In two earlier posts I have written about A social science about what could be and about a psychology of possibility. In the first post I quoted Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (from memory) who something like: "Social science is too much focused on what is. We need a social science which is about what could be." I then commented: "Social science is often aimed at identifying differences, associations, patterns and mechanisms in the real world as it is. Sometimes, this makes it a conservative force." I mentioned some surprising research by Claude Steel and Joshua Aronson which showed how very simple interventions could lead to amazing effects on the performance of minority groups on intellectual capability tests. In the second post I mentioned Ellen Langer, author of the book Counterclockwise.
She too has done some very surprising research on remaining productive and vital into old age. A group of elderly men was asked to act as if they had traveled back in time which led to amazing actual improvements in their health and fitness. Ellen Langer argues for a psychology of possibility, which would explicitly focus not on what is but on what can be. She says: "The psychology of possibility is more positive, less evaluative, and more process-oriented that most personal and scientific research. In the psychology of possibility, interpreting findings is also a different process. Only one participant is needed to prove that something is possible. Exceptional cases become the focal point of the investigation. What the naysayers know is only based on probabilities, which were deduced from a fixed view of what was studied. Just as we can't prove that something is so in advance, the naysayers can't prove that it is not possible.
She too has done some very surprising research on remaining productive and vital into old age. A group of elderly men was asked to act as if they had traveled back in time which led to amazing actual improvements in their health and fitness. Ellen Langer argues for a psychology of possibility, which would explicitly focus not on what is but on what can be. She says: "The psychology of possibility is more positive, less evaluative, and more process-oriented that most personal and scientific research. In the psychology of possibility, interpreting findings is also a different process. Only one participant is needed to prove that something is possible. Exceptional cases become the focal point of the investigation. What the naysayers know is only based on probabilities, which were deduced from a fixed view of what was studied. Just as we can't prove that something is so in advance, the naysayers can't prove that it is not possible.
I guess there is already research that might fit under the heading of psychology of possibility (Carol Dweck's work, Steele and Aronson's work, John Bargh's work, etc). But I think these research programs have not been deliberately carried out as psychology of possibility projects. Here is what I would like to ask:
- Is the idea of a psychology of possibility realizable?
- How could a psychology of possibility be approached systematically?
2 comments, click here to add your comment:
Coert,
To answer your questions.
1. I believe the psychology of possibility is realizable.
2. Here's how it can be approached:
Find exceptional results wherever you can. Form a hypothesis about the people who achieved these results. Test that hypothesis.
Another approach would follow somehting similar to an SF pattern.
Notice a problem people or groups of people have.
Define the solution state people would like to have (we can find this out from the many people who have the problem).
Identify people who have already achieved the solution state.
Find out how they did it.
Do studies to verify that the strategies from these successful people actually can transfer over to others.
Rinse and repeat.
thanks Rodney, Sounds good. I find it a pity that I am not hearing a lot about the psychology of possibility. I think it has got potential and would like to see it get picked up more
Post a Comment