I've only been paying attention to this thread with half a neuron (my apologies), but if you look at the history of the study of animal behavior (Don Dewsbury has written several nice books on the subject, if you are looking for a place to start), it is pretty clear that the majority of early workers in the perspective that came to be known as ethology came out of Europe (folks like Lorenz, von Frisch, and Tinbergen), while the majority of early workers in the perspective that came to be known as comparative psychology came out of the United States (folks like Watson, Hull, and Tolman). This is not to say that there were not then (and are not now) North American "ethologists" (Spalding comes to my mind as one candidate for consideration as an early US ethologist) or European "comparative psychologists." But in my view, the evolution (pardon the pun:-)) of these two perspectives on their respective side of the big pond is no accident. It is not surprising that a perspective that emphasizes nativism and evolutionary history should develop in a part of the world where leadership was still determined by heredity, while a point of view that emphasized proximate explanations for behavior such as immediate environmental conditions and instrumental conditioning (focus on individual learning and accomplishment) would develop in a young nation in which Horatio Alger was idealizing the American dream (i.e., that nothing but your own drive and skills stood in the way of your being whatever you wanted to be.)
--Kathy Morgan Wheaton College Norton, MA 02766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
