You are absolutely correct.

I don't think so. If sociality is operationalized by focusing on interaction, we have to differentiate the reflexivity of the individual from the reflexivity in interactions out of which emerges something which cannot be foreseen by the interacting individuals (a fortiori the emergent objects, sights, rules for interaction or fundamental concepts of sense cannot be reduced to their intentions). Social learning has to do with handling this emergence in a peaceful and 'prolific' way. Considered in this way, the individualization of learning which is something like a new ideology in pedagogy should be criticized and contextualized – as a manifestation only of a part of the four grades (and dimensions) of reflexivity:  'constitution of an object' – individual – interaction – modification of sense (the last one being independent of situations of interactions but being manifested in these interactions according to pragmatic tasks or goals by individuals). That is: It is not only relevant in which way the individual interprets the environment but also in which interactive contexts and on which backgrounds of sense this interpretation takes place. Corresponding research questions should distinguish between documentation and analysis of interaction (for instance in classes) on the one hand and biographical research on the other hand, thus not only providing a possibility of triangulation but also methods which concretize complementary approaches. Research which focuses on interaction is also apt for revealing manifestations of sense; results of biographical research necessarily show in which way objects were interpreted by individuals. To speak about social learning means to contextualize this topic with the other topics mentioned above. Without this context, the word sociality indeed could not gain the status of a meaningful and substantial concept.

Dear Stefan Orgass  

I will not presently provide a thorough critique of your entire stated position.  But I will say it is highly suspect, just because it never refers to concrete empirical behavior PATTERNS shown in the environment(s) by the organism.   This is what frequently happens when a 'theorist' decides too much on what is what and on what occurs - - before proper non-presumptive, empirical, direct observation.  This is corrupt. 

You should be "operationalizing" almost nothing -- NOTHING BUT WHAT YOU OBSERVE (and if you cannot discover behavior patterns, your requisite observation is "in its infancy" OR done wrong).  If concepts are based on extensive good observations, proper operationalization could then take place (though another term may be used for it).

Your system of thinking is self limiting, because it for the most part (its terms) come from your head (and likely those who preceded you).  Learning is limited by the way you see things in the first place. Social, social, social ... provides stories to replace actual development of the organism involving its own most-adaptive mechanisms.  It is seemingly  a part explanation, BUT often without any notable direct evidence and no proximate causes. VERY POOR.  Cite some of these good things in a further response and we can judge to see if it is "of the organism".

Good clear empirical observations still cannot be found (because you are not omniscient, if for no other reason, with your big hypothetico-deductive system).  It is  just something you (and perhaps some before you) think can be used; but I would cite lack of DIRECT observation FOR defining CONCEPTS (the good thorough kind kind of observation, associated with the discovery of necessary species-typical patterns) .

In other posts I have outlined associated major likely-false assumptions associated with those who use quick hypothetico-deductive systems.  I have argued that having those assumptions make it impossible for you to think correctly (and thus 'theories' are wrongly skewed, hopelessly); observation is always inadequate (even unsystematic).  I also describe how 5 major assumptions used by modern psychological 'researchers' and 'theorists' HAVE NO FOUNDATION (are unproven pseudo-assumptions or presumptions OR conclusion USED AS 'assumptions').  Other opposite assumptions are just as or MORE well-founded and more biologically likely : see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_can_straighten_out_the_mess_that_psychology_is  AND see:  https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_arent_you_also_looking_for_more_embedded-ness_in_with_the_environment  (see ALL my responses ("Answers") in that thread)

Dear Brad Jesness,

the problem of a hyothetico-deductive system is well known, but even if you try to abolish it your concepts remain on the basis of which you observe. There is no direct observation. That is why a system of concepts has to learn from empirical research, assuming that a difference between descriptions 'so far' and description 'from now on' can be observed itself. What is interesting in your statement is the possible consequence that the way an individual acts in social contexts could itself be embodied – a question which is part of embodiment theories which try to differentiate 'behavior patters' in themselves, on the basis of concepts which cannot be reduced to behaviorism but which have emerged from interactions, becoming more and more structures of sense that need not be processed consciously before or while acting.

Dear Stefan Orgass   

I have specified appropriate assumptions AND an appropriately most-minimal hypothetico-deductive system -- I know you cannot use none.  BUT, with good assumptions and using ONLY the best-known AND well-established psychological findings on phenomenon (SOME basic patterning if the nature of basic associative learning _and_ several findings on memory), you can have a h-d system that WILL be correct, because it will likely show no presumptions and will fully rely on observations of the organism (and biological principles).:  With those things being the case, the system will be SELF-CORRECTING.   See  https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory   and especially the attached paper.

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