Yes, less reading, if students of Psychology simply require that ALL that they bother to read/read-about in this "discipline" should be that where behaviors are discussed clearly, and in clear terms OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS -- and basically just THAT (such patternings) BEING [ substantially ] ALL. (History will show that the rest -- unless you are an advertiser, or maybe a "social psychologist" -- will go down the toilet.)
P.S. "Models" not integrally based-on and/or directly facilitating the seeing-of the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS DO "NOT COUNT". "Mechanisms" not integrally of a biological (and behavior patterned) nature DO "NOT COUNT". You may skip those.
Sorry, I am not entirely following your point. Are you suggesting that models of behavior, theories of behavior, are not important?
Dear Francis C. Dane
Any discussion of, or research on, "behavior" must be talking about EACH OR ANY "behavior" as a behavior pattern(s) -- _otherwise the definition of "the behavior" is contrived and _false_ from the beginning. Behavior is an aspect of BIOLOGICAL functioning (and it is OF NOTHING -- NOTHING we can know of -- which is MECHANICAL; nor can it be just-"modeled" or otherwise dealt with as desired, in "blocks", ETC., ETC. -- these are necessarily dead ends); biological behavior, any portion OR set of it, has to be (BY its biological nature) seen as it is, and as empirically established and ALWAYS, with respect to SETS OF BEHAVIOR IN PATTERNS, OR you have not properly identified "BEHAVIOR", _PERIOD_. There is absolutely no sound basis on which to argue that the study of Psychology cannot just be based, and clearly-based (IN ALL KEY (necessary) WAYS), on directly observable OVERT BEHAVIORAL evidence * (i.e. for ALL its foundations and for its continued progressing understanding). [ ( If you can't do it in your lab or in YOUR time-frame, that is NOT A PROBLEM OF THE SCIENCE; this cannot be used as an argument to conceive of "behavior" in some "other way"; this would be YOUR problem and, I am confident, simply shows a lack of creativity. )]
If it looks like Psychology has not even begun as a science, then THAT is simply the WAY IT IS (100 years of garbage, notwithstanding); No PATTERNS ..., THEN NO PSYCHOLOGY (as the study of behavior). PLUS, arguing from BIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES, there is NO reason that behavior per se should not show ALL THAT IS NEEDED _BY ITSELF_ (i.e. per se): found, just that way, TO SHOW a more-and-more understandable, growing, progressive continuous body of findings. One should NOT -- because there is no reason to -- believe that discovered, well-found behavior patterns will fail to clearly and integrally relate to each other and to OTHER behavior patterns, etc. etc.; no inter-disciplinary studies are absolutely necessary (and OFTEN are not good, but rather distract from clear, real science); and, no neuroscience "findings" are absolutely always clear or always clearly present -- quite the opposite (and NOT NECESSARY, anyway, as just indicated).
* FOOTNOTE: Just try to build a cogent, logical, and sound argument for how the "study of behavior" needs more than discovered/discoverable and empirically-related BEHAVIOR PATTERNS. It is impossible, but by basically needless and/or false references to "practicalities"; these are YOUR "practicalities", NOT THE practicalities -- just given sufficient creativity, as I (with my writings) HAVE DEMONSTRATED. [ See the type of hypotheses I have indicated one can have, or come to, from the very perspective and type of approach I have clearly outlined; and, they (the hypotheses) are ALL in testable form (or in near-testable form -- needing just some obvious clarifications, in specific instances) (they ARE verifiable/falsifiable). All my hundreds of pages of writing explicating, justifying, elaborating my view-and-approach, and contrasting my view-and-approach to present concepts and theories ARE AVAILABLE HERE ON RESEARCHGATE (and ANY legitimate behavioral scientist has to fully appreciate the view -- or "default to" garbage theory and garbage research, and clearly fail with respect to empirical considerations). ]
Yeah, sorry, still not following. It would be great if you could provide one key sentence that does not run on and on. If you are claiming that the first 100 years of Psychology is mere garbage, as you appear to be doing at the beginning of your second paragraph, then we have nothing to discuss.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology