Here is my point of view as an ethologist: I think in terms of NO hierarchies (or "behavioral levels") which I have not seen the evidence of: the development of (AND in terms of directly observable proximate causes). I DO most certainly believe that thinking goes through qualitative changes, that are hierarchical -- but I have nothing to do with defining the levels or the hierarchy (in any way in advance OR outside seeing pivotal changes or processes occurring as the organism, with corresponding environmental-aspects, show change).
Again, while I do believe development and learningS show qualitative changes, I do not in any way presume to be able to define them or even "see" them (understand them in any good or useful sense), if I have not clearly detected/determined the directly observable proximate causes (or processes) -- that are involved in any shift in BEHAVIOR PATTERNS. I think in terms of behavior PATTERNS, not single behaviors or sets as I might define them, BECAUSE: I define nothing; the subject matter (the organism's-behavior-and-corresponding-aspects-of-the environment) through its change processes WITH observable proximate causes: this is what informs me to such a degree that only the Subject itself can be seen as providing any and ALL definitions. ALSO: Seeing behavior PATTERNS (vs "behaviors") is important because that way you see behaviors in their real context and, in a real sense, behaviors are defining the behaviors around them (this is the nature of classical ethology, as are the aforementioned aspects of my thought). (Yet I do note patterns associated with biological principles and well-founded assumptions -- as behavior is an aspect of biological functioning.) In summary: behaviors define other behaviors and observable behavior change allows one to see the direct proximate cause(s) of the processes and of any overall behavior change.
On what is really a related matter: I never ever, ever speak in terms of what are "the effects of nature (heredity)" OR "what are the effects of nurture". For a good developmentalist I believe any such things, that have major effects, very likely occur (in effect) phenomenologically SIMULTANEOUSLY -- i.e. are in the behavior together, literally at the same time. The nature/nurture "thing" for any supposed reason is, for me, a "non-starter" (a more-than-needless, likely misleading, debate).
Putting things together using one's existing concepts of "Behavioral Levels" (or "spheres of behavior" or whatever) (even with the 'good' goal to "cover all bases") seems to have little to do with empiricism and is more like story-telling. I am a strict empiricist. Organizing things "in advance" appears to have no good use, unless direct investigations (involving direct observations) bear them out -- and one is more likely to actually see things before one can understand things (in a way that is continuously useful, as science).
I REJECT the hodgepodge Relational Developmental Systems Theories (including the 'Bioecological Approach' and sociocultural theory), e.g. Overton et al, which have no clear system and represent subjective researcher intuition (the 'researchers' are the "relaters"), and the modern "embodiment" theories -- which are simply inspired by-analogy with the great work and findings of Piaget on the sensori-motor bases of learning IN INFANCY, and are just by-analogy (conceived, posited, 'hypothesized') and in-reality baseless. I similarly reject all the other obviously made-up "stuff", no matter how big a system or how well it is seemingly "thought-out".
I would recommend all read my
Article, "A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importance":
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Developmental Psychology