[From Rick Marken (950703.1415)]
Me:
It would be very simple for you to show that my conclusion about what you
believe is, indeed, absurd. Just present a study that will distinguish
reinforcement theory from PCT. You keep avoiding this request; I assume this
is because my request is a disturbance to what you are controlling for (the
belief that PCT is "nothing but" reinforcement theory, but better).
Bruce Abbott (950703.1545 EST) --
That will require some expendature of time on my part, and at the moment I'm
pretty busy.
Oops. Avoiding my request again;-)
No problem. As long as you're pretty busy with other things I'll be pretty
confident that you are controlling for the idea that "PCT is nothing but
reinforcement theory, but better". Not that there's anything WRONG with
controlling for that;-)
I see you're still hoping for that crucial experiment--I don't think it's
going to be that easy.
It doesn't have to be a crucial experiment; just AN experiment. This really
shouldn't be very difficult at all; I can't think of two theories that are
more fundementally different, at least when described verbally ("control by
consequences" vs "control of consequences"). And I can't see why finding such
an experiment would not be your highest priority. Indeed, I would have
thought that you had already done such an experiment since you seem to prefer
PCT to reinforcement theory. Why would you prefer PCT to reinforcement theory
unless you had made observations that were consistent with PCT but not with
reinforcement theory?
Get in line. There's a customer in front of you. (;->
Thanks, but I think I'll go shopping in Durango instead. I find that the
quality of the goods and service is much higher there;-)
Best
Rick