Don't know but care

[From Dick Robertson,990510.1234CDT]

Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (990509.1921 MDT)]

>>From Phil Runkel on 990509.1430 PDT
>But what does "lack" mean? It means, I assume, that an error has
>arisen, a discrepancy, a wanting. So people who lack something
>are in want. I guess Bill is saying that people act to get what
>they want.

Precisely, Brother Phil. It all begins with an unmatched reference signal
(not with a reward). Without the reference signal, and the discrepancy of
perception with regard to it, nothing will be "rewarding." This is very far
from the common-sense idea of reward, under which you give a person a
reward to make him do something. Some things, like candy, are just
inherently rewarding, says the common sense rooted in behaviorism. So by
cleverly giving and withholding rewards, and properly displaying
discriminative stimuli, you can bring other people's behavior under your
control.

>And I think that is the "common-sense" way in which
>Dick is using the term "rewarded" -- to have succeeded in getting
>what they want.

But Dick has been a PCTer since about 1956 or 57 -- what else would seem
like common sense to him?

Right. It never occurs to me that the environment makes anyone do anything.
Not for 40 years at least. But that is not what I am concerned about here. If
subjects act to proportionalize their efforts between multiple payoff
structures instead of putting all their effort on the highest payoff structure,
that is a _phenomenon_, not a theoretical issue. I want to know if that
phenomenon really has been found to exist. If it has I think it is
intersting. It would raise an interesting question about how the subjects are
controlling for getting what they want.

> If so, Dick's sentence becomes "... do what will
>get them what they want rather than what won't." Which is almost
>word for word what Bill said he'd prefer to say. Or I am
>twisting too hard? Be that as it may, I agree that it is the
>behavior that gets you what you want (not always, of course, but
>sine qua non).

I would prefer to leave out any implication that something in the
environment initiated behavior unless you can positively identify it as a
disturbance.

Bill P.

Best, Dick R.