Category: Theory, Terms & Abbreviations ¤
  Author: Helix Fairweather ¤
   Title: Why All This Fuss About the Terms? ¤

> >Well, by definition (Webster) negative is 1)"containing, expressing, or
> implying a denial or refusal; that says "no" and 2)"opposite of something
> regarded as positive". In actuality, its semantics.  I doubt, seriously,

Actually, it's not just semantics. We are dealing with a 
well-studied, well-documented body of scientific study in which the
terms and their definitions were established 50+ years ago. If we start 
diluting the term, asking them to fit Webster, or using them as we do in 
everyday language, we lose the meaning they had when applied to the
study of Operant Conditioning. I have expressed the same thing as you in the 
past until Gary Wilkes pointed out to me (using my very own field of 
science) what can happen when we allow very specific terms to lose their 
meanings as established through research. Ouch! this made me sit up and 
take notice, let me tell you. 

It's important to keep the terminology straight or we will end up
talking about Positive Reinforcement in a non-specific way. How many dog 
classses/trainers do you see who claim to use Positive Reinforcement?
How many of those classes would any of us on this list actually take? "oh 
yeah, I use Positive Reinforcement. You push down real hard, very 
positively, to reinforce to the dog that he MUST sit." [NOTE: this is
not a made up example.] 

I dont' mean to get on anyone's case - just that a year ago I went 
through this same process of trying to get the terms crystal clear based 
on their *scientific* meaning. The Bailey Seminar in ABQ finally drove 
things home for me! 

Helix Fairweather