Qué es la ontología de sustancias? Transcript: Speaker 1 So substance ontology, well, the word substance in this context comes from the original meaning of the word from Latin, which means sub-stair. So to under-stand, stand underneath something else. So if we think about this substance ontology really is the idea that phenomenons, so in my case, psychological phenomena, are kind of static entities that underlie, that stand under Everything that we see. So they underlie our behavior. They underlie the variability in that behavior. That they’re kind of there in the background or in our heads or wherever we want to kind of reduce them to. Just existing and kind of generating our behavior and that any changes that we see with regards to development or the social context, those entities, those underlying entities remain As kind of static things. (Time 0:01:20)
definición ontología psicología
ontología definición psicología
Cuáles son las implicancias de una ontología de sustancias en psicología? Transcript: Speaker 1 So this is kind of the core of substance ontology commitments in psychology. And it has a lot of implications for how we think of psychological phenomena. So if we assume that things like our personalities, our mental disorders, our abilities, talents, self-esteem, all are these underlying things that we have. This means that we can also split these entities from other entities within us. So there’s this idea that then self-esteem and personality are two separate things that occur in their own right. And they might influence each other, but they exist separately, ontologically separately, that we can also split these entities from our social context. So when I’m here in an interview with you or if I’m at home with my children, my self-esteem is still just my self-esteem, irrespective of where I am. So that there’s a lot of assumptions of splitting that coincide with the substance ontology. There’s also assumptions that have to do with reductionism. So reducing our observable behavior to these underlying things, often in psychology, it has to do with reduction to something neurological or hormonal. That’s a very kind of hip and popular way of enacting this substance ontology. And it also just comes with general assumptions of stability. So a little bit of change across time is possible, but that’s only something external comes and pushes that underlying identity in a specific direction. But without that external push, the assumption would remain stable. I think that’s kind of the gist. (Time 0:02:25)
efectos ontología psicología
Qué es la ontología de procesos? Transcript: Speaker 1 A process is anything that changes across time. And so this is the core of a process ontology that instead of assuming that the psychological phenomenon that we have are entities, things that underlie our behavior, a process ontology Is that all of psychological phenomena are processes. So they’re always in a constant state of change, of becoming rather than being. And that we might have this, it might seem, we might have this idea that we are stable because we’re always living in a certain moment where we experience stability. But that in fact, we are all processes all the way down and all the way up. So this is a way of thinking about process ontology. So all the way down means that you, further down you go, whether it’s into our brains and our neurons or hormones, there’s not any can get a thing, an entity, all the way down. We still see activity and change. We see processes. And then also process all the way up. So even across time, it’s not as if we’re reaching a stable level of stability with any type of psychological phenomenon. Instead, what we might see is organization of differentiation, stabilization of patterns. So these patterns might be more or less dynamic or stable depending on the time scale that we take. But there’s still always processes of change and activity. So this is really a fundamentally different way of looking at ourselves, other people, at our participants and a different way of trying to make sense of our social and our psychological World. (Time 0:05:01)
definición ontología proceso
Qué son los sistemas complejos dinámicos y cómo aplican a la ontología de procesos? Transcript: Speaker 1 Complex dynamic systems as a mathematical origin, also very much shaken up in biology. And it’s quite new in psychology. So it belongs within the various fields that take up process ontology or the process relational larger framework. And it specifically focuses on understanding systems and how they change across time. So first of all, complex dynamic systems is about trying to identify what are the components that make up a system. And a system can be self-esteem. It could be a whole individual. It could be a dyadic relationship, a family, a society, the whole world. So you can scale this up to whatever level you want to, which is also why it’s a very interdisciplinary theory or approach you can apply it to anything, I think. So once we identify the system that we’re interested in and the components that make up that system, then the goal in this approach is to track, map, describe the way that those interactions Between components create the system. So describing their feedback loops, so that we have positive feedback loops, negative feedback loops that reinforce or inhibit change across time, for example. And then we bring in the time components. So we describe the iterative changes. So how does the system move from one step to the next step and how across time does this result in emergence of a new level for that system or a qualitative change for that system? And when this can also place this in the context of the environment of the system. So it might be our school, it might be our society. But for complex systemic systems, it’s crucial to understand a system as situated and to try to describe that situational interaction. And when we do that, we can also take, we can understand how the environment might influence us, influence our behavior, for example, based on the state of our intrinsic dynamics. So are we a stable system? Are we an unstable system? Depending on that, we will be more or less open to perturbations or input from our environment. And we can make predictions, probable predictions, about how we might respond or develop in the future, whether we’ll be resistant and stable, whether we’ll change in a highly variable Way or not. So that’s what dynamic systems tries to do, kind of take all of this into account and describe the developmental behavior of any system. (Time 0:07:28)
complejidad definición dinámica ontología proceso
Autoestima como ejemplo de cómo opera ontología de sustancias en psicología. Transcript: Speaker 1 So in the field of psychology, the concept often is broken down into a trait self-esteem and state self-esteem. And from a substance ontology perspective, in the dominant way that self-esteem researchers look at these two components of self-esteem, they see our trait. So somebody has high self-esteem or low self-esteem or stable self-esteem or unstable self-esteem as their underlying entity. The thing that generates their behavior, that generates a score and a questionnaire. We say, because I have low self-esteem, I broke up with this person and no longer have a relationship. Or because I have high self-esteem, I was able to do really well in my exam. So we kind of treat this trait as a deterministic essence, that determines how we behave. We also assume not we, but we. Psychologists in general tend to assume that there is, that each individual has a true score, that we actually have a true baseline level of trait self-esteem. And that around this stable trait, people will show variability. And this is how they think of state self-esteem. So state self-esteem is commonly thought of as the variability around our true score, our baseline level of self-esteem. And this variability is, again, usually attributed to either measurement error or noise from the context. So there’s a large assumption that our state self-esteem is basically the cause of feeling rejected or accepted in our social surrounding. So again, if we imagine this is our baseline of self-esteem and that the context is kind of pushing or pulling the feeling of self-esteem above or below our baseline, but that’s not real. The real self-esteem underlying all of that is supposed to be this true level. And what that means for researchers is that it’s perfectly reasonable to take the average, for example, of all of these variations in state self-esteem to get to that true score. So that’s one kind of practical methodological input. Rather than actually taking that state self-esteem variability as its own intrinsic process with its own intrinsic dynamics and looking at how those two levels, the state level and The trait level, feed into each other. Yeah, that’s the basis, I think, of the standard approach. (Time 0:17:02)
autoestima ontología psicología
Self-Esteem as a Descriptive Umbrella Term Self-esteem can be viewed as a descriptive umbrella term for behaviors and emotions related to oneself that carry either positivity or negativity. It is not a static entity but rather a system composed of various elements including emotions, behaviors, and cognitions. Trait self-esteem is not a fixed quality but a pattern that evolves over time within the self-esteem system. Transcript: Speaker 1 Yeah. So a process ontology approach to self-esteem would, in a way, come closer to a kind of anti-realist approach with this idea that we don’t have self-esteem. It’s not a thing that we have that’s just sitting there causing us to feel a certain thing or do a certain thing. But self-esteem is just a way of describing any kind of behavior or emotions related to ourselves that have a valence, a sense of positivity or negativity, so feeling confident or feeling Autonomous, feeling connected to other people and somebody who has worth. So it’s just kind of a descriptive umbrella term for all of these different components that make up how, whether we feel good or bad about ourselves in terms of emotions, behaviors, Cognitions. And then we can think of all of those components as components of a system. And we then have a self-esteem system where trait self-esteem isn’t an underlying thing that we have, but it’s a pattern that we’ve developed across time. (Time 0:21:32)
Cómo pensar el autoestima desde una ontología de procesos. Transcript: Speaker 1 A process ontology approach to self-esteem would, in a way, come closer to a kind of anti-realist approach with this idea that we don’t have self-esteem. It’s not a thing that we have that’s just sitting there causing us to feel a certain thing or do a certain thing. But self-esteem is just a way of describing any kind of behavior or emotions related to ourselves that have a valence, a sense of positivity or negativity, so feeling confident or feeling Autonomous, feeling connected to other people and somebody who has worth. So it’s just kind of a descriptive umbrella term for all of these different components that make up how, whether we feel good or bad about ourselves in terms of emotions, behaviors, Cognitions. And then we can think of all of those components as components of a system. And we then have a self-esteem system where trait self-esteem isn’t an underlying thing that we have, but it’s a pattern that we’ve developed across time. It’s an attractor state, which still then allows us to think about some kind of stability and the fact that some people do think, well, or they feel, they recognize that they do have a Tendency to feel good about themselves or bad about themselves. So I’m not denying these tendencies, but it’s a different way of explaining them and saying rather than this person has a thing, a trait, they’ve developed a pattern, kind of like they’ve Developed a habit of thinking about themselves or feeling about themselves. And each individual moment where we might feel differently about ourselves or behave differently, so these are kind of our state’s self-esteem, these are iteratively connected Across time. And they slowly feed into that attractor state of our trait self-esteem. So I think that this gives us a lot more kind of agency as people because we can steer our own development and steer how our traits self-esteem emerges by seeking out environments or interactions Or anything that makes us feel good and we slowly develop this new pattern. (Time 0:21:33)
autoestima ontología proceso
Importance of Avoiding Representative Samples and Average Abilities Avoiding the reliance on representative samples and average abilities is vital for the meaningful uptake of knowledge in the real world and in scientific pursuits. Relying on such approaches can lead to the creation of artificial categories of people, known as natural kinds, which may not accurately represent the diversity and complexity of individuals. Transcript: Speaker 2 And so when it comes to methodology, you’ve alluded to these earlier, but what do you think might be some of the problems with resorting to representative samples and trying to study Average abilities instead of perhaps having holistic descriptions of individuals? Speaker 1 Yeah, so I think there’s consequences for both the real world uptake of this kind of knowledge and information and in our pursuit of knowledge within science. So I’ll first go to the real world uptake. So I think it’s incredibly important that we’re not always taking this kind of large scale approach, looking at representative samples and averages across them because I think what It does, and we talk about this in our book quite a lot, is that it creates this idea of natural kinds. So natural kinds being real categories of people that exist that are meaningful and that are stable. (Time 0:23:59)
Embracing Complexity in Psychological Research Randomized controlled trials are valuable for testing effectiveness but may hinder scientific understanding in psychology by oversimplifying complex systems and artificially separating cause from effect. Transcript: Speaker 2 And I guess that one type of study that very much falls under the umbrella of intervention causality is randomized controlled trials, right? Which are pretty much considered the gold standard of research when it comes to trying to understand what causes something or linking causes and effects in particular ways. But since it seems to me tied to a substance ontology as well, do you think there are particular issues with randomized controlled trials or perhaps the ways we interpret data that come From them? Speaker 1 Yeah, so I think there’s obviously a lot of value in randomized controlled trials, things like testing the effectiveness of medicine, things like that. So again, I don’t think that we need to get rid of them. But I think for psychology, they can be harmful for furthering our scientific understanding of a phenomenon because we’re reducing the complexity of the system rather than embracing It. So we’re kind of artificially separating cause from effect (Time 0:28:37)
The Pitfalls of Over-Controlling in Scientific Experiments Randomized controlled trials are valuable for testing efficacy of medicine, but in psychology, over-control can harm scientific understanding by oversimplifying systems and artificially separating cause from effect. By manipulating only one factor, researchers may oversimplify causality and study something artificial that lacks ecological validity and may not be valid in the real world. Transcript: Speaker 1 Yeah, so I think there’s obviously a lot of value in randomized controlled trials, things like testing the effectiveness of medicine, things like that. So again, I don’t think that we need to get rid of them. But I think for psychology, they can be harmful for furthering our scientific understanding of a phenomenon because we’re reducing the complexity of the system rather than embracing It. So we’re kind of artificially separating cause from effect and not considering the way that a system actually behaves in its natural setting. So I think if you over control something, somebody’s behavior and you manipulate only one factor, we get this idea that we are kind of in a pure way understanding causality, but I think It’s actually oversimplifying that system to such an extent that we’re not actually studying the system of interest anymore. We’re studying something that we’ve artificially created, which only holds true in the context of that specific experiment, for example. So in that sense, it lacks what’s called ecological validity. It might not be valid in the real world. (Time 0:29:23)
Challenging the Ecological Validity and Measurement Problem in Psychology The importance of ecological validity in psychological studies is highlighted, as findings from over-controlled settings may lack real-world applicability. It is suggested to combine studies conducted in controlled settings with those in natural settings to gain a comprehensive understanding. Additionally, the measurement problem in psychology is discussed, focusing on the over-reliance on quantitative, global, and static measures of psychological phenomena. Transcript: Speaker 1 So in that sense, it lacks what’s called ecological validity. It might not be valid in the real world. So whether something has value, if it’s only true in a specific over controlled setting, I personally hope. I think it would be interesting to kind of compliment these two types of studies, so study something in the wild in real life. And when we get a sense of, hey, I think these two processes are really, really linked, then we can kind of try to pull them apart and study them in this over controlled way and see if it’s Still holds. So this is kind of flipping that scientific practice upside down. Speaker 2 So it’s mostly that randomized controlled trials just by themselves do not give us enough information. Is that it? Speaker 1 Yeah, yeah, I think so. Speaker 2 And so another thing now, what is the measurement problem in psychology? Speaker 1 Well, yeah, so according from my perspective, measurement problem is that there’s an over reliance on quantitative, global and static measures of psychological phenomenon. (Time 0:30:35)
Advancing Measurement Through Time Series Analysis Utilizing a process approach alternative to measurement involves incorporating time series analysis to understand trajectories of change over time. This qualitative research method enhances measurement by capturing dynamics and movement, in contrast to static aggregated scores, providing a valuable improvement in research methodologies. Transcript: Speaker 2 Right, and so in this case, what would you say would be a process approach alternative to measurement? Speaker 1 Yeah, I think, I think that the qualitative researchers are really onto something. So I myself started doing research not qualitatively but quantitatively but using time series. So really taking the time component into account. So that’s one way of changing measurement. So making sure that time and describing trajectories of change across time, that can be a way of advancing measurement. So anything that moves us away from just aggregated and static scores, I think is already an improvement. Using time series is a really, really good way. (Time 0:34:27)
Understanding and Embracing Variability in Process Approach In a process approach, dealing with variability involves recognizing and mapping it rather than dismissing it as noise or average values. Quantitative analysis, such as studying temporal structures with time series data, reveals meaningful patterns like fractal dynamics within variability, showcasing its significance and emergence. Transcript: Speaker 2 Yeah. And in the process approach, how do you deal with variability? Because for example, when earlier we talked about self-esteem, you mentioned that even people in mainstream psychology, they see variability, but sometimes because they think In terms of an underlying trait, they many times just dismiss it or for example, they just calculate the average and the variability doesn’t matter much. Or for example, if we’re comparing different people or different groups of people, again, just calculating the average and sometimes the rest is just a variability that doesn’t really Matter or sometimes they call it noise in particular context. So in this case, if you’re approaching things through a process, ontology or process approach, how do you deal with variability? Speaker 1 Yeah, so I think how one deals with it ideally is mapping or following that variability. So whether that’s quantitatively with our time series and really looking at what is the temporal structure of variability, so a study that I did a while back was showing that the temporal Structure of state self-esteem isn’t what’s called white noise, which is just random fluctuations that don’t have any kind of temporal links, but it’s actually pink noise, which Has to do with fractal dynamics. So showing that the temporal dynamics themselves are meaningful, they emerge into (Time 0:35:57)
Understanding Temporal Variability for Insights on System Dynamics Analyzing the temporal structure of variability, such as determining if it’s white noise or pink noise with fractal dynamics, can reveal meaningful patterns and memory in the fluctuations. The amount of variability across time can indicate the system’s openness to change, providing insights into personal trajectories and behavior dynamics. Transcript: Speaker 1 Yeah, so I think how one deals with it ideally is mapping or following that variability. So whether that’s quantitatively with our time series and really looking at what is the temporal structure of variability, so a study that I did a while back was showing that the temporal Structure of state self-esteem isn’t what’s called white noise, which is just random fluctuations that don’t have any kind of temporal links, but it’s actually pink noise, which Has to do with fractal dynamics. So showing that the temporal dynamics themselves are meaningful, they emerge into these patterns and there’s kind of memory in that variability. So we can actually look at the structure of variability itself. That’s one way forward to see what is that structure and what does that mean about the system that we’re studying, like for self-esteem in my case. We can also look at whether that’s a amount of variability across time. It’s also incredibly meaningful because when a system is more open to change, it’s more variable. So if we can find those moments in somebody’s personal trajectory, where their behavior is (Time 0:36:57)
Understanding Variability and Intervention Moments Studying the structure of variability and the amount of variability over time can provide insights into the system being studied, such as self-esteem. Systems that are more open to change tend to be more variable, making moments of high variability ideal for intervention to enable developmental change. By analyzing variability trajectories, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the system and identify optimal intervention points for change. Transcript: Speaker 1 So we can actually look at the structure of variability itself. That’s one way forward to see what is that structure and what does that mean about the system that we’re studying, like for self-esteem in my case. We can also look at whether that’s a amount of variability across time. It’s also incredibly meaningful because when a system is more open to change, it’s more variable. So if we can find those moments in somebody’s personal trajectory, where their behavior is more variable, that’s for example the ideal moment to intervene if we want to change that Trajectory. So literally sending someone to therapy, for example, or changing schools, those are kind of ideal moments to enable developmental change. So there’s lots of ways that we can actually study variability itself in terms of its trajectories or the structure of variability to get so much more out of what we can understand. Speaker 2 Another very interesting topic that you cover in the book that I’d like to ask you about now is the so-called replication crisis in psychology. That’s something that people have been worried about for around a decade now. So do you think that a process approach would reframe the way we think about the replication crisis? Speaker 1 Yeah, yeah. So first of all, I think it’s important to distinguish between replication crisis and reproducibility crisis. Okay. (Time 0:37:49)
Distinguishing between Replication Crisis and Reproducibility Crisis It is crucial to differentiate between the replication crisis and reproducibility crisis. While replicating studies helps understand similarities in behavioral patterns and contexts, assuming predictability in behavior under reproducibility can lead to an ongoing crisis. Acknowledging these as separate issues is essential for addressing them effectively. Transcript: Speaker 1 Yeah, yeah. So first of all, I think it’s important to distinguish between replication crisis and reproducibility crisis. Okay. So you can often kind of use together because of the assumption that if you replicate a study perfectly, you will also reproduce the outcome perfectly, right? Under this kind of mechanistic assumption that put in this factor in that factor, you’ll get the same output because we all, because people share this underlying entity that behaves Similarly depending on the way that it’s being intervened upon. So that’s why traditionally, I think these two words are used interchangeably. And I think that the way to do with this crisis is to acknowledge that these are two separate problems. So one is the reproducibility. We should be able to, or sorry, replication. We should be replicating studies. I think this is great because then we can see, which behavioral patterns tend to be quite similar and why, what are the contexts that cause similar behavior? And then we can start to tweak these factors and look at differences between context, for example. But the reproducibility crisis, I think will always remain a crisis if we assume that we can control behavior this way, that people have entities that are going to behave in a predictable Way if you put them in a predictable situation. (Time 0:39:26)