RD (post 3295)
: All I suggested was that [behavioral] techniques of behavioral control are reminiscent of [totalitarian] activity, and such regimes, and that a scheme based upon it may be prone to repeating their mistakes...RD (post 3516)
: Proving [behaviorism] with Lab rats is very different to proving it with humans...
_______________
Many of my posts have promoted behaviorism. There have been several individuals who have either refuted the basic premise of behaviorism (namely, that human behavior is subject to study, prediction, and control) or insisted that the understanding of these natural laws will enable 'totalitarians' to control human behavior all too effectively. Red Deathy, as shown above, rather inconsistently adopts both positions. This, I believe, can only be the result of misunderstanding the basic concept of reinforcement. Since reinforcement is the primary unit of behavior, I would like to attempt to demonstrate its tenability (and in the process clarify its central premise)...
RD and I have exchanged many posts. Each of these posts can be seen as units of behavior---namely, post (stimulus) and reply (response).* Every time I have posted, Red Deathy has responded. In turn, I have counter-responded. This has been continuous reinforcement, a ratio of 1: 1. Continuous reinforcement promotes a high rate of responding, but it has one salient weakness: once a reinforcement fails to appear after behavior is emitted, the probability that the emitting behavior will again be emitted is low. After all, it is 'expected' that reinforcement follows each emission of behavior.
When reinforcement is discontinued, behavior undergoes extinction. In the case of continuous reinforcement, this occurs almost immediately.** This is basic reinforcement principle and can be readily seen by the fact that once I ceased responding to RD (after post 3496, October 31), he emitted two responses (posts 3516 and 3517, both November 1) expecting the continuous reinforcement he had received in the past. It was not forthcoming, however, and he then terminated his posts on November 2. His behavior was extinguished---in lieu of discriminative stimuli which had occasioned responses in the past .*** His extinction curve (rate of not responding) was rapid, complete, and (above all) predictable.
After a few days, I posted again (post 3552, November 7)---with every intention of creating the establishing operations that would increase the probability of RD's behavior being again emitted. These antecedent environmental conditions indeed increased the probability of RD's behavior. He responded (post 3553) the very same day---seven days after the last reinforcement. His behavior returned in full strength.
Here we can see that not only was RD's response predicted---it was also 'controlled.' However, no one 'forced' RD to respond to my post 'Getting Marxism Wrong.' He was not coerced or manipulated in any way---or, at least, not in any way that resembles the totalitarian methods he has intimated behaviorism supports. He simply emitted behavior once certain establishing operations (environmental circumstances) that have led to his behavior being emitted (reinforced) in the past were again in place. He might even say that he 'chose' to respond to a post. This is operant conditioning---the concept of selection by consequence that RD has, variously, claimed: (1) could not control human behavior, (2) could lead to 'totalitarian' control, or (3) was 'nebulous' (post 3392).
I trust I have disproved the first two claims and I hope I have elucidated the last one.
_______________
* To say that writing a few paragraphs is far too complex an activity to merit comparison with, say, a pigeon pecking a key or a rat pushing a lever (as subjects in traditional behavioral experiments do) is to give far too little credit to such organisms as they 'respond' with what skills they have (and learn). The point is not the activity in an experimental analysis of behavior; the point is the rate of response---and a debate board is just as valid in measuring rate as either key-pecking or lever-pushing.** There are certainly many other possible schedules of reinforcement beside continuous (1: 1). For example, there are variable-ratio schedules of reinforcement---say 4: 1, or four responses for each reinforcement. Often 'starving artists' will emits hundreds of responses (pieces of art/literature) after receiving only one sale (or even encouraging review). I have no doubt that such ratios could also be demonstrated with a forum such as this, provided the reinforcement was strong enough (such as the intermittent participation of a celebrity activist like Chomsky).
*** A person would not be expected to respond in the absence of discriminative stimuli (appropriate occasion for responding) pertinent to reinforcement. This not the same as saying that a person would not respond to someone on a debate board if they were not directly addressed, however. As posts 3490 (October 29) and 3517 (November 1) demonstrate, RD responded to posts of mine which were addressed to other correspondents (i.e. appropriate occasions for responding). Indeed, during the period that RD's behavior was undergoing extinction (November 1--6), he could have also responded to posts of mine which were likewise addressed to other correspondents (posts 3542 and 3544, November 4)---but did not. Hence, discriminative stimuli did exist (in the case of posts 3490 and 3517), but I believe he did not do so (unlike in the past) because he had ceased receiving reinforcement (starting November 1).
