
Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits - azsromej
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?v=1&id=your-thoughts-can-release-abilities-beyond-normal-limits
======
lutusp
A quote: "There seems to be a simple way to instantly increase a person’s
level of general knowledge. Psychologists ..."

Ahh. Psychologists. Expectations calibrated.

"Expecting to know the answers made people more likely to get the answers
right."

Ah, yes -- that conclusion should be easy to rigorously quantify, explain in
neuroscientific terms, turn into a general theory, and replicate before anyone
assumes we're doing actual science. But no one will shape a theory, there will
be no replications, and this study, like 99% of psychology studies, will
disappear without a trace, only to be inadvertently repeated years from now by
someone who will arrive at the opposite conclusion.

~~~
pradocchia
_explain in neuroscientific terms_

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? The article draws attention to a
phenomenon that isn't predicted by current theory. Before a predictive theory
has been developed, there is even some censorship or bias risk in using
neuroscientific terms.

~~~
lutusp
>> explain in neuroscientific terms

> Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?

Not in science. In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse. No
explanation, no science. Einstein didn't win a Nobel Prize for noting that
electrons are emitted by a metal surface, he won for _explaining why_ they are
emitted. Had Einstein been a psychologist, publishing the fact that electrons
are emitted (for simply _describing_ ) would have been enough.

> The article draws attention to a phenomenon that isn't predicted by current
> theory.

That's uncontroversial, since there are no theories in psychology, only
descriptions. This, by the way, is why the director of the NIMH recently
decided to abandon the DSM, to so-called "bible" of psychiatry and psychology,
on the ground that it only contains descriptions and therefore has no
scientific value (the DSM will remain as a diagnostic guide):

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
diagnosis.shtml)

Quote: "... symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine,
has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that
symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment ... Patients with
mental disorders deserve better."

> Before a predictive theory has been developed, there is even some censorship
> or bias risk in using neuroscientific terms.

I think there's little risk in asking "Where's the science?"

~~~
pradocchia
_In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse._

I'm sorry, but no. Observation comes first, then hypotheses, then prediction,
then verification. Explanations go from proposed to confirmed, but they are
certainly not the genesis of scientific knowledge. The phenomenon itself
_must_ come first, otherwise all you have is the fitting of facts to theory.

So, we have observations w/out a coherent, compelling, or generally agreed-to
theory. If and when a successful theory is developed, it will predict
observations to date and predict more effects not yet observed or observed and
ignored. Well, that sounds like a pretty exciting field of science, actually.

~~~
lutusp
>> In science, the explanation is both the cart and the horse.

> I'm sorry, but no. Observation comes first, then hypotheses, then
> prediction, then verification.

The corpus of scientific theory is a set of tested, falsifiable
_explanations_. Legitimate sciences don't rely on mere descriptions, even
well-tested ones.

But let's take your claim and test it scientifically -- let's assume that we
don't need explanations, we can get by with your stated criteria:
observations, "hypotheses, then prediction, then verification." Here goes:

Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common
cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets
better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is
repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed
scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific
journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along
without defining theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure,
or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to
describe it, just like a psychologist.

Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements
that psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?

Ask yourself what's wrong with this picture, and notice that the same thing is
wrong with psychology — all description, no explanation, no established
principles on which different psychologists agree, no effort to build
consensus, and no unifying theories.

> So, we have observations w/out a coherent, compelling, or generally agreed-
> to theory. If and when a successful theory is developed, it will predict
> observations to date and predict more effects not yet observed or observed
> and ignored. Well, that sounds like a pretty exciting field of science,
> actually.

Yes -- and shaking a dried gourd can cure the common cold.

~~~
pradocchia
To continue your thought experiment, another researcher designs a new, double-
blind trial of gourds, and discovers that while gourds per se have no effect,
the placebo effect is statistically significant.

There is no explanation for WHY expectations would effect outcomes. In fact,
any explanation at this stage would be provisional and highly suspect. And
yet, there it is. What are we to do, ignore this phenomenon as if it didn't
exist? Question the statistical ability of the researcher, and all other
researchers who document a placebo effect?

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

~~~
lutusp
> To continue your thought experiment, another researcher designs a new,
> double-blind trial of gourds, and discovers that while gourds per se have no
> effect, the placebo effect is statistically significant.

Without a search for causes, for explanations, even the placebo effect is
routinely disregarded. For example, it has been recently discovered that all
psychological therapies are equally efficacious. Until now, the assumption was
that Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy was superior to others, but that's been
disproven. But, even though all therapies produce the same outcome, no one in
psychology seems willing to consider the idea that it's all placebo effect.

> In fact, any explanation at this stage would be provisional and highly
> suspect.

Except the one that Occam's razor suggests, the default assumption under these
circumstances: placebo effect. Or, perhaps better, the non-explanation
suggested by the null hypothesis -- nothing meaningful has been measured and
no conclusions can be drawn, which I think is your point.

> What are we to do, ignore this phenomenon as if it didn't exist?

No, but as scientists, we would do well to avoid drawing any conclusions not
supported by rigorous experiment -- including the responsibility to propose
and then test a theory about what's been observed.

------
300bps
_In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor._

I've noticed this is true in ever facet of my life. When I was 14, I memorized
pi to 50 digits with almost no effort. Later, I memorized it to 100, then 200.
I realized at that point that I could memorize anything that I wanted to. I
memorize phone numbers, credit card numbers, everything with almost no effort
and not using any mnemonic device. It's so handy when buying something on the
Internet to have every credit card in my wallet memorized.

Invariably when I demonstrate this to someone I get the, "Oh I could never do
that, my memory is terrible." I actually convinced a friend of mine many years
ago that he could in fact memorize pi to 100 digits... and he did and still
remembers it to this day. I'm convinced anyone can do this and the major thing
stopping them is their belief that they can't do it.

~~~
devindotcom
I'm happy you have this ability, but suggesting that everyone else just isn't
living up to their potential because of some mental block that you have
supposedly (and accidentally) overcome is, perhaps, limiting your compassion.
You are very lucky to have an exceptional memory; others are not so lucky, and
must work hard to do what costs you no effort. Supposing they just aren't
trying hard enough or are succumbing to some crippling lack of self-faith is
belittling and people will rightfully resent it.

~~~
300bps
I'm not sure if you read my comment before becoming offended by it.

Your response makes it all about me, but I specifically mentioned other people
being surprised by their own memorization capabilities after I asked them to
consider that maybe they're more capable of memorizing numbers than they
believed.

Your comment also says that I memorize through "no effort" when I stated,
"almost no effort" which is > "no effort". When I originally memorized pi to
50 digits it took about 15 minutes which is what I could consider "almost no
effort" but that's more than 15 seconds which is what I would consider "no
effort".

And I'm sorry my comment made you resentful. Hopefully you don't resent other
people telling you how with little effort they were able to increase their
vertical jump or learn how to play the guitar.

~~~
amirmc
> _" I'm not sure if you read my comment before becoming offended by it."_

That post didn't read to me like he was in the slightest bit offended.

It's simply making the point that if you view the world through a lens of "you
can do anything if you just try" then there's a downside of becoming less
compassionate as one might ascribe to laziness what may (more correctly) be
ascribed to a genuine physical or mental inability.

~~~
300bps
_That post didn 't read to me like he was in the slightest bit offended._

He said that my post was belittling and he was resentful of it.

That seems to be a textbook definition of offended. Please tell me how I
misunderstood.

~~~
devindotcom
I am not offended. I wrote that the sentiment I described was belittling and
people would resent it.

~~~
300bps
_I am not offended. I wrote that the sentiment I described was belittling and
people would resent it._

Sorry, I don't believe you. You were either directly speaking for yourself or
you were using weasel words a la, "people would resent it."

In either case, you should man up to the fact that you were truly speaking for
yourself. There were three people that voiced their offense at what I said.
Two appeared to not be able to avoid petty insults and name-calling. One of
those two ended up deleting the dozen or so responses they had in here,
apparently ashamed of what they wrote.

I'm still hoping that you'll own your words more than the other two.

~~~
devindotcom
You are very much mistaken, and are making a fool of yourself.

~~~
300bps
What an absurd thing to say. I feel sorry for any kids you may have if this is
how you speak to people.

Someone worthwhile would just admit they were offended at what I said and move
on with their life. I'm sorry you aren't such a person.

------
sheri
In my Psych course in college we were told on how playing on gender roles can
affect performance. Boys and girls were given a math test. On average they
performed equally. However when they were given the test and told that the
test was also to evaluate how girls do as compared to boys the results were
interesting. Girls did worse then average on being told this and boys did
_better_ than average. This article seems to reinforce this point, as the
expectation that boys would do better actually caused them to perform better
than average. It also points out how corrosive stereotypes can be, as just the
expectation that girls would not do well in math caused a drop in their
performance. I don't have references for these studies unfortunately.

~~~
cLeEOGPw
Boys were more motivated by competition, and girls were stressed by
expectations that boys will be better.

Regarding the original article, people who were told the answer got flashed
might simply doubted their intuition less.

------
zoba
_In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor._

I've noticed this with self confidence as well. Its interesting because
suppose there were two people who were both identical in capability - the one
with confidence will do much better. He/She will put ideas out, will come
across as more impressive to other people, and in the long term grow faster
than the unconfident person because of it...

I mention it because I was surprised when I realized that success is not just
intelligence, hard work, and social interaction, but that success is also
intertwined with general personality characteristics, like confidence.

~~~
Peroni
Confidence plays a massive role in success. If you can balance the fine line
between confidence and arrogance you'll find more doors open up to you than
ever before.

------
david927
We've known for a while now that the placebo effect is not just psychological;
it affects real physical change.

In one experiment, when given a morphine placebo, patients reported pain
relief, but when a morphine-blocker was silently introduced, the placebo
morphine no longer worked.
[*[http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/the-
placebo-...](http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/the-placebo-
effect-it%E2%80%99s-all-in-your-head)]

It's fascinating and deserves more research.

~~~
lobster_johnson
Good Wired article on the subject [1], especially about Fabrizio Benedetti
[2], a neurologist who has mapped the various hormones and mechanisms that
underly the placebo effect.

(One fascinating claim mentioned in the article is that in clinical trials,
Valium can no longer be statistically distinguished from placebo, possibly due
to patients' expectations. This statistical skew in favour of placebo is
problematic for a lot of drug research, essentially preventing manufacturers
from proving that their drug works.)

[1]
[http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo...](http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all)

[2] [http://brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/neurobiology-of-
placebos-...](http://brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/neurobiology-of-placebos-
with-fabrizio-benedetti-bsp-77.html)

------
spiritplumber
semi-CSB that may be related:

I often travel with electronic prototypes and/or custom parts, which can be
really annoying if you have to cross an international border and go through
customs.

I found that the best way to get through it speedily is to also carry one of
my Antbots, and go into sales pitch mode when asked to explain it. People will
automatically want to get rid of a traveling salesman and the fastest way to
do so is to let you through.

Got me out of a ticket once, too.

~~~
300bps
Yeah there's a number of techniques similar to that which get people to leave
you alone. Here's my favorite:

[http://www.daily-comix.com/image/comic/small/1307/jesus-
save...](http://www.daily-comix.com/image/comic/small/1307/jesus-saves-bus-
seats-alone-jesus-comic-1373668240.jpg)

~~~
teddyh
As long as we're trading comic links - it can also be used as perimeter
defense.

[http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff100/fv00014.htm](http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff100/fv00014.htm)

or as a method for private communication

[http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff800/fv00751.htm](http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff800/fv00751.htm)

------
swamp40
I am a great fan of Napoleon Hill.

But my eyes always glazed over while listening to him talk about tapping into
the "Infinite Intelligence".

If nothing else, I would like to thank this article for gently reminding me
that I do _not_ know everything there is to know about this universe.

------
tokenadult
I'm glad lutusp has already jumped in here to decry the shoddy quality of
"science" relied on to build the opinion piece kindly submitted here. He is
correct that psychology often relies on data unrepresentative of humankind as
a whole,

[http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf](http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf)

often engages in dodgy data manipulation after gathering the data,

[http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~uws/](http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~uws/)

and is usually part of a larger scientific universe of rushing to publish.

[http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/filedrawer.h...](http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/filedrawer.html)

That said, while we will always have to be wary of grandiose claims about
preliminary study results,

[http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html](http://norvig.com/experiment-
design.html)

and especially about "mind over matter" claims,

[http://norvig.com/prayer.html](http://norvig.com/prayer.html)

there are skeptical psychologists

[http://www.lscp.net/persons/dupoux/teaching/JOURNEE_AUTOMNE_...](http://www.lscp.net/persons/dupoux/teaching/JOURNEE_AUTOMNE_CogMaster_2011-12/docs/Lilienfeld_2004_Teaching_PseudoScience.pdf)

[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/o...](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2005/september-05/the-10-commandments-
of-helping-students-distinguish-science-from-pseudoscience-in-psychology.html)

[http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_730.aspx](http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_730.aspx)

and other researchers in psychology who apply rigor to their discipline, so
over time we may actually find out something about human behavior from
psychology more reliable than the weak and debatable assertions found in the
article submitted here.

AFTER EDIT:

Because the submitted article mentions the placebo effect, in the usual manner
of popular articles, perhaps I should share here some links that are helpful
for understanding what placebo effects are all about. Some of these online
links cite quite a few useful scholarly publications.

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/behold-the-spin-what-
a-n...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/behold-the-spin-what-a-new-survey-
of-of-placebo-prescribing-really-tells-us/)

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/michael-specter-on-
the-p...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/michael-specter-on-the-placebo-
effect/)

"In other words, the best research we have strongly suggests that placebo
effects are illusions, not real physiological effects. The possible exception
to this are the subjective symptoms of pain and nausea, where the placebo
effects are highly variable and may be due to subjective reporting."

Despite the numerous press releases on the Web pointing to publications co-
authored by Ted Kaptchuk, who has NO medical training or credentials,

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dummy-medicine-dummy-
doc...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dummy-medicine-dummy-doctors-and-
a-dummy-degree-part-2-0-harvard-medical-school-and-the-curious-case-of-ted-
kaptchuk-omd/)

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dummy-medicine-dummy-
doc...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dummy-medicine-dummy-doctors-and-
a-dummy-degree-part-2-2-harvard-medical-school-and-the-curious-case-of-ted-
kaptchuk-omd-cont-again/)

the statements typically found in those articles, such as "Recent research
demonstrates that placebo effects are genuine psychobiological phenomenon
[sic] attributable to the overall therapeutic context, and that placebo
effects can be robust in both laboratory and clinical settings" are untrue.

[http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-rise-and-
fa...](http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-rise-and-fall-of-
placebo-medicine/)

"Despite the spin of the authors – these results put placebo medicine into
crystal clear perspective, and I think they are generalizable and consistent
with other placebo studies. For objective physiological outcomes, there is no
significant placebo effect. Placebos are no better than no treatment at all."

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091554](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20091554)

"We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in
general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence
patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult
to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The
effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from
negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were
partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients
were informed."

Fabrizio Benedetti, a co-author of one of the most cited papers who is also a
medical doctor, sums up his view this way: "I am a doctor, it is true, but I
am mainly a neurophysiologist, so I use the placebo response as a model to
understand how our brain works. I am not sure that in the future it will have
a clinical application."

To sum up, despite claims to the contrary by a person without medical training
who is often covered by the lay press, the best-considered view among medical
practitioners with clinical experience is that the placebo response has no
clinical application.

See also:

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-thinking-make-it-
so...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-thinking-make-it-so-cam-
placebo-fantasy-versus-scientific-reality/)

[http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html](http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html)

[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/revisiting-daniel-
moerma...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/revisiting-daniel-moerman-and-
placebo-effects/)

~~~
jwr
While I would agree that "the placebo response has no clinical application", I
would not discount it so easily. Modern medicine tries to sweep all kinds of
things under the "placebo effect" rug. In general, whenever something happens
to the human body that we cannot explain by chemistry and mechanics, we call
it a "placebo effect". This view of medicine treats the human as two separate
entities: the body and the mind.

I believe this is a narrow view. Our brains are not separate from our bodies
and have a huge influence over what happens with us. And it seems that at lot
of what we previously called "autonomic" systems can be influenced by the
mind. This is something we do not understand, which is OK — but I don't think
it is OK to mock anyone who says otherwise.

My views on these things changed after, having spent 8 years trying to cure
joint pains, I finally got rid of them just by thinking (a simplification, but
close enough). Oh, and the throat infections and allergies? Gone, too. That
sort of killed my smug scientific approach, or more precisely, made it clear
to me that our scientific tools are inadequate and that there are lots of
things happening in our bodies that we a) do not understand, b) cannot
meaningfully measure, c) cannot reason about in statistical studies. This
doesn't mean it is impossible to measure those things, just that at present we
do not know how to do it.

I also now believe that "medical training" is not it's all cracked up to be.
And I learned that doctors really hate saying "I don't know".

So, I would much rather hear people say "something is happening that we do not
understand" rather than discount any articles like this one as pure quackery.

~~~
driverdan
> In general, whenever something happens to the human body that we cannot
> explain by chemistry and mechanics, we call it a "placebo effect".

If by "we" you mean you, sure. If you mean scientists I call bullshit. You're
going to need a good citation to make that claim.

> having spent 8 years trying to cure joint pains, I finally got rid of them
> just by thinking

Not surprising. Pain is the one thing you expect to be able to change by
"thinking." Pain is perception and placebos (and thinking) change perception.

> Oh, and the throat infections and allergies? Gone, too.

Now we're going down anecdote road. You do realize that allergies change as
you age right? My anecdotes: until I was in my late teens / early 20's I
didn't have allergies. Then suddenly one year I had them badly. Years later
they went away again. My dad never had allergies until they came on strong in
his 50's.

Similarly infections come and go.

> And I learned that doctors really hate saying "I don't know".

Good doctors don't. The problem is that the medical profession is full of
egos. Egos don't go well with admitting you don't know or are wrong.

~~~
jwr
In other words, you have no idea why the pain comes and goes, or why allergies
come and go.

Which is fine.

I'm just trying to say that whenever we don't know, we have a tendency to
reject and ridicule _any_ new hypothesis, especially if it's in the field
where we also have no idea on how to measure things. So, while agreeing that a
scientific approach (measure, quantify, prove, etc) is better, I would not
reject nor ridicule hypotheses that we can neither prove nor disprove.
Personally, I find them interesting, as they lie on the boundary of what we
know and might offer promising research in the future.

[I don't want to pick up on your simplification wrt pain, so I'll just note
it's huge. Psychosomatic pain is not about "perception" at all, it's real, and
the symptoms are real.]

------
gmisra
FWIW, pretty much the entire sub-field of "priming" in contemporary
psychological research has come under significant scrutiny over the past few
years. I am no expert, I would encourage you to read this:
[https://chronicle.com/article/Power-of-
Suggestion/136907](https://chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907)

"The studies that raise eyebrows are mostly in an area known as behavioral or
goal priming, research that demonstrates how subliminal prompts can make you
do all manner of crazy things. A warm mug makes you friendlier. The American
flag makes you vote Republican. Fast-food logos make you impatient. A small
group of skeptical psychologists—let's call them the Replicators—have been
trying to reproduce some of the most popular priming effects in their own
labs.

What have they found? Mostly that they can't get those results. The studies
don't check out. Something is wrong."

------
ajcarpy2005
This is explained simply by setting your mind to something, selective
attention, etc. I'm not sure why commenters are looking for exact science when
we don't even have a working model of consciousness let alone the
subconscious.

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

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

------
Arnor
Montaigne explained this phenomena over a hundred years ago:
[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3600/3600-h/3600-h.htm#link2H...](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3600/3600-h/3600-h.htm#link2HCH0020)

------
Altair909
I have experienced this my self in real life. This is very cliché but it
reminds me of Starwars, "these are not the droids you are looking for," I have
seen the power of thinking influence others in a very positive way.

------
StacyC
Thought, intention and expectation—these are causal and creative. Our
experience of the world is substantially shaped by how we view it.

------
kenster07
This is easily explained by a broader psychological phenomenon. The brain and
ego will invest itself in a task in direct proportion to the expected payoff.

------
joe_the_user
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Ozgun Atasoy is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Marketing at Boston
University School of Management.

------
Imagenuity
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't—you're right.” – Henry Ford

------
spiritplumber
The sleeper must awaken!

------
loceng
This is all about releasing the blocking mechanism that exists. I feel people
like Eckhart Tolle have somehow mastered this, at least in the realm of the
scope of abilities they are most comfortable being confined in.

~~~
vidarh
Eckhart Tolle is pretty much repackaging meditation practises with a huge dose
of new age nonsense. As such, there are certainly the odd kernel of useful
stuff in there, but I'd recommend a decent introduction to meditation over
Tolle any day.

~~~
loceng
I've not read any books of his, though I've yet to see in video him say
anything that was non-sensical. What are you referring to?

~~~
MichaelGG
Uh, The Power of Now starts off with something about quantum entanglement
"proving" that we're all one with each other.

