[From Bruce Gregory (980809.1640 EDT)]
Rick Marken (980809.1300)]
Great idea: Coercion = Society
How about some more to help communication:
War = Peace
Torture = Negotiation
Death = Life
Truth = Opinion
Ignorance = Bliss
Rick, I'm afraid you are overwrought. Take two aspirins, lie down, and
e-mail me in the morning.
Bruce Gregory
[From Rick Marken (980809.1300)]
Kenny Kitzke (980809.1200 EDT) to Bill Powers --
This is fine. Then, what should we conclude about your claim
that RTP practicioners should own up to using coercion?
Bill Powers (980809.1303MD) --
Anything you like. My meanings for that word are, evidently,
not shared by anyone else,
They are shared by me and (I suspect) many others who understand
English and don't have an agenda to defend.
Just for the record, I do object to placing people in a position
where they are arbitrarily limited to only a few choices of
actions (picked by someone else), forced (physically, if
necessary) to select one of them (chyosen by someone else),
and are then told that the choice was made by their own free
will. I don't know what your word for that is, but whatever it
is, I don't like it.
Bruce Gregory (980809.1540) --
Society.
Great idea: Coercion = Society
How about some more to help communication:
War = Peace
Torture = Negotiation
Death = Life
Truth = Opinion
Ignorance = Bliss
Best
N. Webster
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Rick Marken (971127.1510)]
Bruce Abbott (971127.1400 EST) --
I would say that an incentive to a person is something the
person wants
Your efforts to make it seem like conventional psychologists
have understood purposeful behavior all along are just as
ridiculous as the efforts of the thought police in "1984"
to make it seem like tyranny was a real treat. Perhaps we
should add the following glossary to the top of the CSG site:
Slavery is Freedom
Hate is Love
Incentive is Want
Reinforcement is Control
Group is Individual
NB Fred Nichols: Do you still think that it's control theorists
who use language idiosyncratically? 
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Bruce Abbott (971127.1925 EST)]
Rick Marken (971127.1510) --
Bruce Abbott (971127.1400 EST)
I would say that an incentive to a person is something the
person wants
Your efforts to make it seem like conventional psychologists
have understood purposeful behavior all along are just as
ridiculous as the efforts of the thought police in "1984"
to make it seem like tyranny was a real treat.
That is a strong statement. Let us examine whether is has any basis in
fact. Here is "conventional psychologist" E. L. Thorndike on the matter of
incentive (what he called a "satisfying state of affairs"):
By a satisfying state of affairs is meant one which the animal does
nothing to avoid, often doing things which maintain or renew it.
[Thorndike, 1913, p. 2]
When speaking loosely, we would say that the animal "wants" the "satisfying
state of affairs," but Thorndike recognized that this "wanting" is an
inference based on observed behavior, and so stuck to the observations
themselves. But clearly, Thorndike is defining something the animal
"wants," and it is such things that serve as incentives -- temptations to
perform some act that will produce them. I will let the reader judge
whether my interpretation of incentive as "something the person wants" is in
line what "conventional psychologists" like E. L. Thorndike had in mind.
The simplistic idea that incentives "make" a person or animal do something
(the stimulus-response view) is not held by "conventional psychologists."
Period.
Regards,
Bruce
[From Rick Marken (971128.0950)]
Bruce Abbott (971127.1925 EST)--
Here is "conventional psychologist" E. L. Thorndike on the
matter of incentive (what he called a "satisfying state of
affairs"):By a satisfying state of affairs is meant one which the
animal does nothing to avoid, often doing things which
maintain or renew it.
[Thorndike, 1913, p. 2]
Great. Too bad Thorndike didn't come up with The Test for the
Satisfying State of Affairs. But, if conventional psychologists
know that incentives are "satisfying states of affairs" then
why do they keep calling them "incentives", a word that connotes,
as Bill Powers (971127.0941 MST) notes, an external cause of
behavior. Why don't they call them what they are: controlled
variables?
The simplistic idea that incentives "make" a person or animal
do something (the stimulus-response view) is not held by
"conventional psychologists." Period.
But do they view them as wanted perceptions (which is what they
are)? If so, then (again) why don't they describe then with the
appropriate words? Why call them "incentives" instead of
"desiderata" or "objects of desire" or (if they don't like
waxing poetic) "controlled variables".
Also, am I now to understand that the real meanings of all
conventional psychological terms are consistent with PCT?
Does "stimulus control" really mean "controlled stimulus
(as perceived)"? Does "reinforcement" really mean "controlled
variable"? Does "information processing" really mean "control
of perception"? Does "output schema" really mean "reference
for input perception"? Does "average behavior of group"
really mean "the behavior of each individual"? Does "stimulus
effect" really mean "an effective disturbance, indicating
no control of the hypothesized perceptual variable"? Does
IV really mean "disturbance to a hypothetical controlled
variable whose value is monitored by the experimenter"?
I know I'm pretty dense but I'm surprised that I was able
to get undergraduate and graduate degrees in psychology and
never notice that psychology was all about the control of
perception.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/