Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#131

Post by gmisra »

FWIW, pretty much the entire sub-field of "priming" in contemporary psychological research has come under significant scrutiny over the past few years. I am no expert, I would encourage you to read this: https://chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907

"The studies that raise eyebrows are mostly in an area known as behavioral or goal priming, research that demonstrates how subliminal prompts can make you do all manner of crazy things. A warm mug makes you friendlier. The American flag makes you vote Republican. Fast-food logos make you impatient. A small group of skeptical psychologists—let's call them the Replicators—have been trying to reproduce some of the most popular priming effects in their own labs.

What have they found? Mostly that they can't get those results. The studies don't check out. Something is wrong."

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#132

Post by JRobertson »

300bps wrote: post #105
epidemian wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've received a lot of criticism for that comment, but, considering myself as having a very bad memory, i'm grateful that you posted it. It made me reconsider how much of my "terrible" memory is because it actually sucks or because i already have a preconception that i'll forget about everything if i don't write it down. You see, it's not that my memory is equally terrible for all things. Sometimes i forget about t…

You've received a lot of criticism for that comment, but, considering myself as having a very bad memory, i'm grateful that you posted it Thanks. Just to dig the hole deeper for myself - I used to have a terrible time falling asleep when I was younger. For the past 20 years though I sleep like a baby every night. If I wake up in the middle of the night (normally due to one of my 3 children or my wife), I fall back as…

This topic is one that my wife and I talk about regularly.

She is slowly learning to better control her anxiety, but one side effect is that she worries about sleep, all the time. She almost universally resists committing to morning activities because she's worried about how much sleep she'll get the night before.

We just got back from a vacation where she slept like a rock the whole time despite sharing a room with our two kids, a noisy ventilation system and the sounds of the city. I told her it was because she didn't care how much sleep she got.

I've noticed the same thing in myself. The nights I slept the worst are the nights where I care/worry how much sleep I will get.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#133

Post by 300bps »

devindotcom wrote: post #125
300bps wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That post didn't read to me like he was in the slightest bit offended. He said that my post was belittling and he was resentful of it. That seems to be a textbook definition of offended. Please tell me how I misunderstood.

I am not offended. I wrote that the sentiment I described was belittling and people would resent it.

I am not offended. I wrote that the sentiment I described was belittling and people would resent it.

Sorry, I don't believe you. You were either directly speaking for yourself or you were using weasel words a la, "people would resent it."

In either case, you should man up to the fact that you were truly speaking for yourself. There were three people that voiced their offense at what I said. Two appeared to not be able to avoid petty insults and name-calling. One of those two ended up deleting the dozen or so responses they had in here, apparently ashamed of what they wrote.

I'm still hoping that you'll own your words more than the other two.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#134

Post by 300bps »

GoNB wrote: post #99
300bps wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're implying anyone can have eidetic memory by "removing their limits" What I said is that most people don't try to memorize things because they think that they can't. Most people memorize things by simple repetition Sure, and most people don't try to memorize things because (again) they think that they can't no matter what technique they use. I don't buy it I'm not selling anything. I'm merely passing on my ow…

> Sure, and most people don't try to memorize things because (again) they think that they can't no matter what technique they use. Citation? I mean, you're saying "most people" after all. If we're just talking anecdotes here, I've never met anyone who couldn't memorize something with simple repetition technique. When people say they have "poor memory", they are referring to not having eidetic memory. For example: "I…

Citation? I mean, you're saying "most people" after all.

I think you may be the most confused person in this thread. Go ahead and re-read this particular branch of it.

You said most people first. I then quoted your use of "most people". So I guess the appropriate thing for me to do at this point is to snarkily ask for your citation?

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#135

Post by 300bps »

sown wrote: post #124
300bps wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sillysaurus apparently realized he had a chip on his should because he deleted all 9 replies he had in this thread.

Maybe. I have the habit of deleting all old content. Do you empathize with his position, though?

I have the habit of deleting all old content. Do you empathize with his position, though?

I think there are plenty of people that have legitimate difficulties doing things and I think there are plenty of people that use excuses as to why they can't do things. What the population of each group is or where sillysaurus falls in it, I don't know. He was quick to label himself handicapped. Then he said he only said that as a technique to extract information from me and that he's just bad at memorization "as most people are" according to him.

Beyond that, I think he's not a nice person. He used insults and name-calling as a frequent technique. He projected feelings he has for other people onto me. He ninja-edited almost all of his posts before deleting them. He got went from 0 to 60 angry over nothing. The guy has issues.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#136

Post by pradocchia »

arkades wrote: post #36
pradocchia wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse. I'm sorry, but no. Observation comes first, then hypotheses, then prediction, then verification. Explanations go from proposed to confirmed, but they are certainly not the genesis of scientific knowledge. The phenomenon itself must come first, otherwise all you have is the fitting of facts to theory. So, we have observations w/out a coherent, compelling, or…

"I'm sorry, but no. Observation comes first, then hypotheses, then prediction, then verification. Explanations go from proposed to confirmed, but they are certainly not the genesis of scientific knowledge. Not really. I mean, I appreciate the old "Scientific Method" card, that doesn't actually describe how it happens, pretty much ever . All observations happen schematically: by the time you're in grade-school, you've…

Right, so you are describing what Kuhn termed the period of "normal science": theory in hand, collect new facts, fit facts to theory, repeat.

HOWEVER, that theory-in-hand rests on an earlier paradigm shift, where previously anomalous observations were re-integrated via some new conceptual framework that better accounted for all observations, not merely the conformed ones that scientists had focused on in the prior period of normal science.

So yeah, perhaps in the day-in, day-out existence of professional scientists, most work is fitting facts to theory. However, that theory exists because facts come first, because at some point in the past, mounting factual evidence overwhelmed the theoretical biases of an earlier generation.

Do I really need to spell this out for the HN crowd? For you, who reference Kuhn?

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#137

Post by CDRdude »

clicks wrote: post #112
devindotcom wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy you have this ability, but suggesting that everyone else just isn't living up to their potential because of some mental block that you have supposedly (and accidentally) overcome is, perhaps, limiting your compassion. You are very lucky to have an exceptional memory; others are not so lucky, and must work hard to do what costs you no effort. Supposing they just aren't trying hard enough or are succumbing to…

I underwent a formal psychological evaluation a few years ago, my shrink informed me that I have incredibly bad memory (I was ranking in at 1-2 percentile for two or three different memory tests). But yet, I've also been able to memorize pi to about 50 digits, I've memorized the entire periodic table, and I've memorized whole poems in Latin (despite knowing very little Latin). The thing I've found to be true in my ca…

What mental exercises do you find effective at improving memorization, and what would you recommend to a beginner?

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#138

Post by lutusp »

md224 wrote: post #59
lutusp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse. > I'm sorry, but no. Observation comes first, then hypotheses, then prediction, then verification. The corpus of scientific theory is a set of tested, falsifiable explanations . Legitimate sciences don't rely on mere descriptions, even well-tested ones. But let's take your claim and test it scientifically -- let's assume that we don't need explanations, w…

I'm not really sure what you guys are arguing about... obviously observations and descriptions are an important first step toward developing scientific theories. Lutusp seems to be complaining about people who feel descriptions are sufficient and make no effort to discern the underlying mechanism. Is there really disagreement on this point? If there is, then maybe this is just a debate about Instrumentalism: http://e…

> Lutusp seems to be complaining about people who feel descriptions are sufficient and make no effort to discern the underlying mechanism. Is there really disagreement on this point?

Yes, among psychologists, who insist that explanations aren't necessary, that it's science even if no one tries to identify a cause for the effect being measured. But this assumption is now under serious challenge, as more and more emphasis is being placed on a search for causes, to the degree that the director of the NIMH recently ruled that the DSM (psychology's "bible") will no longer be accepted as a source for science (it will remain as a diagnostic guide).

The practical meaning of this change is that researchers who apply for funding through the NIMH will need to avoid using the DSM's symptomatic categories as a basis for research -- they instead need to express their proposals in more scientific terms, in terms of causes, not just effects. In other words, explanations, not just descriptions.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#139

Post by lutusp »

pradocchia wrote: post #57
lutusp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse. > I'm sorry, but no. Observation comes first, then hypotheses, then prediction, then verification. The corpus of scientific theory is a set of tested, falsifiable explanations . Legitimate sciences don't rely on mere descriptions, even well-tested ones. But let's take your claim and test it scientifically -- let's assume that we don't need explanations, w…

To continue your thought experiment, another researcher designs a new, double-blind trial of gourds, and discovers that while gourds per se have no effect, the placebo effect is statistically significant. There is no explanation for WHY expectations would effect outcomes. In fact, any explanation at this stage would be provisional and highly suspect. And yet, there it is. What are we to do, ignore this phenomenon as…

> To continue your thought experiment, another researcher designs a new, double-blind trial of gourds, and discovers that while gourds per se have no effect, the placebo effect is statistically significant.

Without a search for causes, for explanations, even the placebo effect is routinely disregarded. For example, it has been recently discovered that all psychological therapies are equally efficacious. Until now, the assumption was that Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy was superior to others, but that's been disproven. But, even though all therapies produce the same outcome, no one in psychology seems willing to consider the idea that it's all placebo effect.

> In fact, any explanation at this stage would be provisional and highly suspect.

Except the one that Occam's razor suggests, the default assumption under these circumstances: placebo effect. Or, perhaps better, the non-explanation suggested by the null hypothesis -- nothing meaningful has been measured and no conclusions can be drawn, which I think is your point.

> What are we to do, ignore this phenomenon as if it didn't exist?

No, but as scientists, we would do well to avoid drawing any conclusions not supported by rigorous experiment -- including the responsibility to propose and then test a theory about what's been observed.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#140

Post by lutusp »

kybernetikos wrote: post #126
lutusp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> explain in neuroscientific terms > Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Not in science. In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse. No explanation, no science. Einstein didn't win a Nobel Prize for noting that electrons are emitted by a metal surface, he won for explaining why they are emitted. Had Einstein been a psychologist, publishing the fact that electrons are emitted (for simply des…

There are a number of people through the ages who have greatly advanced science by providing accurate observations. In fact, many scientists specialize in working out how to test the explanations of others. It seems somewhat odd to say that Tycho Brahe was not doing science when he compiled unprecedentedly accurate astronomical tables that were the foundation for revolutions in the way we understand the universe, or…

> There are a number of people through the ages who have greatly advanced science by providing accurate observations.

We need to distinguish between scientific observations and scientific theories. A scientific theory, in particular the sort that ends up defining scientific fields, must be in the form of a tested, falsifiable explanation of observations, preferably one that predicts new observations yet to be made.

Psychology's problems don't result from an absence of scientists -- there are plenty. But until those scientists start crafting falsifiable theories about their observations, psychology will remain a pseudoscience.

The peculiar thing is that psychologists don't realize this. It has something to do with how they're trained. At some point, they're told that, with respect to the mind, looking for causes is a fool's errand, and they assume they can create science without proposing and testing explanations for what they observe.

But they can't -- science doesn't work that way. As a result, psychology has produced any number of dried-gourd cures over the years.

Post reply on HN