{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010767160161507403, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005383580080753701, 'mean_word_length': 5.358974358974359, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Modest Proposal for a Minor Revolution in the Language of Psychology

The definitions of negative reinforcer and negative reinforcement that are currently in nearly universal use are operationally awkward and confusing. The modest proposal for a minor revolution in the language of psychology is to replace the current definitions of positive as well as negative reinforcement with different ones derived from those proposed by E.L. Thorndike (1911) in Animal Intelligence. This revolution should gain popular support because it restores an element of common sense to psychology. It should appeal to science because it is operationally attractive and creates a situation in which important concepts have consistent implications for behavior.