[From Rick Marken (951213.1230)]
Bill Powers (951212.1530 MST) --
The difference between reinforcement theory and PCT comes down to the
two models assumed:
Reinforcement: dB/dt = k1*C - k2*B
PCT: dB/dt = k1*(Co - C)
You will notice that C enters with opposite signs in these two models.
By this analysis, we can see that the statement "reinforcement causes an
increment in behavior rate," which is a definition of reinforcement, is
incompatible with the observation, "Behavior and reinforcement rate rise
to an asymptotic value", which is roughly how the _phenomenon_ called
reinforcement is described. The PCT model shows how both behavior rate
and reinforcement rate can rise to an asymptote while the reinforcement
rate always has a _negative_ effect on the behavior rate.
Beautiful!
And this should be acceptable to the EAB types because they get to say that
there IS a phenomenon (fact) of "reinforcement" (a negatively accelerated
rise in behavior and reinforcement rate over time) but it is misnamed because
"reinforcement" can only be explained if it is assumed that consequences
(reinforcers) have a _weakening_ rather than a strengthening (reinforcing)
effect on behavior rate.
This could also provide a nice start for testing some models in human operant
conditioning experiments. What do you think, ex-EAB types? Are we talking the
same language yet?
CHUCK TUCKER (951212) --
The comments on "instructions" MMT 1211 & RSM 1218 are getting rather
absurd. Are you seriously saying that it makes not difference WHAT you ask
another to do when you do research?
I agree with Martin Taylor's (951212 16:05) excellent reply to you. But I am
really curious about one thing. How do you square a constructivist view of
people with an obsession with the accuracy and replicability of instructions?
It seems to me that a constructivist view would suggest that people
construct what might turn out to be very different perceptions from the same
"raw material" (events in the outside world, beyond the senses). Instructions
are "raw material"; they exist in the outside world with respect to the
people in an experiment. If you give exactly the same instructions to two
different people, doesn't constructivism suggest that they are likely to
come up with two different interpretations (perceptions) of those
instructions? Why would a constructivist obsess about the standardization of
"raw materials" (instructions) that are bound to be turned into non-standard
"product" (experience)?
Best
Rick