<p>When we say that Alice &quot;learned that X&quot;, X is generally an assertion, and we are saying that Alice now has some kind of representation of the assertion in her head, and knows it to be true.</p>
<p>When we say Bob has learned a <em>response</em>, we just mean that Bob now has a tendency to respond in that way when he experiences a given stimulus. We aren't saying anything about what's going on in Bob's head.</p>
<p>So the word &quot;that&quot; is important - it indicates that what follows is some kind of concept that is being held in the head. That's why Herrnstein emphasized it.</p>
<p>The sentence &quot;They don't learn <em>that</em> anything&quot; is grammatical if you treat &quot;anything&quot; as a variable that can stand for any assertion. Herrnstein is saying that it's never valid to say, of an animal, &quot;it learns that [whatever].&quot;</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-04T11:19:03.737Z
Does it mean that in English language, `learn that X` refers to cognitivist learning, while `learn Y` refers to behaviorist learning?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-05T02:01:25.787Z
This use of "that" goes back centuries before the idea of "cognitivist learning" was formulated, but I would still say it does indicate cognitivist learning. "Learn Y", however, is much broader. There is a huge amount of cognition going on when you learn math or Spanish (I would assert). If you want to indicate that you are talking only about behaviorist learning, you have to be pretty specific.
Mark Foskey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-06T10:14:08.043Z
So i guess that there is no difference between `learn that X` and `learn Y`, and both refers to cognitivist learning by default. Only in this case that the context differentiate which sentence refers to cognitivist learning, and which sentence refers to behaviorist learning. I suppose that Richard Herrnstein didn't need to use different syntaxes to convey his thought?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-03T17:45:14.873Z
2021-11-03T17:45:14.873Z
Mark Foskey
<p>&quot;learning <em><strong>that</strong></em> responding is ineffective&quot; is alluding to a <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/cognitive-process" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cognitive process</a>, separate from the behavioral process. Put simply, a thought process.</p>
<p>While, &quot;animals learn responses&quot; is alluding to traditional behaviorism, more specifically 'learned responses'. For example, <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/classical-vs-operant-conditioning-2794861#classical-conditioning" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pavlov's dog experiment</a> demonstrates classical conditioning, or <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Skinner's box experiment</a> demonstrates operant conditioning. Conditioning elicits a learned response, there is no implied thought process, like in cognitive approaches (or other approaches to psychology such as psychoanalytic, humanism, positive psychology, etc.). So, this statement is speaking in favor the behavioral tradition's perception of learned helplessness, rather than Seligman's approach.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-03T16:18:41.057Z
What does "that anything" mean? Why does "learn that responding" refers to cognitive process, while "learn responses" refers to conditioning?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-03T08:23:59.090Z
2021-11-03T08:23:59.090Z
stephan_phd
<blockquote>
<p>You are proposing that animals learn that responding is ineffective.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Breakdown:</p>
<ul>
<li>You <strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/propose#Verb" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="propose (sense 1)">are proposing</a></strong> that …
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="you (sense 1)">You</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="that (sense 1)">that</a></strong> animals … — the bit after the “that” is a statement, and the statement is the grammatical object. Kind of like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic" rel="nofollow noreferrer">second-order logic</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_function" rel="nofollow noreferrer">first-class functions</a>. (TODO: write better explanation.)
<ul>
<li>animals <strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="learn (senses 1, 3, 5)">learn</a></strong> that …
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="animal (sense 2)">animals</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="that (sense 1)">that</a></strong> responding is ineffective. — as above
<ul>
<li>responding <strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be#Verb" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="be (sense 10)">is</a></strong> ineffective.
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/respond#Verb" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="respond (sense 2) used as a noun: the act of responding">responding</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ineffective#Adjective" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="ineffective (sense 1)">ineffective</a></strong>.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The following sentence relies on this sentence's grammatical structure for meaning. It would make less sense if it were on its own.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Animals learn <em>responses</em>; they don't learn <em>that</em> anything.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note the italics; this represents <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_(linguistics)#Prosodic_stress" rel="nofollow noreferrer">stress</a> emphasis. The first one is to emphasise “responses” (noun), as opposed to “responding” (verb); the difference is that verbs (in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_voice" rel="nofollow noreferrer">active voice</a>) require a subject, whereas nouns don't. Making this distinction suggests that the verb suggests agency on the part of the animals, and the noun does not.</p>
<p>Breakdown:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Animals learn <em>responses</em>;</strong> they … — first clause
<ul>
<li>Animals <strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="learn (senses 1, 3, 5)">learn</a></strong> <em>responses</em>
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="animal (sense 2)">Animals</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><em><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/response#Noun" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="response (sense 8)">responses</a></em></strong> – the emphasis means that this is the important bit</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>… <em>responses</em>; <strong>they don't learn <em>that</em> anything.</strong> — second clause
<ul>
<li>they <strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/don%27t" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="don't (sense 1)">don't</a></strong> learn … — do not
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/they#Pronoun" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="they (sense 1)">they</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="learn (senses 1, 3, 5)">learn</a> <em><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="that (sense 1)">that</a></em> <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anything#Pronoun" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="anything (sense 1)">anything</a>.</strong> — explained below.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>learn <em>that</em> anything.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This part is complicated. The emphasis on “<em>that</em>” is sort of to quote it, and make it not a part of the grammar of the sentence. Recall the previous sentence:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>animals learn that responding is ineffective</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The complicated bit is saying that all statements of the form:</p>
<ul>
<li>animals <strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="learn (senses 1, 3, 5)">learn</a></strong> that …
<ul>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="animal (sense 2)">animals</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="that (sense 1)">that</a></strong> …
<ul>
<li><strong>…</strong> — anything</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>“don't” – i.e., that they're not true, and don't really happen. In other words, it's saying that animals cannot learn facts about facts; any sentence where you'd say “animals learn that” and then something, is wrong. (According to this person, anyway; I don't agree.)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-03T17:46:12.883Z
2021-11-03T18:09:21.857Z
2021-11-03T18:09:21.857Z
wizzwizz4
<p>In Maier, S. F., &amp; Seligman, M. E. P. (2016), <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920136/" rel="nofollow noreferrer" title="Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights from Neuroscience">Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights from Neuroscience</a>, the authors quote an objection of Richard Herrnstein, a prominent Harvard Skinnerian (emphasis theirs):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You are proposing that animals learn <em>that</em> responding is ineffective. Animals learn <em>responses</em>; they don't learn <em>that</em> anything.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What does this sentence mean? I'm not sure what the emphases on the <code>that</code>s try to convey. I'm not even sure if the phrase <code>they don't learn that anything</code> is grammatical.</p>
<p><sub>Note: I ask this question here instead in ELL or ELU because it requires the answerers to have a decent understanding in psychology, in particularly behaviorism. </sub></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-03T17:09:10.077Z
Herrnstein is saying that any statement of the form "animals learned that x" is false, no matter what you put for x.
Nick Matteo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-03T17:14:20.173Z
This question is clear enough for me, without any real background in behaviourism. I think it should be migrated to ELL.
wizzwizz4
<behaviorism><learned-helplessness>
What does this sentence of Richard Herrnstein regarding learned helplessness theory mean?
Ooker
# What does this sentence of Richard Herrnstein regarding learned helplessness theory mean?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-11-03)

In Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016), [Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights from Neuroscience](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920136/ "Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights from Neuroscience"), the authors quote an objection of Richard Herrnstein, a prominent Harvard Skinnerian (emphasis theirs):

> You are proposing that animals learn *that* responding is ineffective. Animals learn *responses*; they don't learn *that* anything.

What does this sentence mean? I'm not sure what the emphases on the `that`s try to convey. I'm not even sure if the phrase `they don't learn that anything` is grammatical.

Note: I ask this question here instead in ELL or ELU because it requires the answerers to have a decent understanding in psychology, in particularly behaviorism.

**Tags:** behaviorism, learned-helplessness

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Herrnstein is saying that any statement of the form "animals learned that x" is false, no matter what you put for x.  
> **username_2**: This question is clear enough for me, without any real background in behaviourism. I think it should be migrated to ELL.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-11-03. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

When we say that Alice "learned that X", X is generally an assertion, and we are saying that Alice now has some kind of representation of the assertion in her head, and knows it to be true.

When we say Bob has learned a *response*, we just mean that Bob now has a tendency to respond in that way when he experiences a given stimulus. We aren't saying anything about what's going on in Bob's head.

So the word "that" is important - it indicates that what follows is some kind of concept that is being held in the head. That's why Herrnstein emphasized it.

The sentence "They don't learn *that* anything" is grammatical if you treat "anything" as a variable that can stand for any assertion. Herrnstein is saying that it's never valid to say, of an animal, "it learns that [whatever]."

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Does it mean that in English language, `learn that X` refers to cognitivist learning, while `learn Y` refers to behaviorist learning?  
> **username_3**: This use of "that" goes back centuries before the idea of "cognitivist learning" was formulated, but I would still say it does indicate cognitivist learning. "Learn Y", however, is much broader. There is a huge amount of cognition going on when you learn math or Spanish (I would assert). If you want to indicate that you are talking only about behaviorist learning, you have to be pretty specific.  
> **username_0**: So i guess that there is no difference between `learn that X` and `learn Y`, and both refers to cognitivist learning by default. Only in this case that the context differentiate which sentence refers to cognitivist learning, and which sentence refers to behaviorist learning. I suppose that Richard Herrnstein didn't need to use different syntaxes to convey his thought?  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-11-03. Score: 4

"learning ***that*** responding is ineffective" is alluding to a [cognitive process](https://dictionary.apa.org/cognitive-process), separate from the behavioral process. Put simply, a thought process.

While, "animals learn responses" is alluding to traditional behaviorism, more specifically 'learned responses'. For example, [Pavlov's dog experiment](https://www.verywellmind.com/classical-vs-operant-conditioning-2794861#classical-conditioning) demonstrates classical conditioning, or [Skinner's box experiment](https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863) demonstrates operant conditioning. Conditioning elicits a learned response, there is no implied thought process, like in cognitive approaches (or other approaches to psychology such as psychoanalytic, humanism, positive psychology, etc.). So, this statement is speaking in favor the behavioral tradition's perception of learned helplessness, rather than Seligman's approach.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: What does "that anything" mean? Why does "learn that responding" refers to cognitive process, while "learn responses" refers to conditioning?  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-11-03. Score: 1

> You are proposing that animals learn that responding is ineffective.

Breakdown:

* You **[are proposing](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/propose#Verb "propose (sense 1)")** that …
  + **[You](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you "you (sense 1)")**
  + **[that](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that "that (sense 1)")** animals … — the bit after the “that” is a statement, and the statement is the grammatical object. Kind of like [second-order logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_logic) or [first-class functions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_function). (TODO: write better explanation.)
    - animals **[learn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn "learn (senses 1, 3, 5)")** that …
      * **[animals](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English "animal (sense 2)")**
      * **[that](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that "that (sense 1)")** responding is ineffective. — as above
        + responding **[is](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be#Verb "be (sense 10)")** ineffective.
          - **[responding](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/respond#Verb "respond (sense 2) used as a noun: the act of responding")**
          - **[ineffective](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ineffective#Adjective "ineffective (sense 1)")**.

The following sentence relies on this sentence's grammatical structure for meaning. It would make less sense if it were on its own.

> Animals learn *responses*; they don't learn *that* anything.

Note the italics; this represents [stress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_(linguistics)#Prosodic_stress) emphasis. The first one is to emphasise “responses” (noun), as opposed to “responding” (verb); the difference is that verbs (in the [active voice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_voice)) require a subject, whereas nouns don't. Making this distinction suggests that the verb suggests agency on the part of the animals, and the noun does not.

Breakdown:

* **Animals learn *responses*;** they … — first clause
  + Animals **[learn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn "learn (senses 1, 3, 5)")** *responses*
    - **[Animals](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English "animal (sense 2)")**
    - ***[responses](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/response#Noun "response (sense 8)")*** – the emphasis means that this is the important bit
* … *responses*; **they don't learn *that* anything.** — second clause
  + they **[don't](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/don%27t "don't (sense 1)")** learn … — do not
    - **[they](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/they#Pronoun "they (sense 1)")**
    - **[learn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn "learn (senses 1, 3, 5)") *[that](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that "that (sense 1)")* [anything](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anything#Pronoun "anything (sense 1)").** — explained below.

> learn *that* anything.

This part is complicated. The emphasis on “*that*” is sort of to quote it, and make it not a part of the grammar of the sentence. Recall the previous sentence:

> animals learn that responding is ineffective

The complicated bit is saying that all statements of the form:

* animals **[learn](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/learn "learn (senses 1, 3, 5)")** that …
  + **[animals](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/animal#English "animal (sense 2)")**
  + **[that](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/that "that (sense 1)")** …
    - **…** — anything

“don't” – i.e., that they're not true, and don't really happen. In other words, it's saying that animals cannot learn facts about facts; any sentence where you'd say “animals learn that” and then something, is wrong. (According to this person, anyway; I don't agree.)


---

