> 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...

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?"

'seem' is the operative word here.

> A, a positivist reductionist.

With respect to psychology, given its history, the burden isn't on me to avoid faulty generalizations, it's on psychology to overcome the weight of its past.

> Expectations on intellectual sophistication and ability to comprehend the world beyond simplistic models calibrated.

At a time when the director of the NIMH has decided to abandon the DSM on the ground that it's not scientific enough to take seriously?

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Quote: "The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better."

What appears to be a simplistic generalization is, in this case, the result of much reflection and analysis, and a reluctant but legitimate conclusion.

And what makes you think that they didn't account for the "I don't knows"?

It generally surprises me how, from reading an 100 high mile description of an article, some commenters always assume (without any evidence) that the results are due to some extremely naive methodological mistake.

Yep, I had a lot of nerve doing that. :)

A while ago, in an article I noted that Wikipedia defined neuroscience as "the scientific study of the brain and nervous system", while psychology was defined as "the study of the mind, partly through the study of behavior." Within hours of my article's appearance someone inserted the word "scientific" into psychology's definition. Solved that problem.

> I recall reading something posted recently about how the way the grants in social sciences is set up ensures that you get a whole lot of papers that have a catchy 'truthy' hook to them, which will then get disseminated by the mainstream media and quickly forgotten.

Yes, even to the extent that two studies arrive at opposite conclusions but don't notice each other (and no one points out the contradiction). My favorite example of overlooked contradictions are two current, well-regarded psychological theories -- Grit and Asperger Syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait) : "Grit in psychology is a positive, non-cognitive trait, based on an individual’s passion for a particular long-term goal or endstate coupled with a powerful motivation to achieve their respective objective."

So according to the Grit contingent, focusing on a few activities, or just one, is a "good thing", and typical of successful people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome : "Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's syndrome or Asperger disorder, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."

So according to the Asperger contingent, focusing on a few activities, or just one, is a mental illness.

How can this happen? The answer is that there's no central defining theory in psychology, so people are free to draw conclusions that don't need to be compared to tested, defining principles like relativity or evolution.

> It basically turned the fields into little more than generators of soundbites.

Well put. :)

That may be true, but only one of those can be studied scientifically.

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.

The thing I've found to be true in my case is that I do have bad memory in general -- but this is because of the unique childhood I had: I was never forced to memorize anything. I've a habit of referencing my smartphone when I need to know what someone's phonenumber is, I've a habit of looking at address books and maps to know where someone is, instead of making a concerted effort to think where they live beforehand. My brother-in-law is the opposite of me: he purposely avoids using his smartphone/GPS, and instead looks at Google Maps directions before taking off for the trip... and relies on it with memory. I asked him why he did that instead of just using the GPS that he does have and he straight up told me he does these things for memory exercises. So now, at least for the past few months, I've also been making a concerted effort in improving my memory and I've found that I can do these incredible things... I can memorize pi to 100 digit, I can memorize pages of books that are in a language I barely understand -- despite my shrink telling me that I have terrible memory.

So I don't think 300bps's comment was offensive at all. Memory is very much a skill that can be improved with dedicated effort. I'm someone who long believed until recently that I had bad memory and I had to deal with it... but this is not true, I can do mental exercises to improve it. Research has proved time and again that learning new languages, new musical instruments, etc. are great exercises to keep the mind/memory sharp. I implore you to look into the idea: use little tricks, read the book "Moonwalking with Einstein" (it's about memorizing things in fun ways), take about a week to memorize digits of pi (spend about 10 hours, I'd say -- use various techniques (which you can read up on online)), and get back to us. See if you truly can or can't memorize pi to the 50th (or even 100th) digit if you really put the effort to it. The more you do it, the more your ability will improve. If it takes you 5 hours the first time around to remember some 50 digits, it'll take you just one hour the next 50th time you do it.

For example, journalist and author, Joshua Foer[1], talks about the astonishing feats of memory by average people. It becomes more persuasive, when it turns personal. While he starts out by writing a story on memory championships, he decides to take it further and delves deep into learning the techniques himself. Some time later, he ends up becoming the USA Champion!

"In 2006, Foer won the U.S.A. Memory Championship, and set a new USA record in the "speed cards" event by memorizing a deck of 52 cards in 1 minute and 40 seconds"[1]

The Ted Talk provides more detail [2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Foer

[2] http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_foer_feats_of_memory_anyone_...

I strongly recommend the book "Moonwalking with Einstein" which was very enlightening for me.

The research is on the parent's side: most people can improve their memory performance with focused practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-...

This should not seem that surprising; we easily accept that most people can improve their physical fitness with exercise, for example.

300bps didn't do that though. So did he/she actually mean what was said? Well no, because 10 minutes later your criticisms will be dismissed as [strikethrough]pedantry[/strikethrough] silliness.

I highly recommend reading Moonwalking with Einstein. It's about a journalist who got interested in memory competitions and, with a lot of practice, ended up winning the US memory championship. Anyone can do it.

[0] http://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Rememberi...

Thanks. Just to dig the hole deeper for myself - I used to have a terrible time falling asleep when I was younger.

For the past 20 years though I sleep like a baby every night. If I wake up in the middle of the night (normally due to one of my 3 children or my wife), I fall back asleep with no problem.

Honestly the only thing I did differently was I managed to convince myself that I am a great sleeper. I found the thing that was keeping me up nights was worrying about how much sleep I was going to eke out that night.

I'm sure someone will now say how arrogant and smug I am because they have a disorder that causes them to smack themselves in the face every 10 seconds which makes good sleep impossible.

i already have a preconception that i'll forget about everything if i don't write it down.

I purposely write nothing down temporarily. I deal with CUSIPs at work a lot and I will purposely memorize them for short time periods instead of copying/pasting them because I find the more I do it, the better I am at it.

Oh no, this guy maybe over reached in his assumption about how well general people can memorize numbers! Better make ourselves look like idiots and go wildly off point about it!

Check out the thread about that guy's blog "Kids these days can't use computers" as a prime example :(

What I said is that most people don't try to memorize things because they think that they can't.

Most people memorize things by simple repetition

Sure, and most people don't try to memorize things because (again) they think that they can't no matter what technique they use.

I don't buy it

I'm not selling anything. I'm merely passing on my own experiences and those of my friends. If you choose to continue to believe you can't memorize things because of some innate lack of ability, it doesn't affect me at all.

If you have a mental handicap, my comment was not directed toward you and I hope you took no offense.

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff100/fv00014.htm

or as a method for private communication

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff800/fv00751.htm

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.