[From Rick Marken (950825.1130)]
Dennis Delprato (950824) on the "constructional approach" to behavior
modification:
FIND OUT WHAT THE CLIENT WANTS AND HELP THEM GET IT IN WAYS THAT ARE ETHICAL
AND LEGAL.
Goldiamond, who introduced the constructional approach, has been one of a
less-than-handful of people in behavior therapy who have forthrightly
addressed the coercion problem. Another is Murray Sidman
This is very interesting. One thing this shows is that at least some
behaviorists don't take their own theories very seriously. Aren't Goldiamond
and Sidman behaviorists? If they are, why would they believe that there is
such a thing as "coercion"? You can't coerce an entity whose behavior is
controlled by its environment. A behaviorist who uses reinforcement toget a
kid to eat spinach is not coercing the kid (from the behaviorist's
perspective) any more than he would be coercing a broom to sweep by exerting
force on its handle.
Coercion implies that you are trying to get an entity to do things that the
entity itself does not want toi do; coercion implies that the entity wants
certain results and not others; that it is in control of its own behavior.
I can see why the constructional approach was ignored by behaviorists; it
was addressing a problem that, according to a behaviorist, could not possibly
exist -- the problem of coercion.
Joel Judd (950824.0215 CST) --
There is a distinction to be made between natural "rules" (laws) and social
ones.
I think another important distinction is between rules (natural or social) as
perceptions and rules (natural or social) as unperceived constraints on how
we can control ANY perception (including rules perceptions).
The "alternating entry" to the freeway rule that I described earlier is an
example of a rule as a perception; you can see when the rule is (and is not)
being followed. If you are entering the freeway in this situation, you are
part of the means of controlling your perception of the rule; when the
car in from of you goes, you wait until the car next to you goes and then you
go. You are part of the means used to control the perception of this rule. If
the car behind the car next to you goes before you can go, then that driver
has prevented you from perceiving the rule (there is no perceived
alternation); he has disturbed your perception of the rule (either because he
didn't know the rule or because he didn't want to control for it).
I have a computer program that lets an individual control the perception of
a rule regarding a sequence of numbers. By taking the appropriate action,
the subject can maintain a perception of the followingr rule: if the current
number is odd then the next number will be >5, otherwise the next number
will be < = 5. A person can perceive whether or not this rule is in effect;
if the rule is not in effect the person can restore it by pressing the mouse
button; the person controls his perception of the number sequence rule just
as the driver control his perception of the freeway entrance rule.
Rules can also act as unperceived constraints on how we control a perception.
A natural rule, like gravity, constraints what we have to do to produce a
particular result, like pointing at some object in the world; in this case,
we have to produce muscle forces that counter the force of gravity. But we
don't have to be able to perceive a rule in order to be able to control
a perception that depends on the rule; we don't have to know, for example,
that f=ma in order to be able to control arm position. This is true even
if the rule (as unperceived constraint) is social rather than natural. For
example, a child does not have to perceive the fact that there is a rule in
his house about saying grace before meals; the kid just learns that part of
what you do to get fed in this house is silently bow your head for a while.
The kid learns to produce "grace" in order to get food inthe same way that he
learns to produce force in order to point with his arm.
"Learning the rules" means something different depending on whether you are
learning to control rules as perceptions vs learning to deal with rules as
constraints on how you control perceptions. In order to learn to control
a rule as a perception, you have to be taught the rule explicitly: "the rule
is alternating entry" or "the rule is ax+bx = (a+b)x". In order to learn to
deal with rules as constraints on how you control, on the other hand, you
just have to be given experience controlling with the rule in effect: you
have to practice pointing in a gravitational field (as infants do) or
practice getting food in a family that says grace. Explicitly teaching the
rules of gravity or the rules of the dinner table will not necessarily help a
person control (pointing or food intake) any better.
Bill Powers (950825.0100 MDT) --
Rick Marken (950823.2230) --
Rick Marken (950824.1000) --
I don't want to try to control you with praise, but your expositions on
contingencies and rules are the clearest and most direct that have yet
appeared on the net.
Coo. Burble. Burble Purr:-)
Best
Rick