If I recall correctly,one of the differemces between Skinner and HUll pertains to the role pf reinforcement.Skinner believed that a reinforcer strengthens behavior but Hull operated on the principle that reinforcement reduces drive.I find Skinner's idea that it is the relationship of behavior and its consequences very simplistic and tends to ignore basic motivational sequences.Ironically,Skinner's reinforcement idea can eventually operate functionally autonomous as drive. Skinner is noted for stating that operant behavior is behavior that is maintained by its consequences,does he believe that there are behaviors that can be strengthened but not maintained by their consequences?Since evolutionary theory has teleological implications there could be problems with a Skinnerian application to Darwinian principles since adaptive behavior assumes motivation and drive.
Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester.PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- 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=3817 or send a blank email to leave-3817-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
