Mike I agree ... also thinking of the ant colonies (and bees) which also behave en-masse ... they are certain societal rules that regulate their group behavior. Hempel (vis Chris Green) said it best I think in cautioning that strict definitions might discourage the openness of inquiry. By 'profitability' below I meant whether the work advances theory and/or practical applications ...
-------------------------- John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 -------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Smith" <[email protected]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:25:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [tips] What is behavior? No doubt obvious to all, but I think the posts show that how we define behavior is dependent on what use we are going to make of it—‘the data we profitably record’ and the sub-specialty comments. For a sociologist ‘behavior’ might be en-masse as in a group where there is clearly behavior which can be ascribed but no defined organism ‘behaving’. I doubt there is an ultimate definition of behavior since the definition must reflect the purpose of our inquiry to be of any use. (I used single spaces after the sentences here). --Mike On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Christopher D. Green < [email protected] > wrote: It is important not to get too isolated in one's own (sub)discipline, and mistake it for the world at large. Physicists routinely speak of the behavior of subatomic particles. (And there are bodily functions in animals that are subject to conditioning, but that one would only tendentiously refer to as "behavior," such a blood pressure and heart rate.) Hempel told us more than half a century ago that strict definitions are mostly a bad thing in science because thei foreclose on possible future discoveries. Scientific concepts, he said, have an open character. Now, I don't agree with everything Hempel said about science, but on this point he was dead right. If you haven't seen it, you might be interested in my article (now 17 years old-- ack!) on the bizarre history of the "operational definition" in psychology: http://www.yorku.ca/christo/papers/operat.htm Regards, Chris Green York U. Toronto =============== John Kulig wrote: My .02 as well ... it may seem weird talking about the behavior of trees, but, the tropisms of plants played a role in the development of behavioral thinking (J. Loeb I believe, positive heliotropisms or turning toward light, and then the tropism-type reflexive behavior of paramecium: helio and geotropisms - as in H. S. Jennings's 'Behavior of the Lower Organisms' 1906). These I believe helped advance the cause of S-R models and behaviorism. I like the clarity of Palmer's definition (modifiable via classical/instrumental conditioning), though isn't this way too limited? There are other behaviors that undergo habituation, such as infant orienting to novel stimuli, but would find it hard to believe they are readily to instrumental/classical conditioniong; and even if we can classically/instrumenmtally head turning and orientation of infants to stimuli, the neural substrates are probably different from the usual reflexive-type response seen. Also, there are fixed action patterns (gulls' pecking at red dot under mom's beak) and simple pattern generators (a fish's & snake's co-ordinated body movements to move) - a stretch to think of conditionability as a critical feature of these behaviors. I like the earlier post (forgot origin) that says behavior is whatever data we profitably record. -------------------------- John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 -------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:54:57 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [tips] What is behavior? On 21 Jul 2009 at 13:03, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote: Behavioral biologists try to define behavior, with interesting results: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/science/21angier.html?ref=science >By this definition, masting oak trees, bacterial colonies creeping across a sugar gradient, zebra herds fissioning and fusing, are all displaying behaviors. My two cents. Whatever behaviour is, I'm sure that oak trees don't do it. So any definition which allows oak trees to behave will not do. The same goes for Canadian maple trees. Dogwood--maybe, because of their bark. I have to say I find Dave Palmer's definition (from Paul Brandon's post) that a behaviour is anything sensitive to operant or classical conditioning persuasive. This could even include EEG as a behaviour, assuming it's been shown to be conditionable (which takes us back to the Neal Miller debacle, doesn't it?). Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ( [email protected] ) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
