What should psychological research learn from this example?
First, human beings are capable of self-interpreting, which refer to the ability to determine what are signs out of innumerable things, events and phenomena. In contrast, other species, including plants, or even static material substances, such as iron bars and stones, involuntarily respond to signs. These are not concerned about whether they confront signs or nothing significant. The human capability of determining what are signs makes it virtually impossible to set up purely non-biased laboratory settings, especially for psychological research.
Second, therefore, psychological research need to deal with data as both analogous and digital. Dealing with data as analogous means that data are emergent of particular relationships between relevant entities or sub-entities. Signs can be confirmed to be functioning as signs only by certain movements directed towards particular directions. By taking into account the relational emergence of data, which are already meaningful for researchers in particular ways, they are likely to understand that measurement is less important for ‘good’ science than supporting narratives that elaborate why and how causal relations cannot be determined.
The non-replication does not mean that physical movements does not affect construction of perceptions. What is important is to understand the relationality between the two distinct processes, not which comes first. Knowing the relationality is of practical relevance for managing a variety of emotions and feelings.
By Christian Jarrett The great American psychologist William James proposed that bodily sensations – a thumping heart, a sweaty palm – aren’t merely a consequence of our emotions, but may actually cause them. In his famous example, when you see a bear and your pulse races and you start running, it’s the running and the […]