In the five decades since graphic footage of the JFK assassination splattered its way onto our television screens, said footage has been played, enhanced, replayed, zoomed in upon, and declared “FAKE!” by everyone from Oliver Stone to your dumbass college roommate. As such, you probably think there’s no gruesome detail of that fateful day with which you’re unfamiliar, and to that we emphatically say, “No, you are wrong. Unless you have heard of it, in which case you are some kind of macabre history buff, and are still wrong, albeit in a more general sense.”
The most distressing detail of the footage – other than the exploding skull – is the outward anguish of Jackie Kennedy, who in just seconds transforms from a poised First Lady into a blood-drenched widow. What you probably haven’t heard was her insistence on staying that way.
Hours after the assassination, Jackie arrived on Air Force One for the emergency swearing-in of her husband’s vice president Lyndon Baines Johnson – still wearing her watermelon-pink suit from the motorcade, filthy with her husband’s blood and brain matter. She had repeatedly shot down her aides’ pleas to change with, “No, I’m going to leave these clothes on. I want them to see what they have done.”
Fear conditioning, simply put, is teaching someone or something to be afraid of a stimulus. When conditioning someone to predict fear you’re associating a sound, object, action, or something of that nature with something already startling to the person(s). This will cause the person (if done correctly) to associate that sound, object, or action with what they’re already afraid of, and thus eliciting a fearful response.
I’ll break this down rectangle by rectangle to make this easier to understand.
First Rectangle: Obviously, when a mouse is on its own with no stimulus there isn’t going to be an effect.
Second Rectangle: In the upper portion of the second rectangle a mouse is introduced to a startling noise, and that elicits fear which eventually dies off. In the lower portion of the second rectangle the mouse is introduced to the same startling noise, but this time with a bell. Obviously the mouse is still going to be fearful of the startling noise, but now that the bell has been associated with the startling noise, the bell will also scare the mouse. This is because its been conditioned to understand that the bell comes with the startling noise, therefore, when the bell is sounded again the mouse fears the bell not because it’s a bell, but because it is an anticipating the startling noise.
Third Rectangle: Whether or not the mouse hears the bell and the sound or just the sound, it’s still conditioned to feel fear from the bell in anticipation of the startling noise. Though if the bell is continuously rang without introducing the startling noise [fear stimulus] the mouse will lose its conditioning and no longer be afraid of the bell being rung.
An even simpler example would be as follows:
Your friend is afraid of clowns, you play the Michael Jackson song thriller and show him a clown (this will elicit fear merely because of the clown), and lastly you play the song again and because a clown appeared last time at the start of the song, your friend will anticipate a clown and become fearful.
I recently got my grubby little hands on one of fall out boy’s hidden tracks, Pavlove, from Folie à Deux.
BUT: I read probably way too far into it and i think i figured the title out. Stick with me little chicken mcnuggets you’re in for a ride.
So, Pavlov’s Dog was an experiment. Pavlov trained his dog using a bell and the dog’s food. Each time food was served to the dog, he rang the bell. After enough time the dog associated the ringing of the bell with food, and would salivate even if no food was present. This is known as classical conditioning.
SO the title is a combination of ‘Pavlov’ and 'Love’, the title must mean that the subject of the song/ title is someone who is being classically conditioned to love someone or something. It’s pretty sad when you think about it. Someone was being forced to love something
Disclaimer: I tend to read into things and i could be totally wrong
Classical Conditioning is learning by association and was developed by Ivan Pavlov [1849-1946]. He was a Russian physiologist, studying digestion in dogs. He based his theory on behaviour that he observed and then tested experimentally in his dogs- a scientific method. His theory helps us to explain involuntary behaviours that are learned or acquired, where one environmental stimulus produces the same behaviour or response as another.
Pavlov’s dogs would salivate in response to food, but he noticed that they also began to salivate at the sound of his footsteps, or the appearance of the lab assistant! The dogs has learned to associate the lab assistant with the food, and this association was so strong that they began to salivate when they saw the lab assistant or heard footsteps. This was a learned behaviour, as initially they didn’t salivate at the footsteps, but they learned the response because the footsteps were so often paired with food. Salivation is here a learned involuntary behaviour.
A stimulus is something which produces a response. In classical conditioning, it’s either a reflex, or an automatic behaviour
Existing behaviour is an unconditioned response [UCR], a involuntary/reflex action to an unconditioned stimulus [UCS]. The learned behaviour is a conditioned response [CR], and it produced to a conditioned stimulus [CS]. A stimulus which produces no specific response is called a neutral stimulus [NS].
Classical Conditioning works by building an association between two stimuli, learning by association. No new behaviour is learned- what has changed is that an existing behaviour is exhibited in response to a new stimulus.
Pavlov  demonstrated this scientifically, with controls. He used meat, and a bell, with dogs:
Before conditioning: Bell [NS] –> No response
Meat [UCS] –> Salivation [UCR]
During conditioning: Meat [UCS] + Bell [NS] –> Salivation [UCR]
After conditioning: Lab Assistant [CS] –> Salivation [CR]
The UCS & NS need to be paired repeatedly, many or several times, for association to take place. The UCR will be stronger than the CR, and the CR will be slower to start than the UCR.
Extinction occurs when the association between the UCS & the CS no longer occurs- after a few trials of separating the 2 stimuli, the learned response is extinguished. In one of Pavlov’s examples, the bell was no longer run when food was presented, after a while, the dog no longer salivated at the sound of the bell alone- the association was extinguished! It occurs when the CS is repeatedly presented in the absence of the UCS, and the UCS is presented in the absence of the CS- the CR declines and disappears.
Spontaneous Recovery is the reappearance of a conditioned response following extinction, for no particular reason.
Generalisation: The initial CR appears to a wider range of previously NSs, even though they’re not strictly CRs- the CR has been generalised to other stimuli.