OK, enough. This is rehashing 50 year old debates, and you're misrepresenting Skinner's (post 1930's, at least) analysis of the function of reinforcement, which is selectionist (see his Science articles). Try reading the text before taking the test ;-)
Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:20 AM, michael sylvester wrote: > 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. --- 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=3818 or send a blank email to leave-3818-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
