Re: cognitive-developmental psychology: Is it a bad sign if one has only done ONE thing in her/his entire lifetime?
This is basically, in part, a confession. If you knew how true the "one thing" was in my life, you would likely consider me lazy and privileged. I can accept both labels and can clearly see it that way (at least from the standpoint of some very good people). Moreover, I have had the ability to have anything and everything I thought I needed -- essentially at all times.
But, perhaps as is the only interpretation imaginable, you suspect I am making such admissions just to further the exposure of my perspective and approach. That is completely true. And, I do contend that (with having all resources), I lived virtually all the years of my life looking for a complete and the best thoroughly empirical perspective. Even in my decades of college teaching (more like 1.5 decades), my courses and presentations had coherence most certainly as a function of my views. THUS, indeed, in fact: I have never done anything else in my life other than that needed to produce the papers, book, essays, etc. that I present here on RG (or make readily available through RG). To have a picture of my life, one should imagine about 30 years of it operating much as a hermit (for all that can be good for -- and I do believe it can be good for something).
I started with a core and moved carefully in adopting any aspect of my perspective (basically starting from the position of just what is possibly at-the-very-least needed, and maintaining extreme parsimony). And, again, I am a most thorough-going empiricist, believing that EVERYTHING has a core foundation of some behavior which, at least at some key point, is both overt (though maybe quite subtle) AND directly observable (and now practically so, via eye-tracking). My entire perspective and approach relies pivotally and mainly on such foundations and otherwise only on the best findings and extremely widely-affirmed processes IN ALL OF PSYCHOLOGY (things showing the very best inter-observer agreement). All this is not any kind of abstract or wide set of things. The other prime objective ("directive") has been to NOT [just] link but PUT behavior (behavior patterns) clearly IN a biological framework -- showing as much as possible the "biology of behavior"; this had the rewarding result of eliminating critical and serious dualisms, esp. nature/nurture.
Assumptions or presumptions (pseudo-asssumptions) in Psychology had to be exposed as both unproven and not well-founded. A half dozen central "assumptions" have been replaced in my system BY BASICALLY THE OPPOSITES -- these assumptions being fully consistent with biological principles and more likely true. I also show in my work how to use all the terms of classical ethology, this also allowing or furthering the "biology of behavior".
In short, though this should be to some degree a shameful confession (and many would have to believe that is part of it), my work is MINE (compromising nothing; adhering to principles) -- and it is good **. Please take some time to explore it, starting at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Jesness2 Thank you.
** FOOTNOTE: The perspective and approach is explicit and clear enough for artificial intelligence also -- a good test. BUT: For the great advancements needed in Psychology and major practical utility in AI, we need DISCOVERIES, the nature of which are indicated in testable (verifiable) hypotheses, clear in my writings -- MUCH awaits those discoveries. The same discoveries are involved for either field.
P.S. For 20 years of my hermitage I did have the strong "hobby" (avocation) of JavaScript programming; I never made any money from this. I tell you this just to make sure the portrayal is accurate -- and to in no way mislead. (See http://mynichecomputing.org , if you are curious.)
How are you? "Passing" by noticed that two days no one pays attention to your question. I had a feeling that you, like a principal scientist, had a dissatisfaction with one of the difficult scientific questions. Psychology is a difficult subject for discussion, since there are many subjective opinions in this field of science. But among these opinions are important judgments of professionals. I am sure that soon professionals will "respond" to your reasoning. Do not despair, please.
Dear Vladimir A. Kulchitsky
I must thank you for your kind words and encouragement.
Yes I think it is bad to do just one thing in life and It become worst than bad if one is doing that one thing in same way all the time.In addition I think most of us do one thing in life. At any given moment in life ,either one is totally adhered with the personal and social standards or he is undergoing a transformation as a result of some insight developed through empirical experience or deliberate pursuance to dismantle the status quo.Throughout our life we are either in state of cognitive flux or in state of cognitive calmness to remain in our comfort zone.
Dear Muhammad Zubair
I am in "deliberate pursuance to dismantle the status quo" in Psychology, and establish it much better empirically. BUT, certainly in some very no-so-notable and restrictive ways: I have been doing my one thing "in the same way all the time". This may certainly be due as much to character flaws as to my obsession -- which, via my limited writings, ETC., may come to no fruition. Any consolation I have with my confidence means absolutely nothing unless someone will take on the hypotheses in the "real world"
... at least I am not an 18-year-old soldier, just half-believing he is "serving his country" (when that is nonsense) AND HE DIES WITH ONLY THAT AT THAT YOUNG AGE of 18.
I am comparatively very lucky, so really should not ever seem to be whining, so I do beg your pardon (the "whining" works so well for dogs, though; it is hard not to try that, along with the other machinations ).
At least I am around to also Comment on extremely nonsensical, baseless and unjustified views of concept development, such as:
Article The Story So Far: How Embodied Cognition Advances Our Unders...
Sir Brad ,what are your views on cognitive development? Do you think it goes through the same processess and stages in all cultures.And my second question is do you think consciousless entirely reside within the individual or its origin is beyond our meterial being and we are just recipient of steam of consiciouness.And may be we are independent to use it for perception and imagination but are not able to figure out it's origin because it doesn't exist within us.
Dear Muhammad Zubair
I am a neo-Piagetian and thus believe that stages/levels of cognitive development, unfolding at points throughout ontogeny (0 - 18 yr. old), are real, universal, and cross-cultural.
On consciousness. The primary and always-essential unit of study and focus for ANY topic (if we are talking about science) is the individual human. See the next paragraph regarding the "origin" of consciousness.
As far as things 'being within ourselves", that is not a good way to look at anything for Psychology. It is all the developments that have occurred between us and key-processed aspects of the environment (esp. over ontogeny) which is what "we have". THAT which we have may be used to better understand anything, and that is the only understanding that there is.
If you are interested in more details of my perspective and approach to human psychology studies and understanding (and how my perspective and approach differs from others): you can find 3 relevant Projects under my Profile, with over 600 pages of writing explicating/justifying/grounding my views (and showing how major other views are incorrect or very, very likely incorrect). My "A Human Ethogram ..." paper and the much more recent "Collected Essays"BOOK are the 2 main writings.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence