210:, concluding that both the specific critical positivity ratio of 2.9013 and its upper limit were invalid. The fact that the problems with the paper went unnoticed for years despite the widespread adulatory publicity surrounding the critical positivity ratio concept contributed to a perception of social psychology as a field lacking scientific soundness and rigorous critical thinking. Sokal later stated, "The main claim made by Fredrickson and Losada is so implausible on its face that some red flags ought to have been raised", as would only happen broadly in graduate student Brown's initiating the collaboration that resulted in the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal.
468:, concurred with the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal conclusion of the lack of empirical evidence for a critical positivity ratio, and noted the necessity of distinguishing between within-person-across-time versus within-time-across-persons theories. Emeritus professor Raimo Hämäläinen and colleagues responded, passing over the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal claims of failed criteria for use of differential equations in modeling, instead arguing that there were no fundamental errors in the mathematics itself, only problems related to the model's justification and interpretation.
282:—in 2008. The authors noted that "nly very limited explanations are given about the modeling process and the meaning and interpretation of its parameters... the reasoning behind the model equations remains unclear to the reader"; moreover, they noted that "the model also produces strange and previously unreported behavior under certain conditions... the predictive validity of the model also becomes problematic." Not widely impactful at the time, Losada's earlier modeling article was also critiqued by Andrés Navas in a French language publication, a note in the
654:, the fact that the problems with the critical positivity ratio paper and concept went unnoticed for years (despite widespread adulatory publicity) contributed to a public perception of social psychology being a field that lacks scientific soundness and rigorous critical thinking. Sokal would state that the paper's "main claim... is so implausible on its face that some red flags ought to have been raised", as would only happen broadly with graduate student Brown's initiating the collaboration that resulted in the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal.
312:, here referred to as the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal. These authors argued that Losada's conclusions in previous papers using modelling from fluid dynamics, and those in his paper co-authored with Fredrickson, were not only based on poorly reported experiments, but also that it was difficult to draw conclusions from Losada's previous cited studies because critical details were omitted, "interpretations of results made with little or no justification", and that elementary errors were made in the application of differential equations.
150:. This concept of a critical positivity ratio was widely embraced by academic psychologists and the lay public; Fredrickson and Losada's paper had been cited more than 320 times by January 2014, and Fredrickson wrote a popular book expounding the concept of "the 3-to-1 ratio that will change your life". In it she wrote, "just as zero degrees Celsius is a special number in thermodynamics, the 3-to-1 positivity ratio may well be a magic number in human psychology." That sentence may be confusing zero degrees Celsius with zero degrees
177:). The authors noted that "only very limited explanations are given about the modeling process and the meaning and interpretation of its parameters... the reasoning behind the model equations remains unclear to the reader"; moreover, they noted that "the model also produces strange and previously unreported behavior under certain conditions... the predictive validity of the model also becomes problematic." Losada's 1999 modeling article was also critiqued by Andrés Navas in a French language publication, a note in the
94:
596:
529:
428:
369:
33:
351:
appealing properties. An alternative explanation – and, frankly, the one that appears most plausible to us – is that the entire process of "derivation" of the Lorenz equations has been contrived to demonstrate an imagined fit between some rather limited empirical data and the scientifically impressive world of nonlinear dynamics.
493:
Among the purely mathematical errors clearly noted... are
Fredrickson and Losada's assertion that the r = 22 data (alleged to be characteristic of “medium-performance teams”) end up in a limit cycle... and their implicit claims concerning the absence of chaotic attraction at large values of r... But
485:
noting
Nickerson's concurrence regarding the lack of empirical evidence for a critical positivity ratio, and lauding her distinction between the within-person and within-time types of theories, noting that "oth types of theories are valuable... but... conceptually distinct and by no means equivalent"
509:
promised in their founding manifesto of positive psychology—rather, the widespread acceptance of the critical positivity ratio shows that positive psychology has betrayed this promise, stating that "the sin is now romantic scientism rather than pure romanticism is not, in our view, a great advance."
256:
lies between 2.9013 and an upper limit ratio of 11.6346. Hence, they claimed that their model predicted cut-off points for the minimum and maximum positivity ratios within which one should observe qualitative changes in an individual's level of flourishing, specifically, that those within this range
638:
in
January 2014, noted that in it, Fredrickson had written, "Just as zero degrees Celsius is a special number in thermodynamics, the 3-to-1 positivity ratio may well be a magic number in human psychology." Anthony also noted that following the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal, Fredrickson has "removed
193:
and psychology professor Harris
Friedman on a re-analysis of the paper's data (hereafter the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal). They argued that Losada's earlier work on positive psychology and Fredrickson and Losada's 2005 critical positivity ratio paper contained "numerous fundamental conceptual and
480:
published their response to it in 2014, where they emphatically argued that there was no evidence whatsoever, as of that date, for the existence of a critical positivity ratio (i.e., a tipping-point for positivity). In 2014, the rebuttal authors also responded to comments from others on their 2013
838:
Fredrickson subsequently removed the critical chapter that outlines Losada's input from further editions of
Positivity. She has avoided speaking to... the press but in an email ... maintained that "on empirical grounds, yes, tipping points are highly probable" in relation to positive emotions and
202:
that he was too busy running his consulting business). Hämäläinen and colleagues responded later, passing over the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal claim of failed criteria for use of differential equations in modeling, instead arguing that there were no fundamental errors in the mathematics itself,
409:
Fredrickson responded to the critique by agreeing that Losada's mathematical modelling was "questionable" and did not show that there are precise values of the ratio, but also arguing that the evidence for the benefits of a high positivity/negativity ratio is solid. Fredrickson noted that Losada
350:
only marvel at the astonishing coincidence that human emotions should turn out to be governed by exactly the same set of equations that were derived in a celebrated article several decades ago as a deliberately simplified model of convection in fluids, and whose solutions happen to have visually
300:
The
Fredrickson and Losada work on modeling the positivity ratio aroused the skepticism of Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology, who questioned whether such work could reliably make such broad claims, and perceived that the paper's mathematical claims were suspect. Brown
197:
Fredrickson wrote a response in which she conceded that the mathematical aspects of the critical positivity ratio were "questionable" and that she had "neither the expertise nor the insight" to defend them, but she maintained that the empirical evidence for the existence of a critical positivity
380: with: a more fully developed presentation of responses to the 2003 rebuttal, including updates regarding the continuing suggestions of the value of the ratio from Fredrickson, and a more complete presentation of the views of others than Fredrickson and Brown-Sokal-Friedman. You can help by
188:
Later, but of critical importance, the
Fredrickson and Losada work on modeling the positivity ratio aroused the skepticism of Nick Brown, a graduate student in applied positive psychology, who questioned whether such work could reliably make such broad claims, and perceived that the paper's
463:
published further scholarly responses, mostly supportive, but some critical of at least some aspects of the rebuttal. The series of responses culminated in a further response to these from Brown, Sokal, and
Friedman. C.A. Nickerson, an independent scholar formerly at the
489:
noting that Hämäläinen, Luoma, and
Saarinen "concede our main point, namely the complete lack of justification for the use of the Lorenz equations in modeling the time evolution of human emotions", but confronting the "no clear mathematical errors" assertion, stating
198:
ratio was solid. Brown, Sokal, and
Friedman, the rebuttal authors, published their response to Fredrickson's "Update" the next year, maintaining that there was no evidence for a critical positivity ratio. Losada declined to respond to the criticism (indicating to the
340:
based on the maths, even if precise positivity/negativity ratios could be derived, several "windows" of desirable and undesirable positivity/negativity ratios above a certain value should exist, rather than a simple range of ratios in which "flourishing" should
345:
With regard to these, and especially the last, the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal argues that it is likely that Fredrickson and Losada did not fully grasp the implications of applying nonlinear dynamics to their data. Brown, Sokal, and Friedman state that one
627:
The concept of a critical positivity ratio advanced by Fredrickson and Losada in 2005 was embraced by the lay public. Prior to the appearance of the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal and the ensuing retraction, Fredrickson had written a popular book,
1766:'What's shocking is not just that this piece of pseudomathematical nonsense received 322 scholarly citations and 164,000 web mentions, but that no one criticized it publicly for eight years, not even supposed experts in the field,' Sokal says.
794:'What's shocking is not just that this piece of pseudomathematical nonsense received 322 scholarly citations and 164,000 web mentions, but that no one criticized it publicly for eight years, not even supposed experts in the field,' Sokal says.
494:
we are happy to agree with Hämäläinen et al. that the central flaws in Fredrickson and Losada (2005) and its predecessor articles are logical and conceptual, not narrowly mathematical. And they are, as we have demonstrated, overwhelming.
252:. The derived combination of expressions and default parameters led them to conclude that a critical ratio of positive to negative affect of exactly 2.9013 separated flourishing from languishing individuals, and to argue that the ideal
329:
use of different arbitrary parameters would give different positivity ratios, thus the precise values for the lower and upper critical ratios based on the arbitrary parameters, Fredrickson and Losada's 2.9013 to 11.6346 ratios, are
993:
Outre le fait qu'il n'y a pas de justification théorique du modèle proposé, sa pertinence peut être mise en cause par le fait que les enregistrements auxquels on se réfère ne sont pas fournis dans l'article plus risquées.
305:
and psychology professor Friedman on a re-analysis of the paper's data. The result was a strong critique of the critical positivity ratio in its entirety by Brown, Sokal, and Friedman, that appeared in a 2013 article in
286:
publication, "Images des Mathématiques", which also failed to attract a wide readership. In their followup to Fredrickson's immediate response to the rebuttal, Brown, Sokal, and Friedman note as a footnote to their
998:
500:
The original rebuttal authors conclude this salvo by lamenting that the "unbridled romanticism" of which humanist psychology has been accused has not been replaced with a rigorous evidence-based psychology—as
337:-like first figure provided by Fredrickson and Losada is not a model of the data taken from their human participants, but "the results of computer simulations of the Lorenz equations, nothing more"; and
319:
data used by Losada in several analyses do not meet basic criteria for the use of differential equations (such as the use of continuous variables that evolve smoothly and deterministically over time);
165:
The first consequential re-evaluation of the mathematical modeling behind the critical positivity ratio was published in 2008 by a group of Finnish researchers from the Systems Analysis Laboratory at
579:
published a special issue focused on the aftermath to the rebuttal of the original Fredrickson and Losada article, where Harris L. Friedman and Nicholas J. L. Brown served as monitoring editors.
414:
proceeded to formally retract as invalid the mathematical modeling elements of Fredrickson and Losada's paper, including the specific critical positivity ratios of 2.9013 and its upper limit.
291:
After the publication of Brown et al. (2013), Andrés Navas kindly drew our attention to his article (Navas, 2011) in which a very similar (though briefer) critique of Losada (1999) was made.
1607:
257:
of ratios would "flourish", and those outside would "languish". As of January 2014, the 2005 Fredrickson and Losada's paper had been cited more than 320 times in the psychology literature.
1628:
144:
whose model-derived positive-to-negative ratio of 2.9013 defined a critical separation between flourishing and languishing individuals, as reported in their 2005 paper in
132:
positing an exact ratio of positive to negative emotions which distinguishes "flourishing" people from "languishing" people. The ratio was proposed by psychologists
1349:
1732:
859:, see citation following, states that Fredrickson & Losada (2005) "garnered almost 1,000 citations in less than a decade", which places it at odds with
570:
from that period, Fredrickson continued to maintain "on empirical grounds" that "tipping points are highly probable", as communicated to him via email.
189:
mathematical claims underlying the critical positivity ratio were suspect. Brown contacted and ultimately collaborated with physics and maths professor
270:
The first critical evaluation of the mathematical modeling behind the critical positivity ratio was published by a group of Finnish researchers—Luoma,
639:
the critical chapter that outlines Losada's input from further editions of Positivity", and that she has largely avoided engaging the popular press.
863:, who interviews Brown and suggests it had been cited ca. 350 times by January 2014 (which is at about at the same one decade mark). Likewise, the
607: with: information on the fate of published popular books, following the rebuttal, and other updates to popular perspective. You can help by
222:
suggesting that individuals with a higher ratio of positive to negative emotions tend to have more successful life outcomes, and on studies by
1690:
17:
734:
1660:
326:'s simplified, illustrative, and arbitrary models for fluid dynamics, with Losada giving no rationale for his choice of parameters;
1779:
July 28, 2013 blog post by independent science writer "Neuroskeptic", entitled "Positivity: Retract the Bathwater, Save the Baby".
1727:
206:
A formal retraction for the mathematical modeling elements of the Losada and Fredrickson (2005) paper was issued by the journal,
1778:
1374:
931:
820:
57:
41:
486:
and that they believed that "this distinction deserves to be more widely discussed in the literature on research methods".
355:
They "urge future researchers to exercise caution in the use of advanced mathematical tools, such as nonlinear dynamics".
49:
lead violates WP:INTRO and other guidelines in presenting unique content (being the article) rather than summarizing it.
900:
644:
75:
1549:"Implications of Debunking the "Critical Positivity Ratio" for Humanistic Psychology: Introduction to Special Issue"
322:
differential equations used by Losada to calculate the critical positivity ratio use parameters taken directly from
1553:
1138:
Brown NJ, Sokal AD, Friedman HL (2013). "The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: the critical positivity ratio".
575:
515:
465:
608:
545:
544:
special issue, and of other more recent followup citations addressing the rebuttal controversy. You can help by
440:
381:
1707:
1699:
315:
Among the severe flaws claimed by Brown et al. in the positivity-ratio theory and its presentation were that:
1636:
1103:
1798:
1629:"The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams: A Nonlinear Dynamics Model"
1098:
253:
159:
1749:
777:
1793:
1380:
650:
53:
459:
In a follow-up to the 2013 papers—the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal, and the Fredrickson response—
271:
234:
to human emotions, Fredrickson and Losada proposed as informative a ratio of positive to negative
170:
506:
1803:
476:
The original rebuttal authors were openly critical about Fredrickson's partial retraction, and
227:
582:
As of this date, the 2005 report of Fredrickson and Losada has been described as discredited.
1678:
1495:
1454:
1310:
1250:
1197:
1140:
1024:
976:
681:
630:
Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3-to-1 Positivity Ratio that Will Change Your life
308:
248:
146:
925:
128:(also known as the "Losada ratio" or the "Losada line") is a largely discredited concept in
439: with: at least one summary sentence for each published 2014 response. You can help by
8:
888:
235:
219:
141:
133:
129:
1304:
1244:
185:. Neither of these articles received broad attention at the times of their publication.
107:
Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.
1652:
1574:
1548:
1529:
1503:
1429:
1404:
1221:
1174:
1148:
1058:
1032:
702:
676:
239:
1619:
1493:
Brown NJ, Sokal AD, Friedman HL (2014). "Positive psychology and romantic scientism".
194:
mathematical errors", errors of a magnitude that completely invalidated their claims.
1579:
1533:
1521:
1470:
1434:
1274:
1266:
1213:
1166:
1050:
947:
896:
726:
707:
1656:
1225:
1062:
564:
As of January 2014, as Andrew Anthony notes from his preparation for his article in
1682:
1644:
1615:
1569:
1561:
1513:
1462:
1424:
1416:
1318:
1258:
1205:
1158:
1042:
939:
755:
747:
718:
697:
689:
334:
279:
166:
1178:
893:
Positivity: Top-notch research reveals the 3-to-1 ratio that will change your life
1452:
Nickerson, C. A. (2014). "No empirical evidence for critical positivity ratios".
997:
For the full machine translation, by Google Translate, on February 11, 2022, see
855:
502:
1022:
Brown NJ, Sokal AD, Friedman HL (2014). "The Persistence of Wishful Thinking".
693:
231:
223:
137:
1787:
1686:
1648:
1565:
1270:
951:
323:
243:
875:
with Sokal's more conservative numbers are the basis for the statement here.
1754:
1583:
1525:
1474:
1438:
1420:
1278:
1217:
1170:
1054:
825:
782:
730:
711:
634:
566:
513:
275:
174:
1350:"Barbara Fredrickson's Bestselling 'Positivity' Is Trashed by a New Study"
821:"Interview: The British Amateur Who Debunked the Mathematics of Happiness"
1354:
1546:
744:
has been checked and does not affect the cited material, please replace
595:
528:
427:
368:
1696:. If this is an intentional citation to a such a paper, please replace
926:"Perspectives on team dynamics: Meta learning and systems intelligence"
302:
301:
contacted and ultimately collaborated with physics and maths professor
203:
only problems related to the model's justification and interpretation.
190:
867:
source, see preceding, quoting Sokal, sets the number just above 320.
1605:
Losada, M. (1999). "The Complex Dynamics of High Performance Teams".
1517:
1466:
1322:
1262:
1209:
1162:
1046:
943:
722:
977:"Un cas d'inconscience (?) [A case of unconsciousness (?)]"
140:, who believed that they had identified an experimental measure of
1508:
1153:
1037:
1488:
1486:
1484:
741:
358:
155:
1195:
Fredrickson BL (2013). "Updated thinking on positivity ratios".
923:
Luoma, Jukka; Hämäläinen, Raimo P.; Saarinen, Esa (2008-08-27).
677:"Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing"
151:
1481:
1237:
1235:
918:
916:
914:
912:
471:
1728:"Marcial Losada Explains his Research for our Blog Readers"
1232:
283:
178:
1242:
Hämäläinen, Raimo P.; Luoma, Jukka; Saarinen, Esa (2014).
909:
400:
1241:
922:
540: with: full description of the content of the 2018
1245:"Mathematical modeling is more than fitting equations"
1626:
1302:
Fredrickson, Barbara L.; Losada, Marcial F. (2013).
771:
769:
295:
1547:Friedman, Harris L.; Brown, Nicholas J. L. (2018).
1405:"The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions"
849:
847:
1492:
1402:
1373:
1303:
1243:
1137:
1021:
924:
154:. The latter is used to define a system with zero
1301:
766:
674:
1785:
1451:
1017:
1015:
1013:
1011:
1009:
1007:
844:
265:
1725:
642:Reporting from a variety of sources, including
1194:
359:Responses to the Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal
1750:"Ratio for a Good Life Exposed as 'Nonsense'"
1305:"Correction to Fredrickson and Losada (2005)"
1297:
1295:
1004:
974:
778:"Ratio for a Good Life Exposed as 'Nonsense'"
1747:
1367:
1365:
1092:
775:
1090:
1088:
1086:
1084:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1076:
1074:
1072:
887:
1710:|...|intentional=yes}}
1604:
1409:Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci
1292:
1190:
1188:
1133:
1131:
1129:
1127:
1125:
1123:
1121:
814:
812:
810:
808:
806:
804:
802:
670:
668:
666:
410:declined to respond to the criticism. The
1573:
1507:
1428:
1362:
1347:
1152:
1036:
701:
472:Follow-up from Brown, Sokal, and Friedman
76:Learn how and when to remove this message
1343:
1341:
1339:
1096:
1069:
246:), which appeared in 2005 in a paper in
1371:
1185:
1118:
970:
968:
818:
799:
663:
14:
1786:
758:|...|checked=yes}}
278:of the Systems Analysis Laboratory at
1336:
585:
1726:Marlier, Didier (November 1, 2009).
1598:
965:
883:
881:
589:
522:
421:
417:
362:
87:
26:
819:Anthony, Andrew (18 January 2014).
24:
1719:
1593:
1348:Wilkinson, Will (16 August 2013).
675:Fredrickson BL, Losada MF (2005).
519:special issue, and other follow-up
25:
1815:
1772:
878:
645:The Chronicle of Higher Education
296:The Brown-Sokal-Friedman rebuttal
1748:Bower, Bruce (August 12, 2013).
776:Bower, Bruce (August 12, 2013).
594:
576:Journal of Humanistic Psychology
527:
426:
367:
92:
31:
1627:Losada, M.; Heaphy, E. (2004).
1540:
1445:
1395:
1372:Cossins, Dan (August 7, 2013).
1097:Bartlett, Tom (5 August 2013).
871:interview with Brown's and the
466:University of Colorado, Boulder
632:. Andrew Anthony, writing for
13:
1:
1677:(This paper currently has an
1620:10.1016/S0895-7177(99)00189-2
1375:"'Positivity Ratio' Debunked"
1099:"The Magic Ratio That Wasn't"
657:
266:Initially ignored questioning
213:
200:Chronicle of Higher Education
853:Will Wilkinson, writing for
260:
7:
1403:Fredrickson, B. L. (2004).
254:positivity/negativity ratio
160:Third law of thermodynamics
18:Positivity/negativity ratio
10:
1820:
694:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678
126:critical positivity ratio
101:This article needs to be
1687:10.1177/0002764214537204
1649:10.1177/0002764203260208
1566:10.1177/0022167818762227
981:Images des Mathématiques
218:Building on research by
183:Images des Mathématiques
45:may need to be rewritten
47:. The reason given is:
1421:10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
975:Navas, Andrés (2011).
932:Syst. Res. Behav. Sci.
496:
353:
293:
228:differential equations
1708:expression of concern
1702:|...}}
1700:expression of concern
1679:expression of concern
1554:J. Humanist. Psychol.
750:|...}}
516:J. Humanist. Psychol.
491:
478:American Psychologist
461:American Psychologist
412:American Psychologist
348:
309:American Psychologist
289:
249:American Psychologist
208:American Psychologist
147:American Psychologist
1608:Math. Comput. Model.
889:Fredrickson, Barbara
242:modelling (based on
1799:Positive psychology
1733:EnablersNetwork.com
1415:(1449): 1367–1377.
220:Barbara Fredrickson
134:Barbara Fredrickson
130:positive psychology
1104:Chron. High. Educ.
586:Popular discussion
542:J Humanist Psychol
240:nonlinear dynamics
1614:(9–10): 179–192.
1599:Scholarly sources
625:
624:
562:
561:
457:
456:
418:Other respondents
398:
397:
158:according to the
122:
121:
86:
85:
78:
58:lead layout guide
16:(Redirected from
1811:
1768:
1763:
1762:
1744:
1742:
1740:
1715:
1713:
1711:
1703:
1692:Retraction Watch
1675:
1673:
1671:
1665:
1659:. Archived from
1633:
1623:
1588:
1587:
1577:
1544:
1538:
1537:
1518:10.1037/a0037390
1511:
1490:
1479:
1478:
1467:10.1037/a0036961
1449:
1443:
1442:
1432:
1399:
1393:
1392:
1390:
1388:
1377:
1369:
1360:
1359:
1345:
1334:
1333:
1331:
1329:
1323:10.1037/a0034435
1307:
1299:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1285:
1263:10.1037/a0037048
1247:
1239:
1230:
1229:
1210:10.1037/a0033584
1192:
1183:
1182:
1163:10.1037/a0032850
1156:
1135:
1116:
1115:
1113:
1111:
1094:
1067:
1066:
1047:10.1037/a0037050
1040:
1019:
1002:
996:
990:
988:
972:
963:
962:
960:
958:
944:10.1002/sres.905
928:
920:
907:
906:
885:
876:
851:
842:
841:
835:
833:
816:
797:
796:
791:
790:
773:
764:
763:
761:
759:
751:
736:Retraction Watch
723:10.1037/a0034435
715:
705:
672:
620:
617:
598:
590:
557:
554:
531:
523:
507:Csikszentmihalyi
452:
449:
430:
422:
401:Fredrickson and
393:
390:
371:
363:
280:Aalto University
171:Raimo Hämäläinen
167:Aalto University
117:
114:
108:
96:
95:
88:
81:
74:
70:
67:
61:
54:improve the lead
35:
34:
27:
21:
1819:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1794:Group processes
1784:
1783:
1775:
1760:
1758:
1738:
1736:
1722:
1720:Popular sources
1705:
1697:
1695:
1676:
1669:
1667:
1663:
1637:Am. Behav. Sci.
1631:
1601:
1596:
1594:Further reading
1591:
1545:
1541:
1491:
1482:
1450:
1446:
1400:
1396:
1386:
1384:
1370:
1363:
1346:
1337:
1327:
1325:
1300:
1293:
1283:
1281:
1240:
1233:
1193:
1186:
1136:
1119:
1109:
1107:
1095:
1070:
1020:
1005:
986:
984:
973:
966:
956:
954:
921:
910:
903:
886:
879:
856:The Daily Beast
852:
845:
831:
829:
817:
800:
788:
786:
774:
767:
753:
745:
739:
717:(Erratum:
716:
673:
664:
660:
621:
615:
612:
605:needs expansion
599:
588:
558:
552:
549:
538:needs expansion
532:
521:
474:
453:
447:
444:
437:needs expansion
431:
420:
407:
394:
388:
385:
378:needs expansion
372:
361:
298:
268:
263:
216:
118:
112:
109:
106:
97:
93:
82:
71:
65:
62:
51:
36:
32:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1817:
1807:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1782:
1781:
1774:
1773:External links
1771:
1770:
1769:
1745:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1643:(6): 740–765.
1624:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1592:
1590:
1589:
1560:(3): 239–261.
1539:
1480:
1461:(6): 626–628.
1444:
1394:
1361:
1335:
1291:
1257:(6): 633–634.
1231:
1184:
1117:
1068:
1003:
964:
938:(6): 757–767.
908:
901:
877:
843:
798:
765:
661:
659:
656:
623:
622:
602:
600:
593:
587:
584:
560:
559:
535:
533:
526:
520:
512:
498:
497:
487:
473:
470:
455:
454:
434:
432:
425:
419:
416:
406:
399:
396:
395:
375:
373:
366:
360:
357:
343:
342:
338:
331:
327:
320:
297:
294:
267:
264:
262:
259:
244:Lorenz systems
232:fluid dynamics
224:Marcial Losada
215:
212:
169:(Jukka Luoma,
138:Marcial Losada
120:
119:
100:
98:
91:
84:
83:
40:The article's
39:
37:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1816:
1805:
1804:Pseudoscience
1802:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1791:
1789:
1780:
1777:
1776:
1767:
1757:
1756:
1751:
1746:
1735:
1734:
1729:
1724:
1723:
1709:
1701:
1694:
1693:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1666:on 2010-06-02
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1639:
1638:
1630:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1603:
1602:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1555:
1550:
1543:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1489:
1487:
1485:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1448:
1440:
1436:
1431:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1398:
1383:
1382:
1381:The Scientist
1376:
1368:
1366:
1357:
1356:
1351:
1344:
1342:
1340:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1313:
1312:
1306:
1298:
1296:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1246:
1238:
1236:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:(9): 814–22.
1203:
1200:
1199:
1191:
1189:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1147:(9): 801–13.
1146:
1143:
1142:
1134:
1132:
1130:
1128:
1126:
1124:
1122:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1093:
1091:
1089:
1087:
1085:
1083:
1081:
1079:
1077:
1075:
1073:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1031:(6): 629–32.
1030:
1027:
1026:
1018:
1016:
1014:
1012:
1010:
1008:
1000:
995:
982:
978:
971:
969:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
934:
933:
927:
919:
917:
915:
913:
904:
902:9780307393746
898:
894:
890:
884:
882:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
857:
850:
848:
840:
828:
827:
822:
815:
813:
811:
809:
807:
805:
803:
795:
785:
784:
779:
772:
770:
757:
749:
743:
738:
737:
732:
728:
724:
720:
713:
709:
704:
699:
695:
691:
688:(7): 678–86.
687:
684:
683:
678:
671:
669:
667:
662:
655:
653:
652:
651:The Scientist
647:
646:
640:
637:
636:
631:
619:
616:February 2022
610:
606:
603:This section
601:
597:
592:
591:
583:
580:
578:
577:
573:In 2018, the
571:
569:
568:
556:
553:February 2022
547:
543:
539:
536:This section
534:
530:
525:
524:
518:
517:
511:
508:
504:
495:
488:
484:
483:
482:
479:
469:
467:
462:
451:
448:February 2022
442:
438:
435:This section
433:
429:
424:
423:
415:
413:
404:
392:
389:February 2022
383:
379:
376:This section
374:
370:
365:
364:
356:
352:
347:
339:
336:
332:
328:
325:
321:
318:
317:
316:
313:
311:
310:
304:
292:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
258:
255:
251:
250:
245:
241:
238:derived from
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
211:
209:
204:
201:
195:
192:
186:
184:
181:publication,
180:
176:
172:
168:
163:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
116:
104:
99:
90:
89:
80:
77:
69:
66:February 2022
59:
56:and read the
55:
50:
46:
43:
38:
29:
28:
19:
1765:
1759:. Retrieved
1753:
1739:February 11,
1737:. Retrieved
1731:
1706:{{
1698:{{
1691:
1689:,
1670:February 11,
1668:. Retrieved
1661:the original
1640:
1635:
1611:
1606:
1557:
1552:
1542:
1502:(6): 636–7.
1499:
1496:Am. Psychol.
1494:
1458:
1455:Am. Psychol.
1453:
1447:
1412:
1408:
1397:
1387:February 11,
1385:. Retrieved
1379:
1353:
1328:February 10,
1326:. Retrieved
1314:
1311:Am. Psychol.
1309:
1284:February 10,
1282:. Retrieved
1254:
1251:Am. Psychol.
1249:
1201:
1198:Am. Psychol.
1196:
1144:
1141:Am. Psychol.
1139:
1110:February 11,
1102:
1028:
1025:Am. Psychol.
1023:
992:
987:February 11,
985:. Retrieved
980:
957:February 11,
955:. Retrieved
935:
930:
892:
873:Science News
872:
869:The Guardian
868:
865:Science News
864:
861:The Guardian
860:
854:
839:flourishing.
837:
832:February 10,
830:. Retrieved
826:The Guardian
824:
793:
787:. Retrieved
781:
754:{{
746:{{
735:
733:,
685:
682:Am. Psychol.
680:
649:
643:
641:
635:The Guardian
633:
629:
626:
613:
609:adding to it
604:
581:
574:
572:
567:The Observer
565:
563:
550:
546:adding to it
541:
537:
514:
499:
492:
477:
475:
460:
458:
445:
441:adding to it
436:
411:
408:
403:Am. Psychol.
402:
386:
382:adding to it
377:
354:
349:
344:
330:meaningless;
314:
307:
299:
290:
269:
247:
217:
207:
205:
199:
196:
187:
182:
175:Esa Saarinen
164:
145:
125:
123:
110:
102:
72:
63:
52:Please help
48:
44:
42:lead section
1681:, see
1355:Daily Beast
983:(in French)
895:. Harmony.
287:submission:
1788:Categories
1761:2013-08-15
1401:E.g., see
1317:(9): 822.
1108:Retrieved
789:2013-08-15
658:References
405:retraction
303:Alan Sokal
272:Hämäläinen
214:Background
191:Alan Sokal
113:April 2020
1755:Sci. News
1534:207577657
1509:1409.5172
1271:1935-990X
1154:1307.7006
1038:1409.4837
999:this link
952:1092-7026
783:Sci. News
740:. If the
335:butterfly
261:Criticism
226:applying
1657:54020643
1584:29706664
1526:25197852
1475:25197846
1439:15347528
1279:25197850
1226:29283230
1218:23855895
1171:23855896
1063:12697463
1055:25197848
891:(2009).
731:16221001
712:16221001
503:Seligman
276:Saarinen
1575:5898419
1430:1693418
756:erratum
748:erratum
742:erratum
703:3126111
156:Entropy
103:updated
1655:
1582:
1572:
1532:
1524:
1473:
1437:
1427:
1277:
1269:
1224:
1216:
1179:644769
1177:
1169:
1061:
1053:
950:
899:
729:
725:,
710:
700:
481:work,
341:occur.
324:Lorenz
274:, and
236:affect
173:, and
152:Kelvin
142:affect
1704:with
1664:(PDF)
1653:S2CID
1632:(PDF)
1530:S2CID
1504:arXiv
1222:S2CID
1175:S2CID
1149:arXiv
1059:S2CID
1033:arXiv
752:with
230:from
1741:2022
1672:2022
1580:PMID
1522:PMID
1471:PMID
1435:PMID
1389:2022
1330:2022
1286:2022
1275:PMID
1267:ISSN
1214:PMID
1167:PMID
1112:2022
1051:PMID
989:2022
959:2022
948:ISSN
897:ISBN
834:2022
727:PMID
708:PMID
648:and
505:and
490:that
346:can:
333:the
284:CNRS
179:CNRS
136:and
124:The
1683:doi
1645:doi
1616:doi
1570:PMC
1562:doi
1514:doi
1463:doi
1425:PMC
1417:doi
1413:359
1319:doi
1259:doi
1206:doi
1159:doi
1043:doi
940:doi
719:doi
698:PMC
690:doi
611:.
548:.
443:.
384:.
1790::
1764:.
1752:.
1730:.
1651:.
1641:47
1634:.
1612:30
1578:.
1568:.
1558:58
1551:.
1528:.
1520:.
1512:.
1500:69
1483:^
1469:.
1459:69
1433:.
1423:.
1411:.
1407:.
1378:.
1364:^
1352:.
1338:^
1315:68
1308:.
1294:^
1273:.
1265:.
1255:69
1248:.
1234:^
1220:.
1212:.
1202:68
1187:^
1173:.
1165:.
1157:.
1145:68
1120:^
1101:.
1071:^
1057:.
1049:.
1041:.
1029:69
1006:^
991:.
979:.
967:^
946:.
936:25
929:.
911:^
880:^
846:^
836:.
823:.
801:^
792:.
780:.
768:^
706:.
696:.
686:60
679:.
665:^
162:.
1743:.
1714:)
1712:.
1685::
1674:.
1647::
1622:.
1618::
1586:.
1564::
1536:.
1516::
1506::
1477:.
1465::
1441:.
1419::
1391:.
1358:.
1332:.
1321::
1288:.
1261::
1228:.
1208::
1181:.
1161::
1151::
1114:.
1065:.
1045::
1035::
1001:.
961:.
942::
905:.
762:)
760:.
721::
714:.
692::
618:)
614:(
555:)
551:(
450:)
446:(
391:)
387:(
115:)
111:(
105:.
79:)
73:(
68:)
64:(
60:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.