We (N = 17 Labs and N = 1,550 participants, after exclusions) experimentally tested whether original author involvement improved replicability of a classic finding from Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1994). Our results were non-diagnostic of whether original author involvement improves replicability because we were unable to replicate the finding under any conditions. This suggests that the original finding was either a false positive or the conditions necessary to obtain it are not fully understood or no longer exist. Data, materials, analysis code, preregistration, and supplementary documents can be found on the OSF page: https://osf.io/8ccnw/
I mean, you're still going to die, but at least you can rest assured that Terror Management Theory failed to replicate.
Phew.
In my defense, the linked chapter did have a whole section on "From Theory to Data" which I did not bother to read.
I think the theory is ok. The ridiculous part is believing that you can prove the theory with an experiment on undergrads.
I feel like the last paragraph drifts into truisms. Of course you can explain all human behavior with reference to material personal benefit or to some value beyond the self, broadly defined. What else that one might strive for would not fit in one of those two categories?
In sum, each person knows that he or she will die one day....
I guess we aren't doing spoiler alerts anymore.
We found strong results with middle-schoolers.
Obviously middle schoolers are more aware of death because that's where all the mass shooters are.
Am I missing something? This seems like a very dramatic name for common sense. Yes, the struggle for meaning is linked to the fear of death. The first time I can remember encountering that idea was in a Justice League comic book (JLA: Heaven's Ladder if anyone is interested, by Mark Waid and Bryan Hitch) and I'm pretty sure it's older than that. I guess it might be interesting to link the importance of self-esteem to the fear of death too, but isn't everything in psychology linked to the fear of death somehow? I guess maybe not the sex drive, but sometimes even that...
8: I think people sometimes are so avoidant of death that we make up unnecessarily complicated theories of why we do something in order to avoid saying "WE'RE SCARED OF THE ABYSS!!"
However, I think this misses theory something about catastrophic misery. Anxiety is sometimes because being precariousness leads to homelessness, which doesn't need death to be really fucking awful. Sometimes we want to avoid pain and suffering because they hurt. AS RADICAL A NOTION AS THAT MAY BE.
This topic really brings out my capslock, apparently. APPARENTLY.
But again, animals are motivated to avoid pain. I do think that TMT is getting at something more distinctly human.
HUMAN.
8: This kind of experimental psychology is taking theories of human nature that may be considered to be "common sense" and/or might have been developed by philosophers and novelists and turning into a working theory that can be tested with experiments on unsuspecting undergrads.
What else that one might strive for would not fit in one of those two categories?
Body modification to look like a demon, addiction after trying to stop, Roy Cohn maybe. Giving up or giving in is a lifestyle.
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls. You can check www.belltollsforwhom.com."
Looking like a demon is an aesthetic ideal and would certainly live after one.
Hmm. What about the disorder that makes people want to cut their own leg off? There's a lot of human behavior maladaptive to any coherent ideal, and it can be a dominant part of a person's life, maybe more than just one person's life. Hoarders are another kind of persistent bad behavior. Probably a tangernt to the OP, but I don't see the idea that selfish or collective benefit leads to behavior as a truism with universal scope, which is how I understood "all" in 4. If "most" instead of all, or "most that's fun to talk about", then comity.
I mean that "indirectly supporting symbolic immortality: the pursuit of self-esteem and/or meaning" seems a lot broader and more catchall than "collective benefit". Strange fixations, if unexplainable even by the person, I guess could fall outside of it.
I'm thinking of something on CT years ago which pointed out that if you expand the theory of rational enterprises to say businesses could be pursuing strategic or reputational advantages as well as material gain, your economic theory has become unfalsifiable, as almost anything could be justified strategically or reputationally.
Now economic theory is unfalsifiable for other reasons.
Feels like this is down in the weeds, but I'm not sure about that either. Roy Cohn destroyed Lionel trains, Enron was destroyed by fraud, Musk's choices are destroying Twitter's ad revenue. Theories that don't have scope for malice or delusion, including willful delusion, but claim to cover human behavior raise questions for me. Again I think a discussion about what "all" or "unfalsifiable" means, by bringing up possibilities that don't include good intent. I see these as pretty fundamental to human action, but that's often neither pleasant nor interesting to mention. For businesses though, the line between fraud and motivated optimism is often not at all clear to draw IMO.
I had to laugh, because this reminded me so much of the "it's all will to power!" phase people go through after reading Nietzsche for the first time.
Be careful, lest in casting out your demon you exorcise the best thing in you.
The theory may not hold up empirically, but it sure has a cool name.
Roy Cohn destroyed Lionel trains
Wait. What?
Perhaps only tangentially relevant, but a few months ago I broke my arm, and so was on alternating ibuprofen and Tylenol for a few days. I've always been very afraid of Tylenol (where the gap between the normal dose and an overdose is way way small than other drugs), so I hadn't had it in years. Anyway I was surprised that it made me feel kinda "wheeee!" and a little googling showed that Tylenol is effective at counteracting "existential dread."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130416085431.htm
I always associate this with woody allen in annie hall as some neurotic stuff I don't really need to worry about
probably should watch the sorrow and the pity though
Cohn was the grandnephew of Joshua Lionel Cowen, founder of the Lionel model train company. By 1959, Cowen and his son Lawrence had become involved in a family dispute over control of the company. In October 1959, Cohn and a group of investors stepped in and gained control of the company, having bought 200,000 of the firm's 700,000 shares, which were purchased by his syndicate from the Cowens and on the open market over a three-month period prior to the takeover.[54]
Under Cohn's three and a half year leadership, Lionel was plagued by declining sales, quality-control problems and huge financial losses. In 1963, Cohn was forced to resign from the company after losing a proxy fight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn
I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread though.
Theories of business that don't include fraud or delusion (or here spite) as a fundamental of human behavior are going to miss a lot. IMO similarly, including self-esteem as a fundamental without allowing for delusion are going to miss a lot. Death can't be ignored or lied to I guess is the connection, but I'm pretty sure that there's a death-awareness analogue or set of them to false piety. IMO focus on inner motivation is hard to mix with objectivity, similarly discussions of reputational advantage for businesses.
||
Fuck. One of my best friends from undergrad has entered hospice for breast cancer. I had no idea that she was sick.
She's had a pretty rough go of it since we graduated in general, and has a habit of falling out of contact when times are hard, so I haven't had a working phone number or email address for her for the past decade. But one of her childhood friends reached out to let us know what was going on.
I can't decide if it makes sense to fly in and spend a couple hours with her or not. My contact (who is not there in person) said she is awake but lots of sleeping and pain meds, not responding to calls or texts, but that's always been her MO. The person who is there in person is her brother, and he's not very forthcoming about anything. Not hostile but not descriptive.
|>
32: Can you get the brother's contact information? I might suggest reaching out to the brother to find out his recommendation or he could ask her if she would welcome a visit. Depending on how far along she is, she may already be withdrawing, but it would be difficult to know without more information. And if it would mean something important to you, and they OK it, then that's a reason too.
And this totally sucks; I'm sorry.
I'm sorry to hear this too. I don't know what to think about visiting.
That's terrible, heebie, sympathies. Going for yourself and so that your friend can register that someone came to see her are both good reasons. Turning away from people with problems is what usually happens, any reminder that a person is more than their problems is usually welcome, especially if there have been many problems.
I talked to her brother just now. She has had a pretty steady stream of visitors, so that's good. She's awake for a few minutes at a time, can respond but is often too tired to say much.
I think I'm going to record a video and send it to her. Her brother liked the idea and said he'd make sure she saw it, etc. He's setting up a caringbridge site so we can get updates.
My friend passed away this evening. I did end up sending her a video. Her brother said she watched it several times on Saturday. I'm glad I got to tell her that I love her. But I'm still very sad.
I'm so sorry for you and her family.