> In a valid fluid dynamics problem, the numbers plugged into the equation must correlate to the properties of the fluid being studied. But in attempting to draw an equivalence between the physical flow of liquids and the emotional “flow” of human beings, Losada had simply lifted the numbers that Lorenz used in 1963 to explain his method in the abstract, numbers used merely for illustrative purposes. Losada’s results, along with the pretty butterfly graphs Brown had been shown in class, were essentially meaningless.
Incredible. So it wasn't just a matter of, say, applying an equation beyond its domain, or generating the inputs to the function in a sketchy way, or hacking the inputs to the function until they got an answer they liked, but literally copying example parameters from a 1963 paper.
The "Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking" paper is very readable:
It is very readable, and it utterly nihilates Losada's papers. It is hard to believe that anyone could have taken them seriously, let alone let them get published. Sigh. Nice touch that Sokal helped debunking it.
I wonder to which extent this taints the whole of "Positive Psychology", which I was moderately excited about.
Incredible. So it wasn't just a matter of, say, applying an equation beyond its domain, or generating the inputs to the function in a sketchy way, or hacking the inputs to the function until they got an answer they liked, but literally copying example parameters from a 1963 paper.
The "Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking" paper is very readable:
https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/complex_dynamics_final...