[From Rick Marken (951025.1812)]
Bruce Abbott (951025.1710 EST) --
Rick believes that the rats SHOULD have controlled food rate;
Not really. I thought it was a reasonable possibility, but I didn't
think that they "should" have controlled food rate. Since there has
been no research done to test for the aspect of food (if any) that
rats control, anything anyone says about what rats control in
operant experiments is just a WAG (wild ass guess).
The only problem with this perfectly reasonable control-system analysis is
that it is inconsistent with the facts.
I didn't give a control system analysis; I gave a WAG about what might
be happening. Since we know zip about what the rats are controlling,
there is really nothing to analyzed. Since I gave no analysis (just a WAG,
there was nothing that was inconsistent with the facts. I have no idea what to
make of the fact that higher deprivation levels lead to higher response
rates (that don't vary with schedule). On the surface it suggests that
response rate is an output caused by deprivation level; this is the
way behavioral facts look when you don't test for controlled variables.
By the way, are you going to include a section on testing for controlled
variables in the next edition of your methods text? Inquiring minds
still want to know.
Rick
[From Bruce Abbott (951026.1005 EST)]
Rick Marken (951025.1812) --
Bruce Abbott (951025.1710 EST)
Rick believes that the rats SHOULD have controlled food rate;
Not really. I thought it was a reasonable possibility, but I didn't
think that they "should" have controlled food rate. Since there has
been no research done to test for the aspect of food (if any) that
rats control, anything anyone says about what rats control in
operant experiments is just a WAG (wild ass guess).
O.K., you DIDN'T think they ought to be controlling food rate.
The only problem with this perfectly reasonable control-system analysis is
that it is inconsistent with the facts.
I didn't give a control system analysis; I gave a WAG about what might
be happening. Since we know zip about what the rats are controlling,
there is really nothing to analyzed. Since I gave no analysis (just a WAG,
there was nothing that was inconsistent with the facts.
I'll take you at your word: you are simply in the habit of making WAGs and
offering them as facts established through research.
Would you please do us all a favor, then? When you are just going to
speculate without any basis whatsoever for your view, would you please
include a disclaimer? You could mark all such baseless conclusions with an
asterick, and place the disclaimer at the bottom of the post, like this:
The rats were TRYING to control their food input -- they just couldn't
because there was apparently no way for them to deliver enough food to
themselves via any setting of the schedule.*
What Bruce Abbott discovered is that the rats' output is basically "pegged"
at maximum response rate. Relaxing or stiffening the schedule made no
difference; the rat kept pressing as fast as it could because it couldn't
get its perception of food input to the reference level.*
* Caution: Wild-ass guess. These statements are not to be taken as
factual or as in any way related to the evidence.
Regards,
Bruce