[From Bruce Abbott 941029.1400)]
Tom Bourbon [941026.1147, 941027.1244] --
Thanks for the references on choice behavior in _Psychological Review_. As I
mentioned in an earlier post, I have been "away" from this area of research
for a time and am now working to catch up; these are definite "reads."
On your comments and quotes on S-R and operant psychology, I think I will take
your advice and hold off further discussion on these interesting issues for
now. I'm finding that all this correspondence with the list is taking a huge
bite out of my time, and I really would like to devote more of it to
developing the operant schedules project. Before leaving the topic, however,
I would agree with you that my statements about the goals of EAB appear to be
somewhat contradictory. By way of (I hope) clarification, let me add this.
In broad terms almost all sciences pursue the goals of understanding,
prediction, and (where possible and desirable) control. Control in this sense
means being able to arrange conditions to bring about predictable results, as
when controlling the air flow over a wing generates a predictable amount of
lift, or when providing the right work atmosphere leads to employee job
satisfaction and productivity.
Skinner talked about control in this sense and suggested how operant
principles could be applied in beneficial ways in a variety of contexts. But
this is not to say that the goal of EAB is control in the sense of
manipulating others. This may be why there has been little interest (at least
so far) within basic (as opposed to applied) EAB research on the dynamics of
interacting humans or animals. Instead basic researchers are busily
investigating how behavior changes as regular functions of changes in
environmental conditions and contingencies (i.e., functional relationships),
activities which they view as pursuing the EAB goal of demonstrating
control over behavior.
Well, that's probably as clear as mud, but at least I gave it a shot. (:->]
Regards,
Bruce