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

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#51

Post by coldtea »

jasonkolb wrote: post #42
coldtea wrote: post #17

Earlier 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".

I don't think "ad scientum field" is any better than an "ad hominem".

Not to mention that mine was not an ad hominem in the first place. I attacked an epistemology/methodology "positivism/reductionism" that he exhibited (as far as I can tell), not his person.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#52

Post by lutusp »

jwr wrote: post #40
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…

> 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…

> But that doesn't mean that whenever you encounter the boundaries of science you get to call people derisive names and ridicule them.

Not an issue except to the oversensitive. Consider the words of NIMH director Insel as he recently announced that the DSM (psychiatry and psychology's "bible") is to be abandoned:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Quote: "The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better."

To a psychiatrist or psychologist, in particular those responsible for the content of the DSM, calling it invalid and unscientific might be taken as personal criticism. But that's unavoidable if we're going to move away from unscientific practices.

> 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.

That isn't a legitimate comparison. In medicine, if something isn't understood, a researcher says, "We don't understand this." In psychiatry and psychology, the response is, "Take some Zyprexa and call me in the morning."

Personally, I look forward to the day when "NOS: Not Otherwise Specified" will no longer be looked on as a legitimate diagnosis meriting treatment.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#53

Post by GoNB »

300bps wrote: post #45

In 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.…

Eh, no mnemonic device? Most people memorize things by simple repetition. If you're implying anyone can have eidetic memory by "removing their limits", I don't buy it. It's something developed at a young age.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#54

Post by randallsquared »

lutusp wrote: post #39
floobynewb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow. There's nothing mystical about the idea. The hypothesis is testable as shown by the research. The data currently looks to support it. I'm not sure why you are saying it is unscientific. I grant you there may be alternative explanations for the data, but it is often true that science has been lead astray by incorrect framing of the question, but it's still science...

> I'm not sure I follow. The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence. > The hypothesis is testable as shown by the research. What research is that? Which scientific theory did the research either shape, or test, or potentially falsify? > I'm not sure why you are saying it is unscientific. The article describes, it doesn't explain. Science requires explanations,…

> The mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence. Science requires empirical evidence.

Since that's clearly not true of the brain's behavior, you seem to be making a claim that the mind is supernatural. Is that your position?

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#55

Post by ajcarpy2005 »

This is explained simply by setting your mind to something, selective attention, etc. I'm not sure why commenters are looking for exact science when we don't even have a working model of consciousness let alone the subconscious.

When we focus our attention on something, we are applying more brain resources towards that task, sending more energy through our neurons, etc. If sitting in an aircraft simulator makes you more alert due to the excitement of the experience and task, it makes sense that you will invest more energy into it to get a better outcome. Not too mysterious.

I disagree with those commenters who imply that there is nothing scientific about making observations without a theory to attach to it. I actually tink it's a lot more responsible than trying to force a theory that we don't have enough evidence for.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#56

Post by Panoramix »

coldtea wrote: post #20
nixy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Expecting to know the answers made people more likely to get the answers right." Well, yes, if someone expects you to know the answer it seems pretty straight forward that you would be more inclined to make a guess rather than saying "I don't know." All of us who ever watched a quiz show on TV know that people who guess an answer instead of passing will sometimes get it right. More often than people who pass, actu…

> Well, yes, if someone expects you to know the answer it seems pretty straight forward that you would be more inclined to make a guess rather than saying "I don't know." And what makes you think that they didn't account for the "I don't knows"? It generally surprises me how, from reading an 100 high mile description of an article, some commenters always assume (without any evidence) that the results are due to some…

I think it's due to expectations. Every single time I read about psychology research there are these glaring gaps in methodology that completely nullify their experiments. After losing track of how many psych papers have used statistics wrongly, planned their experiment poorly or had seriously questionable methodology I have lost faith in this field. It's too much work going through a paper every time something reaches the news.

I therefore make the very personal and questionable choice to ignore (most of) them and go straight to the neuroscience people - which in general have a way higher understanding and higher scientific standards.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#57

Post by pradocchia »

lutusp wrote: post #43
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…

>> 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 if it didn't exist? Question the statistical ability of the researcher, and all other researchers who document a placebo effect?

And lo, the messenger. Ready, aim, fire.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#58

Post by 300bps »

GoNB wrote: post #53
300bps wrote: post #45

In 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.…

Eh, no mnemonic device? Most people memorize things by simple repetition. If you're implying anyone can have eidetic memory by "removing their limits", I don't buy it. It's something developed at a young age.

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 own experiences and those of my friends. If you choose to continue to believe you can't memorize things because of some innate lack of ability, it doesn't affect me at all.

Re: Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

#59

Post by md224 »

lutusp wrote: post #43
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…

>> 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

Post reply on HN