The law of expectation -- true or false?

[pendell]

So I'm reading selling for dummies (http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Dummies-Tom-Hopkins/dp/0764553631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312500902&sr=8-1[/url) and I came across this sidebar on page 316



The law of expectation

Most people have experienced the phenomenon of unfulfilled expectations, but they tend to shrug off fulfilled expectations as coincidences rather than planned, envisioned events.

The law of expectation states otherwise:

When you think something will happen, and you feel strongly about it, you will bring about its happening.

I think this is where the phrase "mind over matter" comes in.

For example, one evening a friend of mine left home to take a walk. All she took with her were the keys to her apartment (and, of course, the clothes on the back and the shoes on her feet). She had been out for about an hour and was returning home right around dark when she felt a grate beneath her feet. No sooner did she feel the grate beneath her feet than the thought crossed her mind that if she dropped her keys into the grate she would not be able to get back into her apartment because her husband was away on a three day business trip. What do you suppose happened? You got it! The keys fell into the grate and left our friend with the dilemma of finding a way back into her own apartment.


Now, 'law of expectation' sounds very scientific, but I'm just a touch skeptical. googling (http://www.google.com/#q=law+of+expectation&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=2DI7TvTpOO7gsQK5n4QI&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=71d1a95efb9ed47d&biw=784&bih=467) shows the phrase on a number of 'holistic healing' or religious sites, but I see very little scientific backing for the assertion the author makes.

Mind, that doesn't mean it's completely false. It occurs to me that as a matter of psychology this law might be very valid. If you go into a sales presentation expecting to be rejected, it'll show in your demeanor and your posture and your body language. And people will reject you.

On the other hand, if you believe hard enough that you can jump off a cliff and levitate instead of fall, I expect we'll be scraping you off the pavement.

'Expectations' seems to work well, IME, with personal biology and psychology, less well with things like physics.

I'm curious if anyone else here has any expectations or knowledge in this area.

1) Is the law of expectations scientific? Have there been any studies done?
2) If so, under what circumstances is it valid?

I have a hard time believing it is wholly unscientific, because it is probably related to the Placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect#Mechanism_of_the_effect) . The placebo effect could be a subset of the law of expectations -- we expect a pill to help heal us, and therefore it does, even if said pill is a sugar pill without any useful active ingredient.

So ... as I said .. I expect it makes sense for biology and psychology. Does it work elsewhere? If so, what evidence is there that it does?

Anecdotes are welcome ,but are of course inconclusive.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gardener]

I don't know any actual scientific examples, but there are some other related phenomena. A big one is confirmation bias - when you expect something to happen, you're more likely to interpret whatever does happen as some variation on the thing you were expecting. This is well-documented. Another is that, in social situations, people tend to prefer to live up to the expectations of others than to oppose them. They don't always do so, but there's a default bias to being the sort of person the people around you treat you as. So if you treat the customer like they're being difficult, they're likely to respond by becoming more difficult. People will rebel against expectations some of the time, so you can't just ride this phenomenon into the ground, but it's a handy thing to remember.

So, yeah. I don't think the principle is wholly valid in terms of physics, but it's probably good advice for selling things - expect the person to be interested in buying, and you're certainly a lot more likely to get sales.

[LaZodiac]

In driving, look where you want to drive. If you look at where something you don't want to hit, you will hit it. It's part of just how we as human beings work. If it's within the laws of physics, it's totally possible. Someone believing they will fail will, more often then not, fail. Conversivly, being confident in turns makes things happen that CAUSE you to be confident.

Scientificly, I think it's pretty half and half. But personaly, I like to believe it. And since I believe it, it's true :smalltongue:

[crimson77]

'law of expectation'

Self-fulfilling prophecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy)

[Ravens_cry]

This is such guano de toro. Sure, having goals, and working toward them helps you in attaining goals, duh, but this airy, bubbly nonsense, is such crap. All it is is a fancy way of saying "have confidence".
Think of it logically.
Other people also have goals and 'expectations'. Quite often, these goals will conflict with yours. You both want that job, you both want to win the lottery, you both want to win that auction on eBay. Life isn't a zero-sum game, but many things are directly or indirectly affected by other people.
It's also why I don't believe in luck. We can't all have good luck, because our good luck can be another persons bad luck.
Like diets that say "Eat what you want, as much as you want and don't exercise but lose weight", this is just another scam for people who don't want to work hard towards their goals but want to reap the rewards thereof.

[thubby]

in matters outside human control, expectation means nothing.

confidence does impact human performance, however. one who expects do go the extra mile is more likely to, though its not absolute.

it's untrue in many circumstances, but believing it may be useful regardless just because it breeds confidence and a positive outlook.

[Telonius]

in matters outside human control, expectation means nothing.

confidence does impact human performance, however. one who expects do go the extra mile is more likely to, though its not absolute.

it's untrue in many circumstances, but believing it may be useful regardless just because it breeds confidence and a positive outlook.

That's essentially my take on it. You can expect you're going to win on the roulette wheel all you want, but (on average) you're not going to beat the house. But if you're dealing with something where your own performance matters, or where other people are dealing with you in a social situation, it can be useful. (And a useful lie is still useful).

[Syka]

I learned more about this in my college Spanish class than I learned Spanish. No, for real. The teacher was all "Visualize, Verbalize" etc. Like...insanely so.

I agree that to some degree it works. If you have a goal and keep it in the forefront of your mind, it's more likely to come to fruition because you are actively thinking about it and working toward it.

But, at the same time, no matter how much I visualize and verbalize and practice to become a great track athlete...I won't ever be. My body just isn't made for it. Would I get in way better shape? Yeah. Medal winning level? I don't think so.


Then again, this may explain why a lovebug flew down my shirt and bra the day after I thought "Hm, one of my worst nightmares would be if one of these little turds flew down my bra" during this last swarming season. At work no less. And a couple other coincidences (both positive and negative). :)

[Pheehelm]

Not quite the same thing, but it seems very similar to the "Law of Attraction," and some of Professor Dutch's response (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/TheSecret.HTM) would fit neatly into this thread.

[Trekkin]

As to how scientific it is, I would think that tracking or engendering thoughts of that type would be hard to do repeatably and verify, so as written it's outside the purview of any really rigorous experimentation as far as I know. The placebo effect has been studied, and it's that and related phenomena that I suspect would compose the provable part of this law, which makes the promise of a controllable element questionable. If you believe something to be have an effect on you, it may, but whether you can make yourself believe it I don't know.

Dutch's response is a good one as noted above, although I would add that if anything were to lend a grain of truth to this, the degree to which we do things without consciously realizing it and communicate subconsciously. In short, it would probably work better in salesmanship than in, say, assembly line work.

[Imperial Psycho]

One tends to forget all the times you think about the keys falling in the drain and they don't, but remember the one time they do. So yeah, other than perhaps some small effect in that thinking about something might subconsciously make you more likely to do it, I'm going to say no.

[Asta Kask]

It also has some some really dark consequences. If something bad happens to you, you probably wanted it to happen to you. Try selling that story in a terminal cancer ward, or among the starving children overseas... no, it's a nasty, vicious lie and we're all the better for there not being a single shred of evidence for it.

[Frozen_Feet]

As has been noted, there's some grain of truth in it. Belief directly affects action; thus, when how you act directly affects your situation, so does what you believe.

However, it's not hard-and-fast law of nature by any means.

[rogueboy]

In driving, look where you want to drive. If you look at where something you don't want to hit, you will hit it.

As a specific example of this, think about when someone's learning to drive. When you're new to driving and check over your shoulder before merging, you tend to drift that way. It takes a little bit to get used to checking over your shoulder without drifting.

I'm not sure the whole 'violating the laws of physics' thing is a fair assessment of the law of expectations. It tends to be more a matter of reasonable expectations: if you expect something to happen that could happen without magic (aka not violating the laws of physics, even if it is a bit unusual), it's more likely to happen. Doesn't mean it will, but it's more likely than if you aren't expecting the outcome (or expecting the opposite outcome).

Also, I'd say that confirmation bias (which, as Gardener said, has quite a lot of evidence for it) is a specific case of this: you expect a certain result from the data, so your mind makes connections that may not actually be there, or ignores evidence contrary to your preformed opinion. Similar for the placebo effect, as Trekkin mentioned.

In short: it's pretty applicable in non-physical ways, but much harder to prove in physical cases, although I expect everyone has anecdotes about willing themselves to do something outside of the norm (at least for them). I know I have a couple of those with needles and needle-phobia, among other things.

Although, to play devil's advocate for a moment: is the 'evidence' for the law of expectations simply a result of our own expectations about the law of expectations?

[Knaight]

It also has some some really dark consequences. If something bad happens to you, you probably wanted it to happen to you. Try selling that story in a terminal cancer ward, or among the starving children overseas... no, it's a nasty, vicious lie and we're all the better for there not being a single shred of evidence for it.

Yeah, this is one of the fundamental problems with The Secret, which is addressed above. Its more minor than its utter and total lack of evidence, significant counter evidence, so on and so forth, but still major. The best counter argument I've seen used the examples of natural disaster and genocides, simply because of their extreme nature.

[Adlan]

Yeah, this is one of the fundamental problems with The Secret, which is addressed above. Its more minor than its utter and total lack of evidence, significant counter evidence, so on and so forth, but still major. The best counter argument I've seen used the examples of natural disaster and genocides, simply because of their extreme nature.

Another skeptic chiming in, saying a mix of placebo affect and dangerous humbug.

This sort of thinking varies from think positively, you'll be happier, to cancer patients taking it into their heads to throw their meds away and use positive thought to heal themselves.

Often related to both religious and secular prosperity gospel scams.

[Greenish]

Another skeptic chiming in, saying a mix of placebo affect and dangerous humbug.Also, selection bias (you remember thinking about and it happening easier than all the times when you thought about something and it didn't happen). Oh, and all "evidence" is purely anecdotal.

[WarKitty]

Combination of confirmation bias, placebo effect, and just world theory, I'd say.

Confirmation bias: We're more likely to remember things that fit with what we expected and forget things that don't as random.

Placebo effect: We perform better in a variety of ways if we think we're being helped or boosted somehow. Works the other way as well.

Just world theory: We want to see the world as just and fair whether it is or not, because most of us would prefer to live in a world where you get what you deserve than one where random crap happens.

[Knaight]

Placebo effect: We perform better in a variety of ways if we think we're being helped or boosted somehow. Works the other way as well.

Technically the other way is called the nocebo effect, but that is quibbling at best.

[The Succubus]

Sounds like an attempt to dress up Murphy's Law in scientific writings.

I prefer Murphy's Law (http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209177) when it's dressed up on comic strip epicness.

[Feytalist]

In mathematical statistics, this is called spurious selection, or spurious reporting. Similar to confirmation/selection bias already mentioned. It is actually a big problem among medical/health insurance institutions. A statistician or researcher may notice a trend, then investigate that trend, then confirm the existence of that trend, and then make (wrong) assumptions based on the evidence.

Consider you notice a higher than normal ratio of girl babies than boy babies among Korean air force pilots. You investigate, and after collecting the data, you come to the conclusion that Korean air force pilots have the genetic tendency to produce higher than average female offspring, for whatever reason. Why is this assumption wrong? The evidence was already there. You studied what you already knew to be true, and came to a far-too-general conclusion.

Events just happen, whether you notice or not. The act of you noticing, or thinking about it, doesn't change the outcome or the meaning.

A note: the strangely specific example above? That study actually happened. It came directly from my old actuarial science handbook. Scientists can be stupid too, sometimes.

[drakir_nosslin]

It's also why I don't believe in luck. We can't all have good luck, because our good luck can be another persons bad luck.

Of course we all can have good luck, as long as everyone's not having it at the same time. Having luck is just another way of saying that the (more or less) improbable positive thing happened. This can happen to everyone, but not all the time.

As for the law itself, I think that it's true in some areas. It's not necessarily a good thing, but I believe that it's there, as long as we're talking pure psychology (sales is a very good example).
The body reacts unconsciously to thoughts, and the mind picks up on body language and reacts to it without you are directly aware of it.

As for the example in the OP, that might just be a coincidence, it's certainly not evidence.

[pendell]

I agree. It's the same thing with constellations -- people insist on fixing patterns onto nature that simply aren't there. Or with clouds -- no one really believes that a cloud looks like a plane or an animal or what not, but we still insist on creating a pattern that isn't there.

Strange .. ISTR a study saying that 'positive thinking' actually had a NEGATIVE impact on some forms of disease recovery, because people burned up energy trying to believe something that their bodies could put to better use fighting the disease. But I can't seem to find it.

Still, medical news today (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/231614.php) seems to suggest that an optimistic outlook lowers stroke risk.

Hmm ... so a positive outlook seems helpful with our biology and our psychology. There appears to be no evidence that it has any other effect.

Any dispute?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bhu]

The Law of Expectation is two different things. In new age or other religious its trying to impose your will on the universe to get what you want. Think of books like The Secret and you get the idea. I could go into it more but it prolly breaks a rule somewhere.

In sales it's about what your customer expects from you based on previous (possibly negative) experiences, and how you can lead them by the nose to buy from you anyway. The idea is telling them what to expect next instead of letting previous experiences dictate their choice of belief in whats most likely to happen because you don't know what those experiences have been and they could interfere with the sale.

It would seem possible the writer of the book has confused the two.

[pendell]

It would seem possible the writer of the book has confused the two.


Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Taking a truth and then over-generalizing it to all kinds of situations it doesn't actually work in is also an occasional human fault.

Or the author could simply have chosen a poor example to make his point.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Telonius]

It also has some some really dark consequences. If something bad happens to you, you probably wanted it to happen to you. Try selling that story in a terminal cancer ward, or among the starving children overseas... no, it's a nasty, vicious lie and we're all the better for there not being a single shred of evidence for it.

On the other hand, there's often something that a person can do to minimize risk. If someone smokes three packs of cigarettes a day, knowing the risks, and ends up in that terminal cancer ward, wouldn't they have at least some agency in their own destruction? Not that having cancer was their goal, but they chose to act in a way that made it nearly inevitable. (Obviously there are people who just have bad luck and get cancer through no fault of their own, and there's the occasional George Burns who smokes like a chimney and lives to 100). If they know the consequences and act that way anyway, haven't they chosen the outcome?

I do think that there is a time and place for telling people that sort of thing. If somebody's drowning, you don't lecture them on water safety, you get them to shore first. Then you yell at them for falling out of the boat. By the time someone's in the terminal cancer ward, it's a little late to try to convince them to start living a healthier lifestyle. That's the time for compassion, not assigning blame - even if the blame is deserved.

[Adlan]

On the other hand, there's often something that a person can do to minimize risk. If someone smokes three packs of cigarettes a day, knowing the risks, and ends up in that terminal cancer ward, wouldn't they have at least some agency in their own destruction? Not that having cancer was their goal, but they chose to act in a way that made it nearly inevitable. (Obviously there are people who just have bad luck and get cancer through no fault of their own, and there's the occasional George Burns who smokes like a chimney and lives to 100). If they know the consequences and act that way anyway, haven't they chosen the outcome?

The law of expectations in this case would be in our two cases outlined above

The Secret style: people can stop getting cancer if they stop thinking they'll get cancer.
Practical style: if you think you can give up smoking, instead of resigning your self to it, you'll find it easier and thus be less likely to get cancer.

Seems that the law works out like a deepidy.

[Asta Kask]

On the other hand, there's often something that a person can do to minimize risk. If someone smokes three packs of cigarettes a day, knowing the risks, and ends up in that terminal cancer ward, wouldn't they have at least some agency in their own destruction?

Absolutely, but that's not the way The Secret puts it. The smoking is incidental to cancer; the causative factor is the (probably unconscious) desire to get cancer. And that's just insane.

[pendell]

Seems that the law works out like a deepidy.

??? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.



Absolutely, but that's not the way The Secret puts it. The smoking is incidental to cancer; the causative factor is the (probably unconscious) desire to get cancer. And that's just insane.


I never, ever EVER in a million years -- nor did my wife -- expect to miscarry and never be able to have natural children. But it did.

...

Dunno about the rest of you lot, but the worst things that have happened to me are things I never imagined in my darkest dreams. By contrast, those things I most fear, those things I take most preparation and contingency against, seem to almost never happen and my preparations go to waste. Almost like a law of REVERSE expectation -- the more I worry about something, the less likely it is to happen. And if it DOES happen, I have a contingency in place to address it.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Adlan]

??? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

Deepity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity)

Which apparently I've miss spelled all along.

[pendell]

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Joran]

Testing it empirically. Bought a lottery ticket tonight...

Nope. No money at all. Apparently, I didn't believe hard enough.

[pendell]

Maybe try something easier like a coin flip or a d20 die roll first. I suggest that altering a probability of 0.5 might require less energy than altering a probability of 0.<infinitesimal> to <something moderately likely> .

Possible experiment: Use a coin or a die roller. Roll/flip 50 times as control. Now flip or roll 50 times while expecting a particular value . Now do it again choosing ANOTHER value. Find mean/median, standard deviation. See if the probability (1/2 or 1/20) alters in any significant way. By no means conclusive, but it would at least be a start.

Respectfully,

Brian P.