Fred's Home Heating System

CSGnet Archive CSG2000
21

[From Rick Marken (2000.11.26.0800)]

Bill Powers (2000.11.26.01255 MST) --

A simulation is really the only way to see the actual implications
of the descriptions you have given. How about it?

Bruce Abbott (2000.11.26.1015 EST)--

Yes, that does seem to be the way to go. I hate to leave things
hanging like this, but I won't be able to get to it right away
as I'm now facing having to get other things done that I can't
put off any longer.

Of course. This is the way these discussions always end. So,
after 6+ years of discussing reinforcement theory we have seen
no reinforcement model, no experimental test of reinforcement
theory, no increase in understanding and no change in anyone's
mind. It's the perfect win-win negotiation strategy: when it's
time for reinforcement theory to put up, the reinforcement
theorists shut up.

I think I have to go with Bruce Gregory on this one: reinforcement
theory is of no scientific interest, except to those who have made
a career out of it, because it is unfalsifiable. There is no
reinforcement model (except for the one that is always forthcoming
just before Bruce Abbott has to go do all those "other things" that
come up just when the model is requested) and there is no experiment
that will test this model. But reinforcement theory (like natural
selection theory and Freudean theory) does provide the basis for
some creative just-so stories. I guess that's why it is so appealing
to frustrated English majors, like B. F. Skinner.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

22

[From Bill Powers (2000.11.26.12.24 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.11.26.0800)]

Of course. This is the way these discussions always end. So,
after 6+ years of discussing reinforcement theory we have seen
no reinforcement model, no experimental test of reinforcement
theory, no increase in understanding and no change in anyone's
mind. It's the perfect win-win negotiation strategy: when it's
time for reinforcement theory to put up, the reinforcement
theorists shut up.

Just in case anyone wonders, I disassociate myself from this piece of
nastiness. If Bruce A. says he is busy, I assume that is the truth.

Best,

Bill P.

23

[From Rick Marken (2000.11.26.1250)]

Me:

Of course. This is the way these discussions always end...

Bill Powers (2000.11.26.12.24 MST) --

Just in case anyone wonders, I disassociate myself from this
piece of nastiness. If Bruce A. says he is busy, I assume that
is the truth.

And in case anyone wonders, I dissociate myself from this little
piece of santimonius nastiness. What crap, Bill. I didn't say
that Bruce was lying about being busy. I have no doubt that he
is busy. All I said was that discussion of reinforcement theory
always seem to end sans a reinforcement model or test.

I think you are being a tad high gain about finding evidence of
nastiness in my posts. In fact, what I said is no more nasty (and
probably a lot _less_ nasty_) than what you said to Bruce Abbott
about a year ago:

[From Bill Powers (991116.1212 MDT)]

It's at times like these that it becomes plain to me that
your whole purpose in being part of these discussions is to
defend your profession against anything that threatens to
change it beliefs. You have accepted the behaviorist position
hook, line, sinker, and pole, and it is simply too late for
you to change your mind... your investment in the past is too
much to overcome.

(Yes, I have been reading the archives in my spare time, trying to
find evidence of my nastiness; I did find quite a bit of nastiness
but, I'm afraid, not much of it was from me):

In that same post, you reply to something Bruce Abbott says
with the following:

That's your brilliant argument, a simple contradiction of
what I said?

Sounds a little nastily sarcastic to me.

These things were said almost a year before you had the chuzpah
to tell me that the reason the RTP people were ragging on me
was not because I was disagreeing with them but because I was
so nasty. According to you [Bill Powers (2000.09.25.1703 MDT)]
I was:

...calling people assholes and idiots...or saying that people
...will never understand PCT and don't want to understand PCT...

Well, it sounds to me like you said (above) that Bruce Abbott
is never going to get PCT (he's always going to be a behaviorist)
and that his answer was not brilliant but "simple", a giant step
down the slippery slope toward "idiot".

I have nothing against you trying to make friends with people
who hate my guts. But I would appreciate it if you could find
a somewhat less obviously hypocritcal way of doing it.

Thanks

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

24

[From Bruce Gregory (20001126.1831)]

Bruce Abbott (2000.11.25.1125 EST)

Come on, Bill, it isn't all that difficult. The model I've presented could
hardly be clearer in demonstrating how the consequences of certain behaviors
relate to the selection of those behaviors for repetition over others, and
the continued repetition of those behaviors (maintenance) so long as those
consequences continue to follow those behaviors and so long as those
consequences continue to be desired. And guess what, the process I've
described comes down to two control loops, one nested inside the other.

Well said. Now just apply that reasoning to the EAB experimenter. His
actions contain repetitions which were selected (maintained) so long as the
consequences that selected them continue to follow those behaviors and so
long as the consequences continue to be desired. I'll ignore the nonsense
about nested control loops since they are not a part of EAB models. Or are
they? Is PCT subsumed under EAB?

BG

25

[From Bruce Gregory (2000.1126.1843)]

Rick Marken (2000.11.26.1250)

I have nothing against you trying to make friends with people
who hate my guts. But I would appreciate it if you could find
a somewhat less obviously hypocritcal way of doing it.

Although it pains me to say so, Rick has been behaving in an exemplary
fashion. In fact, his patience has been extraordinary. Even I, who
apparently hate his guts, have nothing critical to say about his posts.

BG

26

[From Bill Powers (2000.11.26.1643 MST)]

Rick Marken (2000.11.26.1250)--

It's at times like these that it becomes plain to me that
your whole purpose in being part of these discussions is to
defend your profession against anything that threatens to
change it beliefs. You have accepted the behaviorist position
hook, line, sinker, and pole, and it is simply too late for
you to change your mind... your investment in the past is too
much to overcome/

Yep, I said that, and I'm sorry I did. That sort of comment does nothing to
further PCT; all it can accomplish is to drive away someone who might, some
day, be an ally.

These things were said almost a year before you had the chuzpah
to tell me that the reason the RTP people were ragging on me
was not because I was disagreeing with them but because I was
so nasty.

If I kept up the same thing, it wouldn't be long before people would be
ragging on me, too. And I would deserve it.

Best,

Bill P.

27

[From Rick Marken (2000.11.26.1700)]

Bill Powers (2000.11.26.1643 MST) --

Yep, I said that, and I'm sorry I did.

You don't have to apologize to me. I understand that you, like
me, are merely human. I didn't post the quote in order to guilt
you out. I did it in order to demonstrate what I'm sure you
already know but refuse to acknowledge for what I think are
rather obvious "political" reasons: that sometimes even the
nicest people (like you and me) get frustrated and say things
they later regret.

If I kept up the same thing, it wouldn't be long before
people would be ragging on me, too. And I would deserve it.

I think you know that this is quite unfair (or do we really
have to go through a "manual count" of the archives to determine
the actual number of times you and I have "kept up the same
thing" after saying something as nasty as what you said to Bruce
Abbott). I've read through the archives and my subjective
impression is that I have "kept up the same thing" no more than
you have.

If you must make a show of distancing yourself from my allegedly
nasty behavior (or whatever it is that you are doing) I would
appreciate it if, in the future, you would do it in private posts
to the people whose approbation you apparently solicit.

Thanks again

Rick

···

---

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

28

[From Bruce Abbott (2000.11.28.1900 EST)]

Sorry, I missed this one:

Rick Marken (2000.11.24.1310)

Bruce Abbott (2000.11.24.1410 EST)

If the new responses (commands to the new injector) are followed
by reinforcement (heat), this output remains selected, but if,
after a few tries, no heat occurs, the selector operates again
and another response is tried.

In the rat bar press situation what is the "response" selected by
reinforcement: 1) the neural "commands" sent to the muscles 2) the
changes in muscle tension resulting from these "commands" 3) the
forces on the bar resulting from the muscle tensions 4) the change
in the position of the bar resulting from these forces 5) all of
the above 6) none of the above?

Whatever the rat was doing that correlates with the delivery of the
reinforcer -- pressing down on the lever with the right paw, pressing down
on the lever with the left paw, shaking the lever with its teeth, whatever.

Bruce A.

29

[From Rick Marken (2000.11.28.1930)]

Me:

In the rat bar press situation what is the "response" selected by
reinforcement...

Bruce Abbott (2000.11.28.1900 EST):

Whatever the rat was doing that correlates with the delivery
of the reinforcer -- pressing down on the lever with the right
paw, pressing down on the lever with the left paw, shaking the
lever with its teeth, whatever.

In this example, these "responses" are different means of getting
the lever down (which is the only consequence of these many
"responses" that results in reinforcement) and they only get
the lever down in particular circumstances (disturbance conditions).
Pressing down with the right paw will only get the lever down when
the animal happens to be to oriented so that its right paw is near
the lever; pressing down with the left paw will only get the lever down
when the animal happens to be to oriented so that its left
paw is near the lever; shaking the lever with its teeth will
only get the lever down when the animal is facing the lever.

If reinforcement selects responses that produce consequences (like
getting the lever down) that produce reinforcement only under
certain circumstances (in this case, only in circumstances where
the animal is oriented in particular ways with respect to the
lever) then how does the reinforcement know which response to
"select" on any particular occasion? For example, if the animal is
facing away from the lever when it tries to shake the lever with
its teeth, how does the reinforcement know that "shaking with the
teeth" should not occur because it will be ineffective (no lever
near the teeth)? I believe that what happens, according to rein-
forcement theory, is that the "shaking with the teeth" response
will be weakened if it occurs when the animal is facing away from
the lever because it will not be followed by reinforcement. Indeed,
all responses that don't _consistently_ produce the consequence
(like a lever press) that produces reinforcement must eventually
be weakened (extinguished); only the reinforced response -- the one
that produces the consequence that produces reinforcement -- can
"survive".

So the only "surviving" response in the lever pressing experiment
should be the one that consistently gets the lever down and produces
reinforcement. Let's say that the surviving response is "pressing
down on the lever with the right paw"; it's the only response that
consistently produces reinforcement (perhaps because the animal
remains oriented so that its right paw is always on the lever)
so it is the only response selected by reinforcement.

It is this prediction of reinforcement theory -- that only
responses selected by reinforcement can survive -- that I test
in my proposed experiment. Reinforcement theory leads to the
prediction that the only response selected by reinforcement
is the one that consistently produces the consequence (like the
lever press) that produces reinforcement. If this is the case,
introduction of a never before experienced circumstance (disturbance)
to the consequence that produces reinforcement will prevent
production of that consequence by the selected response -- the one
that had produced the consequence (and, thus, reinforcement) in
the past.

So, in my experiment, if a novel, post learning disturbance
interferes with the subject's ability to produce reinforcement
it is evidence in favor of reinforcement theory. If, on the
other hand, such a disturbance does not interfere with the ability
to produce reinforcment it is evidence against reinforcement
theory.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com