Well, I'll take a swing at Phil Gervaix' "many-fold" question about Hull and Tolman, and then others can correct me:
The two weren't quite fighting opponents, but there is some truth to their portrayal that way. Both were, of course, S-R neobehaviorists, but their styles were quite opposite. Hull was extremely mechanistic and saw behavior as very passive and reactive. Tolman gave a heavy explanatory burden to "expectancies", in anticipation of modern cognitive approaches. The chronology is complicated. Technically Tolman came first, with "Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men" in 1932, while Hull's "Principles of Behavior" didn't come out until 1943. Logically, however, much of the 1940's was spent by Tolman in offering challenges to Hull's system (latent learning, detour learning, place vs. response learning, etc), and Hull then going through intellectual contortions to try to explain Tolman's problemmatic results. In general, Tolman kept saying "it's not that simple" and Hull kept trying to make it simple, and instead making it more complicated, until his system lost its one attraction, parsimony. My impression is that, at the time, it was Hull who had the "grand system" and Tolman who was sniping from the bushes, but it was Tolman who won the war (and, as he said, he had fun doing it). One could say lots more, but I think that covers some of Phil's question. Other comments? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
