Published: 04-27-2015 03:17 am
Updated: 05-19-2015 05:41 am
Creating a empirical theory for individual differences is hard, here is how we are working at the moment.
I'll explain the problems one would face if one only did one of these:
Modelling, Articulating and Conceptualizing
This would be a form of rationalization, it would be created without any empirical evidence and only from intuition. There would be no evidence for it's validity.
Observation, nonverbal, verbal
This would only describe what is experienced when looking at someone as an observer. There would be no connection to other peoples subjective experience or to conceptual models. If there would be conceptual models they would only relate to the observers experience when observing someone else.
Self-reporting, introspection, dialogue
This would be entirely based on subjective experience and lack any empirical evidence. It would not be falsifiable except using statistics (correlative evidence), which is weak evidence but is common in psychology today.
Science, references, evidence
This would not create anything new, if anything new was created it would not have been tested in any way. One scientifical theory can conflict with another, they can use similar brain functions or use different ways of describing the same phenomena.
So by iterating through all of these, we should get a meaninful and sound theory.. or what do you think?
ErikThor likes this post.
Published: 05-03-2015 02:36 pm
Updated: 05-06-2015 10:17 am
The methodology should enable us to create at least three models:
* Model of mind
* Model of individual differences of mind
* Model of sociological differences in behavior
.. all related to each other.