 You said ten minutes, sir. Wow, there's some shaping going on here folks, and I don't necessarily have died. I haven't agreed to it. You've been prompted. There's a lot of sorts of private events going on right now. Anyway, so let's get back to phylogeny and ontogeny part two, since I got so kindly cut off in the middle of the last one. I think it's actually an example possibly because both my father and I are very long-winded. So maybe there's the phylogenic piece, and he's just shaping up the ontogenic piece, like phylogenically, I was born to be a lecturer. But Brad's like, you've got to trim that shit up or it'd be good, man. All right, so Okay, here we go. Wow. All right. I was saying something about selection by consequences because I always say something about selection by consequences. Adventitious contingencies, shit happens. Sometimes you shape up a superstition. It happens in natural selection as well. Again, similarities, right? Unstable and intermittent contingencies. Environments change. Think about the moth that changes that selected for by the, or where the pollution changes the environment, and in the moth is no longer adapted to that environment. So it's got to sit there and respond back and forth. The moth's coloring is wrong. It's not adapted immediately. It takes a while for that moth to change in terms of phylogenic selection. In terms of ontogenic selection, though, the contingencies may change around you, but you respond quicker. But they still kind of maintain from your behavior, maintains for a while. Partial reinforcement extinction effect, right? So you have these weird things where there's so many similarities between these two. So, but the organ, but the but the change of contingency, whether that's on genetic or on a behavioral level, still has an effect. It's just that it takes a while, but it takes longer for one than the other. Multiple contingencies, same thing. Let's see. What else? What was the other thing I wrote down here? Oh, selection, but for traits, when you reinforce a behavior, you get more than one behavior. You get a class of responses, right? So I reinforce you for something. I get this class of responses of turning on a light switch with your fingers, with your butt, with your hands, with your elbows. It's just a class of flipping on a light switch. The same thing happens is you can see you might accidentally reinforce a whole bunch of behaviors when you reinforce one. The same thing happens with natural selection. So you'd select for one trait. You might get other traits to go along with it. There's that study, and I always forget the authors, but the study where they were looking at the foxes and they were breeding them based on their behavior, their aggressiveness, right? So they had the extremely aggressive ones and the least aggressive ones. They took the least aggressive pups and they bred them with each other, and then they took the most aggressive and they bred them with each other. They kept doing this for several generations, and one of the things that they ended up with was floppy ears and curly tails in the ones that were least aggressive. They were looking at mannerisms and they're growling and they're snapping at the humans near them. They weren't selecting for tail curling, but it came along with it. It was adventitious, so it happened to go along with it. The same thing happens with behavior. So when you set up these particular contingencies, you never quite know exactly what you're going to get. You might get some accidental stuff. For example, when if you put a pigeon in an operant chamber and you just put this, you know, Skinner talks about a schedule and I don't know what was it, 20 seconds. Now you reinforce every 20 seconds or something. Imagine what behavior you're accidentally going to reinforce. You just deliver food every 20 seconds, on a 20-second schedule. That pigeon's going to end up doing all sorts of weird stuff. And they did. Look, read the article, superstition and pigeon. You know, pigeons are, you know, a superstition article. I can't remember exactly what your reference is. But you can develop superstition that way. So, anyway. Hotogenic. Oh, some problems. We'll skip over that. Feel free to read. Feel free to read over all of this stuff because it's involved. The interaction between the two is important to understand as well, too, that your behavior that you engage in on a daily basis might be affecting the probabilities of you for creation, right? It sounds weird. But then your traits may get connected to, so whatever traits you've learned in life, may get connected to you becoming, may get connected to something else and having your genes passed on. So whatever traits you then have in your genes get passed on because of something that you've learned in your life. These things, these interplays are locked. They're interlocked and you can't separate them. And I think that's important to recognize as well. What else in here? Interrelations among phylogenics. There's tons of good stuff. Oh, kind of one of the last big points that I'd like to make here today is about future intention. No matter which way you look, or whatever, sorry, whenever you look at selection, it always looks like it's driving forward. So when you, meaning that I pour coffee into a cup, because the cup, because I want to have something to drink later, right? But that's not quite how it works. It's in the past is what affects my future, not the future affecting mine today, right? So if in the past having coffee readily available has made my, has increased the value of my world, so to speak, or I've been reinforced for having coffee readily available, then I will pour coffee in the future. Not to have it readily available, but because it's worked in the past. The same thing happens with selection. Organisms don't decide to change their genetic histories. Their genetic histories are changed in the environment, then again, nips and trims or shapes or does whatever, but their histories are selected for and then they are functional in their world. If the world changes too quickly, y'all be like the dinosaurs, right? So and it's gone, right? So then suddenly all those changes, all that selection that had happened is not valuable anymore. So there is no future, then no directedness towards the future. If that environment changes, whatever's happened in the past may work out for you and may not. So keep that in mind. So like the example that Skinner talks about is the spider spinning a web to get food. No, the spider spins a web because that in the past has made it more likely to survive and pass on its genes. Right? So if it happens to catch food, great, but it's not like it's doing that in that sort of future intent, that purpose sort of thing that people talk about. So it's tricky, it's nuanced, but just understand that it's experiences that have, that it's select for behavior. Both phylogenically and ontogenically. It's not something going forward. Ugh. I don't think we need to go into any more. I think that it's important for you to remember a couple of things. Just that in general the you cannot ignore the biology of the organism. You cannot ignore their genetic history. There are arguments about our field where we have, our science ignores some of that stuff because we only use reinforcers that reinforce. And we only work with things that that species could possibly do. Well, no kidding folks. Like that's the kind of the whole point. So we have to stick to our level of analysis. We stick with working with behavior. We're working with behavior. And we're going to understand behavior in the context of that species. And that's, and then we try it with other species and so on and so forth. And that's fine. So keep in mind there are limitations to all these things. These things aren't perfect and the world has changed. We now know things about epigenetics that we that's going to didn't know when he was writing about that stuff, but it doesn't change the interpretation of this article. In fact, epigenetics just kind of slides right into this thing beautifully and it makes it even make more sense. So I love this paper. I do think it's a good one for you. Read it. Read it 10 times. Read it 15 times. It's one of those things that will change you each time you read it. I have a hard time talking about in short bursts. This is a great thing to lecture on for two days. So anyway, there you go. Phylogeny and ontogeny behavior. Skinner, 1966.