Saving...
Having problems viewing the video? Try our Flashplayer.
Please ensure you have the latest Flash Player installed.
Check your current Flashplayer version, and if lower than 11, please upgrade your player.
Download .mp4 video Download .mp3 audio Download .pdf transcript
Jonathan Schooler became interested in the Decline Effect when his own path-breaking 1990 study in memory proved impossible to replicate. Worse, each successive attempt only brought his subjects’ scores lower. The same thing happened when colleagues tried to test his findings. The more Professor Schooler talked with other scientists, the more stories emerged of the same thing happening to them, in a half-dozen unrelated fields. Science is awash with experimental results that cannot be replicated, so what is happening and why?
Jonathan pursues research on consciousness, memory, the relationship between language and thought, problem-solving, and decision-making. He is particularly interested in exploring phenomena that intersect between the empirical and the philosophical such as how fluctuations in people’s awareness of their experience mediate mind-wandering and how exposing individuals to philosophical positions alters their behavior.
In this interview conducted at a recent IONS Conference, Jonathan shares the background to his discovery and ponders how both a scientific explanation and an X factor of consciousness is responsible.
For more on Jonathan Schooler, go to www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/schooler/.
PURCHASE THE DVD OF THIS INTERVIEW:
consciousness, decline effect, experiments, Jonathan Schooler, memory, replicate, scientific, UC Santa Barbara
PDF
[...] Conscious Mind Network has released an interview with Jonathan Schooler (here) about his work on the decline [...]
At 63 years of age, I can attest to this type of experience. I have had so named “peak” experiences that have never been replicated. Many of the people I know who have had cosmic experiences, with the opening they provided, have spent many years pursuing the same experience. Here is the wisdom that comes from living fully in the moment. I believe we have more unexpected “peak” experiences from living in the eternal now. Because our consciousness is constantly evolving, each experience will always be non-replicable. What do you think?
This makes sense to me. Great theory. The Universe grows only when we grow, we grow when try new things.
I agree!
What a completely fascinating interview and subject! I hadn’t heard of the “decline effect” before, but certainly have experienced it for years! As an art student years ago I was always dreading the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. assignments, because to my dismay and surprise I noticed that instead of getting better with practice and time, I always seemed to get worse. And so to learn that this is actually a known phenomenon gives me hope, and makes me laugh really. It’s also very compelling how this even happens physiologically and biologically. On a rather superficial level, I’ve noticed this with using shampoo and even facial cleansers…I always use about 3 different ones alternating because I’ve noticed a marked increase in the quality of results this way!? I look forward to further studies and results on this most important work. Thanks!
That was great! As a science student I once dared to ask, “Why do we only publish the positive results; the ones where the data support our hypothesis?” Silly me, as a budding computer nerd I was thinking binary code … 0s and 1s … is a super way of transmitting info & getting the job done with computers, why are we only using the 1s in science? Isn’t not getting the expected result also useful information? Those experiments are done with as much care as the ones that “work”… no one sets out to reject their own working hypothesis! Of course, you could have heard a pin drop and the answer went something like, “If your data doesn’t support your hypothesis, you’ve made a serious error in your assumptions, experimental design, data collection, data analysis or in your conclusions. There must be that support; that’s how science moves knowledge ahead in incremental steps”. Be interesting to see how many “failed” experiments are genuinely flawed in some respect. Maybe the 1s approach is why we only move ahead one nanoscopic, cautious, guaranteed-to-work step at a time. Well, it’s gotten us somewhere, but I agree with Jonathan Schooler. I’m not sure it’s done the job as well as a balanced 0s and 1s approach that includes the results of experiments that didn’t “work” and didn’t support the hypothesis posed. Be interesting to see how shift to a 0s and 1s approach affects the info we get about our world and our understanding of it.