Brad Jesness has added an update
Dec 21,2019
An addition to THE INVENTION OF SCIENCE (a very interesting rather new book)
The perspective and approach I put forward and try to explain, justify and promote is like an extra chapter to David Wootton's EXTREMELY interesting book, The Invention of Science; one should see parallels in that book with Psychology of today. Today's psychologists presume and "assume" that what they see as "the environment" (right before their eyes, at any serious moment) is exactly the environment available ("there", present) for any developing Subject; especially important here is the idea that all pertinent environmental aspects that are or can be "operative" for any learning and development, including DURING ONTOGENY, are basically RIGHT BEFORE THEIR (the researchers') EYES; AND, essentially similar relevant aspects of "the environment" (as such) are all that is involved (all that is "there") with (and for) learning and development. There is a grave problem with this. The problem is in opposition to the likely nature of the Memories and how they can likely come to be used during ontogeny. By a certain point (level/stage) in ontogeny, the developing organism (for now, just think: human) actually compares and contrasts aspects across times and across various sets of circumstances. And this is NOT all or always OR in any way "right before one's eyes" (these being the eyes of the adult researcher). What, to me, is the FACT that we can and do do compare and contrast (and distinguish) aspects ACROSS/BETWEEN different sets of circumstances would, now in Psychology, at best (but falsely), be seen as aspects of "the environment" or somewhat different "environments"; BUT it is more than that because we can "see" things (like instances of abstract concepts becoming meaningful and having their meaning) across times and settings (sets of circumstances) that differ more greatly than in many of their circumstantial aspects (aspects OF "THE environment") than now imaginable OR allowed to be imagined: THESE are very different situations ("environments") that are VERY different, and NOT just in their immediately-clear aspects (i.e., in terms of some subset of easily imaginable "relevant stimuli" in "environments", as intuited). How is this possible?: Rather than thinking, as just described (easily seen supposedly involved "environments" and their "aspects"), we should use some imagination to imagine HOW, via the Memories we have (types now well- researched), very different situations, much more different than those allowed to be imagined today and yet some of their aspects "all-at-once" pertinent; the developing organism (e.g. human child) sees within these more-greatly-different-than-imagined situations (settings) SOME of the SAME KEY circumstantial aspects. These are the bases of the qualitatively different stages/levels of child development AT THE SAME TIME as allowing for more abstract concepts and abstract processing. The actual "field of experience" of the developing organism cannot be "nailed down" as within ANY as-seen-"typical" set of settings (or typical sets of circumstances therein). BUT: Research on the Memories clearly allows for (or makes very plausible) "seeing" key similarities or key differences ACROSS TIME and ACROSS what seem like VERY different circumstances. For an example: Think of a young (child) gorilla becoming open to detect, and soon see, all the various manifestations of what it means to be the dominant male; imagine the different "environments" such observations of key situations and key circumstances that this might involve: YET TRUE, and as is actually involved. (This would be an instance of an abstract understanding in an ape; it is similarly for us.) The fact that there is nothing but never-ending and complete confusion about the bases of abstract concepts (and processing) is the most obvious result in human Psychology of the self-imposed (and demanded) LIMITS of Psychology today, I have just indicated. Because of this lacking in THEIR conceptualizations: The Psychologists go so far as to say that abstract concepts have NO particular, no concrete bases. This is absurd (not to mention a complete break with empiricism). The bases for abstract concepts may well be as concrete as for any simple concept. For "justice" and other such "higher" concepts may have particulars seen as well as we see particulars of more immediately-seen concrete aspects of a truck, a car, etc. -- but THE "higher"concepts simply involving imagining things about such different circumstances BUT which, indeed, have some particular clear, important, related important concrete aspects (and THIS would be and IS adaptive). Developing children: Comparing and contrasting in "the mind's eye" the different situations and circumstances imaginable and imagined in key ways to compare and contrast them.) How serious is the problem in Psychology? Well, in addition to being willing to say there are no concrete bases of/for abstractions, there are many that just think such concepts merely emerge from the brain with maturation (a non-behavioral, completely unclear and useless way to look at this matter -- also a break with empiricism). For more, SOON, see below; I shall direct you to my hundreds of pages of exposition, elaboration, and explication (as well as better justifications and assumptions, as compared to other models ("theories")). All these writings are publicly available on ReseachGate First, let me say a little more, and then refer you to those works: Working Memory is CENTRAL in my perspective and approach. And, given the definitions of ALL the Memories (including, now, all that can be involved with WM): I believe they (the Memories) constitute EXPERIENCE ITSELF. That indicates how working memory would be central in my new paradigm (an actual paradigm) for Developmental Psychology (which may likely, in time, be a foundation of Psychology in general). It is hard for me to know how to direct you to sample my works (and, of course, ideally then to motivate you to read them all). One thing that might help "entry" into my system, is the fact that components being exactly the various types of Memories (and, as such, those involved in ontogeny, and Developmental Psychology); THESE _PLUS_ "things" of the same nature as my newly-hypothesized basic "perceptual shifts" mechanisms (for each of the stages/levels, providing for all in core ontogeny, particularly 2 to 18+ year-old persons) are the major types of components. Another encouraging "feature": I have a strict standard of empiricism in my Psychology: ALL (each and every) concept, construct, and ALL that is involved in any model must have a clear and convincing BASIS (foundation, grounding, or KEY "start") in replicable, directly observable, OVERT behavior patterns, AT LEAST AT WHAT IS CLEARLY THE MAIN _INCEPTION_ of each new stage/level of qualitatively new concepts and processing (thinking). (This is actually just a completion of Piaget's Theory, specifically Equilibration 2 (the "balance" between the stages; determining whether to "move on" to a next stage, from the one you are in). This is the stages-"balance" type of equilibration Piaget said was "due to maturation" AND THAT IS ALL HE SAID. He realized to the end of his life that this was the main unexplained aspect of his theory.) The hard part to presently believe in my system is the hypothesized "perceptual shifts", since the evidence is yet to be found, i.e. the key phenomena of these subtle key behavior patterns are yet to be discovered. But, yet: I submit, I have near-specific hypotheses, AND soon we can have completely clear testable (verifiable/falsifiable) hypotheses . Because of subtleties involved this will require observations with eye tracking (and possibly also computer-assisted analysis) ; then soon we will be literally able to SEE these basic "perceptual shifts"; specifically, I believe, they can be SEEN at KEY points in development and for KEY necessary new learnings (even "locally", in the time/space frame of the "lab"). (As far as behavior patterning is concerned, these KEY behavioral patternings , again, are subtle; for seeing these: eye tracking, etc. technologies are needed (that technology being like a microscope for Psychology).) [(It is very noteworthy that there are recent studies that show that eye-tracking can "pick up" extreme subtleties in behavioral patterns (these studies are referenced in another recent "Update" to my "Human Ethology ... " Project -- THIS present Project .)] I shall now share what reading (of my writings) I recommend for an explication, elaboration and justification for my perspective and approach (in these writings I also contrast the "fruit" of my view against many existing psychological constructs, models and theories AND contrast beginning assumptions -- mine being more justified and likely). AND: I see enough behaviors patterning to clearly imagine a full science of Psychology, with all needed evidence being IN behaviors PER SE. Psychology's topics of study ARE an aspect of Biology and there should be a biological nature to behavior PATTERNS and patternings PER SE and just that; it makes sense, then, just by knowing all major behavior patterning (all major "behaviors") are necessarily an aspect of Biology they will show major coherent patternings; and there is doubtlessly, as such, enough patterning in "just behavior" to understand all -- everything for a full science. (I am a bit like Skinner, in a way; BUT NOT.) Here is the grand "entries" to my writings: Perhaps, first note the other "Updates" are found underneath the linked heading "Project Log" of this Project via the "Project Log" link provided. (And, you may well find the premises/assumptions/foundations of the approach, as outlined in the description of THIS Project (at the top), has many, many now-lacking qualities that ARE described or indicated to be HERE within my system, and many of those characteristics, one should firmly realize, a good system should have.) Read : https://www.researchgate.net/post/Not_Psychology_for_Psychology_but_open_tough_thorough_true_fully_phenomenologically-based_real_empiricism_for_all_explanations_and_understandings and the Answers following that Discussion Question for elaborations/clarifications. AND: READ: 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/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory (basically a BOOK) and the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates ALSO (not among the 200 pages of major papers and 512 pages of essays in my "BOOK", above (which you already have been directed to), the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf (you CAN find the pdf at this last link, though it may take a little careful looking) .