Thread by @matherion

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen It seems roughly right, but I'd nuance it by emphasizing that this is not about proof; it's more like an underlying ('meta' if you will) belief in progress: that changes and adjustments in theory are generally towards truth/reality, not random or systematically away from it.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen It's not about proving that there's some truth to what I say. It about arguing that the method I use to determine waht I hold as truth (and say) is bound ('proven') to lead to truth eventually. Which is more than anybody else ('non-scientists') can reasonably claim, I think.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen It's kind of like: "there's little hope, but I'm your best bet".

I think the ABCD touches on the 'joints' of why this is a valid argument quite well, because it's "a-theoretical" (like e.g. Intervention Mapping): it's a more generic ('meta, if you will) framework. So it may >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen help to explain this. Basically, following @robertjwest's brilliant definition of behavior at the EHPS last year, behavior is necessarily caused elsewhere in the brain. Therefore, changing it necessarily means changing (or environment) 'psychology'. If we're in agreement: >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > to the degree this concerns psychology, one can argue that there may be multiple aspects of people's psychology that may play a role. Let us call these 'determinants' (a-theoretically - without making any claim as to their nature/role/function, specifically).

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest Next, these determinants may conceivably consist of smaller parts that are usefully distinguished. Let us call those sub-determinants. Of course, these levels are arbitrary; one could distinguish dozens of levels of "aspects of people's psychology".

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest So let us make things easier by locking these levels of definition in place somewhere. We define sub-determinants as a level that is sufficiently specific to relate to specific aspects of an organism's environment.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest So, these 'sub-determinants' relate to aspects of people's psychology that relate specifically to relatively concrete aspects of their environments. This definition ensures that sub-determinants have a sufficiently narrows scope that we can target them by presenting stimuli.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest We then define determinants as umbrella concepts: categories of sub-determinants that are either similar or functionally similar.

This 'locks' these two levels of description of people's psychology a bit more precisely.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest We move on. Given these definitions, by definition (literally, hehe) behavior is caused by its determinants, which each consist of the relevant sub-determinants. Thus, behavior change requires first identifying the relevant (sub-)determinants.

Next step: change.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest Changing these determinants, given that we just defined them as broad, abstract categories that explicitly do not relate to concrete aspects of people's environment, is not directly possible by communicating in terms of concrete aspects of people's environments.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest Therefore, our only 'leverage points' are the sub-determinants, which, after all, are defined of those aspects of people's psychology that are important for their behaviors and _do_ relate to concrete aspects of their environments. These are what we target in interventions.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest We can only change these by making people learn something. After all, changes in how organisms relate ot their world based on feedback from that world is pretty much how learning is defined. Therefore, we need to master learning.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest We do master learning. We (mankind/science) identified evolutionary learning principles (ELPs) that pretty much cover organisms' learning potential. So, we can exploit humans' ELPs to change their sub-determinants (and so, their determinants; and so, their behavior).

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest We have research on how to exploit those ELPs. This research manifests as successful manipulations of psychological constructs, as described, for example, by #InterventionMapping's method of behavior change. (Note that BCTs are not defined as effective; they were chosen >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > for their value in accurately describing intervention content, but were not selected from those techniques/methods that we know can work to change aspects of people's psychology; IM's methods for behavior change *were* - although one can of course argue the quality of the >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > evidence use in that selection - as we argued in the "As simple as possible" article, we need meta-analyses of *lab studies*, and we need to stop meta-analysing intervention evaluations). So, if we can just link these methods to whichever subdeterminants we identified >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > as most important, we're there. This is where the definition level of determinants becomes crucial. Psychological manipulations are normally studies at a relatively generic level; so the determinants are a the link between effective methods of behavior change (that leverage >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > the relevant ELPs that can change sub-determinants) and the sub-determinants to target. Therefore, if we can find literature about which manipulations/methods/techniques we can employ to change a determinant that encompasses our sub-determinant, we can move on.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest Note that this behavior change principle (BCP) is defined as *anything that successfully changes parts of people's psychology*. This concept, therefore, is both trivial in its existance and a-theoretical: "you can do something to change something in people's psychology" is >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > pretty much the extent of it. So, therefore, so far we made very few assumptions about people's psychology. Just that it is useful (not necessarily truthful) that 'segment' people's psychology into determinants and sub-determinants at two specific levels; that >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > humans can learn (using ELPs), and that these ELPs can combine (and recombine) at more generic levels into "anything that works", where we call the "anything that works"-s "behavior change principles" (BCPs). (So these include all effective BCTs by definition). That's it in >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > terms of assumptions. Next step: linking the theoretical, abstract, BCPs (whatever they end up being) to the more concrete sub-determinants that we want to change. For this, we need some translation to the 'practical plane': let's call it an application. This >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > application contains specific content that relates to those concrete aspects of people's environment that the relevant sub-determinant is concerned with. However, it is crucial that it still satifisfies the 'rules' of the ELPs that underlie the invoked BCP; otherwise it >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > does not approximate a process by which the target organism (the human) can learn. However, if one does satisfy these conditions for effectiveness, the resulting procedure should result in learning in the target organism (the human). This changes a bit of their >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > psychology (as that is the definition of learning), therefore contributing a bit to ultimate behavior change.

Of course - life isn't linear, everything influences everything, local minima exist, etc. Still; the basic reasoning here I find hard to counter - actually, nobody >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest > has presented a counter-argument to me that renders the causal chain, or one link in it, implausible. Of course, I would welcome such an argument.

But, failing that, *this* of how to argue your added value. Basically, you can explain that you are able to figure out exactly >

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest 1) how to find out what needs to change ((sub-)determinants);
2) what we know about changing it (BCPs leveraging ELPs);
3) how to safeguard the crucial conditions for those BCPs effectiveness;
4) how to combine all this coherently (e.g. using ABCDs).

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest So, this is how I can think you can argue for your know-how now. Not by knowing any specific theory or thing; but by knowing how to identify, select, and employ psychological theory to explain and change aspects of human psychology (and ultimately, behavior).

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest And yes, our track record is crap. But nobody has a better one. And there are successes. Those could be due to change. Better, more transparent reporting, will provide many insights in this respect. But that's something we'll do. We'll learn much more in the coming decades.

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest Does this help yet? 🙂

@Heinonmatti @NHankonen @robertjwest Hey @threadreaderapp, could you maybe try to unroll this? I haven't really used you much yet, but I have a feeling that people might appreciate a convenient overview. Thank you in advance! Taking microblogging to regular blogging 🙂