<ol>
<li><p>In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response and conditioned response is the same (both are salivating). In the analogy, the unconditioned belief is not the same with the conditioned belief.</p>
</li>
<li><p>In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response can only happen after the unconditioned stimulus. In the analogy, the unconditioned belief can be recalled (&quot;activated&quot;) even though there is no unconditioned observation.</p>
</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-05T14:26:18.050Z
2020-09-05T14:26:18.050Z
Ooker
<p>The more I think about the difference between <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning" rel="nofollow noreferrer">learning</a> and Pavlovian conditioning, the more I'm unable to see how they differ. Even though in theory associative learning is just a portion of learning.</p>
<p>Here is the classical conditioning:
<img src="https://resize.hswstatic.com/w_830/gif/hypothesis-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>What if we have an observer watching the process? I think that even when the food and the bell are not for them, the fact that they observe their effects to the dog can lead them to a condition response as well. The process is as follow:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Before conditioning:</strong> the observer has a belief that that food will make the dog excretes salivation, but bell alone is not. We say that the belief &quot;food will make the dog excretes salivation&quot; is an unconditioned belief, and &quot;bell won't make the dog excretes salivation&quot; a no-conditioned belief.</li>
<li><strong>After conditioning:</strong> the observer has a new belief that &quot;bell alone will still make the dog excretes salivation&quot;. This belief is a conditioned belief.</li>
</ul>
<p>We have this analogy:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Unconditioned observation:</strong> Observe that the dog is fed</li>
<li><strong>Conditioned observation:</strong> Observe that the dog hears the bell</li>
<li><strong>Conditioned belief:</strong> Food will make the dog salivating</li>
<li><strong>Unconditioned belief:</strong> Bell alone will still make the dog salivating</li>
</ul>
<p>Am I missing something?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-26T15:12:49.187Z
[Classical conditioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning) is one type of [learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning). Check out the other types there, and also see how classical conditioning is a very specific paradigm. Quoting from Wikipedia: "Though it is sometimes hard to distinguish classical conditioning from other forms of associative learning (e.g. instrumental learning and human associative memory), a number of observations differentiate them, especially the contingencies whereby learning occurs"
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-26T15:40:46.860Z
A conditioned belief is not a conditioned response (the observer does not salivate), hence ... different.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-26T17:14:14.150Z
Related: [Are association, conditioning, and symbolic learning the same thing?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/3958/7001)
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-27T09:48:37.157Z
@ArnonWeinberg I see. In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response and conditioned response is the same (excreting salivate), while in my analogy, the unconditioned belief is not the same with the conditioned belief
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-27T16:01:16.970Z
You said it better than I did. :-)
Arnon Weinberg
<learning><behaviorism>
What is the difference between conditioning and learning?
Ooker
# What is the difference between conditioning and learning?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-08-26)

The more I think about the difference between [learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning) and Pavlovian conditioning, the more I'm unable to see how they differ. Even though in theory associative learning is just a portion of learning.

Here is the classical conditioning:
![](https://resize.hswstatic.com/w_830/gif/hypothesis-1.jpg)

What if we have an observer watching the process? I think that even when the food and the bell are not for them, the fact that they observe their effects to the dog can lead them to a condition response as well. The process is as follow:

* **Before conditioning:** the observer has a belief that that food will make the dog excretes salivation, but bell alone is not. We say that the belief "food will make the dog excretes salivation" is an unconditioned belief, and "bell won't make the dog excretes salivation" a no-conditioned belief.
* **After conditioning:** the observer has a new belief that "bell alone will still make the dog excretes salivation". This belief is a conditioned belief.

We have this analogy:

* **Unconditioned observation:** Observe that the dog is fed
* **Conditioned observation:** Observe that the dog hears the bell
* **Conditioned belief:** Food will make the dog salivating
* **Unconditioned belief:** Bell alone will still make the dog salivating

Am I missing something?

**Tags:** learning, behaviorism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: [Classical conditioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning) is one type of [learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning). Check out the other types there, and also see how classical conditioning is a very specific paradigm. Quoting from Wikipedia: "Though it is sometimes hard to distinguish classical conditioning from other forms of associative learning (e.g. instrumental learning and human associative memory), a number of observations differentiate them, especially the contingencies whereby learning occurs"  
> **username_2**: A conditioned belief is not a conditioned response (the observer does not salivate), hence ... different.  
> **username_2**: Related: [Are association, conditioning, and symbolic learning the same thing?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/3958/7001)  
> **username_0**: @ArnonWeinberg I see. In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response and conditioned response is the same (excreting salivate), while in my analogy, the unconditioned belief is not the same with the conditioned belief  
> **username_2**: You said it better than I did. :-)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2020-09-05. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

1. In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response and conditioned response is the same (both are salivating). In the analogy, the unconditioned belief is not the same with the conditioned belief.
2. In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response can only happen after the unconditioned stimulus. In the analogy, the unconditioned belief can be recalled ("activated") even though there is no unconditioned observation.


---

