PATHS - scientific inquiry

[Lauxa]

I wanted to start a thread on possible ways to test the effectiveness of the PATHS technologies. I had an idea.

I can record one of my PATHS modules with my laptop. Adam previously said the module would not be effective if not personalized for the individual. We can get 2 groups of participants to watch the videos. The first group will be told PATHS will be effective and the second will be told it will not be effective. Then the groups can record their progress on the area of their life the module is supposed to benefit. A third control group could just record progress without viewing the module.

Any comments on improving this experiment or a different experiment we could try? Anyone want to participate? It should probably be a 3-month study, so we'd need people to make a 3-month commitment.

[Savage]

Just be careful to read the license agreement if there is one to see if that type of sharing is permitted. If is isn't explicitly permitted, it's best to assume the movies or whatever they're called are copyrighted. So you'd just need to ask permission of the copyright holder first before being able to legally share them unless their license agreement already grants you that right.

It sounds like PATHs lies somewhere between a movie and a software program, both of which are copyrighted by default whenever someone creates them. I'd treat PATHs similarly.

[m0vingon]

I guess it all depends on how viable you want this experiment to be. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration if you want to do anything even vaguely approaching a true empirical study.

My biggest problem with your research design is that you don't have a control group. You need a group that receives no direction but uses PATHS. I would say that may be preferable to the group that is told that PATHS doesn't work.

I guess... I really don't understand your methodology. What is your hypothesis? What module would you use? What measurements? Bear in mind that self-report is inherently unreliable. Furthermore, anyone who has been exposed to the debate on this product can not be a viable participant in this study. You need a random sample of people who have never heard of it.

There are so many confounding variables, it would be almost impossible to control for them all. This was my concern with Aaron's cited "skin darkening" experiment, the specifics of which were never shared. How do you control for variables such as (to be obvious) sun exposure, etc? That's what pseudo-science is made of.

Sorry if I sound like a downer. I don't mean to be. I am just too inundated with research methodology for my own good

[Jay Bee]

Hi Lauxa

As far as I understand it the modules have built into them personal details such as your name, place and date of birth so that your subconscious can recognise this is YOU that is watching the module. Any other person watching, well their subc would reject it as not being them. And in my case I asked for a photo of myself to be put in (looking slimmer) and this was done.

Barb

[Angela]

Sounds like a huge waste of time and effort. Also, your "scientific test" would be an imitation of what you think PATHS is; it would not be the same as doing PATHS as it is intended to be used. Why not just follow the PATHS results thread for three months, see who is having or not having results, assess whether you believe those results are real or worth having, and then choose?

[searstower]

Lauxa,

Another thing to consider is that the paths theaters all have pictures that relate to that module. It's quite possible that staring at a picture of a thin person for 3 minutes once a week could have side effects of 1) making the subject think more about being thin, or, if they are not thin and don't feel good about it, 2) lower self esteem.

In order to work around that, you would need to keep the screen blank like they said they did in the tanning experiment.

Rebecca

[Lauxa]

I guess I'm just kind of curious to pick your brains about how such a study would even be done. What makes it science? Can a "scientific" study of this type of technology even be done? If not, then what is the point of arguing the scientific validity of the technology?

PATHS says there's a super secret technology built into the module that's targeted for my subconscious and I'm just wondering if it's true.

[m0vingon]

Sure, it's possible to test this type of technology, it's just somewhat difficult. The theatre can't be used "as is" since- as has been pointed out- the visuals would be problematic. Similarly, the name that is on the screen has the potential to play a role- as the PATHS people suggest. Perhaps testing only the audio would be a better way? I don't know. There are so many claims that I can't figure out what elements are supposed to work in what way.

As for the reason... The important aspect is to remove the placebo effect and measure change from there. It's not about "choosing". It's about experimenting. I am a researcher by necessity, so I believe that research is always valuable. If I had the time, money, and motivation to explore PATHS, I would. For my part, I've tried it and made my decision based on my experience and that's that. But that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy thinking about means to test it. I think of mens to test pretty much everything. It's like a bad addiction