-2

This caught my attention So I am reading "The beginners guide to Quantum Psychology" by Stephen.H Wolinsky and he talks about different dimensions and how you can not mix two different dimensions. His example is that imaging that you are earning money, or being given money will not end up with you rich in reality because you are mixing two different dimensions. Well that makes sense. But isn't imagining or daydreaming about the things you want apart of the law of attraction which apparently works? So these two ideas contradict or am I missing something? When i asked about this I was told that the Law of Attraction is not to be taken seriously. A little explanation on how they connect would be appreciated.

Jack
  • 1

1 Answers1

6

Attaching a scientific-sounding name to something it doesn't apply to by a long shot, such as "quantum psychology" or "quantum leadership", waving around images of fractals with no apparent reason, and dragging into the picture the Schroedinger's cat by its tail - all these are typical signs of pseudo-scientific bullshit that, alas, engulfed American academia. The purpose of all that is not to help you understand something; on the contrary, the purpose is to confuse you into awe of those who cook up this nonsense, usually without slightest understanding of the buzzwords they borrow.

Michael
  • 2,075
  • 15
  • 21
  • I'm not so sure. Economists and other non-physicists at many times borrow mathematical models and concepts from physics. In some cases these models are quantum mechanical. That seems to justify the attachment of the word "quantum". See this for example. –  Nov 12 '13 at 08:11
  • @Transmissionfrom: borrowing mathematical model from physics or creating a model that somehow resembles the physical one would definitely excuse the term. I read your link, but am not familiar with developments it refers to, not sure whether they borrow math model or just refer to for the sake of buzz. The "quantum" in social science classes I've been exposed to 10-ish years ago was complete and utter nonsense, piggybacking on physics for the purpose of parasiting respect out of the buzzwords that were respected but not understood by general public. – Michael Nov 12 '13 at 16:54
  • @Transmissionfrom: I would also look at Economics separately from other social sciences: although there's a considerable overlap with psychology and such, IMO the amount of mathematics economics utilizes put its on par with some of the natural sciences, such as Chemistry or Biology, in terms of scientific method and available rigour. IMHO there is significantly less bull in Economics than in, say, Sociology. – Michael Nov 12 '13 at 17:04
  • Here you may observe that the MathOverflow people are not at all dismissive of, in this case, quantum game theory. Now, out of curiosity, I had a quick glance at the book in the question above. I'm saddened to observe that, in this case, your answer seems spot-on. +1 –  Nov 12 '13 at 18:10
  • 1
    It gets worse. The book appears to be self-published by the "Quantum Institute Inc". He's also the founder of "Quantum Psychology®". They are 46 minutes away from you. :) –  Nov 12 '13 at 18:33
  • @Transmissionfrom: just looked them up, they are close indeed, and specialize in business consulting. That makes the title of the book quite appropriate: it would make their clients, business executive, feel smart and important: they are learning something "quantum", meaning it's well beyond understanding of their underlings. The content of the course is immaterial, all it needs to do is reinforce the clients' smugness. – Michael Nov 12 '13 at 19:17
  • "typical signs of pseudo-scientific bullshit that, alas, engulfed American academia" I'd like to chat with you about this, can we? Thanks! – Rodrigo Mar 17 '15 at 14:25
  • @Rodrigo: sure. – Michael Mar 17 '15 at 15:59
  • But how? I can't figure how to call you into the chat... – Rodrigo Mar 17 '15 at 20:00
  • @Rodrigo: I meant we could exchange comments here if you'd like. Skype-style chat won't work for me anyway: I attend stack exchange sporadically throughout the day, while my code compiles or tests are running. – Michael Mar 17 '15 at 20:16
  • Ok. I'm discussing this with some friends from the social sciences (I'm a biologist), but it's so hard for them to SEE what I'm talking about. Maybe I could show them some MORE references... Do you have some for "engulfed American academia"? Preferably some source from inside sociology? Thank you! – Rodrigo Mar 17 '15 at 20:37
  • @Rodrigo: here's a classic essay on that: http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html . There are more recent ones, of course. There are titles such as "quantum leadership" which start by completely misinterpreting scientific theories and misapplying the misinterpretation in a totally irrelevant settings. My wife had to write an essay on one of these, I'll try to find her critique tomorrow. She encountered nonsense like "according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, nobody can know everything; therefore, you should share different pieces information between different employees." – Michael Mar 17 '15 at 22:30
  • Hahahaha that's funny! But at least is not so dangerous! Here in Brazil we have one widespread in the country, a portuguese named Boaventura de Sousa Santos. He says Darwin is no more than "english imperialism" and that teology, yes! That's a good alternative... He destroys more than 150 years of research in biology in a single, horribly written paragraph! – Rodrigo Mar 18 '15 at 02:21
  • I agree with the general idea that we have lots to learn with indigenous people, after all, their mythologies are full of millenia of scientific experiences... but they shouldn't destroy modern science or academic legibility to state this. – Rodrigo Mar 18 '15 at 02:23