Montaigne explained this phenomena over a hundred years ago:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3600/3600-h/3600-h.htm#link2H...
Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
41–50 of 151 posts
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#42A quote: "There seems to be a simple way to instantly increase a person’s level of general knowledge. Psychologists ..." Ahh. Psychologists. Expectations calibrated. "Expecting to know the answers made people more likely to get the answers right." Ah, yes -- that conclusion should be easy to rigorously quantify, explain in neuroscientific terms, turn into a general theory, and replicate before anyone assumes we're do…
> Ahh. Psychologists. Expectations calibrated. A, a positivist reductionist. Expectations on intellectual sophistication and ability to comprehend the world beyond simplistic models calibrated.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "ad hominem".
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#43Earlier 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…
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…
>> 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, we can get by with your stated criteria: observations, "hypotheses, then prediction, then verification." Here goes:
Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just like a psychologist.
Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?
Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture, and notice that the same thing is wrong with psychology — all description, no explanation, no established principles on which different psychologists agree, no effort to build consensus, and no unifying theories.
> So, we have observations w/out a coherent, compelling, or generally agreed-to theory. If and when a successful theory is developed, it will predict observations to date and predict more effects not yet observed or observed and ignored. Well, that sounds like a pretty exciting field of science, actually.
Yes -- and shaking a dried gourd can cure the common cold.
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ahh. Psychologists. Expectations calibrated. A, a positivist reductionist. Expectations on intellectual sophistication and ability to comprehend the world beyond simplistic models calibrated.
I think the phrase you're looking for is "ad hominem".
[deleted]
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#45In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor.
I've noticed this is true in ever facet of my life. When I was 14, I memorized pi to 50 digits with almost no effort. Later, I memorized it to 100, then 200. I realized at that point that I could memorize anything that I wanted to. I memorize phone numbers, credit card numbers, everything with almost no effort and not using any mnemonic device. It's so handy when buying something on the Internet to have every credit card in my wallet memorized.
Invariably when I demonstrate this to someone I get the, "Oh I could never do that, my memory is terrible." I actually convinced a friend of mine many years ago that he could in fact memorize pi to 100 digits... and he did and still remembers it to this day. I'm convinced anyone can do this and the major thing stopping them is their belief that they can't do it.
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#46In my Psych course in college we were told on how playing on gender roles can affect performance. Boys and girls were given a math test. On average they performed equally. However when they were given the test and told that the test was also to evaluate how girls do as compared to boys the results were interesting. Girls did worse then average on being told this and boys did better than average. This article seems to…
Boys were more motivated by competition, and girls were stressed by expectations that boys will be better.
Regarding the original article, people who were told the answer got flashed might simply doubted their intuition less.
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#47This is easily explained by a broader psychological phenomenon. The brain and ego will invest itself in a task in direct proportion to the expected payoff.
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#48Earlier 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…
> no modern scientist sets out gathering observations without any pre-existing theory in his head.
Or without the intent to shape a new theory, a new, testable inductive generalization, as when Einstein shaped special relativity. That's my favorite example because it happened in a theory vacuum, no pun intended. There must be a theory to inform the research, or the research must lead to a testable theory, or both.
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#49semi-CSB that may be related: I often travel with electronic prototypes and/or custom parts, which can be really annoying if you have to cross an international border and go through customs. I found that the best way to get through it speedily is to also carry one of my Antbots, and go into sales pitch mode when asked to explain it. People will automatically want to get rid of a traveling salesman and the fastest way…
Yeah there's a number of techniques similar to that which get people to leave you alone. Here's my favorite:
http://www.daily-comix.com/image/comic/small/1307/jesus-save...
Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits
#50Earlier 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…
> Not in science. In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse. No explanation, no science. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that whenever you encounter the boundaries of science you get to call people derisive names and ridicule them. See my other comment — I used to have the same smug approach, until I found out on myself that there are things that medicine doesn't understand. Of course I don't call…
He's not talking about medicine, he's taking about psychology. I'm sure molecular pathology gets a very favourable "is science" score.