Why We believe in Superstitions

People tend to believe in Superstitions.

Those who believe show off as a Non believer to assert they are rational.

But Human Psyche needs props.

Superstitions reinforce that need.

Why do we believe in Superstitions?


People tend to believe in Superstitions.

Omen of Ill luck.


Those who believe show off as a Non believer to assert they are rational.


But Human Psyche needs props.


Superstitions reinforce that need.


Why do we believe in Superstitions?



A menacing ladder, a black cat. Perhaps I’d better knock wood before proceeding. No need to apologize if the approach of Halloween makes you extra superstitious. Many successful people harbor superstitions aplenty – and serious scientists find superstition a rich field of study. Our Cover Story is reported by Susan Spencer of “48 Hours”:


Casey Daigle pitched in the major leagues; his wife, Jenny Finch, won Olympic medals in softball. Their proud careers were built on talent, and (although they don’t like to admit it) a little superstition, some of it pretty strange . . .

Before each game Casey would put his socks on a certain way. “There was months, there was weeks that I wouldn’t shave,” he said, “as bad as it itches, and I mean you’re in the summer playing in Arizona. It’s 115 degrees and you got a beard! But you gotta suck it up, that’s part of it.”

“I would always put my bat bag in the same spot, my glove in the same spot, my helmet,” said Jennie. “When it came down to it, I had two favorite sports bras. I wanted that same sports bra for the game.”

Casey said that if he were the home team, “I would go to the bathroom in the fifth inning. If we were the away team, then I would go to the bathroom in the sixth inning. Even if you didn’t have to go to the bathroom, you went to the bathroom.”….

What is superstition? “A belief or an action that is inconsistent with science,” said Vyse. “And it needs to be aimed at bringing about good luck, or avoiding bad luck.”

Vyse says only 40 percent of Americans believe in evolution. And in superstition? “Over half of Americans have some kind of superstition that they believe in,” he said.

“So more Americans have some specific superstition than believe in evolution?” asked Spencer.

“That’s right, that’s right. That would be true. And that’s not a good thing.”

A new CBS News poll for “Sunday Morning” finds more than half of all Americans (51 percent) knock on wood to avoid bad luck; 16 percent won’t open umbrellas indoors; 13 percent carry a good luck charm; and one in ten (10 percent) avoids black cats….

“Just think of Halloween as an advertisement for superstitions,” said Cornell University psychology professor Tom Gilovich.

And like any good advertisement, superstitions have the power to overcome your rational brain, said Gilovich.

“One of the interesting things about superstitions is their seemingly arbitrary nature,” he said. “Like, why 13? Why black cats? Why ladders? Don’t walk under that ladder! It has no rational bearing. But now you feel like you’re tempting fate and the outcome, a bad outcome, that could befall you is going to be worse because you deliberately did something that people tell you you shouldn’t do.”


“And is the outcome likely to be worse?” asked Spencer.


“No! Absolutely not,” laughed Gilovich.


But here’s what’s really scary: Gilovich says our brains are wired to believe this nonsense – to find cause and effect where there is none.

“The baseball player who has this elaborate superstition about putting socks on in a certain order, he noted he didn’t try to remember this; the mind just registered that when he put his socks on that particular day, something good happened. And therefore that becomes hard to ignore,” said Gilovich.

Casey Daigle explained: “You go out and as a hitter you go one game, you go four for four with two doubles and a triple. Well, every baseball player I know almost is going to think in their head, What did I do during the day today that got me to go four for four? Well, if there’s a couple of things that stick out, I bet the bank account they’re going to do it tomorrow.”

That’s an even safer bet when things are tense.

And without nervousness, there might be no superstitions at all.

Jennifer Whitson at the University of Texas in Austin says superstitions grow out of our need to take charge of situations, and to reduce anxiety: “If you’re just a more anxious person, you are sort of set up to be a little bit more superstitious. You just have a lot more ambient anxiety.

“We become very anxious when we lack control. And one of the ways if we can’t regain it objectively is to try and regain it perceptually. Maybe I can’t actually keep something bad from happening to me. But if I knock on wood, then I’ve done something. Right? I’ve taken action. And that can help someone feel less anxious as a result.”



Enhanced by Zemanta

‘Precognition, Premonition’ Proof-Porn Linked,Experiments, Data

In a series of experiments revealed  by a paper by Professor Daryl J Bem of Cornell University,claims to have produced results suggesting that humans are capable of such feats as precognition and premonition.

The Experiments.

"precognition 2012 Premonition _2012/04/19815801.jpg

Prof. Bem of Cornell University, New York State, carried out a series of nine different experiments involving over 1,000 volunteer students, and has published the results in a paper entitled “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect”, which will appear in the peer-reviewed Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Bem defines psi as “anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms”, and chose to study “precognition (conscious cognitive awareness) and premonition (affective apprehension) of a future event that could not otherwise be anticipated through any known inferential process”. His methodology was simple, testing for “anomalous retroactive influence of some future event on an individual’s current responses” by “time reversing” well-established psychological effects “so that the individual’s responses are obtained before the putatively causal stimulus events occur”.

One experiment involved the students being shown a long list of words and being asked to remember as many as possible. They were then asked to type a selection of words randomly selected by computer from the original list. In an apparently striking example of causality seemingly working in reverse, the students proved significantly better at recalling words they would later type.

The Porn Link.
In another experiment, devised to test precognition, Bem provided his volunteers with the following instructions: “This is an experiment that tests for ESP. It takes about 20 minutes and is run completely by computer. First you will answer a couple of brief questions. Then, on each trial of the experiment, pictures of two curtains will appear on the screen side by side. One of them has a picture behind it; the other has a blank wall behind it. Your task is to click on the curtain that you feel has the picture behind it. The curtain will then open, permitting you to see if you selected the correct curtain. There will be 36 trials in all. Several of the pictures contain explicit erotic images (e.g., couples engaged in nonviolent but explicit consensual sexual acts). If you object to seeing such images, you should not participate in this experiment.” 

Which curtain covered an image was selected randomly by computer, which should have given subjects a 50 per cent chance of correctly locating the image. The results were interesting, to say the least, with subjects achieving an overall hit-rate of 53.1 per cent for the pornographic pictures; while this may not sound all that impressive, statistically speaking it is significantly above chance. Their hit-rate on the neutral, non-erotic pictures was 49.8 per cent. Similar above-chance results were found in eight of the nine experiments, and across all nine an average ‘affect size’ of 0.22 was obtained.

Read The Full Report 

Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect.
Bem, Daryl J.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 100(3), Mar 2011, 407-425. doi: 10.1037/a0021524


  1. The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. Two variants of psi are precognition (conscious cognitive awareness) and premonition (affective apprehension) of a future event that could not otherwise be anticipated through any known inferential process. Precognition and premonition are themselves special cases of a more general phenomenon: the anomalous retroactive influence of some future event on an individual’s current responses, whether those responses are conscious or nonconscious, cognitive or affective. This article reports 9 experiments, involving more than 1,000 participants, that test for retroactive influence by “time-reversing” well-established psychological effects so that the individual’s responses are obtained before the putatively causal stimulus events occur. Data are presented for 4 time-reversed effects: precognitive approach to erotic stimuli and precognitive avoidance of negative stimuli; retroactive priming; retroactive habituation; and retroactive facilitation of recall. The mean effect size (d) in psi performance across all 9 experiments was 0.22, and all but one of the experiments yielded statistically significant results. The individual-difference variable of stimulus seeking, a component of extraversion, was significantly correlated with psi performance in 5 of the experiments, with participants who scored above the midpoint on a scale of stimulus seeking achieving a mean effect size of 0.43. Skepticism about psi, issues of replication, and theories of psi are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
  2. http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&id=71EC0CD9-EFDE-3FCF-F70B-BA07E8743176&resultID=1&page=1&dbTab=pa
Enhanced by Zemanta

Now You can view The Mistakes of Scientists


We normally accept the the statements 0f Scientists as  Gospel.


We never get to know the othe side of the story.


The Data is interpreted to suit the Scientist’s (not all scientists indulge in this) view or worse still the view of the Sponsor,say a Pharma Company.


Peer reviewed Journals are also guilty of this crime.

Logo of ResearchGate
ResearchGate Logo

A Medical Student has come out with a web service, where Scientists papers are Published straight , with out moderation .


Negative comments are published.


It’s a way of bringing academics together online, but it’s also a means of instantly publishing research. Yes, there are other sites that let you self-publish academic work — most notably Cornell University’sarXiv and the Public Library of Science — but ResearchGate goes further. Part of the aim is to share research even before it’s packaged into a formal paper — including “negative data” that may show that a particular thesis isn’t worth following.

“There has to be a way for scientists to share negative data, so that we’re not just making the same mistakes again and again,” Madisch says. “We spend so much time and money on experiments that we already know don’t work.”

Today, the service claims nearly 2 million registered users, and though it continues to battle the skepticism of researchers who still see traditional journals as the best way to share and validate research — not to mention build a career — it’s slowly winning over many of its most ardent critics.

It’s a great thing — and I was surprised it’s a great thing,” says Rafael Luque, a professor of organic chemistry at the University of Córdoba, who shares completed research papers as well as raw experiments and ideas. “At first, it looked like just another version of Facebook. I have nothing against Facebook. I just don’t have time for it. But ResearchGate is different. It stimulates thought.”

Madisch grew up in Germany, where he studied medicine before coming to the States for an M.D.-Ph.D. program at Harvard. It was there he dreamed up the idea of ResearchGate. “I wanted to form teams of scientists all over the world,” he says. “And I wanted to go across disciplines.” The idea was so attractive to him, he eventually decided to curtail his medical studies so he could spend more time developing it — a decision that raised the ire of his longtime adviser back in Germany.


Click on the Link below to enter the site.




Can psychology make them eat?

Bottom line is eat natural Food, avoid fast/junk food.
Food habits are to be regulated from childhood.This can be done by example by parents.
Children by nature do not develop likes and dislikes for food.it is a learned habit.It is determined by the parents,society and the culture in which they are placed.
Essential that parents do not show like or dislike for natural food while the child is observing.
Hide the chocolate milk behind the plain milk. Get those apples and oranges out of stainless steel bins and into pretty baskets. Cash only for desserts.

These subtle moves can entice kids to make healthier choices in school lunch lines, studies show. Food and restaurant marketers have long used similar tricks. Now the government wants in on the act.

The U.S. Department of Agricultureannounced what it called a major new initiative Tuesday, giving $2 million to food behavior scientists to find ways to use psychology to improve kids’ use of the federal school lunch program and fight childhood obesity.



PUEBLO, Colo. — At 8:28 a.m., the cafeteria ladies of Centennial High School take up positions in the second-floor hallway, just outside closed classroom doors. Each woman is pushing a cart loaded with milk, juice, whole-wheat doughnuts and individual packages of Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms cereal.


%d bloggers like this: