Extraordinary claims don’t come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven’t yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What’s more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can’t find any significant flaws. “My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can’t be true,” says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. “Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn’t see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order.”

Is psychology capable of identifying the risk factors that can push people to take their own lives? Joseph Franklin at Florida State University and his research team at the Technology and Psychopathy (TAP) Lab have provided an answer, but it is a disappointing one. Our capacity to predict whether someone will make a suicide attempt is no better than chance. What is worse, we have not made any progress in this area in the last half-century. These striking conclusions come as the result of a meta-analysis of 365 studies into suicide risk conducted over the last 50 years and published recently in Psychological Bulletin ( pdf ).

Moreover, most often suicide is not caused by the simple sum of those factors, but from a complex interaction between them, yet the research methods generally applied by psychologists are not capable of uncovering such dynamics. Research on complex systems, which is most certainly an appropriate designation for the mind, long ago demonstrated that their characteristics are not always discernible when looking at constituent elements. Why, then, do the vast majority of psychologists so obstinately insist on treating people as simple machines that react linearly in response to simple stimuli?

His team has already developed a free web app that has proven effective in trials at reducing suicidal behaviours. The app, called “ Tec-Tec ” uses a simple game to train users to see certain words and images in a different light (a form of “evaluative conditioning”) and is available on iTunes and Amazon right now. Studies have shown that the app reduced suicidal behaviours by about 50 per cent over the course of a month in hundreds of people, and they hope in the future to reach a reduction rate approaching 100 percent.

Extraordinary claims don’t come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven’t yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What’s more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can’t find any significant flaws. “My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can’t be true,” says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. “Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn’t see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order.”

Is psychology capable of identifying the risk factors that can push people to take their own lives? Joseph Franklin at Florida State University and his research team at the Technology and Psychopathy (TAP) Lab have provided an answer, but it is a disappointing one. Our capacity to predict whether someone will make a suicide attempt is no better than chance. What is worse, we have not made any progress in this area in the last half-century. These striking conclusions come as the result of a meta-analysis of 365 studies into suicide risk conducted over the last 50 years and published recently in Psychological Bulletin ( pdf ).

Moreover, most often suicide is not caused by the simple sum of those factors, but from a complex interaction between them, yet the research methods generally applied by psychologists are not capable of uncovering such dynamics. Research on complex systems, which is most certainly an appropriate designation for the mind, long ago demonstrated that their characteristics are not always discernible when looking at constituent elements. Why, then, do the vast majority of psychologists so obstinately insist on treating people as simple machines that react linearly in response to simple stimuli?

His team has already developed a free web app that has proven effective in trials at reducing suicidal behaviours. The app, called “ Tec-Tec ” uses a simple game to train users to see certain words and images in a different light (a form of “evaluative conditioning”) and is available on iTunes and Amazon right now. Studies have shown that the app reduced suicidal behaviours by about 50 per cent over the course of a month in hundreds of people, and they hope in the future to reach a reduction rate approaching 100 percent.

It is sometimes said that Psychology shouldn’t be classed as a science, because psychologists can’t accurately predict what individual people will do:  in a real science, we expect testable predictions.

To be generous, I will allow all  brain-scan linked psychology to be put under neuroscience, and all chemical-linked psychology to be under psychopharmacology.  I will consider only social psychology and the study of individual behaviours.

It is clear that any situation brings out different responses from different human individuals, and that the range of these responses is predictable.

Extraordinary claims don’t come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven’t yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What’s more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can’t find any significant flaws. “My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can’t be true,” says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. “Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn’t see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order.”

Is psychology capable of identifying the risk factors that can push people to take their own lives? Joseph Franklin at Florida State University and his research team at the Technology and Psychopathy (TAP) Lab have provided an answer, but it is a disappointing one. Our capacity to predict whether someone will make a suicide attempt is no better than chance. What is worse, we have not made any progress in this area in the last half-century. These striking conclusions come as the result of a meta-analysis of 365 studies into suicide risk conducted over the last 50 years and published recently in Psychological Bulletin ( pdf ).

Moreover, most often suicide is not caused by the simple sum of those factors, but from a complex interaction between them, yet the research methods generally applied by psychologists are not capable of uncovering such dynamics. Research on complex systems, which is most certainly an appropriate designation for the mind, long ago demonstrated that their characteristics are not always discernible when looking at constituent elements. Why, then, do the vast majority of psychologists so obstinately insist on treating people as simple machines that react linearly in response to simple stimuli?

His team has already developed a free web app that has proven effective in trials at reducing suicidal behaviours. The app, called “ Tec-Tec ” uses a simple game to train users to see certain words and images in a different light (a form of “evaluative conditioning”) and is available on iTunes and Amazon right now. Studies have shown that the app reduced suicidal behaviours by about 50 per cent over the course of a month in hundreds of people, and they hope in the future to reach a reduction rate approaching 100 percent.

It is sometimes said that Psychology shouldn’t be classed as a science, because psychologists can’t accurately predict what individual people will do:  in a real science, we expect testable predictions.

To be generous, I will allow all  brain-scan linked psychology to be put under neuroscience, and all chemical-linked psychology to be under psychopharmacology.  I will consider only social psychology and the study of individual behaviours.

It is clear that any situation brings out different responses from different human individuals, and that the range of these responses is predictable.

Outside the rigorous context of science, prediction is often confused with informed guess or opinion .
A prediction of this kind might be valid and useful if the predictor is a knowledgeable person in the field and is employing sound reasoning and accurate data .

In politics it is common to attempt to predict the outcome of elections (or assess the popularity of politicians ) through the use of opinion polls .

Predictions have often been made, in pre-scientific times and still today, by resorting to paranormal or supernatural means, such as prophecy . Pseudoscience disciplines include water divining , astrology , numerology and fortune telling . So far none of these means of prediction have been proven under controlled conditions and are heavily criticised by scientists and skeptics .

The gambler's fallacy , also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances , is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future. It may also be stated as the belief that, if something happens less frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen more frequently in the future. In situations where the outcome being observed is truly random and consists of independent trials of a random process , this belief is false. The fallacy can arise in many situations, but is most strongly associated with gambling , where it is common among players.

The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913. [1]

The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a fair coin . The outcomes in different tosses are statistically independent and the probability of getting heads on a single toss is 1 / 2 (one in two). The probability of getting two heads in two tosses is 1 / 4 (one in four) and the probability of getting three heads in three tosses is 1 / 8 (one in eight). In general, if A i is the event where toss i of a fair coin comes up heads, then:

Extraordinary claims don’t come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven’t yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What’s more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can’t find any significant flaws. “My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can’t be true,” says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. “Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn’t see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order.”

Extraordinary claims don’t come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven’t yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What’s more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can’t find any significant flaws. “My personal view is that this is ridiculous and can’t be true,” says Joachim Krueger of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, who has blogged about the work on the Psychology Today website. “Going after the methodology and the experimental design is the first line of attack. But frankly, I didn’t see anything. Everything seemed to be in good order.”

Is psychology capable of identifying the risk factors that can push people to take their own lives? Joseph Franklin at Florida State University and his research team at the Technology and Psychopathy (TAP) Lab have provided an answer, but it is a disappointing one. Our capacity to predict whether someone will make a suicide attempt is no better than chance. What is worse, we have not made any progress in this area in the last half-century. These striking conclusions come as the result of a meta-analysis of 365 studies into suicide risk conducted over the last 50 years and published recently in Psychological Bulletin ( pdf ).

Moreover, most often suicide is not caused by the simple sum of those factors, but from a complex interaction between them, yet the research methods generally applied by psychologists are not capable of uncovering such dynamics. Research on complex systems, which is most certainly an appropriate designation for the mind, long ago demonstrated that their characteristics are not always discernible when looking at constituent elements. Why, then, do the vast majority of psychologists so obstinately insist on treating people as simple machines that react linearly in response to simple stimuli?

His team has already developed a free web app that has proven effective in trials at reducing suicidal behaviours. The app, called “ Tec-Tec ” uses a simple game to train users to see certain words and images in a different light (a form of “evaluative conditioning”) and is available on iTunes and Amazon right now. Studies have shown that the app reduced suicidal behaviours by about 50 per cent over the course of a month in hundreds of people, and they hope in the future to reach a reduction rate approaching 100 percent.

It is sometimes said that Psychology shouldn’t be classed as a science, because psychologists can’t accurately predict what individual people will do:  in a real science, we expect testable predictions.

To be generous, I will allow all  brain-scan linked psychology to be put under neuroscience, and all chemical-linked psychology to be under psychopharmacology.  I will consider only social psychology and the study of individual behaviours.

It is clear that any situation brings out different responses from different human individuals, and that the range of these responses is predictable.

Outside the rigorous context of science, prediction is often confused with informed guess or opinion .
A prediction of this kind might be valid and useful if the predictor is a knowledgeable person in the field and is employing sound reasoning and accurate data .

In politics it is common to attempt to predict the outcome of elections (or assess the popularity of politicians ) through the use of opinion polls .

Predictions have often been made, in pre-scientific times and still today, by resorting to paranormal or supernatural means, such as prophecy . Pseudoscience disciplines include water divining , astrology , numerology and fortune telling . So far none of these means of prediction have been proven under controlled conditions and are heavily criticised by scientists and skeptics .

After half a century of research, psychology can’t predict.


We Can t Predict the Future--And That s. - Psychology Today

Posted by 2018 article

41aqZItVGkL