Burrhus Frederic Skinner is perhaps one of the most influential psychologists of the last 100 years, despite being relatively unknown to the mainstream and I touched on his work in Methods of Female Madness. Unlike Freud who got much attention for his focus on neurosis, sex and in many ways laid the groundwork for psychoanalysis, Skinner’s work in behaviorism flew somewhat under the radar among the general public. The major contribution Skinner made is in hte field of Operant Conditioning, based in his belief that free will is an illusion and human action is dependent on the consequences of previous actions. Thus, it follows along the same line as Scott Adams’ concept of humans as “moist robots“.
Skinner broke down behaviors in two categories, respondent and operant. Where respondent behavior are elicited by stimuli and can be modified by the use of Pavlovian conditioning, where neutral stimulus is paired with eliciting stimulus. Operant behaviors are not initially induced by any stimulus, and are strengthened by instrumental conditioning. Meaning that they are strengthened or weakened by the response to the behavior.
Over time, operant behaviors are strengthened or weakened by the reinforcement, behavior which is strengthened can over time become prominent in an individuals behavioral reportoire. Operant behavior can be controlled, Skinner used as an example, that if a lever dispenses food only when a light is on, a rat will over time learn to only press the lever when the light is on. This gave birth to Skinner’s concept Stimulus – Response – Reinforcer. A reinforcer is a consequence that will strengthen the behavior, while a punishment weakens a behavior over time.
Reinforcers are broken down into two types, positive and negative. Positive reinforcement means adding appetative stimulus after correct behavior, for instance when one gives a dog a treat when it sits down in response to the command “Sit”. Negative reinforcement takes two variations, escape, where noxious stimuli is removed following correct behavior, and active avoidance, where behavior avoids noxius stimuli, for instance studying to avoid a bad grade.
Punishments decrease behavior, and is broken down into two categories, positive and negative. Positive punishment, means adding noxious stimuli following behavior, such as reprimanding a child following the behavior one wishes to decrease. Alternatively, negative punishment means removing appetative stimulus following behavior, for instance taking away a child’s laptop for failing to do their chores. Skinner did observe that punishment can suppress behavior, but that this is often temporary and has a number of often unwanted consequences.
Skinner also noticed that reward schedules have a different effects. Continuous reinforcement/punishment means that every time a behavior is performed, the subject receives either a punishment or a reinforcement. This is very effective when teaching new behaviors, such as when training a dog, because it establishes the association between target behavior and the reinforcer.
An alternative is interval schedules that are based on time intervals between reinforcements. This can be on a fixed or variable schedule. The former is when reinforcements are presented at fixed time periods provided that the desired response is made and yields a response rate that is low just after a reinforcement and becomes higher just before the next reinforcement level is scheduled. The latter, when behavior is reinforced after random time durations following the last reinforcement, and yields a response rate that varies with the average frequently of reinforcement. Another alternative is ratio schedules, which are based on the ratio of responses to reinforcements. A fixed schedule is when a reinforcement is delivered after a specific number of responses has been made. A variable ratio schedule is when reinforcement comes after a random number of responses has been made. The less responses are needed for a reinforcer, the higher the response rate tends to be. Ratio schedules tend to produce very rapid responding, often with breaks of no responding after reinforcement if a large number of responses are required.
As I wrote in Methods:
Variable ratio reinforcement shows rather poor results due to unpredictability. Finally, variable interval reinforcement that has the worst results, due to also being unpredictable. The unpredictable reinforcement confuses the target, and thus does a poor job of extinguishing poor behaviors, however, it does a great job creating confusion in the target. Unable to discern what is desired and how to gain the results he wants, he is likely to flip through everything that has worked before.
This is the key that renders many beta men in relationships in mental Gordian knots, in an attempt to elicit reinforcement from their significant others, they engage in frantic responses to stimuli, that in the end fail to have the desired result.
Behaviorism and Relationships
The woman who finds a “fixer upper” is a common trope in the Western world, and it is quite common that a woman will try to change her man as a default setting. One of the better formulations I heard of this was “Men marry a woman expecting her never to change, women marry men expecting them to change“. As I wrote in the earlier post, the behaviors utilized and displayed for the world to see by crazy bitches, are just regular female behaviors on large amounts of steroids. For instance, when Rollo wrote his brilliant article “Choreplay” what is being set up by the women in the articles he quotes is a classic Skinnerian schedule. The stimulus is a pile of dirty dishes, the response is for the man to clean it, and the reinforcement is sex. In reality, the reinforcement here is in the form that draws on expectancy and equity theory in that, it is a negotiation of desire, “If you do the dishes, I may fuck you”. The schedule of reinforcement here is likely to be intermittent, or a form of variable ratio reinforcement, otherwise one could expect the complaining about men “not doing their share” to have subsided.
If a woman drags you into a fight whenever you fail to put your clothes in the hamper, this is an attempt at getting rid of the unwanted behavior through introducing positive punishment (her yelling) following the behavior (not putting clothes in the hamper) in the hope that this will lead to correct behavior, that is then followed by negative reinforcement in the form of removing noxious stimuli (she stops yelling).
If a woman perceives a man as a beta, she will immediately initiate her Skinnerian programs in order to ensure that the man she has perceived as beta would make for a good beta. She will keep sex on a fixed time/ratio schedule, in order to maximize the number of positive responses before a reinforcer is granted. This sets the stage for later on, when the schedule changes, but it also serves to discern how easy the beta can be programmed. Now, this is not done consciously, it is almost entirely unconscious behavior on the part of the human female.
For instance, when a beta is out on the first date, he will engage in behavior that seeks to please the female (response) as a result of being on the date (stimulus), and her behavior serves as either the reinforcer or punishment. The interaction between beta males and females takes this form, often called “eager to please” or “enters her frame“, which are merely covert ways of saying “She is training him“.
When he later puts on a ring on it, she dials up the frequency and volume of such where she slowly seeks to condition him into the partner she desires. Sex is a primary tool for this, as it becomes used both as the reinforcer and punishment. So, when one goes on relationship forums where men are asking what to do in order to get more sex, they have been so ingrained with the concept of “Stimulus – Response – Reinforcement” that they are actively asking what the appropriate response is to the stimulus that is being presented to them in order to gain the reinforcement.
If one looks at the reddit thread I covered last week about the man being denied sex because he voted Trump, this is a classical example of negative reinforcement by removing the appetative stimulus (sex) following the man voting in a manner of which his wife did not approve, on a fixed schedule of punishment (30 days).
Over time, such schedules create lasting change, as the person will consider their response in every situation that has previously been covered, but also in new situations, against the expected reinforcement or punishment. In a sense, the beta male is living in a constant situation where their response takes the form of active avoidance, also known as being “whipped“. Men who have been exposed to punishments so frequently and erratically that they, much like the rat who got shocked on a random schedule, are cowering in the corner scared of doing anything.
The Alpha Script
With Alpha males, a chief characteristic of them is that they flip this script on the female. Rather than the female training them, they train the female. For instance, when Black Dragon uses the terms “soft next”  from a behaviorist standpoint, the woman is responding to a stimuli, and he then responds to using a negative punishment (removing the appetative stimulus as a response to her behavior). This illustrates the cardinal position difference between the Beta male in the situation in the preceding section, and the alpha male. In a Beta relationship, the man is the target of reinforcement or punishment, in the Alpha relationship the woman is the target of reinforcement or punishment.
Which again comes back to “Frame” as in the Iron Rule of Tomassi 
Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are.
When you are in her frame as a beta male always is, she is the issuer of both punishment and rewards, when she is in your frame you are the issuer of punishments and rewards. Within the relationship between a woman and an alpha male, he takes the role of issuer of reinforcement and punishment as she is more invested in him than he is in her, alternatively, he has the greatest degree of self-discipline.
Summary and Conclusions
The Beta male, constantly seeking female validation and approval, is a prime target for operant conditoning, as he is often quite ready to appease, supplicate and hand over control to a female in exchange for sexual access, he is in many ways a willing participant. For him, giving away his time, resources and autonomy in exchange for sex, is often something he does willingly. Therefore, his complaints are often not that his wife is utilizing these techniques on him, but rather a complaint over the reinforcement schedule. If he got sex every time he engaged in desired behavior, he would be more than happy to be manipulated.
The Alpha on the other hand, coming from an abundance mindset, does not see sex as something worth giving up his autonomy, resources or time over, unless other conditions are also met. This is why one of the canned lines I saw repeated most in the early seduction community was “So, other than your looks, what do you have going for you?” this is a DARVO variant, in that it flips the frame of who is qualifying for who. It aids in gas lighting in that it gives the woman the perception that her SMV is lower than expected, thus inducing fear. This is the stimulus that elicits a reponse to which the male offers punishment or reinforcer.