What clear (seen-the-same, agreed upon), fully empirically-based behavior PATTERNS can be DISCOVERED _AND_ how does one behavioral element in a pattern(s) DEFINE others (and vice versa)?
["Clear" also means excellent inter-rater reliabilities.]
BOTH aspects of that question, always. Nothing less than this standard, or we are doing things wrong. Should all stop and revise what they are doing until this standard is met? If not, why not? And, also, if not : why is this not both possible and more than desirable?: How is it not necessary?
It seems to me that from one good thorough-going perspective, this should be the constant question in all psychology and an answer should always be able to be framed in this way (with no essential elements OR relationships left out). Psychologists should always have an answer to this no matter what, for all behaviors "under" their study. What keeps us from rising to this challenge? [ (Obviously, environmental triggers/effects, would always be implicated and apparent through this sort of discussion -- so that really would not be a worry.) ]
This is a perspective that makes behavior so central that the researcher is actually very much "left out of it", as it should be. The SUBJECT would always be determining the subject matter AND the next steps -- again, not the researcher. The "nature of reality" itself would be being determined by the SUBJECT, again with the researcher "left out". Isn't ALL of this just like other sciences with their subjects of study, and just the way we would want things to be seen? Do you believe THIS NOT POSSIBLE? Why does it seem to be done so rarely? I CAN TELL YOU IT IS POSSIBLE, when it is ubiquitous in classical ethology studies (such as those described in Ethology, The Biology of Behavior, Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 2nd ed. in English, 1975 pp. 1- 215) -- if you've never seen this, go to that text and see.
I believe it would be better to "fake it" (in a sense) to move towards this standard (i.e. aspects you simply hypothesize ("make up") OR create 'place-holders' for would be seen as such), while still always clearly be trying, rather than give up this standard.
Seems to me that anything else is destined to be disjointed (and the field fragmented). Perhaps if you can't see such patterns you are doing the wrong "chunking" for good definitions and categorization or you are not able to think in terms of real process.
[ Feel free to judge the compliance and potentials of my perspective: the major paper is attached. ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses )]
[ General FOOTNOTE: In a way, this is like understanding things so well you can imagine them accuratedly both forward and backward -- similar to the abilities required during development to be capable of major understandings, according to Piaget. ]
ALSO SEE: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316473057_What_we_talk_about_when_we_talk_about_biology AND
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232453867_Ethology_The_Biology_of_Behavior
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Chapter What we talk about when we talk about biology
Article Ethology: The Biology of Behavior
We ONLY know what the proper "restraints"* [on our thinking] are by better knowing the subject of study: the human, a biological organism, showing behaviors that are an aspect of biological functioning. THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO BE HAD, OTHERWISE (PERIOD). I.E. There is no other way (other than this) to argue for a psychology as a coherent, yet ever-growing, area of study (and a with an associated body of true knowledge). TRY as you might to deal with this, or if you are deluded, argue against this.
In science, it must be absolutely clear that the subject determines all (as described in the main post, above).
(*Rather than the word, "restraints", I should have used the word, "boundaries" and indicated that these boundaries can be radically shifting.)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology