[From Bill Powers (951218.1715 MST)]
Martin Taylor 951218 15:00 --
The cost function I envisage can be seen by analogy. To a person
with $2, the "cost" of a $1 item is greater than it is to a person
with $10.
If you ever go into business with someone, Martin, do NOT volunteer to
keep the books.
In the case of the behaviours B1 and B2, the presumption is that B1
takes C1 of a limited resource C0, and the "cost", C, of doing so
is C = C1/(C0-C1).
OK, you've invented a nonlinear cost function. This requires the rat to
know how much of the resource is left, as well as how much it is
getting, but what the hell, if you want to prove a point you just assume
whatever works.
You still didn't deal with the claim (in effect) that loss of
reinforcement from a running wheel is equivalent to a loss of food
reinforcements. This argument lumps all reinforcers together, so that it
is total reinforcement from all sources that increases the probability
of bar-pressing, not just reinforcements generated by bar-pressing. Is
this another of those varieties of reinforcement theory that we keep
hearing about?
... as usual when I get into algebraic manipulations, I wouldn't
be at all surprised to find errors of sign or missing scale factors
somewhere or other. But the argument is straightforward,
regardless.
No, I didn't catch any algebraic errors. It would be interesting,
however, to see your justification for the cost function you chose as a
starting point, and how it relates to the problem of modeling
reinforcement.
···
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Ford (951217) --
I've also decided for many reasons, some of which will remain in my
heart, that I'll probably leave this net. ...
For some time on this net, I've tried to explain my ideas and how
they interrelate with PCT. With the exception of some private
posts, I've received mostly critical reactions about what I'm doing
and that my application is not aligned with PCT. So be it.
I'm sorry you find the criticisms too much to take, Ed. They have come
along with a heavy dose of support and encouragement, but if you feel
the criticisms outweigh all that -- and are not worthy of your
consideration -- then you are probably making the right move. CSGnet is
not for those who demand absolute acceptance of everything they say.
That privilege is not even granted to me.
Does this mean that the meeting being organized for next July will be
oriented strictly for your associates in the school discipline programs?
If I and others from the theory and research end attend, would you
expect us to keep quiet if we hear things being said that, in our
opinion, are not consistent with PCT? If we were to voice some of the
objections we have raised on the net, would you advise the people in
your programs to leave the meeting rather than discuss the objections?
As you can see, the policy you have decided upon for yourself would
create some problems for the entity we have been calling the Control
Systems Group, of which you are, and remain, a founding member and a
past president. Our meetings in the past have been completely open, with
no subject ruled out and no restrictions on what anyone can say. Do you
think we could maintain the same kind of group if some members establish
prohibitions against open scientific discourse, and require
unconditional approval of any idea they offer? I would certainly not
enjoy a meeting in which there are two opposing camps, one of which is
simply not interested in being told that it has made any mistakes.
I hope you will stay tuned in to CSGnet, even if your new network
discussion group doesn't allow as much time as before. What will your
policy be on your new net group? Will it be an open list to which anyone
can subscribe and offer postings? Would it be appropriate, for example,
for me to make comments now and then from the PCT point of view, similar
to those I have made to you? Or is the objective of the new discussion
list to get away from such comments?
How about posting the address of the new net when it's available?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,
Bill P.