I'm questioning, not denying. I'm convinced that Alex was doing things that are generally regarded as beyond the capabilities of non humans. I'm just saying that I would find the work more convincing in all of its details if the controls were tighter. Remember that Clever Hans was NOT a case of deliberate fraud. And I found Pepperberg's explanations (at her Association for Behavior Analysis meetings presentation) for why she had to have people who had worked with Alex physically present uncomfortably similar to some of the arguments made against tight experimental controls in ESP 'research' (scare quotes intentional).
Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:27 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17 Apr 2011 at 9:44, Paul Brandon wrote: > >> I've seen Alex at work, and he was impressive. >> For once, though, I agree with Dr. Sylvester; >> Pepperberg's parrots never perform out of the sight of their trainers, >> with the usual claims that the phenomenon is too fragile to be >> manifested without the emotional support of the trainer. Red flag. >> I'm still waiting for a systematic replication in an operant chamber. > > I was surprised to hear Paul question Pepperberg's work by invoking > the Clever Hans effect. I haven't looked into her work in any detail, > but the fact that she publishes in respected journals led me to > believe that she must have successfully dealt with this issue. > > In fact, it turns out she published an early paper on Alex in the > Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, the holy book of > operant conditioning. So if they felt it was kosher, can it be > otherwise? > > The article is: > > Pepperberg, I. (1988). Comprehension of "absence" by an African grey > parrot: learning with respect to questions of same/different. JEAB, > 50, 553-564 > > and it's available for free at http://tinyurl.com/3j3jel3 > > She does deal with the issue in her methodology (see p. 558, right > column), although she refers to an earlier paper for details, which I > didn't chase down. It's apparently not strictly double-blind, but the > primary trainer sits with her back to Alex, and is unaware of the > stimuli being presented. Two students who did not participate in > Alex's training do the testing. One selects the stimuli; the other > presents them. I couldn't tell how well this protected against > inadvertent cuing by the students but presumably she talks about this > in the cited papers. > > Anyone know what the consensus is on this issue for Alex? Or should > we just trust JEAB (than which none is purer) and its reviewers? > > Stephen > -------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University > Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada > e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca > > --------------------------------------------- > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=10086 > or send a blank email to > leave-10086-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=10088 or send a blank email to leave-10088-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
