···
Richard Pfau (2014.11.27 17:43 Nepal Time)–
Â
RP: Just a thought – It seems Superstitions can be understood as Illusions of Control that occur when one or more persons (E) assume or perceive that their actions seem to control (to a greater or lesser extent) a variable (V) that is actually affected by âdisturbancesâ? (other phenomena) and not by Eâs actions. The variable (V) that E assumes their actions affect can be either a physical phenomenon (such as rain) or a social phenomenon (such as someone else’s behavior).
RP: This is not to imply, as some on CSGNet might argue, that the idea that one control system can (sometimes) control the behavior of another control system is a Control Illusion, but that sometimes at least, perceptions of control of someone elseâs behavior may be instances of Control Illusions or Superstitious beliefs.
RM: Very interesting topic. What we see as superstitious behavior is  indeed an example of what Ellen Langer called the “illusion of control”. It’s behavior, such as the rituals many baseball players go through when they come up to bat, that are done to produce an intended result, like getting a hit, but have no obvious causal relationship to that result. Skinner, as you probably know, demonstrated the development of superstitious behavior by delivering non-contingent (random) reinforcement (food pellets) to pigeons. Although no particular behavior was rewarded, some pigeons ended up consistently producing certain behaviors, like turning in a circle. This was a superstitious behavior in the sense that there was no actual causal connection between performing behavior and getting the food, so that the bird would often turn without getting any food (just as the batter often performs their particular ritual without getting a hit).Â
RM: I’m sure Bruce Abbott knows more about what is actually observed with the superstitious behavior produced by random reinforcement, but one interesting thing about the superstitious behavior I have observed (like that of baseball batters) is that is persists (apparently indefinitely) even though it is, in fact, completely ineffective. I think this persistence can be explained by the operation of an E. coli type reorganization system. In the batter situation, for example, the batter is trying to control for hitting the ball every time. This is a very difficult control task – a good batter will get a hit only 3 out of 10 times at the plate – so there will always be error in this control system.Â
RM: The reorganization system is controlling for low levels of error in control systems and it does it by making random changes in the parameters of the control systems that are experiencing error. This means that the batting control system is always undergoing reorganization, much of which will take the form of randomly varying the lower level behaviors as the means of getting the desired result (a hit). For example, there might be changes in stance, changes in grip of bat, but there could also be changes in the way the batter walks to the plate, the kinds of actions performed before the pitch, etc.Â
RM: When, by chance, the consequence of some change is a hit, there will be reduction in the error in the batting control system and, thus a reduction in the rate of changes made to that system. In the long run some randomly made change that happened to lead to a reduction in hitting error more often than did other changes will become dominant and we will see that behavior – such as kissing a medallion before each at bat – as a superstitious behavior.Â
RM: I think it would be fun to try to simulate the development of superstitious behavior via E. coli reorganization of a control system that is trying to control a variable over which it can actually have little or no control. Someone should do this and see if the result is similar to what Skinner saw in the development of superstitious behavior in his pigeons.
BestÂ
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Author of  Doing Research on Purpose.Â
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble
In nature there’s no blemish but the mind
None can be called deformed but the unkind.
               Shakespeare, Twelfth Night