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).
Try and pose the question in a few sentences or even just one. If you can't, then understanding why not will probably clear up your confusion.
Dear Daniel Maille
Just read the part of the 1st paragraph which has only one bold word; then read the 2nd and 4th paragraphs -- that might give you some idea of the assertions.
(Put your i-Phone away.)
I understood you had a question, not assertions. Sorry about that, I thought you needed help, rather than an audience.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence