DISCUSSION 93

2. GOODFELLOW, L. D. A psychological interpretation of the results of the Zenith radio experi-

ments in telepathy. / . exp. Psycho!., 1938, 23, 601-632.
3. SKINNER, B. F. The processes involved in the repeated guessing of alternatives. / . exp.
Psycho!., 1942, 30, 49S-S°3-
4. YACORZYNSKI, G. K. Perceptual principles involved in the disintegration of a configuration
formed in predicting the occurrence of patterns selected by chance. / . exp. Psycho!.,
1941, 39, 401-406.

REPLY TO DR. YACORZYNSKI

BY B. F. SKINNER
University of Minnesota

Dr. Yacorzynski is justified in asking me to remove the quotation marks

from ' disintegration of perceptual principles,' but I cannot agree that I have
misrepresented him or that the notion is 'not conveyed by the context' of
his discussion. He speaks of the "manner in which the normal perceptual
process functions and disintegrates"; and if I have interchanged process and
principle, it is only in following Dr. Yacorzynski's example. He speaks of
"the principles . . . which are affected" (p. 401) and the "process which is
affected" (p. 402) in referring to the same phenomenon; and after mention-
ing the possibility that the " normal preference for non-symmetry has simply
disintegrated," he speaks of non-symmetry as a 'principle.'
Nor can I agree with his claim that there is a 'great deal of similarity' in
our conclusions. It is true that "no discrepancy exists" between my state-
ment that there is a permanent tendency to alternate and Yacorzynski's that
"the most preferred pattern of the psychotics was the 12121 sequence."
But they are by no means the same statement. There is no discrepancy
because the latter is one consequence of the former. There are fifteen other
consequences, to which Yacorzynski's statement does not refer. My state-
ment that the psychotic remains 'uninfluenced by his past behavior' is cer-
tainly not the same as Yacorzynski's that psychotics fail to 'modify their
responses to conform to the special conditions demanded by the instructions,'
since one refers to stimulation generated by the subject and the other to an
external source.
Far from disregarding the fact that the individual is " actually attempt-
ing to guess the manner in which chance may determine which one of the
two alternatives has been selected," my paper is concerned with analyzing
exactly that case. My second paragraph contains in effect a definition of
guessing. Again, I do not assume "that the preceding responses are the sole
determiners of what . . . future responses will be." I note the possibility
of 'abiding preferences,' 'biased preliminary conditions,' and "trivial cir-
cumstances which cancel out in the long run and are spoken of as 'chance.' "
A second guess is said to be under the additional control of the first, and so on.
As it turns out, this control is all-important; although I do not assume that
it is the sole determiner, it is practically shown to be so.
Dr. Yacorzynski prefers to deal with the 'total situation' and with a
series of five guesses as a 'configuration.' My own preference is for a more
94 DISCUSSION

detailed analysis of both stimulus and response. I specifically admit the

possibility of analysis at other levels (p. 499) and am only concerned with
testing the descriptive power of the level I prefer. As Dr. Yacorzynski says,
"Skinner's objection to the use of the term pattern in the sense of 'a single
organized act' in referring to the sequence of responses which the individual
makes follows as a consequence of his interest in analyzing the pattern of
guesses into discrete events." I am satisfied with that statement of our
relative positions and have no wish to dispute such a matter. However, he
adds: "with a disregard of the important determiners of the total pattern."
This tiresome complaint has seldom been made under less auspicious cir-
cumstances. It is often difficult to answer the charge that analysis 'ignores'
something or other, because in our present state of knowledge it is difficult
to prove that everything has in fact been accounted for. But here the shoe
is on the other foot. Dr. Yacorzynski has not challenged my contention
that the prediction of guessing in terms of the history of alternation is more
exact than his own prediction in terms of the total situation. Just how can
the ignoring of any relevant matter lead to a more adequate treatment of
the facts?
(Manuscript received October 15, 1942)