B: Anyway, as I was plotting his movements and whereabouts, it gradually dawned on me,
I wasn’t so much trying to control a rat’s behavior as trying to show and tell him something
– to communicate with him – so he could manage his environment for his own health and
good. For example, if he were pressing the lever at North, for whatever ratio schedule, he'd
be facing North…
be facing North…
A: Well... go on…
B: So, how could I get him to turn his head and look in other directions, especially behind
him, at South - just to see what is available? Whether he’d come would be up to him.
For example, if he were working for food at North and water is scheduled at South for
5 minutes, how could I make sure he won’t miss the chance to drink if he were thirsty?
Or, if the temperature in the chamber dropped to such a degree, the rat felt too cold to
drink in comfort, how could I let him know where to go and what to do, so as to avail
himself of warm air scheduled somewhere, if he pressed the lever 20 times?
And so on…
And so on…
As I was thinking of such problems, I was of course, using principles of operant
conditioning, with which I am familiar and that others have already discovered.
But, what I suddenly realized was that if I were to perform such experiments I'd be
analyzing The Movements of a Rat as a Whole - A Whole Organism - as well as
looking at parts of him, like his paws, his eyes, his head.
But, what I suddenly realized was that if I were to perform such experiments I'd be
analyzing The Movements of a Rat as a Whole - A Whole Organism - as well as
looking at parts of him, like his paws, his eyes, his head.
We’re both familiar with the expression 'the organism as a whole' from Skinner’s
writings and the psychological literature – right?
A: Sure …
B: Well, I suddenly realized that by introducing spaced reinforcers and stimuli into the
lab, experimenters would actually be looking at an experimental animal moving as one
entire unit. I felt as if I were looking down at my imaginary rat, from a height.
I was seeing him in depth, so to speak - “depth analysis”- from outside!
A: Oh, come on! Don’t play with words.
B: I assure you, I take them seriously – perhaps too much so, I don’t know.
But another reason I want to show you my records is they appear 3-dimensional
on paper … they can be drawn in 3-dimensional perspective.
Anyhow, isn’t it true that if you hover over something from above - I mean, from
a height - you’d be looking at its outline “in depth”?
A: I suppose so. What difference does it make?
B: Well, as I visualized the whole rat moving, say from East to West and from West
to South, and then to North, and so on, I naturally found myself saying,
“Now he’s moving” and “Now he’s stopped” And then it dawned on me what was
stopping him. He stopped at levers because of a reinforcer there …
A: Sure … so?
B: This is where I began to get confused. A reinforcer is functionally defined as
something that increases probability of response - yet here I was, saying that
it decreased a response – it brought the animal to a stop, it was keeping him from
going away.
I was saying, reinforcement can make it less likely that animals would leave – and
more likely they’d remain stationary rather than start moving again.
A: Now I’m beginning to see your point. Let me think for a minute … Yes, I think
I agree with you. I’d say the same thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment