Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 25,2017
"Animalizing" the Human The previous update (below this one) is a rather stark perspective, bringing humans "within range" of ethology & of an ethogram (like my "A Human Ethogram ..."). This previous update appropriately, and perhaps more briefly (and maybe more accurately) than heretofore, "animalizes" the human. That done, my ethogram can be seen as maybe the best approximation available today on how the human is innately guided in major stages of conceptual learning/development. (Everything is completely empirical -- no models, no hypothetico-deductive systems used!) [ If no one refutes, with evidence, the positions taken in the last update, it will mean they are more than plausible, AND LIKELY. It will mean that the following are as well-shown to be true as some traditional positions: (1) All significant learning is associated with innate factors, perceptual (or perceptual/attentional) and/or products thereof, guiding it; and, learning always simultaneously involves these innate factors/influences either presently or indirectly -- through structured important long-term memory (resulting from, in good part, previous innate guidance), or BOTH. In short, there is no significant learning that does not also simultaneously involve directly or indirectly [or (often) BOTH, directly and indirectly]: innate guidance factors (innate action patterns). AND (2) Innate factors which have influence on the most important behavioral developments are not present (or effective, meaning the same thing) at birth, but come into play only during appropriate "times" during/throughout childhood -- quite likely the last about at 12 years of age. Would that be something? If this is really the better-fitting and empirical and provable/disprovable, then it should be preferred over current views. ]
Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 24,2017
I guess this large essay can be seen as a summary of my whole approach, with DEVELOPING REPRESENTATION a good focus to take. This is pieced together from about a dozen replies to questions, where just parts of this grand perspective were presented at a time. I now try to piece them together to give you the full perspective: (Most of this was originally presented to artificial intelligence people, and you can see that in some of the writing.): ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I was to try to make an AI human, which at its core involves a complete understanding of REPRESENTATION and its development, part of what I would model is all the basic capacities: basically all of the several types of memory, at their most developed levels and at their lower levels, but call upon their use only at the level of conceptualization where they are needed or MAY be active. Specifically, the basic cognitive-related capacities of the human -- other than the emotions (which are simpler and easier to model, and not addressed here) are: (1) short-term memory (STM)(pretty much limited to thinking about 7 + or - 2 "chunks”); (2) working/active memory (expressly used, i.e. deliberate): this is pretty much the same thing as STM, but with the background/context of the thought coming from long-term memory: being imagery, etc. (the context which is not deliberate) including human spacial representation, episodic representation, personal memory (sub-part of episodic), sequencing facilitator (which may be considered part of episodic, and includes the marking of time and basis of number understanding), declarative memory, procedural memory and auto-rehearsal loops (e.g. a major one for rehearsing language to remember). The episodic memory is also a buffer to what is recalled and activated from long-term memory (i.e. declarative and procedural memory and the other capacities). There is also the first brief aspect of memory, known as “sensory store” (holds a lot but very briefly). [ I will leave AI programmers to look up all the terms, like episodic declarative and procedural , since decent definitions exist. Model all these, in their proper relationship (which is not hard because they become active as appropriately triggered). ] Do NOT use any of the "meta" concepts in the literature (meta-cognition, central executive, executive functioning/processing, "mind reading", "future seeing" (aka "time travel" aka special forward thinking), theory of mind, etc.), since these are both artificial and unnecessary concepts (and basically involve a 'homunculus' -- i.e. a man within the man). More regarding the “metas”: It is not necessary to postulate such things and they can easily be explained by "more of the same". Let me tell you what I mean by "more of the same": once you understand the thinking (conceptual/representation/memory) process <-- just more of that, with more "information-seeking" as a result, accounts for all the supposed products of these metas, etc. This does not mean we do not occasionally talk to ourselves or that we do not occasionally think about our thinking -- just that this is no kind of over-arching control system needed or likely. Again, all those meta-type concepts are basically a 'homunculus' (a man within the man) and thus clearly a fiction. Let me make a Buddhist-type statement from which you might find a bit of inspiration, here: "To know that you know things is simply part of knowing things; to control what you do is simply part of doing." This kills the 'homunculus'. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The main thing that is left is understanding the basic and similar nature of the objects of perception (and attention) which are the foundations for each of the 5 levels of conceptualization (aka representation AKA abstraction): each which is more than what was before AND uses the well-established memory (LTM) of the key or core of the previous stage of conceptual development as its units. (The first stage of conceptual development has a totally sensori-motor basis.) The nice thing about theses stages (and the associated levels of conceptualization) is that all of them continue be be able to operate, even after the more abstract levels have developed (e.g. it has even been recently shown that physics professors when under great mental load irrationally fall back on earlier types of representation just like lay-people, which results in errors). (Levels of representation, levels of concepts, and levels of abstraction are pretty much the same thing.) The upshot of this is that you can try an instantiation of a higher level of conceptualization and, if that is not appropriate or does not work, fall down to the next lowest, or the next lowest again ... etc. Also it might be good to have your AI machine work up from each low stage to the next higher, etc. to see what is most properly applied. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Noting a limited capacity is very important; except for the very significant "background" contextualizing memory stuff: working/active memory is limited to 7 + or - 2 "chunks” (in that way, much like short term memory (STM)). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The one big thing I have yet not told you is the differential nature of the beginning of each level of concepts created -- from the perceptual (perceptual/attentional) shifts, which are innate action patterns, as are the emotions. The differential nature of the 5 levels of things (concepts, "chunks") created are outlined in my paper, "A Human Ethogram ..." (available on researchgate.net). The contents of the “capacities” develop with these. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- One thing that makes this all hard to understand is that you have to "go against" things which you have been taught to believe (but were never proven and are just Western or natural false beliefs and misconstructions): ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) It is FALSE that all that is innate is present at birth. It is very likely that significant innate action patterns establishing the different levels of conceptualization become active, significant more active, and/or properly active at ages: 3mo., 2yr, 4yr, 7-8 years, and 12 years (5 stages). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) We are taught: The more complex the organism, the less innate aspects and the more learning. This is FALSE (and again is in no way proven and has no basis in fact). The correct perspective is: all significant behavioral change (esp. clear universal "shifts") involve both innate and learning AT THE VERY SAME TIME (literally). (1) That which is established as context (see above) had significant innate action patterns involved in the execution and development. And, (2) each new big (universal) shift also involves innate action patterns (these, again, in terms of perceptual (perceptual/attentional) shifts): amenable to discovery via the new eye tracking technology (and, of course, this is true of EACH stage). Both (1) and (2) are with “learning”. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You do now have to work in the emotional responding, which affects motivation (and thus a lot else). The basic patterns at work which are there is well-described in the literature. (The one thing not always appreciated is that later emotions often develop from earlier emotions via interaction of the earlier ones with cognitive development. (Thus, for instance, there is a progression from some distress, to shame, to guilt -- all just distress transformed as related to concepts).) AND: ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get very little side tracked by social relationships and social cognition (these are much more instances of application of the principles you will find rather than the major determiners); same for language: conceptual development is much less reliant on language than language is on cognitive development -- and much language usage, as it is actually used functionally is dependent on the cognitive developments which occur first. Social cognition, to me, is just an instance(s) of the use of the same sort of conceptual system that develops stage-wise in understanding the physical world -- ultimately related to the 'perceptual shifts' (perceptual/attentional shifts) in stages of development. Speaking of the cognitive stages and how they manifest themselves, unlike emotions, these are not well understood. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In evolutionary terms we cannot underestimate the importance of social behavior and the social hierarchy: It appears there is no good theory for an evolutionary precursor to our having progressively developing patterns in perception/attention and then thought leading to conceptualization OTHER than such being very much evolutionary founded in patterns our fore-runners SAW in their hierarchical social structure. I see other conceptual ("abstraction") abilities as almost literally the same thing -- but very "free floating", i.e. flexibly applied to the physical world (resulting in great thinking and cooperative advantages). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- In addition to the abilities to acquire and apply knowledge (structured information) (basically a matter of memory ("the mind") AND things that are newly developing, perhaps in an easy manner), there is also the matter of inhibiting action to "consider what to do" and thus have a new view (learned/developed) and perhaps a new overt response. Thus, much doing appears to be not doing (at least not doing other things that would be and have been readily available in one's repertoire). This kind of ability to inhibit [normal OR other alternative] actions must be "part of the story" and thus somehow explained. Inhibition of at least certain types is much related to intelligence. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless you conceived of some actions as not-doing, which is fine and good (properly contextualized and properly motivated), this may be something that may need more prominence in your theory. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inhibition helps bring the questions of WHAT is motivated (a least with respect to some new, different or complex things) into focus (and HOW that has come to happen) -- matters of big interest (new motivated discriminations, so you do not respond as usual and DO 'see' new things or things anew). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Work with people that know physiological _functional_ brain science areas (including those who use and study the new kinds of functional (fMRI) scans) and who ALSO know behavior to flush out the STM, active, and LTM (with its many aspects), and sensory store understandings. Anyway, these particular brain and behavior science people are very careful and only give well-justified conclusions. And, work with people using the new eye-tracking technology to research cognitive development. Outside of that, hopefully my 3 papers plus the work you have already done so much of and done so well will suffice. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless a researcher establishes the use of guiding innate action patterns during a number of stages of coming-to-be AND realizes and implements learning associated with past OR past and present innate guiding patterns, they will be doomed to failure. Knowledge of the basic memory processes is not hard to get and is very necessary (these are the basic capacities which are tools the developments I just described use -- and which develop "to different 'levels'" BASED ON such stages and standard learning). Several of the aspects of learning are aided by simple, basic functional (helping) features of these basic memory capacities (e.g. auto-repetition loops), and while they are always operating in similar ways, their content (developing "chunks") are qualitatively different at each stage. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Outside of the 2 unique characteristics of my view and my view of the basic capacities (very much shared with others), I posit then: within those contexts only associative (/dissociative) learning -- basically the types of learning seen for decades by behaviorists, but experimented with foolishly BY them (looking for general patterns and laws based on on their "rewards", given the organism (as they imagined him to be), and given their "schedules of reinforcement" -- thought to be meaningful per se). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------- P.S. The in-stages "perceptual shifts" (perceptual/attentional) are discovered longitudinally using the new eye-tracking technology. You can see how this is just finding things as they are -- pure discovery, very much inductive. And, the changes to the basic capacities and the learning that occurs also are not presupposed in any way, but also discovered as they are (again, clearly a primarily inductive, naturalistic observational process). P.P.S. Some in efforts to model the human, demand a good working definition of consciousness. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Active consciousness is using deliberation and deliberateness on that of which one is aware, all ultimately grounded -- for its activation or responding -- in the environment (and related to environment, past and/or present). Consciousness otherwise is just awareness (with what one is aware of having the same nature); the processing or response here may not be clear; perhaps it is just rehearsal for memory (strengthening what they call declarative or procedural memory or episodic or personal memory or sequences or automatically rehearsing sound patterns or spacial information). Yet, again, all this awareness (that of which one is aware) is related to the environment (like consciousness, acted upon). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- If it is impossible to rationally/realistically describe consciousness as any "more" than this, then AI will be able to show consciousness. Again, many would say: what of emotions? These are just patterns of reaction to qualitative types of things in the environment (or to the the representation (and awareness) thereof), the basic ones: quick and often automatic (for adaptation). Basic emotions are not very complex; the more interesting emotions develop following (or with) [other] cognitive developments (and may be much less quick or automatic). Thus, these too would not inherently limit AI. "Consciousness" , at least any particular instance of it, need not be ill-defined. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- Epilogue ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The core science assumptions for cognitive behavior, as for all behavior, MUST (a) be BIOLOGICAL principles (behavior is biological, at its very roots) and (b) one must discover definitions and better definitions by inducing (inductive reasoning) from raw complete-enough naturalistic observations of the organism itself. No unfounded analogies and no presumptions based on pre-conclusions of one's ad hoc hypothetical-deductive lines of thinking (and over- quick concluding, which especially goes on with deductive systems, by their definition -- and, in these cases, their premature definition). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My system of development in “A Human Ethogram ...” is BIOLOGICALLY based and correspondingly all the most major behavioral developments are defined in the terms of classical ethology (using the full set of the terms of this science). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some say: “... behavior analysts are not interested in cognitive phenomena. This is not because they reject the existence of private events, but because they argue that cognitive events cannot be observed; only its behavioral outcomes." We must over-come such an outlook.: ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a MAJOR WAY I say this is not likely true. I believe they reject wrongfully and shortsightedly and, really, their objection is not on objective (empirical) grounds. While you cannot see all aspects of cognition you CAN see each new major aspect as it develops with ontogeny (this is a VERY reasonable argument). These may well "show" in only subtle perceptual (perceptual/attentional) shifts, but with modern eye-tracking technology, they can be discovered. If longitudinal studies are done, after finding all the "bits" of conceptual representation related to clear perceptual shifts (and taking the very reasonable assumptions in my human ethogram paper), then you can basically know all of the nature of the covert cognition (even of an adult). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am totally in agreement with the view that "the conscious human being that perceives, thinks, creates and acts does so according to its immediate environment " -- even if a person is sitting, doing nothing, and yet doing a lot of thinking. Once we better understand conceptual development (representation) and the results, we can have some idea of the possibility of his thoughts, knowing the type of concepts possible/likely. We will also find that though the immediate environment is a trigger, that past experiences, especially past experiences very close in time are involved (because of the humans very good conceptual and memory capabilities). ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be hard to see how particulars could be in themselves the bases of conceptual development, but we must recall much representation/memory comes into the environment with the perceiver. Presently there is a misconception that thoughts can be "purely abstract" and that stages of abstraction (conceptual) abilities cannot be grounded in simply new particulars in the present environment. There is absolutely no reason to believe this and it is counter to being an empiricist. We can imagine literally seeing new particular aspects of our environment and thus beginning the development of a new level of conceptualization. Whether we have things that look like stages or they develop smoothly from one to another -- either way we have STAGES of development. The idea (any idea) of "'pure' learning" is preposterous. We can totally eliminate the nature/nurture debates by realistically accepting that in great likelihood any significant learning involves innate guidance, whether new or whether well-internalized as patterns in our responding (and likely usually both). This is the only empirical stance. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do read all 3 of my papers in the "Human Ethology and Development" Project, starting with the shortest (summary), then "A Human Ethogram", and then finally, "Information Processing Theories and Perspectives on Development". (Actually, if you read this present paper, you can skip the short summary paper and proceed directly to reading "A Human Ethogram ...." .) To find out more of what is accomplished with this perspective I have presented, see the Project Goals of the present “Human Ethology and Development” Project and any information (additions) in the timeline (updates) of that Project.
Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 16,2017
It is important to reiterate HERE that the research perspective outlined by my three papers under this Human Ethology and Development Project are, in effect, ** NEW ** because only recently has the technology (eye-tracking) become available to allow for the investigation of the hypotheses clearly related to this outlook ! This is the more important of my 2 Projects and under which all my most substantial writings are. This is the only Project (of my two) I will be updating
Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 15,2017
This was a Comment (or Feedback) to a paper by some AI people. I thought it would not be seen much there, so I have also put it as a Project Update here because it is the essence of my major positions: Pattern recognition is "the thing" but should not be limited by pre-supposed connections to language (which is itself a very difficult thing to analyze and use in AI). Apes essentially without language (or very little that can be seen as language) can systematically and in very complex (planning) ways use their memory and representation for intentional, detailed, foresightful and coordinated planning without language. I believe the capacities for conceptual development are quite independent of language in major ways. (Language usage is more dependent on those, than those on language.) --------------------------------- I propose longitudinal eye-tracking research with developing children be done to find the changing patterns of attention and perception which are themselves the concrete bases for each level in the development of conceptual-type representational capabilities AND the terms of thinking (i.e. the bases for what could be seen as stage-shifts, cognitively). These are the empirical keys, I believe can be found: Each development in our abilities to think "abstractly" (when not in the presence of objects and to think just about the objects and the objects' related features and the relationships there-between ..., and thus put "things" (features) in new combinations) can be found in observable (though likely quite subtle) overt behavior*; I believe this is a 'holy' equal to the "null hypotheses" for a strict empiricist: basically conceiving of the bases of mental representational/intentional advances as CONCRETE THINGS we can discover in perceptual/attentional changes (great regularities of that sort in human development). This has not been disproven and seems to be possibly the ultimate things some of those thinking in terms of 'embedded'/'embodied' cognition are "aiming at" (actually, they seem necessary). For more to start to imagine the nature (via the necessary effects which regularly occur -- the necessary results) of such perceptual shifts, I recommend you read my 3 papers on researchgate.net under the Human Ethology and Development Project (start with the short one, then the longest, then the one on info.-processing). ------------------------------------------ *Footnote: These I believe are basically the same kind of patterns used for the complex social understandings of apes (and this provides other cues to their nature). Our patterns probably must have evolved from something like their patterns (of thought); ours just became more "free floating", thus more widely and flexibly USED -- in many cases, otherwise, not more complex. This is not too hard to imagine, once you start thinking clearly about the matter. I challenge anyone with any other evolutionary psychology interpretation. [ It is my hope that the precious resources which are the other sentient beings will be protected and treated well. Let's try to put our consciousnesses to good use. ]
Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 8,2017
I actually updated this project by adding a paragraph to my own answer, under: " Have you realized and appreciated the likely problematic nature of the continued extreme dualism of 'learning' and 'innate factors'? " It is substantial, thus perhaps it is best to repeat it here : Only my developmental psychology theory (ethology) credibly integrates 'innate factors' & 'learning' so BOTH simultaneously have effect (see all my writings available via researchgate.net). The BEST other dev. psyc. theories do is talk about 'learning' involved & talk about 'innate' involved & do so separately, back & forth repeatedly. PLUS: My ethological cognitive-developmental psyc. THEORY (innate/learned) does it with absolutely the most empirical (grounded-in-observable) approach possible. It only recently has become totally possible to verify the hypotheses. UNDER: Have you realized and appreciated the likely problematic nature of the continued extreme dualism of 'learning' and 'innate factors'? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_you_realized_and_appreciated_the_likely_problematic_nature_of_the_continued_extreme_dualism_of_learning_and_innate_factors [accessed Jan 8, 2017]. ALSO: My papers outline the overtly observable foundations for levels of abstraction; though subtle, this makes 'abstraction' concrete (and in a sense not 'abstract') and this is also a basis for a total empiricism in behavior observation. AND My views are consistent with: All explanatory perspectives must conform to the established limitations of working memory (and have conscious and deliberate development occur there, by its increments). Outside of the episodic memory context and other well established contexts/procedures, working memory basically is like short-term memory, limited to 7 + or - 2 "chunks". AND, in an important way: All that has to be done has to be done there; if too much is necessary and is new one can expect some innate guidance, which (in my view) can be as minimal as perceptual biases (conceived broadly and conforming to major necessary patterns 'seen'). [ Please see the Questions associated with this Project. ]
Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 5,2017
RE: AN ETHOLOGICAL THEORY OF HUMAN LEARNING -- A MODERN THEORY OF LEARNING, a cognitive-developmental, neo-Piagetian, ethological theory -- based on the methods of classical ethology . [ This is an overview of the perspective of the other 2 papers under this Project, but not enough by itself to fully understand the perspective and the hypotheses (which have JUST RECENTLY BECOME TESTABLE, given new eye-tracking technology). Still it is highly recommended that you read this paper first, before the 2 longer ones. ] Here is the link to read the paper on this site: AN ETHOLOGICAL THEORY OF HUMAN LEARNING -- A MODERN THEORY O... Below is a link to download this overview / summary paper.:
Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 2,2017
ALTERNATE SOURCES FOR MAJOR PAPERS: Associated summary paper: http://mynichecomp.com/key_content/ethol.html Then read: http://mynichecomp.com/key_content/44.pdf (on a page of the key_content sub-site , there are 2 links to this paper: one to the old, too-much-illegible ERIC copy (but that one is searchable) and a second link to a fully legible, good copy, but one that is comprised of images and thus not searchable -- same as the full-text copy available here on researchgate.net). For a direct link to THAT page with the links to the 2 copies, go to http://mynichecomp.com/key_content/myLargePapers.htm and the also read: http://mynichecomp.com/key_content/45.pdf NOTE: It now appears only the copy directly from ERIC is searchable (though it is identical in word, form, quality, and, to my knowledge, in EVERY WAY to the versions available elsewhere); so BECAUSE, for some reason, only the ERIC copy is searchable (at least for me, nowadays), here is a link to that: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED264960.pdf
Brad Jesness has added an update
Jan 2,2017
[ Be sure to see the Project Log FOR Updates. ] This Project, with its set of References (Articles and BOOKS, & Updates) may be formally considered a full-fledged PARADIGM (FINALLY, _A_ paradigm to raise Psychology from a preparadigmatic pre-science state, especially General Psychology and Developmental Psychology): Better assumptions; stricter & better empiricism; better foundations for all cognitive processes; clear NEW observations sought (i.e. major discoveries sought) VIA NEW observation methods; & with clear empirical verifiable/falsifiable HYPOTHESES. [ Also See: https://www.researchgate.net/post/It_seems_a_major_sort_of_addition_needs_to_be_made_to_cognitive-developmental_ontogeny_theory_Ethogram_Theory ] Ethogram Theory is about: * Problems of all major different theoretical perspectives are solved with the same new type of answer -- indicating the general utility of the new perspective. * AS the 'biology of behavior' (which is what ethology is (Eibl-Ebesfeldt,'75)), one can make very a useful, strong case for the application of the basic Principles of BIOLOGY to behavioral patterns (e.g. homeostasis), and I do in the papers. By "biology of behavior", I am referring to the patterning (and inter-patterning) OF BEHAVIORS PER SE : I very much believe that not only can _THAT_ be a good and real science, but it is hard to imagine that behavior patterns could otherwise be well-understood : Behavior patterns, being that which in-good-part define composite behaviors AND related behavior patterns. (I am a cognitive developmental human ethologist.) * A type of problem with all other modern theories is argued to be due to clearly accepting conclusions AS assumptions! (The way this is repeatedly recognized as the same type of thing with different theorists, with different basic theories of behavior [development], should be seen as a notable strength. [ Logically, this should have been listed before point #1, above. ]) * In this new modern tech. world, doing the studies one would do to indicate the validity of my perspective are now possible (though were NOT possible 30+ years ago, when I wrote the first papers). * The paper is written from a classical ethological perspective, using all the major concepts of that field -- applying all those important terms to human behavior. * It is conceivable that the perceptual biases I describe could have evolved using basically the same kind of imagery and concepts that Frans de Waal's apes use in understanding social relationships -- thus indicating these as possible true evolutionary forerunners (of the kind of conceptualization used in the more flexible &/or abstract thought of humans). * The perspective does much to eliminate the extreme and continuing dualism of nature and nurture. In my view (research-able), BOTH, in very significant circumstances, are in operation explicitly together (at the same time -- really!!); this view is arguable VERY likely. For a couple more things accomplished, see the Updates under the Project. What I am interested in is the study of (1) ONLY behavior patterns, with at least SOME _MAJOR_ foundation(s) in/of OVERT, directly-observable behavior patterns, at least at key points in development (ontogeny) and at least at the INCEPTION of the new behavior pattern, _and_ other behavior patterns that retain clear OVERT aspects _AND_ (2) corresponding aspects of the environment (related to either or both of those sorts of behavior patterns). THOSE 2 TYPES OF THINGS (behavior patterns, as just defined, and corresponding environmental aspects) AND relatively LITTLE ELSE, as basically the entire field of study -- BUT with such "pieces" as those 2 aspects of proximate causation credibly further connected or changed ONLY by simpler processes. I see the forms of associative learning as the simpler processes totally (otherwise) providing the links for behavior pattern connections or for additional behavior pattern change. **_NOW_**, THAT IS ALL; and, that is the only way to hold the field of study together and is absolutely necessary to avoid confusion _and_ to keep things clearly in terms of the sole and individual primary unit (the single human) -- the only way to have a science like other sciences (which is not only more than desirable, but absolutely necessary). As soon as anything not directly in the category of such well-grounded and well-founded behavior patterns and their corresponding environmental aspects (and simple associative learning) is "added in", by citing ANY [supposedly] more indirectly-related OTHER kinds of [supposed] behavior-related evidence, NOT CLEARLY DIRECTLY RELATED TO the products of THE PROXIMATE CAUSES (above) AND/or simple associative learning, I see the field as then corrupted (examples of other things not clearly related include some neuroscience "findings" and "social learning" <-- which is ALSO not completely founded and grounded in the individual Subject, as I say is REQUIRED (above)). If my requirements for science are not met, here particularly in the case of Psychology: you should see that the classic sort of psychology (as [ just ] the study of behavior patterns and related environmental aspects) HAS largely been abandoned and your work is not consistent with this view or approach. --------- I will call the resulting theory I propose and support (a cognitive-developmental theory): The Ethogram Theory -- because of the importance for the approach in establishing a basic ethogram, for accomplishing its specific goals. [It makes me happy if people read or download-to-read "A Human Ethogram ...". But all updates, questions-and-answers (collected essays), and other timeline items all provide essays that aid not only the understandability of the approach, but also its necessity AND the specifics (empirical, testable details). Also see the other Project Log entries, project references and "research items".] (To see a fuller list delineating the virtues of this perspective and approach, see mynichecomp.com/key_content/ (see esp. bottom HALF of that web page.)) [ ALSO to know of access to ALL the writings relevant to this Project, see the References and the most recent Updates (Log Entries), below. ALSO: See the Questions associated with the Project. The main writing under this Project is the BOOK, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory and then the 3 items of "Linked Data", under THAT (paradigmShiftFinal.pdf, the first addition to the BOOK (Collection), finalfinal3-converted.pdf , the second-most recent addition, AND Absol_the_last_addendum_TO_BOOK.pdf (more recent essays included as the third Addendum)). ]