It isn’t unusual for a particular theory to use a hypothetical X to account for factors that the researcher doesn’t wish to isolate and examine or haven’t yet figured out. There is nothing wrong with this approach. We use it in mathematics for a reason. We can solve an equation by assigning an imaginary value to X, plug that into an equation, and then solve for X when the rest of the equation is determined.
In astrophysics, the X is Dark Matter. They are pretty sure it exists, but they don’t know what it is. Some search from a top-down approach, gazing into the skies to look for signs of what it is and how it operates. Others use a bottom-up approach, working over the mathematics, physics, and using particle accelerators seeking unknown subatomic particles that might account for dark matter.
In the animal world, there are scientists who advocate for Radical Behaviorism, a field of study in which some elements are purposely overlooked. Thus, “behavior” is defined as only observable behaviors and actions stimulated by environmental factors. What can’t be observed and measured is considered irrelevant. Thus, internal states, drives, and physiology are not supposed to be relevant to RB, so let’s call all that remainder, “X”. What kinds of internal states are we referring to? Hunger, fear, surprise, anxiety, depression, effects of various drugs, pain stimulation, effects of diseases and injuries, status and bonding relationships, fatigue, PTSD, happiness, or frustration. What kinds of drive would we be talking about? Pack, Prey, Defense, and Sex. They also assume it is unnecessary to study physiology to understand behavior.
The RB scientists look for observable laws to try and predict future actions. They test these laws in controlled experiments to attempt to precipitate objectively describable tendencies, which they call “laws”.
Interestingly, while at the same time RBs assume an there is no X, they often invoke the use of X to then test it against their theory. Thus, they might make a rat hungry before doing an experiment. Or put a male dog in a situation while at the same time the dog has been injected with some kind of drug. Thus, while the RB approach seems to be a streamlined attempt at understanding behavior, they are attempting to equate Behavior to [Behavior minus X], and that obviously isn’t logical.
While I appreciate the work done by the RB’s, it is the X that puzzles scientists the most. It has been the harder part of Behavior to observe and test. Some are top-down theorists, devising theoretical mechanical models to describe parts of the entire Behavioral system. Others are bottom-up theorists, starting with organic chemistry. And some are in the middle, the biologists and ethologists, trying to link it all in the middle.
I find all this fascinating. But you can lose track of what you are studying if you don’t understand the perspective of the scientist mentoring you, either in a book or classroom. You should pick the discipline, understand it’s parameters, and then see how far that perspective will take you. Then pick a different discipline and do the same. Everyone is looking at the same thing, but with different mental lenses and at different angles. No one approach has the full answer.
This is partly why the “purely positive” and “balanced trainer” arguments keep raging. Each thinks they own the right science, when in fact, there are built in limitations to each approach. No single, unified theory has been developed and proven to explain all behavior. There are obvious flaws in every approach, and it is silly for adherents to claim otherwise. Furthermore, many haven’t even studied the basis for the methods they use, never even read the science, or the opposing science, to make educated positions. I find the greatest problems come from the scarcity of scientists, and dog trainers, that really can’t define, manipulate, explain or use X to better the training and life of dogs. Many have the RB stuff for the most part, fewer have much of the X stuff worked out.