[From Rick Marken (951206.0930)]
Thanks a ton to Bill Powers (951206.0530 MST) for taking the time to say
exactly what I would have said (though Bill said it better, of course) in
reply to Bruce Abbott (951205.1745 EST), Chris Cherpas (951205.1801) PT),
Samuel Saunders (951205:22:00:58 EST) and even Martin Taylor (951205 13:10)
(who always seems to be willing to jump in on the wrong side of an
argument);-). This gives me time to make a proposal.
I think the best way to compare the reinforcement and control theory models
of behavior is to see how well each accounts for actual data.
I think all parties to the reinforcement/control theory debate can agree that
the best way to compare these models is in terms of their ability to account
for the data obtained in operant conditioning experiments. I think we can
also agree that, so far, we have not found any operant data in the literature
that can be used for this purpose (not enough data is available, the quality
of the data is poor, the wrong data was reported, the data was collected
under extreme or poorly defined conditions, etc.)
What I propose is that we build our own operant conditioning experiment; one
that uses a human subject and can be easily run on a computer (PC and Mac).
It would, of course, have to be one that reinforcement mavens (like Abbott,
Cherpas, and Saunders) agree is a "real" operant conditioning experiment.
Once we agree on the experiment, I propose that Bill P. write it up in Pascal
for PC users and I write it (in parallel) in Hypercard for Mac users.
I also propose that, before any data is collected, the reinforcement
theorists provide a reinforcement model of the behavior expected in the
experiment; the control theorists will, of course, have to do the same with
control theory. These models will be written, along with the experiment, by
Bill and Rick. This way, we can see how the models perform before we see how
the subjects perform -- and make a true prediction of behavior.
Once we have agreed on the experiment and the models we can start collecting
data (from ourselves and, if we have any, our friends). Then we can compare
the actual behavior to the behavior predicted by the two models.
Finally, we can report our results at the Behavior Analysis (or whatever it
is) meeting in SF this summer. If the reinforcement model does better than
the control model then there we jolly well are, aren't we? We will have to
reject control theory as a model of operant behavior. If, on the other hand,
the control model does better than the reinforcement model, then there they
jolly well are, aren't they? They will have to reject the reinforcement model
of operant behavior.
I propose the following, very simple human operant conditioning experiment:
The subject presses the mouse button (B) in order to see a brief
exposure of a picture on the screen (R); the appearance of the picture is a
consequence of mouse presses. The picture will remain on the screen for only
a short time (say, 1/2 sec?) until it is "consumed".
The picture has to be something that is "reinforcing" to the subject (in
ordinary language, it has to be something the subject wants to see). I
suggest just asking the subject to try to keep a simple design (circle?) on
the screen for as long as possible. But Gary Cziko has some pictures that the
male subjects might find rather reinforcing -- so we don't have to tell the
subjects what to want (and I bet my wife or daughter would be happy to try
to find some pictures that the female subjects would find reinforcing).
The program would make it possible for the user to determine how button
presses (B) are related to reinforcements (R); this is the reinforcement
"schedule". I think it would be best to start with simple ratio schedules,
for example, R occurs after N presses, where the experimenter can set N. We
would have to decide whether presses during the occurance of the reinforcer
should be counted toward the schedule requirement; but the reinforcement
mavens can tell us the "correct" choice here.
The program should also make it possible to introduce disturbances; I suggest
a disturbance to the "size" of the reinforcement; how long the picture stays
on before it's "consumed"., Without disturbance the picture could always be
on for 1/2 second; with disturbance, each presentation of the picture could
last anywhere from 1/10 to 2 seconds (maybe?).
So what do you say; can we try to develop such an experiment? Does the
experiment I described seem like a real operant conditioning experiment to
you operant experts? If not, what should we do to make it a real operant
conditioning experiment -- one that could be used to test reinforcement (and
control) theory?
Best
Rick