Questions related to Behavioral Observation
I am currently working on a study for which there are recordings of children and carers engaging in interactive tasks (somewhat ambiguous / challenging tasks designed to elicit the need for collaboration / sensitive parenting). I am interested in whether there are any existing coding systems that could be applied flexibly to this kind of data which could help codify the quality of the caregiver-child relationship / attachment relationship in these dyads. Anything even vaguely relevant would be wonderful to hear about.
[ These criticisms may apply more to studies in the behavioral sciences, those being the ones I know about. ]
There is a big tendency for researchers to do research that [supposedly] TRIES to "build on" previous research. AND, there is a belief that such studies will lead to better understanding of (/definition-of) core concepts in a "field". AND, ALSO, other even less related (less concretely or physically interrelated) studies, such as interdisciplinary studies, are believed to lead to better understanding as well.
I believe neither of these is necessarily the case or even likely true (and, to a notable extent, never true, with some research as it is). I believe it is more often NOT true that progress is being made these ways, since the unit of analysis and its aspects are not clear, OR that real (proven) developed relations have not been found. Given the present research ways (many having long, numerous historical/philosophical roots), I believe that more often than good, real desired results (from findings), the results will NOT be interpretable in any reliable or valid way. This an area where some good scientific analytic philosophers could be of good help (thus, the reason for the existence of this discussion question).
My view is that if you do not have well-guided/well-justified and WELL-related studies, specifically, with all phenomenon involved or of present interest RELATING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO DIRECT OBSERVATIONS OF essentially FOR-SURE FOUNDATIONAL OVERT PHENOMENON __AND___/__OR___ a clear case or clear reflection of such actual phenomenon (and, here too, CONCRETE LINKS at some time were shown and INVOLVED), then you are "off-track". Such is needed for science advancement ITSELF (<-- this being key to science and a MAJOR indication OF REAL SCIENCE itself). [ (In Psychology, the subject and aims of studies and findings should be to illuminate KEY Behavior PATTERNS, by clearly relating all of them to directly observable overt behavior patterns that ARE reliably and validly seen (with clear concrete foundations) OR to such "things" THAT WERE (and, ideally: have been) once so clearly and reliably seen during development (i.e. ontogeny)) (yet notice: STILL there is plenty of latitude left for many types of concepts to be involved in proposed explanations, given development and the demonstrated possibilities of the huge capacities of the Memories).) ]
"Behavioral 'science'" offers close to nothing for Artificial General Intelligence (& I believe eventually any good influences might well be FROM AGI to Psychology). One quite possible example:
My guidance for behavior science, even if not verified OR falsified by Cognitive Psychology "folks" (because they are stuck in non-rationally-justified RUTS), could just be "aped" (that is, guessed at) and improve AGI (and progressively more and more, even by trial-and-error). THEN, instead of AGI looking to Psychology, rather, as in the past with ACT* (information processing science), Psychology could learn a LOT from AGI .
My way for better Psychology is self-guiding emergent ways (self generative processes -- which are some quite possibly clear things (with KEY overt manifestations, that unfold with ontogeny -- initially perceptual/attentional phenomenon). I would look for such for Psychology as a Cognitive Developmental Psychology person, but I am old and retired.
It seems obvious to me that this is exactly what Artificial General Intelligence NEEDS -- one clear thing: self generative processes with AGI ontogeny (emergent, unfolding processes at proper points). Intelligent things show creative self-guidance ...
Can you realize "top-down" and "bottom-up" ARE [ or certainly can, if not MUST, be ] THE SAME THINGS at important junctures IN ONTOGENY (child development)?
This Question is NOT addressing YOU (the "self"), your social relations and activities, NOR your language. This question is about the biological processes SHOWN IN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS _PER_ _SE_ of the organism (aka "just 'behavior' "), DURING ONTOGENY, and beginning in overt and observable ways. As words are tools, to express certain things, sometimes (and even and especially at some critical times) the words used will seem contradictory or an oxymoron ,(e.g. it is hard to truly well-imagine a case of perception beginning thought). This cannot be viewed as a real problem. SO: at important key 'shift' points in development, what we CONCEPTUALIZE as "top-down", may have their actual key inception in what, in the highly [overt] behavior-related processes, may fundamentally have to be seen as "BOTTOM-UP". Major (if not THE major) shifts in behavior PATTERNS during cognitive development (of emerging seemingly qualitatively different stages/levels) may certainly have their inceptions in BASIC perceptual shifts (actually seeing new things or some things in a significantly new framing perspective AS new (or, in other words, the latter: "as seen anew")). [(THIS is seen as possible, if not necessary, if only by the reasoning processes of EXCLUSION -- if you are an empiricist/scientist.)]
With this perspective: the UN-defined bases of cognitive stages (equilibrium type 2, the balance between the stages and the point allowing for the stage shifts) is both more simple AND more researchable (with eye tracking) than anything conceived in academia heretofore. In short, this perspective is much more strictly empircial AND TESTABLE. [ Piaget clearly, yet ultimately, ONLY ever said one thing about such stage shifts: that they were "due to maturation" -- Piaget realized this was the most serious deficiency in his theory to the end of his days (explaining why his LAST BOOK was on Equilibration). Piaget was big on "formal logic", which inherently, as applied, results in embracing limited content -- for THAT (as applied) is OF our normative conceptual system, not of independent, actual real biological systems).]
To get more perspective of my view and approach, _start_ at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_an_ethological-developmental_theory_of_cognitive_processes_and_of_cognition and READ all the Answers (follow-ups) and "go from there".
I am looking for software able to annotate interaction video (e.g. when a child is looking towards the mother) frame-by-frame, and output a frame-series in which every frame is stored with labelled annotation.
I checked Solomon Coder (solomon.andraspeter.com), but unfortunately is limited in the format of input videos.
Do you know any?
Many thanks for the help
If we cannot come to actually see ourselves as a species among other similarly biological-behavioral species, can we really accomplish anything? I say NO -- not anything significant involving ourselves AS A TOPIC OR AGENT. And, I am talking about seeing our OVERT behavior patterns and overt observable foundational behavior PATTERNS, as BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING -- this is to say: behavior PATTERNS , [ that is " 'just' behaviors" (in common parlance) ] , AS biological patterning ITSELF PER SE. Though already many realize this must be true, with behavior having to be a true aspect of biological/organismic functioning even onto itself, YET BECAUSE we DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEE THIS, we are "sunk". Only recently have I come to realize how important my guide to Psychological (behavioral) science is.
If we cannot reach this better point (indicated), we will not see anything involving our responsibilities in any complete or sustained way AS IT REALLY IS: Needless questions and needless superstitions will necessarily and irreparably confuse us. AND: We may not know this because, very largely unbeknownst to us, Psychology as a science has not yet started -- though in ways this is easy to see if you look for any true and meaningful talk of strict empirically-established behavior PATTERNS (actual discovered-through-key-observations-REAL, actual OVERT PATTERNS (and patterning of patterns, etc)). AGAIN, only recently have I come to realize how important my guide to Psychological (behavioral) science is; I used to say "let's worry about climate change foremost", but now I realize that US thinking about most anything very important well (or behaving in any significant continuously disciplined manner) IS VERY, VERY LIKELY CONTINGENT ON US BEING ABLE TO PUT OURSELVES IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND CONTEXT; without true knowledge of true foundations we are terribly weak-of-mind (the nature of the problems here just indicated).
[ In line with the views above, I have sought to UN-FOLLOW many poor and useless Questions -- ones that, nonetheless, go on and on (even for years). I do not wish to in any way encourage these. ]
Even if behavior was "embodied", wouldn't the brain notice? YES, of course: then the BRAIN would become the better "vehicle" for remembering, thinking, and "time travel" (i.e. prospective memory) -- possible (and possibly trivial) sensori-motor components notwithstanding. [ I am really quite tired of the "embodied" conceptualizations (which have yet to be shown as non-fictions *). See my writings. No one has argued against the views/approaches (content) in these writings NOR accepted/liked/or adopted them (now 1+ years (or 5+ years, depending how you look at it) and counting). ]
* Footnote: All this nonsense is ALL because NO PSYCHOLOGY OUTLOOK (other than my own) "believes in" anything psychological, innately guided, and emerging with ontogeny (which is not tenable). (The idea that learning is literally nearly always "the same" (outside of clearly always being associative in nature) is preposterous (think of a two -year-old and an adolescent -- and imagine any systematic and universal instruction you credibly might posit). P.S. Relatedly : "Culture" does NOT directly impinge on the individual -- the actual Subject and ultimate, but absolutely necessary, unit of analysis &/or explanation (for Biology or for Science). All executive or "meta" processes can NOT be properly shown to be anything but homunculi.)
Hi behavioral research community! Does anyone know how to convert Laerdal medical simulation video files (.ssx format) into MP4 or similar so that the videos are compatible with behavioral observation software programs (e.g., Interact, Noldus etc.)? I tried changing them into .zip and then converting the .asv files by use of e.g., formatfactory.de but this only works for very small files and does not integrate the audio trace. Thanks so much for any hint and best wishes from Switzerland! Nadine
Editor/Co-author of my Collected Essays (on behavioral science) Needed
I have approximately 1000 pages of essays on new, more-empirical perspectives for Psychology (esp. General Psychology and Developmental Psychology -- but relevant and important for Psychology in general). It is all about BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (and associated "environmental" aspects, these _OFTEN_ broadly conceived) and a science of finding the further behavior patterning therein, and a patterning of those patterns, etc.; AND THAT IS ALL : In other words, the writings outline the discoveries likely possible and necessary for a true and full behavioral science of BEHAVIOR PATTERNS ("just behaviors") PER SE ("behaviors" then seen, as must be the case, as aspects of Biology (adaptation) unto themselves); it is much related to classical ethology perspectives and research. RELATED TO ALL THIS: There is an expressed great hope for some technology being the "microscope" of Psychology for good/closer/better and/or NEW observations; there are likely sets of adaptive behavior patternings and associated environmental aspects within quite-possible, if not VERY likely, SETS of situations (with the important "environmental" aspects/circumstances there, BUT the KEY environmental aspects will also be across KEY related/in-some-ways-similar -- and memorable -- circumstances). This is how/where related behavior patterns COULD COME TO BE OBSERVED in situ, AND even seen as they develop : even the subtle behavior patterns, etc., therein, truly-seen and clearly seen and truly and fully discovered _and_ seeing some key adaptive "operations" thereof. AND there is some detailed phenomenology described that allow one to arrive at testable hypotheses and then also indicating how this same basic sort of essential observations shall also naturally PROVIDE the actual ability to test these testable/falsifiable hypotheses.
I am looking for a skilled reader and editor to read/edit my written works AND THEN put them together in a most sensible manner. This person must know the field of Psychology as a whole and must understand possibilities of ontogeny. Also she/he should have a healthy respect and very high regard for KEY foundational observations (always such AS CENTRAL). Know of the Memories (all the sorts, now rather well-researched) as providing for phenomenological EXPERIENCE ITSELF and for connections, as indicated above.
Any one "fitting this bill" AND WILLING, and otherwise ABLE, I would gladly have. Doing such substantial editing/proof-reading/rearranging/publishing is enough for me to see you as a co-author and therefore I would put you as second author on all the book's covers. After publication, you (given details we shall decide upon well ahead of time) shall have a good and fair portion of any money reaped.
There is NO 'proximate' without absolute discovery.
Not a question for me (I've answered it with full, real, strict empiricism -- observational "anchors" ALWAYS, clear and INVOLVED -- for/in EVERY CONCEPT, ETC.). It is also not a discussion for me but, rather, for literally/practically EVERYONE ELSE (see previous sentence). You may well be only 900 pages away from knowing the what and the how. (At the same time, I will show you the best (and most real) PARSIMONY; it may be VERY hard for you -- it is hard to "escape" and grow up.)
Identifying a pattern simply and clearly DOES NOT GIVE SOMETHING CAUSAL STATUS (e.g. simple learning patterns -- yeh, they are THERE but in any specific important circumstance/situation do not DESCRIBE the real GROUND of WHAT IS (AND HAS) GONE ON -- they are simply NOT the full crux of anything (not the only thing involved in any crucial juncture); <-- Not, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, ANY THING LIKE A PROXIMATE CAUSE. hopeless, hopeless, hopeless If the simple "learning" explanations had been good, they would have "stuck" 40 years ago (e.g. with Charles Brainerd)) .
Over-generalization because of academia's permanent inability to connect with Reality (at any crucial point, WHICH WILL BE THROUGH DIRECT OBSERVATIONS). "It" maybe "is and ever shall be", but it is just crap (thinking doing too much of "the job" in some sick, but real, sense). [ P.S. I, too, see learning (NOT one type of thing) as always involved. ]
Here is the main guidance you need to start (the OTHER guidance noted is also necessary for specifics, for specific testable (verifiable/falsifible) HYPOTHESES): 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 (basically a BOOK) 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", above (which you already have been directed to), the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 page BOOK: these are addenda: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf (you CAN find the pdf at this last link, though it may take a little careful looking). And, similarly, see the other 2 addenda .
If humans are so "complex", is it always harder to understand human behavior [patterns] than to understand similarly functioning patterns in other animals? NO !!
Of course not: we see as other humans see and, to some notable extent, what they see; we hear what they can hear; we smell what they can smell; we understand the types of things they are trying to understand and master; and we understand (roughly) what they are trying to accomplish at each stage of life ('stage' both in the strict sense, of the ontogeny that is child development, and otherwise). WITH RESPECT TO NO OTHER ANIMAL DO WE HAVE THESE COMMONALITIES TO USE AS PART OF OUR UNDERSTANDING.
Then, how is it that all this does not help us; I , for one, am not willing to believe that we are yet otherwise extremely complex to any point of not being able to come to understand humans (ourselves). [( In most cases, claims of complexity can be regarded as simply indications of confusion* (and ignorance) -- and not necessarily anything more. And, the confusions are often not necessary at all, even in the first place.)]
FOOTNOTE: Try the proposed word substitution ("confused/confusion" for "complex/complexity") and see.
Let me explain:
It is as if bad philosophy has put a "spell" (actually: blocks and limitations, over-generalizations and other wrongful mental behavior patterns, aka "thought") on us that incapacitate our moving forward, thinking along/upon more constructive lines such as (in small part) indicated above [(but much more clearly indicated, and then outlined, in other parts of my writings)]. We very much too often ask "what have the philosophers thought?" when, frankly, that hardly matters at all (they may have had some point sometimes at some junctures but, with their same body of philosophy, they commonly very much over-"define" (notably wrongly and falsely), and then overgeneralize their 'position' to make unsubstantiated CLAIMS -- yet these thought-out armchair claims are accepted!! BIG EXAMPLES OF THEIR WRONGFULNESS COME UP in statements beginning "ONLY Man can ... ". And this is in addition to THEM saying in other ways (which I am now characterizing in vague outline and obviously paraphrasing): only some 'this' or 'that' [way] will work or only some 'this' or 'that' can be the "way it is", as they "determined". They analyze any single words they choose (e.g. how we can supposedly "understand" our "will" or understand certain particular other things) as if any of these are well established concepts, when they are not; THEY then "define" other things and move on from there, both of these wrongful ways [further] making a fundamental breach with empiricism and then necessarily also with science (AND all this CAUSES CONFUSION (and it should be clear it is based on ignorance)).
Those large aspects of many, many of the philosophies are not only incongruent with science, but lead to unnecessary confusions (on larger "related" topics, like "consciousness" -- something they go on to develop ideas about, based on their initial "definitions", all that yielding the "complex" "understanding" and then also "finding" that which "cannot be understood" (e.g. the " 'hard problem' of "consciousness" " -- [a problem I see as nonexistent from another standpoint]) .
Quick answer : NO (and why on Earth would you expect we are? (or that we on ourselves, by ourselves, naturally would be? <-- sounds like old-time junk philosophy to me). And this will remain the case without good directed science -- and , as yet, some of the very most-central studies are not only yet to be done, but yet to be envisioned or accepted by our near-medieval present Psychology. ( [Some of] All that is modern can VERY WELL NOT be congruent with all-else that is modern.)
[ ( Title of this post intentionally made to mirror de Waal's book title: Are we Smart enough to know How Smart Animals Are? ) ]
See a good portion of my writings (all available on RG) for more.
The purpose is to register as accurately as possible cognitive and non-cognitive learning and development, namely through child led activities or through planned activities.
Basic Psychology Research Preparation: Isn't the time/space(place) to look for specifics __when one knows the time/space they are in? It is proper contextualization (with a correct process and order of exploration/DISCOVERY) that gives one the proper contexts. OTHERWISE: Disparate elements very well may not "put themselves together" (nor will they clearly or decisively indicate their own important fuller context(s) , and guessing will likely not work ; all this is very clear to me; I hope it is clear for you). Think about it; do you really only want to be finding "pieces of the elephant"?? (It surely is incorrect to not have fully considered the possibilities (actually, probabilities), just indicated: in fact, without proper contextualization what you do either verges on superstition, OR IS, superstition (NO MATTER HOW CAREFULLY and seemingly "systematically" YOU DO THINGS (it's just too much mechanically, after your presumptions)). YET SUCH superstitions is what your presumptions and poorly-founded/poorly-grounded "assumptions" and general perspectives now give you -- and that is not a good base from which to operate, unless you work for Descartes and cannot make a living without working for him and would starve if you didn't -- but then science would not be the cause, would it?).)
As I have said before, right now (at this time; at present), you certainly, in no agreeable or reliable or valid way, recognize behavior PATTERNS (and this is easy to see: because you think "divinely" in terms of "behaviors"[/"stimuli"] and the word 'PATTERN' either does not appear (which is by far the usual case) or that word does not have the needed meaning, agreeability or certainty of definitions) -- which IS NOT OK.
My work (as was Piaget's hope) provides a likely major outer "container" (context) -- and YET this 'broad-strokes' "thing", my theory, perspective, and approach, connects with you (in/at the kind of place YOU DO YOUR STUDIES, the "lab") and does so with concrete well-defined, specific testable hypotheses (with all terms strictly empirically grounded, AS IN ALL REAL SCIENCE).
You need to be able to face this; if still need be: challenge yourselves if you need to "see" this. For the organism, in reality: the actually used/meaningful/full involved "environment" IS NOT RIGHT BEFORE YOU (i.e. "before your eyes", as you just happen to look); AND what you DO look at is NOT READY TO BE EXPLORED successfully based merely and crudely on INTUITION and/or a priori models to supposedly find clear connections and systems (somehow fitting the your a priori models).
At this point I will wait for a sign that you can "handle" it. I have provided sufficient guidance to the 1000 pages of essays, doing all can. You may put questions here (under this Discussion), and IFF I feel there some clear indication that you have tried as you should and as you might, I might try (or try again) to provide guidance. BUT, at the very least: FINISH EVERYTHING FIRST. Lastly, for now: the key essential HINTS:
(1) DEFINE NOTHING FOR YOURSELF and LET NO ONE ELSE/ NOTHING ELSE DEFINE ANYTHING FOR YOU (with the "exception", noted next). In short, INSTEAD, COMPLETELY:
Count on the SUBJECT MATTER (JUST count ON all observations OR QUITE POSSIBLE OBSERVATIONS) for ALL PERSPECTIVE, ETC. AND FOR any further perspective or understandings needed, at this point, and for _____ALL____ fundamental understandings -- including FOR THE DEFINITIONS OF EVERYTHING: terms, perspective, concept-terms or ANY hint of a "model".
(2) Be VERY OPEN MINDED: JUST look to observations AND possible observations to "see" (you can only imagine that there will be patterns therein -- and I indicate the most likely). And count on NOTHING ELSE (anything and everything else you need should follow from that). ACCEPT EVERYTHING POSSIBLE AND/OR INDEED-POSSIBLE FROM THAT REALM, aka from Reality (sequential .phenomenology).
The Method noted under my Profile (and under Research) will not hurt and may help.
Why is there a bias against inductive reasoning and in favor of deductive reasoning in the social sciences?
First, to establish there IS a bias:
It is OFTEN said (really as if it were a defining [damning] condition) that : induction or inductive inference is "made under conditions of uncertainly". Then, in describing deductive reasoning/inference there is typically NO SUCH mention of uncertainty. What? Just because one (or one and her associates) comes up with a hypothetico-deductive system of thought _THAT_ SOMEHOW REMOVES UNCERTAINTY??? This is NONSENSE -- YET this [at least] is a very real AND DESTRUCTIVE "Western" bias: that when you develop some system to think with/in from WHATEVER actual data, then you, simply because you are now thinking in/with that internally consistent system, you will develop clear hypotheses _AND_ (as the bias goes) THESE WILL LIKELY BE TRUE (as shown via their "testing" -- and, no matter what standard of "testing" you have com up with). (Descartes would have loved this.)
Now look at some of the TRUTH that shows this is VERY, VERY likely an VERY unwarranted bias and it is quite conceivable that the opposite is true: Decent Induction shows more clarity, reliability, predictably, and inter-observer agreements THAN almost all deductive systems.
If in certain circumstances/situations a behavior PATTERN(s) which can be specified and has a directly observable basis, then induction can show GREAT inter-observer agreements _and_ this is sure-as-hell just as strong (actually, likely stronger) a result (reliable, agreeable result/finding (discovery)) than most any p<.05 results found when testing hypotheses that come out of a hypothetico-deductive system . All you jackasses that cannot think that way should establish a re-education camp FOR YOURSELVES or have nothing to do with science (other [real] scientists rightfully shun and ignore psychologists at any conference on science, for scientists in general: They sense OR know what I am saying.)
Yet, indeed, this very ridiculous bias leads people to come up with models where ALL concepts are NOT clearly rooted/beginning in directly observable overt behavior [PATTERNS] (I have even read one group of researchers, who wrote a paper on the difficulties of understanding ABSTRACT CONCEPTS, trying to "define" abstract concepts (and thinking) saying: "I think we should develop a thorough MODEL FIRST" (meaning: NOT after findings/data, but develop the model FIRST and, only then, look for the "behaviors". This is empirically unacceptable to an extreme. I believe such thinking would make Galileo throw up.) I have argued that a model cannot be good, unless ALL concepts ARE rooted/founded/based/stemming from directly observable overt behavior (again actually: behavior PATTERNS). The fact that so very, very little research is discussed, during the conception of a MODEL (OR afterward), in terms of behavior PATTERNS indicates an absolutely fatal problem (fatal to any hope for a science of Psychology). Still, today, Psychology is Medieval.
This "Western" society is presently (STILL) so sick (crazy -- like Descartes would likely be considered today) TO HAVE ANY POSSIBILITY TO HAVE A SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY.. "Mere" BUT ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL OBSERVATIONS (and some associated discoveries) ARE NOT SOUGHT. (I believe if Galileo were here, he would say we have not yet made a decent start for a science of Psychology.)
What is true is that we will never, without proper bases and procedures, EVER understand important behavior patterns (and what aspects of circumstance(s) are related to them) EVER . (I shall not elaborate here, since so many want short answers (and ones damned close to those they have heard/"learned")).
Like other parts of my perspective and prescribed approach, this view is UNASSAILABLE !
Let my other thousand, or so, essays reinforce and trumpet what I have said here (they are all consistent with all my points and with each other, and these essays are here on RG).
P.S. Behavior patterns PER SE are an aspect of Biology, and very likely recognition and discovery of behavior patterns can ITSELF (alone) provide a full science. If you think of "Biology" always as something else then recall the re-education I have suggested.
The nature and bases of abstract thought and processing can't continue to be unknown or confusing; we must relate each inception to key directly observable overt behavior patterns (and corresponding environmental aspects, or rather: often aspects of multiple circumstances). These are the EASIEST and yet , I believe, some of the BIGGEST "PROBLEMS" we yet have to solve (STILL, to-date) : SUCH very CENTRAL SETS OF DISCOVERIES THAT MUST BE MADE and they have not yet been well-attempted; there is NO reason such searching for the key observations, looking to establish key discoveries, cannot be attempted, especially now, with modern technologies (eye tracking , etc.); there are ways to solve this sort of problem which we have had historically and in philosophy and within the limits of our "labs" (at least given conceptualizations thereof) -- all these negative views, placing artificial limits on theorists'/researchers' imaginations. **
These are central problems for Psychology in general and for General Artificial Intelligence.
I have proposed, as something central to discovering such "starts" for each level/stage: doing better for ourselves, with recognizing/developing a better or more open and true conceptual structure, for self-understanding, basically: trying/having a much better imagination about imagination _AND_ seeing our Subjects, themselves similarly, having the Memories (imaginations) with the needed spans and scopes, across and between sets of circumstances -- all in a real empirical concrete phenomenological way (and clearly a possible way). (Again, this is for ourselves, for really recognizing all the capacities of the human and the Subject; this would be coming to see that our imaginations (the Memories) can very well "time travel" back and forth through represented circumstances (in the "mind's eye") TO see aspects that only in those multiple contexts (which may superficially seem to be quite different) are VERY meaningful -- where only there (altogether considered-together) -- ARE MEANINGFULNESS-es resulting in abstract understandings, and abstract terms and processes (<-- thinking in/about such multiple circumstances and in those terms).
[ Any notion that ANY concept does not have an important basis in concrete circumstances OR (similarly) the unfounded, self-limiting notion that some abstractions (abstract terms) are not related to ANY specific sets of real features of situations or circumstances IS FALSE AND DEBILITATING. Even the strangest of our abstractions MUST be founded/grounded/or starting-IN directly observable overt behavior patterned responses (circumstances, properly considered). The old-fashioned arrogant, yet very limiting, way of thinking of many historical philosophers MUST BE ABOLISHED. The old-time thought is neither empirically or biologically sound.
** FOOTNOTE: [(Also, by the way, it is even quite conceivable that some discoveries of some key situational circumstances (even if, also, related to more) and related to key pivot points for/of some behavior patterning shifts and the new beginning understandings of "things" of/in KEY circumstances may even be possible to make in the lab [settings].) ]
Wouldn't experimental psychology (the "lab" setting) have a necessary bias AGAINST the existence and availability of some SKILLS & against any thinking of (across/about) multiple circumstances?
I contend: There are some skills developed (or discriminated) across circumstances or between circumstances, that develop over more time and/or more circumstances (usually both), than can be detected or manipulated in the "lab" (using presently used procedures, at least) . AND, there may well be thinking of concepts FORMED (naturalistically) ABOUT existing or not existing "things" AND/OR (also) relationships (relatedness (or NOT)) which involve mentally comparing [representations] between situations/circumstances that are very important in REAL, ACTUAL conceptualizations and thinking (in real "internal" phenomenology -- though based on ACTUAL EXTERNAL SITUATIONS/CIRCUMSTANCES that could be seen if OBSERVATIONS were more realistic __and__ [(relatedly)] imagination about imagination was more reasonably thorough). WE CANNOT SEE THIS (presently); we may NOT MANIPULATE THIS action by the organism IN THE LAB.
There is no doubt we (including AT LEAST even older children) must, can, and do these things BUT WE CANNOT DETECT (measure)(yet, at present) any KEY behavior patterns related to such activities AND we cannot, and will not be able to, fundamentally manipulate such activities.
It is quite possible (if not likely): MOST HUMAN THOUGHT, realistically OR naturalistically considered, IS THEREFORE IS NOT THUS CONSIDERED (at all, or at all realistically) IN THE "LAB". (Thus, the existence of the homuculus (or humuculi) of executive control and all the "meta" this-es or "meta" thats -- NEITHER strange type of concept NECESSARY IN ETHOGRAM THEORY.)
This IS NOT A LIMITATION OF SCIENCE or OBSERVATION, but a limitation of the lab and of typical experimental psychology.
Based on testable particular hypotheses from Ethogram Theory:
I should add that [still], based on the nature of the Memories, at least THE INCEPTION of each new qualitatively different level/stage of cognition would occur at some KEY times and "places" "locally" in circumstances, i.e. could be seen within the time/space frame of the lab: AS DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS -- and these discoveries, by using new sophisticated eye tracking (and, perhaps, computer-assisted analysis) technologies (<-- these basically being our "microscope"). BUT, you would have to know what to look for in what sort of settings _AND_ (at the same time) be able to recognize the KEY junctures in ontogeny and the development of learnings that THESE shifts (starting as very basic and essential "perceptual shifts"; then becoming perceptual/attentional shifts) WOULD OCCUR.
If Psychology continues (even thoughtlessly) with its baseless, unproven, and (actually) UNLIKELY-true (i.e. likely false) core assumptions, won't just a lot of very poor research be done and none good ? Here is something so you can just see the "tip of the iceberg":
Psychology theorists/researchers do not find behavior patterns of a biological nature (showing biological patterning); even more telling is that the VERY RARELY even use the phrase "behavior PATTERNS" -- which absolutely MUST be the way it is. THIS ALONE MAKES THE CASE OF THE CLOSED-OFF AND ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND HOW IT IS NOT A SCIENCE.
[( By the way : If you want to see what a real paradigm shift looks like -- THE paradigm shift -- then see the papers and writings on Ethogram Theory (under my Profile). (Beyond Kuhn.))]
[(As Psychology continues its extreme negligence, I can provide equally extreme well-founded criticism (and put it all down in writing, with all the reasoning and justification -- much better assumptions and arguments than they can mount). I guess its a "standoff": but its me vs [who-knows-who, the heck, or their numbers] -- they certainly might be characterized as cowards, at least in "these parts" (MT).)]
For one reason, and maybe a more direct one, it has to do with issues of the nature of visual working memory and visual long-term memory (very important, general issues). For a great Article on this, see:
Now, in order to use my writing to best effect, let me basically quote a letter to the author (quoting myself):
First, the letter's Title: " [From where] do some top-level discriminations (familiar/recollection) [come]"; now continuing:
"Dear Professor Mark W. Schurgin
I am a "top down" guy (the most top-down there is) and a complete empiricist and guy that defines Psychology (or at least his Psychology) in terms of behavior patterning and environmental/circumstances aspects ONLY -- i.e. these environmental.../behavior patterns aspects IS ALL . I am a neo-Piagetian and believe that, with new technologies (e.g. eye-tracking and ancillary machine processing), we can literally discover the concrete bases (i.e. directly observable overt behavior patterns in situ), AT LEAST at the inception of each KEY new set of significant behavior patterns related to major cognition and major cognitive processes developments. I believe thus we can actually identify the bases of qualitative shifts in levels/stages [(i.e completing Piaget's theory (basically, his Equilibration TYPE 2 -- the "balance" between stages) by finding the primary bases of stage/levels qualitative changes -- and all most empirically: in the end, I provide PIVOTAL concrete testable (verifiable/falsifiable) specific hypotheses TO PROVIDE THE real FOUNDATION of THIS NEW THEORY)]. To put it in other words, the Ethogram Theory tells and shows a way to find the concrete grounding (foundations) of abstraction and abstract thought itself -- these major cognition and cognitive processing phenomenon.
This, indeed, would be one "place" (quite literally) where some major bases of familiarity and recollection BEGIN. To come to an understanding of my view/approach, a rather substantial amount of reading is involved and necessary ( a LOT of it with respect to its foundational differences with some modern baseless assumptions (replaced in EThogram Theory) and to, correspondingly, contrast it with modern approaches to research; the rest of the writing is to as clearly as possible contextualize where/how these KEY changes occur IN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS ... (the nature of and development of the Memories are also always involved) AND I OUTLINE THE NEAR-SPECIFIC NATURE OF TESTABLE HYPOTHESES (which finally comes up in my writings, where I most-clearly "channel" biology). 800 pages: Two hundred of the pages come from the original 1985 treatise AND from two other major old papers AND, then, the other 600 pages are recent essays written in the last 2-3 years (necessary to put the Theory in context, as indicated, and then to get to rather specific hypotheses).
Anyway, here is how to get to my writings: [(someone's reading, understanding, and "belief in" this system may be essential for real progress in Psychology, and it finally becoming a true science (as empirical as any); it is "at your feet" and just a several select others, I place this Theory and all the related writings for a chance of beginning the seeking of much more clarity and of major advances in Psychology; THAT IS IMPORTANT)] :
See, AND READ:
(see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates)
Sincerely, with great respect, Brad Jesness
P.S. The main reason for this P.S. is to direct you to the final 100 pages of recent essays (not among the 512 pages you already have been directed to); these are very worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf "
(end quoted of myself)
Do you now understand some major reasons WHY Psychology should CARE about Ethogram Theory?
A PARADIGM SHIFT in Psychology: A well-founded, well-justified perspective and approach & an approach with the BEST POSSIBLE concrete grounding is NECESSARY FOR AI (artificial intelligence) and especially AGI (artificial general intelligence). WHY?? They must have everything in good empirical terms (empiricism always in the best possible way -- ALL having clear referents AT LEAST observations clearly related to KEY directly observable overt behavior PATTERNS) _AND_ the concrete referents of the the concepts and of the total conceptual structure of the entire theory (perspective and approach) MUST BE TRULY EXPLICIT. BECAUSE ONLY THIS IS WHAT WILL BE PROGRAMMABLE ("mechanized", to use an old term).
Psychology does not even need to try to understand any such proposed well-founded behavioral science paradigm shift BUT RATHER -- on the bases of unproven assumptions and the poor history of psychology, all providing extreme biases, as well as likely falsehoods AND with much of that CERTAINLY BUILT ON mere MYTHS -- they will continue to bumble along, doing what they already do. They can easily continue to ignore possible/likely improvements and even as all the related concepts and the structures are all consistent with each other AND with central facts and with the DEFINING OF a coherent paradigm shift. Psychologists cannot even "move their minds" enough to understand ANYTHING about such major shifts -- they cannot understand even one "piece" (ONE concept) as it is in the new system . Psychologists can happily continue to simply-believe any perspective/approach that they believe they have found useful, and which they believe will continue to be useful, even as it "progresses" in ways that it does. BUT: None of this is related to better empiricism; PERHAPS they are providing better (and more) statistical findings that are good for an insurance actuary (and the like), BUT NEVER PROVIDING FOR A CONTINUOUSLY PROGRESSING SCIENCE..
AI People (and esp. AGI People), see:
With so many permutations of so many diverse "things": the only way to provide a general alternative better view AND APPROACH will be WITH a full-fledged paradigm shift:
What is offered must have a host of better characteristics and better ways, all related clearly to a better empiricism. [ SPECIFICALLY: I am speaking of/for PSYCHOLOGY -- the number of characters allowed in a title didn't allow for the inclusion of that full phrase (though the same type of thing may at times be required by other sciences) .]
A full-fledged PARADIGM CHANGE: Better assumptions; stricter & very established/agreeable and actual empiricism, well-defined, with a definition true for ALL sciences; better KEY BEHAVIORAL foundations/clear grounding (in terms of: behavior patterns) for all cognitive processes; clear NEW observations sought (i.e. major discoveries sought) VIA NEW observation methods; & with clear better-empirical verifiable/falsifiable HYPOTHESES . This is what I seek to offer with :
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY (see its major References and the Project Log (Updates) for this Project; the major References, hundreds of pages long, will provide you with a perspective and approach -- a "how-to" FOR all of that. Given its better empiricism, a concrete basis is also provided for General Artificial Intelligence -- all that is found and seen can be "mechanized", is programmable.)
[ This all is VERY serious "business"; it really is an all-or-nothing proposition. If you see major problems with large portions of Psychology throughout its history, you better "go with" what I present; otherwise the long-standing situation WILL remain the same; I think you may well be able to imagine how and why that could be true (all the various myths of how things [otherwise] could/will come together NOT WITHSTANDING -- these are true myths, not based on any empiricism). ]
I'll start by repeating the title, above: What psychologists have not yet realized is that eye-tracking technology, etc. ALLOWS FOR AN _OVERALL_ MORE EMPIRICAL APPROACH !!
The new technologies are not just a tool for the "empiricism" they already do!
I have described and formalized into concrete, now-testable hypotheses that which would establish the most empirical grounding for "abstract" concepts. More empirically grounded and founded than anything heretofore, without a doubt -- and the view/approach is biologically LIKELY and this approach to research (on some new CONTENT it is good for) has not yet been tried. It involves "believing" nothing (actually believing MUCH less "on faith"); it really involves simply more empiricism, more direct observation [ specifically: discovering the DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT behavioral foundations for the qualitatively different levels/stages of cognitive development -- and HOW __LEARNING__ ITSELF (presently often ill-defined) CHANGES WITH THIS NEWLY OBSERVABLE PHENOMENON, and the consequences, ALSO ].
I have tried to clearly outline (including ending with most-empirical and testable hypotheses): the inception of abstract concepts with "perceptual shifts" (and thus providing them a concrete in-the-world foundation). Again, the theory has to do with "perceptual shifts", NOW -- presently (at this point in history) -- able to be SEEN with new technologies: SEEING what subtle overt behaviors likely occur at the inception of each higher level of thinking during ontogeny. The outlook and approach is a cognitive-developmental theory -- i.e. of human child development -- and for finding of more major parts of who we all are).
You might well want to take a look:
The perspective and approach especially and specifically has to do with: perception and quickly/soon after that: attentional and gazing changes which likely occur at the inception of new qualitative cognitive developments (with ontogeny) (and literally, sensibly, set them off).
The following theory, with its most-empirical and testable hypotheses, indicates (clearly, with as good and totally empirical "guesses" as are now possible) the nature of these perceptual/attentional shifts accompanying (actually: "starting off") major qualitative changes in cognition:
Here it is : Minimally, read both of the major writings: Not only
BUT ALSO the much, much more recent:
(these much later, recent essays filling in some of the aspects of the treatise not originally provided, as stated directly in "A Human Ethogram ... " itself).
This theory does a LOT else correctly (unlike other theories) in abiding by necessarily applicable principles and seriously trying to have a perspective and approach which has ALL the features and dimensions a science theory should have . It is parsimonious. It uses the well-developed vocabulary of CLASSIC ethology (not the bastardized 'ethology' of today).
Psychologists may ignore this, but that would be just ignoring a most-empirical way of study (and ignoring some of the most-empirical, most-testable hypotheses). In short, it is scientifically WRONGFUL for psychologists to ignore this.
P.S. ALSO: Because all of this is so much more concrete, this theory of development and changes in learning should be THE theory of most interest to those trying general artificial intelligence.
I am thinking of Psychology researchers and theorists. Is it their duty to science to investigate the possibilities of important new tools and possible discoveries that involve empiricism at its best: attempting direct observation of possible/likely important overt behaviors, heretofore not seen?
For example, IN PARTICULAR:
Yep. RG is equating science with experiments. There may be those who like this, but experimentation is NOT THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (and I would argue that experimentation is THE LEAST OF IT -- especially if one is developing a new perspective and approach). RG appears to have no appreciation for "just" verified observations -- even though that may be exactly what really new discovery looks like . Those observations may, in time (but not right away), be followed by experimentation. Verified observations by themselves may be very important and all we have for some time (in some new areas/kinds of investigation).
The outrageous bias of RG is so great that they now hide the Project Updates (of the Log) with multiple queries about one's experiments and hypotheses -- as if all good, clear hypotheses could be put "in a nut shell" (in a small "blank", with little context) AND that experiments are all that matter (or at least all that deserves several special headings). How about a heading for: "Verified Observations"?
I would ask: What experiments did Einstein do to lead and come up with his understanding of the universe? Did he start with experiments? NO!! He started with observation and MATH (which is basically verified observation). True, eventually some experiments were done to VERIFY HIS IMPORTANT OBSERVATIONS -- but all this did NOT begin with experiments..
And, all of this is not to mention major swathes of Biology. Come on, give us a break.
1 IV and 3 DV's.
Likert scales used yielding scores of 1-5 on Behavioural Observational Scales (BOS). n=99 with each individual being scored on all 3 DV's. Total BOS=297. 99 BOS scored for each DV.
Do not need to see any relationships between the DV'S.
Need to see if the IV creates an increase in score in any or all of the DV.
The research has:
1 IV and 3 DV's. Likert scales used yielding scores of 1-5 on Behavioural Observational Scales (BOS). n=99 with each individual being scored on all 3 DV's. Total BOS=297. 99 BOS scored for each DV. Do not need to see any relationships between the DV'S. Need to see if the IV creates an increase in score in any or all of the DV's.
Hello everyone.. I hope someone here might be able to help. I'm developing a performance management system for the manufacturing organization that I work for, and part of the process requires the raters to take part in a Behavioral Observation Training. I'm having a difficult time finding the content typically included in the curriculum of BOT, and all of my searching ends in education-based application. In order for the BARS to be effective and perceived fair, it's crucial that the raters learn to overcome common observational errors associated with this process. While I'm interested in designing my own training based on available information, I'd be willing to entertain alternative ideas. Any direction or support would be welcomed; thanks in advance!
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 :
A new Yahoo Group: "A Human Ethogram": https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/humanethogram/info
Towards A Human Ethogram:
This group is about approaches that are 100% empirically-based & these approaches must deal with the individual human,& only that, as its subject matter. It is to be (eventually) a way to outline ALL the major innately-guided behavioral developments that result in an adult human (this should include revealing significant innate guidance with the development of all significant human behavior patterns); it is thought that this must be a developmental approach (tracking ontogeny). For clear practical reasons & reasons related to the centrality of some systems of behavior, a proposed approach may begin with the study of the development of just a major pervasive subset of behavior patterns -- any major related system(s) of behavior. The approaches to an ethogram presented may well not cover ALL an ethogram is supposed to cover, but should make clear how to study major aspects of a human behavioral system(s) & its development. One example of such an approach could be a cognitive-developmental approach. Again, ALL must be clearly empirically founded or grounded in all respects, AND with clear testable hypotheses. All descriptions of behavior and concepts MUST have a clear relationship to some directly observable behavior patterns & the corresponding environmental aspects -- with some directly observable proximate causes in BOTH for (involved in yielding) behavioral change.
Full plans for ESTABLISHING a new human science, not limited to very short inadequate unclear unreliable peer-reviewed studies
Keywords: ethology,human ethology,classical ethology,human development,child development,ontogeny,observational research,developmental psychology,theory,human development theory,personality theory,innate action patterns,fixed action patterns,developmental stages,learning,adaptation,behavior patterns,proximate causes,cognition,cognitive development,emotions,emotional development,behavior patterns,environmental factors,behavior change
This might be a good way to find out who else is seeking this kind of thing, instead of spending all my efforts letting people know about my part in establishing a significant PORTION of a human ethogram. I don't know if there are a lot of other ideas, but surely there may be some and maybe I should stop acting like I think there are no others. I do think my proposal for a cognitive-developmental portion of an ethogram is good and should be considered (read and studied closely); but other people might be doing similar things with respect to other behavioral system OR may have good input for me.
I am looking for suggestions for a system for observing maternal behavior in rats within their home cage. Ideally, this would involve relatively inexpensive webcams (or something similar) that could be attached to the top and/or side of cage to record behaviors. I am looking for a product that can record either continuously and store files on a disc or cloud (so we can go back and sample the time(s) we are interested in) or one where you can set up the time(s) and it will auto record (even one where we could log in remotely and start/stop recording). We want to be as non-influential as possible to their behaviors so being offsite is key!
Are there any products and/or systems you would recommend? We're trying to keep this on a budget, but need a way to get videos in the most efficient way without colony disruption (something like a security cam?).
Thanks in advance for your help/suggestions!
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.
[ To summarize several of the basic problems with the 'moderation' of this Yahoo Group: The moderator believes it has been determined that a human ethogram cannot be done (is not possible). (And, he cites the view of a 1989 committee, as great support for this (HIS) position.) NOR, in his firm (set) view is an ethogram needed for coming to ANY OR ALL the understandings we need. (And, IF an ethogram were to be done, he insists it address all significant human behaviors at once "BY DEFINITION", as you will read about again in coming paragraphs -- ignoring very cogent and rather indisputable arguments to the contrary.)
He also insists on strict dualisms BETWEEN classes of major behaviors that DO involve or require innate patterning (and this, in his view, is mainly motor behaviors, motor behavior patterns) AND OTHER very significant behavior patterns/ behavioral systems that he says DON'T -- all this when all reasonable biological scientists would say some significant innate guidance is involved in the development of ALL major systems of adaptation.
PLUS, this moderator insists on NOT discussing what (in his view) need no more be discussed (INCLUDING AN ETHOGRAM), and insists that issues regarding an ethogram (both its definition and how it would have to be done) have already been resolved and warrant no further discussion. He quickly enforces, i.e. CENSORS, expression of views contrary to these. Plus, moreover, his view of what 'THOUGHT' is and what can be considered 'BEHAVIOR' is basically extreme Skinnerian AND he is absolutely insistent on his views here ALSO. Finally: He seems to respect nothing other than the short writings found in peer-reviewed journals -- only such authorities can present all worthy arguments and conclusions about all matters of argument. On all these latter matters he not only insists over and over but, AGAIN, HE WILL CENSOR. ]
What follows may offer more detail about what this 'moderator' accepts and what he doesn't (and what he does not accept is soon CENSORED AND NOT POSTED TO THE HUMAN ETHOLOGY YAHOO GROUP OR MAILING-LIST). :
Basically, he demands that anything that is to be considered an ethogram address ALL the species-typical behaviors of an organism (here the human) ALL AT ONCE, because that is the definition of an ethogram. He would not publish my rebuttal, which says one must start with the discovery of the development of a central ("containing") behavior system (cognitive development) FIRST, to get that major pervasive system understood first, before adding in basically associated or subsidiary systems (like emotions and language). Here is the "moderator's" assessment (NOT based on well-founded assumptions of any sort OR on fact): Quoting:
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
(writing to me, and NOT publishing my view. And, see my rebuttal to his rejection of my view (also NOT allowed on the 'list' by him) . ) -- and my exception to the rejection of THAT, below) [ ( Fortunately, my view/perspective expressed is at length here on RG (and elsewhere) ] :
(His objection is just the standard, memorized meaningless junk.): (now quoting Feierman) :
"The cognitive-development behavioral system as it unfolds and develops in ontogeny is important. However, it is not an ethogram, which has a very specific meaning. An ethogram is a catalog of all of the fixed action patterns of a species organized into functional groups. Most but not all of the fixed action patterns are going to be parts of coordinated motor pattern (aka fixed action pattern) instincts. This can be done but it would be very time consuming and difficult, which is why I turned down the offer to do it in the 1980s. Even I. Eibl-Ebesfeldt, who is the father of human ethology, never undertook to do this. ** The reason why it would be so difficult is contrary to all other mammals (with the higher primates partially excepted), humans have many other behaviors that are not fixed action patterns that are innervated by a different part of the nervous system. So for example, a functional category like mother-infant care, can be easily a category in the ethogram of a canine. However, it is not so easy to make an ethogram of mother-infant care for humans. I currently have a collection of Eibl's tribal films of mothers interacting with infants in many different tribal societies. There are behaviors in common but some of the instinctual behaviors are mixed with "voluntary" behaviors that are mediated by another part of the nervous system. It is a lot easier to make an ethogram of the infant's feeding behavior than the mothers' infant care behaviors. "
(end of my quote of him) (This quotation has MANY MANY VERY QUESTIONABLE, but typical, assertions: example: most behaviors with innate action patterns are motor systems; the others are just too variable to involve innate guidance; and, note the complete dualism between innate action patterns and "many other behaviors" -- defying biology, and THUS DEFYING SCIENCE, ITSELF.)
My response to this was (in large part):
Dear Jay Feierman,
You cannot chose for the definition of something (here an ethogram) SOMETHING THAT CANNOT EXIST -- at least the one you 'define' cannot exist, for some time and after a lot of peoples' efforts [(it is not simply something you can, in any way-of-discovery, just 'define' and begin with)]. Thus, to start an ethogram, and appropriately be working for it to be all we want, WHAT I OFFER IS ALL THAT CAN BE OFFERED (and I explain that -- in 500 publicly available [(and published as much as possible)] pages -- if you would only "do me the honor" of reading); my human ethogram is thereby ALL THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED, AT FIRST, AS _THE_ HUMAN ETHOGRAM. THAT'S A LONG SHOT BETTER THAN WHAT YOU OFFER: hopelessness. And, you should strive to offer something better than what is hopeless.
Apparently, you indeed fail to read me (any of my writing). Even in 1989 I knew and informed I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (my friend and associate) what more was needed in his Human Ethogram book to begin the ethogram that I DID begin. (Did you even bother to read the review, which I posted here??) I can tell you that if you do not "slow down" and really try to "smell the roses", neither of us will learn anything from each other. (AND, I WILL REMAIN not only the first and only author [of the first] [partial] human ethogram, but the only ethologist fully using the terms of, and inductive approach of, classical ethology (or at least the ONLY one doing so with human behavior).
Everything else you say in your response other than what I just addressed, is thus irrelevant (completely). You have to be real. As soon as you think in terms of definitions that simply have been "agreed upon" (perhaps, with a little conjuring on your own), you ARE OFF-TRACK. ALL IS FROM THE _SUBJECT_ ; the Subject defines all . If it starts that way and stays that way, you are building the ethogram (a more complete one) -- that is precisely what I am proposing. You should at least try to empirically describe one before "flushing" mine; you will not be able to do better.
Your response is extremely disappointing and makes outrageous impossible requirements. Your only way to argue against this last statement, IS to directly argue against it: this would involve showing/describing a clearly workable, usable COMPLETELY EMPIRICAL alternative [(like the one you ask for)].
Your definitions are foolish (pardon the word, but it only seems apt). For some good therapy: TRY JUST DESCRIPTION, and of only behavior patterns and environmental aspects _and_ associative/discriminatory learning (and with major developments involving all these things at the very same time) -- involved in ALL major behavioral developments, i.e. ontogeny.
(end of me quoting myself).
Well, if you are in this group (on the mailing list), you will not see me or hear from me any more, because he threw me off for being too "speculative" and seeming like I am describing things that could not be tested. BUT, the truth is, my view is very much less speculative that most of psychology (with its more poorly founded and baseless assumptions; and, with ethology being similar these days). AND though I did not (in this particular post) indicate the more particular nature of hypotheses and how they could/would be discovered true (and tested and verifiable or not), I do describe this in other posts. CLEARLY MY SYSTEM IS IN EMPIRICAL TERMS AND TESTABLE and is less speculative that his write-up of what an ethogram would be like and must be like.
YET: He went on in other responses (I also did not get to rebut) to say my views are untestable (that is FALSE) and just "speculation" (that is FALSE). Again, my view can be considered LESS speculative than the standard view (and more biologically consistent) and I most certainly have clearly and empirically described the phenomenon at the inception of major cognitive developments, as perceptual shifts, and I have indicated how these could clearly be discovered with new eye-tracking technology.
TRUTH IS, IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE PRESUMPTIONS AND 'DEFINITIONS' OF THE EXISTING SYSTEMS (mostly all memorized junk), YOU WILL BE THROWN OUT OF SUCH A GROUP, actually JUST FOR THOSE REASONS ONLY. Not for any empirical or science reasons.
If you would like to ask this "moderator" why he is so off-base, feel free to do so: email@example.com . Maybe if you are on this list you might ask him to better explain why I CAN'T BE ON IT.
** FOOTNOTE: A human ethogram has not been done in over 35 years since it has been deemed impossible; yet my start for a human ethogram, which may be the only way to get one, does not even deserve to be heard, according to another "authority" of the "system".
NOTE: Much of the highlighting and a few explanatory phrases, added in brackets, were added by me.
It is CLEAR why there is a need for a HUMAN ETHOGRAM group. Read about one here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/For_a_new_real_empirical_science_of_human_behavior_clearly_the_biology_of_behavior_lets_move_towards_a_human_ethogram_Might_a_Yahoo_group_help
No one could really expect to outline (then research) ALL the species-typical behavior of the human (or any advanced animals, such as mammals and birds) AT ONCE. WE SIMPLY ARE NOT omniscient (and not capable of ever becoming or being so -- though, in time, perhaps TOGETHER we can approximate this state).
Thus, a good start for a human ethogram IS ITSELF the beginning of the human ethogram. Of course, you must have a correct start: Look for the always-involved capabilities which basically is a "containing system" for all other interesting things -- things less pervasive and less-flexibly-and-openly applied (by themselves) (like emotions and language). Yet it must be essential aspects of real particular human behavior.
I chose (for the first and ONLY human ethogram, in existence): the cognitive-development behavioral system AS IT UNFOLDS AND DEVELOPS in ontogeny; I posit such a study can be done grounding everything (at the root, in very key ways) in behavioral patterns and the environmental aspects involved. BUT, in addition, one must understand the nature of our types of memories , and how awesome amounts of perspective and context can be brought forward with that. YET, at the same time, the INCEPTION of anything (including new ways to represent and conceptualize and eventually think) will themselves have real (overt directly observable) environment aspects required at least at the beginning (inception) [ as well as some clear overt, directly observable behavior PATTERNS, acting at the inception ] -- THIS would be true of any SIGNIFICANT new DEVELOPING behavior patterns (including the inception of 'abstract" thought) : this is simply sensible empiricism, which MUCH BE ASSUMED AND SOMETHING A SCIENTIST SEES as necessarily "worth a try", because there simply is NO alternative for an empiricist.
The likely BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS INVOLVED (along with these environmental aspects, at the inception of significant new behavior PATTERNS) not only could simply be perceptual shifts (see first link below) BUT VERY LIKELY WOULD BE _AND_ now these very things are investigable (verifiable, provable, replicable) using the new eye-tracking technology (likely along with computer-assisted analysis). Now the citations: First what I see as the likely phenomenological nature OF these very perceptual shifts, which occur with each hierarchical and new stage/level of thinking:
[ (please IGNORE the incoherent Answers to this Question by Nathan Latvaitis -- an uneducated person with no publications (and not likely under any sort of good mental control) -- one who believes he can simply take on any topic with his mind, no education or discipline needed) ].
THEN: see the overall position, for the role of these perceptual shifts during child development, by reading the paper (Research Item) "A Human Ethogram ...: :
I want to do an online experiment that observe behaviour change after an intervention. Is there any recommended period of time for observing the change?
I thought of 2 months but it might be too long for participants. is 1 month accepted period of time for observing the change in behaviour change studies? any recommendation is much appreciated.
My experiment plan is to make mice depressive model by CUMS on mice and then mice would subjected to behavior tests (such as a forced swimming test, tail suspension test etc.). Is it needed to do a forced swimming test before the mice modeling, in order to eliminate the mice who have big difference of the test results? Have you done such test and how much is the Elimination Ratio?
I would like to compare my results with the obtained by other researchers for the production of activated carbon by means of phosphoric acid activation using agricultural wastes as precursors. Thank you so much!
For my observation interview I will use a sample of 4 Italian people and 4 English. However, in order to carry on the observation interview I have to provide stimuli. The best option I have is to show a video or some images so that i will be able to provoke some reactions and then analyzing the results. Conditions must be the same for both the Italian and English group. Thank you
I have searched Scholar, Google, and various databases; naturally I came across several nonverbal annotation manuals, yet none focus specifically on natural leader-follower interaction occurring in real-life organizational settings (e.g. supervisor-led staff meetings, day-to-day work floor interactions).
I am asking the ResearchGate community in the hope that someone could point me in the right direction!
I want to compare Student confidence observed during intervention(5 days) between control and treatment groups. This variable was recorded during 5 days of the intervention. Which test should I employ to analyse student confidence during day1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and compare it with control group?
participants are measured here multiple times to see changes to an intervention. for this purpose, I ran Friedman and Wilcoxon signed tests. But if I want to compare two groups which non-parametric test should I run?
I have the task of determining time/activity budget of abalone.
I will be looking at the duration of time spent on specific behaviours, termed states in Altmann 1974, which I will convert to proportions to give a 24 hour time/activity budget.
I will utilise focus abalone which will be observed for exactly 15 minutes each. There is no possibility of loosing sight of the abalone so the observation time will be fixed for each replicate.
As in the main question, my problem lies in whether to include the first and last behaviours if they started and ended out of the 15 minute observation period.
Scenario 1: At the start of the 15 minute observation the abalone was grazing and stopped grazing 2 minutes into the observation time after which it started a new behaviour.
Scenario 2: As with scenario 1 but at the end of the observation period so the behaviour started 2 minutes before the end of the 15 minute observation time and continued after I stopped observing.
In both cases the full duration of time spent on that specific behaviour at that time is unknown.
Please could I ask for any advice, contacts or references.
I recently have been doing behavioral testing with Control, Alcohol Treated, and Non-Alcohol Treated Tat positive and Tat negative mice. For the Light/Dark Box results (which I am aware is a clear measure of anxiety), I saw no indications that any of my treatment mice were more anxious than my control mice (i.e. more entries but less time spent in the dark zone). However, in Open Field, I see a decrease in the number of entries into the center zone (and the periphery), as well as decreased distance traveled in both zones (center and periphery) for my treatment mice. Since the concept is that more anxious mice tend to want to stay to the periphery, and this is seen in my Open Field result, is this still okay for concluding that the treatment mice are more anxious than control? Thanks for any and all help!
I'm researching validated coding schemes for videotaped clinician-patient encounters that would take into consideration both verbal and nonverbal communication. Does anyone have feedback on using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS), the Verona Medical Interview Classification System (VR-CoDES), the Measuring Patient-Centered Communication scale (MPCC), or other systems?
I have a group of mice that I have tested at different time points before treatment and after treatment and I want to see if their cognitive perfomance becomes better after treamtent across time. Is their anyway that I can transform their performance in every test into a cognitive score and then compare it across time.
Thank you so much.
want to find out which factors affecting litter existence on toll road, Is it okay that my R^2 is so low (below 0,1)?
i already convert from ordinal (likert scale) to interval scale data but it doesn't help much.
anyway, the factors are Personal, Social, Material, and Habitual. It is all based on literature.
Some says that if it is a behavioral studies than its okay to have low R-square as low as that but i'm not really sure about that.
I hope to use other sports to extend the findings. Decety in some seminal work (1993) showed physiological changes during passive exercise- thinking of extending this work to include different intensity sport types perhaps rowing and golf ,(1st person point of view) video, Looking for any studies or info to help with our work… Brown et al (2013) was exercise too (running)… would anybody have any suggestions?
How can we measure the impact of out-of-school intervention among school children?
The aspects covered are - communication skill, leadership, extra-curricular activities, sports, art and culture. They are organized into Children's club in the villages.
Our lab is considering investing in a security camera system that would enable us to remotely observe the behaviors of cichlids (~2-13 cm standard length) in a varying subset of our aquariums. In addition to daytime activities, we're interested in dusk, nighttime, and dawn behaviors, and would prefer far infrared cameras over systems using illumination in the human-visual or near-infrared spectrum. We do not currently have plans to use an automated analysis system, but would nonetheless prefer color images with a high enough resolution for the identification of individual adults, and a high enough frame rate to identify even rapid behaviors. Wireless cameras that could endure a warm, humid environment and perhaps even the occasional splash would be ideal.
Does anyone have experiences in any or all of these challenges? We would be grateful for your input and for any specific hardware and/or software recommendations you might make.
In the development of my methods we adopt the idea that larger systems on macro-level (e.g. teams) emerge from the interaction of individual units on micro-level (e.g. team members). I want to know if there examples in the field of using this type of methods.
Loss aversion theory explains the asymmetrical reaction to positive (bonus) and negative (penalty) financial incentives in terms of behavior change. A person is more likely to change behavior under a penalty than a bonus. I am also interested in what other psychological mechanisms may be at play. Although the policy may be effective at changing behavior, what other (perhaps less obvious) behavioral changes have taken place?
I intend to tag tuna with Pop-Up Satellite Archival Tags (PSAT) in order to reveal migration (horizontal and DVM) patterns in relation to oceanographic structures. The sampling scheme foresees short-term (48 hour) sampling intervals. Accordingly, I am looking for PSATs that can be retrieved (UHF-pinger etc.) and re-used after first time deployment for successive deployments. Does anybody know if there is a manufacturer on the market offering PSATs with these specifications?
And in general: What is your experience with retrieving popped-off tags with UHF pingers?
Current measures of parental reflective function are assessed by means of a long interview. The transcript is then coded with the aim of, among other things, avoiding giving credit for 'canned responses'. I would like to find a way to measure the extent to which answers to questions are being actively processed as opposed to being facile or stereotypical. I have looked at aspects of prosody (such as pauses) in a pilot study. Has anyone got any other ideas about how to measure this kind of active processing?