Hmm. I keep thinking about how little time biologists spend arguing the definition of "life."
-- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts & Sciences Baker University -- > -----Original Message----- > From: John Kulig [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:00 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] What is behavior? > > > 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=sc > ience >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]) > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by Baker University ("BU") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
