alot of the self help books etc are mumbo jumbo.... but it also has a placebo effect on people if the mind thinks it can it will Pele — 'Success is no accident. It is hard work , perseverance, learning, studying, sacrifice and most of all, love of what you are doing or learning to do' Posted by Itsover4u
I suppose with all this debunking your thread I should actually suggest a mental poker book, or something along those lines. If you want to improve logically, I really would recommend learning statistics + probability. Also, learning poker strategy really helps mentally because you have a clearer idea about strategy, how to react to strategies etc. In fact, I'd probably go as far as saying improving your poker game is the best thing you can do to improve your mental game, but of course that doesn't sell books. Staying away from that, however, I'd recommend something to do with game theory. I recently read The Joys of Game Theory & Game Theory Puzzles, both of which provide puzzles for you to work through. The mathematics isn't advanced. It just providez puzzles/games, you're supposed to try and work through them yourself, and the author then tells you the answer with description + analysis. It's quite fun + it likely helps more with logical thinking than any psych book. Well, only if you have the self-control & perseverance to try and complete the puzzles by yourself before asking for the author's help! You don't have to go for the ones I recommended obv, I'm sure there are plenty of ismilar books on the market that all do similar things. Posted by percival09
GCHQ have brought a puzzle book out you might like it right up your street Percy, it were on radio 2 going through some of the simpler ones for the audiance
In Response to Re: Book sharing club. : GCHQ have brought a puzzle book out you might like it right up your street Percy, it were on radio 2 going through some of the simpler ones for the audiance Posted by stokefc
cheers, I'd probably struggle to get past the simple ones, fun tho
You make a lot of excellent points Percival, as you usually do. I guess it is to be expected that I would take issue with your apparent standpoint on psychology. Which I personally would describe as reductionist.
While I would agree that some popular psychology books may be as useful as a chocolate fireguard, to slate psychology as a whole is a tad unfair. I would liken it to taking a popular food like a 'Big Mac' and concluding that all food was fast food junk. Or maybe looking at a popular building like a supermarket and deciding the field of architecture is sorely lacking variety and imagination. There are bad psychology books for sure, just as there is poor food and horrible buildings but using these examples to make sweeping inferences about their respective fields is unfair.
The problem with pop psychology books is that they are popular as they are easy for the masses to consume; not due to them being the best examples psychology has to offer. You mention statistics and variance as being pertinent, good psychological study would stem from a position which understands this. I have spent the last week running ANOVA tests (analysis of variance), T-Tests, Pearson correlations, Regressions, Tukeys, Bonferonnis' and I don't know how many other statistical tests on various data sets. These days there is a lot more hard science in 'good psychology'. While a sample size of 9 is generally rather terrible (with some exceptions), there are plenty studies that are massively more robust and can be used much more confidently to make generalisations to the wider population.
There are certainly many areas of psychology which would be worthwhile for a poker player to consider.
Apologies for the ramble, I feel obliged to fight the corner for psychology.
Yes, to be fair to you I did notice you write that caveat. I just though the sentiment in general was a little harsh on the field overall but then again that is my subjective opinion which I should not peddle as objective findings like those pesky pop psychology books :-)
I think one major problem is that the tide of pressure within psychology pushes psychologists to publish journal articles rather than books.
Dan Ariely who wrote Predictably Irrational which you mention even touches on this point at the very start of this presentation. Indeed he says he only wanted to write a book as he had become so bored writing journal articles and that he wanted to be less constrained and more free (and pay less attention to the science I guess).
To me psychology 'by and large' looks to spot patterns in human behaviour. Obviously these are general finidings which might not be best used to draw absolute conclusions about specific individuals. These patterns can be quite useful to use as a broad lens when viewing situations (such as a hand of poker) as long as they are not viewed as absolutes. As a crude example, study on 'cognitive dissonance' can be quite useful when trying to figure out what an opponent's motives may be for a particular action at the tables.
Yes, to be fair to you I did notice you write that caveat. I just though the sentiment in general was a little harsh on the field overall but then again that is my subjective opinion which I should not peddle as objective findings like those pesky pop psychology books :-) I think one major problem is that the tide of pressure within psychology pushes psychologists to publish journal articles rather than books. Dan Ariely who wrote Predictably Irrational which you mention even touches on this point at the very start of this presentation. Indeed he says he only wanted to write a book as he had become so bored writing journal articles and that he wanted to be less constrained and more free (and pay less attention to the science I guess). To me psychology 'by and large' looks to spot patterns in human behaviour. Obviously these are general finidings which might not be best used to draw absolute conclusions about specific individuals. These patterns can be quite useful to use as a broad lens when viewing situations (such as a hand of poker) as long as they are not viewed as absolutes. As a crude example, study on 'cognitive dissonance' can be quite useful when trying to figure out what an opponent's motives may be for a particular action at the tables. Posted by markycash
Yes, to be fair to you I did notice you write that caveat. I just though the sentiment in general was a little harsh on the field overall but then again that is my subjective opinion which I should not peddle as objective findings like those pesky pop psychology books :-) I think one major problem is that the tide of pressure within psychology pushes psychologists to publish journal articles rather than books. Dan Ariely who wrote Predictably Irrational which you mention even touches on this point at the very start of this presentation. Indeed he says he only wanted to write a book as he had become so bored writing journal articles and that he wanted to be less constrained and more free (and pay less attention to the science I guess). To me psychology 'by and large' looks to spot patterns in human behaviour. Obviously these are general finidings which might not be best used to draw absolute conclusions about specific individuals. These patterns can be quite useful to use as a broad lens when viewing situations (such as a hand of poker) as long as they are not viewed as absolutes. As a crude example, study on 'cognitive dissonance' can be quite useful when trying to figure out what an opponent's motives may be for a particular action at the tables. Posted by markycash
Comments
"I don't mean to be so hard to the study of psychology, I think it's a great & fascinating subject"
I think one major problem is that the tide of pressure within psychology pushes psychologists to publish journal articles rather than books.
Dan Ariely who wrote Predictably Irrational which you mention even touches on this point at the very start of this presentation. Indeed he says he only wanted to write a book as he had become so bored writing journal articles and that he wanted to be less constrained and more free (and pay less attention to the science I guess).
To me psychology 'by and large' looks to spot patterns in human behaviour. Obviously these are general finidings which might not be best used to draw absolute conclusions about specific individuals. These patterns can be quite useful to use as a broad lens when viewing situations (such as a hand of poker) as long as they are not viewed as absolutes. As a crude example, study on 'cognitive dissonance' can be quite useful when trying to figure out what an opponent's motives may be for a particular action at the tables.