🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bruce Abbott (990506.1715 EST)]

Bill Powers (990506.1225 MDT) --

>Obviously this is not true [the matching law] when the actual experiment
>involves keys with different schedules on them.

Sorry, Bill, but I must remind you once again that the matching law does not
and was never meant to describe the relationship between relative rate of
responding and relative rate of reinforcement on concurrent ratio schedules.

>However, the data will still fit the equations
>plus or minus some variations, so one can say, "See? There's a tendency
>toward matching!"

In the cases for which the matching law was developed, there is NO (I
repeat, NO) necessary relationship between the left and right terms of the
equation, and experimental error is not so great that matching could not be
discriminated from other patterns involving systematic deviations from
matching.  It is simply not true that because of experimental variation, one
can always claim that some "tendency toward matching" was obtained.

>In fact, the only case in which the equations correctly
>describe the experiment is when the ratios are in fact equal on all keys.
>for any other combinations of schedules, the equations are simply false.

The above indicates clearly that you are thinking of ratio schedules only,
because you assert that the equations would be false "for any other
combination of schedules."  This statement can be true only if, for each
schedule, the ratio of responses to reinforcements is fixed by the schedule,
or if responding takes place exclusively on one key.

Applying the matching law to concurrent ratio schedules is like applying
Boyle's Law to liquids.  In either case, no one will be surprised to find
that the law fails to hold.

Regards,

Bruce