Hey 42 here the early 90s gave us the Spice Girls, friends and minesweeper in 1992. Microsoft released Windows 3.1 and they packaged it with two games that would go on to cost companies all over the world.
Billions of dollars in lost worker productivity. So later, added to Windows in 1990 and minesweeper added in 1992, you may assume – and Microsoft – went to the trouble of coding and releasing these free games to provide Windows.
Users with endless hours of procrastination failed fun. But you’d, be wrong. They actually concealed a secret agenda. Microsoft added these games to Windows to teach the world how to use a mouse as the 80s rolled over into the 90s computer mice were only now beginning to attract widespread consumer adoption, even though the computer mouse was invented by Douglas Engelbart in 1964 in the 70s And early 80’s, most people were accustomed to controlling their home computers solely using the keyboard.
Nowadays we grow up with computer mice, so the neural circuitry required to develop the innate motor neuron control for efficient Mouse usage is formed. Such a young age, and so for young people, it never feels like they had to learn how to use a mouse.
The brain is much more plastic, meaning moldable in our youth, so it’s, far easier to pick up new skills and that’s, why you were able to frag newbs with your sweet flick shots by the time you were 50, but When you present a middle-aged man with a computer mouse who has never used one before he looked at it like you’ve just asked him to launch a nuclear missile with a sandwich.
The older, the brain gets the more difficult it becomes to learn. What young people assume is really basic stuff: moving a mouse around a desk to control a virtual environment that’s? Why your grandma probably takes much better to a tablet than a desktop computer, booting, gas and pressing buttons is a nap.
Your movements that she’s probably done many times before, but a mouse is completely alien to her. Microsoft knew this, so they designed solitaire to teach people how to use a mouse to drag and drop. What do you do when you play solitaire you spend hours dragging and dropping cards dragging and dropping minesweeper, on the other hand, was designed to teach people how to click but, more importantly, the difference between left and right.
Mouse clicks get the left and right mouse buttons. Confused in minesweeper and you’ll, be virtual toast. So it’s, a fantastic training tool. Negative reinforcement worked for minesweeper. If you blew yourself up, you would adjust your strategy so the next time you didn’t, but we & # 39.
Re often told that the best training tool is actually positive. Reinforcement rather than negative. The carrot is better than the stick. Praise is more effective than punishment, but how true is this? At the end of this article, I’ll reveal how Israeli fighter pilots disproved the common adage that praise is better than punishment.
In a Dutch neuroscience study, eight to twelve year olds were asked to solve puzzles on a computer. Half of the children was shown a green tick on screen when they answered correctly, but no symbol. When they didn’t, the other 50 % of children was shown a red cross when they answered incorrectly, but no tick.
When they answered correctly. The tasks were then repeated over and over again to measure how the children improved at the puzzles over time. As various TV super nannies keep telling us reward wins out over punishment, and this experiment reflected that the group of children that was shown positive reinforcement for correct answers.
The green tick showed a substantial improvement with the accuracy and speed of their answers over the course of the experiment, but the other children who were punished for incorrect answers. Well, they showed absolutely no improvement.
If anything, they got the puzzles, the more they repeated them. So there we go that definitively answers this question and we can all go to sleep peacefully tonight, except there’s, an enormous elephant shaped caveat lurking in the corner of the room.
You see the Dutch neuroscientists decided to repeat the exact same experiment with a group of older participants, more specifically young adults aged 18 to 25. The results for this group were the polar opposite of the children’s.
The young adult showed much greater improvement when they were punished with crosses and almost no improvement when they were awarded with ticks something changes drastically in the brain between being a child and an adult, and since after the age of 21, our brain becomes less plastic and Is thus more set in its ways, it could be assumed that if the experiment was repeated with any age group older than 25, then punishment would always win out over a reward for improving learning and behavior.
To further prove the point that this change is the result of a fundamental alteration in the construction of the brain as we age, the Dutch neuroscientist took brain scans of the children 8 to 12, whilst completing the tasks.
What they discovered was that the learning centers of the brain, specifically the cerebral cortex, activated much more strongly in the group that received reward than the punishment group. Yet, with the 18 to 25 year olds, it was reversed, their brains activated more strongly when punished for their mistakes.
The experiments has concluded that this is because it’s more difficult to process negative reinforcement than positive children respond better to and learn easier from reward because it’s. A really simple concept to grasp.
In the words of the author of the paper, learning from mistakes is more complex than carrying on in the same way as before. You have to ask yourself what precisely went wrong and how it was possible. We only learn the ability to effectively learn from our mistakes.
As we mature into young adults and our brains become fully developed, but there’s, a fundamental rule. That explains why punishment is more effective than reward and why neither punishment or award have very little effect on an outcome at all.
It’s called regression to the mean, and it was famously demonstrated in the 1960s when Daniel Kahneman, an Israeli psychology professor made a landmark discovery. Whilst lecturing to a class of Air Force fighter pilot instructors in Tel Aviv, Kahneman was driving home.
The point to the instructors that rewarding good behavior or performance will improve the capability and learning speed of the students. Whilst punishing bad behavior will reduce morale and not improve learning.
He was espousing the virtues of the carrot over the stick before he could finish his speech. One of the instructors loudly interjected with respect, sir, what you’re saying, is literally for the birds.
I screamed at people for badly executed, maneuvers and by and large, the next time they improve. He followed up with I’ve, often praised people warmly for beautifully executed, maneuvers and next time they almost always do worse.
Don’t tell me that award works and Punishment. Doesn’t. My experience contradicts it. Furthermore, the entire audience of instructors resoundingly agreed with him that punishment is a more effective teaching tool than praise Kahneman decided to investigate further to see if he could definitively quantify whether perhaps he had been wrong all this time and instructors were right after observing the flight Instructors for some time and collecting further data Kahneman uncovered a rather surprising truth.
The flight instructor shouting always preceded the improvement of the student receiving said bullying, but it didn’t actually cause it, because the student would always improve after messing up regardless of whether or not he was reprimanded.
Kahneman put his findings down to a phenomena called regression towards the mean this is the universal axiom that’s in any series of random events, there will always be periods of variation, peaks and troughs, but over time the results will always regress towards the Mean if I roll a 6-sided die over and over again, I may occasionally get lucky and hit three sixes in a row, but over enough iterations, my average roll is always going to settle at three point five, because that is the mean of a six-sided die and The law of large numbers dictates that any series of random events must always regress towards the mean to translate this logic to fighter pilots, the students all have their own mean level of performance, their mean will increase slowly over time sure with enough practice, but increasing that Skill takes thousands of hours, and so, in the very short term, the performance of their day-to-day flights are going to vary in a seemingly random manner.
Many factors can increase takeoff flight and landing performance on any given day. Wind conditions, temperatures tire pressure, how much sleep? The pilot had last night and so on. If the pilot happens to do better or worse than usual, then that is straying away from their mean performance, so, statistically the following time out.
They are almost always going to regress towards their mean. That means if they performed worse than usual last time, they will most likely do better next time out and if they did better than usual, then they will probably do worse next time.
So when the instructor shouted at the students for poor performance and they improved next time out, it was because of regression to the mean and had very little to do with the instructors course language.
But from the instructors point of view, it would seem that their Bala Kings made the students perform better, but in reality it actually had very little impact on their future performance. The students perform better, mostly because of chance and when the instructors praised their students for good performance because to performance up in itíd, that phrase was better than their average performance.
They would because of chance, do worse next time hours, so the instructors walked away with the false assumption that their praise actually reduced the performance of their students. I’m, not saying that praising good behavior is useless.
No, it does actually have a small impact. However, it has much much less of an impact on future behavior than what we are usually led to believe. Having said that, there are, of course, many instances in life when a little praise can go a long way.
For instance, not praising your girlfriend for cooking you, a lovely dinner after she spends the day working 9:00 to 5:00, is a surefire way to receive a world of pain. Thanks for watching, I’ve recently launched my first book, which I’m, proud funding through unbound publishing it’s called sticker flocking.
It’s, a thousand years of bizarre history from Britain and beyond. If you’d like to get your hands on a first edition signed copy, then please head on over to unbound the links in the description and pledge today.