Incentives/Disincentives (was Using PCT to model Economics)

CSGnet Archive CSG2010
1

[From Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.0853 MST)]

Hmm. I'll chime in on this one.

  [Martin Lewitt Nov 23, 2010 0805 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.21.1920)]

  Martin Lewitt (Nov 21, 2010 0450 MST)--

RM: So you agree that there is no such thing as an incentive but that

it's

still worthwhile to adjust them. Interesting.

ML: Of course there ARE incentives and disincentives, they just don't

work as

behaviorists would have us believe.

I still think of myself as a bit of behaviorist (owing primarily to a focus
on observable behavior when examining human performance issues in the
workplace). And I still happen to "believe in" (i.e., attach credibility
and significance) to the concepts of incentives and disincentives - and to
reinforcers and reinforcement (positive and negative). Moreover, I find
nothing in PCT to negate or void those concepts.

Can I offer incentives (i.e., prospective and contingent positive
occurrences such as a task-tied bonus or, as I once did, a promotion) and
have the person to whom they're offered work hard to obtain them? Of course
I can. But (and this is a big but) incentives - and disincentives - are,
like beauty, only in the eyes of the beholder (or prospective recipient).
If the person in question has no interest in what I'm offering (or
threatening) there is no incentive/disincentive. Ditto for reinforcers.

Example: Our four-year old granddaughter lived with us for a while a several
years back. Her grammar at the time was atrocious (e.g., lots of "ain't"
and verb/subject disagreements). We set up a little device that served as
an incentive for improving her grammar and, at the same time, a disincentive
for continuing with poor grammar. We filled a large mayonnaise jar with
pennies. We told her that the pennies would be hers when she stopped
speaking so poorly. We also told her that every time she spoke improperly
we would remove a penny for each instance. Within a few weeks, her speech
was greatly improved and she got her jar of pennies. Equally important,
once the pennies were in her possession, her speech did not revert to its
formerly poor state.

Some behaviorists would call this a case of negative reinforcement, that is,
by improving her speech she avoided losing the pennies. Some might call it
positive reinforcement (i.e., by improving her speech, she got the pennies).
Some might point to it as an incentive or, from another perspective, as a
disincentive.

My own view is much simpler: She wanted that jar of pennies badly enough to
modify her own behavior in ways that led to her getting them. Had she not
wanted those pennies badly enough to do that, our stratagem wouldn't have
worked. Did we shape her behavior? No, she did. Did we engage in anything
resembling "success approximations"? Not unless you count the gradual
decrease in improper speech utterances tied to the loss of pennies as doing
that. Does PCT explain her behavior? I think so: she wanted the pennies.
Her poor speech patterns were interfering with achieving that goal. She
modified her own behavior.

Did we provide an incentive/disincentive? I certainly think so. Do I
believe we can effortlessly, easily manipulate the behavior of other human
beings using incentives/disincentives/reinforcers/punishment? Not at all.
Devising viable incentives is a much trickier business than it is often made
out to be. It almost always hinges on negotiation and a really good
understanding of what it is a particular person wants. Think of it as
involving "the test for viable incentives/disincentives" :slight_smile:

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
1558 Coshcoton Avenue - Suite 303
Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416
www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"

···

-----Original Message-----
On 11/22/2010 8:21 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

2

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.23.0910)]

Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.0853 MST)--

I still think of myself as a bit of behaviorist (owing primarily to a focus
on observable behavior when examining human performance issues in the
workplace). �And I still happen to "believe in" (i.e., attach credibility
and significance) to the concepts of incentives and disincentives - and to
reinforcers and reinforcement (positive and negative). �Moreover, I find
nothing in PCT to negate or void those concepts.

But you negate it yourself in your next paragraph:

Can I offer incentives...But (and this is a big but) incentives - and
disincentives - are, like beauty, only in the eyes of the beholder
(or prospective recipient). If the person in question has no interest
in what I'm offering (or threatening) there is no incentive/disincentive.
Ditto for reinforcers.

That's exactly right. Things like food, money, etc are incentives or
reinforcers only to the extent that people care about (are controlling
for) them or perceptions influenced by them. Incentives and
reinforcers fit into PCT exactly where stimuli fit in: as disturbances
to controlled variables.

Food is a reinforcer only when a system is controlling for something
like "nutrition" and that variable is currently below its reference;
money is an incentive only when a system is controlling for something
like "savings" and that variable is currently below its reference; a
tone is a stimulus for a button press only when the system is
controlling for pressing the button when a tone comes on and not doing
so otherwise.

It's the existence of the controlled variable -- not the environment
event itself -- that determines whether an environmental event appears
to be an incentive, reinforcement or stimulus. Seeing the
environmental event itself as having the ability to incent, reinforce,
stimulate or, for that matter, afford is simply to succumb to the
behavioral illusion: the illusion that environmental events cause
behavior.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

3

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.23.1044 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.11.23.0910) –

Fred Nickols
(2010.11.23.0853 MST)–

Can I offer incentives…But (and this is a big but) incentives -
and

disincentives - are, like beauty, only in the eyes of the
beholder

(or prospective recipient). If the person in question
has no interest

in what I’m offering (or threatening) there is no
incentive/disincentive.

Ditto for reinforcers.

RM: That’s exactly right. Things like food, money, etc are incentives
or

reinforcers only to the extent that people care about (are
controlling

for) them or perceptions influenced by them. Incentives and

reinforcers fit into PCT exactly where stimuli fit in: as
disturbances

to controlled variables.

I was waiting for someone to give the right answer and you did. The
concept of “incentive” or “reward” is based on the
misconception that stimuli entering an organism have the ability to cause
some particular action. They don’t. The action taken by an organism in
relationship to an object or situation in the environment is determined
entirely by what the organism (a) wants and (b) doesn’t have. When you
offer something the organism wants and doesn’t have, the organism may
well take advantage of the means of getting it that you offer, so it
could appear to an uninformed person that offering the means is simply an
incentive to act in the required way.
Such a misinterpretation is easy to disprove. I see that you’re
overweight enough to dislike bending over too much, so I can say,
“If you’ll pay me a penny, I’ll tie those loose shoelaces for
you.” The offer to tie your shoes is apparently an incentive,
because it can incite you to give me a penny. I can easily disprove that
by doing the same thing again. I say again, in exactly the same way,
“If you’ll pay me a penny, I’ll tie those loose shoelaces for
you.” You, of course, say “Get lost – they’re already
tied.” You already have what you want more than you want a penny. I
can’t make you want something you already have enough of, so I get no
more pennies.
The concepts of incentive and reward are innocent mistakes in identifying
cause and effect. It’s the classical logical error of post hoc, ergo
propter hoc: “After which, therefore because of which”. If
we didn’t know that people are control systems, wouldn’t we make the same
mistake? But we do know that, so we don’t make that mistake any more. Do
we?

Best,

Bill P.

4

[From Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.1118 MST)]

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.23.0910)]

Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.0853 MST)--

snip < Moreover, I find
nothing in PCT to negate or void those concepts.

But you negate it yourself in your next paragraph:

Can I offer incentives...But (and this is a big but) incentives - and
disincentives - are, like beauty, only in the eyes of the beholder
(or prospective recipient). If the person in question has no interest
in what I'm offering (or threatening) there is no incentive/disincentive.
Ditto for reinforcers.

So you say, Rick, but I don't agree that I negate it myself. That an
incentive (or disincentive) hinges on whether or not the prospective
recipient wants it (or is controlling for it) doesn't wipe out the concept
of incentive; all it does is point out that incentives have no operational
existence apart from someone wanting them. I can offer Joe a $500 bonus to
do X and if Joe has no interest in the $500 then that $500 is not
functioning as an incentive. But if Joe does want that $500 then it does
act as an incentive.

Just as people establish contingencies between incentives/disincentives and
certain actions or performances, so too there exist contingencies between
incentives/disincentives and what prospective recipients value/want/are
willing to exert effort in pursuit thereof.

Maybe a little simpler: Is money an incentive? Maybe. Maybe not. Nothing
is or isn't an incentive/disincentive without knowing whether or not the
prospective recipient values/will expend effort in pursuit of it. That
said, can incentives be established? You darn betcha! But it's not a
simple matter of holding out a carrot or wielding a stick (no matter how
much some people would like that to be the case).

Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting LLC
1558 Coshcoton Avenue - Suite 303
Mount Vernon, OH 43050-5416
www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

"Assistance at a Distance"

···

-----Original Message-----

5

[Martin Lewitt Nov 23, 2010 1201 MST]

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.23.1044 MDT)]

  Rick Marken (2010.11.23.0910) --

    > Fred Nickols

(2010.11.23.0853 MST)–

    > Can I offer incentives...But (and this is a big but)

incentives -
and

    > disincentives - are,  like beauty, only in the eyes of the

beholder

    >  (or prospective recipient).  If the person in question

has no interest

    > in what I'm offering (or threatening) there is no

incentive/disincentive.

    > Ditto for reinforcers.



    RM: That's exactly right. Things like food, money, etc are

incentives
or

    reinforcers only to the extent that people care about (are

controlling

    for) them or perceptions influenced by them. Incentives and

    reinforcers fit into PCT exactly where stimuli fit in: as

disturbances

    to controlled variables.

  I was waiting for someone to give the right answer and you did.

The
concept of “incentive” or “reward” is based on the
misconception that stimuli entering an organism have the ability
to cause
some particular action. They don’t. The action taken by an
organism in
relationship to an object or situation in the environment is
determined
entirely by what the organism (a) wants and (b) doesn’t have. When
you
offer something the organism wants and doesn’t have, the organism
may
well take advantage of the means of getting it that you offer, so
it
could appear to an uninformed person that offering the means is
simply an
incentive to act in the required way.

Let's consider then the person who is informed about the general

distribution of wants and scarcity in a given population and based
upon that offers a means of satisfying many of the wants in exchange
for certain behaviors, and it works. Does that person immediately
become “an uninformed person” if he calls that an incentive, when
that is the accepted meaning of the word? Money does work as a good
general incentive, because as a medium of exchange, it can represent
the offering of a means to satisfy a diversity of wants. It may be
sex to one, lessons in a skill to another, social recognition to a
third, consumer products to a forth, etc. This shouldn’t conflict
with PCT at all.

I suspect the disagreement is really about what the reference value

hierarchy of individuals is populated with: whether the reference
value hierarchy is a blank slate or whether there is considerable
commonality due to our genetic heritage from evolution. This
commonality means that marketing expertise and financial incentives
can actually achieve results.

-- Martin L
···

On 11/23/2010 11:12 AM, Bill Powers wrote:

  Such a misinterpretation is easy to disprove. I see that you're

overweight enough to dislike bending over too much, so I can say,
“If you’ll pay me a penny, I’ll tie those loose shoelaces for
you.” The offer to tie your shoes is apparently an incentive,
because it can incite you to give me a penny. I can easily
disprove that
by doing the same thing again. I say again, in exactly the same
way,
“If you’ll pay me a penny, I’ll tie those loose shoelaces for
you.” You, of course, say “Get lost – they’re already
tied.” You already have what you want more than you want a penny.
I
can’t make you want something you already have enough of, so I get
no
more pennies.

  The concepts of incentive and reward are innocent mistakes in

identifying
cause and effect. It’s the classical logical error of * post
hoc, ergo
propter hoc* : “After which, therefore because of which”. If
we didn’t know that people are control systems, wouldn’t we make
the same
mistake? But we do know that, so we don’t make that mistake any
more. Do
we?

  Best,



  Bill P.
6

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.23.1145)]

Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.1118 MST)--

Rick Marken (2010.11.23.0910)--

Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.0853 MST)--

FN: Moreover, I find nothing in PCT to negate or void those concepts.

RM: But you negate it yourself in your next paragraph:

FN: So you say, Rick, but I don't agree that I negate it myself. That an
incentive (or disincentive) hinges on whether or not the prospective
recipient wants it (or is controlling for it) doesn't wipe out the concept
of incentive; all it does is point out that incentives have no operational
existence apart from someone wanting them. �I can offer Joe a $500 bonus to
do X and if Joe has no interest in the $500 then that $500 is not
functioning as an incentive. �But if Joe does want that $500 then it does
act as an incentive.

It acts as an incentive only if you use it as an incentive -- as a
means of controlling Joe's behavior. It may be that your friends know
that $500 can't incent (cause) behavior if people don't want it. But
if they find that $500 will incent behavior (because Joe wants it)
they are happy to use it as a behavior control method instead of just
giving it to Joe (since they know he wants it and they apparently have
it to give) or cooperating with him (asking if Joe how much X he would
be willing to do for $500, for example). Calling something an
"incentive" betrays an interest in control of behavior rather than in
how behavior controls.

Just as people establish contingencies between incentives/disincentives and
certain actions or performances, so too there exist contingencies between
incentives/disincentives and what prospective recipients value/want/are
willing to exert effort in pursuit thereof.

Exactly, these people establish contingencies in order to control
other people, knowing that they have what these other people want or
need and the controllers will only give it to these other people
contingent on their doing what they, they controllers, want. This is
not a healthy way for control systems to interact. It can lead to
conflict, as I'm sure you know.

Maybe a little simpler: Is money an incentive? �Maybe. Maybe not. �Nothing
is or isn't an incentive/disincentive without knowing whether or not the
prospective recipient values/will expend effort in pursuit of it.

Yes, same with reinforcement. You have to make sure the organism wants
what you plan to use as a reinforcement before it can be used as a
reinforcement. Thus animals are maintained at 80% of their body weight
when food is the reinforcement in conditioning experiments.

That said, can incentives be established? �You darn betcha! �But it's not a
simple matter of holding out a carrot or wielding a stick (no matter how
much some people would like that to be the case).

Whether or not people believe that incentives are in the environment
or are dependent on what people value, the idea that incentives are an
appropriate way to deal with other people reflects an interest in
figuring out how to better control other people rather than in
figuring out how other people can control better. I see that as the
main difference between a conventional and a PCT approach to behavior.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

7

Bill said:

"I was waiting for someone to give the right answer and you did. The concept of "incentive" or "reward" is based on the misconception that stimuli entering an organism have the ability to cause some particular action. They don't. The action taken by an organism in relationship to an object or situation in the environment is determined entirely by what the organism (a) wants and (b) doesn't have. When you offer something the organism wants and doesn't have, the organism may well take advantage of the means of getting it that you offer, so it could appear to an uninformed person that offering the means is simply an incentive to act in the required way."

The initial conditions of this paragraph suggest only one logical conclusion: We end up agreeing to disagree on the challenge topic at hand, not to mention all ensuing topics of interest, ad nauseum until someone calls for a truce, after which we take a short break until somebody reignites the sophistry all over again. So what's the harm in this, you say?

Well I normally wouldn't have any problem with it either except for my intuition that the world is about to implode in a very violent way unless we Americans deviate from our argument culture and actually do something radical to prevent it. And by "we" I mean "We The People", not our cherished representatives.

For starters, I would suggest that we avoid the highly illogical assumption that anyone has "THE right answer" for any anything. Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only certainties that I am aware of are death and taxes. So are we adding PCT to that shortlist as well? Let me put it another way. If the collective intelligence of the entire world were suddenly focused on PCT as THE possible solution to all of our intractable problems, would it survive the onslaught unscathed, or would it be reduced to nothing but skin and bones?

Using the nuclear option of absolute truth during a conversation implies that one's limited perspective is superior to everyone else's experience, intuition, feelings, knowledge, self-awareness and self-concept. In other words, it denies what makes us human.

And we wonder why people can never get enough of what it is that they already have? Well here's a rhetorical question for everyone: Is it because, like Atlas separated from the primordial heavens, we too are denied the attainment of our true nature from an imposed cultural identity whose primary function is to preserve itself at all costs, even if it means the destruction of life as we know it?

Chad

Chad T. Green, PMP
Program Analyst
Loudoun County Public Schools
21000 Education Court
Ashburn, VA 20148
Voice: 571-252-1486
Fax: 571-252-1633
Web: http://cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/50910052783559/site/default.asp

There are no great organizations, just great workgroups.
-- Results from a study of 80,000 managers by The Gallup Organization

Bill Powers 11/23/10 1:41 PM >>>

[From Bill Powers (2010.11.23.1044 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.11.23.0910) --

> Fred Nickols (2010.11.23.0853 MST)--
> Can I offer incentives...But (and this is a big but) incentives - and
> disincentives - are, like beauty, only in the eyes of the beholder
> (or prospective recipient). If the person in question has no interest
> in what I'm offering (or threatening) there is no incentive/disincentive.
> Ditto for reinforcers.

RM: That's exactly right. Things like food, money, etc are incentives or
reinforcers only to the extent that people care about (are controlling
for) them or perceptions influenced by them. Incentives and
reinforcers fit into PCT exactly where stimuli fit in: as disturbances
to controlled variables.

I was waiting for someone to give the right answer and you did. The
concept of "incentive" or "reward" is based on the misconception that
stimuli entering an organism have the ability to cause some
particular action. They don't. The action taken by an organism in
relationship to an object or situation in the environment is
determined entirely by what the organism (a) wants and (b) doesn't
have. When you offer something the organism wants and doesn't have,
the organism may well take advantage of the means of getting it that
you offer, so it could appear to an uninformed person that offering
the means is simply an incentive to act in the required way.

Such a misinterpretation is easy to disprove. I see that you're
overweight enough to dislike bending over too much, so I can say, "If
you'll pay me a penny, I'll tie those loose shoelaces for you." The
offer to tie your shoes is apparently an incentive, because it can
incite you to give me a penny. I can easily disprove that by doing
the same thing again. I say again, in exactly the same way, "If
you'll pay me a penny, I'll tie those loose shoelaces for you." You,
of course, say "Get lost -- they're already tied." You already have
what you want more than you want a penny. I can't make you want
something you already have enough of, so I get no more pennies.

The concepts of incentive and reward are innocent mistakes in
identifying cause and effect. It's the classical logical error of
post hoc, ergo propter hoc: "After which, therefore because of
which". If we didn't know that people are control systems, wouldn't
we make the same mistake? But we do know that, so we don't make that
mistake any more. Do we?

Best,

Bill P.

8

[From Rick Marken (2010.11.23.1830)]

Martin Lewitt (Nov 23, 2010 1201 MST)--

Bill Powers (2010.11.23.1044 MDT) to me;-)

BP: I was waiting for someone to give the right answer and you did.

ML: Let's consider then the person who is informed about the general
distribution of wants and scarcity in a given population and based upon that
offers a means of satisfying many of the wants in exchange for certain
behaviors, and it works.�� Does that person immediately become "an
uninformed person" if he calls that an incentive, when that is the accepted
meaning of the word?

I think so, because he is implying that money is what causes people to
work. In fact, people don't need to be "incited" (the true meaning of
incentive) to work; people are always working in the sense that they
are controlling. But people can't control for everything they want or
need; much of the work people do is specialized. So in order to get
the fruits of other specialized work there has to be a means of
trading the fruits of one's own work for the fruits of the work of
others. That can be done by barter or exchange but it is much more
efficiently done with money.

Money does work as a good general incentive, because
as a medium of exchange, it can represent the offering of a means to satisfy
a diversity of wants.

I think money is just a medium of exchange. It appears to be a general
incentive because people need it to get the other things they want and
need. And most people have less of these things than they would like
-- to meet their immediate needs as well as future security -- so they
will work pretty hard if a little more money is offered for their
work. It looks like the extra money incites work but that (as we have
seen) is an illusion.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

9

[From Rick Marken
(2010.11.23.1830)]

( Gavin
Ritz 2010.11.24.15.40)

Martin Lewitt (Nov 23, 2010 1201 MST)–

Bill Powers
(2010.11.23.1044 MDT) to me;-)

But people can’t control for everything they want or

need; much of the work people do is specialized. So in
order to get

the fruits of other specialized work there has to be a
means of

trading the fruits of one’s own work for the fruits of
the work of

others.

Yes, the very nature of relationship
and dependency.

And it gets worse, because
systems are more ordered than individuals, this often goes hand in hand with
helplessness… A very real problem in our society.

···