Direct Observation - Science topic

Are you a full-fledged empiricist and see a totally empirical Psychology?

Maybe if you don't see that you will after reading about 1000 pages of my writings :

Another try to make progress in eliminating ignorance/delusion and arrogance and conceit in behavioral SCIENCE.

For science , for empiricism (and for AI (<-- to enlist, YET eventually dispel, the greed motivator)) : the truly empirical behavioral scientists, those who ARE empirical in studying behavior PATTERNS (SO: just and only all the involved overt behavioral PATTERNS will do, when looked at developmentally, for ALL explanation), must work in a way to come to see that THE MAJOR TYPES OF LEARNING (and these occur during ontogeny) ___ ARE ___ found (discovered, like the naturalist) to BE major kinds/types of INDUCTION (as is true of all other developed organisms). We cannot be that different for it to be otherwise.

As true factual and empirical as classical and operant conditioning (and habituation, etc.) ARE, THESE ARE the extreme trivial details. [ AND, one must realize : "Social leaning" is a farce, for such a vague concept looses the individual organism as the ONLY true empirical unit-of-analysis -- which it IS (MUST be, that's biology, friends). ] MY system of understanding, in my two major papers, OUTLINES what one should find concretely IN OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (and never leave the word "patterns" out ) -- reflecting the major types/kinds of induction.

[ And, though big on induction, the proximate causes are [ attentional / ] perceptual shifts . (I hate to say it, but one can reason-out the necessity of this being the case.) ]

Starting with this attitude and outlook, only then can we find (AS IS NECESSARY for ALL good reasons and science) the was-ness in the is-ness ( i.e.; previous grand well-developed units as THE units, or portions as part-units, USED IN more advanced inductive reasonings). This all (all the above) is absolutely the shortest way of saying what we MUST realize (<-- not "just subjectively" at all) ). AND: one cannot argue an excuse, or THAT ITSELF is THE VERY damning premature hypothetico-deductive "reasoning" , the very essence of arrogance and conceit AND that which necessarily derails science -- that being the necessary consequence of "jumping the gun" on prediction .

Any questions? I am 70 years old, so one will find further true leads / clues (or that which will result in true leads IN my WORK (science essays and the theory outlines)) , I have introduced before in my writings, beginning 40 years ++ ago.

[ FOOTNOTE : the descriptors provided by researchgate ARE GROSSLY INCOMPLETE and INADEQUATE. Just one example : NO "inductive reasoning" ! : this is the premature know-it-all stance that has been, and is, destroying science (AND us). ALSO : no "innate action pattern" !! No : "hypotheses" -- enabling THAT to be a SUBJECT itself ! Come on ! It's sickening -- and NOT the way to make progress, but the way to fail. (One used to be able to add non-existing descriptors, but THAT is gone, obviously WAY TOO SOON.) ]

Since my confidence is growing that many will not figure out what I have done, I will tell you : the 1st FULLY empirical philosophy (& it's science) & a clear guide to a true empirical [real science] Psychology (up to now, from any holistic or integrated and real standpoint, such science has been non-existent). : Go To : http://mynichecomp.com/key_content

In addition to the essays/posts I have in zip files, read my newer posts (not that many) here on Researchgate

Light should be dispersion in the gravitational field:

Therefore, to have a right measurement of the numbers and spectrogram of the celestial objects and to have an accurate measurement of the size and distance of a celestial object, light dispersion in gravitational field need be considered.

For example, as one galaxy with multi-wavelengths was observed as several galaxies with one wavelength, it should result in that the numbers and spectrogram of the galaxy is wrong. Further, it should result in that the conclusion about the origin and the element making up of the galaxy is wrong.

And, the observed size and distance of the galaxy are not accurate.

Therefore, astronomical observation need be reconsidered as Light dispersion in gravitational field is known.

Has it occurred to any of you AI/AGI people, that if my writings are of a science of truly empirical psychology , even if just an outline with just clear or clear-types needed for such ... !!!!!

... If you make that input central whenever it is (would be) relevant, that would be good material for a Generalized Artificial machine.

Also see my Answer (to this same Question) below for more stimulation of insight ! (Click the Question's title to see it and my answer. )

GENERAL DISCUSSION : ALL can keep "playing a game" AS their lives, but that will NOT work; our absolute BEST PROBABLY WILL NOT work (in my view) -- for survival of the species, the ultimate criteria. What does doing our best look like? : https://www.researchgate.net/post/With_Climate_Change_and_all_I_will_tell_you_what_I_think_the_minimum_needed_for_survival_is

[ I am childless. I have absolutely NO PERSONAL REASON TO CARE ABOUT YOU -- I guess it is, in good part, for "sound logic"'s sake -- we can DO with that IFF [ (two "f"s are not a typo) ] we actually DO with THAT. Be an animal, forget any and all religion. (I am, by the way, a Theravada Buddhist -- an atheist, believing IN NO supernatural at all ; we have enough to do with the natural, the actual actual. We very much must be concerned with, as-much(and well)-as-possible, educating ourselF (as much as we can)(all of us, doing this) . BUT, do it in a NO-SELF WAY (to have no clutter) in YOUR [own] way, i.e. to not falsely "connect" to YOU (your own "self") in any way not necessary (or, if you must, (as you may have to) : temporarily) (AND expel any processing where you are BELIEVING something, via essentially NOTHING or nothing clear) Don't be clingy; and verify ALL YOU CAN, for yourselF (and others), and thereby come to something closer to reality [(as much as we can)], reality (or realities, if you like [(but now all at one time)]) as it really is -- this is a WAY (i.e. cross-contexts), it does not come automatically. But, it is as simple as it need be. Good luck. (For a bit more guidance, see https://mynichecomp.com .) I have NOT BEEN PAID AT ALL for half a life (the latter (later?) half ); there is really no reason not to trust me, unless you're very confused and/or [must] see me as insane.. I have no vested interest(s) (in any conventional sense) AT ALL (we all do have some interests).

I DO MEAN : much of psychology should be reconsidered in order to have CLEAR EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS, FOR ALL NECESSARY CONCEPTS -- for concepts to clearly correspond to some demonstrably important directly observable phenomena (like in all true sciences; another way to say this is : THE SUBJECT DEFINES ALL). This does NOT mean throwing findings out, but putting them in better contexts. Likely empirical realities (including possible observations of a concrete nature; i.e. such , at times, showing as clear OBSERVABLE bases , in clear, agreeable and reliable ways, and seen by the relationships to established PATTERNS : valid; and, that is, in really HARD FACTS -- the concrete bases at least SEEN at some points in ontogeny) . SUCH phenomena have not been discovered and are not sufficiently represented in Psychology (AND nothing much is even "begging" for what is needed, showing needed thought is not being given (in the dictatorships of the universities)).

And, they will not be as long as the group or grouped stuff (know it by p<.05 etc) is thought to be meaningful FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ORGANISM (THE unit-of analysis , always -- if you want a science). AND NOW IT IS NOT clear that THAT is, in the essential ways, usual (when such clear connections are not made and clear justifications (in THAT empiricism) cannot be given). In fact, it is totally clear that the essential features are NOT THERE.

On the positive side, I do like quite a lot of the Memories research, because some good "chunk" of it does fulfill the needed empirical foundations.

Again, as some have seen me say before, another way you can tell that most "psychology" is "OFF", is by the failure to see BEHAVIOR **_PATTERNS__** PER SE as a type of BIOLOGICAL (organismic) patterning. If behavior is not seen as Biological in nature, it is not seen well.

'Organismic' is a word that should be used WAY more often (as is 'PATTERNS'). ( I am writing for psychology here.) [ One could either say a LOT more here to make it clearer, but the words (would-be terms) give one sufficient guidance. ]

If psychology cannot do BOTH (and more, read on), it will never ever be a science (main sign of something that is NOT science : P<.01 P< .05 and the like). Real things are not group things (as statistical things often are) AND beyond probabilistic (e.g. Piaget didn't need statistics)). Unit of analysis : individual human/organism : any other view is HOPELESSLY doomed NOT to be a science.

(<-- If you cannot see and document this unit-of-analysis, you are off in your own universe(s) (yet may have many friends and professors with you).) SEE AND READ MY LAST DISCUSSION POSTED to understand "the problem" more. AND: NO, I do not accept actuarial "science" work -- which most of psychology actually is, today.

[ ( I used to tell you my writings are THE way, BUT still no listeners/readers among the lazy (which is about all OTHERS or IS all others) -- my writings still show the way. Things could hardly be worse under a dictatorship. Hear that professors who profess ???.) ]

Psychology People :

I have a hard time believing that , in effect, few (if anyone) believes there might be a bit of "conditioning" to see a new perspective and approach. (Reflect on the fact that Buddha needed to use much repetition (and that in several different contexts) for people to "see" what he was talking about -- that is a fact.) See my next post (Discussion) for more.

I do not find this decently sensible in any way. They (RG site persons) imply that they just want to have members go to (or back to) what THEY 'see' as THE major research (so, ALL should be reading just largely out-of context and esoteric published research (or pre-published articles) and, that is all).

Somehow they, apparently, think Projects are needlessly distracting and of lesser value; this outlook will make what is presented by each and every member LIMITED (not to mention boring and with many of the Articles' presentations poorly-founded and esoteric). And, these very poorly based or poorly contextualized studies ARE OFTEN unintelligible as presented in the revered peer-reviewed Articles, no matter how learned a reader may be.. (Citations or multiple citations for just about EVERY sentence, surely does not mean high quality NOR well-integrated OR useful for ANY true science OR for any supposedly developing science.) Researchgate wants to recreate that which is top of mind for many :Psychology pseudo-'scientists' ; publications, publications, publications !! -- peer-reviewed, but often RUINED. And for academics used to or highly rewarded for such, this place (RG), simply stated, will be just what was present before the Internet.

I, myself, in a shortly-upcoming post, will provide everyone a way to my major Projects and ALL the Updates to them. ALL THAT will be available through my OWN DOMAIN AND WEBSITE. (Watch for new post, a post with the needed address information.)

Let's say I have two dimensions:

Dimension 1: 2 categories

Dimension 2: 4 categories

If I were to code information based on these dimensions and I wanted to compare the agreement (e.g., dimension 1 = 90% vs. dimension 2 = 70%), considering the difference of categories in each one, is there a statistic that weights by the number of categories?

Would it be more appropriate to dichotomise the categories of dimension 2 to calculate agreement? I mean calculating the agreement for each category of dimension 2 separately, so that it is "category 1 = yes or category 1 = no", "category 2 = yes or category 2 = no", etc., instead of calculating it for all 4 categories together. This way you would calculate the agreement for each category in dimension 2 separately, but the results could be compared with the results for dimension 1.

I would also appreciate bibliography on the topic.

Thank you!

[ 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 ...

When you set up an experiment, with "defined" "stimuli", these are the stimuli in YOUR imagination and/or YOUR model.

BUT: very often it is a matter of representation (from long-term memory) of the circumstance(s)/setting(s), AND the stimuli can only be understood in THAT context -- the context of the content of developed representation of such circumstances/settings (think, for example, of problem-solving). The Subject, in most significant settings, has her/his representation of such circumstances/situations/settings. THAT actually more than helps to properly define the stimuli , for such is often the MAIN THING for defining (recall that it is the Subject (surrounding behavior patterns) very often _THAT_ MUST, in science, be what allows any empirical or true definition of stimuli).

All this is outlined by, and fully consistent with, Ethogram Theory (see my Profile and, from there, read A LOT-- I do provide guidance on readings order). The Theory itself is internally , and likely externally, consistent and it is strictly empirical (in the grounding/foundation of ALL concepts -- i.e. ALL clearly linked to directly observable overt behavior PATTERNS); and thus, given all those characteristics, there are hypotheses that are clearly verifiable/falsifiable .

Is there reason to believe that data, available or possible, from eye tracking is far greater than what is utilized? YES ! :

Computer scientists tell us that ANY similar or exact patterning of visual perception or attention, with _ANY_ overt manifestations, can be captured. Unquestionably much develops from input through the eyes (the MAJOR example: ontogeny); plus, behavior IS PATTERNED (as would be true for any significant biologically-based functioning (and ALL behavior is)). AND, ALL such could/can be found/identified using eye tracking and computer assisted analysis. ANY/ALL. Thus, it would be useful for psychology to capture any/all such. (It would be more constructive to start with analysis including most-all subtle behavior patterns; that avoids at least most unfounded a priori assumptions (actually: presumptions).)

Unlike modern assumptions, little is likely just random; and YET ALSO, for-sure, little is just statistical. (Nature doesn't play dice.)

True, this is self-serving (for me, for my definitely empirical theory) BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE.

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".

Given the nature of emotionality, an analogous application (of reactions, then abilities), across differing domains, may occur by "seeing" an analogy (or analogue) with some of the representations the organism ALREADY, itself, has achieved with ontogeny (NOTE: new representation levels/stages, at inception, are VIA perceptual shifts)

It is hard to see "domain generalization" of skills occurring across greatly diverse spaces AND times just based ONLY on objective, key similarities in the environment (<- though THAT may always, or in-effect, be true) . It seems we may need processing that provides analogies to what one already knows, AND * THAT * "seen" in the environment, to "generalize" applications of certain cognitive abilities ** -- although I am more-than-reluctant to posit this in-advance. Still, an idea for how such analogy-with-the-already-represented can be seen as clearly possible because of the varying situations/circumstances that can trigger a seemingly same particular emotion (and seen as particular by Psychologists). This may be harder to see with those 3 "limited" emotions always present with key learning (and, the ONLY ones I admit may OR that must be involved, i.e. interest-excitement-anticipation and surprise and joy ). BUT my point seems clearer when one reflects on what causes anger (possibly a somewhat "more advanced" emotion, though many/most still don't see that as a secondary emotion, but, rather, primary ***). Still, one may well see this point (my point here) in the case of "guilt" (definitely a secondary emotion) (and the analogies essentially applied between understood circumstances and new circumstances, that may change over ontogeny).

** FOOTNOTE : This may be the very reason I eventually admitted the set of 3 very basic and likely always-present [with key learnings]: emotions (noted above).

*** FOOTNOTE: I, myself, see distress and frustration (NOT anger) as primary (but NOTE: These, just mentioned, are NOT among the THREE (see above) that proactively impel the organism to discover, thus not directly involved in "seeing" things (or combinations of things, etc.)(but these surely may be associated with needed inhibition, so indirectly involved and also key, that way))

Re: It seems a major sort of addition needs to be made to cognitive-developmental ontogeny theory (Ethogram Theory)

I have been out just to describe the developing very early processing and all the later hierarchical developments and processing, yielding the development and the progressing of the [grand/always-important] "outer container" (cognition). These are the levels of/stages of cognitive abilities being most of, and what's central to, guiding behavior: cognition, representation, abstract concepts and thinking, and actions. I NOW do believe something more is involved than I have yet ever indicated (something I avoided). For years and for decades:

I almost perhaps incredulously spoke nothing of emotions. Now I do; BUT, reservedly: I want to "add-in" and speak of just basic, early-on emotions that may be central to ALL cognitive development, per se: in particular it is those that are likely necessary to transfer a level of representation and thinking abilities from one domain (once established in an early domain) to another domain (this is sometimes known as transfer, sometimes as generalization -- neither which captures all that goes on with true hierarchical development with ontogeny).

I have long sought to make emotions (relatively simple response PATTERNS) something that can simply be added-in ("tacked on"), AFTER cognitive ontogenies are under way (which seemed esp. good for AL /AGI). But, the problem of humans (as well for AI / AGI) going from using a level of skills somewhere at first and THEN going from one domain to other domains for a new same sort of transformation THERE, i.e. to a essentially new similar level/stage of which he/she is capable THERE, has remained unclear. This matter is now, in much of mainstream psychology, explained hypothetically (or supposedly) based on obvious/common-sense contingencies of guidance (from others and language) _OR_ as using analogies or metaphor to find the similar structures (alignments) in the new domain. This does not often seem plausible and is not sufficient for the broad and quite precise applications for a new level of thinking. (It is too crude and contains irrelevancies.)

FINALLY NOW, I thought of my likely neglect in not providing sufficient impetus or motivation OR direction (or "self"-reward) for ontogenic shifts (at inception: BASIC perceptual shifts), then changes. Early on, and then later, given the representational context of past key developments:

Maybe SOME key emotions help direct the organism to take a closer look at things, actions, and events and with the simple general sorts of motivations GIVEN BY SOME truly basic emotions; if there is more "dwell time" and the organism will take a closer look, THEN he/she will find more, and develop a similar system of structure and understanding THERE (as well as in contexts where such a system was applied earlier).

For, after all, a number of notable emotions have been with us sentient beings since mammals and birds (evolutionarily speaking). Not using any, even for the development of the grand "outer" container no longer seems possible. They (some emotions) are there, and, if they give direction and impetus, why wouldn't the be used in cognitive stages key unfoldings (and making them more precise and reliable). These few particularly important emotions are THERE basically from birth. For me, now, NOT making use of a small set of basic emotions aiding cognitive development does not seem adaptationally likely OR even plausible (from the point of view of logic and soundness, as well as evolutionarily). The set of such basic emotions for cognition and cognitive ontogeny (throughout), i.e. for all major cognitive developments, can be likely understood as interest-excitement-anticipation and surprise and joy. (The combination, in the first 'hyphenated term' are in part(s) present in all modern theories of the basic emotions, while the last two are IN ALL such systems of understanding.) In short such emotions ARE THERE to provide major motivations to dwell on aspects of things, circumstances, and situations -- even situations, in later ontogeny, very much spanning instances (situations/circumstances) across times and space -- AND also facilitating the basic associative learnings -- so things "carry on".

Some present proposals which put forth that for "generalization" or "transfer" metaphors and/or analogies doing the bridging just do not work for me. This brings in irrelevant distraction elements and does not give you the needed precision or focus on new things or things seen-anew. Analogies and metaphors WITHIN a single stage may be helpful to the degree workable and appropriate in more minor learning regards.

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.)

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.

Creswell has explained that observation in qualitative research is when researchers write field notes about frequent phenomenons whether it is structured (with prior questions) or unstructured (without prior questions) in the research field. A few months ago, I joined a course of quantitative method in a school in the Netherlands, it says that research (qualitative and quantitative) should be objective that means anybody should be able to get the same results based on the description of the assumptions and procedures, all measurements, and these elements should be clearly and explicitly defined prior, leaving no room for subjective interpretation. What about unstructured observation when we have no pre-defined concepts? How do we make sure other researchers won't make a different interpretation?

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 .

There are, of course (correspondingly), "idiotic" Questions. And ridiculous speculations by-analogy (and by-analogy is always suspect). (An example of "Answers" by foundation-less and link-less analogy is " 'quantum' explanations" to several psychological things; it is a bad joke any such person could have a graduate degree !) Sorry: my perception of common things here on RG. And, after years of nonsense, I have decided to state my observation.

It is likely very nearly pointless that I am here on RG (and there have been only so many years I have been able to try to fool myself).

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.

For Psychology (and other aspiring sciences and for even for good established sciences): Isn't it better to speak and write in terms of "conditions-for" instead of 'causes'?

My answer: Yes. Yes. Yes. Most usually. (Most certainty for a Biological science, like Psychology; HERE I am talking about a science of behavior patterns PER SE (i.e. "just behaviors"). (What is closest to a 'cause' is what ethologists call: proximate causes.))

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

For some certain persons: If you do not like negative feedback, do not read below the line, directly below.

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

This present Question is especially for some certain individuals (who I read): The above Question is something useful to think about OTHER THAN philosophy and especially philosophical Questions about "Consciousness" and "philosophy-and-science". Those Questions are useless, senseless, ridiculous Questions that most certainly will lead nowhere (certainly nowhere useful). Consider my present Question instead, for "therapy".

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 observational method is a framework wherein construction and design procedures and details of a geotechnical engineering project are adjusted based upon observations and measurements made as construction proceeds.

I am conducting a qualitative case study. The methods of data collections are interviews and direct observations. Yin (2009, p. 109) stated that direct observations could be conducted throughout a field visit, including which other evidence, such as that from interviews, is being collected. This was the case of my study. I did not find any suggestion by Yin (or other prominent case study scholars) about the recommended time for such types of direct observations. This is unlike ethnographic research, which has some recommendations.

In my case, I had an observation protocol that was priorly designed based on the theoretical proposition and the research question of the study. I kept my eyes open to collect other relevant observational evidence while I was at the premises of the participants of the study. The length of the observation was based on the time that I needed to collect evidence related to the pre-designed notes and headings in the observation protocol.

Any comments about the best practices or recommendations for this?

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.

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.

Let me say a bit more. A starting perspective MUST be core-observation _AND core-principle founded, and grounded on that which is minimally clearly related to directly observable overt phenomena. These are absolute requirements for empiricism, for science. And remember: _your Subject, NOT YOU, should in-true-effect define every word and concept and the structure and nature of every set of concepts (much of all this following new observation and NEW DISCOVERIES). A strict, abiding, perspective of this quality is REQUIRED FOR ANY AND ALL SCIENCES.

If you do not start like this and stay like this, your sets-of-hypotheses/theory AND your approach will be contaminated (specifically: false w/r to reality) in some ways, and more and more, and lead you away from finding things as the really are.

[ P.S. NO need to try to "define" terms (providing generalities) or to define "realities" (boundaries). THIS IS NOT THE "JOB" OF A SCIENTIST _AND_ IS ACTUALLY NOT POSSIBLE to any notable extent through thinking alone. And yet, with this (doing as I indicated), there can be some real and good science related to anything ... ]

There is no reasonable and sound counterargument or major perspective. I actually view this Discussion (so far, as I have presented it) as quite beyond discussion. I see it as a foundational Law of Science. (Yet, there are those who seek science, or seek to progress their 'science', who violate this LAW every day.)

Yes, less reading, if students of Psychology simply require that ALL that they bother to read/read-about in this "discipline" should be that where behaviors are discussed clearly, and in clear terms OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS -- and basically just THAT (such patternings) BEING [ substantially ] ALL. (History will show that the rest -- unless you are an advertiser, or maybe a "social psychologist" -- will go down the toilet.)

P.S. "Models" not integrally based-on and/or directly facilitating the seeing-of the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS DO "NOT COUNT". "Mechanisms" not integrally of a biological (and behavior patterned) nature DO "NOT COUNT". You may skip those.

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).)]

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

What is the nature of fundamental requirements for one to conceive and develop General Artificial Intelligence (AGI)?

I would think, at the core, would be a modeling of the great adaptations of the actual human itself: its body , its senses, its responsiveness-es, its abilities, AND the abilities in cognition (representation and processing) that develop progressively and over EACH stage of ontogeny (largely: ages 0 - 18 yr. old) -- and with the latter influencing not only thought, but other responsiveness-es (e.g. the emotions; in other words, then: emotional development).

Now, you can start and stay with a good understanding of the human OR you can see the human as you see it and actualize your own hypothetico-deductive systems to have it progress in all relevant behavioral abilities.

Let's say you pick the first of these options (which I think is wise). Then what you need is a basic understanding of the human: human body, human senses, human responsiveness-es, and human abilities (INCLUDING those making "qualitative leaps" in their developments, during ontogeny -- these latter making up much of the "cognitive system", which can be conceived as the most-major AND central organizing system (as Piaget did) for all significant behavior patterns). Given all this, what else is needed? :

It should be clear that ALL faculties/basic abilities and responsiveness-es AND representation-and-thought abilities (including those "higher abilities": which "emerge" , unfold and develop with ontogeny) MUST BE GROUNDED CONCRETELY, specifically: clearly related to directly observable overt phenomena (behavior patterns). ALL OF IT.

Unless so-concretely "seen" (seen as at least related to key clear overt or overt-and-developing behavior patterns), it will not be possible to "mechanize" (here: program a machine) without being one with god-like insights. In other words, there will be NO AGI WITHOUT at least a basic (TESTABLE) understanding of ALL these fundamental behavior patterns (and their concrete "anchors", BOTH THOSE patterns continuing or now presently active, AND those key behaviors-and-circumstances active _AS_ the KEY POINTS of KEY DEVELOPMENTAL HAPPENINGS -- these creating new unfolding, lasting, and expanding representations and abilities). (These latter are also understood as clearly relating to some most-important directly observable concrete phenomena (behavior patterns, with corresponding situational aspects) and thus these also being "anchors" and, by virtue of some clear significant ongoing/continuing effects, they CONTINUE to be "anchors").

Now, does this mean the AGI developer needs no good thinking of just his own? NO. Unrefined inductive understandings (guesses) may be tested. And, proximate causal-type relationships can be hypothesized between THIS behavior pattern and THAT (even using some good hypothetico-deductive system, BUT this system must AT LEAST PRINCIPLED, IN TERMS OF LIFE (BIOLOGICAL) PRINCIPLES (e.g. a basic one: homeostatis)) [(I also suggest using the terminology of classical ethology, presented as-to-be-used in my earliest long paper.)]

The great news, of course, is: AGI People can test their overall system major-aspect-tried by major-aspect-tried over and over and thus be much facilitated in making corrections.

Now, what may be your final question: Where does one find such a wholly empirically-based, concrete-based understanding of behavior patterns/responses TO BEGIN WITH. Answer: I do my best to offer such a system through my "Developing a Usable Empirically-Based Outline of Human Behavior for FULL Artificial Intelligence (and for Psychology)" PROJECT and my " Human Ethology and Development (Ethogram Theory) : A Full-Fledged Paradigm for PSYCHOLOGY" PROJECT. And, I believe, that considered for being in the most-empirical terms and the most-concrete terms, the writings associated with these Projects are the best offered today. **

Start at my Profile, Brad Jesness and then look for those 2 just-named Projects (and see all Log Entries, aka Updates under them). Also see and 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, when reading

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

, also see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates.

P.S. Plus, for a final 100 pages of recent essays (not among the 512 pages in the collection of recent essays, you already have been directed to), yet also very worthwhile essays composed after the 512 -page Collection , see them in this pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf

** FOOTNOTE: ** IMPORTANT NEWS ** : I recently presented summaries of my "system" that clearly indicate 2 types of basic and likely needed (and real) CONSTANTS: some constancy of our Memories faculties (on the more-purely endogenous "side") AND some constancy OF THE PROCESSES always involved in learning and development (most clearly and presently involving aspects of the external world), these simply based on the fact that the simple, well-defined FORMS of associative learning are intimately and always involved in all behavior pattern change (NOTE, here, that what is constant IS THE FORM, which otherwise differs enough in content to be seen (or have to be seen) as "different"). (Also NOTE: the constancies of the Memories seem also at least mostly a matter of "forms", though some clear abiding numerical limits (properly delimited) may [always] apply here and there (everywhere?) -- and, thank goodness for the latter: because we likely need somewhere always in the system some complete certainty, i.e. to some numerical degree.)

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:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_a_FULL_NEEDED_REAL_paradigm_shift_FOR_PSYCHOLOGY_also_provide_an_advanced_view_for_General_AI2

and

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 !!

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.

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)

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.)

Is the following list the characteristics of the things which are the bases of psychological understandings for General Artificial Intelligence?

The material, below, from https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology "Project Goals (for General Artificial Intelligence and psychological science)" (below, slightly elaborated). (Also, this Project is where you can find additional information and "specs".)

* nothing more than needed, while WELL-ESTABLISHED, BEING ALWAYS clearly-related to the most reliable, strongest scientific findings in psychology (this is, in particular: facts and findings on the Memories)

* enough to embrace a good part of everything, providing a very likely main overall "container" -- with EVERYTHING addressed, founded on, grounded on, OR clearly "stemming" from: discovery of and direct observation of overt behavior patterns (done by providing clear and likely ways to discover the specific, direct, explicit, observable empirical foundations to qualitative cognitive stages -- something completely lacking in modern psychology otherwise). All hypotheses related to all positions (in THIS LIST and in any References) ARE testable/verifiable (at least now, with eye-tracking technologies and computer assisted analysis).

* having ALL that is needed AND which is all-concrete (explicit, specified, or FULLY defined-as-used or thusly definable), at the same time: so as to provide for Generalized Artificial Intelligence and good science, otherwise. [ There may be one seeming exception to elements being "clearly specified" : the "episodic buffer". And that can be defined "relationally", simply having a state plausibly/possibly inferred from all the [other] more concretely defined elements (with their characteristics and processes).]

* providing for self-correction and for continuous progress as science (actual psychology) (as real and good science, and good thinking, is) And, not coincidentally, providing for continuous development of the AI "robot" itself (by itself; of course: experience needed).

* consistent with current major theories to the full extent justified, but contrasted by having a better well-established set of assumptions, thoroughly justified and explicated. An integrative perspective, equally good for appropriate shifts in all theoretical perspectives (in the end, each theory allowing MORE, and being more empirical)

* proving (by amassing related evidence of) the inadequacy of current perspectives on and approaches to behavioral studies (addressing current psychology-wide pseudo-'assumptions')

* an approach which ends obviously senseless dualisms, e.g. nature/nurture; continuous/discontinuous, which just impede understanding, discovery, and progress. This is inherent in the "definitions" of elements and processes (all from observations or most-excellent research; and largely inductively inferred) .

It is good for psychology (it IS psychology) and General Artificial Intelligence, as well.

NOTE: (1) Nothing above should be seen as merely descriptive (this implies too much tied to certain situation(s) and/or to abstraction(s), always lacking true details; it also probably implies too much related to human judgment).

(2) Nothing -- no element or constellation of elements -- are operationally (as they actually come together and 'work') as envisioned only by, or in any way (at all) mainly by, human conceptualization OR human imagination.

(3) The Subject is ALL and shall be seen just as it is (at least eventually), and should always be THE guide phenomenologically at all times to move toward that goal.

I believe this is the only way our algorithms will correspond to biology and that AI will really simulate US.

[ P.S. I have tried to much more specifically direct people to answers to Questions such as above, FOR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES in general, in my major papers here on RG (esp. "A Human Ethogram ... ") AND in my many, many essays, now most in a 328-page BOOK, Collected Essays (also on RG). General Artificial Intelligence is, in effect, a behavioral science itself. ]

Dear All,

I´m conducting case studies in order to evaluate services offered for wheelchair users. One of the method to do it is the direct observation. Specificaly talking abou observing wheelchair user on their real0life context, there is a expression in my mother language to say it. It could be translated like "accompanied tour".

But I talked with a native english speaker and he said that it is not a good translation.

Does someone know a expression used in english to say it?

Colleagues from couching area said something about "shadowing".

What do you think?

Thank you very much in advance!

Best wishes,

Fábio

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.

Thanks

I am looking for an observations system for RRBs and SIBs that I could use in a classroom setting.

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.