Bruce G.'s deconstruction

[From Bruce Abbott (2000.11.25.1245 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (2000.1125.0642)]

Bill Powers (2000.11.25.0116 MST)

I think it's clear that Fred's description of what is happening is not a
description, but a theory that invokes unobservable factors and influences
(as all theories do). A purely factual description does not require the use
of terms like reinforcement, response, and extinction: ordinary English
will do it (for an English-speaker).

Very nice.

But Bruce, it's an incorrect "deconstruction." (See my reply to Bill.)

I've performed a similar "deconstruction" of a typical EAB
experiment. It's fun, so I won't spoil it for anyone who wants to give it a
try. Suffice it to say, the experimenter arranges things so that his
behavior is properly "reinforced".

I'm having trouble doing it -- it won't spoil my fun if you let me in on the
solution. You can send it to me privately if you are afraid that posting it
on CSGnet will spoil the fun of others.

Looking forward to reading you deconstruction of a typical EAB experiment,

Bruce A.

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1126.1833)]

Bruce Abbott (2000.11.25.1245 EST)

I'm having trouble doing it -- it won't spoil my fun if you let me in on the
solution. You can send it to me privately if you are afraid that posting it
on CSGnet will spoil the fun of others.

Looking forward to reading you deconstruction of a typical EAB experiment,

I take it you are passing on my challenge to demonstrate that reinforcement
is not a just-so-story. Or did I miss that?

BG