Talk:Power posing

Dispute

User:RealityCheckNJ the changes you are making don't comply with WP:LEAD -- the lead just summarizes the body and the first sentence in particular needs to succintly summarize the whole article. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

recent edits

User:Socialpsychfollower, your edits:

• here at 21:27, 15 November 2017
• here ending 00:28, 16 November 2017
• here ending 08:04, 16 November 2017

Are not OK. Content in Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, ideally secondary and independent ones. This one relies perhaps too much on sources by Carney but in this case her stance on this work and the way she has worked with the rest of the scientific community is a key part of the story, and citing what she has actually said is useful and probably important to avoid going astray.

In any case please come use the talk page, and discuss specific changes that you would like to see. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there;) -Roxy the dog. barcus 18:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Socialpsychfollower would you please explain why you keep removing the content about Cuddy, as you did here? Your edit note said Removed material not relevant to scientific page but this is in the "public attention" section, and this is definitely public attention. Please do explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, I'm sorry but I have to agree with SPF that I am finding your edits too aggressive and verging on ownership behaviour. The quote "showed that the findings were the product of p hacking" is a very strong statement-it needs to be cited to an explicit quote. Similarly, your deletion of the Gronau 2017 paper was done completely without explanation–if you think this source is not a valid one to cite, you owe the person who posted it an explanation why. I also think that in general, we need to be focused on actually quoting what papers say rather than making strong, broad statements: the statement "refuted findings in Carney et al." is very broad and could do with some clarification. Blythwood (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think things are totally work-outable, and once everybody is here talking to one another that will be very, very possible. Please feel free to propose any specific change. The article needs a lot of work and careful discussion. I am not happy with how it stands either. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2017

Thank you for the administrator for taking control of this page. Would the administrator please consider including the content of some of my recent edits. 1st. - include Dana Carneys more recent statements on power posing that acknowledges evidence of an effect on feelings of power. (Academic paper) 2. Consider including some of my edits that report on the successful power posing replications, not just the non replications. 3. Consider allowing the definition of power pose to include the replicated psychological effects hypothesized in the seminal paper.(Carney 2010)

I hope these edits will be allowed and further restore my faith in wikipedia as a force for good. Socialpsychfollower (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You found the talk page! Great.

This proposal is going to be declined however, because:

a) you don't offer a specific edit (no admin is going to burrow through the history looking for whatever you are proposing)

b) there is no evidence of consensus for it.

What this time is for, is for the editors who were having a dispute, to work it out, here, obtain consensus, and then ask for it to be implemented.

That is how things work here. We have to talk to each other.

I suggest you open a new section, and propose some specific change to the article for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Socialpsychfollower: I looked at your most recent edits, and you appear to be trying to cite a blog post, not an academic paper. Blog posts are not reliable sources. As Jytdog said above, you will be better served to make a specific recommendation for a change (change X to Y) and indicate the reliable source that clearly supports your assertion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

one edit cited blog post that was already cited in other sections of the page (as you can see from the history). Other edits are cited from academic sources. This is becoming a bit of a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialpsychfollower (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Socialpsychfollower:–if you want to request an edit you need to be specific about what you would like changed and what inserted, and why. You need to explicitly say something like "after the third sentence in paragraph 3, put this text in, because this academic is respected in their field".
For myself, I have looked again at the edit history and I'm extremely alarmed by the fact that Jytdog removed without explanation the text,

However, a Bayesian meta-analysis of some of these studies conducted by Gronau et al, concluded it "yields very strong evidence for an effect of power posing on felt power."

It's perhaps not the most elegantly-phrased sentence in the world, but I cannot see anything wrong with this text, and right now although I'm not going to a file an edit request over it I think it should be put back [edit: probably as the second sentence of section 2, paragraph 4]. It cites a valid source from a valid author, part of the round-up of articles on the topic, and quotes it. If there is something wrong with this source or this quote, you owe us an explanation of what that is. I'm sorry but this action as far as I'm concerned has certainly crossed the line of ownership behaviour.

References

Blythwood Given that, would you mind editing the page to have it included? (socialpsychfollower) 16:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

--Blythwood (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The diff you cited was a big sweeping change, with some OK changes and some bad ones. Where in the article as it stands, would you like that content to be inserted, exactly? Also, please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the location. That paragraph currently acknowledges what the meta-analysis found -- it says "Carney co-authored the introduction to the issue, and noted that while the meta-analysis failed to find any effect in power behaviors, it did find a small effect in a feeling of power". The added sentence seems like it is talking about something else - some paper that is not already mentioned.... do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed non-neutral terminology "discredited" and "alone" (In 2017 alone...)

I found the opening language in this article to be negatively biased (IMHO). The term "discredited" inflects negative bias in the opening line. No adjective is required. More neutral that way, then let the different arguments stand on their merit. Or if an adjective is wanted, the term "controversial" might be more accurate, given Cuddy's 2018 refutation of the refutation. The term "alone" from "In 2017 alone..." also inflects negative bias. The fact is there were a number of studies in 2017, and then writer can list other studies in other years. D1doherty (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 05:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Woof, Roxy, What do you disagree with...that the language is not biased, or that it's OK for the article to use biased language? Please explain your reasons. My suggested edit is based on Wikipedia editing guidelines around neutral PoV and avoiding bias. Subsequent discussion seems to be seeking a similar approach to this topic. D1doherty (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

2018 paper

The lead is a bit inconsistent now, calling power posing "discredited theory" but then ending with a paragraph on how the latest research (the 2018 meta-analysis by Cuddy et al) has confirmed it. I googled around and found this blog post written by the authors of the original p-curving study that the 2018 paper was in response to, pointing out various problems with the methodology. Not sure if that is something to be included - it's a blog post, not a peer-reviewed study, OTOH these are the people who invented p-curving so their opinion seems kinda relevant. --Tgr (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Various issues

Roxy the Dog has reverted[1] my recent changes without considering why I made them. First, the source for "pseudoscience" is a dead link to what appears to be a retracted blog post. It is discredited in some circles (and in my mind) but it is still merely disputed or controversial in the literature. Importantly, it is something that people do, not just something people study. Power posing is not a "hypothesis" but a technique (like reverse psychology). I'm happy to discuss this, but I think an article that expresses direct animus is less persuasive than a neutral one.--Thomas B (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

decent of you to come to the talk page, many don’t. However, I disagree. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Are you going to defend your edit? (E.g., you might explain your insistence on including an unsourced charge of pseudoscience.)--Thomas B (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

actually, per BRD, you have to defend your edits. You really shouldn’t edit war like this. I’d accept removing pseudoscience until another ref pops up, but not the rest of the whitewash. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. And I did defend my edit: I said that pseudoscience is unsourced, that PP is not hypothesis but a technique, and that a neutral article will be more effective at correcting the false claim that PP has an effect than an obviously partisan one. Since my version was two weeks old at the time of your edit, I considered your intervention Bold and I Reverted it. I'm ready to Discuss. You're then one who started warring by reverting my revert.--Thomas B (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Good grief, I hadn't noticed that you had deleted the Pseudoscience para two weeks ago. I just included it as part of the whitewash. But you should stop badgering me about that, it's history. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm getting the impression that you're not really paying attention. There's nothing about my suggestion that could be taken as a "whitewash". I make it very clear that the idea has been discredited in scientific circles.--Thomas B (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

... and yet you continue to edit war your whitewash without consensus. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that you represent a consensus. Your history with this article seems to amount to reverting people and being somewhat rude to them. I see no evidence that you understand the issues. The article needs many improvements and you haven't been making them. Also you seem to have chased off anyone who tries. So I'm basically taking the absence of qualified opposition to my edits as support for them.--Thomas B (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Not just me. You should look at your edit warring in the article history, and note the other editor who agrees with me. That's a consensus. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of consensus: "...a group decision making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all...it requires all participants to positively support a decision." D1doherty (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear all about it from them in the section below.--Thomas B (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree it is a technique, one that may well be related to the heroic pose of acting [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a hypothesis but a technique

The words "power posing" don't refer to a hypothesis, and hypotheses don't get "discredited". PP is a life hack, a self-improvement technique, and it has been discredited by science. (Calling it a "hypothesis" is actually giving it too much credit, to much of an air of science.) That's what this version[3] says. Let's not edit war about it. Let's discuss it.--Thomas B (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've suggested reverse psychology as an example of what I mean. A better example might actually be priming (psychology). That article begins: "Priming is a technique whereby exposure to one stimulus influences a response to a subsequent stimulus..." Actually, it probably needs a bit of work too, since the science of priming has also been more or less "discredited". (But that's for another day.)--Thomas B (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that the act itself can be called a technique. It is however based on a a priori hypothesis about hormones which has been falsified, something which Cuddy herself admits (i.e. see https://ideas.ted.com/inside-the-debate-about-power-posing-a-q-a-with-amy-cuddy/ and https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dana_carney/power.poses.PS.2010.pdf p. 1364). —PaleoNeonate – 18:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's my view. The hypothesis that power posing induces hormonal changes has been tested and is now largely rejected. But this article is about the practice of power posing. As Christine Aschwanden reports, the technique is still being suggested to TED presenters: "it will help you feel powerful."[4] The article in its current form gets this right.--Thomas B (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"Other scientists have attempted to come up with an explanation for how the effect could have been found" seems strange to me, although I see that it's balanced by reports of failed replication. When I read this sentence my impression that it starts from the false premise that there's an objective effect and that it was a discovery. There may be a short subjective psychological or emotional sensation like with any belief/superstition/faith-based practice, but that's more general and already understood in fields like stress management, self-confidence management, body language, religiosity studies, etc. So I'm wondering if it's WP:DUE. —PaleoNeonate – 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at the sentence when I edited the paragraph. It looks like the date in the reference is wrong. The article is from 2011, not 2017, so it's not relevant in the context I had imagined. If it was published in 2011, it certainly doesn't belong in the post-Ranehill part of the narrative. But I don't know whether it's significant enough to go in the "initial claims" section.--Thomas B (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've looked into it and the Stanton (2011) paper seems to be an early critique of Carney, Cuddy and Yap (2010). The criticism, as Marcus Credé and Leigh Phillips note, is that they didn't use gender as a covariate.

Credé, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2017). Revisiting the Power Pose Effect: How Robust Are the Results Reported by Carney, Cuddy, and Yap (2010) to Data Analytic Decisions? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617714584

Technically, if we're going to mention Stanton it should be right at the beginning of the replication failure section (after Ioannidis). But I think it's probably peripheral.--Thomas B (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE2: I've gone ahead and removed it. Here's the ref info with date corrected:

{{cite journal|title=The Essential Implications of Gender in Human Behavioral Endocrinology Studies|first=Steven J.|last=Stanton|year=2011|journal=Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience|volume=5|pages=9|doi=10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00009|pmid = 21441984|pmc=3057631}}

--Thomas B (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; for the GA question below I can't help much as I don't do GAs (and often it's a question of compromises), but it may be worth asking at WT:PSYCHOLOGY and WT:SKEPTIC (the two listed WikiProjects) perhaps. —PaleoNeonate – 22:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:GA?

I've been making a few changes to the article and I'm quite encouraged by the results. I'd like to nominate it for WP:GA review at some point. Any thoughts on what needs to be done before it has a realistic chance of passing?--Thomas B (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Material from Amy Cuddy article

I've reduced the power posing section of the Amy Cuddy article significantly. Most of it was already here in some form, but some of the descriptions and sources seemed worth moving to here. Here's a link to the unreduced version: [5].--Thomas B (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

"Disproven", "controversial", "discredited"

Cuddy promoted power posing an application of a scientific result. This has made the technique controversial, because the science turned out not to hold up to scrutiny. But gurus still suggest doing it, simply because it makes you "feel powerful". That may work for some, even if it hasn't been clearly demonstrated scientifically. (Cuddy claims to have some evidence.) So the technique is controversial, and the science has been discredited. The only thing that's been more or less disproven is the hormone hypothesis. Power posing doesn't seem to have the claimed physiological effects.--Thomas B (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

As I described in my edit summary, the issue is not that power posing is not controversial, but that describing it that way in the first sentence without qualification is misleading. Without explanation, it conflates controversy over whether something is true with controversies of other types. It would be like adding "controversial" to the definition of global warming: it's true under a certain interpretation, but using it would be disingenuous. This sort of language is regularly used in attempts to promote fringe viewpoints because (among other things) it implies that whether people believe something is more important than whether it's correct.

It also looks like I'm the third editor to revert your introduction of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. Under such circumstances, you are expected to leave the article in its original state until you have established consensus in favor of your changes. Sunrise (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Your last edit ignores the consensus (see above) that was reached about describing it as a "technique", not a "hypothesis". The words "power posing" don't refer to a hypothesis but to a technique, the phrase functions like "social priming". Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "without qualification" and "without explanation"; note that the version I'm defending reads, "Power posing is a controversial self-improvement technique or "life hack". Though the underlying science has been largely discredited..."

The significance of power posing -- it's notability -- stems from the scientific controversy it has been, and to some extent remains, the focus of. Today, it is factually inaccurate to describe it plainly as a discredited hypothesis since it obviously holds some sway among practitioners. (Maybe compare acupuncture, where "pseudoscience" is saved for the second sentence, and "alternative" does the work of "controversial" here.) When Cuddy and others (hopefully) one day abandon it, I would change the article to read, "Power posing was a popular self-improvement technique. Before the underlying science was discredited..."

The lead in the form I'm proposing emerged as part of a substantial rewrite, for which there seemed to be consensus as we went along. I hope you'll consider it in that context.--Thomas B (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually see no problem with Sunrise's (and possibly Roxy?)'s version. Saying that the science behind it is discredited is not much different than saying that the technique is (which could also be called a practice). A possible alternative may be "scientifically discredited" if making the distinction between the popularity of the practice and the science is so important... —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sunrise's current suggestion for the opening sentence is:

Power posing is a discredited hypothesis in psychology that claims that by assuming a "powerful" posture, subjects can induce positive hormonal and behavioral changes.

But power posing is not just something experimental subjects do. It's something job candidates, for example, and public speakers do. Power posing isn't what happens in the lab but what people do in their actual lives. Are they wasting their time? Probably. We don't have an article on the efficacy of power posing so power posing here needs to be defined at the outset as the practice it is. In fact, it is overstating the evidence to say it has been demonstrated to have no positive effect on people's lives and performance. A "discredited hypothesis" (I would think) is one that it's no longer reasonable to investigate. I don't think we're there yet with power posing. I imagine a study of its effects (including null results) is still publishable.--Thomas B (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, my concern here is the use of the word "controversial" as the primary adjective in the definition, and in particular I have no preference as to whether power posing is called a hypothesis or a technique. The quote you've included is merely a restoration of the prior version, so I'm not "suggesting" it myself.

The main issue with putting the context in the second sentence is that Wikipedia's mobile view as well as Google Search snippets often include only the first sentence. (With regards to the acupuncture article, while it isn't perfect, "alternative" actually functions as "discredited" in that context, which can be seen via the wikilink.) I disagree that e.g. the existence of practitioners at this point in time means that it cannot be considered discredited, but I'd be fine with "scientifically discredited" as well, per PaleoNeonate. Sunrise (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not the whole technique that's been scientifically discredited, just the original overblown claims for its effects, especially its physiological effects. Consider the Gronau et al. paper that is mentioned above. If power posing is presented merely as a way of increasing felt power before an important meeting then is it accurate to say that it has been "scientifically discredited"? This is why I like putting this in terms of the scientific basis being "largely discredited".

I'm not sure how we can settle the question of whether "alternative" is more like "controversial" or "discredited", but I hope we can agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be harder on power posing than it is on acupuncture and homeopathy. In both cases, it seems to me, we're told what it is before we're told it's pseudoscience. That makes the articles read as less biased, and therefore immediately more credible.--Thomas B (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just had a go at improving the first sentence. It seems that we were falling into the trap of telling people that it doesn't work without telling them what it is.

In terms of whether it "works", it probably has just as much effect on performance as any baseball superstition or other "lucky" ritual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Cf. British Psychological Society

We might also ask whether we should be harder on power posing than the writers at the British Psychological Society. [6] --Thomas B (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Emma Young's "digest" of the state of discussion in March 2018 and I don't think anything major has happened since. To me it indicates that the research is "disputed" and the technique therefore "controversial", but that neither has been "discredited". Research is ongoing and, though some think it's a waste of resources (and I tend to agree), not all psychologists share that view.--Thomas B (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

News article

Article on power posing / postural feedback that mentions Amy Cuddy and a new research review by Marcus Credé. Article also covers history of power posing, other studies of the topic, and media coverage in Forbes and Time.

Elder, John (2019-10-03). "Oh, Superman: Your heroic pose doesn't really boost your confidence". The New Daily.

Cross-posted at Amy Cuddy.

Pelagic (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Focus and Structure: Neutrality

This article has greatly improved through the thoughtful discussion. However, I still see biased language and references that detract from the article's credibility. The first issues are focus and structure. What is this article really about...the facts about power posing or the validity of research results related to it? If both, they need to be separated. I believe it would be fair and appropriate to describe what it is, then enter background, evidence of arguments for and against, and perhaps a conclusion/summary. I propose something like this...

Power posing is a self-improvement technique or "life hack" in which people stand for two minutes in a posture that they associate as powerful, with the intention of feeling more confident and assertive. The technique was explored in a research paper and popularized in a 2010 TED Talk by Amy Cuddy.

Background References to power posing can be found throughout history...Greek Gods, statue at Rhodes, walk like a matador (bullfighter), super heroes...etc

A 20__ study by Amy Cuddy, et al, found...

A 20__ study based on Cuddy's methodology (but not identical) failed to replicate the claimed hormonal changes...

A 20__ critique of the research methodology came from...

Cuddy's rebuttal and subsequent findings in 20__...

References and Links

[If blog posts are not credible sources, then popular opinion for or against is not relevant. > "Promoters continue to argue..."

[This reference is not accurate to the research nor the recommended technique> "One popular image of the technique in practice is that of candidates "lock[ing] themselves in bathroom stalls..." D1doherty (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References to Tony Blair

Two of the references don't mention Tony Blair and so I'd suggest are therefore removed as irrelevant. The other (first of the three) does, but I'm not sure how sturdy an assertion it is (it says "But, like so many other legacy problems, it actually began with Tony Blair." Then doesn't support that statement (though does talk about the author of a book, who may have provided the information). 2A01:4B00:8860:300:89F6:C069:1CAA:8951 (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)