What can "straighten out" the mess that psychology is? I believe it is by coming to realize that SEVERAL basic assumptions (actually, just totally unproven beliefs) are incorrect and the opposites are true.
You will see much/most of the following is the OPPOSITE of what your psychology professors tell you, but it can clearly be argued that all of the following are more in line with biology (organismic, if you like):
(1) one should develop a theory expressly consistent with biological principles (e.g. homeostasis) -- it should clearly and, in effect, constantly show in the theory;
(2) The most significant learnings and innate factors occur, in effect, completely simultaneously (and the innate factors at times may well be more important, regardless of the stage of development one is looking at);
(3) Major innate guidance emerges with each significant qualitative advance in conceptual abilities (last one around adolescence, at the earliest);
(4) The more "advanced" the organism, the more learning occurs, BUT ALSO the more [significant] innate guidance (factors) are involved;
(5) Inductive work should be emphasized and hypothetico-deductive systems should be formulated ONLY when you must (and then with no loss or bias of/in observation)
(6) Everything that develops, including our most prized abstract conceptual abilities, are very likely and potentially observable, concrete (in their inception) -- and likely seen as perceptual (perceptual/attentional) SHIFTS and adaptive biases. (This is the empirical assumption and the way it would happen with the organism adapting in its environment. NO abstract conceptual abilities emerge from just internal processes -- from just "thinking" in the brain/mind. )
None of the above indicates there is less learning (more if anything); but, there is no "pure" learning.
Seeing things this way totally frees one to be a thorough-going empiricist and to DISCOVER answers with key real-time observations of the subject. THIS "straightens out" psychology. The Subject can begin to provide the definitions and the related-definitions; research becomes a MUCH more inductive process.
It is true that some research may involve the new eye-tracking technology and software (but we have that now).
See especially: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Dear Jimmy Y. Zhong
I don't "consider" anything myself ( I do not "consider" in the sense, in YOUR sense, of ADDING-IN anything). Rather, the subject indicates what more is going on at each "turn". Period. But, you should see I am a developmentalist.. Ethogram Theory is inherently developmental: it outlines ontogeny and hypothesizes how to find key aspects -- in particular, the major shifts in perception and attention, and thus immediately then learning, that are the very embodiments of innate guidance during cognitive stage transitions of child development. Congruent with my statement about "adding-in": I do not presume to be able to GUESS at other things (like sociocultural aspects); rather (again) for me, ALL MUST BE DISCOVERED. Induction, NOT a priori ANYTHING: we must shed the inclination for coming up with and applying our own hypothetico-deductive systems and basically do so only when forced to.
There is no earthly reason for a presumptive nature/nurture debate AND they are ALL presumptive. I am done with anything like that and you should be too. The major innate guidance factors determine the very nature of major learnings and, in effect, learning and these major innate factors (perceptual or perceptual/attentional shifts) literally occur SIMULTANEOUSLY -- as the very stage shifts (which ARE the perceptual or perceptual/attention shifts and the learning that follows on that), which occur with each cognitive stage transition.
You really did not see to 'see' what I was talking about (and perhaps just need to read more of the larger papers in the "Human Ethogram and Development" Project). In your statement your advice seemed to try to enforce much that I see as wrong, and in good part "parroted" the "party line". It obviously will be very hard for some (most?) to "shake off" the extreme presumptions that come with premature and preemptive hypothetico-deductive systems of just OUR OWN creation (created, probably from some basic Western philosophy) and adhered to simply blindly by tradition, AND based ON NO EVIDENCE.
Clearly I do agree with your statement "different subdisciplines [must] come together and devise some form of generalized or unified theory to explain learning and other well-known psychological phenomena". This is precisely what I am trying to present the core for and trying to get researchers to do.
But, obviously, I do see psychology as a mess -- and a needless mess. And, I have a lot of problems with a LOT of what "theorists" are trying to do. If you look at my Comment under a paper called "Desiderata for developmental cognitive architectures" you will find an example of me addressing some particulars of some trends in modern psychology I find destructive:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309333693_Desiderata_for_developmental_cognitive_architectures
Article Desiderata for developmental cognitive architectures
Dear Jimmy Y. Zhong
Indeed I do need to let you read those papers (and one understandably would need to, to really see what I mean). I do apologize for any harshness in my response; I assure you it is just a response to certain "ways" of the field of psychology and NOT to you, that I direct ANY harshness.
I couldn't agree more with all of this. Ethologists have adopted the concept of behavioral systems to explain the interactions between nature and nurture.
Article HUMAN SOCIAL BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS: A UNIFIED THEORY
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning