I submit that if Skinner was forced to/or came to accept major concepts related to cognition and cognitive development, AND had the new technologies (esp. eye-tracking) THEN he would happily see my view and back me. Modern psychologists who cherish empiricism should all very, very much like my completely direct observational proximate-cause empiricism.:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_good_true_empirical_psychology_alone_make_it_more_than_plausible_and_very_likely_that_FULL_true_artificial_intellegence_is_possible
I believe it is the ULTIMATE empiricism possible and it is possible. Minimally, each new aspect of behavior (change in behavior patterns) would be DIRECTLY observable (though may be subtle) and has corresponding clear DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE environmental referents , i.e. proximate cause(s), at least AT THEIR INCEPTION (an important "caveat"). All my writing here on researchgate describes and/or indicates HOW THIS IS POSSIBLE AND PRACTICABLE (
Very interesting. Indeed, withdrawal into oneself, prolonged withdrawal from society and from the environment - all this is a consequence or an excuse for the development of a disturbance of mental activity (primarily cognitive functions are violated).
Dear Vladimir A. Kulchitsky
You speak of "disturbance of mental activity (primarily cognitive functions are violated)" . Nice account of the "embodied" 'theories' around today -- only it is strange (unlikely, unfounded, baseless) 'assumptions' (rather than "withdrawal from society") which "got them"; in fact, the embodied people have gotten a lot of social support, since their poor, very likely false 'assumptions' (presumptions) are quite prevalent: But, still, there is isolation: bad firmly-held assumptions very reliably completely limit thought AND the consideration of other reasonable likely (and fruitful) possibilities -- this is because some REAL (not unlikely AND researchable/testable) possibilities (hypotheses) require one admit other assumptions. And at the same time the poor assumptions keep one(them) in the status quo or in the same vein. Perhaps a clear example is in order:
The bad assumptions, e.g. "all significant innate factors are present at birth" * , make one expand early explanations of behavior (i.e. sensori-motor explanations in the case of 'embedded' "theory") IN SPITE OF THE FACT there is NO decent supporting evidence and the motivation for continuing with some such accepted explanations (here: Piaget's well-supported great sensori-motor theory of infant cognitive development) is done all simply with such assumptions and then JUSY by-ANALOGY (I can see no other impetus and just-BY-ANALOGY is not an acceptable to more forward EVER).
I summarize the BIG 6 bad ones elsewhere and also state the much more likely alternatives. Here, with the link below, you can find a post where I describe the good alternatives (the bad prevalent 'assumptions', because they are familiar, should immediately come to peoples' minds -- they are opposites of those I state, indicating the seriousness of the problems of modern theorists, very much including: the embodied theorists).:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_can_straighten_out_the_mess_that_psychology_is **
---------
* FOOTNOTE: Another of the 6 baseless, unfounded "assumptions" which quickly comes to mind as likely relevant here and as one limiting the thought of other theorists is: "the more learning the organism does, the less innate guidance". This thoroughly prevents the thought that a lot of learning requires a lot of types of learning and rather complex types -- AND which really could/would unlikely reliably and universally occur WITHOUT INNATE GUIDANCE (emerging at points over all of ontogeny).
[ (Ironically, with innate guidance mechanismS -- occurring simultaneously with new behavior [patterns] -- THERE IS ACTUALLY _THEN_ MORE LEARNING (the "arenas" for learning ARE EXPANDED ) !!)
(My perspective also eliminates needless ridiculous nature/nurture debates.)
** FOOTNOTE: Let me quote another post of mine where I list most of the FALSE ASSUMPTIONS: (quoting that post):
Perhaps more central is many theorists have assumptions that completely bias their outlook (AND their possible outlooks) AGAINST perceptual/attentional shifts being part of significant behavior patterns that may occur at the inception of new qualitative ways of thinking (in children, during ontogeny). The unfounded assumptions which prohibit even the consideration of such absolutely (otherwise) possible elements of development include:
(1) the old unfounded: all that is innate is at-birth (or MAJOR bias
this way)
(2) the unfounded and likely false pseudo-assumption: the more
learning an organism displays, the LESS innate guidance
mechanisms involved
(3) the contrasting of what is innate to what is learning -- IN ANY
FORM AT ALL: THIS IS A WRONG DICHOTOMY AND DUALISM.
(There is evidence that it is only reasonable to view the "2 kinds"
of factors occurring in effect at the SAME TIME (simultaneously,
blended).)
(4) The failure to get away from some idea that some significant
behavior patterns (e.g. some abstract thought) can occur
completely internally.
[(We are simply not that smart (even with our awesome memory
abilities): new levels of thought will involve some new or newly
emphasized environmental aspects -- ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE)]
(5) The abject inability to construe behavior patterns
expressly AS BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING.
[ I probably should have also listed the profound bias against inductive work and (rather) pushing AND supporting coming up quickly with entire hypothetico-deductive systems (which, from a science standpoint, are grossly premature). ]
(end quote of another post of mine, from UNDER my question: "Why aren't you also looking for more "embedded-ness" in/with the environment?" -- one of the Answers)
Here is another post of mine (a Question) that covers a lot of related points:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_there_good_reasons_psychologists_should_not_be_considered_scientists
And, looking at my answer to the following question lists other reasons Ethogram Theory (using the alternative assumptions) is good: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_would_you_look_for_in_a_new_cognitive-developmental_theory
---------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Dear Vladimir A. Kulchitsky :
Your phrase which basically includes "consequence FOR" is an odd one (what, are consequences somehow divinely determined?). [ I hope this is not a Freudian slip and an indication you think someone should 'go to hell'. ] I am sorry I may somehow have missed some clearer argument in your last post; perhaps you would like to "give it" another try.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Developmental Psychology