 I think we'll start this out with an example of a Hilbert chain as you're going to have eight passes. One hundred and five of it loud! You grab by the function. We might be wrong. We might be wrong. We're funny. I struggle with figuring out how to greet you all, because sometimes these videos are recorded back-to-back, sometimes they're not, sometimes they're recorded over a very long period of time. All I have to say is that I don't know how to greet you. Anyway, I need some stimulus training, some stimulus control. That's what I need. I need you all to reinforce me and maybe give me prompts and tell me which is the best way to do it, which leads me to another topic on stimulus control, which is about stimulus generalization. Sorry. Hey, see what I'm seeing? Do you see what I see? I see a tree. I see a tree, and that there might be a tree, and well, that kind of was a tree. Listen, look at those trees. There might even be a tree or two, nope, it's part of a tree. I suppose if I looked hard enough, I'd find a tree down there too, but I don't see any at the moment. All right, so what the heck am I talking about? I'm talking about stimulus generalization, right? So when we think of stimulus control, you think of a particular stimulus that a pattern of responding is developed in the presence of that stimulus and not in the presence, and not otherwise when the stimulus is not present. So what we also want to think about is the fact that organisms tend to have sort of a generalization gradient, if you will. So if the training stimulus is right here, right in the middle, I will also respond to a bunch of stimuli that are similar to it, kind of on a normal curve, right? So the closer the other stimuli are to the training sample, the more likely I am to say the right thing or to identify the right thing, okay? So in other words, trees, right? So I was raised near here, so these types of trees are definitely what I learned as trees. They're not the same as an elm tree, or an oak tree, or a maple tree, or a ginkgo tree, or a hawthorn tree, or any other types of trees for that matter, okay? But they're similar. They're close enough to evoke the response of tree when you see them, okay? So for example, the tree that has no leaves on it or needles for that matter is still a tree, right? So it's close to my training stimulus, which is a pine tree, but this one is drastically different, okay? It's still enough to elicit the response, however, what's right next to it is not a tree, okay? And this, in a kid, in a young child, might evoke a response of tree, right? But it's not a tree. It's a bush. Actually, I ended up, nope, that's the, I don't know, anyway, it's a bush. You get the idea, right? Hard to discriminate between the two. So stimulus generalization is about how, when you learn one training sample, that your responses will still be similar to other responses that are similar, but it only goes so far, whatever the so far is. You can think of it in terms of color. There's lots of different kinds of blue, and you'll still say blue in the presence of it, all sorts of different shades of blue that you still say blue for. So that stimulus generalization, now, since we were talking about, oh, I suppose I could give you an example of an overgeneralization here, hold on. Oh, look at this. I found another tree, all right, right there, there's a tree. So that's another type of tree. So again, we're farther out on that discrimination, right, from the original, or farther out on the generalization gradient than the original, but it still looks similar, even though it's on this thing called a phone, which is probably a generalization failure, which we might come back to. So here's a generalization failure, tree, no, those aren't trees, okay, they may look similar. It's got a stick, it kind of has leaves on it, maybe-ish, but it's not a tree, all right. So that would be a generalization failure. When you see red and you say blue, generalization failure, okay, or just a discrimination issue. So say purple and say blue, you see purple and you say blue. That's a better example of a generalization failure. Let's see what else. Oh, which leads us to the idea of concept formation. So when we think of concept, they're just driving me nuts, I'm from here. So when we think of concepts, we tend to get a little bit here about them. So if you break it down into what behaviors are involved in concept formation, it makes a lot more sense. The first thing is that you have to discriminate between classes, okay, so you have to tell the difference between things, and you have to be able to generalize within a class. There's lots of different kinds of dogs, folks. You could do a little Chihuahua tea cuppy thing or something that fits in your hand and you could have a great day, okay. So you need to generalize between all those stimuli and still say dog when you see one, but then when you see a cat, you should be able to not say dog, you should say cat. So you have to discriminate between these classes. Now there's all sorts of different types of criteria, feature stimulus class, arbitrary stimulus class. Come back to that at another time if you will, but the point being that when we are developing a concept to say that we are demonstrating a concept or demonstrating conceptual behavior or demonstrating concept formation, and I choose those words carefully because it's a behavioral thing, we have to be able to know all of the things that are in a class, but also know the things that aren't in one of those classes. So again, as I've gotten older and more experienced with life, I've learned that that's a tree, that is a tree, the big ones, there may even be some baby trees in here, but this is not, even though it looks very, very similar, right. So we have to, that's how we get to the idea of concepts. It's really fun to watch in kids because they make these over generalizations and a kid will be like dog, dog, dog, dog, dog, dog, then they see a horse and they say dog. You're like, no, that's a horse and they go, really why? Congratulations, you're in the process of concept formation as you answer that particular question. So I think that's enough for now. We might come back and later, if I can just take a look at the videos on the arbitrary stimulus class and the feature stimulus class, not too complex of an issue there. It just tells you where you're going to draw those lines, so to speak, for what forms a particular class of stimuli. So, all right, see you when I see you, or maybe you won't see me. I don't know, maybe you will. Hell, if I know. I get confused.