Human Op Cond, Instructions

[From Rick Marken (951208.0830)]

Samuel Saunders (951207:21:59:36) --

I ran into something which may pose serious problems. I was aware that
human FI performance tends to be different from that of most non-human
subjects. Apparently that is true of most schedules.

Does this mean that reinforcement doesn't apply to humans? Or that it can't
be tested with humans? What's going on here?

How come all I get from the ex-reinforcement theorists is reason after
reason why we can't do an experiment to compare reinforcement and control
theory? What kind of a theory is reinforcement theory, anyway?

Come on, work with me here, guys. All I want to do is compare reinforcement
to control theory. I want to know how to set up a simple experimental
situation to which both theories clearly apply. I want to use this simple
experimental situation to compare the predictions of the two theories. WHY IS
THIS SO HARD?!?!?!

I don't want to hear why such a comparison CAN'T be done. If it can't be
done, then there's nothing to talk about, right; reinforcement theory would
be exposed as a religion -- and you can't talk people out of their religious
beliefs.

Chris Cherpas approves of the basic experimental design. What I need now is
some more concurrance on the design, suggestions for tuning it up and, most
important, a reinforcement model to compare to the control model.

Let's go guys. The Galileo is a triumph in the exploration of the Jovean
atmosphere; now let's show that control theory can triumph in the exploration
of human nature.

CHUCK TUCKER (951207) --

I know that you and Bill think (in fact, both of you have said this
to me) my concern for instructions and observations is overstated

Bill Leach (951207.21:41 U.S. Eastern Time Zone) --

This comes as a bit of a surprise to me. After reading Phil Runkel's book,
I would think that he would agree with you. I know that I certainly agree
with what you said.

Bill, what did you read in Phil's book that led you to this view of the
importance of instructions.

Chuck and Bill: Observations are obviously important. But why do you guys
think instructions are important? Obviously, things are a lot easier if you
can talk to your subjects and tell them what you'd like them to do. And it's
also nice if you can assume that your subjects' have the goal of trying to
understand and follow your instructions (when I was a grad student, some
of my best girlfriends were subjects with just this goal;-)). But why the
concern about the "precision" of instructions -- since you can have only the
vaguest idea how anything you say might be interpreted by your subjects.

Best

Rick

Rick Marken (951208.0830)-

All I want to do is compare reinforcement
to control theory. I want to know how to set up a simple experimental
situation to which both theories clearly apply. I want to use this simple
experimental situation to compare the predictions of the two theories. WHY
IS THIS SO HARD?!?!?!

ROTFL!

Tee hee!

<giggle> <laugh> <laugh> <gasp>

Poor Rick! You think that if reinforcement has really ever explained
anything then it would be easy to find experiments where the explanation
is demonstrated. But that just shows how little you understand
reinforcement.

Some things are beyond demonstration. They just have to be believed to
be explained.

-Shannon

<[Bill Leach 951208.21:35 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Rick Marken (951208.0830)]

Bill, what did you read in Phil's book that led you to this view of the
importance of instructions.

Let me clarify a bit...

1) If ANY instructions are _necessary_, then it is important that they
    be very carefully "constructed" (hopefully in more than one way and
    with examples if possible).

2) If a test can be conducted without any instructions then this is best.

Thus, I concluded that one of Phil's discussions would strongly support
1) but that overall he favors using test that do not require instruction
as in 2).

-bill