"Credit" for hypothesis?

[Edmond Zedo]

I'm a relatively new cognitive psychology student, but older than most of my peers. I've been an "amateur" for years, analyzing subjectively--kind of a philosopher, if you will. I plan on going into research, and probably writing, combining the objective with the subjective.

 

Thing is, I've just come up with a hypothesis which is scientifically testable, and kind of a "big deal" if it can be shown accurate. I'm confident it is, but I have no status, and lack knowledge of procedure. My question: Is there some way to document this hypothesis officially, making it available to the research community, and receive some credit as "The guy who thought of it first?" If that were the case, it would surely help my status, and future endeavors at figuring out the brain.

 

Thanks a lot, Ed.

[dr.syntax]

I'm a relatively new cognitive psychology student, but older than most of my peers. I've been an "amateur" for years, analyzing subjectively--kind of a philosopher, if you will. I plan on going into research, and probably writing, combining the objective with the subjective.

 

Thing is, I've just come up with a hypothesis which is scientifically testable, and kind of a "big deal" if it can be shown accurate. I'm confident it is, but I have no status, and lack knowledge of procedure. My question: Is there some way to document this hypothesis officially, making it available to the research community, and receive some credit as "The guy who thought of it first?" If that were the case, it would surely help my status, and future endeavors at figuring out the brain.

 

Thanks a lot, Ed.

 

Read up on the copyright laws. You can simply declare them as to original works, add that c with a circle around it. There are forms available to officially register it with the library of congress. Also save all the notes and such created while developing your work. It`s not hard to do per se, but if you have good reason to anticipate any dispute why not see an appropriate lawyer and do a really good job of it. ... Dr.Syntax

Edited September 22, 2009 by dr.syntax
addition ,editing

[insane_alien]

you could try submitting to a psychology journal.

 

worst case scenario, it doesn't get in and you have to find another method of proving your claim(probably going to a notary or solicitor).

 

best case, it gets in and some other people will analyse it and it passes/fails peer review.

 

don't be thrown if it fails peer review or doesn't get into a journal though. 99% of the time hypotheses turn out to be crud, its not a reflection of a lack of intelligence, just that you were wrong about this one thing. refine it, improve it and maybe net time you'll be right.

[Mokele]

Syntax, you cannot copyright hypotheses.

 

Please stop contributing to threads where it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Edmond Zedo]

you could try submitting to a psychology journal.

 

worst case scenario, it doesn't get in and you have to find another method of proving your claim(probably going to a notary or solicitor).

 

best case, it gets in and some other people will analyse it and it passes/fails peer review.

 

don't be thrown if it fails peer review or doesn't get into a journal though. 99% of the time hypotheses turn out to be crud, its not a reflection of a lack of intelligence, just that you were wrong about this one thing. refine it, improve it and maybe net time you'll be right.

Appreciate it. Would you happen to know of a resource online where I could find the proper methods for presenting/formatting it?

 

I will be able to test at least part of the hypothesis myself, but I'm not a researcher yet (Give me a year). I just want a record of it now, in case someone else thinks of it in the meantime.

[CharonY]

Problem is that a hypothesis alone is in most cases not sufficient for scientific publication. There are certain viewpoint articles, but usually they are reserved for people with a track record on the field and at the very least preliminary evidence has to be supplied. Unfortunately it is quite common that even if you thought of something first, credit goes the the one who actually provides the evidence. That is why conferences always reminds me of a slippery dance floor.

[GDG]

You could always try publishing it in the journal Medical Hypotheses.

 

Alternatives:

• self-publish your hypothesis as a book or pamphlet (you can use a service like Lulu to do the actual printing on demand);
  
• Set up a website and blog, and describe it in detail; invite other researchers to comment on it; or
  
• all of the above.
  

 

History does not typically recognize those who came up with an idea, and then sat on it. If you want credit for your hypothesis, you will probably need to promote it, to the point of actually having the necessary research performed. Perhaps contact a few researchers who are already doing research in that (or a related) area.

[Edmond Zedo]

History does not typically recognize those who came up with an idea, and then sat on it. If you want credit for your hypothesis, you will probably need to promote it, to the point of actually having the necessary research performed. Perhaps contact a few researchers who are already doing research in that (or a related) area.

 

Ah, that's what I feared. It looks like I'll just have to wait until I have the ability to create a research study, and keep it under wraps.

 

 

Thanks.

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

A suggestion. If its real, somebody probably already thought of it.

 

And most likely, suprisingly early, like 1897 or something.

 

There is a funny thing, about ideas, that are about the real world. They actually fit, they are actually real. And being that there are 4 billion minds around and a whole bunch who were around earlier, a lot of things about reality have been noticed.

 

Even before the internet, I noticed that you could hear a joke for the first time, and then from a completely different source, unconnected in any way you knew of, you would hear the same joke, (different wording perhaps) later that day.

 

Such I think it is with ideas. Something happens in the world, some new information surfaces, through technology or observation, or study, or experimentation, and lots of somebodies have novel ideas that stem from it. They put the same two and two together, as somebody else does. And good ideas seem to spread like wild fire, like a good joke. And bad ideas, just don't fit, just don't work, and are quickly debunked and discarded. In individual minds, and in the greater, peer review sense.

 

Float your idea, and if its good, it will be improved upon, refined, tested, and merged into the activities and thoughts it pertains to. If someone else takes it, and does the work, and gets the name, and becomes a millionaire and immortal to boot... then whoops, bad suggestion. You should have done the work and written the paper.

 

Regards, TAR

[Mr Skeptic]

If you publish it in such a way as to leave a verifiable trail, at least you will have documentation that you have thought of the idea by such and such a date. Then someone could read it and explain to you why you're wrong (most likely scenario, statistically) and at least you don't need to invest so much effort into "fool's gold" (metaphorically). Or, someone could read it and tell you it's a great idea or even do your research for you and if you're lucky mention you as his source. Or someone could think of it independently from you and do the research, then you can verifiably claim you at least thought of it first. Unless your idea is truly original though, credit will most likely go to the first to provide evidence of it. Kind of depends on whether people think asking the question was harder than answering it.

 

Uh, all of the above simply my opinion.

 

If you have a trusted friend knowledgeable in the field, you could ask his opinion of your idea.

[Edmond Zedo]

Edmond Zedo,

 

A suggestion. If its real, somebody probably already thought of it.

 

And most likely, suprisingly early, like 1897 or something...

 

...Float your idea, and if its good, it will be improved upon, refined, tested, and merged into the activities and thoughts it pertains to. If someone else takes it, and does the work, and gets the name, and becomes a millionaire and immortal to boot... then whoops, bad suggestion. You should have done the work and written the paper.

 

Regards, TAR

What makes it special in my mind is that it combines some old "unverifiable" conclusions with new, incomplete neuroscience. I made a specific observation, did some research on biology to see if there was something to it, and it all "added up." It's the kind of thing which seems so obvious that I am indeed afraid I'll hear someone else is doing research on it soon. So, I'd rather not put it out there unless officially, which doesn't seem very possible.

 

...Or, someone could read it and tell you it's a great idea or even do your research for you and if you're lucky mention you as his source...

 

If you have a trusted friend knowledgeable in the field, you could ask his opinion of your idea.

Oh, I'm notoriously unlucky.

 

I emailed the head of the department, but I'm starting to wonder whether the pursuit of knowledge, or bureaucracy, is more important to her. (Haven't heard back, days later.)

[GDG]

Edmond Zedo,

 

A suggestion. If its real, somebody probably already thought of it.

 

And most likely, suprisingly early, like 1897 or something.

 

There is a funny thing, about ideas, that are about the real world. They actually fit, they are actually real. And being that there are 4 billion minds around and a whole bunch who were around earlier, a lot of things about reality have been noticed.

 

This happens often enough with inventions that there is a special procedure (called "Interference") in the US Patent Office (USPTO) for determining who was actually the first to invent when independent inventors each file a patent application for the same thing. There are something over 50 new interferences declared each year. At one time, I had 4 interferences on my docket, and one interference had five independent groups of inventors.

 

Of course, waiting until you're ready to do it yourself also carries the danger that someone else will think of your idea in the meantime. I'd suggest planting your flag in Medical Hypotheses, and then look for collaborators (while you continue to hone your skills, and prepare to do it on your own if you don't get any takers). For that matter, you could discuss it here, subjecting the theory to our informal (but just a critical) review process. At least these posts are dated.

 

I would also suggest searching PubMed for published work, and Google for current research projects.

 

Best of luck!

[Edmond Zedo]

Nothin' at PubMed, nor anywhere else I can find. I'm not completely oblivious, if you can take my word for it , and I do doubt it's been thought of yet, let alone publicly discussed. But it's time. *impatience*

 

I'll wait.

[Mokele]

A key question is "can you design an experiment which could potentially falsify your hypothesis?"

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

An argument for floating your hypothesis on this board.

 

There are incredible minds here, that can think of stuff that I cannot even comprehend.

 

And they are good, honest people to boot. I cannot prove they are honest and good, but it sure seems that way to me.

 

But here is my proof that there are incredible minds here, that can tell you where your idea is flawed, or that can show you where it has already been thought of and incorporated, or that could encourage and enhance your idea, which ever.

 

One poster around here ajb, had in his interests, a kind of math I had never heard of. Suppose, just for argument sake that this math would be useful in your study, or that this math was an example of the mind doing what you think, in your hypothesis, the mind does. Maybe not, but in any case, how would you know without asking? Going back to the idea of many thoughts having already been had, have you ever thought of THIS!

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9812009

"On the Duflo formula for $L_\infty$-algebras and Q-manifolds

Authors: Boris Shoikhet (Independent University, Moscow)

(Submitted on 1 Dec 1998 (v1), last revised 7 Dec 1998 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We prove a direct analogue of the classical Duflo formula in the case of $L_\infty$-algebras. We conjecture an analogous formula in the case of an arbitrary Q-manifold. When $G$ is a compact connected Lie group, the Duflo theorem for the Q-manifold $(\Pi TG,d_{DR})$ is exactly the Duflo theorem for the Lie algebra $g = Lie G$. The corresponding theorem for the Q-manifold $(\Pi TM,d_{DR})$, where $M$ is an arbitrary smooth manifold, is a generalization of the Duflo theorem for the case of smooth manifolds. On the other hand, the Duflo theorem for the Q-manifold $(\Pi \bar T_{hol} M, \bar\partial)$, where $M$ is a complex manifold, is a generalization of the M. Kontsevich's ``theorem on complex manifold'' [K1], Sect. 8.4.

Comments: 11 pages, LaTeX2e

Subjects: Quantum Algebra (math.QA)

Cite as: arXiv:math/9812009v2 [math.QA]

 

Submission history

From: Boris Shoikhet [view email]

[v1] Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:42:25 GMT (10kb)

[v2] Mon, 7 Dec 1998 12:32:39 GMT (10kb)

 

Which authors of this paper are endorsers?

Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact."

 

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

A key question is "can you design an experiment which could potentially falsify your hypothesis?"

 

Of course, hence "scientifically testable."

 

And that's why I'm not specifically looking for feedback on the hypothesis. I think it's good, and should be tested. And I'll do that, unless someone else does it first. I won't listen to anyone who says "Sounds like a crap idea!"

[Mr Skeptic]

I won't listen to anyone who says "Sounds like a crap idea!"

 

What about the people that say "Is a crap idea" and can prove it?

[Edmond Zedo]

What about the people that say "Is a crap idea" and can prove it?

They'll have to prove it, won't they?

[Mokele]

Be sure to search for your idea under alternate possible names, or just using random combinations of associated keywords.

 

One thing I will caution - put the idea on the back burner. It could be potentially disastrous to view your entire education through the lens of this hypothesis, with possible confirmation bias creeping in, leading you to rigidly cling to it.

 

Get a notepad, jot it down, and use it to jot down any other ideas you have, either for big hypotheses or just one-off neat experiments, and then haul that pad out when it's time for grad school.

[Edmond Zedo]

Be sure to search for your idea under alternate possible names, or just using random combinations of associated keywords.

 

One thing I will caution - put the idea on the back burner. It could be potentially disastrous to view your entire education through the lens of this hypothesis, with possible confirmation bias creeping in, leading you to rigidly cling to it.

 

Get a notepad, jot it down, and use it to jot down any other ideas you have, either for big hypotheses or just one-off neat experiments, and then haul that pad out when it's time for grad school.

Thanks.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's burning a hole in my head, so I have to share it. Please forgive the lack of professional rigor, as I'm not yet a scientist.

 

This references the personality types under MBTI (Myers-Briggs), Keirsey Temperament, and Socionics, and which my own studies involve (My board is at jfmb.ipbfree.com). It's all directly or indirectly based on C.G. Jung's "Psychological Types." If you are unfamiliar with the preceding, which is not unlikely, you will probably have to research them before you'll see exactly what I'm getting at. In short, there are 16 types, defined by four preferences: Introversion/Extraversion (I/E), Intuition/Sensing (N/S), Thinking/Feeling (T/F), and Perceiving/Judging (P/J). I've been studying these systems and people-of-types for about a dozen years, as a very serious interest.

 

Several years ago, I learned of "Visual Identification," via Socionics, one of the 16-type systems. I wasn't initially impressed, but over time, I came to realize that those people who test as and/or have the temperament of a given type, have uncanny tendencies to possess facial similarity with one another. Very recently, in analysis of photos of people I've personally typed based on comparing their temperaments with "known" individuals, I noticed something specific.

 

My hypotheses concern a possible biological difference between those with an S/N preference difference, but all other preferences equal (INTP and ISTP, for example). In comparing the faces of probable ISTPs and probable INTPs, I noted an extremely common "theme" in the nose, specifically. INTPs' noses project further, and tend to be straight or convex, while ISTPs noses are smaller, and usually straight or concave. I then noticed that protrusion of the brow is also more pronounced in INTPs than ISTPs, and that in INTPs, the nose connects to the brow farther out than in ISTPs, typically. Essentially, in short, there is more tissue forward of the eyes in INTPs than in ISTPs. And this seems to extend to other types (Comparing ENFPs with ESFPs, for example).

 

So, hypothesis 1 is the above, that there is a correlation between brow/nose depth and perception method preference (S or N).

 

In order to derive any possible meaning from this, it's important to understand what "Intuition" (N) is. I define it, based on extensive subjective analysis, as the process of passive, abstract analysis--Holding received or recalled data in mind, and contemplating it, in an attempt to understand objects. This is opposed to "Sensing," which is direct input, separate from analysis. Right after I decided that there was a correlation between this brow/nose depth and N/S preference, I researched the biology of the brain, and discovered the orbitofrontal cortex. It is apparently not well understood yet, but what it's thought to be responsible for falls precisely in line with what I (And others before me) define as "Intuition."

 

So, hypothesis 2 is that there is a correlation between the S/N preference and the orbitofrontal cortex itself: The size of this piece of the brain, is larger (either overall, or relative to the rest of the brain) in those preferring "Intuition," and smaller in those preferring "Sensing."

 

A sub-hypothesis (3) is that if the above is accurate, the cause is developmental. In early childhood, the development of the skull and face either leads or follows development of the brain--one influences the shape of the other. Either the skull prevents the orbitofrontal cortex from developing extensively, or orbitofrontal cortex development determines the shape of the front of the skull and the soft tissues in the face. The latter seems more likely to me, based on my admittedly limited biological knowledge.

 

Whether the initial cause is genetic or not is up in the air, as far as I am concerned, because I lack great knowledge on the personality types of say, identical siblings. (It is possible for them to have different types, but I am not sure of the S/N difference.)

Edited September 29, 2009 by Edmond Zedo
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

So, hypothesis 1 is the above, that there is a correlation between brow/nose depth and perception method preference (S or N).

<...>

So, hypothesis 2 is that there is a correlation between the S/N preference and the orbitofrontal cortex itself: The size of this piece of the brain, is larger (either overall, or relative to the rest of the brain) in those preferring "Intuition," and smaller in those preferring "Sensing."

<...>

A sub-hypothesis (3) is that if the above is accurate, the cause is developmental. In early childhood, the development of the skull and face either leads or follows development of the brain--one influences the shape of the other.

Seems like trumped up phrenology to me. Further, size of the brain and it's regions is nowhere near as important as its organization and convolution.

[Edmond Zedo]

Seems like trumped up phrenology to me. Further, size of the brain and it's regions is nowhere near as important as its organization and convolution.

Phrenology wasn't based on observed physical differences which correlate with behavioral differences, and this is.

[tar]

Edmond Zedo,

 

In short, there are 16 types, defined by four preferences: Introversion/Extraversion (I/E), Intuition/Sensing (N/S), Thinking/Feeling (T/F), and Perceiving/Judging (P/J).

 

Or consider the role of the rightTBJ, the part of the brain found by Rebbeca Saxe, to be the system involved in being able to "see" the thoughts and feelings of unseen others.

 

 

One of each of the pairs you cited above, has more to do with what is coming in through your eyes. Extraversion,Sensing,Feeling,Perceiving.

 

One of each of the pairs has more to do with what your "second perspective"(my term, not fact), your rightTBJ, is looking at, Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, Judging.

 

Maybe your observations are indeed important and real, but the explanation has to do with how much of YOU (brow, bridge and cheek bone) are in your field of vision (first perspective). And this effects the development of your personality.

 

Do blind people have a strong, developed rightTBJ?

What shapes are their faces?

 

Regards, TAR

[Edmond Zedo]

Well, I just typed Rebecca Saxe as "INFJ" based on temperament comparison and visual identification in about 15 seconds, so I at least think I'm pretty good at knowing how people think, if not precisely what they're thinking about.

 

Some other probable INFJ women are Jennifer Connelly, Natalie Portman, and Leslie Feist, for comparison.

[tar]

Just a thought, just a guess, most likely completely wrong, just floating it, if any part of it is helpful to anybody in fitting any thing together they have noticed. Not intended as science. And I apologize for being so scatterbrained, throwing stuff up in shotgun fashion without thinking it out first. Not scientific. Not notably useful, except to me and the developement of my own worldview. Anyway, I apologize.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Edmond,

 

25 was supposed to have merged to 23. I didn't know you were posting 24.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And I have just determined in 150 seconds that Edmond and I have severe personality disorders, and that is why we are both drawn to the psychiatry thread.