I think you must understand that humans are an hybrid species with two different ethnograms. That is why this has failed in the past.

This assessment may also help indicate how the existing structures are irrational, but rigidly enforced. This IS the kind of thing you may well be up against:

Quoting a follow-up note, I sent to 2 of the Yahoo Human Ethology group members:

It seems that Feierman does not read anything, and thus has no true interests. He does not make up for that by being otherwise appropriately open-minded . Feierman seems to just judge things as one type or another he likes, and the rest he dislikes (without exploring the content at all) -- though he may publish a large part of that when it does not violate any of he existing views ('assumptions') or 'definitions'. Basically, he must like something or "not care" to allow it to be shared with the list. Anything not easily recognizable and NOT in-line with the pseudo-assumptions he operates by (unfounded, baseless 'assumptions', which are actually just beliefs) and/or not in-line with "official definitions" that have been "handed down through the ages", he rejects.

He just uses concepts and opinions he formed long ago (and some obviously just memorized) for his judgements. It is unlikely he would either recognize, or put on the mailing list, ANYTHING he is not already familiar with IF it covers differently what he thinks has already been "dealt with" -- especially if by him. Thus, because he once was asked to try to do a human ethogram and he could not with his 'assumptions' and 'definitions' which would have required many unreasonable, non-integrable outlooks, to put "it all" together "however" , he sees that as how it must be and would be for anyone (i.e.hopeless).

He requires for himself (and others) an unreasonable approach, 'defining' too much and too much "up front" -- defined by him or tradition, and NOT: BY the Subject, the human organism, with ALL understood as based on observation -- as anything in science starting up or progressing should be. He basically has seen behaviors as "unconnectable" to an extent that he does not see things in a way even consistent with biology, and thus he is not doing, recognizing, allowing, or envisioning science at all. NOTHING that would ever allow true and continuous progress to a human ethogram would be found noteworthy and he would censor it. He has.

This guy is effectively ignorant of any new ideas, and sees "speculation" in different new things WHERE THERE IS NONE. For example, my entire system requires EVERYTHING be grounded clearly at some point IN DIRECT OBSERVATION OF OVERT BEHAVIOR PATTERN RESPONSES with proximate causes (and what follows being as similar as one can expect as more development (with some signs) and learning (with some signs) occur. This is a requirement holds EVEN with regard to any covert behavior that must be posited (also with/using a good understanding of our Memories) as ontogeny progresses. That is as empirical as any cognitive-developmental approach could be.

It seems like since he and his pals could not think of any way to progress to a human ethogram, no one else could do so either and he could not imagine it could be good science, if not totally conforming to what he sees as "the way it is". YET, even in the shortest of statements he shows he operates with unfounded assumptions and (relatedly) sees things in terms of conventional, extreme dualisms (my paragraph after quoting what he wrote, published yesterday on researchgate, points up much of this).

(My treatise on an approach for a human ethogram has been available since 1985, yet he never read it (try Google: human ethogram). (JUST RECENTLY, with the new eye-tracking technology and computer-assisted analysis, can the type of "perceptual shift" hypotheses I propose and see as important be investigated; my old long (160 page) paper IS NOW NEW AGAIN -- BUT Feierman will not hear of it (and still won't read it).

See:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses

He has an point if you have a traditional view of ethology. The problem is that human behavior is too diverse, and has to some extent been replaced by cultural scripts. You need to discard the cultural scripts as part of human ethology, and try find find out what the natural preferences looks like. You also need to decide if you want to study only the majority preferences, in which case you must ignore, rather than try to incorporate, the alternatives. Both human ethology and evolutionary psychology operates on the faulty premises that all human behavior have a single evolutionary origin, a view that has made little progress, and will continue to make little progress.

Dear Leif Ekblad

You certainly have a different view than mine; but, do you have an approach? My approach is defined and could be used and tested and, if correct, it could progress to a full human ethogram. Do you have anything like that or are you just another in the "you must be hopeless" camp?

I have a traditional CLASSICAL VIEW of ethology, where individual organisms can be studied very thoroughly and understood very well. You may well have not seen this view of ethology for decades; and, over the last decade "official definitions" of ethology do NOT EVEN INCLUDE THIS, but describe ('define') something very different.

Hey, regarding the Human Ethology group: even if the 'owner' did have a problem with a post or 2, why not just not publish those posts. He kicked me off the group. (I cannot read or post there -- and it is a human ethology group!)

I once discussed using classical ethology in the group and how to make sense of neurodiverse courtship. I have not given up on this even if I'm not directly working on it either. Of course, if somebody can define the typical courtship in terms of classical ethology then that would be of great help too.

Also, much of the poor understanding of autism is based in not understanding what is different. This is because the typical function is not defined in a strict sense, like with classlical ethology. Instead, many researchers actually believe it is the cultural scripts that autistics fail to understand, something I find quite unlikely.

I don't follow the group a lot anymore since most of the stuff just goes in circles anyway. I suggest you work on your empirical models and write up papers from the view of classical ethology instead of participating in discussions that rarely leads anywhere. After all, that is what will make a difference in the end.

P.S. about Feierman, the 'moderator' of this Human Ethology Yahoo Group (and mailing list): (much of this addresses details of problems already noted):

Feierman has said : "there is no reason for a human ethogram". Could anything be more ridiculous? How about coming to know what innate guidances there are with qualitative cognitive stage/levels changes? Do we not want to know anything about the innate guidance VERY likely behind the development of our most precious abilities? And, this is not to mention that, without discovering the manifestation OF the innate guidance mechanisms here **, then there literally are absolutely no empirical foundations for qualitatively different levels or stages in the development of thinking. NONE.

Moreover, since we are biological organisms and behavior patterns and responses are BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING: then there is no reason not to expect SIGNIFICANT INNATE GUIDANCE for any and all significant human behavioral systems (behavior patterns).

Feierman's position is anti-science. He is a little dictator, in love with JUST peer-reviewed stuff (which is mostly junk) and that is about all he thinks is worth hearing/reading, except for the committees of those same peers that declare what and what is not worth looking into.

We are talking about a serious problems with this moderator. (Anti-biology, and thus anti-science is a problem. There is no "pure learning", yet this is basically -- as far as anyone can tell -- what he says.) This is INCOMPETENCE.

Is this any kind of Human Ethology group anyone with any dignity would submit to?

------------

** FOOTNOTE: I say (AND THIS IS NOW RESEARCHABLE AND TESTABLE AND CAN BE VERIFIED OR NOT): there are perceptual shifts, at the inception of such qualitative cognitive changes

---------------------

Feierman has also said: (quoting):

"There is no controversy over what is an ethogram. According to the Immelmann and Beer Dictionary of Ethology (Harvard University Press, 1989), an ethogram is "Behavioral inventory; catalogue of actions; a survey, as complete and precise as possible, of all the behavior patterns characteristic of a species." 

The term ethogram was derived primarily for the behavior of non-human vertebrates where all the behaviors are either reflexes, orienting movements, or fixed action patterns. It is difficult to make a human ethogram because of all the ideosyncratic "flexible" behaviors that are innervated by different parts of the nervous system than what usually are involved in the fixed action pattern behaviors of an ethogram." (end quote)

----------------

Other untenable positions Feierman holds are: (showing things are really much worse than previously described or indicated):

* "Thought is non-vocalized (and non-written) language" [( Obviously thought is not always language-related.)]

* " Cognitive development is not behavior "... "behavior is movement"

With views like these, it is obvious this group (mailing list) moderator cannot only not entertain important questions, but cannot speak in terms of the modern understandings of psychology (even THOSE are better than his understandings) . And, so he otherwise (when things are not as he conceives them), greatly limits and RESTRICTS discussion to skewed, distorted (even perverse) definitions and otherwise very often censors what would be seen in almost any psychology or behavioral science forum as reasonable discussions (e.g. discussing assumptions, related to usual conceptualizations of the behaviors of thought and of cognition). HIS IGNORANCE is beyond belief and that certainly disqualifies him as moderator of any forum about behavioral science.

In short, the Human Ethology Yahoo group is moderated by someone who is unfit in his knowledge and understanding and is a dualist in all sorts of unnecessary and wrongful ways. He squelches normal questions and discussions.

It is CLEAR why there is a need for a HUMAN ETHOGRAM group. Read about one here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/For_a_new_real_empirical_science_of_human_behavior_clearly_the_biology_of_behavior_lets_move_towards_a_human_ethogram_Might_a_Yahoo_group_help

Excellent question waiting for answer

Here is another write-up of my assessment of modern psychology AND ethology, which might shed some further light:

The fact is modern "human ethologists", very typically are not ethologists at all, because of a lack of sufficient empirical concerns and interests. The type of interests they have nowadays, as indicated again several paragraphs, below (those being: evolution of behaviors, phylogeny, or comparative psychology or neuroscience ) are ONLY A SLANTED VIEW of a _PART_ OF WHAT THE REAL subject matter of real ethology is to be (Tinbergen would agree with my assessment); the subject matters of these current interests are incomplete and uninterpretable onto themselves, plus they are inherently speculative.

Metaphorically, the way I see it is that typical modern 'ethologists' have left the "beating heart" of true ethology behind. They have adopted the assumptions of mainstream psychology that are unfounded, baseless, and lead to a tremendous presumptive skewing of the way subject matter is viewed (here, behavior patterns and aspects of the environment, or any natural portion thereof).

And, thus, because of this new, strong, adopted 'stance', modern "ethologists" have redefined ethology in a stereotypical way (as bad or worse than the way it was characterized by other sorts of behavioral scientists). No classical ethologist would approve of any of the commonly found definitions of 'ethology' I am nowadays able to find. Plus, they are actively hostile to thinking they need the sort of definition [ in behavior pattern responses ] that classical ethologists provided.

So, to continue my metaphor: Not only have they left the "beating heart" of ethology behind, but if they encounter that "heart", THEY WILL STOMP ON IT.

The post "Why psychology is NOT a science" (below) was rejected and not posted to a Human Ethology Yahoo Group.

I want to convey to you the importance of presenting this summary (the content of that very essay, below) of the way things are in psychology vs. the way they should be. The very significant differences between the presumptions/'assumptions' of psychology and a view that is consistent with biology also presented. AND, the central points about the better alternative view are basically the difference that should be seen between mainstream psychology and the best (or real) ethology. The main consequence of the better perspective is to believe that any significant and reliably occurring, species-typical major behavior patterns OR any significant species-typical behavioral developments (big qualitative changes, e.g. cognitive stages) during ontogeny MUST at the core (MINIMALLY: at the inception; at the first appearance) have THEN (at that point in ontogeny) innate guidance involved. AND, one should have the confidence and have some idea how this is something that can be looked for via sophisticated studies. THEN one is a human ethologist (and otherwise: NOT).

So, to me, this perspective is the "acid test" of whether a person is really an ethologist, or just interested in things RELATED TO, but not directly being, ETHOLOGY. These involving interests such as evolution of behaviors, phylogeny, or comparative psychology or neuroscience -- ANY of those in isolation with NO real concern towards finding the ACTUAL proximate (real time) causes of major species typical behavioral changes.

Rejecting the essay, below, as the Group 'moderator did for the Human Ethology Yahoo Group, is thus the height of doing wrong. In the interest of decency, biology, and necessarily-true [actual] facts, that the following essay should be published for the good of furthering a basic perspective that IS ethology.

The should-be-published essay is ALSO clearly less speculative than the 'assumptions' of mainstream psychology, because of the consistency of the view (of the alternative assumptions) with necessarily applicable biological principles.:

HERE IT IS AGAIN, below: (the rejected post that should have been published in the Human Ethology Yahoo Group, but the 'moderator' engaged in rationally inexplicable censorship): Here, below, is the contribution I tried to make to the Human Ethology Yahoo Group (mailing list) , but it was not put up (published) on the list because it was thought to be "too speculative" by the 'moderator'. It is not speculative, and certainly not more speculative than the foundational 'assumptions' of mainstream psychology. This warrants discussion, and this is one of the few ways to start to handle such a fundamental set of issues/'assumptions'/beliefs. BUT: The 'moderator' thought it was to be "too speculative". AGAIN: It is not speculative, and certainly not more speculative than the foundational 'assumptions' of mainstream psychology.

"Why psychology is NOT a science"

It is possible to argue** that innate guidance is inextricably involved in ALL significant behavior patterns (all significant "behavior" at some time, to use the unwise typical psychology word) , at least at their inception -- in all organisms. Otherwise, you are a dualist. Nature and biology are not. ** And, actually very hard to argue otherwise, when sufficient thought is given.

Just as a Preface: The fact that psychology so rarely uses the term "behavior pattern", when it ALWAYS SHOULD _and_ that psychologists speak as if they understand "learning" and that it is all one thing (or a few simple things). That is almost proof perfect that psychology is "totally of-track". BUT HERE IS MORE (the final nails in the "coffin"):

Scientific psychology IS an infant discipline, at best; it is really not a science at all and, certainly not, if you believe in qualitatively different levels/stages of cognition -- unfolding in childhood; if you see the biological and empirical NECESSITY of such qualitative changes (which I think is impossible not to believe), THEN you should recognize that there is NOW (in present psychology) NOT ANY EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS, WHATSOEVER FOR SUCH STAGES/LEVELS.

Here are some MORE of the clear specifics of what is wrong: (1) theories of development (and personality) are not expressly of a biological nature, where they show abidance with biological PRINCIPLES -- that is one thing that should be considered STEP ONE to having a decent (or mature) theory of behavior; (2) psychologists continue to falsely dicotomize nature and nurture when the best minds have said this is NOT the way it should be considered (they have said this for decades) -- so this is another feature of poor/immature theory (in particular, today's typical psychologists have NO conceptualization of innate factors and learning happening at exactly the same time (SIMULTANEOUSLY), when that may be precisely what's needed -- AND psychology provides no way NOT to rule out this likely truism, though psychology has only the support of philosophy and NOT the support of research for its beliefs); (3) there is still a presumption that all innate factors in behavior are present in infancy (and there is absolutely NO evidence that this is true) -- failing to do any reasonable investigations to prove or disprove this assertion, makes psychology a crude and immature discipline. (4) There is the baseless assertion that the more "advanced" an organism, the LESS innate guidance -- again, there is absolutely no reason to believe this (and until put to the test, and this limits conceptualizations and TESTS of modern "theories").

In short, psychology is a "victim" of presumptions and false assumptions (and actually often accepting CONCLUSIONS as basic assumptions), as fully shown in "A Human Ethogram ..." . NO perspective of this nature could be considered other than poor and in an "infant state" . Another clue for you: researchers and good theorists do NOT do the defining; the subject matter , well-observed, provides your definitions (just as in other sciences). This should count as MAJOR start-off failure (5)!! Thinking one must predetermine so much makes me think : old-time philosopher, NOT A SCIENTIST.

In summary, psychology has bi-passed basic tests of its foundational beliefs (I shall not even dignify with calling these assumptions -- because there really has been NO REASONABLE TRY to find and set well-founded assumptions and no tests show that the presumptions adopted are correct (or otherwise); WHERE THE "ASSUMPTIONS" CAME FROM IS WRONG).

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 psychology professors tell you, but it can clearly be argued that all of the following are more likely true (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; to believe otherwise is unfounded. Innate guidance for cognitive stages of development ACTUALLY (VERY arguably) ALLOWS FOR MORE LEARNING (more types).

(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. ) [ (This is the very thing that has to do with providing some empirical foundation for cognitive-developmental stages.)]

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.

I left that list years ago. I tried twice. I spend well over two years on it. As a student of Fentress, McLeod, Harrington, I am as much an ethologist (animal ethologist) as they come. Jay is stuck in the ethology of the 40's to 60's*, that simple. He rejects anything new, or anything that is not conform to his views. Then there is Glen Sizemore, the hard-core behaviourist troll. Between those two, the list is unbearable and a huge waste of time. The discussions and debates would often become surreal. Total, total waste of time.

* for example, he still uses the old "FAP" model, and rejected (without reading them, I assume) the Fentress, Moran, Golani, Berridge, McLeod, Gadbois, etc. perspectives of "action sequences" and "motor syntax"/"motor grammar".