Let me ask it the longer way, which I really wanted and needed to:
Have technologies, with the importance of, AND essentially the role of, a MICROSCOPE been developed which could be used for the parsing out and investigation of very specific, likely important, particular, directly observable behavior patterns? (This post will be about the nature of such things which may be seen only with eye-tracking and related technologies.)
I am talking about NEW directly observable, NEWLY reliably-seen subtle but OVERT behaviors -- see-able by using the new technology BUT OTHERWISE NOT NORMALLY OR RELIABLY SEEN, and thus not yet expressly any key part of any key theory, BUT likely destined to become THAT. I think we now have technology capable of allowing us to do that : eye-tracking technology (perhaps with computer-assisted analysis). AND, of course, ALL THIS good use of the new technologies, roughly described, HAS YET TO BE DONE.
I have a good imagination for SUCH NEW-TO-BE FOUND AND SEEN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, termed "perceptual shifts" in "A Human Ethogram ...", and having the ROLE THEY ARE HYPOTHESIZED TO HAVE THERE at the inception of major cognitive-developmental changes. This involves coming to literally see what normally is NOT parsed out or ever clearly seen, by either researchers or the developing organism (as a clear set of things ATTENDED TO, or to attend to) during key points in ontogeny, BUT STILL are manifested in OVERT AND SEE-ABLE BEHAVIOR, right THERE at key points, QUITE POSSIBLY IN THAT ROLE hypothesized, DIRECTING ATTENTION(S) (I will call these "attentions noticed", though they are not in any conventional sense noticed -- they simply DIRECT attentions). There are, of course, both those "attentions noticed", the nature of which was just indicated, and attentions "conventionally noticed". AND yet those not so-expressly noticed (the former), though not part of deliberate attention, in any sense, are THERE consistently affecting the direction of behavior, including eye gaze -- and which soon come to affect attention. AND these, due to the perceptual "shifts", reliably see-able and possibly reliably SEEN in specific-typical ways, are likely having important species-typical roles in developing "HIGHER ORDER" LEARNING AND that YIELDING HIGHER ORDER REPRESENTATIONS (including "abstractions"), providing for further "higher order" OVERT species-typical OVERT behaviors. (It is also noteworthy that having such as these "shifts" are the only way to have a empirical foundation for qualitative changes in learnings -- otherwise developmental psychology, in an essential way, LACKS an empirical foundation.) (It may also be becoming clear to you why the term "PERCEPTUAL shifts" rather than a later-used term, "perceptual/attentional shifts", is the greatly preferred way to refer to the "shifts", i.e. the terminology without the "attentional" part -- and that is clear in "A Human Ethogram ...", where "perceptual shifts" is always or almost always the terminology used.)
IN ADDITION (via "The Human Ethogram ..." perspective): It can be clearly shown how major classic psychology developmental (personality) theories are clearly seriously flawed YET ALL OF THEM, AND JUST THEM, still the only ones always found in General Psychology and Developmental Psychology and Cognitive Psychology textbooks. YET, in fact, they can clearly be shown to involve inappropriate ways of developing 'assumptions' AND that these assumptions (and other even more basic 'assumptions' held) are unfounded and baseless and unjustified _AND_ have better-founded, better-justified ALTERNATIVES (consistent with biological principles).
Plus (in the main "Ethogram" paper), a related alternative/resultant approach to studying development (AND using this new, newly observable, data on behavior patterns) prescribes a way to see the development of cognitive and cognitively-related behavior patterns ALWAYS GROUNDED (at least the inception of ALL central key behaviors) IN reliable, direct-observable, concrete behaviors BY DESIGN (by biology), and it correctly applies and uses the full terminology of classic ethology.
For the basic perspective and for one outlook on pseudo-assumptionism see "A Human Ethogram ...:
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
For explication of THE false, even more BASIC, unfounded 'assumptions' held (and at the very base of modern psychology theory, and which are behind the other aspects of the seriously flawed classic and current explanations given --as described in "A Human Ethogram ..") AND for an explication of the better alternatives: see a lot of my essays in Questions asked and Answers given, here on researchgate (start at my Profile, click Contributions, and then finally click Questions and click Answers). Start here: Brad Jesness
ALL OF THIS, IN CERTAIN MAJOR WAYS, PROVIDES FOR REAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (see that following the posting of the new version of this Question, elsewhere -- in a P.S. Answer, following that posting).
My "best expression" (THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, of this thread) is perhaps now more clearly THAT -- given I have just made some edits which made some bad sentences, some not clearly conveying important outlooks, clearer. To be more frank hopefully those errors, or at least portions partially seeming inconsistent due to bad writing, are gone.
I apologize. I am too old for this work. It is about time I declared myself a "goner" (as I am) and BE gone -- perhaps, right after this post.
I shall stare at this "best expression" for a bit longer, to see if it is correct now, and clearly is saying what I mean.
I also decided to repost the new (and corrected) version of this, along with the major postscripts WHICH WERE BELOW, here: 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
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence