Lonny Douglas Meinecke

Philander Smith University · Psychology

Can a scientist conduct experiments on himself and publish them in a journal without IRB approval? My understanding is that IRB approval is needed to guarantee ethical/informed human subjects research and to avoid unexpected legal problems from naive subjects later on. A psychologist is well informed of the Belmont ethics, benefits, and risks, and would not sue himself. Has anyone successfully done this (used expert subjects only)?

My research is taking me into directions suggesting that our neurons are members of living systems with their own native needs and desires. Our nervous tissue looks and acts remarkably like living terrain (and urgent inhabitants of that terrain) but at a level of detail we deem to be mechanical in nature. More often than not, our models of long-term, short-term, and working memory view these colonies of cells as here to serve an enduring human agent and its conceptual kingdom, thus either able or unable to perform their genetically conditioned roles (no matter the cost to the living systems that dedicate their being to objectives they cannot see or benefit from). Thank you for any references to current theoretical stances that have attempted to see all of our cells as living individuals in their own right, rather than inessential parts of an enduring "organism'" and its phenomenological struggle to survive.

Hello all,

I am aware of "formal methods" as it is used in computer science, to make sure our specifications are mathematically and logically sound (before we put them into a specific language). Isn't there a tool or form of notation so we can do that while we construct legitimate hypotheses for psychological research?

It is common knowledge that the construction of natural language questions (surveys about thinking and behavior), can be very questionable when it comes to construct validity. For example, did I cover everything? Am I even asking the right question? Trial and error without a formal test of our logic doesn't seem very efficient.

Does anyone know of a formal notation or research tool that lets us test natural language questions for how "sound" they are? After all, whether computer code (if/then we can do this) or human language (if/then we can assume that), it's pretty much the same logic. Thanks for any advice!

My question relates to differential parental behavior in non-human species. We tend to favor the survival of our well-behaved offspring, and let our "ill-behaved" offspring wither or perish. What other species exhibit this scornful, selective kind of parental attachment to offspring?

Can someone contribute to this question? I have observed that many humans increase their monitoring of uncertain things when their own unmanageable stressors increase. But when I look around nature, I do not seem to see any species (or natural phenomena) that exist to "monitor" the actions of other phenomena... This seems a human oddity (the belief that nature needs to be watched over by people). Yet, the physical elements can't really "do" anything they aren't made to do (choose to react incorrectly). Why do we worry they won't do the "right" thing? If I mix so much of this with so much of that, I don't have to wonder if they will react well. Thoughts please?