There are clearly too many perspectives (I'd say: things "conjured" **) in psychology for any student of the field to make a clear decision about which to accept (no matter how hard one works at it). How can this become more under control so there are not so many diverse and conflicting/competing factions which lead to fractionalization (even decimation), if the circumstances remain the same? And will THIS become a permanent problem (the TREND of trends)? THAT is exactly ONE of the reasons for the MAJOR Question I asked:
With the too many trends in Psychology, how did 2 central perspectives, developmental levels/stages & ethology, get essentially (and at least nearly) totally lost?
(These perspectives, and related approaches, could provide REAL rather clear findings, yielding boundaries or needed outlines -- much better than close-to-nothing/"anything" which seems to "go" today.)
*** AND, related to that: Why is there not an "issue" OF the matter of behavior PATTERNS -- a term necessarily related to things biological (like "behavior") -- that is basically totally UNUSED? ***
I believe these problems cited are not only "food for thought", but reasons to think again AND to think anew (I believe my Projects and References can lead the way).
** FOOTNOTE: Basically aimchair-wise : some having math involved and others not (NOTE: math is present and can be found in many places, but it is not magic or necessarily even important and certainly NOT necessarily meaningful IN THE CONTEXT of real concern, because that alone/itself does not necessarily reveal anything clearly THERE, ironically -- perhaps something yet to become better understood; for example: perhaps someone could come up with a good numerical estimate of the number of each kind of insect there is: what does this mean?, that is: what does this necessarily tell you that provides guidance for furthering any important knowledge -- except on how good some can make good numerical estimates? In Psychology, let me liken this to the statistical frequency of words, and those who "go" from there. I have seen truly ridiculous psychology researchers who basically claim an human innate ability to calculate word statistics; hey, if you believe that, then you'll believe anything to promote any view that seems to PROMOTE __YOU__ and your view -- which would be a consequence of the overall situation I have described above, and be evidence indicating my view is VERY likely correct.)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity