Blowin' smoke

[From Bruce Abbott (2000.11.28.2200 EST)]

As a possible counterweight to all my recent nonsense about reinforcement,
here's something I encountered in a textbook I'm using this semester in my
Learning class:

. . . DeGrandpre, Bickel, Hughes, and Higgens (1992) reviewed 17 studies
that manipulated the nicotine content of cigarettes, and they plotted
economic demand functions to show the effects of changing nicotine levels.
Their analysis showed that if smokers are given reduced-nicotine cigarettes
in place of their usual cigarettes, they smoke more cigarettes per day, and
thereby expose themselves to more cigarette smoke (and greater health
risks). Conversely, if smokers are given cigarettes with higher nicotine
level levels, they smoke fewer cigarettes per day.
  [Mazur, 1998, pp. 228-229]

So it would appear that cigarette smokers are controlling for the level of
nicotine in their systems. And all those cigarette company execs said that
smokers weren't smoking for the nicotine, they just like the taste!

Bruce A.

[From Rick Marken (2000.11.28.2100)]

Bruce Abbott (2000.11.28.2200 EST) --

As a possible counterweight to all my recent nonsense about
reinforcement...

Was it all nonesense? Was any of it sense? If so, what was
the sense? What was the nonsense?

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1129.0640)]

[From Bruce Abbott (2000.11.28.2200 EST)]

So it would appear that cigarette smokers are controlling for the level of
nicotine in their systems. And all those cigarette company execs said that
smokers weren't smoking for the nicotine, they just like the taste!

Even _I_ can provide a reinforcement "model" for these data.

BG

[From Bjoern Simonsen (2000.11.30.1300 GMT +1)]

from Bruce Abbott (2000.11.28.2200 EST)]

Neither Ric nor Jeff followed up my problems when I asked for help in
modeling.
That's OK.

Let me instead of try to see if my understanding of PCT is as others.

So it would appear that cigarette smokers are controlling for the level of
nicotine in their systems. And all those cigarette company execs said that
smokers weren't smoking for the nicotine, they just like the taste!

I am not sure how I shall understand your last sentence. I think you are
ironically towards the cigarette companies. But I make the most of the
chance and generalize a little.

I haven't read

DeGrandpre, Bickel, Hughes, and Higgens study from(1992) where they

reviewed 17 studies

that manipulated the nicotine content of cigarettes, and they plotted
economic demand functions to show the effects of changing nicotine levels.

where they concludes

....... Conversely, if smokers are given cigarettes with higher nicotine
level levels, they smoke fewer cigarettes per day.

  [Mazur, 1998, pp. 228-229]

To me is their conclusion to simple and also maybe wrong. They think as
behaviorists where less nicotine in each cigarette is the input that returns
more cigarettes as a response.

Of course cigarette smokers are controlling for the level of nicotine in
their systems. There are "sensors" in the system that perceive the nicotine
level. But there are also "sensors" that perceive the taste, and the smell.
There are also "sensors" that perceive memories for what you did last time
the person finished breakfast. And sensors that perceive memories for the
well-being of smoking last time the person solved a co-worker problem.
There are also "sensors" perceiving the memory from last time the person had
started the car and found his place in the traffic.
There are many "sensors" controlling different disturbances which lead the
person to lightening a new cigarette. And I can imagine a person walking on
the street who is putting out his cigarette. (I now imagine that the
reference has a value just like the value of the perception of high enogh
nicotine level in the blood). Turning a corner he meets his old friend. When
they are talking his fiend lighten his cigarette and the smell disturbs the
control system to our person. And also he lightened his cigarette.
Let me stop a long history. It is difficulty to know what other people
control. Somebody (among them Rick) are good to tell how we can test what
other people control. I find it difficulty.

You Bruce A know better than me if DeGrandpre, Bickel, Hughes, and Higgens
tested what the 17 studies controlled for when they smoke more cigarettes
with lower level of nicotine.
But I don't think they tested how many problems the 17 studies worked wit
each day, how many times the had started the car and found their place in
the traffic and so on.

I am afraid this is study where DeGrandpre, Bickel, Hughes, and Higgens just
studied the actions after they had presented what they thought were a few
disturbances to the 17 studies. You can tell me Bruce A.

My conclusion is: It is not interesting to learn which actions people turn
out with after they have been disturbed in some selected ways. People
controls more than the situations they are put into. And some times are
their actions are result of their control of other disturbances or memories
than the disturbances other people put them into.

For me PCT is a theory about how I behave. I feel myself on thin ice when I
explain the behavior of others.

Bjoern

[from Jeff Vancouver (2000.11.30.1045 EST)]

Bjoern,

Is the quote below from you or Bruce? If you (or Bruce), I may have missed
the call for additional help. You might want to check out
http://www.psych.ohiou.edu/people/Faculty/Vancouver/budgetv4.mdl (give me a
few hours, I have not got the link set up completely correctly yet).

It is a system dynamics model I have been working on.

Jeff

[From Bjoern Simonsen (2000.11.30.1300 GMT +1)]

from Bruce Abbott (2000.11.28.2200 EST)]

"Neither Ric nor Jeff followed up my problems when I asked for help in
modeling.
That's OK."

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1130.1320)]

Bruce Nevin (2000.11.30 11:02 EDT)

Any study of disturbance of a controlled variable can be interpreted in S-R
terms by someone who doesn't understand control.

But often only by adopting an appropriately ambiguous definition of "stimulus".

BG

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.11.30 11:02 EDT)]

Bjoern Simonsen (2000.11.30.1300 GMT +1)–

To me their conclusion is too simple and also maybe wrong. They think as

behaviorists where less nicotine in each cigarette is the input that returns

more cigarettes as a response.

Of course cigarette smokers are controlling for the level of nicotine in

their systems. [But smoking may help them to control many other variables that they’re also controlling.]

Any study of disturbance of a controlled variable can be interpreted in S-R terms by someone who doesn’t understand control. Many S-R studies cannot be analyzed in terms of control. Primarily, this is because data on individual performance is not available. Only statistical results are reported.

If all the smokers control nicotine input pretty much the same way, the statistical summary correlates well with individual performance. In such a case, a study uninformed by control theory can nevertheless be interpreted in terms of control.

The only variable that was disturbed in this study was nicotine level. Smokers resisted disturbance in both directions (also fewer cigarettes with more nicotine per cigarettes). This looks like pretty good evidence that they were controlling (among other things) nicotine intake as a controlled variable.

You Bruce A know better than me if DeGrandpre, Bickel, Hughes, and Higgens

tested what the 17 studies controlled for when they smoke more cigarettes

with lower level of nicotine.

I doubt very much that these folks tested for controlled variables. Their understanding of psychology is not informed by control theory.

For all those other variables that you suggested, you have the problem of figuring out what specifically you would disturb, how would you disturb it, and how a smoker and a non-smoker might be observed to resist the disturbance. For example, what specific controlled variables are disturbed by different “stressful” events (traffic, etc.)?

What physiological effects does nicotine have? Is the smoker controlling perceptions (e.g. physiological states) that are affected by nicotine? Do those other variables that you suggested disturb their control of such perceptions?

Does the diminution of nicotine levels in the system disturb control of physiological perceptions such that a stressful situation (additional disturbance of one of your other variables by personal encounter, traffic, etc.) is more challenging than it might be without the disturbance by diminishing nicotine? Remember Bill’s insight that nicotine intake temporarily alleviates pain caused by addiction to nicotine.

    Bruce Nevin
···

At 12:55 PM 11/30/2000 +0100, =?Windows-1252?Q?Bj=F8rn_Simonsen?= wrote:

[From Bjoern Simonsen(2000.12.01.0850 GMT+1)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.11.30 11:02 EDT)]

Any study of disturbance of a controlled variable can be interpreted in S-R
terms by someone who doesn't understand control. Many S-R studies cannot be
analyzed in terms of control. Primarily, this is because data on individual
performance is not available. Only statistical results are reported.

Yes. My point is that the statistical reports tell us that they smoke more
cigarettes, they do not explain why. The explanation that they smoke more
cigarettes because they are given reduced-nicotine cigarettes in place of
their usual cigarettes may or may not be true.

The only variable that was disturbed in this study was nicotine level.
Smokers resisted disturbance in both directions (also fewer cigarettes with
more nicotine per cigarettes). This looks like pretty good evidence that
they were controlling (among other things) nicotine intake as a controlled
variable.

Yes. My point is that they say that "the only variable that was disturbed in
this study was nicotine level" knowing that during a day or many days the
same people are disturbed by many other experiences that also are controlled
and result in actions of smoking a new cigarette (or actions where they
could not smoke when they wanted). Again I mean that the statistical results
reports pretty good that they smoked more or less cigarettes, but it is an
unsure interpretation to say that the controlled the nicotine intake.

For all those other variables that you suggested, you have the problem of
figuring out what specifically you would disturb, how would you disturb it,
and how a smoker and a non-smoker might be observed to resist the
disturbance. For example, what specific controlled variables are disturbed
by different "stressful" events (traffic, etc.)?

Yes. You hit my point. It is a problem for me to figure out what people are
controlling and I am not sure if I am interested in figuring it out.

What physiological effects does nicotine have?

I cant tell you that, but I think nicotine is a disturbance that co-operates
with many references. And I think the control of those disturbances produce
new perceptions.
But I also think that there are other disturbances that people control on a
higher level and that the output from those levels co-works with the
reference for the nicotine level.

Is the smoker controlling perceptions (e.g. physiological states) that are

affected by

nicotine?

Yes of course. You confuse me with the question.

Do those other variables that you suggested disturb their control of such

perceptions?
I don't know. I mentioned some examples I remember when I smoked myself.

Does the diminution of nicotine levels in the system disturb control of
physiological perceptions such that a stressful situation (additional
disturbance of one of your other variables by personal encounter, traffic,
etc.) is more challenging than it might be without the disturbance by
diminishing nicotine? Remember Bill's insight that nicotine intake
temporarily alleviates pain caused by addiction to nicotine.

Yes I think so. And then the diminution of nicotine levels explain the
reason for smoking more cigarettes. But the opposite also happen (I think).
We experience many situations every day, most of them I think are
unconscious. Some of them may be controlled on a higher levels and the
output of this control may influence lower levels references which co-works
with the disturbance from diminution of nicotine levels. And after potential
conflicts at a level the visual actions
(smoking or not smoking) are caused from other variables than the diminution
of nicotine levels.
We never know what other people in such investigation are controlling. And
it is too easy to explain the results of the investigation from the
variables an investigator chose. He can't keep all the other variables
constant.
I think these thoughts exist by all human/social investigators in their
silent hours??

I understand Bill's insight that nicotine intake temporarily alleviates pain
even though I am unsure what pain is (which levels are controlling pain).
But I can also imagine that pain caused by addiction to nicotine inhibit a
person to have his smoke after breakfast.

Bjoern

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.12.01 06:34 EDT)]

Bjoern Simonsen(2000.12.01.0850 GMT+1)--

···

At 08:47 AM 12/01/2000 +0100, =?Windows-1252?Q?Bj=F8rn_Simonsen?= wrote:

It is a problem for me to figure out what people are
controlling and I am not sure if I am interested in figuring it out.

Oh. OK.

         Bruce Nevin

[From Bjoern Simonsen(2000.12.03.0945 GMT+1)]

from Bruce Nevin (2000.12.01 06:34 EDT)

It is a problem for me to figure out what people are
controlling and I am not sure if I am interested in figuring it out.

Oh. OK.

Oh. Oh. Oh. Communication is hard.
_If_ your "Oh. OK." was an answer to my sentence over _and_ your
interpretation is that I was not interested in your comments, you have
misinterpreted what I thought to say.
I am sorry for my indistinct writing.

I will appreciate some comments to your earlier writing.

[From Bruce Nevin (2000.11.30 11:02 EDT)]

Any study of disturbance of a controlled variable can be interpreted in S-R
terms by someone who doesn't understand control. Many S-R studies cannot be
analyzed in terms of control. Primarily, this is because data on individual
performance is not available. Only statistical results are reported.

If someone study a disturbance in S-R terms they will get overview over how
many who
responses in a certain way to a Stimuli, but they will _never_ get an
explanation why
they response as they do.

I don't care for being to categorical, but can we assume the segment over
because such studies never incorporate all relevant variables? (And in S_R
studies we will never have all relevant variables)

The only variable that was disturbed in this study was nicotine level.
Smokers resisted disturbance in both directions (also fewer cigarettes with
more nicotine per cigarettes). This looks like pretty good evidence that
they were controlling (among other things) nicotine intake as a controlled
variable.

I will say it looks like a good hypothesis.

Bjoern