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 now

Tip #1: Make Sure Only True Insiders Get to Play

Whatever 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 Psychology

It goes on and on—for several reasons, dear friends, which appear below.

Tip #2 Prioritize Knowledge over Imagination

Ensure 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, Maslow, Skinner, and Freud backward and forward—and who possess psychological libraries spanning generations—be invited to contribute.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” ~Einstein

Tip #3: Form a Large Committee. The Larger, the Better

Nothing unifies quite like 23—or maybe 43—strong personalities in one room.

When “top behavioral theorists” gather for a week-long consortium, be sure to take minutes, roll in the whiteboard, and order extra coffee.

Everyone knows: the more expert opinions, the quicker a consensus.

As history (and a few hallucinating AIs) like to remind us, when it comes to unification attempts, the go-to answers are always consortia, committees, and bowling alleys.

Darwin famously huddled with his nine-person advisory council.

Einstein wouldn’t dream of publishing without first posting to social media.

And Newton? Legendary for his gravitational consortiums.

Here’s a nutty thought: what if that unified model came from one person on the fringe? (The fringe—see above ☝️.)

One person. U N I — F I C A T I O N.

⚠️ WARNING: Unification carries a dangerous synonym—coherence.

By extension, it implies that the 150-year exercise known as behavioral science—and its twin sister, psychology—are, brace yourself...

INCOHERENT.

Oy.

To be clear, that’s not me talking, it’s Webster.

If you didn’t catch the 1991 reference—well, that was when the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) convened a “Top Behavioral Consortium.”

Its noble goal?

To create a “Unified Framework.”

“What emerged?” you ask.

The meeting —a week long gathering—brought together “leading human behavior theorists”. While a comprehensive roster of all attendees from this specific 1991 meeting is not fully detailed in the available documentation, a critical outcome of this expert gathering was the acknowledgment that

“there was no consensus among the theorists”

on a single, universally accepted unified framework.

Imagine that.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit habits2goals.substack.com/subscribe