You can follow my ethology perspective and approach, or (I guess) start anew -- which would be quite foolish. Mine is the only REAL "game" around, that is perfectly clear; YOUR notion that "biology is always 'an aspect' of it" DOES NOT "CUT IT", as clearly shown by how you ACTUALLY deal with "nature/nurture" -- as I have previously detailed, convincingly putting you to shame, and doing so beyond any reasonable doubt. All you have is just YOU bringing "it" (Biology) in where you want (how you want, as YOU imagine -- NOT clearly of the organism and of verifiable organismic systems and defined that way (by the organism and with excellent inter-rater reliability) . You have no real (biological) "systems," as starkly illustrated by few (if any) agreed upon behavior PATTERNS (those themselves, THE systems) -- and you have way too few uses of the term "behavior patterns" (and then certainly, at the core, never used correctly). AND: you are otherwise (i.e. instead) using artificial MODELS (largely just defining things just "much as you like", with obviously an inadequate (unreal)(or nearly non-existent) connection TO biology and flagrantly ignoring biology principles and the biological nature of psychology processes -- it is actually ridiculous; I directly, nor convincingly, see Biology as always integral in YOUR views; yet, if behavior patterns are Biology, those would constantly show the integral nature/connection to real biological phenomenon -- AND, as it would be IF behavior patterns were an area , AS IT IS, of BIOLOGICAL functioning; therefore it must be that in YOUR VIEW, it is not )).
NOWHERE ELSE but in my view, which IS following the principles of Biology and using the full terminology of classical ethology, reflecting biological processes, as always integral (and present). (AND NOTE to students: You do not have to wait for any reason to immediately establish Biological foundations (science foundations) -- the largely irrelevant "myths of the 'complex' " NOTWITHSTANDING. Complexity is never an excuse for not starting correctly.
Any pretending of your own will not even fool a few, AND no one except yourselves or your associates (stooges, henchmen, lackeys under your institutional authoritarian control) can even pretend to believe it and yet, somehow, irrationally they/you do in some way hold to what, at best, are fatally bastardized perspectives (with too much confusion to recover from, not to mention the LACK OF any foundation in direct observation of key behavior PATTERNS -- a requirement of science, itself. What you have is largely complete confusion -- and correspondingly SHOWING NO noteworthy (or real) PROGRESS, OR ANY WAY TO PROGRESS. All, at best, slightly helpful for some practical purposes -- that is with the psychology field basically doing normative, marketing research on mere , though "significant" trends. Dead ends and more confusion quickly comes.
Read the Human Ethogram Project (all major papers, and all the hundreds of RECENT Collect Essays). Otherwise, let psychology remain as it has been for 100+ years (100 yr., officially): NON-science (and a lot of nonsense).
Thanks to researchgate, I had to recompose this essay THREE times (otherwise RG had phrases and paragraphs incomprehensibly moved around and repeated, with other statements missing); there may well have been a better version of this essay, which basically "disappeared".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology