ResearchGate
< Back

February 2017

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 24,2017

I edited a couple of Questions of 01/22/2017 - 01/23/2017 to have my normal civil or near-civil tone. I apologize for the rant-nature they had. Now I also hope more people will read them and I hope more people will read my major paper, &quot;A Human Ethogram ...&quot; A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc... Thanks to my always-very-kind followers/project followers.

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 20,2017

Re: False and un-empirical outlooks on &quot;abstract&quot; conceptual thought. https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_did_we_ever_view_abstraction_as_a_progressive_disconnect_from_the_world Also, re: keeping theoretical thinking &quot;on track&quot;, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Re_Theory_or_models_Why_is_there_no_concern_about_thinking_about_too_much

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 11,2017

Here is a link to a question, the answer to which I hope to bolster WITH this Project: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_psychology_worse_than_the_tower_of_Babel To understand what is in this Project: one may begin by reading everything in the Project Log (these are like brief essays). You can also read all the Questions and Answers associated with the Project's author, to know the perspective better. If you like what you read, then read the 3 larger papers associated with this Project. On the other hand, if you want to evaluate the whole perspective and theory at once, start with the large paper, &quot; A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importance (now NEW, because new technology allows investigation of the hypotheses) &quot;. ------------------------ ------------------------ Why you definitely want to be here: I believe no cognitive developmentalist can ignore this perspective, given the sophistication of the new eye-tracking technology (allowing this ethogram theory's hypotheses to be tested and verified or not). Because the hypotheses are testable and because biology has shown a very strong and regular relationship with empiricism, this perspective may very well be correct. Think of this project as the end to any idea that there are any non-empirically-based levels of thought/conceptualization . 100% empiricism; 100% discovery (no presumptions, just biological principles); FULL organismically contextualized associative learning. The only theory where innate mechanisms and learning are, in effect, SIMULTANEOUS -- ending any nature/nurture debates. Finding &quot;stages&quot; as they are, not as they are posited. Utilizing all the vocabulary of classical ethology for the understanding of human behavior (adhering to the methods of classical ethology). The theory also shows the clear definite errors in assumptions of all major theories of behavior. It makes an end to any person-within-the-person. We need an end of pick-and-choose what you like and just have-things-as-you-want (the place of intuition is only to help the scientific process, which is inherently always defined by the SUBJECT).

Brad Jesness has added an update

Feb 5,2017

I believe I have done about all I can do to provide this human cognitive-developmental ethology/ethogram perspective. To see, just read all my comments, questions-and-answers, research items, note the project references, and see the other updates. If it has merit, I hope you shall find it. If you see merit, please read my longer papers (provided as project references). There may be little more I can do (as a resource-less, retired person, not to mention: &quot;a loner&quot;) but (as I have) to provide the outline and several sorts of signs of the perspective being good, and several justifications (and hopefully also showing the need for it and how it might provide for progress). I have hopefully clearly indicated the nature of hypotheses -- enough for particular ones to be stated empirically and meaningfully and investigated. I have hopefully particularly and clearly noted some of what would be needed. I would ask: Has any other perspective so clearly contrasted itself and/or made itself justified and well-grounded and shown it may have real continuing/continuous potential? Are there any that more make it clear that they are fully empirically and behaviorally founded? Let me know. If you see anything I missed, and I might help, respond HERE and I will welcome it. [ Does it seem right to you that 'ethogram' is not in many dictionaries (like the one here , for researchgate.net )? Does it seem right that none of the following are even defined Topics on researchgate.net: innate behavior patterns, innate action patterns, OR 'fixed action patterns' ?? PLUS: It looks to me like many psychologists know the field is stagnating and are responding with desperation: a hodgepodge of Relational Developmental Systems Theories (including the 'Bioecological Approach' and sociocultural theory) -- which have no clear system and represent subjective researcher intuition (the 'researchers' are the &quot;relaters&quot;). Many people using such a 'theory' (ALL of the several who responded to me about the 'theory') declare: &quot;it is not really a theory, but a framework&quot;. AND: Psychology is returning a lot (the majority?) of the thinking and evaluation of constructs to philosophers ( who most certainly at times do a good job and are helpful, but lacking in almost all cases with regard to 'what they have to work with' ). I surely like philosophers involved but perhaps not so disproportionally important. ] In closing: HELP! I would be happy to know a new collaborator(s) will take over the Project: some person(s) with high tech. eye-tracking equipment and who know(s) and understand(s) developmental psychology and comparative psychology (and the body of very good preliminary data there). Of course, I would hope he/she/they would adopt all the essential (ethological) aspects of my perspective -- the empiricism, the ultimate grounding in overt behavior (even if subtle and requiring eye-tracking to see it). Let me know if you, or you and some colleagues, are &quot;looking toward&quot; taking the Project on. That, done seriously and well (no matter what the results w/r to hypotheses), would make me happy.