Timeline for Improving Skills with Mental Training
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2021 at 12:26 | vote | accept | Evgeni Reznik | ||
| Oct 20, 2019 at 23:17 | comment | added | Steve Weigand | @JohnP Again, that shouldn’t matter in determining what happens to people on average. It just needs randomized groups of people, with each group assigned different tasks (visualization only, action only, visualization plus action, and do nothing). Then you look at average results. You won’t be able to predict how any particular person will perform, but you can know the probability. All pretty standard science stuff. | |
| Oct 19, 2019 at 5:39 | comment | added | JohnP♦ | No, I mean that there is no way to compare. Take person A, at a set point in performance. Train for 6 months using visualization and they improve Y percent. There is no way to backtrack and start from point A again and compare without visualization. | |
| Oct 19, 2019 at 1:07 | comment | added | Steve Weigand | @JohnP Yes, nobody can see inside of someone's brain to know what they're thinking about at any given moment. But you don't really have to for this experiment. You can just look at things you can observe, which are the results of the experiment. There will be some people who are terrible at visualization, while others are "gifted" at it. That doesn't matter. What matters are averages in the observed results. So I don't see too much that's wrong with the methodology in theory. Peer review would detect methodological problems. | |
| Oct 19, 2019 at 0:42 | comment | added | JohnP♦ | The problem is that you can't quantify the visualization for a study because it's so individual. | |
| Oct 16, 2019 at 16:23 | history | answered | Steve Weigand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |