The teaching of elementary economic behaviour
to the slow learner.
In a previous publication, (Locking, 1966), a programme for the
teaching of the skills involved in the appreciation of 'numerosity' was
described. The final goal of this programme was said to be achieved
when the pupil could accurately and reliably judge the number of
discrete items in a collection e.g. he could tell the teacher that
there were 10 dolls or 18 pencils etc. In the last paragraph of that
article it was stated that a programme for the teaching of the more
complex behaviour required in such achievements as the understanding
of why prices differ was in the process of development. Such a
programme is a natural extension of the one first described. The
present paper, written a few years after the first, describes this
further development.
First let us broadly subdivide economic activities into two major
kinds, buying activities and selling activities.
For the low level functioning individual (sub-normal, E.S.N. pupil,
chronic schizophrenic etc ), activities of the former sort will be
most importantly the buying of commodities, (but perhaps also services
e.g. hair cutting), while those of the latter kind will be mostly the
selling of labour. Let us attend firstly to the former i.e. buying.
It will be simplest if we indicate, at first broadly, what the goals
of the teacher should be when she attempts to convey to the pupil the
reasons for variations in the price of commodities and how this depends
upon such factors as number of articles, weight, type of article and so
on. She must:-
A1. Develop or ensure that the pupil's judgement of numerosity is at
a fairly high, as high as possible, level of sophistication.
A2. Develop, along similar lines, the pupil's judgement of other
attributes which are relevant to the determination of price.
A3. Develop again, along similar lines, the pupil's judgement of the
attribute of economic worth or price
B. Develop the appropriate connections or correlations between these
attributes, especially the appropriate dependence of the price of a
set of articles upon their number, their weight etc.
Now topic A1 has been dealt with in the previous article. A2 and A3
may be similarly developed e.g. for the attribute of weight the
teacher must first ensure that the pupil can determine the equality
of two collections or objects with respect to weight and that he
asserts that they are equal in weight if they balance the arms or pans
of a pair of scales, (Nominal Stage), then show how one collection is
judged to be greater in weight than another (Ordinal), and so on.
What of phase B?
This can be approached in the following way. Choosing two of the
attributes mentioned above, say those of numerosity and economic value
or price we can proceed so:-
B1. The Nominal - Nominal Level of Association
In this step the pupil must be got to appreciate that if on one
occasion three apples cost 6p then, all other factors remaining the
same, that group of items will always cost 6p. Since we don't want to
get involved in the question of seasonal fluctuations we will assume
that we are talking about a given time, and locality, where there is
uniformity in different shops. As for this latter point the pupil
perhaps should have some expectations, he can judge if the shopkeeper
is charging too much. The statistical model here is the form of
association known as the contingency coefficient. As usual, with all
other factors held constant, the coefficient should be perfect and
positive. In this case the table might be such as the following:-
Whereas if the other factors were only partly controlled then it might
be thus:-
In this case usually 2 apples cost 4p but sometimes they cost 2 pence,
sometime 6p or 8p. In the first case they might be small cooking apples
, in the second and third cases they might be large and/or choice
quality dessert apples. To use the language of experimental psychology
the number of articles is a cue for the categorisation of price, (but a
probabilistic one only)
B2 The Ordinal - Ordinal Level of Association
This represents the next level of sophistication or complexity of the
association between the attributes of price and numerosity. One can
think of this as a rank order correlation between the two attributes or
variables. It turns out to be perfect and positive if all other
relevant variables are held constant in value, e.g. type of article,
weight etc. Concretely the pupil must say that e.g. three oranges will
cost more than one orange. In general the principle here is that the
larger the number the greater the price. As a generalisation the aim
might be to get the pupil to verbalise it. This would be more ambitious
than the former limited goal. Moreover it might be verbalised by the
teacher and employed in teaching and effecting the desired behaviour.
But it might very well not be effective however and the teacher must be
on the lookout for such failure.
The pupil's verbal system may be at fault here. Really it would suffice
if the pupil manifested the correlation in his concept or sorting
behaviours, i.e. if he acted as though he had verbalised the principle.
This could be done by backing up this statement with numerous examples,
(compare similar discussion on the question of verbalisation in stage
1 of the attribute of numerosity as described in the previous
article.) Let us call the attribute of price Y, (the dependent
variable) and the attribute of numerosity X, (the independent variable)
. When we keep all other relevant variables constant we must have, that
the pupil should always, no matter which x1,y1 and x2,y2 are selected
say that iff x2 >x1 then y2 > y1. The knowledge then that the relation
> holds between x2 and x1 will enable the pupil to predict that the
relation > will hold between y2 and y1. The fact that x2 > x1 will be
a cue for him to categorise the ordered pair as a member of the
class indicated by the symbol ' > '.
B3. The Interval - Interval Level of Association
Now the pupil must say that for all x1,y1 and x2,y2 iff x2 = x1 + n
then y2 = m ( x1 + n ) + c. The difference or increase in Y is y2 - y1
i.e. (m ( x1 + n) + c) - (mx1 + c), i.e. m ( x1 + n) + c - mx1 -c, i.e.
mn. So if we increase X by n then Y is increased by mn. In the case of
price this means that if we have n more articles then the price will
increase by n times m. 'm' would represent the gradient of the line
expressing the relationship between the price and the number of
articles, i.e. the price of a single article.
B4 The Ratio - Ratio Level of Association
Since we wish ultimately to achieve in the pupils behaviour an
actualisation of a simple direct proportion between price and number
of articles (if type of article etc is held constant) then we proceed
thus:-
For all x1,y1 and x2,y2 iff x2 = 2x1 then y2 = mx2 + c,
i.e. y2 = m(2x1) + c.
So the ratio of y2 to y1 i.e. y2/y1 is m ( 2x1) + c/mx1
+ c. So the ratio of y2 and y1 will be 2, i.e. y2 = 2y1 iff c = zero,
i.e. if the line expressing the relationship between passes through the
origin.
In the case of price this means that one must assume that zero articles
cost zero pence. Then at the end of this stage we will have achieved in
the pupil's behaviour actualisation of direct simple proportion between
price and number of articles, (with all other relevant factors held
constant), i.e. price number of articles or price = m ( number of
articles) where m = price of a single article. We have achieved
price = m.Number + c. where c = 0.
Graphically,
So the verbal generalisation might be: "Double the number and you
double the price." This includes such statements as "four oranges cost
twice as much as two oranges". (Since four = 2 x 2 so cost of 4 =
cost of two x 2) Then if pupil knows that the cost of 2 oranges is
five pence he can deduce that the cost of four oranges will be 10
pence.
Notes.
1. A generalisation which is also appropriate and which includes the
former and is therefore even more general and abstract is "Multiply
the number by any number (i.e. multiply by k) and the price will be
multiplied by that same number, (i.e. by k)
2. It will be noted that we have taken the simplest possible law for
the relationship of price and number of articles which could have any
claim to be a reasonably close approximation to economic reality. Of
course with large quantities a sort of wholesale factor might enter
into the problem. However in the case of the low functioning individual
it would seem that any kind of grasp of the situation is better than
none at all, even if it's only approximate. Subsequently, if desired,
refinement to the pupil's ideas can be attempted. In any case these
refinements are in fact only embellishments on the basic law we have
just described.
After the teacher has developed the connection between price and the
attribute of number of articles, she should then attend to the other
possible connections e.g. price and weight, price and length, as in the
buying of cloth etc. In all these cases the aim of the teacher is to
make those attributes which are defining, criterial. ( Bruner et al "A
study of thinking"). The pupil then solves such questions as:- "If one
orange costs 3p, how much will three oranges cost?" He sees that the
only change is of number, and computes accordingly in one or two steps
at most. In the above problem it is of course one step, in the problem
two items cost 4p, how much will six items cost?, the number of steps
is of course two.
Next the pupil should be ready to tackle more complex problems where
the end state and beginning differ in 2, then 3 attribute values, e.g.
2 x 4 oz tins of beans cost 40 pence, How much will 3 x 8 oz tins cost?
3. The final aim of this (buying), section is of course to make the
pupil act with understanding with reference to the fact that price
depends on many things, i.e. is multiply determined and that in order
to know the price of a thing one must know things like the number of
items, their type, weight etc.
Throughout the section from B1 to B4, for any of these attributes it
will be noted that it is initially the teacher who makes sure
that it is only in respect of one attribute that the two parts of a
problem differ; then the pupil, because he knows that e.g. price is
proportional to weight, will make the appropriate deduction. However,
when he is confronted with a problem in which two or more attributes
differ in their values then he must himself ensure that, in the first
step he keeps all attributes constant in their value save one, (one
independent variable that is ). This is of course because of the rule
that price is proportional to weight, (less specifically there is a
perfect correlation between these two) only when all other variables
are held constant. For example in the problem in two parts mentioned
above we start with the fact that 2 x 4 oz tins of beans cost 50 pence.
We cannot say that 3 x 7 oz tins of beans will cost one and a half
times as much, i.e. 75 pence, because we have not held all other
relevant variables constant. i.e. here the factor of size or weight of
tin. So of course we need an intermediate step where we say that
"therefore 3 x 4 oz tins of beans will cost one-and-a-half times as
much, i.e. 75 pence. This is similar to the case in the previous
article, (see note concerning situation C. page 35.)
To conclude this section on the topic of buying behaviour let us
consider a further very important connection or relationship between
the attributes or constructs already mentioned and the construct
'Good'-------'Bad'. To take an example consider the connection between
the attribute 'numerosity' (of goods or commodities) and the bipolar
construct or attribute 'Good'-------'Bad'.
The pupil should certainly behave as though he understood that to
receive commodities is good, but to give them is bad . This would
correspond to a Nominal--Nominal association between the attributes or
constructs mentioned. If we consider the relationship at a more
advanced level we should have some such statement as "To be given four
pears is good, but to receive seven pears is better." This would
correspond to an Ordinal--Ordinal level of association between the two
attributes.
Then we might have a situation corresponding to the Interval-- Interval
type of association and finally that corresponding to the Ratio--Ratio
type e.g. "To get 4 apples is good, to get 8 apples is twice as good".
Similar considerations of course apply to the connection between
'giving away money' and 'Bad', and so on.
Also on the same kind of lines are the associations, on the selling
side, between the constructs such as 'spending time at work' and 'Bad',
between 'being given money (for working)' and 'Good' and so on. For
example as an economic simplification, (one actually used in that
science), time spent in working is bad. This is a useful first
approximation rather in the way in which the simple direct proportion
between price and number of articles is a good first approximation.
Obviously this does not do justice to the people who like their work
but here we can invoke such factors as non-financial or intrinsic
compensation etc). As a further step then here we can say that "5 hours
spent at work is bad, 9 hours spent in work is worse."
Finally let us consider the practice of regarding payment for work done
as a sort of compensation. In the ideal and simple case where the
person's only compensation is a financial one then there will often be
a balance of two factors, the inconvenience involved in working and the
convenience of receiving money, (here wages). In a similar manner the
act of giving money to a shopkeeper, (a 'bad' thing as far as the
shopper is concerned), is compensated for by his receipt of goods. (In
this situation the giving of money is of course referred to as
'paying').
As a further illustration of this consider the following quotation
from Bleuler which antedates the present exposition by 55 years!
"Of course, no clear and accurate thinking operations can be carried
out with fragmentary concepts. A rather lazy patient had finally been
induced to do some work for a half-hour. He then believed that he had
a right to obtain all sorts of rewards. When these were not forthcoming
he again stopped working. He was still correct in his thinking that he
should be compensated for his work but he did not distinguish between
half an hour of work and persistent work; and just as little did he
distinguish between small and large compensation. A short bit of work
was to him work in general. By the idea of compensation he understood
anything which his heart desired. His concepts of accomplishment and
recompense were unclear, therefore a correct quantitative correlation
between the two ideas was impossible." ( E. Bleuler "Dementia Praecox" 1911)
As for the selling aspect of economic behaviour this, for the low
functioning individual, will be nearly always the selling of labour.
(as against that of commodities or of skill). We have already talked a
little about this as far as the link with the general attribute
'Good--- Bad' is concerned. This whole topic can in fact be dealt with
as the preceding one of price. While there we saw that price was
multiply determined and we had to ensure that the pupil displayed an
overt understanding of this, in the present case we must ensure that
the pupil understands the multiple determination of wages. For example,
if the person works twice as long he should expect twice as much wages,
(Ratio---Ratio for the attribute of wages and hours of work)
Now we should say something about a relationship which exists between,
e.g. the attribute 'Good' and the attribute 'getting money'. Now
'getting money' is in fact just one example of something which is
'good'. Other examples might be spending an evening with friends,
watching a thrilling film, winning a contest, etc. Now as in factor
analysis, this attribute 'good' is a general common factor, common to
all the above events. In addition they all have also of course a
specific or group factor representing their individual character. It is
because of this common factor that such attributes as the price of a
set of articles and their number is correlated, e.g. if there are twice
as many articles then the price will be twice as much. Why? This is
because to give away twice as much money is twice as bad therefore to
balance things one requires something twice as good, which in this case
is receiving twice as many commodities. But then is the factor analysis
analogy appropriate or is it simply a case of a hierarchy of ordinary
classes related by class inclusion?
Finally it must be mentioned that this whole method of approach to the
teaching of arithmetic is not in fact limited in any way to the shaping
of formal and academic skills. It would appear to be a useful approach
to the shaping of any kind of behaviour and perhaps also to the
unlearning of harmful and anti-social forms of behaviour. The basic
reason for this is of course that it represents a convenient framework
in which to view the goals and objectives of behaviour modification,
starting with simple modifications and progressing to more complex
types. This can be quite well illustrated in connection with the
technique known as the Repertory Grid test, a technique devised by
Bannister but based on the pioneering work of Osgood, and his
'Semantic Differential' . It has been suggested by Bannister that this
test should enable one to decide whether a neurotic or psychopathic
symptom can be removed by a simple deconditioning process or whether
more complex, probably verbal, methods will also be needed. In the
former case the symptom shows few or no connections (correlations) with
the conceptual system of the patient. In the latter there are extensive
connections of this kind. To give a simple example suppose a patient
demonstrates a tendency to scratch cars. Suppose also that the manner
in which he regarded 'people who scratch cars' showed either no real
consistency or no significant degree of association with his other
types of conceptual or sorting behaviour. Then Bannister's assertion,
(which we shall provisionally adopt), is that we can then utilise
rather simple methods of behaviour therapy. If, on the other hand,
there are such connections, e.g. if the patient regards 'people who
scratch cars' as 'good people' (maybe he regards cars as evil and in
league with the devil), then the simple deconditioning approach will
not, by itself, be sufficient. In that case Bannister talked rather
vaguely of verbal methods or psychotherapy but I don't think that one
need relinquish the field in this way to non-systematic focused and
scientific procedures. One could attempt to restructure the patient's
system of ideas using the Repertory Test as a guide to check progress
and its content perhaps as a vehicle to produce change. In the case
cited we should try to get the patient to re-categorise 'people who
scratch cars' as bad people, and try the simple process again. If this
does not give good results further modification may be necessary. What
might happen (we would want to know the circumstances when this does
occur) when we shift the correlation between the two above constructs
(using learning theory principles again in view of e.g. Mowrer's
breakdown of conceptual or verbal behaviour into mediating responses)
is that instead of meaning that 'people----- cars' has been shifted, in
denotation, for the patient, towards that of 'bad' the opposite had
happened and it was the 'bad--- good' construct which had been inverted
. Of course it would be possible to check this by looking at the other
constructs in the grid which had formerly been e.g. 'good' and seeing
if any major changes had occurred there
An attempt to clear up an ill-formulated topic.
On page 10 we ran into the difficulty that we did not know whether to
regard the relationship of the construct 'Good------Bad' to others such
as 'getting paid money', 'putting in time at work', 'watching a
thrilling film' etc as being of the ordinary type of hierarchical
class-inclusion or as are the kind seen in factor analysis, where the
former attribute represents the general or at least the higher order
factor accounting for the observed intercorrelations. Let us attempt to
come to some initial a priori conclusions on this matter. On
reflection, and remembering our diagram, which we give again below, it
seems clear now that the more sophisticated model is better to adopt;
in some cases the less complex case applies but in any event the
simpler case is quite easily related to the more complex one, again
using the diagram. Consider this now:-
We can see quite easily from this diagram how we can resolve our
difficulties. There we see how both modes of conceptualisation are
related to each other. If we use only a very coarse type of dichotomous
categorisation of events into either good or bad by, in effect,
lumping together good one, good two, etc. and also lump together
'getting paid �18', 'getting paid �10', etc and forming the dichotomous
category 'getting or receiving money and 'giving away or spending
money' then the Aristotelian model is quite adequate and we should say
that 'giving away money' is 'bad', i.e. the class of actions referred
to by the term 'giving away money' is included in the class referred to
by the term 'bad things'. If we subdivided these into good one, good
two, etc and into 'getting paid �18', 'getting paid �10'. etc then we
could still use the model to refer to the inclusion of e.g. the class
'getting paid �18' in the class, 'good two', and to refer to the
inclusion of the class 'getting paid �10' in the class 'good one', and
so on. We should also mention the entry 'winning a contest'. If we
regarded this as a non-quantifiable or single valued attribute then it
is either there or it isn't. The related values of good may not be
quantified either, then we have simply that 'winning a contest' is
'good'. Or even we might have that the event can be assigned to a
particular value of 'Good', perhaps we can say how good it is to win
a contest. Perhaps it is 'good 2', i.e. it is as good to win a contest
as it is to get paid �18.
But now the most complex case is where both the good----bad dimension
and the event or situation or type of person or whatever can be
quantified. Of course at the simplest level there would simply be a
dichotomy-- this would still be distinct from the Aristotelian case and
we could compute a . Having more than two classes would take us
more obviously away from the Aristotelian case (but notice that the
higher types are always based on the lower). Then we should compute a
sort of contingency table coefficient. More involved quantification
would enable us to say e.g. that getting paid �18 is better than
getting paid �10 and so on. Now we get to the factor analytic case
very quickly indeed. In fact as soon as we have even a coarse dichotomy
of good and bad, getting money and giving money (opposites) and running
phi's between the dichotomies then what we get emerging is a general
factor and not merely a general more inclusive class. So we can say
that a general factor, structurally, is a construct or attribute itself
, i.e. an organisation of classes in the Aristotelian sense, each of
which is related to subordinate classes by the usual classical relation
of class inclusion. This is of course non-parametric factor analysis,
based on phi's and/or contingency coefficients. That the question
concerns factors is even more evident as the scaling becomes more
sophisticated and we go on to rank order r's, Pearson r's finally.
The distinction between 'giving away �3 pounds', and '�3' is that the
former quantity is vector, the latter scalar. That is in the first case
both the magnitude and the direction are specified whereas in the
second case merely the magnitude is specified. Now some quantities are
scalar and some are vector, e.g. velocity, mass, speed are scalar,
velocity, and force are vector. In some of these cases the vector
quantity is merely some scalar quantity plus consideration of the
direction, in fact perhaps we can regard the matter in this way for
most quantities e.g. velocity, (a vector), is speed (scalar) plus the
element of direction, and therefore more complex but inclusive of it.
So it is the case of the above terms or quantities. In the case of e.g.
velocity, we have a very large number of possible directions, in fact
an infinity of directions representing all the points of the compass
and all directions intermediate to these. In the case cited above
however the direction takes on simply two values, i.e. away from the
subject and towards the subject. The direction (attribute), in this
case is therefore dichotomous. In fact even this does not really
represent the analogy or model we want. In the case of all directions
proceeding from some point S we have:-
All these are possible directions and link S with all other points, if
we think in terms of moving along these lines to any extent we please.
If we're thinking dichotomously then we concentrate all those points
which are not S into a single point (or neighbouring group of points).
Call this E (environment). Then the diagram representing this state of
affairs is as shown:-
S -------------------------------------E
Now according to the model previously suggested this is simply a single
direction. However one has still two possibilities, one can move from S
to E, or from E to S. From S to E is one direction, from E to S is a
direction at an angle of 180 degrees to the first, the opposite
direction. Of course E might represent some other person. If we
considered, (differentiated between) cases where there were a number
of other persons then there will be a number of possible directions,
more than 2, or N x 2 directions, where N equals the number of persons
. What we must do is look at the starting point. In one case it is S,
in the other it is E. Also we can simply consider, say, a certain
amount of �5 as static and therefore simply scalar thing or we can
view it as taking part or being the direct object of the transaction
between e.g. E and S. This may be natural (a larger breadth of view
being inappropriate), or may be because we are only looking at the
thing from a restricted viewpoint, there being a wider point of view
possible. In this way we can look at it from the point of view of
dyadic or triadic or tetradic relations etc. Let us consider this
topic of complex relations further.
Re complex relations
Consider stage one of the development of the attribute of numerosity.
If we consider the technique in the widest sense then what happens
(cast into psychological language) is that the pupil is brought to
understand that various behaviours are equivalent. When the verbal cue
"Give me five things" is uttered by the teacher the pupil finds that
the response of giving five red blocks is rewarded by the teacher,
(verbal praise or social approval, for example) but so also is the
response of giving five paper clips or five pencils etc. He finds
however that giving one apple, or seven pens, or taking away from the
teacher two books, is not rewarded. This is concept formation and it
is the type described by Bruner as a functional category, (all members
of a certain class of actions fulfil the same function of causing the
teacher to administer (verbal) reward. If the class were a very
concrete one, possibly even consisting of a single member, and even if
there were some variation, but one where the variation produced the
same category of response on the basis of the normal generalisation
gradient paradigm, then we could even regard this as a form of
instrumental conditioning, since the response is instrumental in
obtaining the reward. Now we can also look at this logically from the
point of view of the theory of relations. Thus "S gives N to E".
This, as a triadic or ternary relation may not be appreciated or
verbalised by the S. To do this he would have to take a wide view and
consider himself as taking part in a relation with the others.
(Remember that what we bring out in this discussion will likely apply
also to the tetradic relation "S pays C to E for K", or S exchanges
H for J with E" ( economic transactions, the latter being barter))
The concept may not be conscious as a very high level, (verbalised or
even verbalisable) since the pupil may not say to himself "when I gave
five apples to E it made her happy, when I gave 5 pens to E it made her
happy so they are both right, i.e. equivalent. In other words the
concept may be a purely motor or behavioural one and not be verbal.
The role of S in this will most probably not be important. Even if
verbalised the situation would (essentially) probably be "giving five
blocks to her pleases her, so does giving five pins, therefore it
doesn't matter what things I give so long as there are five of them.
To make the individual aware of his role in the relation there would
clearly have to be some element of differentiation. For example we may
arrange it that if the particular S gives her five blocks she gives
reward but if some other S1 gives her five blocks she will not reward
or will punish, "I'm not talking to you, is your name John?" So the
phrase or the general situation will contain a cue signifying that
only if John gives the blocks will the teacher be pleased. In
the latter case the teacher may be looking at John; in the former case
the phrase would be "John, would you give me five things please?"
Subsequently, as a statement this would be phrased as "John gave the
teacher 5 things".
Note 1 to page 14
As said elsewhere, in factor analysis it is the observed
intercorrelations which form the raw data from which factors are
derived. In an empirical sense therefore the intercorrelations are
primary, the factors secondary. From the point of view of most factor
analysts's theoretical model however the reverse is the case. Here it
is the factors which are primary, the intercorrelations being
secondary. Now remember that these factors are common components or
elementary aspects and we're ready to use this same approach to the
topics discussed above and to provisionally identified the common
factors, (group and general) and specific factors with the entities
described in discussions of conceptual behaviour as 'cues'. Now where
there emerges a very general factor out of the factor analysis of an
individual's sorting behaviour this may, on this hypothesis, be
regarded as a cue which is held in common with a large number of
different objects, situations, events and so on, the 'cue' here
referring to some aspect-in-common, which is used as a sign that a
certain (common) response will be rewarded or otherwise shown to be
appropriate.
As a simple example consider the correlation between only two
attributes (in the environment) which may be reflected in the
correlation between two parallel constructs of the individual.
(This is similar to the distinction between a class which is real or
objective in the statistical sense only perhaps from consensual
validation, and a concept which may reflect and parallel this so that
e.g. we want to make the individuals conceptual behaviour come closer
to that of the majority, so also with constructs which are merely an
organisation of concepts as variables or attributes can be seen as
organisations of classes. For example suppose we take a group of people
and categorise them firstly in terms of whether they are 'heroic', or
not 'heroic', then in terms of whether they are 'brave' or 'not brave'.
There will be a decided, one would expect, correlation between these
two sorts. This would be because some of the cues or attributes which
make a person, or which make us regard a person as the one, are also
some of the cues which make a person, or make us regard a person, as
the other, e.g. valiant deeds done in wartime. In this case where a
verbal label is involved we can also say that the meaning of the one
term is similar to the other. In the case where the correlation is
perfect and positive of course the two terms would have identical
meanings. The same thing applies of course to sorting responses, (i.e.
common responses) which are not verbal but skeletal-muscular,
autonomic, and so on.
Balance
By this I mean that the question may not be e.g. "What thing is as
good as this one", or, "these things (e.g. offered to the subject) are
equally good", but may be instead "What thing, event etc is as bad as
this is good?", (or the other way around). The situation in which this
is likely to occur is when the pupil thinks to himself "to work for a
week on this job is as bad as to get paid �18 is good, (but of course
he doesn't need to actually say it.) So in this case the balance is
exact, other things being equal he is as likely to refuse the job as
to take it. To make him take the job some minute addition to the
incentives or rewards offered is necessary.
Consider these points
1. Barter was a forerunner to the use of money, historically,
presumably. This then might be a way of approaching the development of the ideas of money in the individual?
2. The simple proportion one sweet is good, two sweets are twice as
good, has to be refined. In economics there is the law of diminishing
returns. If we look at the matter in a very concrete manner, a child
may be happy with one sweet, but as you keep adding one more the
increase becomes less, as a proportion. We could even think of instead
of just having a sweet, eating a sweet. Then as you become satiated,
eating a sweet become less and less 'good', and may even swop its value
completely, and become 'bad', as you approach the being sick stage.
Back to introduction
(This article is currently being worked on)