Hi Brad!

I find the attached file in the Net. Is it of help you?  I would be more than happy if this were the case. The file refers to several ethological theories, such as Konrad Lorenz' theory, attachment theories, and so forth.

Best regards.

Dear Orlando M Lourenço

[ why do so many say "hi, Brad!" as if they knew me -- IF ONLY!!]

Since I have been a human ethologist for over 35 years, I am aware of the classics that you sent me a paper about. (I have known and studied several of the 2nd generation big guys in human ethology: including Eibl-Ebesfeldt, Charlesworth, Blurton-Jones; I have studied with some of them. )

I await for you to read the approx. 300 pages I provide and, once understood, get back to me.  I understand you are an "old-timer" like me and I mean you no disrespect, but you may find one gets no instant credit for 'older' either (take it from me).

Let me say:

You might well be happy to find that  what I have said IS the case.   I have gotten to where I got with my perspective, largely avoiding adherence to psychology's major theories (though, like you, I am a neo-Piagetian and know Piaget and the newer version theories well; my theory, in a real sense, is an actualization of the second, less known, sort of equilibration, the "balance" between stages -- something Piaget really did not explain, but just cited "maturation" ).   I have my bachelor's and master's in psychology; yet for all my life -- and I have kept up -- psychology has been horribly bad in overall theories, e.g. of personality (truth is, as far as major overall-explanatory theory is concerned, psychology has not much improved in 40 years).  My largest paper shows the kind of clear terrible error each of the "classic" theories* [of personality] have and then offers an improved theory, discounting NONE of the empirical findings.

Hints of the merits of the perspective:

My perspective does not attempt to apply a thought system to psychology (as it is usually done, by features or analogy); rather, it attempts to place psychology in an inductive scientific perspective of understanding -- well-founded and well grounded. Some important aspects: (1) behavior is explicitly seen as biological and biological principles are applied; (2) it is the only theory in existence (I believe) that completely integrates 'the innate' and the learned, showing how they indeed (as claimed for decades) can occur in effect AT THE SAME TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY.  (3) The perspective thoroughly uses the terms of classical ethology. (4) The theory is absolutely consistent (expressly) with all the most recent understand of types of memory and perception. AND: It does (2) and (4) without adding anything artificial to the 'system' -- like the "central mechanisms" (aka 'executive processes') the paper you provided speaks of [ BUT: replace "central mechanisms" with simply the existing, naturally-applied known aspects of memory (naturally applied by the nature of those capacities, themselves -- of course, along with the perceptual (perceptual/attentional) shifts I describe), and then you would be ok ].

Anyhow (1) - (4): have you seen all that before???

* FOOTNOTE: MY second-longest paper takes on a major Information Processing theory (Anderson's ACT) and that critique is still relevant today.

P.S. I have waiting 30+ years to come back, now that the technology to investigate the major hypotheses exists.

Dear Brad Jesness,

First of all, I want to apologize for the "Hi Brad". Forgive me for this. Actually, we do not know each other. I often use "Hi" in my responses and, until now, you are the first, say, to reprimand me. We are always learning because I never thought that such way of addressing could be, say, inappropriate, or even a bit rude or not polite in such case. In a sense, as members of the same research forum, we are, as it were, intellectually friends. Of course, you may have a different perspective that I respect.

Thank you very much for the information provided. Very useful for me because I am not a human ethologist. However, as a developmental psychologist, I am interested in all theories on human development. It is likely that I have not time enough to read the 300 pages you mention. I will try.

If I understood it well, you say that, like you, I am a neo-Piagetian. This is not true. I am not a Piagetian either in the sense that to be a neo-Piagetian, Piagetian, and the like, seems to belong to a scientific club. Even so, I like looking at human development, namely cognitive, from a Piagetian framework.

I strongly agree with you on the idea that psychology has not much improved in 40 years. As I see it, many theories, although grounded in empirical terms, rely on conceptual risks. As Wittgenstein once astutely remarked in his famous Philosophical Investigations, in psychology there are experimental methods, but conceptual confusion. As you certainly know, Paul Meehl's (1978) seminal paper published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology and titled: Tabular asterisks and theoretical risks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald and the slow progress of soft psychology shares the same idea. In this paper, he "denounced" the illusion of rigor and progress that pervades psychology. Note, for example, that psychology would be the queen of science if the number of publications, journals, and theories were the criterion to be taken into account.

I don't think that Piaget's concept and psychological process of equilibration is a "balance" between stages, but rather a balance between assimilation and accommodation. As to "the why" of development, as you know,  in addition to what he  called "the three traditional factors of development", he put a great emphasis on equilibration". More to the point, according to Piaget, maturation simply opens up a series of possibilities, but without giving rise to their necessary actualization.  

I am quite available to learn from you and your perspective.

Dear Orlando M Lourenço

I apologize for using the label 'neo-Piagetian' on you; I am reading your "Developmental stages, Piagetian stages in particular: A critical review" paper and can see how you would not like that.  I am happy to see you are a strong stage theorist; that should help you like the perspective in my papers.

About your statement:

"Piaget's concept and psychological process of equilibration is a "balance" between stages, but rather a balance between assimilation and accommodation"

I do not think that is totally true, that is: I do not believe that is "the whole story".   Reading Piaget's descriptions of equilibration, you get the definition quoted (above), but you find another usage in Piaget which, as I said is:

" the second, less known, sort of equilibration, the "balance" between stages".

("balance" being the word I choose there)

While I have not finished your "Developmental stages, ..." paper I have read into it about 10 pages and have seen that you seem content with the notion (having much to do with stage shift) that :

“…it abstracts properties … of the inner coordinations

among our actions” (Campbell, 2009, p. 153), and

projects, transposes, or transfers them to a higher level."

The problem for me is, unless absolutely no other possibility exists (something that cannot be claimed at this point in time), one should not accept any explanation said to involve "inner" development that does not have a clear corresponding (as understood in context) behavioral/environmental component.  That is my position PERIOD.

[ I much more like the statement in your paper: "no strong developmental theory can exist without a criterion or, at least, an indicator of developmental change" and I take the "strong view" there. ]

I see myself as an empiricist at an extreme.  If my view is simplistic, I believe it should just be seen as incomplete.  The assertion that each stage of development (AND stage of conceptualization AND abstraction) involves literally perceiving some kind of concrete [(yet also of a type)] features in the environment, greatly satisfies me; I find that more than a little believable (one just has to have the proper perspective on what the organism can "bring forward" -- a whole bunch of memory "stuff").   If I do not get the specifics correct OR, more likely, cannot imagine all the specifics, that is not a grave weakness in my mind.  Simple beings can know the truth, as long as they know they may be simple - and know that to the proper possible extent.

I will continue to read your paper. I am glad to hear you may well read mine.

Regards, with respect,

Brad Jesness

This is indeed a very interesting and important discussion for those of us researching human development over the past at least 3-4  decades (I am another 'old timer').  To Brad, I wanted to comment on the statement below and will say that I have read the position paper you provided us a link to explore and think about.

You stated that your position after many years of trying to find a way to apply psychological concepts and theories to earlier ethological issues from animal studies is that no one should accept any theological framework if it lacks a behavioral/observational component along with a psychological component.

What I wonder (since my work has ben more along the lines of what Orlando has said and his paper describes) is would you agree that linking human development to aspects of how various animals develop is limited in that humans are far more advanced in cognitive, mental (e.g., problem solving, goal setting, memory), and possibly emotional intelligence -- and most certainly the awareness that we are aware (metacognition)?

Dear Barbara L. Mccombs

Thank you for reading my paper; I am not sure which one you consider the 'position paper', but would guess that it is the shortest of the three (which is kind of an overview, and could be seen as a sort of position paper -- but it lacks crucial details).  If you have not yet read the main paper, "A Human Ethogram ...", I recommend you do so -- that would make what I say below clear or clearer.

I will just address your last paragraph.  Any more advanced aspects of human cognitive abilities and memory abilities (the things I most address) are not constrained in my system.  They are simply, in effect, thought to develop with ontogeny in the same way (innately guided AND with experience and associative learning -- all, in effect, simultaneously) as with other animals -- but the human is not limited to the same content or even to the same qualitative "levels" (two aspects that are no doubt related).  (The fundamental mechanisms and capacities as outlined are inherently basically content-free, though I did "plug them in" to a human example for the exposition of that throughout the long paper.)  In a way, I don't see myself linking all human developments to aspects of how various animals develop (except for these fundamental types of mechanisms).  I rather dislike thinking in any terms of human uniqueness (because anything like that would be seen well only after a lot of knowledge of us and of any given other animal).  Still, I would not claim that all of our stages (or, at least, phases or sub-stages) of cognitive development occur with other animals (and certainly not to the same extent) and the content of perception/attention/cognition and of memory as they occur and develop is notably different (and to a large degree divergent, evolutionarily speaking -- something true of comparisons between any species and another).

Thanks again very much for your interest.

Regards, Brad Jesness

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

Good answers, Brad -- not that I am in any position to judge (smile).  What I see is that we have major agreement about much of our understanding of how we develop as humans compared to animals and that research collaborations would be helpful in identifying further comparisons and increasing our knowledge about the whole thing we call development within living systems of all types.  Plants have things to teach us as do trees and mountains.

Where I might take issue is the whole question of uniqueness.  As an identical twin, I could offer proof that my sis and I are uniquely ourselves and share lots of DNA...

P.S. to my own remarks above:

Since my philosopher friends (the ones I respect much) have failed to weight in as asked (yet), let me again speak to my own question:

In some sense, there is only one way to be right (correct) with science.  What is it in ANY biological field, including behavior? Answer: No presumptions, just basically applying biological principles yielding FULL organismically contextualized associative learning _AND_ doing so with a theory willing to test maximum empiricism.