On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:50 AM, michael sylvester wrote: > When Skinner wrote a piece titled "Are theories of learning necessary?" was > it a reaction to Hull's (hypotheco-deductive),Tolman's (cognitive map)and > Mower's (hope) speculations?
Yes > Did Skinner utilize the T-maze or complex mazes? No > I assume that he freferred pigeons pecking and rats bar pressing. > And while on this subject,it would appear that even though rat bar pressing > and rat running through a maze are examples of operant conditioning,the > graphs of the schedules of reinforcement pertain more to the bar pressing > paradigm.I am not aware of FI,FR,VR,VI > that involve running through mazes. Running through a maze is a complex chain of behavior. A single step would be analogous to a single lever press. > What would extinction look like in such a situation? the rat stops > running,eh? And for VR-the rat speeds up the running? I guess it is not > possible to observe these utilizing the maze learning paradigm. There is some data from the neoHullian literature on the rate of running over the course of a maze runway. It's been nearly fifty years since I've looked at it, though, so you'll have to look it up yourself. > What are the arguments for the notion that Skinner did not have a theory of > behavior? What are the arguments against? It's a question of the definition of 'theory'. Skinner had a theory in the sense that Newton had a theory of motion. That is, he presented a system that tied together a body of observation, but did not propose an immediately causal mechanism in the Aristotelean sense. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=3690 or send a blank email to leave-3690-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
