Associative Learning - Science topic

"Holobiont" typically refers to a host organism and its symbiotic microbial community. Applying this concept to learning implies a holistic perspective, suggesting that the learner is an integrated and symbiotic entity engaged in a dynamic relationship with various elements in the learning environment.

The concept of "the Liquid (Holobiont) Learner" can be understood as:

In the context of Chinese metaphysics, the term "liquid" might not have a direct or commonly recognized association. However, if we explore the metaphorical and symbolic aspects of liquid or fluidity in Chinese philosophy, particularly in concepts like the Dao, we might find connections with the idea of a learner.

Combining the idea of liquid from Chinese metaphysics with the concept of a learner might evoke a sense of adaptability, openness, and continual growth—a learner who flows with the currents of knowledge and seeks harmony in their understanding. This combination could serve as a metaphor for a learner's journey shaped by the principles found in Chinese metaphysical philosophies.

Combining the fluidity and adaptability from Chinese metaphysics, the philosophical concepts of Zhuang Zi, the training principles of Shaolin monks, and transdisciplinary research creates a multifaceted approach to learning, personal development, and knowledge creation. Here's a synthesis that incorporates these elements:

In this synthesis, the learner engaged in transdisciplinary research embodies the fluidity of water, the philosophical insights of Zhuang Zi, and the disciplined training principles of Shaolin monks. The result is a holistic and adaptive approach to knowledge creation that transcends disciplinary silos, fosters transformative experiences, and contributes to a deeper understanding of complex phenomena.

For initial exploration of the Liquid Learner, please refer to:

Especially among P. latipinna, P. mexicana, P. formosa

I understand non-associative learning is learning from a single stimulus. Many sources I can find show that habituation and sensitisation are forms of non-associative learning. Examples of single stimulus habituation are simple to imagine, but single stimulus sensitisation not so much. Many of the examples of sensitisation that people mention are actually examples of associative learning. I think the problem stems from the terminology, which suggests the following:

Desensitisation = opposite of sensitisation.

Habituation = opposite of sensitisation.

Therefore, habituation = desensitsation

I do not think that habituation is the same as desensitisation, but the terminology seems to be saying this is the case. I thought habituation was single stimulus learning, but desensitisation was the unlearning of a classically conditioned response (and therefore a type of associative learning).

Can anyone shed any light on this for me?

Hi everyone. I was reading about Tolman and Bandura's theory. Has Tolman's theory effected on Bandura's? Can you introduce me to a related source?

Psychological processes as: perception, memory, learning, emotion or motivation?

Consciousness understood like metacognition (I am the observer/perceptor) or I am a sentient human being.

1. We feel like sentient beings with an unified or global self (the only one). This is our subjective experience (self-unity).

2. The brain-self is modular. There are different selves, each one with different underlying neural circuits and different functions/structure and characteristics. For example: 2.1. The visceral-self related to the limbic system in the right hemisphere and associated with basic emotions and qualia from subcortex. 2.2. The bodily self, related to the limits of our body. It shows high flexibility (Rubber hand illusion or Ramachandran´s Pinocchio nose illusion or the third man illusion). But this flexibility that’s not necessarily means that the body self is an illusion or hallucination. It must be flexible to work properly. Imagine that you are driving a bike, a small car or a truck. In all cases your bodily self should be extended to the vehicle to avoid accidents, to guarantee your survival. Of course it will be bigger in the case of the truck. Probably this body-self is associated to motivation (survival, stress, fight or flee response) and to biological associative learning (synchrony between external senses and interoception in only few trials). It responds to the question: is that me? But like a quick reaction: It is a physical self, to avoid pain… 2.3. The social self. Associated to Theory of Mind, social emotions like shame or proud, empathy. It must decide between cooperation or competitiveness (In this case, the main goal can be “to be the best”, the winner). It follows culture rules, is a kind of mask. The social self can learn by imitation. 2.4. The autobiographical self associated to episodic memory and language, extended in the time line from past to present. 2.5. The future self or future anticipation. Probably associated to prefrontal cortex and brain default network. You can create fantasy, you can anticipate and simulate future events of different types, you can think in the next winter food, your future dead, chronic pain after your illness or how to go from street X to street Y tomorrow in your city in only five minutes. In this last case, world representation and self-representation can interact. Anxiety or depression can be associated to self-anticipation. 2.6. The absent self, in the case of flow states, associated to task attentional brain network activation or clean consciousness. It is related to skills, to experts. 2.7. Other forms of self representation

3. The different selves can be combined, for example in the case of CV (social self plus autobiographical self).

4. Different neurological disorder can damage some forms of the self while others remain intact. In the case of narcissism or psycopath the emotional part of the social self is affected (cero empathy). In Alzheimer, the visceral self could be preserved but the autobiographical one is affected (not updated)…

5. The different brain selves are organized in different brain circuits that belong to different layers. Some are activated bottom up (the bodily self), others overall top-down (the future self). There is not a global self. There is not one superior or inferior.

6. All conscious experience is a self-experience. Different selves produce different conscious experiences. They have different intentions (final cause) and produce different attentional bias. Our attentional disposition produced by the activated self is the observer/actor role.

7. There is a competition between brain selves to produce the conscious experience. The winner affects to the goal, the perception and actions in a context. A self can be activated by a situation (Ortega y Gasset: I am myself and my circumstances) or by an own action (it is not the same to play an expert action that a novel action. I am also my actions: they are performed by different selves).

8. Imagine a context with a social interaction, your reactions and understanding will be different from your visceral self, your autobiographical one, your social one, your motivational one… At the same time, the other person involved in the situation can respond you from his/her visceral self while you are in your social self (there are many options and combinations of between selves interactions). 9. It is not the same (in the same context) to feel that you are in danger, that you feel upset, that you feel shame, that you anticipate a negative result of the interaction…

10. But who is the sentient human being? In my opinion the visceral self (here and now). Who is the observer? (The neural default network?), who is the actor?... Then, we have multiple selves but we experience only one each time. Our temperament and personality (extroverts versus introverts…)can cause that some forms of the self are manifest with higher frequency for a person in particular.

I would like to know your opinion about the self-problem and the unity of the experience.

(see one of my last, previous posts for the perspective on Psychology)(not really much translation involved, in the following):

The aspects of my perspective that are typically missing in AGI's (artificial general intelligence) ideas of "cumulative learning" [(see "Cumulative Learning", By Kristinn Thorrison et al )] include:

True Hierarchical learning -- which is more than a new category and a responses using and building on existing behaviors PATTERNS of otherwise of the same nature (as those used in the past).  (Note the thinking always in PATTERNS -- it is thus that behavior patterns show detectable changes, which are the new behavior pattern itself AND by which behavior patterns are defined (as in classical ethology) -- i.e. DEFINED BY THE PATTERNING OF BEHAVIOR "SURROUNDING" THEM.)  Then realize: True hierarchical learning ADDS new elements (in the behavior/response pattern), which shifts some key pattern(s) _AND_ which promote (IS) fuller sensing/perception of the key aspects of the situation(s) BY the Subject -- literally PERCEIVING NEW CONCRETE ELEMENT(s) (as indicated, AND these may be across several times and across several circumstances -- especially later in ontogeny; such is the power of SOME of our Memory systems; we simply must use "more imagination" here, both the Subjects and as researchers/theorists).  The sub-elements (lower level elements OF the previous responses to "such" situations) may change in their nature as they are used differently (e.g. "tagged" or "typed"),  or at least when associated with new-different circumstances; some may certainly be truncated or dropped out (think: new "chunking").

Foundations in PERCEPTION -- yes, THAT kind-of basic process.   It is with/in perception (and later, attention FOLLOWING THAT) that  provides for (IS) "new elements which promote full sensing/perception of the key aspects of the situation BY the Subject literally PERCEIVING NEW CONCRETE ELEMENTS [(or elements in a distinctly new context)]".   Resolving that seeing SUCH new things and JUST THAT (see above), as the foundation of each new level of abstracting ability (i.e. abstraction) -- THAT is a major seemingly paradoxical set of "things" which simply must be resolved ("bucking" the philosophies of the past).

Ontogeny involves a new type of learning at each stage, unfolding in response to (or included in the response to) NEW elements of the concrete situations/circumstances  (and, given the sophistication of some of our Memories: this can be across times and spaces.)  Here, it is important to see/find TRUE ANALOGIES (not just "trumped up" analogies).   These are doubtlessly useful in generalization to "other" circumstances -- seeing other situations similarly better by seeing MORE there "too".  PLUS: We must get rid of the idea that "learning" is always the same type of thing IN ACTION; it changes qualitatively there, BY VIRTUE OF CONTENT, AND CHANGING RESPONSES TO THAT.  Ironically, in my system , in another sense, all learning is the same in that it conforms to simple associative learning patterns-- that is all that is needed (or likely), given what else is going on.  [ Of course, good integration, consolidation and generalization of earlier behavior patterns must occur before "moving on" from one stage-type ("level"-type) to the next. ]

Thus, the AGI machine must contingently, after previous developments and integration/consolidations/generalizations, SEE MORE) BASIC [(here meaning: additional)] ELEMENTS OF THE SITUATION.  And, JUST THIS, provides for moving in-key-part(s) the whole system -- allowing more abstractions (things seen conventionally as "more abstract"), and THUS yielding more refined responses (whether they are specialized or not -- to some extent an open question -- BUT THEY ARE NEW w/r to the important sets of overt, express, explicit circumstances (AT LEAST clear at the inception of such a new sort of processing)).  Likewise the BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, AT LEAST AT FIRST ARE ALSO overt, directly observable and clearly expressed. It is important to realize that although initially overt, directly observable and expressly and explicitly seen IN patterns of behavior, such overt-ness of direct, observable overt evidence of change may be short-lived, as the Memories change and incorporate the new (new type) of learning behavior (perhaps VERY quickly) (This is why, for humans, eye-tracking technology and associated technology (e.g analysis software) likely have to be used.)

Given the distinct limitations of short-term memory (I should say "working memory") and the LACK of limitations of other Memories (e.g. visual-spacial) make it understandable that small changes in response (including PERCEIVING) must be able to yield BIG changes in understanding; this is why this perspective and theory make sense (and ONLY something like it could make sense).  AGI simply must figure out such ontogeny as I have described AND DO IT.  In AI you have the great ability of trial-and-error, quickly and over-and-over, that allows for a fair amount of guessing (I would guess) -- and give the "locality" of the beginning of new patterns in behavior COULD (in theory, with a thoroughly educated view/approach) BE GUESSED AT.   But none of this is possible without an appreciation for True Hierarchical Learning during ontogeny -- very, very likely occurring in qualitatively different stages.  The machine must make ITS OWN analogies, and only such analogies are appropriate (as has been the case in science "forever" ).

Something very much like I propose (above) OR attempts at AGI (as is and has been the case with Psychology) can continue-on, basically the same way as they have been for decades -- i.e. no big progress (as is acknowledged, again and again in the AGI field).

Isn't grounding all interactions (& our understanding of particular interaction) best done by better understanding the Memories AS (being) EXPERIENCE ITSELF? I see this as one of the 2 consistent common groundings for properly coming to an understanding of concepts we come to have as a being, and this includes the development of not just bare simple concepts, but even the development of contingent SETS of such concepts, AND it includes that which come of the developed and developing Memories which allows for abstract thinking -- abstract concepts and abstract processing. Let me elaborate on this first type of thing:

First, realize: By the definitions of the Memories (our basic types of memory, all rather well defined by EXISTING research already), there is no way not to see EXPERIENCE as the operation of the Memories themselves (and THAT is EXPERIENCE ITSELF, literally true BY THE DEFINITIONS in modern perspectives and research). AND, CONCEPTS MUST BE ALL BASED ON THIS. Thus as experiences "grow" and as application of our concepts (defined by interaction with environments: social and/or otherwise, linguistic and/or otherwise) become (to the extent that they can) more widely seen as relevant and applied, this simply occurs by way of the simple forms of associative learning (the definition of such FORMS something that can be well agreed on); NOTE: All this eventually will only suffice WITH the second set of required groundings "emerging" for prompting MAJOR developments in ontogeny (see below) -- those influencing attention and learnings A LOT. Yet simple associative learnings seem to partly work (for a lot of the more bit-by-bit development) given evidence OF the existence of concepts/representations/ways-of-looking in the first place (such as its there, at least at later levels of child development). _AND_ these very simple associative learnings are ALL that would needed at the major points in development, in addition to the base perceptual/attentional shifts (described below). In a sense, yet still, they will be THEN AND THERE all that's needed -- those simple learnings STILL being ALL of what's necessary to "put things together" even WHEN THE SECOND SET/TYPE OF MAJOR FACTOR IS FOUND AND SEEN (and as and when such shifts are occurring). Yet, so far (i.e. the above) would not provide a complete picture of human learning and development . AT BEST, the Memories as they are at any point and associative learnings are still just "half" the picture (as already has been indicated). BUT: What's the other "half", at least more specifically/functionally? :

These other major necessary factors are basically the capacities (or capacities within capacities, if you like) developing with very subtle innate guidances (which are not-unlikely and certainly possibly, at least for a time, quite situation-dependent); these, of course, leading to some of the most major developments of the Memories and HERE, of qualitatively new learnings (still combining with the "THE knowns" and with each other JUST THROUGH THE SIMPLE ASSOCIATIVE LEARNINGS). These innate guidances are at first just sensing more: THAT OF _THAT_ which is _THERE _IN_ any given concretely definable situation (where more adaptation is needed). This is reliant upon and given also the way our Memories have already developed (given our past learning, and earlier innate guidances, the products of which have become well-applied and consolidated (etc.) and all which yields "the time(s)" for some new types of learning) . And now (from the good processing and consolidation ; and discriminations here, perhaps just associative learning as dis-associations) giving us, in a sense, a new or greater capacity in working memory (through more efficient "chunks" and/or some situations-specific "trimming" of the old chunks, and both WITH CHANGES IN OUR _WAY_ OF CHUNKING (and realize: this may not preclude other adaptive reasons for an adaptive increase in the effective capacity of working memory (WM)). The details of the nature of the periodic innate guidances:

What is newly, or at least now truly sensed, sensed as "the-more": that is sensed (and at least glanced at, if not gazed-upon) in a situation or situations, will lead to new perception of at least something more in the scope of "what's there". This will rather quickly go to perceiving more and then to perceptual/attentional shifts (applying some of our past-developed categories and processing to the new "material" -- AND at such also-adaptive points offering more "material" to refine or moderate one's responses/interactions). Here, there will be more in WM , and thus provide more that can be "associated-with" via the simple forms of associative learnings (now, with some new content: new parts and likely new wholes). These developments might be quite situations-specific at least at first, but they may develop to be concepts of rather great scope -- observations and other research which may well be possible are the ONLY things that will clarify all this. All we can say is that this will be some sort of BASIC KEY species-typical cognitive developments (with their inceptions, as indicated) during ontogeny [(birth to 18 yr. old, minimally 5 MAJOR hierarchical levels or stages are historically seen (but with several modern theorists hypothesizing phases within each level); all this can be seen in the overviews of great classic theories, still the most prominent in textbooks of General and Developmental Psychology)]. This very outline of this sort of process has NO limits (except human limits) and it includes the abilities to know, have, and use abstractions, INCLUDING contingent abstractions (holding true in just only some sets of apparently similar circumstances; AND, eventually, with ontogeny and the development of sufficient abstract abilities, ALSO enabling the ability to think and classify across previously differently-seen [(i.e. seen as different)] circumstances -- putting such complexes together in a concept -- this sort of thing including the most sophisticated abstract concepts and processing there is) : in some ultimate ("final", "rock bottom") analysis this all is possible because of demonstrable development and changes in the Memories, WHICH CAN BE RESEARCHED (as other characteristic of the Memories HAVE BEEN researched to date); AND the inceptions of new MAJOR LEVELS (those being with the "perceptual shifts" ... ) can also be directly observed and researched, using the new eye tracking technology (and ancillary technologies) -- and this will greatly guide one to fruitful research on the Memories.

The reasons, likelihood, justifications, better assumptions involved in having this viewpoint and understanding, AND the qualitative changes that which are developed this way (basically starting with key, adaptive "perceptual shifts") is what I spend much of my 800 pages of writing on: 200 pages, written some decades ago, and some 600 pages, written just in the last three years -- a lot of this latter being the job I did not finish back in the late '80s (and I really had no reason to pursue until the development of new technologies, esp. eye tracking and related technologies, came into existence to allow for testing my hypotheses). I also have take great pains in these latter writings to contrast this perspective and approach as thoroughly and completely as I could with the status quo perspectives and approaches in General Psychology and Developmental Psychology . And, to show all the ways this [what I have dubbed] Ethogram Theory is better in so many, many ways, including in its basic foundations, clearly more empirical (as directly as possible) than any perspective and approach heretofore.

I both show in details what is wrong with the "old" and much more likely correct and useful -- and more than plausible (and Biologically consistent and plausible) -- through this new general view. (Again, I provide related testable hypotheses -- verifiable/falsifiable.)

You will be able to see this new approach as better empirically than any other. Related to this: the great benefit that the FIELD of study is ALL clearly and firmly based (grounded/founded) on just 2 "things": (1) directly observable KEY overt phenomena (behavior PATTERNS, here in Psychology ) and (2) on certain clear directly observable and present aspects of circumstances/situations (aka "the environment) active in KEY past developments and/or present now. This is simply the return to the original and intended definition of Psychology _AND_, frankly, is THE ONLY WAY TO BE BEST-EMPIRICAL. (Think about it: NO MISSING CONNECTIONS.)

READ:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory

and

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

(see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates)

ALSO (not among the 200 pages of major papers and 512 pages of essays in my "BOOK", you already have been directed to) the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf

Sincerely, with respect, Brad Jesness

Hello, Mikhail. I started writing a request to you, of a paper published in the Academy of Management Proceedings. But it was incomplete and sent. I hope I can know make myself clear. I have been studying informal learning at work for some years. My current project associates learning strategies at work, as proposed by Warr (U. Sheffield), to work design (as proposed by Morgeson in 2006) and to professional development (a criterion variable proposed by Brazilian researchers). I noticed that you have two publications, on informal learning, in JAP. I will download them. They may be of great interest to my research group at the University of Brasilia.

Models and [ non-concrete * ] Mechanisms: Don't they seem to have the same problems with respect to actual phenomenology and what is real?

Maybe they are temporarily necessary, but should be avoided and should be bettered (AND REPLACED) as good research progresses. If this betterment does not happen, you are not doing at least some of the essential research (likely observational). PERIOD.

Isn't it possible that the best understanding is just the knowledge of, and understanding of, SEQUENCES? (Of course these can be "made sense" of, within the "whole picture", i.e. the greater overall understanding -- and there is "purpose" or direction to each behavior pattern [in the sequences].)

{ ALL this increases the key role (and sufficiency) of all the simple [ basically known ] sorts of associative learning ALONG WITH OUR SEVERAL SORTS OF MEMORIES. "Outside" of innate guidance WITH PERCEPTION/ATTENTION (including innate guidance in later stages/periods of development, with behavioral ontogeny) (and this innate guidance being WITH the simple learnings and Memories) AND their consequences with behavior patterns: the well-understood simple learnings may ultimately provide "the 'glue' for 'the whole story'" , otherwise -- i.e. other than the key "driven" directly observable sequences **.

AND NOTE: NO need whatsoever for special sorts of theorist/researcher-defined types of learning, e.g. "social learning", etc.. NO need for ANY of the "metas", presently a major homunculus.

This perspective "conveniently" has the advantage of be conceptualizable and is able to be clearly communicated -- requirements of ANY good science. It is within our abilities (as adults, at least at particular times) to actually 'see', i.e. to have and to provide REAL UNDERSTANDINGS. In my view, the other "choices" seem not to have these distinct characteristics (so, the perspective above is either true OR we all may well be "screwed").

* FOOTNOTE: "Concrete" meaning: with clear, completely observable correspondents; AND, likewise for models, with any promise (of progress and replacement).

** FOOTNOTE: "Directly observable" meaning: can be seen (and agreed upon AS SEEN) IN OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (AT LEAST AT KEY TIMES, e.g. with the inception of new significant behavior patterns).

--------------------------

P.S. This (above essay) may seem "self-serving", since I have a theory putting all of the positions/views above TOGETHER cogently and with clear testable/verifiable(refutable) HYPOTHESES (using modern technologies, eye-tracking and computer-assisted analysis). See:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

See especially:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm

AND

the Comments to (under) the second-to the-newest Update on the Project page: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory (for EVERYTHING)

It seems to me that working memory (involving the episodic buffer AND some -- to all the types -- of the Memories) is constantly at work and is our very experience itself.

Thus, I cannot see how the Memories (with at least some of them always active, determining and "recording" experience -- which most prominently and significantly active, dependent on circumstances) can be considered something separate from our knowledge OR our knowing OR our awareness OR our conscious being (all those: inclusively), i.e. as ANYTHING ever considerable as separate from experience itself.

Correct? Seems to me such a dualism would be a most-major problem. (This may be the biggest and perhaps primary dualism of them all, in reality (phenomenologically), though the nature/nurture dualism may seem worse -- but the latter may be somehow related to the former and even may have to be somehow related.)

Yet, we do seem to talk about "them" (the Memories, usually called "memory") at times as just one aspect of who we are (we seeing ourselves somehow as more than that "one 'aspect'")(and "memory" as sometimes something to consider, and other times not), don't we? (BUT: Wouldn't this be delusion "incarnate"?)

In short, we never "just are" (nor are we in any other way): these mechanisms having capacities and capabilities are ALWAYS at "work" since we ARE biological beings, in every way (like other animals) and at all times.

The Memories are central to good psychology understanding (or progress) and to good science in this "realm". The other major consideration (to have any generally good understanding of our reality/animal reality) is innate-guidance of behavioral development (especially throughout ontogeny); and, the question becomes : how does the innate-guidance aspects of behavior emerge along with (or, actually: "in") our other behavior patterns?; the fact of the always-present Memories can be an indication of the "acceptable" integral nature of emerging innate-guidance and why "perceptual shifts" become by far the likely candidates for what they (innately-guided behavioral aspects), along with other relevant behavior patterns, look like and ARE (<- including the "automatic" nature of our reality due to the past developments of the Memories and those "bringing forward" the very nature of what a good part of our reality looks like and IS).

I am still of the mind that it is possible to have a science of Psychology where the only things studied are behavior patterns and associated environmental aspects. AND: Key to this is finding and having some most-significant, pivotal, foundational BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS) -- ones which can be seen at least at key times and, at least, at the INCEPTION of any significant new behavior patterns involved in major shifts in cognition and cognitive development. [ (THEN, otherwise, behavior is credibly just altered by simple, relatively easy-to-understand processes -- in particular, the various sorts of associative learning.) ]

My perspective and approach describes in great detail how this can be the case and the major necessary hypotheses are directly testable (verifiable), being verified by finding major yet-to-be-discovered DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS (when you know how and when to look to find them). These major behavior patterns involve Memories-contextualized "perceptual shifts", with subtle but the clear overt behavior patternings as their aspects -- these, along with environmental aspects, BEING ESSENTIAL PROXIMATE CAUSES of behavior pattern change (not only with the new behavior patterning, but those also importantly at-times affecting already-existing behavior patterns). The major NEW inventions that allow for researching this, and having these phenomenon discovered, are the new eye-tracking technology (and computer-assisted analysis).

This is the way (not yet tried) to keep Psychology as "the science of behavior" [(the "behaviors" of the various sorts seen as important at one time in the history of Psychology or another and, NOW, ALL BEING "admitted" and seen as aspects of behavior)]. Of course the other (ONLY other) key things involved being the "triggering" (or key facilitating) ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS.

Has this definition of Psychology as "the science of behavior" been abandoned or corrupted [ with models by-analogy (e.g with information processing as could be done by a machine); OR phenomenon of uncertain relation to actual most-important behavior (e.g. crude neuroscience); OR by using instead elaborate speculative conceptualizations, which could NEVER have any direct evidence supporting them (e.g. "embodiment" 'theories') ] ? I say: "YES. PSYCHOLOGY, THE SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR, has been abandoned and corrupted in at least these three ways."

BUT now, with a new perspective and with new ways to detect more subtle behavior patterns, we now CAN RETURN to the classic kind of definition Psychology has had over many decades (with the focus on "behaviors"/environmental factors thought to suffice). My perspective and approach ACTUALIZES this, and in the process eliminates any nature/nurture controversies BY BEING NOT ONLY PSYCHOLOGY IN THE CLASSIC SENSE BUT, at the same time, being the BIOLOGY OF BEHAVIOR -- the biological structure and nature seen in just behavior patterns THEMSELVES.

My "biology of behavior" project :

See especially:

and

Re: cognitive-developmental psychology: Is it a bad sign if one has only done ONE thing in her/his entire lifetime?

This is basically, in part, a confession. If you knew how true the "one thing" was in my life, you would likely consider me lazy and privileged. I can accept both labels and can clearly see it that way (at least from the standpoint of some very good people). Moreover, I have had the ability to have anything and everything I thought I needed -- essentially at all times.

But, perhaps as is the only interpretation imaginable, you suspect I am making such admissions just to further the exposure of my perspective and approach. That is completely true. And, I do contend that (with having all resources), I lived virtually all the years of my life looking for a complete and the best thoroughly empirical perspective. Even in my decades of college teaching (more like 1.5 decades), my courses and presentations had coherence most certainly as a function of my views. THUS, indeed, in fact: I have never done anything else in my life other than that needed to produce the papers, book, essays, etc. that I present here on RG (or make readily available through RG). To have a picture of my life, one should imagine about 30 years of it operating much as a hermit (for all that can be good for -- and I do believe it can be good for something).

I started with a core and moved carefully in adopting any aspect of my perspective (basically starting from the position of just what is possibly at-the-very-least needed, and maintaining extreme parsimony). And, again, I am a most thorough-going empiricist, believing that EVERYTHING has a core foundation of some behavior which, at least at some key point, is both overt (though maybe quite subtle) AND directly observable (and now practically so, via eye-tracking). My entire perspective and approach relies pivotally and mainly on such foundations and otherwise only on the best findings and extremely widely-affirmed processes IN ALL OF PSYCHOLOGY (things showing the very best inter-observer agreement). All this is not any kind of abstract or wide set of things. The other prime objective ("directive") has been to NOT [just] link but PUT behavior (behavior patterns) clearly IN a biological framework -- showing as much as possible the "biology of behavior"; this had the rewarding result of eliminating critical and serious dualisms, esp. nature/nurture.

Assumptions or presumptions (pseudo-asssumptions) in Psychology had to be exposed as both unproven and not well-founded. A half dozen central "assumptions" have been replaced in my system BY BASICALLY THE OPPOSITES -- these assumptions being fully consistent with biological principles and more likely true. I also show in my work how to use all the terms of classical ethology, this also allowing or furthering the "biology of behavior".

In short, though this should be to some degree a shameful confession (and many would have to believe that is part of it), my work is MINE (compromising nothing; adhering to principles) -- and it is good **. Please take some time to explore it, starting at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Jesness2 Thank you.

** FOOTNOTE: The perspective and approach is explicit and clear enough for artificial intelligence also -- a good test. BUT: For the great advancements needed in Psychology and major practical utility in AI, we need DISCOVERIES, the nature of which are indicated in testable (verifiable) hypotheses, clear in my writings -- MUCH awaits those discoveries. The same discoveries are involved for either field.

P.S. For 20 years of my hermitage I did have the strong "hobby" (avocation) of JavaScript programming; I never made any money from this. I tell you this just to make sure the portrayal is accurate -- and to in no way mislead. (See http://mynichecomputing.org , if you are curious.)

I can assure you my way is empirical and all major hypotheses are directly testable (via direct observation of overt behavior patterns). It is a viable approach, with all testable hypotheses, and with explicit, well-founded and biologically-consistent assumptions behind it all. Eye-tracking technology will be needed and perhaps computer-assisted analysis. FIRST, See:

http://tiny.cc/ethogram AND

then you must see the recent LARGE Collection of Essays explicating and fully justifying my approach and clearly indicating the positive consequences and ramifications : HERE'S the BOOK:

http://tiny.cc/collectedEssays

I want to present you with a possible particular concrete example (instance) of a perceptual shift, i.e. the inception of a stage shift (in 'seeing' and [at first, very vaguely,] in some sense IN cognition), showing all the 4 phases of a perceptual shift for the overall process of the beginning of a qualitative stage shift part of the development of cognition -- before purely associative learning "holds sway" by itself again.

This hypothetical example comes from the ape (gorilla) social "world", from which our abilities to have progressively developing levels of concepts and thinking likely first evolved. Well, HERE IS IS:

Think of an child ape, not an infant but perhaps a mid-age-child individual. He has from his previous development a conceptual idea of the dominant (adult) male gorilla (and his behavior patterns, relating to this).

But, then he "notices" that this dominant male, at times rushes towards other adults, to seemingly show other ways to express his dominance (or other aspects of that dominance) which he has not shown before (or which the young ape has not clearly seen, noticed, or processed before).

This is the kind of thing indicating [with him, this child] innate guidance, given he has good, refined earlier knowledge: AT FIRST BEING some gap in the child ape's conceptual understanding of the OVERALL structure of this adult dominance behavior. That "gap", (phase 1) of the now first-emerging of a NEW perceptual shift, may show itself in a situation (or early situations) as just something involving automatically vaguely orienting TOWARD the key situation and behaviors (and would be shown behaviorally simply in prolonged gaze when/after this dominance phenomenon shows itself).

Soon (perhaps VERY SOON) he will better see such dominance events WHEN THEY OCCUR (because of the specific "gap" existing in his understanding); this second phase (of the perceptual shift) will show clearly: orienting to the aspects of this new-to-understand type of dominance expression (still, for the most part, not conscious).

In the third phase of the shift, he will reliably have seen regularities as he continues good orientation needed to observe things associated with this dominance event. HERE he can be said to be expressly and explicitly and consciously ATTENDING to occurrences of this event.

Finally (in the fourth phase of the shift) he will integrate the essentials into memory: facts-for-occurrence, key aspects of this dominant male's behavior (with respect to dominance behavior patterns), and key aspects of the spacial and temporal aspects ("in the world"), associated with these dominance behaviors pattern's key content in visual-spacial memory (which he will be able to play back in his mind, when NOT present in the situation where the adult male dominance behavior occurs; i.e. he can "reflect"). BUT, TO DO ALL THIS:

This fourth phase shows the development of some fact/declarative memory (basically the main static features of the dominance act and their relationships to each other, defined) -- this is the declarative/"semantic" aspect of long-term memory he has developed and is developing. Also, some procedural knowledge develops (at the same time) about how to act in response to this dominance expression (especially if his has something "to do" with he, himself): this thoroughly developed, active and automatized response (or set of responses) is the procedural aspect of long-term memory he has gained: this aspect, known as procedural memory.

Also, in the fourth phase FOR THE MOST PART, he has a record-of-incident (episode) memory which is most prominently in the visual-spacial memory which is, in an indirect way, the actual thing he is able to play back key portions of in his mind, just as he sits and thinks about this dominance phenomenon -- given the EPISODIC BUFFER. (Other key aspects [mentioned above] of long-term Memories are also determining the nature of the BUFFER and are "there". ) So, the ability to do this out-of the situation reflection, just described above, relies on (and is delimited by) the content that will be a notable part of his EPISODIC BUFFER, doing some major contextualization of his working memory (entering into it) where further, now more-simple associative learning may now continue to occur, until all the Memories (each and together) are thoroughly refined.

He no doubt will also, through cued thinking (and likely some observation) relate this aspect of his concept of dominance to other aspects at the same conceptual level (and to/with earlier conceptual levels) that are related to shows of dominance. When ALL this (all of the 4 phases and associative learning needed for refinements and concept integration) has occurred (perhaps taking a year), he will be ready to notice other greater patterns BY HAVING a new perceptual shift (that, too, with 4 similar phases) -- these are the core foundational happenings in ontogeny (aka THE proximate directly observable causes of the development of behavior patterns via perceptual shifts) and that which AGAIN allows qualitative NEW learning new ways (using a qualitatively different kind of learning, and also using well-refined aspects from earlier stages): to AGAIN further develop his representation system(s)( aka concept structure), this being related to all major aspects of the Memories and likely mostly connected with through visual-spacial memories, and all the other Memories connected to that AND USED (in the final step of cognizance) BY THE EPISODIC BUFFER; then working memory can work on new "things".

[ Full explication and justification for this approach (and the implications of this approach) can be found via :

and

]

The attached article (1999) discusses the cases of four children between 5 and 17 years old, with congenital brain malformations involving total or near-total absence of cerebral cortex but who, nevertheless, possessed discriminative awareness: distinguishing familiar from unfamiliar people and environments, social interaction, functional vision, orienting, musical preferences, appropriate affective responses, and associative learning. These abilities may reflect "vertical" plasticity of brainstem and diencephalic structures.

The four cases mentioned above show that consciousness, or at least its certain forms, can be mediated subcortically, due to the developmental processes of vertical neuroplasticity.

Let me try to provide an answer by sharing a relevant essay I wrote to a friend. (This contains that "shortest description".)

Let me answer "What is your definition of 'innate guidance'? " in the only way I ever will answer anything when it comes to a scientific study of human behavior (aka ethology). My answer is I do not define; I never define anything. All is discovered and the Subject (the human) will define what, in any given type of case/circumstance, the innate guidance IS (and what that is like). ("Ditto" for 'learning'.)

This is the only way other ethologists should have things 'defined' . IN FACT: Real and good scientists (in any science) NEVER 'define' anything just with their imagination; no guessing EVER, except just "where to look" -- THEN they find that which is important and worth noting FROM THEIR SUBJECT MATTER).

Everytime (literally) I hear the word "define", I cringe.

NOW: This may not be easy to understand, or understand as I intend, but I have written 500 pages explicating, elaborating, and justifying the following view:

From what I said before: I can only tell you where I would look and hope for the discovery of what is at the INCEPTION of new 'seeing' new things and differently (that then eventually leads to new representation, then to new thinking): IN PARTICULAR: This (coming up) is how I will look for the proximate causes OF the behavioral shifts, in BOTH directly observable overt behavior patterns AND in the associated directly observable aspects of the current environment (and WITH the special sort of associative/discriminative learning that THEN OCCURS; and THAT along with other behaviors -- some developed in just this same type of way in the past, which now function in some similar way to when the behavior was overt, though now covert). I hypothesize, and it is now testable and verifiable (yes or no) with new eye-tracking technology and computer assisted analysis :

That "perceptual shifts" are the overt behavioral patterns aspect(s) WITH the innate guidance that there is/are at the inception of a transition starting a qualitatively different level/stage of representation . Such an inception, of course, includes (for contextualization) what is brought forward from our Memories -- to have the new environmental aspect(s) meaningfully seen . The perceptual shifts will result in finding and using "things" thus discovered (by the organism), BEGINNING with the perceptual shift(s) FOR new elements processed from the environment which allow the key new/additional "ingredients" that need to be added to existing cognitive abilities' contents (the latter, existing already, at a lower level of the hierarchy), to begin to move to the next higher hierarchical level/stage-type behavior (behavior including not only necessary overt aspects, but also existing cognition <-- understood, in important part, by seeing similar perceptual shifts beginning earlier stages; THUS: you have to do investigations longitudinally, beginning just after infancy; you must track the relevant ontogeny).

You will note I use the word WITH very intentionally: that is because the innate guidance (which, in a sense can be seen as manifested in the perceptual shift) IS ALSO OCCURRING SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH new LEARNING, IMMEDIATELY (or in effect, immediately) ALSO INVOLVED at the same time as the perceptual shift occurs. (In short,' innate' and 'learned' occur literally (OR, IN EFFECT) SIMULTANEOUS, TOGETHER -- there is no dualism, this is that 'problem' solved. If you really want to say BOTH the innate and learned are always involved, then this is what you mean.)

I think this is the only brief 2 paragraph version I can provide. To really know more:

SEE: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Jesness2, then https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory then https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses and then https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321685790_everythingadoc_0B -- if you really want to know.

Are there examples (in behavioral/psychological sciences) of variables between which or conditions under which associative learning is NOT possible? And, why?

I know that it is an empirical question. Indeed, I want to know if somebody knows empirical works supporting or refuting this idea. This would imply, for example, that context related phenomena, such as renovation and restatement, could be induced by discrete cues.

there is a customer list that they have been used some stuff . I want to fine some clusters and mine association rules in them and when new customer added to list of customers, the system predict the cluster of this new user and offer the roles in that cluster to new customer.

but I do not know if I should first cluster customers and then mine association rules in them or first mine association rules and then cluster customer within rules.

which way has more accuracy?

I've heard that at present it is not allowed to submit papers using deprivation regimes lower than 83 % of ad-libitum body weight for rats on most of the major journals of behavior and/or neuroscience research.

I am quantifying the cellular density of the dorsal cortex of double-transgenic mice for Alzheimer's disease. I'd like to quantify a region within the dorsal cortex most closely related to learning and memory. Articles would be helpful.

Thank you!

Im looking to begin touchscreen experimentation with domestic dogs. I am worried about damage to the screen by their claws or the moisture from their nose. Does anyone have any experience with specific brands and models of touchscreens, and were any protection methods effective without hampering input?

I'd like to study color vision in some species of Gibbons through behavioral test. I'd like to confirm whether operant associative learning can be applied as a method here? or is there any better method?  

Thank you

Most experiments which can used will have an induced associative learning recorded in the memory of the lion. How can we remove that part and conduct an experiment?

There are many ways of explaining the complexities of the concepts to students; story-telling is one of them. But the teller must keep certain points in mind while selecting a story and narrating it so to illustrate her/his formulations. For example, it should not be too long or complex. I was wondering what all is needed to make our story as a very attractive medium of teaching and learning in higher education.

I need to make a classification of freezing behavior in a fear conditioning test. Does anybody know about utilized methods to do this?