobawa4u

The desire and reinforcement are those of the researcher.

In laboratory, perhaps.

In the nature, the desire evolved to maximize survival. A mouse that desires highly nutritional objects and considers them to be rewards has higher survival rate than a mouse that desires rocks or nothing at all. Simple as this.

Does not matter if the effort is rewarded because a researcher says so, or because the mouse inferred where to catch a tasty cockroach.

[PhasmaFelis]

@popobawa4u

Most all of them! Except for yours, and a few others, apparently. I never assumed it was shorthand for “something you like”.

You might want to read definition #9 from that thing you just posted.

@popobawa4u

It’s the same reason I rage over the misappropriation of the word “privilege”, because at its root the word indicates that somebody is explicitly granting it, not that it happens by itself.

While we’re quoting dictionaries, Collins English Dictionary def. #2 for “privilege” says: "the advantages and immunities enjoyed by a small usually powerful group or class, esp to the disadvantage of others: one of the obstacles to social harmony is privilege.’

You’ve done this “I disagree with you because I’m using my own private definitions of all the terms we’re discussing” thing a few times now.You don’t seem to be aware that words can mean different things depending on context. Are you driving trollies, or what’s going on here?

[cdhawke]

Hamish & Andy are a couple of assholes who treat the Amazon tribal people in the video like furniture and props while mocking them, their culture & beliefs. Based on the brief video I an skeptical if Hamish was given the full ant–glove treatment - he seems to be faking it or maybe it was just one ant.

Either way, I just don’t like the way he treats and regards his hosts. Maybe he got the full glove o’ ants…doesn’t matter – his attitude, words and whatnot indicate that he seems to treat his hosts as toys, primitives or cast members in his ugly ethnocentric belief system. His mocking attitude, he doesn’t attempt to disguise.

---

It’s a world of laughter, a world of tears
It’s a world of hopes and a world of fears
There’s so much that we share
That it’s time we’re aware
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small, small, small, small world
There is just one moon and one golden sun
And a smile means friendship to everyone
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small world after all
It’s a small, small world
It’s a world of laughter, a world of tears
It’s a world of hopes and a world of fears
There’s so much that we share
That it’s time we’re aware
It’s a small world, small world after all

[popobawa4u]

@PhasmaFelis

You might want to read definition #9 from that thing you just posted.

Of course I read it! Not only that, but it seems to be incorrect. I believe what they mean to say is “a pleasant event which follows a stimulus”. This pleasant event is “the response”.

@PhasmaFelis

You’ve done this “I disagree with you because I’m using my own private definitions of all the terms we’re discussing” thing a few times now.

How are these my private definitions? I listed ten definitions, from actually existing dictionaries, with a link to them. And no, I made clear that this was not even why I disagree, if you even bothered to read my posts thoroughly. I simply mentioned in passing that there are more accurate terms, before I mentioned ideas for simple experiments one can perform upon their own nervous system. It’s funny that I am accused of arguing terminology, when it wasn’t even the substance of my initial post.

@PhasmaFelis

You don’t seem to be aware that words can mean different things depending on context.

If I am not aware of this, then how/why did I just list ten definitions? Sometimes I refute a word being used in a context where I find that it is inaccurate, often because it appears to be misunderstood.

Taking “reward”, for instance, the aspect of bestowal is implicit in the origin of the word. It is re-ward in the same sense as being “a ward of the state”, one is watched and/or cared for by a guardian. Ward, in this sense, is of the same origin as the word “guard”. Usage problems tend to occur when somebody who does understand the use of a word uses it ironically, and this ironic usage gains common currency by people who did not initially understand the word. The usage then may appear to be contrary to the established etymological root of the word. This can result in a meaning being not only slightly different, but even possibly meaning the complete opposite of other, older meanings! And yet some baulk at why such usages should ever benefit from a degree of clarification.

While the conversation about the use of the term “reward” has run away with us, the usage of its opposite, “punishment” is even more jarring in such a context. Does anyone remember that we were discussing the primary nervous states of organisms? I notice nobody has bothered to argue that starvation or being struck by lightning are kinds of punishment! I even offered four more pairs which have the benefit of being more accurate, while not suffering from the same ambiguities: affinity/avoidance, pleasure/pain, excitation/inhibition, expansion/contraction.

Like I said before, none of this has been particularly significant to my argument above. So I do not intend to discuss the terminology any further here.

[PhasmaFelis]

@PhasmaFelis

Of course I read it! Not only that, but it seems to be incorrect. I believe what they mean to say is “a pleasant event which follows a stimulus”. This pleasant event is “the response”.

No. “You see a tasty-looking berry” is a stimulus, something outside yourself. “You eat the berry” is a response, something you choose to do. “It is tasty and sates your hunger” is the reward, which increases the likelihood of you repeating that response to that stimulus, exactly as the definition says. If the berry instead made you sick, that would be a punishment that made you less likely to eat such a berry in the future. This is the definition everyone else is using.

BTW, I point out that the definition you quoted disagrees with you, and your response is that the definition is wrong? Why did you quote it, then?

[popobawa4u]

@PhasmaFelis

BTW, I point out that the definition you quoted disagrees with you, and your response is that the definition is wrong?

If definitions are descriptive rather than prescriptive, then I suppose no definition is “wrong” - but they can be more or less accurate, with regards to being understood. I disagree with its usage. Like I have said to some exhaustion already, there are more accurate ways to convey what people seem to mean. I have given examples. Take it or leave it, rather than making it out to be a personal problem.

@PhasmaFelis

Why did you quote it, then?

I said right there why I quoted it. Because @shaddack IIRC suggested I was using a “private definition”, so I listed quite a few.

@PhasmaFelis

This is the definition everyone else is using.

Everyone else in this topic, apparently. But no, they are not generally defined this way by behaviorists, biologists, or many other people, as they anthropomorphize the natural world. Cause and effect are neutral observations. Even @shaddack insisted that intention has nothing to do with what is being discussed, which was my entire point in remarking that these specific terms do indicate outside intent. If you or others think it’s clever or meaningful to use them in this way, knock yourselves out. But the circular justifications and repeated questions as to why I have this perspective have gotten silly.

I could say that since I don’t enjoy this diversion that I am actually being punished, but that would be an inaccurate connotation. XD