[From Rick Marken (970905.0900)]
Bruce Abbott (970905.0845 EST)--
So instead of apologizing to me for your mistake, you blame me
for it. How kind of you.
I apologize. I'm such a beast;-)
Me:
So it's all over then. Reinforcers are controlled variables;
Bruce:
It is the role they play in the higher-level system that I am
focusing on here
I know. But who cares? Whatever role they play in higher level
systems doesn't change the fact that they are a controlled variable
for some system. This is what I mean by "changing the subject".
It seems like you are diverting attention from the main point,
which is this: in an operant conditioning situation, once the
animal has learned how to produce food pellets for itself, then
those food pellets (actually their rate of occurance) come under
control; the organism resists disturbances (like changes in the
pellet delivery schedule and the addition of non-contingent
pellets) to keep the pellets coming at a reference rate. So the
pellets are a controlled variable, not a "reinforcer". This is
a significantly different way of looking at what the organism
is doing in an operant conditioning situation; the pellets are
not strengthening the organism's behavior; rather the organism is
_controlling_ the rate of occurrance of the pellets.
Now you want to talk about the role of the controlled pellets
in another, presumed control loop -- one that controls something
like nutrient level. That's fine. Just draw the diagram of how
you think the controlled pellet occurance variable fits into the
nutrient control process. It's got to be either an input variable,
a disturbance variable, an output variable or an input quantity.
It can't be a reference variable because references are inside
the nervous system and food pellets not.
The thing behaviorists call a reinforcer _can_ be found in a
control loop. Its defining property is _not_ that it serves as
a CV in some other loop. Its defining property is that its
delivery serves to reduce the error between the CV and its
reference in _this_ loop.
So you don't want see that reinforcers are actually CVs?
Which way do you want it, Bruce?
I am hopeful that my analysis of the relationships between
certain EAB phenomena and control theory will make for a
convincing argument in favor of the control interpretation
when it is presented to my "EAB pals."
But we've shown you the control interpretation. It's very
simple. The variable that EABers have always identified as
a reinforcer is actually a controlled variable. Very clear.
Very simple. Very neat. What's the poroblem?
You ought to be in favor of this, but for some reason you
wish to fight my project tooth and nail.
I'm not fighting your project; I'm trying to set it on the
right track. Your project should be to convince EABers (and
the rest of the psychology establishment) that what they have
been calling a "reinforcer" is a controlled variable. Do the
experiments to show beyond a doubt that food pellet rate (or
whatever variable it actually is) is controlled. What could be
a more powerful message than "The enviromental variable that
you took to be a strenthener of behavior is actually controlled
by that behavior. If you can convince the EABers of that simple
fact then you will be the Galileo of psychology (and I will
be one of your admiring acolytes).
Bruce Gregory (970905.0950 EDT) --
How about this compromise:Since reinforcement cannot be
observed, it doesn't require explanation.
I wish I had been able to say that in the first place. Compromise
enthusiastically accepted.
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
