No edit summary |
(Category) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | [[category:BIT]] |
||
{{Forumheader|ToK discussion forum}} |
{{Forumheader|ToK discussion forum}} |
||
| Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
Henriques writes, (from the perspective of [[Behavioral Investment Theory]]), that "psychology becomes a cognitive-behavioral neuroscience (or the science of mind, brain, and behavior of the animal-as-a-whole) built on an evolutionary foundation," (pp. 162-163 of ''The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology''). However, [[evolution|evolutionary]] perspectives on [[human behavior]] have effectively split into three broad fields: [[evolutionary psychology]], [[human behavioral ecology]], and [[dual inheritance theory]]. Can the ToK help to integrate these three fields? <font color="Blue">Jason Bessey</font> - [[User:Jaywin|Jaywin]] ([[User talk:Jaywin|<font color="Blue" size="1">talk</font>]]) 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
Henriques writes, (from the perspective of [[Behavioral Investment Theory]]), that "psychology becomes a cognitive-behavioral neuroscience (or the science of mind, brain, and behavior of the animal-as-a-whole) built on an evolutionary foundation," (pp. 162-163 of ''The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology''). However, [[evolution|evolutionary]] perspectives on [[human behavior]] have effectively split into three broad fields: [[evolutionary psychology]], [[human behavioral ecology]], and [[dual inheritance theory]]. Can the ToK help to integrate these three fields? <font color="Blue">Jason Bessey</font> - [[User:Jaywin|Jaywin]] ([[User talk:Jaywin|<font color="Blue" size="1">talk</font>]]) 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response from JAK== |
||
| + | With Henriques' Behavioral Investment Theory, a tool exists by which to evaluate and integrate varied ideas and theories. The first step would be to evaluate each of the competing ideas and discern the fundamental intentions of each - specifically, what "return on investment" is sought? What is sought with EP? What is sought with DIT? |
||
| + | |||
| + | I suspect the intent is to have a theoretical template which explains the evidence produced by experimentation and/or field studies. When two or more theories explain the same results, an overlap occurs. When one theory does not account for some research results, we have found one of its limits. By comparing and matching theories against research, we should eventually produce a Venn diagram showing the intersections (overlaps) of theories. If one theory should prove comprehensive, it should take precedence by virtue of being parsimonious (which enhances the ROI of the theory by virtue of enhanced utility). |
||
| + | |||
| + | If the competing theories largely overlap, the natural question becomes, "Why do we perpetuate the duplication?" Again, a reduction to a general and simpler principle would seem more efficient and more in line with the spirit of BIT. -- [[User:JAK|JAK]] |
||
Latest revision as of 14:44, 28 April 2007
Henriques writes, (from the perspective of Behavioral Investment Theory), that "psychology becomes a cognitive-behavioral neuroscience (or the science of mind, brain, and behavior of the animal-as-a-whole) built on an evolutionary foundation," (pp. 162-163 of The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology). However, evolutionary perspectives on human behavior have effectively split into three broad fields: evolutionary psychology, human behavioral ecology, and dual inheritance theory. Can the ToK help to integrate these three fields? Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Response from JAK
With Henriques' Behavioral Investment Theory, a tool exists by which to evaluate and integrate varied ideas and theories. The first step would be to evaluate each of the competing ideas and discern the fundamental intentions of each - specifically, what "return on investment" is sought? What is sought with EP? What is sought with DIT?
I suspect the intent is to have a theoretical template which explains the evidence produced by experimentation and/or field studies. When two or more theories explain the same results, an overlap occurs. When one theory does not account for some research results, we have found one of its limits. By comparing and matching theories against research, we should eventually produce a Venn diagram showing the intersections (overlaps) of theories. If one theory should prove comprehensive, it should take precedence by virtue of being parsimonious (which enhances the ROI of the theory by virtue of enhanced utility).
If the competing theories largely overlap, the natural question becomes, "Why do we perpetuate the duplication?" Again, a reduction to a general and simpler principle would seem more efficient and more in line with the spirit of BIT. -- JAK