[From Bill Powers (2001.01.05.0249 MST)]
The chief reason I'm up at this hour is a thought about trying to define
reinforcements and "establishing conditions."
Here is a proposed definition of a reinforcer:
"If X is a reinforcer to an organism, then any environmental condition or
event tending to change the state of X is followed by an action or change
in action by the organism that tends to restore X to its original state, or
to keep X from changing significantly in the first place."
This proposed definition is supposed to apply not just to the delivery of
positive, negative, or aversive reinforcements through a contingency, but
to the entire process of operant conditioning beginning with setting up the
establishing conditions (that is, the deprivation of X or the noxious
presence of X). It is, of course, a kind of definition of a controlled
variable. I am proposing that X is a reinforcer if and only if it is a
controlled variable.
Setting up the establishing conditions is done by disturbing the state of
X, for example, depriving the animal of food or water, or subjecting it to
repeated shocks. This doesn't tell us _exactly_ what the critical variable
is, but we can reasonably deduce that it is some variable or variables in
the organism which depend on X.
X is discovered to be a reinforcer when it is disturbed from its normal
state and the animal exerts efforts to restore X to its former state. These
efforts might consist of the execution of already-learned actions, or they
might consist of reorganizing the existing behavioral systems until a
behavior pattern results that brings X toward its former state.
I would be interested in hearing of any example of a reinforcer that fails
to meet this definition.
The primary issue between behaviorism and PCT is whether behavior is
controlled by the environment or is produced by the organism as a means of
controlling something in the organism despite changes in the environment.
In considering "establishing conditions" we have to ask why some variables
can be established as reinforcers while others cannot, for a given
organism. Why is it that we can establish food or water deprivation to make
these substances reinforcers for a rat, but not deprivation of neon? The
answer lies in observing the variable prior to setting up the establishing
condition.
What makes an animal eat, or drink, or breath, or seek warmth when the
environment is cold? Does food make the animal eat, does water make it
drink, and so on? No, clearly it is something inside the animal that
demands food, water, air, and warmth. The animal comes to us already
organized to obtain these things and to learn to obtain them when the
environment changes. It is the behavior of the animal, innate or acquired,
that causes the environment to yield up food, water, air, and warmth. And
it is solely the organism that determines that such things are required.
If there is too much X, the animal can reduce it or learn to reduce it. If
there is too little X, the animal can increase it or learn to increase it.
If X is just right, the animal does nothing to change it. The definitions
of too much, too little, and just right are not set by the environment, but
by the organism. Goldilocks, clearly, was a control system.
Best,
Bill P.