Comments on: The Power of Positivity, In Moderation: The Losada Ratio

By: vince weist

vince weist — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 12:27:40 +0000

Good article . Apropos , others are interested in a CA STD 678 , my friend found a fillable form here http://goo.gl/AOryhp.

By: Camillus

Camillus — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 16:17:51 +0000

Alert on submission for access to booklet.

Mailing List Not Active
This mailing list is not currently active.

Please notify the website owner.

By: Lois Gelfand

Lois Gelfand — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 03:15:28 +0000

The descriptions of nonlinear systems here is not relevant to the modeling in the Frederickson and Losada (2005) paper. See the recommendation inhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00382/full
to maintain the distinction between dynamical and non dynamical models. The nonlinear models presented here are not dynamical models.

By: Ron Bashian

Ron Bashian — Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:21:07 +0000

Please provide the email of the person who does this site. I’d like to share notes, possibly clients.

I am a former M.D., trained ADHD and Executive Functions coached, and a speaker for CHADD. I’ve written for the ADHD Coaches Organization Circle online, and I’ve taught at both university and medical school.

My “flavor” adds to your stated goals: explicit Positive Psychology (to which you refer), a developmental perspective – pediatric and adult – acquired by my professional training, VIA strengths, and the use of the Barkley Deficits in Executive Function Scale.

By: David Lewis

David Lewis — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:42:52 +0000

In reply to Amit Amin.

Hi, Amit:

Well, withdrawing is up to her — the vast majority of her work is still presumably still of value. In fact, her rejoinder is mainly a defense of the rest of her substantial and highly-decorated oevre. Too bad someone of such accomplishments fell for what appears to be pseudo-mathematical snake oil. Apparently, the “math” is about 2/3’ds of the 2005 paper, so she probably should withdraw it. Maybe she can write a personal story of how all this came to be — would be extremely instructive, I bet.

In my comment, please change “formerly” to “formally”. Sometimes the connection between my mind and my fingers has a hiccup.

Thanks. –David

By: Amit Amin

Amit Amin — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:35:23 +0000

In reply to David Lewis.

David – thank you for sharing!

After I digest these new thoughts, I’ll change the page to reflect the new information. I’m not sure I agree that the paper should be withdrawn, but the idea that the math is bogus isn’t surprising.

By: David Lewis

David Lewis — Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:46:28 +0000

The mathematics behind the main paper on the positivity ratio — Fredrickson and Losada (2005) — has been severely critiqued…

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/07/16/death-of-a-theory#.UfapdpyAHQo

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0032850

… and all but retracted by Fredrickson herself…

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0033584

All that remains, it seems, is for Fredrickson to formally withdraw the paper…

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/07/28/notes-on-positivity-ratio/#.Ufap6JyAHQo

By: Sushil Borooah

Sushil Borooah — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:33:55 +0000

It’s something unique.Psychological Mathematics,like a hypothesis.Very interesting,I think practicing this one can achieve success in life.Certainly a valuable exercise to undertake with all
seriousness.I think it’s a kind of meta physics,only to covert&apply in ones life.