Psychological theories are scattered and lack sufficient coherence. Researchers have worked without attention to each other. These valuable theories, if they are put together, find great value. isn't it?
It is possible to collect and merge the theories of development and learning from Locke to today. It would require a comprehensive analysis of each theory and an in-depth understanding of the underlying concepts and principles. This process would involve identifying common themes, analyzing the differences and similarities between each theory, and creating a unified framework that best captures the underlying mechanisms of development and learning.
However, it is worth noting that each theory has its unique perspective, and merging all theories may not be the best approach. Instead, a better strategy would be to identify the strengths of each theory and combine them to create a more comprehensive and integrated understanding of development and learning. By doing so, researchers can develop a more robust framework that can support a range of applications and research questions.
Collecting and merging theories of development and learning can add value. It can provide a more comprehensive and integrated perspective on the underlying mechanisms of development and learning. However, this process requires careful analysis, and it is essential to approach it with an open mind and a willingness to collaborate with different perspectives.
The integration of learning theory Karim Niknam very much depends on the methodological framework. Most dominant research approaches are connected to control humans, i.e. to study them under controlled conditions (e.g. schools, hospitals, prisons, armed forces,…). Contrary to these research designs are mainly autopoiesis, self-emergence and allopoiesis.
With respect to the empirical and methodical analysis of human learning curves, we can definitely state that animal, human and machine learning follow different principles (loops) of learning, with respect to math as measurement tool, e.g. for memory functions and capacities.
Conclusion: creativeness is the distinct mark of human learning in the open field , while behavioral control is the common dominator of animal, human and machine learning, in terms of tech-know-logical application (e.g. AI).
I advocate this because cognitive behavioral therapy is already done, using questioning and case conceptualization to acquire "automatic thinking", "beliefs"("Automatic thinking, belief" is the psychological process), and then helping patients modify them. I mean to extend this approach to all areas of psychology to establish a general theory of psychology. That is to say, we can take what is commonly called "mental process" as an element or unit, study how to discover or dig into it in people's psychology, and then study how to modify it, which is a general psychological theory.
However, the deficiency of cognitive psychology is that its research object is only "cognition", and the psychological processes of these cognition are very basic, such as "perception, attention, memory, representation" and so on. So, why not study the other psychological processes? For example, "the psychological process of anorexia", "the psychological process of character", such as "the psychological process of depression", "the psychological process of schizophrenia"?
A complete and such general psychological theory should include three parts: discovery of psychological process + process model + modification of psychological process.
Cognitive psychology has only the middle part, while cognitive behavioral therapy has all three parts, but its process is only "automatic thinking", "belief" and other cognitive processes. So I think cognitive behavioral therapy can be expanded, extending this three-step step to all mental processes, such as personality, neurosis, and so on, in all mental areas, First find a way to find the psychological process in the human psychology, then write the process in natural language, and then study the way to modify the process, which establishes a general theory, with "process" as an element or descriptive tool.
If we follow such a way of thinking, use the process or procedure as a tool to describe the psychology, first study how to discover or dig the psychological process in human psychology, and then use natural language to describe this psychological process, and then study how to modify these processes, does it establish a general theory in psychology? Using the "process" as a tool of description, then the whole psychology is not unified? Do all kinds of psychological phenomena, including cognition, personality, neurosis and even social psychology, have a universal language? That is, a process.
In fact, I have succeeded, and five years ago, it was just not recognized by the psychological academia, because I oppose the mainstream psychological research method, that is, against experimentation and statistics.
Preprint From cognitive psychology to the theory of psychological programs