About this episode
On July 8th, in what can only be described as an act of reckless clarity, we published a white paper (grab it here—>) Unified Behavioral Model™?—?Read more… listen now.Disclaimer: The following is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Just a bit.I have the utmost respect for the behavioral science community and its vast contributions—including the many scientists whose work has directly shaped my own.That said, the more I learn about the history of attempts to unify behavioral science (and, by association, psychology)—and then set those challenges alongside the Unified Behavior Model (UBM) as it now exists—formally published (elemental and falsifiable), 500+ downloads later—the more peculiar the entire situation becomes.To be clear: it’s only in hindsight that these “obvious” errors and omissions—both in behavioral science (BS) and in its unification efforts—come into focus.Subscribe nowTip #1: Make Sure Only True Insiders Get to PlayWhatever you do, don’t approach this unification challenge from the outside. That’s where troublemakers and fresh ideas tend to arise—reportedly. ?Imagine that… via Stanford Business. Where is Stanford’s own Psychology Department when it comes to UBM? @stanfordpsypodInstead, ensure that no outside ideas are taken into account and non sneak their way in—even via OPEN SCIENCE. Better yet, throw up your hands and surrender: “Why Psychology Isn’t Unified, and Probably Never Will Be…” “PROBABLY NEVER WILL BE.”Valid points to be sure…“Why a Unified Theory of Psychology is Impossible”Unification as a Goal for PsychologyIt goes on and on—for several reasons, dear friends, which appear below.Tip #2 Prioritize Knowledge over ImaginationEnsure that only those fluent in four-letter acronyms, armed with multiple advanced degrees, and a dense theoretical vernacular are entrusted with presenting “novel” ideas.Further, insist that only those who can quote James, Pavlov, Watson, Bandura,
