;

14.9 Example of Non-Arbitrary Application Part 5

This is a free preview and your progress is not being tracked. Purchase access to complete this module for CEUs.

…providing a context in which the child is likely to respond to these combinatorially entailed relations of equivalence between being bigger and terms like more popular.

A bulldog and a dog with the same bigger size.

arbitrarily applicable ≠ always arbitrarily applied

1 Comment
Collapse Comments

I’m hoping this will be answered in future slide: The child has entailed a FALSE equivalency between “bigger” and “more popular” – similar to the FALSE response that the white duck is “smaller” than the yellow duck. I would consider these formations of relational frames to be a result of instructor error . . .????

This section is for the civil and public discussion of the content of this page. We reserve the right to moderate and remove comments that are irrelevant, disrespectful, hateful, harassing, threatening, or spamlike. If you are experiencing a technical issue, please contact our helpdesk for assistance.

Leave a Comment