Spring 1985: 2 Speakers: continued (4)

A:   But wait a minute, as soon as he begins to press a lever or a key, or a switch …

       or whatever … the record would still show a sudden increase in frequency of response.

B:   Yes, it would.  And this is just the point: the increase in response occurs if you focus on

       parts of the animal. But if you were looking at the animal as a whole, you’d have to say

       that he came to a stop.

       I think the way you describe the effect of reinforcement depends on your visual level

       of analysis … If you look closely, literally approach and look at parts of subjects, you

       conclude that a reinforcer accelerates rate of response.

       But if you move further away, so as to see the whole organism in motion, you’d say 

       reinforcers decelerate.  So at one focus of analysis - the closer, partial one – you’d see

       increased responding  and at another - the impartial one – you’d see a decrease.

A:   Mmm … interesting.  But why should I have to move away from the animal in order

       to see him as a whole?  I can look at parts of him and I can look at the whole of him,

       and I can talk about either.

B:   Sure you could; but let’s get back to describing the effect of reinforcers on behaving

      organisms. What struck me as important was that by visualizing a whole individual

      moving and not moving, I found myself changing the way reinforcement is defined.

      And when I started thinking of aversives, the same thing happened to me.  I could see

      how contact with aversive stimuli increases the probability of response. When I look at

      an animal as a single unit, I’d say noxious stimuli make responding more likely … in the
      sense that the individual recoils and goes somewhere else.

      And as for the movement of parts, we’d obviously see a decrease: the record would show
      a straight line …

 A:  Mmm …  What you’re saying then, is that expanding the operant laboratory so that

       movement of whole animals would be included in the analysis, might add something to

       the way in which we formulate laws of behavior?

B:   Yes, I believe it would. Those cumulative records for a hypothetical rat, made me see

       and think of phenomena I hadn’t seen or thought of before - at least, not in connection
       with behavior analysis. There’s a whole lot more I’d like to say and discuss

       with you - but I’m glad we’ve gotten this far …

       I’m glad you see that focusing on whole organisms provides different visual 

       perspectives, literally ‘points of view’.  And we agree, different perspectives
       would be associated with changes in language.

A:   Well, I don’t know how much this would contribute to the science.  But yes, I do see

       your point and definitely want to go over the records.   I’d like to think  some more,

       so let’s stop here for today. Could we meet again, on Monday?

B:    Yes, fine with me.  Would you like me to bring along some of the graphs?

A:    No, I don’t think so.  Not yet.   Let’s go for another walk and talk some more.

B:     Very well, I’m looking forward to that.   Have a good weekend.

A:    You too.  See you on Monday then.  So long ...
                                                                                                                               August 1987

   Revised, May 2007