There is NO 'proximate' without absolute discovery.
Not a question for me (I've answered it with full, real, strict empiricism -- observational "anchors" ALWAYS, clear and INVOLVED -- for/in EVERY CONCEPT, ETC.). It is also not a discussion for me but, rather, for literally/practically EVERYONE ELSE (see previous sentence). You may well be only 900 pages away from knowing the what and the how. (At the same time, I will show you the best (and most real) PARSIMONY; it may be VERY hard for you -- it is hard to "escape" and grow up.)
Identifying a pattern simply and clearly DOES NOT GIVE SOMETHING CAUSAL STATUS (e.g. simple learning patterns -- yeh, they are THERE but in any specific important circumstance/situation do not DESCRIBE the real GROUND of WHAT IS (AND HAS) GONE ON -- they are simply NOT the full crux of anything (not the only thing involved in any crucial juncture);
For some idea how to get towards/to some major 'PROXIMATES" see the bottom 2/3rd of https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ethological_developmental_biological_all_just-behavior-based_view_of_the_unfolding_of_cognitive_capacities_that_must_not_for_science_be_neglected
There is NO 'proximate' without absolute discovery. Not a question for me (I've answered it with full, real, strict empiricism -- observational "anchors" ...
One can argue over synthesis, but isn't the whole purpose of proximate to get close, not exact?
Dear Gary Wietgrefe
You ask "... isn't the whole purpose of proximate to get close? ...". Yes, but it is the right kind of close (not necessarily just in one (or more) particular given controlled environments you choose and, often, not understandable by any given set of now-present circumstances). It is not always possible to get close in a single time and space; for example, to get as close as possible to what is fundamentally going on : more than one related setting/situation/circumstance MAY WELL BE INVOLVED. [ Each setting/circumstance, though, will have, each-itself, concrete directly observable overt and important key phenomenon (at least at the inception of any major shift , e.g. those which are the cruxes in cognitive levels/stages advancements); the empiricism for ALL should be and must be complete. ] My view/perspective/approach/theory will get you as close possible to the distinct observable beginnings -- to a real first cause(s) (or, rather, "internal" and external conditions FOR the beginning -- yet, these typically being short-lasting and specific where they are (AND observable) and quick, i.e. real CLOSE; you do not get real OR close enough otherwise). If this view does not seem parsimonious, portions that seem not parsimonious are not viewed correctly; many needless concepts and constructs in today's Psychology are both unnecessary and wrongful and basically need to be thrown out -- that may help you see the parsimony.
Your phrase "One can argue over synthesis" is objectionable BECAUSE WE/YOU/ME, as scientists/empiricists should DEFINE NOTHING; to do so is to use hypothetico-deductive thinking before it is needed and, thus, improperly -- that forecloses true discoveries. Like anything else: some notable, clear, important aspects of "synthesis" should be discovered directly, before we do any thinking that, in effect, is conjuring. WE OURSELVES DO NOT DO THE SYNTHESIS FOR THE SUBJECT, and especially at any key beginnings, THAT involved (at least key, important parts) IS SHOWN BY THE ORGANISM: clearly indicated in DIRECT OBSERVATIONS OF OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS; and, knowledge of the PAST experiences of the organism (as observed)(given the Memories) will often be necessary to literally look to SEE what is going ON at any later time. (Knowledge of similar behavior patterns will also be seen in other TRULY similar times and places -- so that, too, will be helpful, not to mention definitive.)
My system directs you on how to find the most direct (and truly and ultimately "close", and likely quick) extremely relevant, see-able phenomenon. AND this is all similar to other real sciences and necessary for Psychology to be a science.
[ Keep in mind that in most cases, to say the least : NOTHING in any given highly controlled laboratory environments will be IT -- except those I lead you to FIND, and then it will be SOME circumstances (settings/environments, often plural) , as indicated by the Subject (organism) itself and not by us. ]
Here is the main guidance you need TO START : READ: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ and THEN https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory (basically a BOOK) and https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory (see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates.) ALSO, not among the 200 pages of major papers and 512 pages of essays in my "BOOK", above (which you already have been directed to), the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages:
Data paradigmShiftFinal.pdf
; you CAN find this pdf through this last link ( it may take a little careful looking down the page for the real link). And, similarly, see the other 2 addenda (also important) (I.E. see ALL "LINKS" ("Lined Data") associated with the main Article ( "Essentially, all Recent Essays on Ethogram Theory ...") -- there is a tab for that "Linked Data"-- and then follow the looking procedure indicated necessary for the first addendum) . *** OR ***:Also, now:
The three addenda to " Essentially, all Recent Essays on Ethogram Theory" are now easily found and available, for viewing WITHOUT download, if you wish: http://mynichecomp.com/key_content/paradigmShiftFinal.pdf http://mynichecomp.com/key_content/finalfinal3-converted.pdf http://mynichecomp.com/key_content/Absol_the_last_addendum_TO_BOOK.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology