[From Rick Marken (951220.1000)]
CHUCK TUCKER (951219.10:02 EST) --
I was struck by Rick's statement (951218.0900) on the "leaving of Ed Ford"
that "The ultimate arbiter of 'correctness' on CSG-L should be the degree
of match between the PCT model and real (his word!) behavior."...If this is
so, why is this criteria rarely if even used on the net?
It's not THAT rare. We have reported the results of a number of comparisons
of the PCT model to real (as opposed to simulated) behavior. I think it
doesn't happen more often because so few people are actually doing
experiments and modelling.
When THE TEST (TT) was mentioned several months ago (so it seems to me)
there was an extensive argument about what TT is, what TT means, whether it
can be used with human beings but never any report of TT used with "real
behavior."
What about the "coin game", the horizontal-verticle illusion experiment, the
mind reading demo, etc? All are applications of The Test to real behavior.
The posts about "science as mush or non-mush," "whether reinforcement is a
fact,"... although very interesting... [contain] not one report of "real"
behavior and how it might "fit" with the PCT Model
Isn't "eating" a real behavior?
I strongly recommend that we begin to report on the net the results of
"real" research with "real" human beings that deal with "real" behavior to
see if there is a "fit" between "it" and the PCT model.
I agree. I will begin by describing how I got to the airport yesterday night.
I almost always take the 405 south from Santa Monica to Century. But traffic
last night was particularly heavy (a disturbance to the rate at which I
wanted to perceive myself moving toward the airport). I had already passed
Sepulveda, my usual alternate route, when I went to enter the 405. When I
found the 405 completely clogged I started to vary my route to avoid the
traffic. I tried Sawtell; that worked fine but Sawtell going south does some
weird stuff that is different than what it does going north; so I hit another
disturbance when Sawtell unexpectedly intersected Sepulveda (I was
controlling for interecting Centinela). Well, I knew that turning right on
Sepulveda would keep me going South (another controlled variable) so I turned
right but hit heavy traffic again; I ended up in a right turn only lane
(disturbance to continuing on Sepulveda; I would have continued straight but
I was also controlling for following traffic rules) so I was "forced" to
turn on Jefferson (forced by the fact that not turning would have been a
disturbance to my perception of following traffic rules) which turned out to
make a freeway entrance accessible. I got on the freeway and made it to the
airport right on time to pick up my baby girl who is home from Berkeley.
At no point in this adventure were my actions selected or controlled by what
happened to me; I acted in whatever way was necessary in order to control 1)
my proximity to the airport 2) the rate at which I approached the airport 3)
my distance from other vehicles 4) my adherence to (most) traffic rules 5) my
progress in a generally southerly direction, and so on. I was controlling
many variables in the face of many, unpredictable (and often undetectable)
disturbances to the variables I was controlling. Because I control these
variables so well, I am an "LA Driver"
Chris Cherpas (originally, 951211.0918; now 951219.1212 PT) --
These two outcast/maverick groups [EAB and PCT] really _should_ join forces!
Great! But it's more than "outcastness" that will have to unite these groups.
They will have to agree that environmental events (like "reinforcers")
don't strengthen, select or control behavior. Environmental events are
simply disturbances to perceptual variables that an organism is trying to
keep under control. If both groups can buy into that, then we'll be one,
big, happy outcast group.
Best
Rick