[From Rick Marken (950725.1715)]
Bruce Abbott (950724.2135 EST) --
If the animal were attempting to keep the rate of reinforcement
constant, one would expect that the additional time penalty imposed
by a higher ratio requirement (disturbance) would be met by a
compensatory increase in average response rate.
The problem here is that you might be looking at the wrong "response"
measure. The best way to determine whether a variable is under
control is to monitor the variable itself while circumstances (disturbances,
feedback functions) change. If the variable changes far less than would
be expected given the changing circumstances, the variable is under
control. By this criterion, reinforcement rate is clearly under control; at
lower (less than 64) ratio requirements a 100% change in the ratio,
which should produce a 100% change in reinforcement rate, produces
about a 4% change in reinforcement rate: the rat is clearly controlling
reinforcement rate. The rat may not be controlling reinforcement rate
by varying _average_ response rate, but the rat is controlling reinforcement
rate, a fact that would be made even more evident if there were disturbances
(like non-contingent addition of food pellets) influencing this variable.
Bruce Abbott (950724.2150 EST) --
Rick, please reread the post--carefully. You're off jumping to
confusions again. >:-<
The confusion arises, I think, because your approach to understanding
behavior still differs considerably from the PCT approach.
I think the best way to see what is going on is to do operant research
that tests the PCT model; just do the research Bill has suggested. I think
the most important first step in understanding control theory is to
understand the _phenomenon_ of control and the best way to understand
the phenomenon of control is to watch it happen -- in models _and_ in
the real thing -- organisms.
Bruce Abbott (950725.0930 EST)--
So this leads to the question: where is there any evidence for control
of reinforcement rate?
See above. The evidence is that changes in reinforcement rate are _much
smaller_ than would be expected given the changes in the effect that
actions can have on reinforcement rate. As Bill Powers (950725.0950 MDT)
just said:
The proof is in the fact that if it were not for the behavior [actions], the
reinforcement rate would be zero. The behavior brings the
reinforcement rate up to some non-zero value, and when the loop
gain is high enough (low ratios) we can see about where the reference
level for reinforcement is (even though it can't be reached exactly).
Applying disturbances would settle the matter.
In your rat research you can include distrubances (to reinforcemnt rate)
that will, indeed, finally settle the matter.
It would appear instead that a given level of deprivation, size of
reward, etc. as provided in these experiments sustains a particular rate
of responding. I'm not really comfortable with that conclusion, but it
seems to be implied by the data.
Well, you can get comfortable again because it is not "implied" by the data
at all. These is no evidence that the response rates are controlled
(maintained); there were no disturbances to the response rate so
whatever stability there is is just that -- stability, not control.
Re: Meeting report
Unfortunately, due to technical problems, the 11th meeting of CSG was not
recorded so it will only live as a happy memory in the minds of those
who attended. I will try to recall the meeting from memory but I'm sure I
won't get it all -- I apologize if I forget some names or to to mention
anyone -- and I can only report it from my perspective. But here goes:
Thursday: Ed Ford and his group did the morning session. They described
their approach to dealing with difficult students as though those students
were control systems rather than problems to be controlled. I finally
understood what Ed et al are up to and I think it is excellent work.
I believe that Diane Gossen discussed here work on conflict resolution
at the end of this session; also an excellent description of applied PCT.
In the evening, Bill Leach, Bill Powers and I discussed some "theoretical"
issues. I started by explaining what the PCT model means in terms of actual
experience; Bill Powers then talked about PCT and EAB; Bill showed that
the conventional idea that rewards increase behavior works only in non-
survivable conditions. Bill Leach described the relationship between
PCT and control theory as used in control engineering; the difference
is a matter of mapping and Bill L. showed where the discrepencies occur.
Friday: Dan Miller and Bob ? discussed social issues from the perspective
of viewing individuals as perceptual control systems. Then Tom Bourbon
gave a wonderful summary of all his interactive control research, showing
how interacting elementary control models account for emergent
social phenomena like interference, cooperation, helping, conflict, etc.
We also had a fascinating discussion of how understanding PCT might
help people deal with the problems people are currently experiencing
in Bosnia. This discussion was led by a marvelous reality therapist
from Croatia -- I forgot her name but have no problem recalling her
brilliance and sensativity.
Evening: Ken Kiske discribed his approach to management, which seems to
be comfortably compatible with the idea that people are perceptual control
systems. Richard Thurman discussed his work on virtual reality and
instructional design from a PCT perspective: very interesting stuff.
Saturday: Gary Cziko did his rubber band demos; he showed with
remarkable clarity why the IV-DV approach to research tells you about
the characteristics of the organism's environment and little about the
organism itself. Gary also discussed issues related to the Net.
Evening: Banquet and business meeting.
I'm sorry again if I forgot anyone (and I'm sorry about forgetting
names; someone will help me out, I'm sure). As Richard Thurman said
in an earlier post, some of the best stuff happens between the "official"
talks; there were some wonderful discussions.
One last thing. I would like to suggest that we try to speak, in the future,
of "applications BASED ON understanding that people are perceptual control
systems" rather than "applications of PCT". The latter makes it sound like
PCT itself suggests solutions to problems -- it doesn't. PCT defines the
context in which applications (to living systems) must be done. There were
many people at the CSG meeting who described very clever ways to
solve school, management and other human problems; these applications were
successful because the people who developed them understood that people are
perceptual control systems.
Best
Rick