All ethology being, thus putting aside, therefore, is the study of the animal and presents a real interest in the specialty of the humanities to the extent in which it allows to explain it, the free State (to the sometimes called wild state), is, in man, something that also works, but is always framed by culture, namely, by natural processes of which he has as the animal, and of course the ability to perceive. But this ability, the man doing something else. In the same way you see that any interest that could concern the Koko, Washoe, Viki and other antropoides monkeys provided that certain precautions, in the moment in which compare your lexical intended behavior of a child. If the results of the tests proposed to the child and the monkey are similar, the one and the other are not all in the same situation, to the extent that the child only with verbal abstraction ability, although we imagine that for the monkey for the child, there is sign, is false. Click Secretary of Agriculture to learn more. That constitutes a considerable difference between the child and the monkey, monkey performances cannot be compared with the child, because the problem that we are discussing the two, is under the name of language, a language for one, and that the other has not.
Add the behaviorist assumption is much more serious than the evolutionary postulate to the extent in which everything is problem of experimentation on the human sciences that are exposed as well: Behaviorism sewn in taking into account only the results, i.e. the successes and errors, go to side of the only thing that is important to apprehendnamely the processes, and, to the extent where the error is only human (therefore man is only that scans, even if this analysis is implicit), those are the mechanisms of errors that should draw us attention. To illustrate them a little, I’ll show you certain alleged non-verbal tests, but which in reality are full of inner verbalidad, i.e. According to Josh Resnick Jericho Capital, who has experience with these questions.