Friam

Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Classic

List

Threaded

50 messages Options

123

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Russ,

This is, of course, the pragmatic[ist] understanding of “solved.”

Everybody has quit looking for a better solution.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:

Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Doug,

I think it’s a form of play. Possibly a form that is not your cup of tea. Intellectual play and science are alike, in my world, because both explore contradictions in our ways of thinking of things. Oxymorons, like “psychological science” or “thinking machine” or “conscious animal”. Resolving these contradictions usually involves some reconstructive work on both sides of a conceptual seam that we may at first have been unaware of. Hard to know when this sort of play metamorphoses into work or when attempts at systematic work devolve into play. But you can ignore us.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Sorry, I've totally lost track, if in fact I ever understood what this new thought exercise was.

What's the point? What's the goal? What's the deliverable? Is there any more depth to this new discussion aside from considering how people talk about discussing how actual scientific achievement is accomplished?

Unfortunately, I suspect the goal *is* to discuss the discourse about talking about how work is actually done.

I may be wrong, though.

-Doug

On May 17, 2012 7:21 PM, "Russ Abbott" <[hidden email]> wrote:

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Russ Abbott

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Were you dismissing the idea of looking at the literature by saying that doing so is "pragmatic[ist]"? I'm missing your point.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Russ,

This is, of course, the pragmatic[ist] understanding of “solved.”

Everybody has quit looking for a better solution.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level.
-- Russ
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <epc2@...> wrote:

Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <arlo.barnes@...> wrote:

It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.

============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Arlo Barnes

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Arlo Barnes

Contents of email that I thought I had sent minutes after my last one:

s/someone else/others
Also I wanted to note that this counted as my belated reply to the alternative medicine thread: perhaps most medicines, not just 'alternative' varieties, are still 'magic'; that is, not fully understood but used because they seem to work for a certain problem when used a certain way. Obviously if people's lives and well-being/comfort are at stake we should use any solution, but not settle for leaving things unexplained.

Eric: I think the difference between chemistry and psychology, although your point is well-taken, is that if I want to measure pH I simply use litmus or electronic testing, whereas if I want to measure stress I ask questions about how someone is feeling, which takes other factors into account (like whether they trust me enough to tell me). I suppose there could be interference between the actual pH and me through my methods of testing - the litmus - but it seems it leaves less room for error and is more easily fiddled with. The fact is, there are ethical considerations for tinkering with someone's mind - it would be considered out of line to test how someone reacts to stress by insulting their parents, for instance. And a direct test of the brain would fall more under neurology, I think.
(This is the point at which Eric sent the email 7 minutes ago)

The big problem in psychology (IMHO) is the lack of a paradigm that effectively organizes the accepted results and shows where to seek results in the future.

Perhaps this is what I am getting at. How does one untangle the complex web of cause and effect that makes up a mind? It takes a very logical series of tests that eliminate possibilities until only one is left to make a direct link from.
I also would like to note that since you are actually a professional in the field and I am not, you have a much better knowledge of specific studies and general phenomena, and so maybe this discussion is more about the public perception of psychology rather than psychology itself.

-Arlo James Barnes

John Kennison

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Eric,

A cannonball shot into the air eventually returns to Earth. In Newtonian physics, we say that the cannonball does so because the Earth exerts a force on the cannonball which pulls it back down. Would you say this is a magical explanation? Why or why not?

Also, would you say this is an instance of a paradigm at work?

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 2:25 AM
To: Russ Abbott
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Russ,
I am about to get a bit defensive. I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend a discipline I am largely disenchanted with, but here it goes:

While I would NOT want to let "generally accepted" be a criterion for "solved", I am a bit perturbed by your suspicion that psychology lacks generally accepted results.

Psychology has been an academic discipline for over a century, and likely has more professional members today than any other academic discipline, especially if you count people who do psychology-leaning neuroscience. There are several major conferences in psychology that have more than 10,000 attendees. There are over 1,000 peer reviewed academic journals in the field. There are at least 10 major journals dedicated to literature reviews establishing results as generally accepted, and several have been operating for over 100 years. For a discipline without a dedicated category, psychologists have also garnered a pretty impressive number of Nobel Prizes. On what possible basis would you think there was not a MASSIVE body of generally agreed upon results?

We don't even have to get to the professional level for evidence: Any introductory psychology textbook is full of references to published results that are generally accepted. And a standard-size introductory psychology text is now around 800 pages long. There are between 12 and 20 standard mid-level courses in the field, each with a wide range of textbooks filled with generally accepted results.

On what possible basis would you suspect there are few generally accepted results, and what could you possibly mean by claiming that any any accepted results would probably be 'low level'?

While, as in any science, some percentage of the accepted results will later turn out to need revision (sometimes rejection, but more often notes regarding required circumstances), there is a lot that psychologists know. The big problem in psychology (IMHO) is the lack of a paradigm that effectively organizes the accepted results and shows where to seek results in the future.

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 10:19 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russ Abbott

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1 button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote:

Eric,

A cannonball shot into the air eventually returns to Earth. In Newtonian physics, we say that the cannonball does so because the Earth exerts a force on the cannonball which pulls it back down. Would you say this is a magical explanation? Why or why not?

Also, would you say this is an instance of a paradigm at work?

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 2:25 AM
To: Russ Abbott
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Russ,
I am about to get a bit defensive. I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend a discipline I am largely disenchanted with, but here it goes:

While I would NOT want to let "generally accepted" be a criterion for "solved", I am a bit perturbed by your suspicion that psychology lacks generally accepted results.

Psychology has been an academic discipline for over a century, and likely has more professional members today than any other academic discipline, especially if you count people who do psychology-leaning neuroscience. There are several major conferences in psychology that have more than 10,000 attendees. There are over 1,000 peer reviewed academic journals in the field. There are at least 10 major journals dedicated to literature reviews establishing results as generally accepted, and several have been operating for over 100 years. For a discipline without a dedicated category, psychologists have also garnered a pretty impressive number of Nobel Prizes. On what possible basis would you think there was not a MASSIVE body of generally agreed upon results?

We don't even have to get to the professional level for evidence: Any introductory psychology textbook is full of references to published results that are generally accepted. And a standard-size introductory psychology text is now around 800 pages long. There are between 12 and 20 standard mid-level courses in the field, each with a wide range of textbooks filled with generally accepted results.

On what possible basis would you suspect there are few generally accepted results, and what could you possibly mean by claiming that any any accepted results would probably be 'low level'?

While, as in any science, some percentage of the accepted results will later turn out to need revision (sometimes rejection, but more often notes regarding required circumstances), there is a lot that psychologists know. The big problem in psychology (IMHO) is the lack of a paradigm that effectively organizes the accepted results and shows where to seek results in the future.

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 10:19 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by John Kennison

Didn't Newton feel that it was a bit magical? I need to be instructed,
here.

N

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of John Kennison
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:11 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Eric,

A cannonball shot into the air eventually returns to Earth. In Newtonian
physics, we say that the cannonball does so because the Earth exerts a force
on the cannonball which pulls it back down. Would you say this is a magical
explanation? Why or why not?

Also, would you say this is an instance of a paradigm at work?

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
ERIC P. CHARLES [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 2:25 AM
To: Russ Abbott
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Russ,
I am about to get a bit defensive. I'm not sure why I feel the need to
defend a discipline I am largely disenchanted with, but here it goes:

While I would NOT want to let "generally accepted" be a criterion for
"solved", I am a bit perturbed by your suspicion that psychology lacks
generally accepted results.

Psychology has been an academic discipline for over a century, and likely
has more professional members today than any other academic discipline,
especially if you count people who do psychology-leaning neuroscience. There
are several major conferences in psychology that have more than 10,000
attendees. There are over 1,000 peer reviewed academic journals in the
field. There are at least 10 major journals dedicated to literature reviews
establishing results as generally accepted, and several have been operating
for over 100 years. For a discipline without a dedicated category,
psychologists have also garnered a pretty impressive number of Nobel Prizes.
On what possible basis would you think there was not a MASSIVE body of
generally agreed upon results?

We don't even have to get to the professional level for evidence: Any
introductory psychology textbook is full of references to published results
that are generally accepted. And a standard-size introductory psychology
text is now around 800 pages long. There are between 12 and 20 standard
mid-level courses in the field, each with a wide range of textbooks filled
with generally accepted results.

On what possible basis would you suspect there are few generally accepted
results, and what could you possibly mean by claiming that any any accepted
results would probably be 'low level'?

While, as in any science, some percentage of the accepted results will later
turn out to need revision (sometimes rejection, but more often notes
regarding required circumstances), there is a lot that psychologists know.
The big problem in psychology (IMHO) is the lack of a paradigm that
effectively organizes the accepted results and shows where to seek results
in the future.

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 10:19 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have
been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I
suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low
level.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about
psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else
- those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world,
treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is
your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be
collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives
to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much
lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with
discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a
'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the
data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more
data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not
perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more
rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So
we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective
Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing
tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore
work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to
be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

So, what did Newton mean when he said “I make no hypotheses.”

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: https://plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote:

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Russ,
I am about to get a bit defensive. I'm not sure why I feel the need to defend a discipline I am largely disenchanted with, but here it goes:

While I would NOT want to let "generally accepted" be a criterion for "solved", I am a bit perturbed by your suspicion that psychology lacks generally accepted results.

Psychology has been an academic discipline for over a century, and likely has more professional members today than any other academic discipline, especially if you count people who do psychology-leaning neuroscience. There are several major conferences in psychology that have more than 10,000 attendees. There are over 1,000 peer reviewed academic journals in the field. There are at least 10 major journals dedicated to literature reviews establishing results as generally accepted, and several have been operating for over 100 years. For a discipline without a dedicated category, psychologists have also garnered a pretty impressive number of Nobel Prizes. On what possible basis would you think there was not a MASSIVE body of generally agreed upon results?

We don't even have to get to the professional level for evidence: Any introductory psychology textbook is full of references to published results that are generally accepted. And a standard-size introductory psychology text is now around 800 pages long. There are between 12 and 20 standard mid-level courses in the field, each with a wide range of textbooks filled with generally accepted results.

On what possible basis would you suspect there are few generally accepted results, and what could you possibly mean by claiming that any any accepted results would probably be 'low level'?

While, as in any science, some percentage of the accepted results will later turn out to need revision (sometimes rejection, but more often notes regarding required circumstances), there is a lot that psychologists know. The big problem in psychology (IMHO) is the lack of a paradigm that effectively organizes the accepted results and shows where to seek results in the future.

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 10:19 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:
Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Bruce Sherwood

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:

"I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.

I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
we can."

I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
into the nature of gravity.

Bruce

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1
> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended
> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>
> -- Russ Abbott

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Gillian Densmore

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me included) constantly do dumb stuff?

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:

"I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.

I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
we can."

I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
into the nature of gravity.

Bruce

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1
> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended
> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>
> -- Russ Abbott

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Well, in my psychology, the answer to such a question takes the form of, “what is the larger pattern of which my dumb stuff is a part?”

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 6:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me included) constantly do dumb stuff?

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1
> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended
> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>
> -- Russ Abbott

Gillian Densmore

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

I might be seeing where this could be going but the general technical term Dumb Stuff might be defiend as one or of the following: Bad manered drivers, procstratinating on tasks,not willing to properly fund education and science-just as examples.

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, in my psychology, the answer to such a question takes the form of, “what is the larger pattern of which my dumb stuff is a part?”

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 6:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me included) constantly do dumb stuff?
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:

"I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.

I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
we can."

I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
into the nature of gravity.

Bruce

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1
> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended
> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>
> -- Russ Abbott
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Gillian Densmore

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

I might add to it underpaying and overworking.

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I might be seeing where this could be going but the general technical term Dumb Stuff might be defiend as one or of the following: Bad manered drivers, procstratinating on tasks,not willing to properly fund education and science-just as examples.

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, in my psychology, the answer to such a question takes the form of, “what is the larger pattern of which my dumb stuff is a part?”

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 6:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me included) constantly do dumb stuff?
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:

"I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.

I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
we can."

I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
into the nature of gravity.

Bruce

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1
> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended
> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>
> -- Russ Abbott
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Gill,

I am watching a series called “In Treatment” which seems to me, as somebody who has worked around therapists all his career, and even seen a few in my time, to be a very, VERY accurate portrayal of the possible perils and benefits of psychotherapy.

The show has made me aware that the working model of good human functioning to a psycho therapist goes something like this:

I want a hot fudge Sundae

I go to the ice cream store, I order ice cream, I order fudge, I order whipped cream, and I order a maraschino cherry.

I eat it. I am happy.

What if I don’t have money for a hot fudge sundae. Well, I go to the bank, or I borrow the money, or I get a job, etc. In other words, I organize my sub-goals, under some superordinate goal, like wanting a hot fudge sundae.

And so forth.

Not functioning in accordance with that model is called psych-pathology. In other words, people should know what will please them, and if they don’t, they should figure that out, and then they should how to find that thing, and if they don’t, they should problem-solve until they do, and then they should get what they want and then they should be happy. If none of this is happening for them, then they need help, according to the model.

I won’t consider now whether this model has anything to do with how human beings ARE. Now that I write it out it seems a bit absurd. For one thing, as an evolutionary psychologist, I can’t quite figure out what the function of “happiness” might be. However, what I will say is that, granting the model, people who, in various ways, keep defeating themselves are probably embedded in a larger pattern which satisfies some goal they are not fully aware of. Or they are aware of the goal of that pattern, but not aware that it conflicts with the embedding goal-pattern. So, they somehow never get the hotfudge sundae, and they don’t know WHY? Psycho therapy is supposed to line up their goal structures so they get some of what they want.

A lot of public dumb stuff seems to be the result of projecting family relations onto situations that bear no relation to that situation. Road rage is probably an example of a kind of behavior borrowed from one context where it works in some way and applied to another where it just gets you killed.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 7:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

I might add to it underpaying and overworking.

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, in my psychology, the answer to such a question takes the form of, “what is the larger pattern of which my dumb stuff is a part?”

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 6:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me included) constantly do dumb stuff?

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant Holland

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Bruce Sherwood

Bruce,

Did not Einstein put "action at a distance" wrt gravity to rest with his
general theory? Did he not theorize that gravity is a force that curves
space-time nearby rather than acting on other masses at a distance?

Just askin'
Grant

On 5/18/12 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

> Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
> hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:
>
> "I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
> I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
> that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
> made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
> have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
> tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
> different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.
>
> I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
> 'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
> concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
> Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
> a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
> gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
> maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
> we can."
>
> I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
> standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
> know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
> in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
> hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
> into the nature of gravity.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1
>> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
>> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended
>> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>>
>> -- Russ Abbott
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Bruce Sherwood

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Yes, that's what I meant in citing Einstein. As for the specifics of
the case, Einstein realized that action at a distance was not
consistent with the Special Theory of Relativity, that nothing could
be communicated at a speed greater than the speed of light. If
something suddenly yanked our Sun far away from us, it would be eight
minutes before the sunlight vanished (the Sun is about 8 light-minutes
away from us), and it would also be eight minutes before our orbit
changed from circular to a straight line. It was these considerations
among others that led Einstein to seek a theory of gravity, which is
now called the General Theory of Relativity.

Bruce

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Grant Holland
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bruce,
>
> Did not Einstein put "action at a distance" wrt gravity to rest with his
> general theory? Did he not theorize that gravity is a force that curves
> space-time nearby rather than acting on other masses at a distance?
>
> Just askin'
> Grant
>
>
> On 5/18/12 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
>>
>> Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
>> hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:
>>
>> "I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
>> I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
>> that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
>> made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
>> have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
>> tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
>> different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.
>>
>> I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
>> 'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
>> concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
>> Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
>> a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
>> gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
>> maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
>> we can."
>>
>> I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
>> standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
>> know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
>> in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
>> hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
>> into the nature of gravity.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its
>>> +1
>>> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
>>> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they
>>> depended
>>> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>>>
>>> -- Russ Abbott
>>
>> ============================================================
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick,

What if you're not actually in an ice cream store. But, some combination of:
1) when you believe you're hungry for hot fudge sundae, everything looks like an ice cream store.
2) you believe in the equivalence of ice cream stores to be all capable of producing a hot fudge sundae.
3) you somehow believe all hot fudge sundaes themselves are equivalent in their capability to produce happiness.
4) you're not really clear on how the relationships between HFS elements fit together in some simple or convoluted way to make you theoretically happy.

I think all parties to a psycho therapy q'est que c'est cup-o sessions figure this out early on. A client may come in wondering why the hell they can't get an ice cream sundae, but it may become rather soon about how they can behave sincerely in the world composed of largely of stories they've been habitually telling themselves about why they can't get an ice cream sundae. At which point, some new stories may be in order. So, I'm a bit skeptical that we can say that these kinds of endeavors are primarily about various kinds of goal-pathologies. Any pathology occurs in the way (not necessarily how much) people *adhere* to their models, rather than jolly-good-ness of the model itself. Which seems to be an uncommon different kind of abstraction.

One may be content to be a fool if one can devote some of one's best energies to figuring out how to become a *sincere* fool. That may yet inform the way scientists make contributions to the scientific enterprise in interesting ways.

Carl

On 5/18/12 8:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Gill,

I am watching a series called “In Treatment” which seems to me, as somebody who has worked around therapists all his career, and even seen a few in my time, to be a very, VERY accurate portrayal of the possible perils and benefits of psychotherapy.

The show has made me aware that the working model of good human functioning to a psycho therapist goes something like this:

I want a hot fudge Sundae

I go to the ice cream store, I order ice cream, I order fudge, I order whipped cream, and I order a maraschino cherry.

I eat it. I am happy.

What if I don’t have money for a hot fudge sundae. Well, I go to the bank, or I borrow the money, or I get a job, etc. In other words, I organize my sub-goals, under some superordinate goal, like wanting a hot fudge sundae.

And so forth.

Not functioning in accordance with that model is called psych-pathology. In other words, people should know what will please them, and if they don’t, they should figure that out, and then they should how to find that thing, and if they don’t, they should problem-solve until they do, and then they should get what they want and then they should be happy. If none of this is happening for them, then they need help, according to the model.

I won’t consider now whether this model has anything to do with how human beings ARE. Now that I write it out it seems a bit absurd. For one thing, as an evolutionary psychologist, I can’t quite figure out what the function of “happiness” might be. However, what I will say is that, granting the model, people who, in various ways, keep defeating themselves are probably embedded in a larger pattern which satisfies some goal they are not fully aware of. Or they are aware of the goal of that pattern, but not aware that it conflicts with the embedding goal-pattern.   So, they somehow never get the hotfudge sundae, and they don’t know WHY? Psycho therapy is supposed to line up their goal structures so they get some of what they want.

A lot of public dumb stuff seems to be the result of projecting family relations onto situations that bear no relation to that situation.   Road rage is probably an example of a kind of behavior borrowed from one context where it works in some way and applied to another where it just gets you killed.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 7:12 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

I might add to it underpaying and overworking.

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I might be seeing where this could be going but the general technical term Dumb Stuff might be defiend as one or of the following: Bad manered drivers, procstratinating on tasks,not willing to properly fund education and science-just as examples.

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, in my psychology, the answer to such a question takes the form of, “what is the larger pattern of which my dumb stuff is a part?”

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gillian Densmore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 6:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Oh oh I have a potentialy unsolvable problem: how come people (me included) constantly do dumb stuff?

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:

"I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.

I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
we can."

I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
into the nature of gravity.

Bruce

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its +1
> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they depended
> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>
> -- Russ Abbott

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Bruce Sherwood

Curiously, most of the folks I know to whom many folks on this list would
ascribe "magical thinking" to, do, I think, have very little trouble with
the 50 kilofoot level explanation of General Relativity, and might even go
so far as to say, what's the big deal?

Trying to explain Special Relativity to these same folks, on the other
hand, in my humble efforts,
tends to produce various specie of ice cream headache.

Not sure what to make of that. Possibly I'm a crappy explainer.

Carl

On 5/18/12 9:15 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

> Yes, that's what I meant in citing Einstein. As for the specifics of
> the case, Einstein realized that action at a distance was not
> consistent with the Special Theory of Relativity, that nothing could
> be communicated at a speed greater than the speed of light. If
> something suddenly yanked our Sun far away from us, it would be eight
> minutes before the sunlight vanished (the Sun is about 8 light-minutes
> away from us), and it would also be eight minutes before our orbit
> changed from circular to a straight line. It was these considerations
> among others that led Einstein to seek a theory of gravity, which is
> now called the General Theory of Relativity.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Grant Holland
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Did not Einstein put "action at a distance" wrt gravity to rest with his
>> general theory? Did he not theorize that gravity is a force that curves
>> space-time nearby rather than acting on other masses at a distance?
>>
>> Just askin'
>> Grant
>>
>>
>> On 5/18/12 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
>>> Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no
>>> hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:
>>>
>>> "I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather
>>> I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion
>>> that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,
>>> made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis I
>>> have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the
>>> tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely
>>> different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.
>>>
>>> I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an
>>> 'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead
>>> concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.
>>> Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand at
>>> a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character of
>>> gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such as
>>> maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying what
>>> we can."
>>>
>>> I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical
>>> standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we
>>> know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity
>>> in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are
>>> hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights
>>> into the nature of gravity.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott<[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click its
>>>> +1
>>>> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the
>>>> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they
>>>> depended
>>>> on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.
>>>>
>>>> -- Russ Abbott
>>> ============================================================
>>>
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Bruce Sherwood

Bruce,

I think you conceded too much in this message.

In the previous message you wrote

eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity

>> in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself

But grant writes:

Did he not theorize that gravity is a force that

> curves space-time nearby rather than acting on other masses at a distance?

to which you essentially assent.

But it’s MASS that curves space, not gravity, no? Isn’t “gravity” unnecessary? A gratuitous mystery?

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bruce Sherwood
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 9:16 PM
To: Grant Holland
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Yes, that's what I meant in citing Einstein. As for the specifics of the case, Einstein realized that action at a distance was not consistent with the Special Theory of Relativity, that nothing could be communicated at a speed greater than the speed of light. If something suddenly yanked our Sun far away from us, it would be eight minutes before the sunlight vanished (the Sun is about 8 light-minutes away from us), and it would also be eight minutes before our orbit changed from circular to a straight line. It was these considerations among others that led Einstein to seek a theory of gravity, which is now called the General Theory of Relativity.

Bruce

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bruce,

> Did not Einstein put "action at a distance" wrt gravity to rest with

> his general theory? Did he not theorize that gravity is a force that

> curves space-time nearby rather than acting on other masses at a distance?

> Just askin'

> Grant

> On 5/18/12 4:13 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

>> Newton famously said about action at a distance, "I frame no

>> hypotheses". I take this to mean something like the following:

>> "I completely agree with you that I haven't explained gravity. Rather

>> I've shown that observations are consistent with the radical notion

>> that all matter attracts all other matter, here and in the heavens,

>> made quantitative by a one-over-r-squared force 'law'. On this basis

>> I have shown that the orbits of the planets and the behavior of the

>> tides and the fall of an apple, previously seen as completely

>> different phenomena, are 'explainable' within one single framework.

>> I propose that we provisionally abandon the search for an

>> 'explanation' of gravity, which looks fruitless for now, and instead

>> concentrate on working out the consequences of the new framework.

>> Let's leave it as a task for future scientists to try to understand

>> at a deeper level than 'action-at-a-distance' what the real character

>> of gravity is. There has been altogether too much speculation, such

>> as maybe angels push the planets around. Let's get on with studying

>> what we can."

>> I think Newton doesn't get nearly enough credit for this radical

>> standpoint, which made it possible to go forward. And of course we

>> know that eventually Einstein found a deep 'explanation' for gravity

>> in terms of the effects that matter has on space itself. There are

>> hints in the current string theory community of even deeper insights

>> into the nature of gravity.

>> Bruce

>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Russ Abbott<[hidden email]>

>> wrote:

>>>

>>> John, I like your gravity question. If this were Google+, I'd click

>>> its

>>> +1

>>> button. My wife, who studies these things, says that one of the

>>> fiercest contemporary criticisms of Newton's theories was that they

>>> depended on a mysterious (magical?) action at a distance.

>>>

>>> -- Russ Abbott

>> ============================================================

>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at

>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at

>> http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

123