[From Rick Marken (970902.0830)]
Hans Blom (970902) --
Here is a paradox: Although PCT doesn't say one purpose is better
than another, the _people who practice PCT_ do.
What's paradoxical about that? I think it's best to treat others
as you would have them treat you (not that I always achieve this
purpose, but I _try_). I had this purpose well before I started
to "practice PCT" and I've still got it. I now find that this
purpose is comfortably compatible with my understanding of human
nature from a PCT perspective. But I don't have this purpose
because I practice PCT.
I do think it would be difficult to have certain purposes (like
having the purpose of causing other people pain) and "practice PCT"
at the same time. But the problem here would be a _conflict_ (between
wanting to hurt people and knowing that the people you are hurting
are autonomous agents just like yourself), not a paradox.
How are we to solve this paradox?
I don't think there is any paradox. I like PCT. You don't.
PCT explains that. So?
Oh, by the way, Rick: you _can_ pick your friends.
I know I can pick _my_ friends. I meant PCT can't pick the people
who get enthusiastic about it.
Bruce Abbott (970902.0920 EST)--
What I am calling the phenomenon of reinforcement is a real
phenomenon: response rates _are_ higher during the contingency
phase of the experiment I described, and reduce to baseline
levels when the contingency is withdrawn.
Very good. Then you will agree that EABer's have made a rather
huge mistake by including, as part of the phenomenon they call
"reinforcement", the relationship betweem consequences and behavior
immediately after the first reinforcer producing response is
made in the contingency phase of the experiment.
I have not said that reinforcers strengthen behavior. That is theory.
I was taught that reinforcers "strengthen" behavior in the sense
that they are _observed_ to increase the frequency of the behavior
that produced them. It was described as a _fact_, not a theory.
I never heard anyone describe the most commonly observed effect
of reinforcers; that they actually _weaken_ (reduce the frequency
of) the response that produces them.
I think reinforcers are called "reinforcers" because they have been
_observed_ to produce an increase in the frequency of the response
that produces them; the term reinforcement describes an
_observation_. Reinforcement is, indeed, what _seems_ to happen
in the shaping phase on an experiment. But it is _not_ what is
observed the rest of the time. This fact is concealed by the
continued use of the term "reinforcer" to refer to the
consequences of action during all phases of an operant conditioning
experiment.
So if your goal is to use PCT to explain the brief period in an
operant experiment when consequences seem to act to increase the
frequency of a response, then go for it. I think you will be
able to show that "reinforcement" is the wrong word to describe
even this phenomenon.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken