[From Rick Marken (950730.1210)]
Bruce Abbott (950730.1130 EST) --
Bill, where _you_ go astray here is that you apparently do not realize
that
p = 1/k by definition:
But this definition assumes that the observed 1/r is k*m +c. Bill's point
was that we don't know that the intercept of the regression equation is
the actual collection interval (c); all we know is:
m/p + c = k*m + j
where m/p + c represents the actual pressing rate and collection
interval that produce the observed 1/r at each m. The slope and
intercept of the best fitting regression equation (k and j) are not
necessarily the 1/p and c values the rat actually produced at each m.
You are _embarrassing_ yourselves. Perhaps a vacation would help.
(;->
We're used to it. Whenever we present PCT to conventional psychologists
we know that we must seem like we're just too stupid to be believed;
heck, we're saying that everything they take for granted - the bedrock
of their discipline -- is wrong. Of course, they think we are embarassing
ourselves; they know that if they said these things, they would be embarassing
themselves in front of their colleagues. We don't mind. When they say that
we're embarassing ourselves, they are just embarassing themselves in
our eyes. But we are VERY understanding;-)
I've got a couple of exams to write today and some work to do on the
research methods text, so I may not get to that right away
No problem. Your work on the research methods text is very important and
I support all the time you put into it because we really need a book about
how to study living control systems. Since you know that organisms are
living control systems I know that you would find it too embarassing to
publish another edition of a conventional research methods text. So I
can't wait to see your new research methods text, which will be the first
text devoted to the description of methods for studying living control
systems.
Bill said:
Rick and I have both been going slightly nuts over your derivation
showing that the pressing rate is constant.
Bruce:
Why? What's to go nuts over? This is about as simple as it gets.
It's not quite as simple as it seems. And the derivation was driving me
nuts because it didn't seem to jibe with other evidence (data and models)
that suggests that reinforcement rate is controlled. Your derivation
doesn't prove that reinforcement rate is NOT controlled, but it does
suggest an interesting puzzle, viz. how one determines what the
variance of a variable (like reinforcement rate) would be if it were NOT
under control? Your analysis shows that conventional operant experiments
are even less useful as studies of control behavior than we had imagined.
Sorry to ruin your day, Rick. And it started out so promising! (;->
You never ruin my day; you MAKE it;-)
And I can hardly wait to see the new edition of your research methods
book. I was thinking of writing such a text myself -- we definitely need
such a book. But now you are writing it so I'm just going to sit back and
enjoy it when it comes out -- soon, I hope.
Best
Rick