Re: [tips] True or False

[Christopher Green]

Multitasking is mostly a myth. What we do is task-switch. Which is why we crash 
our cars when trying to talk on the phone.

Chris
...
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo

> On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:12 PM, "michael sylvester"  
> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Women are better at multi-tasking than men.
> michael
> 
> 
>   
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
> protection is active.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=29287
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-29287-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29291
or send a blank email to 
leave-29291-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] True or False

[michael sylvester]

Women are better at multi-tasking than men.
michael

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29287
or send a blank email to 
leave-29287-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Outliers debunks David and Goliah

[michael sylvester]

Malcolm  Gladwell (Beth's favorite) has debunked the Jewish episode of an 
Israeli youth
defeating a giant with a slingshot.Gladwell hypothesized that Goliah had an 
overactriive endocrine system which maximalized his body mass .This apparently 
affected his vision
and rate of pace of his  stride.David's slingshot to the head was visionary
confusing and was responsible for Goliah's ambu;atory dysfunction.
michael

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29286
or send a blank email to 
leave-29286-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Marc Carter]

Related thing: of what possible meaningfulness can fractional milliseconds 
have?  That has always troubled me.

(Although I confess to having reported them on occasion...)

m

--
Marc Carter, PhD
Associate Professor of Psychology
Chair, Department of Behavioral and Health Sciences
College of Arts & Sciences
Baker University
--

From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:51 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Positive Psychology










Last post of the day...

Which brings us to a particular peeve of mine: the lack of attention to 
significant figures in social sciences. We create a false sense of precision of 
measurement by retaining way too many digits in our reported values.

We calculate means and habitually round to 'two decimal places' as if that is 
correct. It is rarely correct. The text I teach stats from says to round to one 
more decimal place than the original data was measured. That's still incorrect 
from a significant figures perspective, but is at least not too badly creating 
a false impression of precision of measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

How this persists, I do not know... 

Paul

On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Christopher Green wrote:








Here's a general rule about mathematics and science: if you can't even measure 
your data accurately and precisely 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision) then you can't make 
accurate and precise predictions.

One of my favorite points in my stats class each year is when I have taught 
them all that elaborate machinery for extracting a regression line from 
bivariate data, and then how to use it to make predictions. They are all 
feeling very empowered at that point. And then I start working the standard 
error of the estimate, and they gradually realize that for most common kinds of 
psychological data, the confidence interval on any given prediction rarely 
gives you a range much better than "top half of the data" or "bottom half of 
the data."

I put it to you that very little in psychology is measured either precisely or 
accurately -- especially emotional states like happiness --  and so point 
predictions of the kind presented in the article were unlikely to be very 
useful even if the first author had understood the math (or the co-author had 
understood psychology). (I, too, 20 years or so ago, thought that non-linear 
dynamics might unlock psychology, until I realized that we mostly didn't have 
data good enough to bear that level of scrutiny.) "Bigwigs" like Seligman who 
praised the article (presumably taking the math on faith) should have known 
better, but we all know that positive psychology is equal parts Barnum and 
Carnegie, with just a soupçon of illustrative data to make it seem worth 
arguing about (don't we?).

Chris
---
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
=

On 2013-10-31, at 10:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:


Hi

I loved this quote in the article from a book titled "Social science as 
sorcery."

The recipe for authorship in this line of business is as simple as it is 
rewarding: just
get hold of a textbook of mathematics, copy the less complicated parts, put in 
some
references to the literature in one or two branches of the social studies 
without worrying
unduly about whether the formulae which you wrote down have any bearing on the
real human actions, and give your product a good-sounding title, which suggests 
that
you have found a key to an exact science of collective behaviour. (Andreski, 
1972,
pp. 129-130)

Reminds me of some of the similarly damning comments about post-modernist and 
like efforts to see relevance to social phenomena in such things as relativity 
theory and quantum physics.

I could not follow the math in the article but my take-away was that some 
people in our discipline are too quick to push theory way ahead of any 
empirical base.  I've always been struck by how "The origin of species" cites 
massive amounts of data (i.e., observations) in support of a few basic 
principles.  Unfortunately in psychology, I believe we have moved too far in 
the direction of thinking that major theoretical advances happen quickly.  One 
manifestation of this view is the requirement that papers for some (most?) of 
our major journals must be large multi-study papers with strong theoretical 
conclusions.  What we need are more journals that publish the results of 
studies (damn the theory) that can then be integrated once sufficient and 
reliable observations are available.  In essence what journals like the Journal 
of Experimental Psychology and Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 
use to be.

Take care
Jim


Jim Clark
Professor & Chair of Psychology
204-786-9757
4L41A


-Original Message-
From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailt

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Paul C Bernhardt]

Last post of the day…

Which brings us to a particular peeve of mine: the lack of attention to 
significant figures in social sciences. We create a false sense of precision of 
measurement by retaining way too many digits in our reported values.

We calculate means and habitually round to 'two decimal places' as if that is 
correct. It is rarely correct. The text I teach stats from says to round to one 
more decimal place than the original data was measured. That's still incorrect 
from a significant figures perspective, but is at least not too badly creating 
a false impression of precision of measurement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

How this persists, I do not know… 

Paul

On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Christopher Green wrote:







Here's a general rule about mathematics and science: if you can't even measure 
your data accurately and precisely 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision) then you can't make 
accurate and precise predictions.

One of my favorite points in my stats class each year is when I have taught 
them all that elaborate machinery for extracting a regression line from 
bivariate data, and then how to use it to make predictions. They are all 
feeling very empowered at that point. And then I start working the standard 
error of the estimate, and they gradually realize that for most common kinds of 
psychological data, the confidence interval on any given prediction rarely 
gives you a range much better than "top half of the data" or "bottom half of 
the data."

I put it to you that very little in psychology is measured either precisely or 
accurately -- especially emotional states like happiness --  and so point 
predictions of the kind presented in the article were unlikely to be very 
useful even if the first author had understood the math (or the co-author had 
understood psychology). (I, too, 20 years or so ago, thought that non-linear 
dynamics might unlock psychology, until I realized that we mostly didn't have 
data good enough to bear that level of scrutiny.) "Bigwigs" like Seligman who 
praised the article (presumably taking the math on faith) should have known 
better, but we all know that positive psychology is equal parts Barnum and 
Carnegie, with just a soupçon of illustrative data to make it seem worth 
arguing about (don't we?).

Chris
---
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
=

On 2013-10-31, at 10:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

Hi

I loved this quote in the article from a book titled "Social science as 
sorcery."

The recipe for authorship in this line of business is as simple as it is 
rewarding: just
get hold of a textbook of mathematics, copy the less complicated parts, put in 
some
references to the literature in one or two branches of the social studies 
without worrying
unduly about whether the formulae which you wrote down have any bearing on the
real human actions, and give your product a good-sounding title, which suggests 
that
you have found a key to an exact science of collective behaviour. (Andreski, 
1972,
pp. 129-130)

Reminds me of some of the similarly damning comments about post-modernist and 
like efforts to see relevance to social phenomena in such things as relativity 
theory and quantum physics.

I could not follow the math in the article but my take-away was that some 
people in our discipline are too quick to push theory way ahead of any 
empirical base.  I've always been struck by how "The origin of species" cites 
massive amounts of data (i.e., observations) in support of a few basic 
principles.  Unfortunately in psychology, I believe we have moved too far in 
the direction of thinking that major theoretical advances happen quickly.  One 
manifestation of this view is the requirement that papers for some (most?) of 
our major journals must be large multi-study papers with strong theoretical 
conclusions.  What we need are more journals that publish the results of 
studies (damn the theory) that can then be integrated once sufficient and 
reliable observations are available.  In essence what journals like the Journal 
of Experimental Psychology and Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 
use to be.

Take care
Jim


Jim Clark
Professor & Chair of Psychology
204-786-9757
4L41A


-Original Message-
From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

The two things that caught me agape was (1) that Fredrickson did not understand 
the mathematics behind her strongly asserting paper. They are tough 
mathematics, so I guess she was trusting her co-author...But (2) he stopped 
reading the paper part way through? He's an author and he didn't read it?

Then, his dismissive response of 'I am not interested in these academic 
s

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Christopher Green]

Here's a general rule about mathematics and science: if you can't even measure 
your data accurately and precisely 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision) then you can't make 
accurate and precise predictions. 

One of my favorite points in my stats class each year is when I have taught 
them all that elaborate machinery for extracting a regression line from 
bivariate data, and then how to use it to make predictions. They are all 
feeling very empowered at that point. And then I start working the standard 
error of the estimate, and they gradually realize that for most common kinds of 
psychological data, the confidence interval on any given prediction rarely 
gives you a range much better than "top half of the data" or "bottom half of 
the data." 

I put it to you that very little in psychology is measured either precisely or 
accurately -- especially emotional states like happiness --  and so point 
predictions of the kind presented in the article were unlikely to be very 
useful even if the first author had understood the math (or the co-author had 
understood psychology). (I, too, 20 years or so ago, thought that non-linear 
dynamics might unlock psychology, until I realized that we mostly didn't have 
data good enough to bear that level of scrutiny.) "Bigwigs" like Seligman who 
praised the article (presumably taking the math on faith) should have known 
better, but we all know that positive psychology is equal parts Barnum and 
Carnegie, with just a soupçon of illustrative data to make it seem worth 
arguing about (don't we?).

Chris
---
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
=

On 2013-10-31, at 10:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I loved this quote in the article from a book titled "Social science as 
> sorcery."
> 
> The recipe for authorship in this line of business is as simple as it is 
> rewarding: just
> get hold of a textbook of mathematics, copy the less complicated parts, put 
> in some
> references to the literature in one or two branches of the social studies 
> without worrying
> unduly about whether the formulae which you wrote down have any bearing on the
> real human actions, and give your product a good-sounding title, which 
> suggests that
> you have found a key to an exact science of collective behaviour. (Andreski, 
> 1972,
> pp. 129-130)
> 
> Reminds me of some of the similarly damning comments about post-modernist and 
> like efforts to see relevance to social phenomena in such things as 
> relativity theory and quantum physics.
> 
> I could not follow the math in the article but my take-away was that some 
> people in our discipline are too quick to push theory way ahead of any 
> empirical base.  I've always been struck by how "The origin of species" cites 
> massive amounts of data (i.e., observations) in support of a few basic 
> principles.  Unfortunately in psychology, I believe we have moved too far in 
> the direction of thinking that major theoretical advances happen quickly.  
> One manifestation of this view is the requirement that papers for some 
> (most?) of our major journals must be large multi-study papers with strong 
> theoretical conclusions.  What we need are more journals that publish the 
> results of studies (damn the theory) that can then be integrated once 
> sufficient and reliable observations are available.  In essence what journals 
> like the Journal of Experimental Psychology and Journal of Verbal Learning 
> and Verbal Behavior use to be.
> 
> Take care
> Jim
> 
> 
> Jim Clark
> Professor & Chair of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 4L41A
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:03 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Positive Psychology
> 
> The two things that caught me agape was (1) that Fredrickson did not 
> understand the mathematics behind her strongly asserting paper. They are 
> tough mathematics, so I guess she was trusting her co-author...But (2) he 
> stopped reading the paper part way through? He's an author and he didn't read 
> it? 
> 
> Then, his dismissive response of 'I am not interested in these academic 
> squabbles, I have more important work to do.' 
> 
> Sorry, buddy. When you enter the academic realm to gain the imprimatur of 
> published work to support your private business you tacitly agree to stay in 
> the fray of academic discourse. Of course, there's no way to hold his feet to 
> the fire. Unless other editors become unwilling to publish future work by him 
> because of his evidenced unwillingness to be responsive to appropriately 
> posed queries.
> 
> ... as I posted a few weeks ago, I am becoming a bit despondent over 
> the state of our science. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:
> 
>> And so?
>> 
>> Make it a

RE: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Lilienfeld, Scott O]

For another pretty good critical examination of some of the longstanding 
assumptions of the positive psychology movement (or at least the portion of 
that movement that is sometimes designated as "happyology"), see this article 
in the most recent Science News, which highlights the work of Joseph Forgas:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bright-side-sadness

Scott

Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology, Room 473
Emory University
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
slil...@emory.edu; 404-727-1125

The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and 
his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and 
his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions.  He hardly knows which 
is which.  He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, 
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing.  To him - he is 
always doing both.

- Zen Buddhist text
  (slightly modified)



-Original Message-
From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:40 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

By the way, I'm currently teaching for my third time a senior capstone seminar 
on Positive Psychology. Rather than an introduction to the topic, it is a 
critical examination of the claims and validity of it as a new field of 
psychology by reading Seligman's popular text, a couple of dozen primary source 
articles (many of which are used in Seligman's book as justification for his 
claims) and a book that inserts Positive Psychology as part of the American 
positivity movement that has roots extending to the late 1800s (Ehrenreich's 
Bright-Sided).

I want to make sure I thank Allen for directing our attention to this Chronicle 
article. I've forwarded it to my students for us to discuss in class on Monday.

Paul

On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

> Hi
>
> I loved this quote in the article from a book titled "Social science as 
> sorcery."
>
> The recipe for authorship in this line of business is as simple as it
> is rewarding: just get hold of a textbook of mathematics, copy the
> less complicated parts, put in some references to the literature in
> one or two branches of the social studies without worrying unduly
> about whether the formulae which you wrote down have any bearing on
> the real human actions, and give your product a good-sounding title,
> which suggests that you have found a key to an exact science of
> collective behaviour. (Andreski, 1972, pp. 129-130)
>
> Reminds me of some of the similarly damning comments about post-modernist and 
> like efforts to see relevance to social phenomena in such things as 
> relativity theory and quantum physics.
>
> I could not follow the math in the article but my take-away was that some 
> people in our discipline are too quick to push theory way ahead of any 
> empirical base.  I've always been struck by how "The origin of species" cites 
> massive amounts of data (i.e., observations) in support of a few basic 
> principles.  Unfortunately in psychology, I believe we have moved too far in 
> the direction of thinking that major theoretical advances happen quickly.  
> One manifestation of this view is the requirement that papers for some 
> (most?) of our major journals must be large multi-study papers with strong 
> theoretical conclusions.  What we need are more journals that publish the 
> results of studies (damn the theory) that can then be integrated once 
> sufficient and reliable observations are available.  In essence what journals 
> like the Journal of Experimental Psychology and Journal of Verbal Learning 
> and Verbal Behavior use to be.
>
> Take care
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Clark
> Professor & Chair of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 4L41A
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:03 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Positive Psychology
>
> The two things that caught me agape was (1) that Fredrickson did not 
> understand the mathematics behind her strongly asserting paper. They are 
> tough mathematics, so I guess she was trusting her co-author...But (2) he 
> stopped reading the paper part way through? He's an author and he didn't read 
> it?
>
> Then, his dismissive response of 'I am not interested in these academic 
> squabbles, I have more important work to do.'
>
> Sorry, buddy. When you enter the academic realm to gain the imprimatur of 
> published work to support your private business you tacitly agree to stay in 
> the fray of academic discourse. Of course, there's no way to hold his feet to 
> the fire. Unless other editors become unwilling to publish future work by him 
> because of his evidenced unwillingness to be responsive to appropriately 
> posed queries.
>
> ... as I posted a few weeks ago, I am becoming 

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Paul C Bernhardt]

By the way, I'm currently teaching for my third time a senior capstone seminar 
on Positive Psychology. Rather than an introduction to the topic, it is a 
critical examination of the claims and validity of it as a new field of 
psychology by reading Seligman's popular text, a couple of dozen primary source 
articles (many of which are used in Seligman's book as justification for his 
claims) and a book that inserts Positive Psychology as part of the American 
positivity movement that has roots extending to the late 1800s (Ehrenreich's 
Bright-Sided). 

I want to make sure I thank Allen for directing our attention to this Chronicle 
article. I've forwarded it to my students for us to discuss in class on Monday. 

Paul

On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Jim Clark wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I loved this quote in the article from a book titled "Social science as 
> sorcery."
> 
> The recipe for authorship in this line of business is as simple as it is 
> rewarding: just
> get hold of a textbook of mathematics, copy the less complicated parts, put 
> in some
> references to the literature in one or two branches of the social studies 
> without worrying
> unduly about whether the formulae which you wrote down have any bearing on the
> real human actions, and give your product a good-sounding title, which 
> suggests that
> you have found a key to an exact science of collective behaviour. (Andreski, 
> 1972,
> pp. 129-130)
> 
> Reminds me of some of the similarly damning comments about post-modernist and 
> like efforts to see relevance to social phenomena in such things as 
> relativity theory and quantum physics.
> 
> I could not follow the math in the article but my take-away was that some 
> people in our discipline are too quick to push theory way ahead of any 
> empirical base.  I've always been struck by how "The origin of species" cites 
> massive amounts of data (i.e., observations) in support of a few basic 
> principles.  Unfortunately in psychology, I believe we have moved too far in 
> the direction of thinking that major theoretical advances happen quickly.  
> One manifestation of this view is the requirement that papers for some 
> (most?) of our major journals must be large multi-study papers with strong 
> theoretical conclusions.  What we need are more journals that publish the 
> results of studies (damn the theory) that can then be integrated once 
> sufficient and reliable observations are available.  In essence what journals 
> like the Journal of Experimental Psychology and Journal of Verbal Learning 
> and Verbal Behavior use to be.
> 
> Take care
> Jim
> 
> 
> Jim Clark
> Professor & Chair of Psychology
> 204-786-9757
> 4L41A
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:03 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: Re: [tips] Positive Psychology
> 
> The two things that caught me agape was (1) that Fredrickson did not 
> understand the mathematics behind her strongly asserting paper. They are 
> tough mathematics, so I guess she was trusting her co-author...But (2) he 
> stopped reading the paper part way through? He's an author and he didn't read 
> it? 
> 
> Then, his dismissive response of 'I am not interested in these academic 
> squabbles, I have more important work to do.' 
> 
> Sorry, buddy. When you enter the academic realm to gain the imprimatur of 
> published work to support your private business you tacitly agree to stay in 
> the fray of academic discourse. Of course, there's no way to hold his feet to 
> the fire. Unless other editors become unwilling to publish future work by him 
> because of his evidenced unwillingness to be responsive to appropriately 
> posed queries.
> 
> ... as I posted a few weeks ago, I am becoming a bit despondent over 
> the state of our science. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:
> 
>> And so?
>> 
>> Make it a good day
>> 
>> -Louis-
>> 
>> 
>> Louis Schmier
>> http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org   
>> 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com
>> Valdosta, Ga 31602 
>> (C)  229-630-0821 /\   /\  /\ /\ 
>> /\
>> /^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   
>> /   \  /   \
>>/ \/   \_ \/ /   \/ 
>> /\/  /  \/\  \
>>  //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/  
>>   \_/__\  \
>>/\"If you want to climb 
>> mountains,\ /\
>>_ /  \don't practice on mole 
>> hills" - /   \_
>> 
>> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Allen Esterson wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 October 2013:
>>> 
>>> The 2009 book Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 

RE: [tips] And What Are You Giving Out On Halloween?

[Stuart McKelvie]

Dear Tipseters,

In North America, it's called "Trick or Treat".

Stuart


___
   "Floreat Labore"

   [cid:image001.jpg@01CED625.23445D60]
"Recti cultus pectora roborant"

Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402
Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661
Bishop's University,
2600 rue College,
Sherbrooke,
Québec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.

E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or 
smcke...@ubishops.ca)

Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page:
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psyhttp://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy>

 Floreat Labore"

 [cid:image002.jpg@01CED625.23445D60]

[cid:image003.jpg@01CED625.23445D60]
___



From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca]
Sent: October 31, 2013 10:33 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] And What Are You Giving Out On Halloween?










On 2013-10-30, at 9:59 PM, Mike Palij wrote:


Have you heard about the woman who thinks she's doing a "public
service" by giving kids who in her opinion are "moderately obese"
a letter saying that they are not going to get any candy?  No? See:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/30/obese-halloween-letter/3312537/

The USA Today article quote a clinical psychologist who says that
this is a form of bullying while an cardiologist says that it's just
"tough love".

What are you going to give?

Personally, I would give her the finger. You want to close your door, turn off 
your porch light, and not participate? Fine. You want to pick and choose which 
kids are "worthy" and which are not? Up yours.

Chris
---
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
=



---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
smcke...@ubishops.ca.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3&n=T&l=tips&o=29268

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-29268-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu







---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29269
or send a blank email to 
leave-29269-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<><><>

Re: [tips] And What Are You Giving Out On Halloween?

[Christopher Green]

On 2013-10-30, at 9:59 PM, Mike Palij wrote:

> Have you heard about the woman who thinks she's doing a "public
> service" by giving kids who in her opinion are "moderately obese"
> a letter saying that they are not going to get any candy?  No? See:
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/30/obese-halloween-letter/3312537/
>  
> The USA Today article quote a clinical psychologist who says that
> this is a form of bullying while an cardiologist says that it's just
> "tough love".
>  
> What are you going to give?

Personally, I would give her the finger. You want to close your door, turn off 
your porch light, and not participate? Fine. You want to pick and choose which 
kids are "worthy" and which are not? Up yours. 

Chris
---
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
=


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29268
or send a blank email to 
leave-29268-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Jim Clark]

Hi

I loved this quote in the article from a book titled "Social science as 
sorcery."

The recipe for authorship in this line of business is as simple as it is 
rewarding: just
get hold of a textbook of mathematics, copy the less complicated parts, put in 
some
references to the literature in one or two branches of the social studies 
without worrying
unduly about whether the formulae which you wrote down have any bearing on the
real human actions, and give your product a good-sounding title, which suggests 
that
you have found a key to an exact science of collective behaviour. (Andreski, 
1972,
pp. 129-130)

Reminds me of some of the similarly damning comments about post-modernist and 
like efforts to see relevance to social phenomena in such things as relativity 
theory and quantum physics.

I could not follow the math in the article but my take-away was that some 
people in our discipline are too quick to push theory way ahead of any 
empirical base.  I've always been struck by how "The origin of species" cites 
massive amounts of data (i.e., observations) in support of a few basic 
principles.  Unfortunately in psychology, I believe we have moved too far in 
the direction of thinking that major theoretical advances happen quickly.  One 
manifestation of this view is the requirement that papers for some (most?) of 
our major journals must be large multi-study papers with strong theoretical 
conclusions.  What we need are more journals that publish the results of 
studies (damn the theory) that can then be integrated once sufficient and 
reliable observations are available.  In essence what journals like the Journal 
of Experimental Psychology and Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 
use to be.

Take care
Jim


Jim Clark
Professor & Chair of Psychology
204-786-9757
4L41A


-Original Message-
From: Paul C Bernhardt [mailto:pcbernha...@frostburg.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

The two things that caught me agape was (1) that Fredrickson did not understand 
the mathematics behind her strongly asserting paper. They are tough 
mathematics, so I guess she was trusting her co-author...But (2) he stopped 
reading the paper part way through? He's an author and he didn't read it? 

Then, his dismissive response of 'I am not interested in these academic 
squabbles, I have more important work to do.' 

Sorry, buddy. When you enter the academic realm to gain the imprimatur of 
published work to support your private business you tacitly agree to stay in 
the fray of academic discourse. Of course, there's no way to hold his feet to 
the fire. Unless other editors become unwilling to publish future work by him 
because of his evidenced unwillingness to be responsive to appropriately posed 
queries.

... as I posted a few weeks ago, I am becoming a bit despondent over the 
state of our science. 

Paul


On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:

> And so?
> 
> Make it a good day
> 
> -Louis-
> 
> 
> Louis Schmier 
> http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org   
> 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com
> Valdosta, Ga 31602 
> (C)  229-630-0821 /\   /\  /\ /\  
>/\
>  /^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   
> /   \  /   \
> / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ 
> /\/  /  \/\  \
>   //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/  
>   \_/__\  \
> /\"If you want to climb 
> mountains,\ /\
> _ /  \don't practice on mole 
> hills" - /   \_
> 
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Allen Esterson wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 October 2013:
>> 
>> The 2009 book Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio 
>> That Will Change Your Life, by Barbara Fredrickson, was praised by 
>> the heavyweights of psychology. Daniel Gilbert said it provided a 
>> "scientifically sound prescription for joy." Daniel Goleman extolled 
>> its "surefire methods for transforming our lives." Martin E.P. 
>> Seligman often called the father of positive psychology, raved that 
>> "this book, like Barb, is the 'real thing.'" [...] The book grew out of 
>> a 2005 paper by Fredrickson and Marcial Losada, a Chiliean 
>> psychologist and consultant, the findings of which suggest that "a 
>> set of general mathematical principles may describe the relations 
>> between positive affect and human flourishing."...
>> 
>> Then along came Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive 
>> psychology at the University of East London...
>> 
>> Read the rest here:
>> http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-magic-ratio-that-wasnt/3327
>> 9
>> 
>> The cited (genuinely s

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Mike Palij]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:03:20 -0700, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:

How could I have not known what was coming response to my two words.
Ignoring Mike's cordial and collegial tone,


Ah, you do have the gift of sarcasm! ;-)


all I did was ask for extrapolation.


No, you didn't unless you expect us to be able to read your
mind. "Extrapolation" of what point?  What exactly were you
referring to and which paper were you referring to?  The article
in the Chronicle or the one by Brown, Sokal, and Friedman?
What exactly needed extrapolating?


Personally, I don't argue in favor of the positive ratio.  I had my
own doubts about such a sure fire equation as I read Fredrickson's
stuff.  I'm always suspicious about anything that is magically 
sure-fire,

even numbers.  But, Anton only put up a citation.


A couple of questions:

(1) Who is this Anton that you speak of?

(2) Allen provided a link to the Brown, Sokal, & Friedman
paper on Arxiv website right under the link to the library
record for it.


So, I asked for a more fleshed out meaning,
inference, interpretation, reflection.  If you put aside that 3-to-1 
apparent
overreach aside, there is good stuff in "Positivity," and "Love," what 
you call
the "squishy" and "soft" emotional concepts, which he is presently 
manifesting

in his message, with which I've experimented with and applied in class.


Are you saying that you because you couldn't find the right link in the
post to Brown, Sokal, & Friedman paper and you wanted someone
to explain the paper to you instead of finding the paper yourself?

If you've read her stuff, as well as that of Seligman, Lyubomirsky, 
Dweck,
Deci, Amabile, you'd be hesitant to throw the proverbial baby out with 
the

bath water.


I hope that you seated Louis because I don't know if you can handle the
shock but I've actually taught a college course on "Positive Psychology" 
at

NYU back in 2007 and I used the textbook by Snyder & Lopez, so I
have some idea of what I am talking about. I do try to read some of the
recent research but do not find it very interesting.  However, in the 
class,

I did try to provide a more expansive view than that provide by most in
the positive psychology "movement".  Consider:

(1) Spent time going over the Japanese concept of "Mono No Aware"
and used Donald Richie's article describing it (especially in the role 
it
plays in certain areas of Japanese film such as Yasujiro Ozu's films 
(e.g.,

"Tokyo Story") and the Hibakusha Cinema genre which focuses on the
survivors of the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
If you are unfamiliar with the concept, I suggest you look it up. Try:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-aesthetics/
There is a book on Hibakusha cinema by Mick Broderick that
contains the Richie article which you might want to find.

(2) The term paper for the course was to take the article by
Baumeister, Bratskavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs (2001) titled
"Bad Is Stronger Than Good" in the journal "Review of General
Psychology" and to evaluate the arguments presented in the
article and has there been research since 2001 that effectively
counter Baumeister et al's position.  Louis, you might benefit
from looking at the article.


Happy Halloween.


Have an "A-1 Day!".

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu

P.S. Just in case people did not read the Chronicle article, here
is a critical paragraph:

|Papers turn out to be flawed all the time. But this was a widely
|cited paper that has remained a powerful talking point in the
|how-humans-flourish literature for years. And the timing of the
|Brown paper is not good for social psychology, which is
|struggling with the problem of results that can't be replicated,
|with high-profile researchers-like Diederik Stapel-who
|turn out to be con artists. Having two big names in the field,
|Fredrickson and Seligman, admit that they didn't even understand
|the ratio they featured in presentations and popular books
|doesn't exactly inspire confidence.


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29265
or send a blank email to 
leave-29265-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Louis Eugene Schmier]

Paul, me, too.  A bit of arrogance by Fredrickson's co-author.  Notice that he 
is not listed as a co-author on her book, "POSITIVITY?"

Make it a good day

-Louis-


Louis Schmier   
http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org   
203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com
Valdosta, Ga 31602 
(C)  229-630-0821 /\   /\  /\ /\
 /\
  /^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   
/   \  /   \
 / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ 
/\/  /  \/\  \
   //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/   
 \_/__\  \
 /\"If you want to climb 
mountains,\ /\
 _ /  \don't practice on mole 
hills" - /   \_

On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Paul C Bernhardt wrote:

> The two things that caught me agape was (1) that Fredrickson did not 
> understand the mathematics behind her strongly asserting paper. They are 
> tough mathematics, so I guess she was trusting her co-author…But (2) he 
> stopped reading the paper part way through? He's an author and he didn't read 
> it? 
> 
> Then, his dismissive response of 'I am not interested in these academic 
> squabbles, I have more important work to do.' 
> 
> Sorry, buddy. When you enter the academic realm to gain the imprimatur of 
> published work to support your private business you tacitly agree to stay in 
> the fray of academic discourse. Of course, there's no way to hold his feet to 
> the fire. Unless other editors become unwilling to publish future work by him 
> because of his evidenced unwillingness to be responsive to appropriately 
> posed queries.
> 
> … as I posted a few weeks ago, I am becoming a bit despondent over the 
> state of our science. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:
> 
>> And so?
>> 
>> Make it a good day
>> 
>> -Louis-
>> 
>> 
>> Louis Schmier
>> http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org   
>> 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com
>> Valdosta, Ga 31602 
>> (C)  229-630-0821 /\   /\  /\ /\ 
>> /\
>> /^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   
>> /   \  /   \
>>/ \/   \_ \/ /   \/ 
>> /\/  /  \/\  \
>>  //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/  
>>   \_/__\  \
>>/\"If you want to climb 
>> mountains,\ /\
>>_ /  \don't practice on mole 
>> hills" - /   \_
>> 
>> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Allen Esterson wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 October 2013:
>>> 
>>> The 2009 book Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That 
>>> Will Change Your Life, by Barbara Fredrickson, was praised by the 
>>> heavyweights of psychology. Daniel Gilbert said it provided a 
>>> “scientifically sound prescription for joy.” Daniel Goleman extolled its 
>>> “surefire methods for transforming our lives.” Martin E.P. Seligman often 
>>> called the father of positive psychology, raved that “this book, like Barb, 
>>> is the ‘real thing.’” […] The book grew out of a 2005 paper by Fredrickson 
>>> and Marcial Losada, a Chiliean psychologist and consultant, the findings of 
>>> which suggest that “a set of general mathematical principles may describe 
>>> the relations between positive affect and human flourishing.”…
>>> 
>>> Then along came Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive 
>>> psychology at the University of East London…
>>> 
>>> Read the rest here:
>>> http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-magic-ratio-that-wasnt/33279
>>> 
>>> The cited (genuinely scholarly) article on the misuse of mathematics as 
>>> described by Nick Brown is here:
>>> 
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006
>>> 
>>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.7006v1.pdf
>>> 
>>> Allen Esterson
>>> Former lecturer, Science Department
>>> Southwark College, London
>>> allenester...@compuserve.com
>>> http://www.esterson.org
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edu.
>>> 
>>> To unsubscribe click here: 
>>> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=931223.50b956e1f0f315eddcd01dfbd8b87bc1&n=T&l=tips&o=29252
>>> 
>>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>>> 
>>> or send a blank email to 
>>> leave-29252-931223.50b956e1f0f315eddcd01dfbd8b87...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
>> To unsubscribe click here: 
>> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=29255
>> or send a blank email to 
>> l

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Paul C Bernhardt]

The two things that caught me agape was (1) that Fredrickson did not understand 
the mathematics behind her strongly asserting paper. They are tough 
mathematics, so I guess she was trusting her co-author…But (2) he stopped 
reading the paper part way through? He's an author and he didn't read it? 

Then, his dismissive response of 'I am not interested in these academic 
squabbles, I have more important work to do.' 

Sorry, buddy. When you enter the academic realm to gain the imprimatur of 
published work to support your private business you tacitly agree to stay in 
the fray of academic discourse. Of course, there's no way to hold his feet to 
the fire. Unless other editors become unwilling to publish future work by him 
because of his evidenced unwillingness to be responsive to appropriately posed 
queries.

… as I posted a few weeks ago, I am becoming a bit despondent over the 
state of our science. 

Paul


On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:

> And so?
> 
> Make it a good day
> 
> -Louis-
> 
> 
> Louis Schmier 
> http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org   
> 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com
> Valdosta, Ga 31602 
> (C)  229-630-0821 /\   /\  /\ /\  
>/\
>  /^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   
> /   \  /   \
> / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ 
> /\/  /  \/\  \
>   //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/  
>   \_/__\  \
> /\"If you want to climb 
> mountains,\ /\
> _ /  \don't practice on mole 
> hills" - /   \_
> 
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Allen Esterson wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 October 2013:
>> 
>> The 2009 book Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That 
>> Will Change Your Life, by Barbara Fredrickson, was praised by the 
>> heavyweights of psychology. Daniel Gilbert said it provided a 
>> “scientifically sound prescription for joy.” Daniel Goleman extolled its 
>> “surefire methods for transforming our lives.” Martin E.P. Seligman often 
>> called the father of positive psychology, raved that “this book, like Barb, 
>> is the ‘real thing.’” […] The book grew out of a 2005 paper by Fredrickson 
>> and Marcial Losada, a Chiliean psychologist and consultant, the findings of 
>> which suggest that “a set of general mathematical principles may describe 
>> the relations between positive affect and human flourishing.”…
>> 
>> Then along came Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive 
>> psychology at the University of East London…
>> 
>> Read the rest here:
>> http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-magic-ratio-that-wasnt/33279
>> 
>> The cited (genuinely scholarly) article on the misuse of mathematics as 
>> described by Nick Brown is here:
>> 
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006
>> 
>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.7006v1.pdf
>> 
>> Allen Esterson
>> Former lecturer, Science Department
>> Southwark College, London
>> allenester...@compuserve.com
>> http://www.esterson.org
>> ---
>> 
>> You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edu.
>> 
>> To unsubscribe click here: 
>> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=931223.50b956e1f0f315eddcd01dfbd8b87bc1&n=T&l=tips&o=29252
>> 
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>> 
>> or send a blank email to 
>> leave-29252-931223.50b956e1f0f315eddcd01dfbd8b87...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=29255
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-29255-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29263
or send a blank email to 
leave-29263-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Louis Eugene Schmier]

How could I have not known what was coming response to my two words.  Ignoring 
Mike's cordial and collegial tone, all I did was ask for extrapolation.  
Personally, I don't argue in favor of the positive ratio.  I had my own doubts 
about such a sure fire equation as I read Fredrickson's stuff.  I'm always 
suspicious about anything that is magically sure-fire, even numbers.  But, 
Anton only put up a citation.  So, I asked for a more fleshed out meaning, 
inference, interpretation, reflection.  If you put aside that 3-to-1 apparent 
overreach aside, there is good stuff in "Positivity," and "Love," what you call 
the "squishy" and "soft" emotional concepts, which he is presently manifesting 
in his message, with which I've experimented with and applied in class.  If 
you've read her stuff, as well as that of Seligman, Lyubomirsky, Dweck, Deci, 
Amabile, you'd be hesitant to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath 
water. 
Happy Halloween.

Make it a good day

-Louis-


Louis Schmier   
http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org   
203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com
Valdosta, Ga 31602 
(C)  229-630-0821 /\   /\  /\ /\
 /\
  /^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   
/   \  /   \
 / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ 
/\/  /  \/\  \
   //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/   
 \_/__\  \
 /\"If you want to climb 
mountains,\ /\
 _ /  \don't practice on mole 
hills" - /   \_


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29259
or send a blank email to 
leave-29259-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Mike Palij]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 03:56:41 -0700, Louis Eugene Schmier wrote:

And so?


For some reason, I read Louis' response above and I hear the line from
the movie "Philadelphia" that goes "Please explain this to me like I'm a
six year old."  In the movie when this was said, it meant that the 
explanation
originally offered did not make sense, possibly because its truth (if 
there

was any) was obscured by a confusing style of presentation and verbal
tricks.  I do not know why Louis says "And so?" but it could be that
he does not see the death blow dealt to Fredrickson and Losada's
claim of a "positivity ratio" even though he solves differential 
equations

in his spare time or he doesn't get it because he has his fingers in his
ears saying "LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" or something else.

I think that the key passage in the Brown, Sokal, and Friedman (2013)
paper is the following:

|On its own, the positivity ratio as propounded by Fredrickson and
|Losada (2005) is not a particularly controversial construct; indeed,
|there is a long history of looking at ratios (e.g., Bales, 1950) and
|non-ratio indices (e.g., Bradburn, 1969) relating positive to negative
|emotions. However, Fredrickson and Losada took matters
|considerably farther, claiming to have established that their use of
|a mathematical model drawn from nonlinear dynamics provided
|theoretical support for the existence of a pair of critical 
positivity-ratio

|values (2.9013 and 11.6346) such that individuals whose ratios
|fall between these values will "flourish," while people whose ratios
|lie outside this ideal range will "languish." The same article 
purported

|to verify this assertion empirically, by demonstrating that among
|a group of college students, those who were "languishing" had
|an average positivity ratio of 2.3, while those who were "flourishing"
|had an average positivity ratio of 3.2.

WOW! Numbers!  If positive psychology can go beyond those squishy
soft concepts and provide actual numbers that operate like physical
constants like the speed of light and so on, then it must really be
scientific valid and rigorous and not just a bunch of happy talk that
has been used by different groups in the past.

But there is less here than meets the eye, as summarized in the final
words of Brown et al:

|We do not here call into question the idea that positive emotions
|are more likely to build resilience than negative emotions, or that
|a higher positivity ratio is ordinarily more desirable than a lower
|one. But to suggest that some form of discontinuity sets in at some
|special value of the positivity ratio - especially one that is 
independent

|of all demographic and cultural factors - seems far-fetched. We
|cannot, of course, prove that no such "tipping point" exists; but
|we believe that we have adequately demonstrated here that even
|if it does, Fredrickson and Losada's (2005) article - based on
|a series of erroneous and, for the most part, completely illusory
|"applications" of mathematics - has not moved science any nearer
|to finding it.
|
|Fredrickson and Losada (2005, p. 685) concluded their article
|by observing modestly that "Our discovery of the critical 2.9 
positivity

|ratio may represent a breakthrough." Would that it were so.

Is Fredrickson & Losada saying that there is a critical threshold
value above which something "magical" happens or it just an
arbitrary cutoff -- much like what constitutes hypertension which
the medical community has re-defined by reducing the blood
pressure number threshold that identifies the presence of hypertension
(and also consider: what is the critical BMI value for being obese
and what side conditions need to be met for it to be a valid measure
of obesity).  Is it real or just fun with numbers?

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu






---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29258
or send a blank email to 
leave-29258-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Positive Psychology

[Louis Eugene Schmier]

And so?

Make it a good day

-Louis-


Louis Schmier   
http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org   
203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com
Valdosta, Ga 31602 
(C)  229-630-0821 /\   /\  /\ /\
 /\
  /^\\/  \/   \   /\/\__   
/   \  /   \
 / \/   \_ \/ /   \/ 
/\/  /  \/\  \
   //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/   
 \_/__\  \
 /\"If you want to climb 
mountains,\ /\
 _ /  \don't practice on mole 
hills" - /   \_

On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Allen Esterson wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> From Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 October 2013:
>  
> The 2009 book Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That 
> Will Change Your Life, by Barbara Fredrickson, was praised by the 
> heavyweights of psychology. Daniel Gilbert said it provided a “scientifically 
> sound prescription for joy.” Daniel Goleman extolled its “surefire methods 
> for transforming our lives.” Martin E.P. Seligman often called the father of 
> positive psychology, raved that “this book, like Barb, is the ‘real thing.’” 
> […] The book grew out of a 2005 paper by Fredrickson and Marcial Losada, a 
> Chiliean psychologist and consultant, the findings of which suggest that “a 
> set of general mathematical principles may describe the relations between 
> positive affect and human flourishing.”…
>  
> Then along came Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology 
> at the University of East London…
>  
> Read the rest here:
> http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-magic-ratio-that-wasnt/33279
>  
> The cited (genuinely scholarly) article on the misuse of mathematics as 
> described by Nick Brown is here:
> 
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006
>  
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.7006v1.pdf
>  
> Allen Esterson
> Former lecturer, Science Department
> Southwark College, London
> allenester...@compuserve.com
> http://www.esterson.org
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edu.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: 
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=931223.50b956e1f0f315eddcd01dfbd8b87bc1&n=T&l=tips&o=29252
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to 
> leave-29252-931223.50b956e1f0f315eddcd01dfbd8b87...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
> 
>  
>  


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29255
or send a blank email to 
leave-29255-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Positive Psychology

[Allen Esterson]

>From Chronicle of Higher Education, 31October 2013: 
 
The 2009book Positivity: Top-Notch Research Revealsthe 3 to 1 Ratio That Will 
Change Your Life, by BarbaraFredrickson, was praised by the heavyweights of 
psychology. Daniel Gilbert saidit provided a “scientifically sound prescription 
for joy.” Daniel Goleman extolledits “surefire methods for transforming our 
lives.” Martin E.P. Seligman oftencalled the father of positive psychology, 
raved that “this book, like Barb, isthe ‘real thing.’” […] The book grew out of 
a 2005 paper byFredrickson and Marcial Losada, a Chiliean psychologist and 
consultant, thefindings of which suggest that “a set of general mathematical 
principles maydescribe the relations between positive affect and human 
flourishing.”…
 
Then alongcame Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology at 
the University of East London…
 
Read therest here:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-magic-ratio-that-wasnt/33279
 
The cited(genuinely scholarly) article on the misuse of mathematics as 
describedby Nick Brown is here:


http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006
 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.7006v1.pdf
 
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=29252
or send a blank email to 
leave-29252-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu