#Toutiao Creation Challenge#1. I recently read a book, Keith Stannovic's "This Is Psychology", the English name "how to think straight about psychology", which is literally translated as "How to think rationally about psychology".

1.

Recently read a book, Keith Stannovic's " This is Psychology ", the English name is "how to think straight about psychology", which is literally translated as "How to think psychology rationally".

This book says that modern psychology is not the "best-selling psychology" related to inspiration, money-making (success science), workplace, weight loss, etc., nor is it similar to Freud "Analysis of Dreams ", which is a theoretical building built on the sand in an individual case + thinking.

In short, there is no need to put psychology off the myth, thinking that it is a universal plaster that can exert magical effects everywhere. There is no need to demonize psychology and deny it as metaphysics.

I originally thought that this book was about the introduction of psychological research results and theoretical systems. Unexpectedly, this book introduces a large number of scientific methodologies and how psychology applies scientific methodologies to advance experiments.

Rather than saying that this book talks about what psychology is, it is more about what science is, and by the way, how psychology meets scientific standards.

The author believes that modern psychology is actually a rigorous and meticulous science. Why? Because it satisfies the three elements of science: systematically using to empirical research on , which can be publicly verified and empirically tested.

Empirical research refers to research conducted by researchers who personally collect observational data and aim to propose theoretical hypotheses or test theoretical hypotheses. The opposite is based on the void, metaphysical , purely imagined, not research results obtained through observation and experience.

For example, physics is an obvious empirical study. Astrology and divination are not empirical research.

publicly verified that peers can obtain the same results through repeated experiments through public methods and can pass peer review.

For example, I say that people have the characteristics of loss-loss and hate . When 90% of the possible choices of 1w and 100% of the 9k, the latter will usually be chosen.

Other psychologists have done similar experiments, obtained the same results, and passed peer review.

can be empirically tested to be falsified, and everyone can confirm or falsify the theory in some way. For example, if the moon is circling around the earth, it can be observed and confirmed through a telescope. If the moon does not revolve around the earth, then it will be falsified.

If I say that God has six eyes and eight mouths, no one has seen God before, and he cannot see God through some observation method to verify whether my theory is correct. This is not falsification, so theology cannot be regarded as science.

2.

At the same time, psychology, like science, studies operationalism, rather than essentialism .

Operationalism refers to specific operational issues. For example, science only answers such as "What elements is air composed of, what percentage of nitrogen , how much oxygen , etc.", "Why do objects fall? The reason is gravity, and the acceleration is 9.8N/kg".

What is essentialism? Essentialism is the belief that everything has its essence, which can be recognized and revealed. For example, what is the essence of human beings? What is the meaning of life ? What is the essential nature of the relationship between people?

Essenceism pursues the exploration and understanding of the essence of problems. Of course,

is not bad. In philosophy, there are many thoughts and explorations about the essence and thoughts on the ultimate problem.

As for the third question of classic philosophy, who are you? Where did you come from and where?

If you answer specific names of people and place names, then this is not philosophy, and philosophers do not have standard answers. Everyone's answers may vary greatly depending on their own cognition. Even the same person's answers to these three same questions will continue to change in different situations and times.

And in science, or modern science, essential problems are not the main direction to pursue.

What it studies and explores may not be essential, but must be specific, operational, observable, and repeatable rules.

3.

Since I know the definition of science and the methodology of science, an idea came to my mind: Is it scientific to succeed? Of course,

does not count. I knew it didn’t count before, but I just vaguely felt something was wrong. It was a bit "unscientific", but I didn’t know clearly what was wrong and why it was wrong.

After all, I used to like it very much and believe in for success learning . From Chen Anzhi's book, I saw the Anthony Robin's book, I took a lot of notes and made a lot of "changes". There was even a period of time when I was sleeping with the content of the course of success learning at night.

So did I succeed? The answer is obvious, but it doesn't exist.

Successful study, don’t look at it as “learning”, you think it is a subject or science.

In fact, as we have already talked about above, the scientific definition is to use empirical research, which can be publicly repeated, empirically verified, and emphasize operationalism rather than essentialism.

, and no one can reach the level of success, and even every one has crossed the line.

1. Let’s talk about empirical research first. The theories of success science are not derived through empirical research, but conclusions derived through imagination or individual examples.

For example, Chen Anzhi said in "21 Beliefs that Determine Life", "I want me to do it."

How did he come to the conclusion?

Successful learning books generally write like this: Tony from the United States, or Jason from Jason, or Lao Wang from China, has an impossible task, but through thinking, they found a certain method and finally completed the impossible task.

So, "I want me to do it". What you really want to accomplish, even if it is difficult and seems impossible, will definitely be able to do it. The inference of the conclusion of

is a case study (even if there are multiple examples), and is not representative or universal, so the foothold of his conclusion is unstable.

's theoretical foundation is not solid, and peers cannot set the same conditions to reproduce the results, let alone verify it, which is definitely wrong.

is like I want to win a lottery of 1000w. As long as I want, can I win? If I can win, then everyone can win the 1000w lottery. There is also the same error as

"It's not impossible, but the method has not been found for the time being".

Then I want to extract gold (Au) from pure water, is it possible? It takes a hundred years and I guess I can't find a way.

2. Another error type is the confusion of causality.

For example, this sentence, "100% success comes from attitude."

That is to say, attitude determines success? What's wrong with

? This is a mistake that correlation does not represent causality.

Just like I go running every evening, the sun sets as I run. So can my running cause the sun to set? If I don’t run, the whole world will continue during the day?

Attitude may affect success or be a relevant factor, but there is no evidence of causality between the two.

At the same time, this sentence also makes multiple reasons for mistakes.

Many things, especially success, may be caused by a mixture of multiple reasons, such as track (industry), timing, effort, professional ability, luck, etc.

attitude is just one of the reasons. It only proposes one factor and completely ignores other factors. This will make people mistakenly think that "success" is simple, and thus ignores the role of other factors. Without making corresponding preparations, it will reduce the chance of success.

3. The scientific theoretical system, the conclusions are usually coordinated, organically combined, and logically self-consistent.

There are many contradictory conclusions in the science of success.

For example, as mentioned earlier, "I want me," it fully highlights that personal intention is higher than material conditions and is the decisive factor. As long as I want, I can completely ignore all objective conditions and achieve the desired result.

But later, I said, "If the mountain doesn't come, I will go there." This also explains the impact of the objective world on how it is done, so that I can only change myself to cater to it.

is in conflict with the above.

Another example is that, before, “Success comes 100% from attitude”, and later, “decision determines success.” Both of these "decided" successfully. So which one really "decided" success? Isn’t this conflicting? The examples above

are just a few examples selected in Chen Anzhi's "21 Beliefs Determining Life Achievements". If you read books related to success science and listen to related speeches, you will find that there are more mistakes and problems.

This is also the reason why success science is not scientific.

4,

OK, but I didn’t expect that the word “science” that we are very common has such rich connotations and elaborations, and has a rising posture. Students who have learned it by

Remember to like and follow it, see you next time.

Figure: stable diffusion