My statement was more of a defense of simulations in general versus real life as opposed to support of Sniffy in particular but I do use Sniffy Pro in my learning class and the latest version has come a long way. You can now train it to learn a broader range of behaviors and it does seem to be a decent simulation. I think you are right that it is not based on the behavior of a live rat. CyberRat is a much more realistic simulation. The last time I looked, it appeared more costly and I think the main problem was that it required almost an entire computer to be dedicated to it. It appears it may now be feasible to supply to students. I plan to look into it before I teach Learning again.
Sniffy is not so much a simulation of a live rat as it is a simulation of the principles usually covered in a learning class. It (and other simulations) has the convenience of being able to be saved at various points to which you can return if you mess up as opposed to a live rat. As we all know, even if you were able to extinguish the problematic behavior you had accidentally trained in a live rat, extinction does not return the rat to its initial pre-learning state. Certainly dealing with frustrations that occur in real life is a valuable life lesson but I don’t think it is necessarily one that is going to support the learning of the principles of behavior. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 x7295 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jbu.edu/academics/hss/faculty/rfroman.asp Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps." ________________________________ From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 12:13 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] RE: Sniffy vs real rats At 11:45 AM -0500 8/26/07, Rick Froman wrote: Speaking from experience as a one-time undergrad learning student whose rat died in the middle of training, sometimes the real thing is not as educational as a simulation (unless you mean in teaching the facts of life and death and the fact that life isn't fair). Just as a theory based on data will be more generalizable than the experience of a single data point, all the extraneous stuff that goes on with training a live rat sometimes just obscures the point you are trying to teach. Problem is, Sniffy (at least the last time I tried it) was NOT based on the data of the behavior of a live rat. If you try to shape it the way that you would shape a real living organism nothing happens. You have to follow its instructions. Rick Dr. Rick Froman Psychology Department Box 3055 John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 (479) 524-7295 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart" - Ulysses Everett McGill ________________________________ From: Paul Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 8/26/2007 11:12 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] RE: Sniffy vs real rats At 6:16 PM -0500 8/15/07, Michael Scoles wrote: Tim is right. In discussing ethical issues regarding animal research, we preach that simulations imply an understanding of the animal, which we don't really have. So, why do we suggest that they act as "researchers" with a simulation? Students will discover that a real animal (mouse, rat, pigeon, dog, or human) doesn't behave exactly like their textbook says. 'Sniffy' definitely does not behave like real rat, but there are other simulations that are better, such as CyberRat <http://www.psych-ai.com/cyberratnet_folder/welcome.html>. All simulations are models, and as such are limited in the range of behaviors and situations modeled, but based on ten years of students using both live rats and CyberRat (and comparing the two), CyberRat is very realistic. -- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english -- The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people believe in it. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0〈=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
