4 ms·
I am the person featured in the Observer article (for "proof", see the account with this username on Twitter). AMA. :-)
by sTeamTraen 9y ago
I am the person featured in the Observer article (for "proof", see the account with this username on Twitter). AMA. :-)
- et1337 9y agoWhat are your thoughts on the "rest" of Frederickson's research? You seem content to debunk only Losada's math (charitably characterized as a "brain fart"), where this article seems more willing to lambast positivity research on the whole as self-serving mumbo-jumbo.
- sTeamTraen 9y agoAt the time that interview was published I didn't know too much about it. Since then I have published about 5 articles critiquing various other work from the same lab. It mostly seems very weak, but I'm not sure if it's any worse than most of research in the wider field of social psychology (and peripheral subfields that use similar underpowered research methods). For example, I have also been involved in looking at the work coming out of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab (GIYF) and much of that seems to be catastrophically bad.
- sTeamTraen 9y agoLink to the Cornell story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15351006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15351006
- hazeii 9y agoCan you give us a quick run-through of the maths that led to the 2.9013 number?
- sTeamTraen 9y agoNo, especially five years on. :-) Seriously, there's no obvious way to do this in a "quick run-through" that is quicker than what we wrote. Look at the calculations in our article on arXiv (and if necessary, look up the 1962 Lorenz article and find the relevant equations). 2.9013 is actually an abbreviation for a recurring decimal representation of a rational number(!), which on its own ought to be a sign that something is wrong.
- hazeii 9y agoThanks; the closest a quick search threw up was 22987/7923 = 2.9013000126 which confirms the bogosity - I was just interested to know how the bogosity was being justified.