[ I understand that looking at evolutionary roots is ONE thing ethologists do, but that is much less important than the other aspects of ethology, i.e. than observation and seeking an ethogram. If you just do evolutionary/comparative work, and represent ethology as THAT (with the near-total neglect of these more important things), you are misleading people AWAY from what real ethology is and leading them to misunderstanding. ]
Value observation; AND, value the ethogram (and realize there is a way to start, but that may be inherently partial)
About observation: what really needs to be made clear is that a hopeless and confused morass results from loosing a clear a connection to/with DIRECT OBSERVATION OF OVERT BEHAVIOR (as a proximate cause) FOR ANY MAJOR BEHAVIOR PATTERN (and damn it, note the word: "PATTERN" -- biological behaviors , i.e. all behavior of living organisms, occurs IN PATTERNS). The only thing that sustains the morass (just noted) (aka the resultant "tower of Babel") is adherence to unproven, likely false, unjustified, baseless pseudo-'assumptions' (many ingrained in our culture from old-time philosophers).
I make all of this explicit and completely clear in valid arguments in my writings (I totally and I think irrefutably "spell it out"): (The writings, totaling 480 pages):
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
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm
THEN , with a better perspective used (often using the opposite to today's, and history's, long-time 'assumptions' ) AND BASED ON more likely true assumptions (because they are consistent with biology and more than BIOLOGICALLY PLAUSIBLE) AND WITH AN APPROPRIATE ADHERENCE to having directly observed overt behavior as a clear referent of ANY often-used major or central concepts, I outline explicitly (with clearly TESTABLE HYPOTHESES): very arguably the good beginning core of a cognitive-developmental human ethogram. [ Unfortunately, people CALLING THEMSELVES 'ethologists' rarely read my works -- because of those very sorts of assumptions which automatically lead psychologists "OFF TRACK" (of the nature described above) -- assumptions that make even considering some concrete possibilities IMPOSSIBLE TO EVEN THINK OF, MUCH LESS CONTEMPLATE -- yes, the "affected" cannot even THINK/conceive of certain possible concrete and objective possibilities (that's "culture" FOR YOU). ]
I refuse to have anything to do with any 'ethologist', including, it seems, all members of the International Society for Human Ethology, UNTIL THEY READ MY WORKS. These works happen to be the VERY 2 LARGE WORKS REFERENCED ABOVE.
Come on, you people, you can read 480 pages:
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
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm
Those of the International Society for Human Ethology would have made MUCH BETTER PRESENTATIONS at their annual meeting IF THEY READ MY STUFF. Why would I attend a conference of backward, pig-headed people?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology