John Jones wrote:

The point here is that a connection is understood to exist between
behavior and conditions, or behavior and circumstance, and that one
needs to consider this connection to objectively evaluate behavior.

How many will see the importance of circumstance? For most circumstance
is limited to immediate observation, not background, or experience.

Your point implies a question of those who control behavior, their
worthiness for that role and the basis on which 'desired' behavior
is determined. Note, on the level of social manipulation, 'desired
behavior' could just as easily mean 'bad' behavior, as 'good', since
on that level 'bad' behavior might be sought to engineer the behavioral
responses of the 'good'.

Of our social engineers, I wonder if their own behavioral responses
would be objective, or just be a further manifestation of culture?
With ideas of 'sought behavior' being based on the culture they take
as the norm. The way this thing is practiced, they might as well ask
the Mancunian [regional dialect] to speak with a Welsh tongue, or the
Brummie [regional dialect] to speak 'Received English'. There is a
certain arrogance which pervades the claims of this 'science'. And
little wonder. Study in this area must change the belief of those who
accept its findings. The way they are encouraged to relate to the rest
of the community has to have an effect on their own behaviors.

Man controlling man, which means the modified modifiers, modifying.
Who decides and why? Who controls and how? Who adapts or dont?
All questions for another day.

{{ Now lets see if this post makes it out of this sandbox }}