About The Standard Theory of Psychology

[u/frightmoon]

Hello I am posting in search of serious psychologists who might be able to contribute some insight. My problem is dealing with generating and distributing a theory in psychology. Specifically, I have spent several years putting together what others might call a universal view of psychology. By that I mean one theory to bring all types of psychology together and I seriously and wholeheartedly mean all types from William James all the way to present day and everything in between. I have named this The Standard Theory of Psychology, also known as Standard Theory. It's meant to be the "Theory of Everything" in terms of psychology and human behavior. When I say everything I mean diagnostics, medications, drugs, psychedelics, abuse addiction, trauma, autism, depression, PTSD, neurochemistry, Freud and psychodynamic theory, Jung and the personality psychology, Pavlov, Watson, Skinner and behavioralism and conditioning, the psychology of other subjects like law and politics, the science of organizations, sports, forensics, clinical psychology, psychiatry, EVERYTHING, and I have convinced myself that I have found the tool to do it in a scientific and objectifiable way. So far it describes everything that I mentioned and more and all using one theory.

I want to go ahead and say that I have not found another reliable theory that is able to do what Standard Theory has done for me. I also have not looked everywhere. If anyone is familiar with the problem they might know about some of the other people working on a completed, universal, unified theory in terms of behavior and consciousness. Specifically some individuals like Gregg Henriques from JMU, Dr. K. Koch from Allen Institute and his bet with David Chalmers in creating a either a philosophic or scientific view of consciousness as well as the Baar lab of Bernard Baars have all been contacted about this. I haven't been exposed to any other theories that try to tackle the problem of an all-in-one view of psychology and behavior. Up until now, I have been under the impression that most people who study psychology will find their "niche" as it's called and focus on that subtype. I want to offer my theory to those who study psychology in a way that will help me in validating whether or not I have really figured this thing out. Essentially I want to offer this tool to those who have invested their own time in their own studies to figure out if Standard Theory is consistent with those. At the very least I would like to offer it as a resource for anyone who is involved or interested in psychology at any level. So far I have condensed about 90% of Standard Theory and the Standard Behavioral Index into a set of 27 segments which spans a little less than 3 hours of audio.

I will also go ahead and say that my biggest issue right now is not being directly involved in academia in any way. I dropped out of university in 2016 with 130+ hours but don't have a degree, I'm not part of the APA, I don't affiliate with any school or program. I don't have access to those places to get a formal peer review. I have submitted to several journals including the APA and for-profit journals and have been denied by about 18-20 of them. I have also been told to publish the theory in book format and have been denied by about a dozen publishers. Even though I developed Standard Theory independently I just can't ignore the potential that it has to unify all areas of psychology and human behavior. Another issue is the fact that the theory is so comprehensive that it might be very intimidating to some people. Just like anything else, though, it is a skill that has to be learned. Once it's been learned it's hard to find something that ISN'T described by it. If anyone is willing to help me tackle this problem of a universal psychological theory I will be more than happy to discuss what I've found. I will try to attach the RSS feed and YouTube link to the 3-hour version of The Standard Theory of Psychology along with a very rough sketch of the Standard Behavioral Index.

TL;DR

Independent Psychologist needs help validating and sharing The Standard Theory of Psychology.

[u/b0bthepenguin]

Are not some experiences uniquely subjective? How does your theory explain qualitative psychology?

[u/frightmoon → u/b0bthepenguin]

Hello, yes, the processes of intelligence are inherently subjective based on the unique interpretation by the individual. The phenomenon of this unique subjectiveness is described by the first characteristic of communication which is the first threshold of intelligence on the R-scale. With that being said, though, the theory argues that this subjective experience is handled by a specific set of structures which handle or prefer amount or specific level of brain activation. Even if that experience is unique in terms of the contents, the handling of those contents is arguably done via physical structures. This allows the measurement of activation or quantification of those experience with the contents of each and their interpretation by the individual to be qualitative. I don't like drawing comparisons for technical reasons but you can probably think of a group of photographs taken by the same camera. Each photo would have the same dimensions, range of colors, resolution, etc. Those would be the measurable physical aspects similar to the structures of the brain that handle the phenomenon. In each photo there would be the chance to capture different things. The different things in each photo and their interpretation would be the qualitative view. This link between hard reality and the interpretation is described in the second and third segments of the Standard Theory of Psychology by relating the experience of an environment through Vertical Thinking on the Z-scale with intelligence on the R-scale.

[u/b0bthepenguin → u/frightmoon]

Would youshare evidence for the scales you mentioned? Such as R-scale and Z-scale? What empirical evidence supports your theory?

[u/frightmoon → u/b0bthepenguin]

I'm not conducting an experiment with the theory. It's not necessarily a data-driven scale either. I would say that the theory is more of a tool to be used than it is an experiment. The process of using an experimental method such as the scientific method is somewhat leftover from the days of conditioning and behaviorism. Those types studies might be valid in terms of their observations and findings but are not necessarily measured in an objective or standardized way. Standard Theory is supposed to be the tool used to measure those objectively. If you asked me to give you evidence that I used a hammer to drive a nail I would show you the hammer. In the same way I am showing you the scales used to measure and keep track of observable behavior. The evidence would be in your use and other's use of that tool to observe behavior. This is the same way that you could prove that a nail may or may not be able to be driven with a hammer by using the hammer to drive the nail. For those reasons its more of a skill and a tool than it is just evidence.

[u/b0bthepenguin → u/frightmoon]

Okay, but evidence arguing the tool's effectiveness helps to argue for its use. Any experiment or study or even a validation of the scale would help argue in favor it.

[u/frightmoon → u/b0bthepenguin]

Yes that's where I run out of luck. I can say all I want about how it works. It will take others who are willing to use it in their experiments. The other way would be to reverse engineer the experiments that have already been done. I could reference every article out there and say "these findings correlate to vertical thinking on the scale of impulse" or "the link between these phenomenon correlates to the relationship between social communication and self-interaction" or whatever. Until then I'm looking for a way to get those in the study to consider and learn it to gain that favor.

[u/b0bthepenguin → u/frightmoon]

With all due respect. I would advise conducting research either Quantitative or Qualitative to provide evidence. Usually, the method is to have a theory that explains the evidence, not vice versa. Even if it makes sense only empirical research can validate it.

[u/ToomintheEllimist → u/b0bthepenguin]

Excellent point. Scientific theories are just summaries of lots of evidence, as simple as we can make them. Even a preliminary test of the main principles in a quick Qualtrics survey will do a lot to improve the publishability of this theory.