This caught my attention So I am reading "The beginners guide to Quantum Psychology" by Stephen.H Wolinsky and he talks about different dimensions and how you can not mix two different dimensions. His example is that imaging that you are earning money, or being given money will not end up with you rich in reality because you are mixing two different dimensions. Well that makes sense. But isn't imagining or daydreaming about the things you want apart of the law of attraction which apparently works? So these two ideas contradict or am I missing something? When i asked about this I was told that the Law of Attraction is not to be taken seriously. A little explanation on how they connect would be appreciated.

closed as unclear what you're asking by iphigenie, labreuer, Niel de Beaudrap, Hunan Rostomyan, Thomas Klimpel Nov 21 '13 at 1:11

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I had a quick glance at the book and it strikes me as utter BS. – user3164 Nov 12 '13 at 18:14

Attaching a scientific-sounding name to something it doesn't apply to by a long shot, such as "quantum psychology" or "quantum leadership", waving around images of fractals with no apparent reason, and dragging into the picture the Schroedinger's cat by its tail - all these are typical signs of pseudo-scientific bullshit that, alas, engulfed American academia. The purpose of all that is not to help you understand something; on the contrary, the purpose is to confuse you into awe of those who cook up this nonsense, usually without slightest understanding of the buzzwords they borrow.

  • I'm not so sure. Economists and other non-physicists at many times borrow mathematical models and concepts from physics. In some cases these models are quantum mechanical. That seems to justify the attachment of the word "quantum". See this for example. – user3164 Nov 12 '13 at 8:11
  • @Transmissionfrom: borrowing mathematical model from physics or creating a model that somehow resembles the physical one would definitely excuse the term. I read your link, but am not familiar with developments it refers to, not sure whether they borrow math model or just refer to for the sake of buzz. The "quantum" in social science classes I've been exposed to 10-ish years ago was complete and utter nonsense, piggybacking on physics for the purpose of parasiting respect out of the buzzwords that were respected but not understood by general public. – Michael Nov 12 '13 at 16:54
  • @Transmissionfrom: I would also look at Economics separately from other social sciences: although there's a considerable overlap with psychology and such, IMO the amount of mathematics economics utilizes put its on par with some of the natural sciences, such as Chemistry or Biology, in terms of scientific method and available rigour. IMHO there is significantly less bull in Economics than in, say, Sociology. – Michael Nov 12 '13 at 17:04
  • Here you may observe that the MathOverflow people are not at all dismissive of, in this case, quantum game theory. Now, out of curiosity, I had a quick glance at the book in the question above. I'm saddened to observe that, in this case, your answer seems spot-on. +1 – user3164 Nov 12 '13 at 18:10
  • 1
    It gets worse. The book appears to be self-published by the "Quantum Institute Inc". He's also the founder of "Quantum Psychology®". They are 46 minutes away from you. :) – user3164 Nov 12 '13 at 18:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.