[From Rick Marken (951216.1745)]
Bruce Abbott (951216.1220 EST) --
The second [control model] goes to max rate and stays there if
extinction is imposed.
When you "impose extinction" you are actually breaking the feedback
connection between output and input; the simple control model assumes
that the feedback connection is intact so "imposition of extinction"
is an "out of scope" condition for the basic control model -- for now.
So what is wrong with the [control] model? Several things. First, it
does not explain why behavior should stay at zero if the initial
baseline is zero. The reinforcement model does: if the behavior rate is
zero, reinforcement never occurs, response strength remains at zero,
and behavior rate remains at zero.
Actually, the reinforcement model does no better than the control
model with this. If there are no responses then there are no
consequences. Your description of the reinforcement model predicts no
escape from zero baseline; if response strength is zero then the
response never occurs. If the response never occurs, it can never be
reinforced so it's strength remains at zero.
Of course, in reality, response rate is zero only when the organism
hasn't stumbled on the reinforcement producing response yet; you are
confounding an acquisition problem with a maintenance problem.
You are trying to grab a control theory failure from the jaws of victory
by going outside the phenomenon that the model is designed to handle.
This is true of the other purported shortcomings of the control model
that you mention. And the purported successes of the reinforcement model
that you describe are based mainly on ad hoc rhetoric (which reminds me,
how's the search for the reinforcement model going, Samuel?).
it is clear that the simple control model presented here is not adequate
to the task set for it.
It may be clear to you but it is not clear to me. Why don't we wait until
we have some data and see how both models do with it.
That is why I want to develop it [the control model] further.
Look. No offense but it's pretty clear that you (like me) are way out
of your league on the theory front. Why not leave the theory to Bill P.
and start helping out with the research to test the theories? Physicists
have this division of labor; why don't we do it in behavioral science too?
Me to Bruce:
Now I see the problem, Bruce. You actually believe in behavior
modification.
Bruce:
If you were attacking the Ptolemaic system, it wouldn't matter a whit
whether I believed in it or not; I would still insist that you at least
describe it correctly before launching your attack.
Ok. Now that you have corrected my description of behavior modification
-- by saying that I shouldn't compare it to what went on in the
movie "Clockwork Orange" and then agreeing that my description of
behavior mod was correct but "incomplete" (I had left out such gems
as "stimulus control") -- could you just reassure me by saying something
like "but, of course, behavior modification, when described correctly,
is a horseshit way to deal with people -- and here's why, from a PCT
perspective..."
Gracie mille
Rick