If we cannot come to actually see ourselves as a species among other similarly biological-behavioral species, can we really accomplish anything? I say NO -- not anything significant involving ourselves AS A TOPIC OR AGENT. And, I am talking about seeing our OVERT behavior patterns and overt observable foundational behavior PATTERNS, as BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING -- this is to say: behavior PATTERNS , [ that is " 'just' behaviors" (in common parlance) ] , AS biological patterning ITSELF PER SE. Though already many realize this must be true, with behavior having to be a true aspect of biological/organismic functioning even onto itself, YET BECAUSE we DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEE THIS, we are "sunk". Only recently have I come to realize how important my guide to Psychological (behavioral) science is.
If we cannot reach this better point (indicated), we will not see anything involving our responsibilities in any complete or sustained way AS IT REALLY IS: Needless questions and needless superstitions will necessarily and irreparably confuse us. AND: We may not know this because, very largely unbeknownst to us, Psychology as a science has not yet started -- though in ways this is easy to see if you look for any true and meaningful talk of strict empirically-established behavior PATTERNS (actual discovered-through-key-observations-REAL, actual OVERT PATTERNS (and patterning of patterns, etc)). AGAIN, only recently have I come to realize how important my guide to Psychological (behavioral) science is; I used to say "let's worry about climate change foremost", but now I realize that US thinking about most anything very important well (or behaving in any significant continuously disciplined manner) IS VERY, VERY LIKELY CONTINGENT ON US BEING ABLE TO PUT OURSELVES IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND CONTEXT; without true knowledge of true foundations we are terribly weak-of-mind (the nature of the problems here just indicated).
[ In line with the views above, I have sought to UN-FOLLOW many poor and useless Questions -- ones that, nonetheless, go on and on (even for years). I do not wish to in any way encourage these. ]
In regard to climate change, I have described the big (great) nature of changes in our behavior [patterns] which must be made. It seems clear that only some profound understanding will motivate such committed, active, and sustained behavioral change (otherwise, at least, such behavioral change will be VERY hard; PLUS, we -- all of us --- must for the most part have this significant behavioral change): see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/With_Climate_Change_and_all_I_will_tell_you_what_I_think_the_minimum_needed_for_survival_is
A very interesting and important question. I hope it will generate a lot of attention and responses during these Covid 19.times
Having read your question and commentary, including your arrogantly judgmental, parenthetical closing as well as having read some of the responses, it is my impression that all might benefit from my Commentary (attached) on a related matter (everything is "related" in some way). It is fewer than 800 words from first in Title to last in References.
Dear Roger K. Thomas
If you read more of my writings, you will see that I completely agree with some of the major points you make. You write (quoting you): "I am inclined to agree with Uttal (2003) who referred to such findings as “The new phrenology.” In his more recent book, Uttal (2012) made an even stronger case [ : ] Any definition of such tag-along concepts (see list above) is inherently incomplete. Because such concepts have no specific physicochemical substrates, they are fictitious; that is, they are not materially real; and that is where muddling arises. ..." [
I am most impressed with both the rapidity and thoroughness of your reply to my comment. I could never have matched that when I was at the zenith of my ability. I will attach a document, never published, but developed as a handout for my students when I was teaching (I am 80now and last taught a class (Gradate-level History of Psychology) in 2010. I do believe the section ""Levels of Concepts" beginning on page 5 bears on what we have been discussing. The first 4.5 pages is a longer version of what I wrote in the "linguistic 'muddling" Commentary attached previously and might be skipped over. The attached here needs some updating to make it more compatible with the Figure and associated text in the earlier posted Commentary. The attached "Thinking Clearly . . ." paper was written years ago, and my brain has absorbed a bit more in the intervening years.
Dear Roger K. Thomas
I have yet to read all your new longer paper. I should say, right off "the top", though, that I DEFINE NOTHING. As in the well-established sciences, the Subject (literally (and not the subject matter or oneself or one's thinking)) defines ALL. Behavior PATTERNS actually seen in directly observable overt behavior (you can give that a name based on context, contingency, or other associated patterns) , BUT ONLY THAT. Then, just that which clearly follows (or, rather, become admixed and within) a given behavior pattern IN CLEAR or necessary ways: Then such can named. I, with my mind, do not divide up the world in advance (in any sense) unless necessarily or mistakenly.
I plan to try hard to make this my last response. I cannot help but comment on your self-reference to “my mind,”. By such use you have reified a fictional entity, namely, “mind.” As you may see, it is difficult to avoid linguistic muddling!
Dear Roger K. Thomas
I may have referred to "my mind", but in no non-necessary or important sense did I use that term when referring to agency (or any 'thing'). Western "man's" views as well as his thought and curiosity is corrupted by about everything (or anything) said about the mind. Rest assured, I refer to my mind only indirectly (in the context of some much more real, important, and significant involved situations/circumstances). I think about my mind (and really NOT) only for reflexive reflection of THAT which it was used on and about how it got stuff in there and stuff that is reliable and valid with the strictest empiricism -- such fills it all. And, even then, ideally, when using the mind as just indicated, one is STILL within a most-relevant real (concrete) context (and thus has the correct supports for non-bias). Needless to say I NEVER say anything about "the mind", clearly an overly-general subject, in addition to all the other problems discussing such.
This will be my last. You might just as easily have written “I, with my brain . . . .” whereby you would have avoided unnecessary reification of a fiction.
The Major flaw in our psychology began with the acceptance of the Normal Distribution for once we found the "Norm" we were forced to call those things that are "not-Norm as aberrant behavior. Normative behavior is not Psychology, it is the study of group behavior Essentially, It is Sociology. Psychology
should be the exploration of the individual variations
On an experiential level, this discussion brings to my mind the George Carlin routine on the evolution of the term "shell-shock" to "post-traumatic stress disorder." As one moves from observation and description of behavior to its interpretation, the original descriptors of the antecedents, and of the behaviors,
on which that interpretation of its meaning is based, often becomes so obscured as to be lost.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology