When you set up an experiment, with "defined" "stimuli", these are the stimuli in YOUR imagination and/or YOUR model.
BUT: very often it is a matter of representation (from long-term memory) of the circumstance(s)/setting(s), AND the stimuli can only be understood in THAT context -- the context of the content of developed representation of such circumstances/settings (think, for example, of problem-solving). The Subject, in most significant settings, has her/his representation of such circumstances/situations/settings. THAT actually more than helps to properly define the stimuli , for such is often the MAIN THING for defining (recall that it is the Subject (surrounding behavior patterns) very often _THAT_ MUST, in science, be what allows any empirical or true definition of stimuli).
All this is outlined by, and fully consistent with, Ethogram Theory (see my Profile and, from there, read A LOT-- I do provide guidance on readings order). The Theory itself is internally , and likely externally, consistent and it is strictly empirical (in the grounding/foundation of ALL concepts -- i.e. ALL clearly linked to directly observable overt behavior PATTERNS); and thus, given all those characteristics, there are hypotheses that are clearly verifiable/falsifiable .
For sure are stimuli finding use in any experimental setting also always triggers for the participants semantical and/or autobiographical memory content. But before assuming any observable consequence of this priming, an evaluation of the participant is commonly assumed, regarding the meaning of these stimuli in the experimental episodic context. Designing experiments in an unambiguous manner always should be the guideline for a proper experimental setting.
In most significant settings, the unit of evaluation (by the Subject) IS MAINLY THE CONTEXT COMING FROM THE CONTENT that comes with recall from long-term memory.
You say "an evaluation of the participant is commonly assumed, regarding meaning of these stimuli in the experimental episodic context" . BUT THIS is NOT, at present, well accessible nor even interpretable (even if there were some half-way-decent idea of this contextualization from the mind -- and there really is not). (AND, Progressive dynamics, the dynamic nature of seeing and adapting, requires we know not just the WHAT, BUT also the WAY (and continuing way) such happens; otherwise we do not understand what is "learned".
Your outlook is why the vast majority of psychological studies look only at trends between groups or a bunch of individuals, analysed each individually, BUT the assessment still involves the grouping because the cause-effects are FAR from true for all these participants. There is so much grouping (either sort) AND the use statistics is obviously quite arbitrary. This is exactly why much or most Psychology is actuarial "science", just like that used by the insurance industry, AND NOT real science (scicnce is clear and progressive (with each notable research clearly building on itself, etc., etc)). The way to get rid of ambiguity and lack of real generalizability _AND_ the way to get stronger results is to have some way to well understand the CONTEXT provided by representations of the Subject -- this may be possible only with nearly the study of entire cognitive ontogeny (child development of cognition); if this is so, but you don't like that very likely possibility, that is just too darned bad (yet, I believe,, this is not nearly as hard as imagined -- see my essays on Ethogram Theory). [ Another sign of the problems: Psychology has largely thrown away Piaget (some of the strongest and clearest results in all Psychology) (with hardly any true mention of his work); Psychology has also "thrown away" ethology -- and, at this point, psychology folks do not even have understanding of this concept/word).
P.S ALSO: One must also have a clear understanding of the procedural memories that are built-up (and used) with the development of the child.
Yes it is not a matter of the nature of the stimuli, but stimuli is so important since it serves as a trigger for the respondents' subsequent behaviour!
Dear Asaad Chasib Hamood
But yet (then) HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT "the stimuli" are? Context is much of how anything is real (literally) for the biological organism (and therein -- in the context -- is the real meaning of all important stimuli). Huge context comes from the Memories. ( I can't understand how a scientist can presume to determine (actually: guess) the most important (or 'well-defined') "stimuli" (yet they do (!) & then these psychologists generalize like crazy).)
True, though, somehow one must know or come to know the relevant aspects of any important current environment (involving overt, present aspects) -- but this does not mean that we can divinely simply see them (
As regards your question, how do we know what the stimuli are, I can say that we determine the stimuli for a certain case depending on our experience/ understanding of their own experience! Studying the case thoroughly helps us decide type/ or nature of the stimuli!
Asaad Chasib Hamood
You say: "we determine the stimuli for a certain case depending on our experience/ understanding of their own experience!" I SAY: THAT is exactly what you should never do. Such isn't science (even if it may seem to have the "form" of science and/OR even if you want it to be science). [ I hope to soon no longer see any p
Isn't ontogenetic study not related to our past thorough study of the case? And this is science!
And what you mentioned as "Only my way maintains a close and real linkage(s) between behavior and aspects of the environment (and only this is reality or science)" is not accurate! Reality is multiple and can be approached in different ways!
Dear Asaad Chasib Hamood
You ask: "Isn't ontogenetic study not related to our past thorough study of the case?" Not usually; not the way most psychologists do it (and, if a psychologist does not mention Piaget, he is not doing it). Truly studying the past is what most/or all modern psychologists DO NOT DO. Piaget has almost completely disappeared from modern Psychology, along with ethology (that being: the biology of behavior per se (of "just behavior")). I am the cure for both gross omissions .
About "Reality is multiple and can be approached in different ways" . THAT is essentially not true and most often wrong. Multiple "ways" means YOU are thinking from multiple perspectives and no human I know can do THAT well or for-real. Any "putting things together [ just in the mind ]" Is a BIG No-no.
Correction of myself (to some extent): About your "Studying the case thoroughly" -- that is something NOT totally not to be done, but not to be done in any way too soon (i.e. with all the basic science work done FIRST -- to know the human).
Dear Brad Jesness,
Isn't looking at the phenomenon from different angles provide us with better understanding of it? I am talking about triangulation! I mean looking at and considering using different ways to gather your data!
This is also applied to the analysis and interpretation of the data!
Dear Asaad Chasib Hamood
Your "looking at the phenomenon from different angles provide us with better understanding of it? I am talking about triangulation!" BUT THESE ARE ___PRETEND __, conjured (just imagined), different perspectives "triangulating", in today's Psychology (unless you are literally moving your body around the Subject). [ One always needs to be aware of the limits of one's working memory; it is very easy to be too imaginative, but in an unwholesome way. ]
.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Emotion