Episodic Memory and Experimental Psychology
Discussion

Though this Discussion may not make sense to some, I have shared the following view with some professional behavioral scientist (psychology) friends and feel it may be helpful to get this view (or sub-view) a little more exposure.:

It is becoming obvious that Episodic Memory is a major crux of things (e.g. for much of the content and structure of the episodic buffer — the last “thing”/step before any working memory action (i.e. reinforcing or new processing of new or old)).

I have very recently made many downloads (most in the last few days) of articles on Episodic Memory. This is a major faculty and a major crux of things going into the episodic buffer — and may account for much of whatever organization is there. To see what Publications/Articles I am reading, to get an idea of how BIG this topic is: You can check my “Following” link on my Profile page to find the list of what I selected. (Please do take a look: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brad_Jesness2/interest .)

Took me a while to realize that this is an especially good area to read in AND STUDY. I believe this subject matter (and it is a true subject matter) is researchable in many ways, likely including in several realistic ways in the lab of experimental psychologists (even with the time/space constraints). This may be a ” go ‘ticket’ ” to realism and productivity for Experimental Psychology (as well as for other studies better spanning times and places). After one realizes a human, even largely unbeknownst to him/her self keeps track of partly related “things” (features and actions) across times and spaces (the very basis of abstract abilities), one also gets a perspective on the great and significant perspectives (templates) provided in/”for” reality by Episodic Memory.

The growing number of articles show this is very much an up and coming research area — fits with my theory (Ethogram Theory), but provides other, more study opportunities. You MOST PROBABLY find it beneficial to read all 900 pages of writing on the theory (the clear basis for a true empirical science of Psychology) FIRST.

If one appreciates the likely great sophistication of Episodic Memory, THEN there is NO NEED for any artificial setup in an Experimental Psychology Lab looking into that. Here’s why: You can have typical (though important), ecologically-sound, real set-ups that will literally naturally elicit adaptive response(s) (including centrally: episodic recall ); you just need to invent how to measure such recalls — BUT, you are (or would be) measuring real (non-set-up, non-artificial responses !)) Such adaptive responses have species-typical or species specific aspects. (I do not see measuring the episodic recalls would be hard; just see the relevant research.)

Day-to-day important situations and settings are all the “stimuli” (situation/circumstances) are the ‘set-up”.

Another way of saying most of this is to realize that in any important set of circumstances (INCLUDING REALISTIC ONES IN THE LAB) the Subject comes with much to bring to bring to bear and does bring it to bear (AND this, too, is real as real can be).

I should make it clear that this point of view, above, is totally consistent and congruent with the Ethogram Theory I put forth (a true, thorough shift using only behavior patterns and strict empiricism — it is a true paradigm shift for Psychology (actually, it offer Psychology its first paradigm)). I basically consider the above sub-view to be part of Ethogram Theory.

By the way, I do think the setting of settings (circumstances) AS IS DONE TODAY is sufficient for some good research — for example, a lot of research on the basic characteristics of the Memories. The generality and time/space frame of the lab seems to work for that example (and, I wonder, what others).

STILL:

Dear Experimental Psychology:

Do you really think the “reality”/environment right before your eyes is MUCH like every other real environment that is thought of by all humans?

Do you really think the “reality”/environment directly before your eyes is MUCH like every other real set of circumstances that is dealt with thought of by all humans and, moreover, AS IT IS THOUGHT OF BY ALL HUMANS?

Probably, you will realize, in many regards and for many purposes: NO !, it isn’t.

But why, then, do we act as if this (the “apparent”) is based-TRUE and think that we can build/simulate/represent circumstances in the lab which are seen as the same (we believe to be essentially the same) as key circumstances AS actually seen, AS actually compared and AS actually thought-of functionally (for action or responses) in real life by real people?