[From Rick Marken (951208.1600)]
Samuel Saunders (951208:16:22:10 EST) --
Rick, I thought the object was to design an experiment that would be
accepted by EAB devotees.
It is.
Although it may seem odd to you, EAB data on normal adult humans are
relatively rare.
I know. But they must imagine that reinforcement theory applies to humans,
too. No?
As a quick summary, the EAB view is that there are two kinds of control
important for adult humans: contingency based control and rule based
control.
Well, if we could build a "contingency-based" model of the behavior in my
simple proposed experiment and it didn't work maybe we could add a "rule-
based" system to make it work.
The consensus appears to be that it is very difficult to arrange an
experiment to avoid rule-governed behavior.
So we can't test for "contingency based control" (reinforcent theory) in
humans? Amazing.
OK. I've got an idea. Let's pretend that the guy at the terminal is a big rat
(not a stretch if it's me). How about a reinforcement model of the RAT being
reinforced by picture presentation for pressing the button!!
Please, ex-EABers. Give me a reinforcement model.
I suspect that it would be nearly impossible to devise an experiment in which
we served as subjects that would be expected by an EAB audience to work,
So much for science.
You have been pushing for the reinforcement model to go with the
experiment. If you read my last posting carefully, you will see that I
mentioned that models which have anything approaching the specificity
required to go head to head with the PCT model are designed for use with
non-human subjects, which to EAB 'theory' implies contingency-based
behavior.
So give me a model that works for non-human subjects. I'll get my cat to be
a subject, for chrissakes.
Just as Bill Powers has noted that using a CONC schedule would require PCT
to add new models to account for choice, producing a reinforcement model
for use with adult human subjects on basic schedules may require adding to
existing models to include rule-governed behavior.
They can add the kitchen sink if they want; just provide a reinforcemnt model
that behaves appropriately in an operant conditioning experiment. It seems a
little strange to me that the reinforcement model for a complex situation
(CONC schedules) would be simpler than the one for the most basic operant
conditioning experiment. This is getting ridiculous. I think the work "mush"
gives EAB TOO MUCH credit.
I would also like to continue the discussion of the wisdom of posing our
studies as a direct contest between PCT and 'reinforcement theory', but to
avoid diluting the intent of this post, I will defer to a later posting.
I'm starting to see why. I have not seen anyone post a working reinforcement
model of ANYTHING since this thread started. I'm beginning to think that
there IS NO reinforcement theory model of behavior AT ALL; I think
reinforcement theory is just a bunch of hand waving crap; ALL versions of
reinforcement theory are straw men because there is no such thing as
reinforcement theory.
Please, someone. Prove me wrong on this and post the code for a reinforcement
model of my simple operant conditioning experiment.
Best
Rick