Let's see the reinforcemnt model, already

[From Rick Marken (950608.2130)]

Bill Powers (950608.1600 MDT) --

In my discussion with Bruce about reinforcement theory, I'm
trying to show that regardless of what PCT says, reinforcement
theory doesn't fit all the facts of behavior and is straight-out
incorrect even as a description of what happens under most
real conditions.

I think it's a fine approach and you can count me in. As a matter
of fact I think I see one of them "reinforcement theory fits the
facts" fella's headin' up over the ridge now.

Bruce Abbott (950608.1930 EST)--

I am claiming that current reinforcement [theory] provides a
consistent and generally compelling framework for understanding
behavior (which is why it has so many adherents) and is capable of
handling the sort of data Bill P. asserts it cannot (the ratio data).

Well, I'd say it's time for you to show how reinforcement theory
handles the ratio data, pardner. I'm talking about a workin' model,
friend; no curve fitten'. So it won't do ya' no good ta draw =|;-)

Bill P. noted that I had avoided the issue about performance on ratio
schedules when it came up earlier... I did not really make a good case
and I knew it, but I still believe such a case can be made, once I've
given it more consideration.

You remind me of a Canadian fella' who used to keep sayin' the same
thing about information theory =|;-)

[No, I'm not a big Limbaugh fan, thank you.]

I can't believe anyone watches him at all. Have we completely lost
our wits (Swift, Mencken, Twain, Vonnegut).

Bruce Abbott (950608.1750 EST)

Your Honor, my client would be most interested if counsel would be willing
to share his insights with the court.

I guessed what you were controlling for in another post and you basically
agreed with my description. I said:

I think Bruce is claiming that PCT is better (more accurate, simpler, etc)
than reinforcement theory as a model of behavior change. In other words,
reinforcement theory (like Ptolmeic theory) is basically OK but PCT (like
Copernican theory) is much better.

You disagreed with the "OK" part. So I will change " reinforcement... is
basically OK" to "reinforcement theory explains the data collected in
operant conditioning experiments just as Ptolomy's theory explained the
data on planetary movements. But PCT explains the operant conditioning data
better just as Copernicus' theory explained the planetary data better".

Is that more like what you are controlling for?

If so, being shown that reinforcement theory doesn't explain the data
collected in operant conditioning experiments would certainly be a
disturbance, wouldn't it?