Thank you for bringing up Rescorla-Wagner. You brought me back:
  My interesting in behaviorism stopped at Skinner and usual
  extensions of interest are more Skinner-ish - but I remember
  Rescorla-Wagner now. Even with his flaws, nobody could question
  that Skinner was doing some excellent science. Awkward and
  uncomfortable and yes, I believe he went too far in a number of
  areas (opinion), nevertheless, the dude has my respect. == I
  love QM - a number of my friends are working in the field (hint:
  not many jobs), working on their doctorates (hint: won't be many
  QM jobs but businesses LOVE ppl with Theoretical Physics degrees
  over MBAs.. and happily pay for it) - and the thing is: it cant
  handle many bodied systems. Even few bodied systems it struggles
  with. The "building blocks" model is a model of wish and hope at
  present. I see a lot of attempts to reinvent the wheel by
  finding quantum mechanical explanations for things that ALREADY
  have fantastic working theories that are function.... and here
  comes SOMEBODY always publishing a paper saying, "yeah yeah,
  your old theories ain't quantum so let's just get rid of them" -
  which is fine to try... but it does the public a disservice
  because here come the press reports "Quantum holds the key to
  understanding [something-something] in biology]" and you read it
  and it's like, "ok, dubious and existing theories IN BIOLOGY
  work fine and great. Go away QM and stick to your own field".
  But it gets the press. Makes everybody want to be theoretical
  physicists and nobody want to be biologists. SOMEBODY's gotta go
  out there and catalog undiscovered species. Sometimes I want to
  shoot the science channel for pushing the LEAST scientific of
  scientific disciplines and saying THIS IS REAL SCIENCE unlike
  the others that are only playing... except they're not playing.
  == Indeed. I look at it this way: It's good for what it's good
  for, and it's not good at what it's not good at. Crossing fields
  _can_ be useful at times - but behaviorism isn't equipped to
  study cognition in depth in the way that psychology (now
  Cognitive Psychology - we have such great tools now, although
  even the fMRI needs improvement) can. Hence, different foci,
  different fields. ==