> "Just as zero degrees celsius is a special number in thermodynamics," wrote Fredrickson in Positivity, "the 3-to-1 positivity ratio may well be a magic number

> "Just as zero degrees celsius is a special number in thermodynamics," wrote Fredrickson in Positivity, "the 3-to-1 positivity ratio may well be a magic number in human psychology." Statements like this are why science types look down so much on the softer studies. And perhaps why Daniel Kahneman got a Nobel in economics, despite being one of the best and most breakthrough psychologists in recent times. (His pop sci treatment of his and Tversky's seminal "Heuristics and Biases" came out a couple years ago, "Thinking Fast and Slow". If Heuristics and Biases is too long/dry/boring, read the pop sci version, as it's the best model (that I've heard of) for how human brains actually think.) This also impacts public policy and health. If psychologists are so unscientific and not rigorous, they'll get the wrong results at best. And at worst, the field will just be manipulated for political reasons. Also, it gives people and excuse to not take psychology seriously. Hell, some people still refer to Freud reverently. (Sadly, the author of "Flow", Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi seems to fall into this category and I'm sad to see he supported the nonsense in this article.) There's great book called "How to Think Straight About Psychology" and I wish more psychologists would read it (it's a great general read, and the 9th edition is cheap). An interesting note on it is that a lot of the book is just basic critical thinking, rationality, basic science. The fact this needed to be pointed out specifically for psychology seems a bit unsettling. But perhaps that just reflects on people overall - if psychologists, who are supposed to be scientists, are so far off mark, how much worse the general public?