B: Yes, indeed; and I’ve missed the weekly talks we used to have.
Going anywhere special?
A: No, just out for a walk. What about you?
B: Me too. Let’s walk together.
A: I’d like nothing better. So … have you been very busy lately?
B: Yes… counseling, teaching, reading, writing … the usual routine.
How is your research coming along?
How is your research coming along?
A: It’s alright but to tell you truth, I’m not too happy about it.
Did you read the November 1984, JEAB?
Did you read the November 1984, JEAB?
B: Yes; I thought it was rather depressing. Is that what’s bothering you?
A: I think so. The issue of expanding research came up one way or another, in all
the articles … it gave me a kind of dissatisfaction with what I’m doing.
The operant lab isn’t as exciting a place as it used to be.
B Yes. People are looking for new directions for research, ways to synthesize, to
expand. As a matter of fact, I’ve been thinking about these matters myself these
last months … I have some ideas about expanding the lab research.
A: Really? Let’s hear them.
B: Actually, I’ve been wanting to talk to you about them for quite some time.
A: Seems to me this is a perfect opportunity.
B: OK. I’d like to start by explaining why I think there’s a need for it.
A: A need for what? For expanding? I think that’s clear enough isn’t it?
B: Well, I don’t know. I mentioned a specific idea to a few people and they
weren’t too keen on it. The question, ‘What for?’ kept cropping up.
You see, I figure there’s a need for a specific way of expanding.
A: All right. I’m all for being specific.
B: So am I – but it can have drawbacks as well.
A: Oh?
B: Well, it’s made me see that something specific is missing from operant research
and people weren’t exactly enthusiastic when I mentioned it.
Talking about anything excluded makes it sound as if I’m detracting from what
has been achieved so far. But I’m not. I simply think the time has come to
includs it.
A: Mmm … So you think something’s been excluded from operant research.
What are you talking about? Go ahead and explain.
B: Cumulative records haven’t reflected movement of the whole animal from one
operandum to another. Even when multiple manipulanda are made available –
for instance, a lever and a chain, or three keys – they’re usually situated close
together in such a way, that the animal has no cause for going elsewhere for its
reinforcers. In such experimental environments there are no other places to
which the animal can go, in order to avail himself of reinforcers. All reinforcers
are so to speak, brought to him.
A: So what? Why is it important to observe animals moving about from place to
place? On the contrary, I think it was a feat to make them stand still in a lab
- without holding them down, remember.
- without holding them down, remember.
B: Yes, I agree. And I’m pretty sure that laws of behavior couldn’t have been
discovered in any other way except by bringing animals to a standstill – without
tying them down or using bodily force. It was this that made it possible to
quantify the behavior of mobile animals and to see what increased, decreased and
maintained their performance…
maintained their performance…
Behavioral laws could then be formulated objectively for the first time.
A: Well, locomotion is behavior too. Surely you’re not going to tell me that
behavioral laws don’t work for locomoting organisms?
B: Hold it! I’m not implying that these laws are invalid - that would be weird.
They’ve been applied and confirmed successfully so often, in so many settings
and so visibly – why should we doubt the evidence in front of our eyes?
No, I don’t doubt the effect of conditioning on human and animal behavior, I can
see that it works and can show others so they understand it, too.
In fact, I see basic operant laboratory research as a firm experimental foundation
for the whole of psychology, not just behavior analysis … an empirical anchor.
A: Well then, I don’t understand why you think it’s important to observe locomotion
in the laboratory. How would that contribute to what is already known?
What’s your point?
What’s your point?
B: I think it’s important to analyze locomotion in the lab mainly because I believe it
would change some – not all - of the ways behavior analysts formulate laws of
nature. Let me try to explain what happened to me and let’s see if you agree.
What I have to say isn't based on actual experiments with animals –it is based on
my imagination.
No comments:
Post a Comment