The paper, as Sokal quickly admitted, was a hoax, a deliberate pastiche of the sorts of nonsensical postmodern appropriations of maths and physics at which French critical theorists particularly excelled – among them Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Gilles Deleuze and Julia Kristeva. A major intellectual controversy ensued in which postmodernists stood accused of pseudo-science, absurd cultural relativism and the concealing of ignorance and innumeracy behind obscurantist prose.
The actual paper written by Nick brown, Alan Sokal, and Harris Friedman:
The Complex Dynamics of Wishful Thinking: The Critical Positivity RatioCan you believe there is actually a thing as graduate students in "applied postive psychology"?
Anyway, have you noticed that most the articles written about this paper are basically the same story?
Here is a case where I scratch my head. While I applaud the efforts that went into debunking the erroneous mathematics behind "the critical positivity ratio," positive psychology itself, continues to be a big money industry, especially in corporate management.
The reason I scratch m head is because I think I would be able to follow my gut intuition and realize that the psuedo-scientists of postive psychology would eat shiit and report that it tasted like bacon if there were money to be made - anything for more careers, jobs, academic positions, research grants.
If we were to come up with a mathematics of misery, we would not require differential equations. We would not even need calclus.
I think Schopenhauer used basic arithmetic, or just the concept of positive and negative. What i love about his logic is that, even to this day, it is just so counter-intuitive to the common notions of "good" and "evil" ...
I just laugh at the confusion over the terms and delight that Schopenhauer makes so much sense to me.
Pain is what is positive. Pleasure is negative.
When one is hungry, this is the positive suffering which makes itself felt.
When one eats food, one is NEGATING the hunger.
You have to laugh just thinking about how correctly Schopenhauer was using the mathematical terminology, and then laugh again when you consider the way most people use the terms positive and negative.
My approach to life is negative in that I do not seek happiness but try to avoid as much suffering as possible.
If someone takes a "positive approach" to life, I would interpret this as that the person is willing to risk facing extreme suffering in the pursuit of happiness.