Ontogeny - 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.) ]

How are "levels" of thought or processing validly seen as hierarchical? This turns out to be a very basic and important question, BECAUSE most often behavior Researcher(s) decide what is at one "level" and what is involved with another "level" and a [supposed] relationship is seen that is thought to be hierarchical (one level using the previous ones (which is fine and good), <- BUT all these "levels" are also seen subjectively). This is a damned poor way of classifying, if [supposedly] for science purposes: it is quite arbitrary and subjective (and task dependent). WHAT'S THE ANSWER?

For those who understand Piaget, the better Answer for what are hierarchical "levels" is: there is a hierarchy developing/unfolding/emerging where qualitative (big differences) in processing occur AND .... This also clearly indicates the Subject 'sees' differently .... The only strictly empirical way to account for all this is that a new "level" involves seeing more or different things or significantly seeing certain things ANEW (in a different way); all those possibilities, in Ethogram Theory, are explained by perceptual shifts (at the beginnings or inceptions of a new level). AND: This also more than strongly indicates that at each new level MORE types of objects/actions are involved.

THUS, for there to be a true empirical hierarchy, SOMETHING (_OR_ type of thing) NOT PRESENT BEFORE IS ADDED (in an objectively verifiable way).

Those who "define" hierarchies without this requirement have lost touch with empirical grounding and have lost touch with science itself. (In Psychology science (like with other real sciences): The SUBJECT, specifically BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, define ALL !; the Researcher(s) merely using his/their own imaginative thought/"analysis" DEFINES NOTHING. Try to remember that the organism, in all aspects of its behaving (including behavior (behavior patterns themselves, per se)) IS ORGANISMIC; if this does not "show", then you are off track and almost certainly in a way that will NOT SELF-CORRECT (as good science does).)

All the above is very much related to questions of concepts being concrete or "abstract" (INTEGRAL to the issue , in fact); AND, not understanding true ontogeny (cognitive development in childhood) leaves "levels of abstraction" in confusion (a pseudo-mystery, seen generously as simply [supposedly] a mystery .)

"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.

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. ]

Hi All,

I have SK-N-SH cells I would like to differentiate, what protocol do you normally use? I can see that people do it in different ways, I want to know which method gives you the most consistent and robust differentiation efficiency. Thank you!

Editor/Co-author of my Collected Essays (on behavioral science) Needed

I have approximately 1000 pages of essays on new, more-empirical perspectives for Psychology (esp. General Psychology and Developmental Psychology -- but relevant and important for Psychology in general). It is all about BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (and associated "environmental" aspects, these _OFTEN_ broadly conceived) and a science of finding the further behavior patterning therein, and a patterning of those patterns, etc.; AND THAT IS ALL : In other words, the writings outline the discoveries likely possible and necessary for a true and full behavioral science of BEHAVIOR PATTERNS ("just behaviors") PER SE ("behaviors" then seen, as must be the case, as aspects of Biology (adaptation) unto themselves); it is much related to classical ethology perspectives and research. RELATED TO ALL THIS: There is an expressed great hope for some technology being the "microscope" of Psychology for good/closer/better and/or NEW observations; there are likely sets of adaptive behavior patternings and associated environmental aspects within quite-possible, if not VERY likely, SETS of situations (with the important "environmental" aspects/circumstances there, BUT the KEY environmental aspects will also be across KEY related/in-some-ways-similar -- and memorable -- circumstances). This is how/where related behavior patterns COULD COME TO BE OBSERVED in situ, AND even seen as they develop : even the subtle behavior patterns, etc., therein, truly-seen and clearly seen and truly and fully discovered _and_ seeing some key adaptive "operations" thereof. AND there is some detailed phenomenology described that allow one to arrive at testable hypotheses and then also indicating how this same basic sort of essential observations shall also naturally PROVIDE the actual ability to test these testable/falsifiable hypotheses.

I am looking for a skilled reader and editor to read/edit my written works AND THEN put them together in a most sensible manner. This person must know the field of Psychology as a whole and must understand possibilities of ontogeny. Also she/he should have a healthy respect and very high regard for KEY foundational observations (always such AS CENTRAL). Know of the Memories (all the sorts, now rather well-researched) as providing for phenomenological EXPERIENCE ITSELF and for connections, as indicated above.

Any one "fitting this bill" AND WILLING, and otherwise ABLE, I would gladly have. Doing such substantial editing/proof-reading/rearranging/publishing is enough for me to see you as a co-author and therefore I would put you as second author on all the book's covers. After publication, you (given details we shall decide upon well ahead of time) shall have a good and fair portion of any money reaped.

There is NO 'proximate' without absolute discovery.

Not a question for me (I've answered it with full, real, strict empiricism -- observational "anchors" ALWAYS, clear and INVOLVED -- for/in EVERY CONCEPT, ETC.). It is also not a discussion for me but, rather, for literally/practically EVERYONE ELSE (see previous sentence). You may well be only 900 pages away from knowing the what and the how. (At the same time, I will show you the best (and most real) PARSIMONY; it may be VERY hard for you -- it is hard to "escape" and grow up.)

Identifying a pattern simply and clearly DOES NOT GIVE SOMETHING CAUSAL STATUS (e.g. simple learning patterns -- yeh, they are THERE but in any specific important circumstance/situation do not DESCRIBE the real GROUND of WHAT IS (AND HAS) GONE ON -- they are simply NOT the full crux of anything (not the only thing involved in any crucial juncture); <-- Not, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, ANY THING LIKE A PROXIMATE CAUSE. hopeless, hopeless, hopeless If the simple "learning" explanations had been good, they would have "stuck" 40 years ago (e.g. with Charles Brainerd)) .

Over-generalization because of academia's permanent inability to connect with Reality (at any crucial point, WHICH WILL BE THROUGH DIRECT OBSERVATIONS). "It" maybe "is and ever shall be", but it is just crap (thinking doing too much of "the job" in some sick, but real, sense). [ P.S. I, too, see learning (NOT one type of thing) as always involved. ]

Here is the main guidance you need to start (the OTHER guidance noted is also necessary for specifics, for specific testable (verifiable/falsifible) HYPOTHESES): READ: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory (basically a BOOK) and https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory (see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates.) ALSO, not among the 200 pages of major papers and 512 pages of essays in my "BOOK", above (which you already have been directed to), the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 page BOOK: these are addenda: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf (you CAN find the pdf at this last link, though it may take a little careful looking). And, similarly, see the other 2 addenda .

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since Generalized AI has no human brain, they must be aware of all pertinent "external" behavior patterns and behavior pattern markers AND effective environmental aspects: Ethogram Theory with its body of 500+ pages of recent supporting essays (following some early, courser, yet must-read, foundational papers) provides just this, focusing only on clear behavior patterns and environmental aspects AND AS THEY UNFOLD WITH ONTOGENY -- ALL with "external" (directly observable overt) aspects AND environmental contingencies (including sophisticated Memories, for context; YET: ALL aspects, in good part, at-least-one-time-seen or clearly indicated OVERTLY).

This is why AI people should look at my Ethogram Theory , etc. AND the related General AI Project: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Developing-a-Usable-Empirically-Based-Outline-of-Human-Behavior-for-FULL-Artificial-Intelligence-and-for-Psychology

But also see the Ethogram Theory Project and all its References and Updates (in the Project Log): https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

For General AI to use Psychology, this is the only choice. It is also a clear and parsimonious choice and fully empirically based/founded/grounded (and complete for having/providing for the full basic foundation/base "containing" cognitive-developmental hierarchical system).

ALSO: This is also completely good for Psychology as well, for a good perspective, approach, and good hypotheses -- BETTER THAN THIS FIELD HAS NOW. I now turn to AI because Psychology is not sufficiently empirically based or "driven" to be this way. (I turn to others who must understand and 'see" behavior patterns correctly and have good empirical testable hypotheses, such as I provide ; perhaps, again, Psychology will find itself FOLLOWING information-processing.)

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:

We are studying ontogenetic trajectories of cranium in extant primates. Among the sample, we did not find infant specimens (with partial or absent deciduous dentition) of the species Gorilla gorilla, Hylobates agilis, Hylobates lar, Macaca cyclopis, Mandrillus sphinx, Pan troglodytes, Papio hamadryas, Pongo abelii, Pongo pygmaeus and Symphalangus syndactilus. We used some online databases as Morphosource and Kupri, but did not find the specimens we were searching for. Is anyone aware of existing CT or surface scans of such specimens?

Hello,

I am dealing with linear measurements of limb bones, and I already have run a PCA to explore the dataset. If I want to extrapolate an ontogenetic growth trajectory, what is the best approach?

Thanks

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)

That is the question, lover of life, lover of others, empiricist or scientist ; thus finding the actual sequences which are causation(s) (aka the proximate causes). Better and better 'seeing', less ignorance ... , less confusion. Said also to be with less wanting and/or greed and with less suffering, as well. And as more is found, more opens up. Could anything else be the case? [ Such conclusions can come from checking the research on the Memories which, as they are (by definition), must be experience itself. ]

Let me give an example of what I speak of above (an example in my field: the very important and most vital field of developmental psychology (very much 'including' ontogeny) ). In Psychology what I am talking about is: proper perspective, properly viewing Psychology ("psychologizing" one's psychology, in a proper way, if you will) and THUS 'seeing' the ways there are of realistically (and rationally) AND thus actually having/doing conceptualizing and thinking (<-- those very things) as they really are (and of getting one's own and one's Subjects' real limits and abilities defined). In attempting this in Psychology (or in any science) one must "believe in" and maximize empirical grounding (all that is possibly there and detectable), showing EVERY SORT OF BEHAVIOR, related clearly and in an important ways (at least at their inception), TO directly observable particular overt behavior patterns of the Subject *. AND, this is BY DOING IT (for the researchers and the Subjects) in the REAL terms of the basic capacities of their species-typical Memories (also knowing and considering the hierarchical relationship of more adult concepts and thinking, compared to that of children) -- KNOWING ALL THAT, and using ALL THAT, required before doing decent psychology that will lead to real, lasting, and progressive discoveries on the development of cognition (that being central to other major other behavior patterns that develop). [ It may be hard, but you will get used to it; and, it is necessary; AND, actually, it is likely less hard to do than the 'theoretical,' unjustified "contortions" presently done today (which inevitably "dead-end") . ]

* FOOTNOTE: This perspective and rightful attempt (approach) AT/for DISCOVERIES is exactly what I outline as clearly as possible in my writings [ "as clearly AS POSSIBLE", that is, before the new, CLEARLY-PRESCRIBED, needed research, with clear testable hypotheses, is done (i.e. before having those hypotheses indeed tested) ].

- Popular in English - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noogenesis

- Chers amis! Y a-t-il des opinions sur le concept moderne et les perspectives de développement de la Noogenèse? (populaire en français) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noogen%C3%A8se

- Estimados colegas, si hay una opinión acerca de la actual concepto y las perspectivas de desarrollo de la Noogenesis (popular en español)? - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noog%C3%A9nesis

- Caros colegas, há opinião sobre o moderno conceito e perspectivas de desenvolvimento Noogenesis (popular em português)? - https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noog%C3%AAnese

- Уважаемые коллеги, есть ли мнения о современном понятии и перспективах развития Ноогенеза? -

Among the monoamines beside serotonin which are involved in the ontogeny of

vesicular VMAT1 and VMAT2 ?

Maria Wollemann

[ To summarize several of the basic problems with the 'moderation' of this Yahoo Group: The moderator believes it has been determined that a human ethogram cannot be done (is not possible). (And, he cites the view of a 1989 committee, as great support for this (HIS) position.) NOR, in his firm (set) view is an ethogram needed for coming to ANY OR ALL the understandings we need. (And, IF an ethogram were to be done, he insists it address all significant human behaviors at once "BY DEFINITION", as you will read about again in coming paragraphs -- ignoring very cogent and rather indisputable arguments to the contrary.)

He also insists on strict dualisms BETWEEN classes of major behaviors that DO involve or require innate patterning (and this, in his view, is mainly motor behaviors, motor behavior patterns) AND OTHER very significant behavior patterns/ behavioral systems that he says DON'T -- all this when all reasonable biological scientists would say some significant innate guidance is involved in the development of ALL major systems of adaptation.

PLUS, this moderator insists on NOT discussing what (in his view) need no more be discussed (INCLUDING AN ETHOGRAM), and insists that issues regarding an ethogram (both its definition and how it would have to be done) have already been resolved and warrant no further discussion. He quickly enforces, i.e. CENSORS, expression of views contrary to these. Plus, moreover, his view of what 'THOUGHT' is and what can be considered 'BEHAVIOR' is basically extreme Skinnerian AND he is absolutely insistent on his views here ALSO. Finally: He seems to respect nothing other than the short writings found in peer-reviewed journals -- only such authorities can present all worthy arguments and conclusions about all matters of argument. On all these latter matters he not only insists over and over but, AGAIN, HE WILL CENSOR. ]

What follows may offer more detail about what this 'moderator' accepts and what he doesn't (and what he does not accept is soon CENSORED AND NOT POSTED TO THE HUMAN ETHOLOGY YAHOO GROUP OR MAILING-LIST). :

Basically, he demands that anything that is to be considered an ethogram address ALL the species-typical behaviors of an organism (here the human) ALL AT ONCE, because that is the definition of an ethogram. He would not publish my rebuttal, which says one must start with the discovery of the development of a central ("containing") behavior system (cognitive development) FIRST, to get that major pervasive system understood first, before adding in basically associated or subsidiary systems (like emotions and language). Here is the "moderator's" assessment (NOT based on well-founded assumptions of any sort OR on fact): Quoting:

Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:

(writing to me, and NOT publishing my view. And, see my rebuttal to his rejection of my view (also NOT allowed on the 'list' by him) . ) -- and my exception to the rejection of THAT, below) [ ( Fortunately, my view/perspective expressed is at length here on RG (and elsewhere) ] :

(His objection is just the standard, memorized meaningless junk.): (now quoting Feierman) :

"The cognitive-development behavioral system as it unfolds and develops in ontogeny is important. However, it is not an ethogram, which has a very specific meaning. An ethogram is a catalog of all of the fixed action patterns of a species organized into functional groups. Most but not all of the fixed action patterns are going to be parts of coordinated motor pattern (aka fixed action pattern) instincts. This can be done but it would be very time consuming and difficult, which is why I turned down the offer to do it in the 1980s. Even I. Eibl-Ebesfeldt, who is the father of human ethology, never undertook to do this. ** The reason why it would be so difficult is contrary to all other mammals (with the higher primates partially excepted), humans have many other behaviors that are not fixed action patterns that are innervated by a different part of the nervous system. So for example, a functional category like mother-infant care, can be easily a category in the ethogram of a canine. However, it is not so easy to make an ethogram of mother-infant care for humans. I currently have a collection of Eibl's tribal films of mothers interacting with infants in many different tribal societies. There are behaviors in common but some of the instinctual behaviors are mixed with "voluntary" behaviors that are mediated by another part of the nervous system. It is a lot easier to make an ethogram of the infant's feeding behavior than the mothers' infant care behaviors. "

(end of my quote of him) (This quotation has MANY MANY VERY QUESTIONABLE, but typical, assertions: example: most behaviors with innate action patterns are motor systems; the others are just too variable to involve innate guidance; and, note the complete dualism between innate action patterns and "many other behaviors" -- defying biology, and THUS DEFYING SCIENCE, ITSELF.)

My response to this was (in large part):

Dear Jay Feierman,

You cannot chose for the definition of something (here an ethogram) SOMETHING THAT CANNOT EXIST -- at least the one you 'define' cannot exist, for some time and after a lot of peoples' efforts [(it is not simply something you can, in any way-of-discovery, just 'define' and begin with)]. Thus, to start an ethogram, and appropriately be working for it to be all we want, WHAT I OFFER IS ALL THAT CAN BE OFFERED (and I explain that -- in 500 publicly available [(and published as much as possible)] pages -- if you would only "do me the honor" of reading); my human ethogram is thereby ALL THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED, AT FIRST, AS _THE_ HUMAN ETHOGRAM. THAT'S A LONG SHOT BETTER THAN WHAT YOU OFFER: hopelessness. And, you should strive to offer something better than what is hopeless.

Apparently, you indeed fail to read me (any of my writing). Even in 1989 I knew and informed I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (my friend and associate) what more was needed in his Human Ethogram book to begin the ethogram that I DID begin. (Did you even bother to read the review, which I posted here??) I can tell you that if you do not "slow down" and really try to "smell the roses", neither of us will learn anything from each other. (AND, I WILL REMAIN not only the first and only author [of the first] [partial] human ethogram, but the only ethologist fully using the terms of, and inductive approach of, classical ethology (or at least the ONLY one doing so with human behavior).

Everything else you say in your response other than what I just addressed, is thus irrelevant (completely). You have to be real. As soon as you think in terms of definitions that simply have been "agreed upon" (perhaps, with a little conjuring on your own), you ARE OFF-TRACK. ALL IS FROM THE _SUBJECT_ ; the Subject defines all . If it starts that way and stays that way, you are building the ethogram (a more complete one) -- that is precisely what I am proposing. You should at least try to empirically describe one before "flushing" mine; you will not be able to do better.

Your response is extremely disappointing and makes outrageous impossible requirements. Your only way to argue against this last statement, IS to directly argue against it: this would involve showing/describing a clearly workable, usable COMPLETELY EMPIRICAL alternative [(like the one you ask for)].

Your definitions are foolish (pardon the word, but it only seems apt). For some good therapy: TRY JUST DESCRIPTION, and of only behavior patterns and environmental aspects _and_ associative/discriminatory learning (and with major developments involving all these things at the very same time) -- involved in ALL major behavioral developments, i.e. ontogeny.

(end of me quoting myself).

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

Well, if you are in this group (on the mailing list), you will not see me or hear from me any more, because he threw me off for being too "speculative" and seeming like I am describing things that could not be tested. BUT, the truth is, my view is very much less speculative that most of psychology (with its more poorly founded and baseless assumptions; and, with ethology being similar these days). AND though I did not (in this particular post) indicate the more particular nature of hypotheses and how they could/would be discovered true (and tested and verifiable or not), I do describe this in other posts. CLEARLY MY SYSTEM IS IN EMPIRICAL TERMS AND TESTABLE and is less speculative that his write-up of what an ethogram would be like and must be like.

YET: He went on in other responses (I also did not get to rebut) to say my views are untestable (that is FALSE) and just "speculation" (that is FALSE). Again, my view can be considered LESS speculative than the standard view (and more biologically consistent) and I most certainly have clearly and empirically described the phenomenon at the inception of major cognitive developments, as perceptual shifts, and I have indicated how these could clearly be discovered with new eye-tracking technology.

If you would like to ask this "moderator" why he is so off-base, feel free to do so: jay.feierman84@gmail.com . Maybe if you are on this list you might ask him to better explain why I CAN'T BE ON IT.

It is CLEAR why there is a need for a HUMAN ETHOGRAM group. Read about one here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/For_a_new_real_empirical_science_of_human_behavior_clearly_the_biology_of_behavior_lets_move_towards_a_human_ethogram_Might_a_Yahoo_group_help

No one could really expect to outline (then research) ALL the species-typical behavior of the human (or any advanced animals, such as mammals and birds) AT ONCE. WE SIMPLY ARE NOT omniscient (and not capable of ever becoming or being so -- though, in time, perhaps TOGETHER we can approximate this state).

Thus, a good start for a human ethogram IS ITSELF the beginning of the human ethogram. Of course, you must have a correct start: Look for the always-involved capabilities which basically is a "containing system" for all other interesting things -- things less pervasive and less-flexibly-and-openly applied (by themselves) (like emotions and language). Yet it must be essential aspects of real particular human behavior.

I chose (for the first and ONLY human ethogram, in existence): the cognitive-development behavioral system AS IT UNFOLDS AND DEVELOPS in ontogeny; I posit such a study can be done grounding everything (at the root, in very key ways) in behavioral patterns and the environmental aspects involved. BUT, in addition, one must understand the nature of our types of memories , and how awesome amounts of perspective and context can be brought forward with that. YET, at the same time, the INCEPTION of anything (including new ways to represent and conceptualize and eventually think) will themselves have real (overt directly observable) environment aspects required at least at the beginning (inception) [ as well as some clear overt, directly observable behavior PATTERNS, acting at the inception ] -- THIS would be true of any SIGNIFICANT new DEVELOPING behavior patterns (including the inception of 'abstract" thought) : this is simply sensible empiricism, which MUCH BE ASSUMED AND SOMETHING A SCIENTIST SEES as necessarily "worth a try", because there simply is NO alternative for an empiricist.

The likely BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS INVOLVED (along with these environmental aspects, at the inception of significant new behavior PATTERNS) not only could simply be perceptual shifts (see first link below) BUT VERY LIKELY WOULD BE _AND_ now these very things are investigable (verifiable, provable, replicable) using the new eye-tracking technology (likely along with computer-assisted analysis). Now the citations: First what I see as the likely phenomenological nature OF these very perceptual shifts, which occur with each hierarchical and new stage/level of thinking:

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

[ (please IGNORE the incoherent Answers to this Question by Nathan Latvaitis -- an uneducated person with no publications (and not likely under any sort of good mental control) -- one who believes he can simply take on any topic with his mind, no education or discipline needed) ].

THEN: see the overall position, for the role of these perceptual shifts during child development, by reading the paper (Research Item) "A Human Ethogram ...: :

Hi everyone. I am trying to design a sampling method that will allow me to look at changes within the leaves of a plant as it ages. I have about 12 replicates, but due to their rarity I do not want to use any fully destructive measures (I can afford to destructively harvest 2 or 3). The plants are around 6 months old now, so I imagine I will have to destructively harvest a couple of them in order to look at leaves produced from 0 - 6 months of age. But from now onwards I aim to take one fully expanded leaf from each plant every month or so. Are there any papers that detail longitudinal, non-destructive methods? Or can you suggest a method that will give me statistical power but not destroy all of the plants?

Any help is much appreciated

We are looking for examples of individuals that are prey when small but turn into predators of their former predators when large.

Thanks a lot in advance.

Arne Janssen

Perhaps it would be more correct to say ‘the embryo has to pass through the previous stages of the phylogeny of that particular species?’

The essence of Ernst Haeckle’s hypothesis is fundamentally true. Clearly it cannot mean that the foetus goes through stages that resemble or represent every stage in the evolution of all of its remote ancestors. To speak of it as a discredited hypothesis, however, is pedantic rather than scientific and does nothing to encourage biologists to study how the foetus copes with the problems of pregnancy and birth and what effect this may have on their health in later life.

It is well known, the sequence of cell divisions and deaths that yield C. elegans. There should be a similar study of some small plant, thus my question regarding the knowledge of such studies by RG participants.

Ernst Haeckel’ss adage ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ envelopes the concept that the developing embryo goes through stages resembling successive stages in the evolution of their extinct ancestors.

Haeckel’s adage, which has been largely rejected as a biological hypothesis, differs from the hypothesis I suggest which could trace the direct lineage of hominins. I have termed this hypothesis the Ontogeny –Pylogeny Evolution Model. In retrospect, a better name would be the Ontogeny Phlogeny Calcaneal Model (OPCM) which suggests that all hominid ancestors (e.g., progenitor) will exhibit the same structural twist (Supinatus) in the posterior aspect of the calcaneus.

Apply the OPCM to uncovered fossils in the hominin taxa would eliminate Australopithecus africanus as a species in the human lineage.

Your thoughts?

The order in which teeth are replaced may give information on phylogeny and life-history variables (Schultz's Rule), but also environment. Specifically, it might show whether the permanent premolars erupted before the M1 erupted or is in wear is important.

A colleague and I just started working on Sicydium punctatum, and noticed several colour variations in what we think is this species.

Recently, scientific consider different "kind" of parrallel evolution. Recent review states that it can refer to phenotypic parrallel evolution (like a "convergence"), or genetic parrallel evolution (involving same locus or mutation). However, we can expected that different developmental changes could lead to similar phenotype. Therefore, should we talk about a third type of parrallel evolution: Developmental parrallel evolution?

Some fossil teeth of small mammals, especially sciurids, present enamel crenulations that can be more or less developed. This feature is sometimes used for subdividing subfamilies as a diagnostic feature or apomorphy. I want to know if ontogeny can concur in the creation of such a pattern in the enamel teeth.

I am interested in understanding the ontogeny (major and minor structures) of the speleothems.