RE: [tips] Positive Psychology
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<mailto: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 Cla
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<mailto: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
Re: [tips] Positive Psychology
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 h
RE: [tips] Positive Psychology
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 cour
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 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 /\ /\ /\ /\ >> /\ >> /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ >> / \ / \ >>/ \/ \_ \/ / \/ >> /\/ / \/\ \ >> //\/\/ /\\__/
RE: [tips] Positive Psychology
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 aff
Re: [tips] Positive Psychology
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
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
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
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
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
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