I have read research recently by Lian Pham and Shelley Taylor from the University of California that shows visualising to achieve our goals is ineffective or even detrimental to their realisation. Does anyone else have any more information on this?

asked 16 Jan '12, 08:48

Alan%20Crabbe's gravatar image

Alan Crabbe

edited 16 Jan '12, 09:01

Barry%20Allen's gravatar image

Barry Allen ♦♦

You might find this helpful : http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/1269/is-visualization-a-key-component-in-the-manifesting-process/1278 .. if you do a search on visualization on this site you will find that the common consensus is the way you are feeling while you are doing your visualization.. if you visualize a sports car for instance but still feel that it is not possible for you to get it, then it might "backfire" so to speak

(16 Jan '12, 09:51) kakaboo

Thanks I will check it out.

(16 Jan '12, 10:58) Alan Crabbe

Checked it out. From what I understand the research on students taking exams showed that they felt better because of the visualising but that had an effect on their behaviour: they studied less and so realised poorer results than the control group who were asked to think about their day or what they had seen on telly etc.

(16 Jan '12, 11:06) Alan Crabbe

Amazing lack of up-votes for a question that's inspired many answers and comments 8-)

(21 Jan '12, 21:36) Eddie

Thanks Eddie for your input, it has made a big difference and made me realise that I had become bitter and uptight when there was no need. My annoyance with a few scam artists and snake oil salesman had made me forget my own experience's of the spiritual in life and how my experience didn;t need to be proved or tested as that was my experience. I am still wary when anyone says that they have the answer to life's questions as we all have our demon's not matter how sorted we are.

(25 Jan '12, 13:27) Alan Crabbe

Astute observation, Eddie. =)

It's odd, I personally believe that people who are willing to ask for help in times of weakness are the ones we should be giving the most positive attention to, not the least.

This thread gave me flash backs of when I'd ask my pastors / teachers @ Christian schools questions about parts of Christianity didn't make sense to me...

@Alan: Often the greatest souls are the ones with the darkest demons. God gives us only what we can handle.. ;)

(25 Jan '12, 17:33) Snow

Thanks Alan. I guess the demons are our own negative interpretations and subsequent thoughts about any subject. And it's only our own thoughts that hold the state of being happy and feeling good (well-being) away from us :)

(25 Jan '12, 20:29) Eddie

It's been an interesting response. The most important thing we can do is to be aware and try and rise out of what Satre describes as the smell of meaning that permeates us and from which we rarely escape. This is why most us visualise having the same things, money, cars, a job we enjoy, free time, successful careers etc etc because family, social and culture pressures direct us along this path. This also relates to your point about visualising and how everything we see has first been the product

(26 Jan '12, 14:13) Alan Crabbe

of someones imagination. This may be so but the more interesting question is are they in control of what they are imagining or is that pre determined by their culture and their upbringing. If so they haven't created anything and they are asleep.

(26 Jan '12, 14:18) Alan Crabbe

Snow, I think the idea that questioning something is a weakness comes from the judeo christian belief system and is based on the idea that faith in God will be attacked by the devil and we need to stay strong to ward off doubts. As I said above, being aware of our feelings and the reasons for them is the most important thing that we can do because then we can change our behaviour and wake up. A lot of what we do has unconcious motivations and revealing these makes us freer.

(26 Jan '12, 14:29) Alan Crabbe

@Alan; As far as society and education go, I'd agree that the religious origins have a huge impact on people's insecurities with a challenged faith.

But we can't let them have all of the blame. I'd say there are underlying issues in human nature that fuel this issue as well. Pride and fear of the unknown are two great reasons to lock yourself in a safe mental 'padded room' and never challenge anything, as well as searching for acceptance.

In some ways we really are 'sheep' needing a shepard.

(05 Feb '12, 16:44) Snow

Very true. My pride was hurt by the belief that I was weak in my belief and needed help. Will think on that. cheers.

(06 Feb '12, 07:07) Alan Crabbe
showing 0 of 12 show 12 more comments

I wonder why that research and its conclusions matter to you one way or the other, if indeed it does?

It's long been established that many spiritual and metaphysical concepts cannot be proved one way or the other to anyone, except for proving to oneself that they either work or they don't work.

Why is this?

It's a bit tricky to comprehend, but it’s to do with the very nature of beliefs and how belief systems work. To prove itself as the most likely and probable truth, any belief must seem to us as though it’s the only truth.

This is achieved by any belief, that’s believed in, bringing evidence to you (through the LOA) that it is the only truth. And upon seeing that evidence, you say: ahh, that must be true because here’s the evidence of that truth; and the cycle continues...

Hence the nature of beliefs is that they’re self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating.

Once a person realizes that any belief believed in must prove itself to them as the most likely or only truth; they will use discernment when choosing any particular belief system and they’ll choose to believe in any belief because it resonates with them and thus they know that it will serve them in some way.

Is there really any need to prove anything one way or another, accept to oneself?

A lot of people get caught out and confused by the self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating nature of belief, because it takes time, due to what I call Universal Bounce Back, to change any belief. Because any belief is self-perpetuating, even after you’ve decided that the belief no longer serves you, evidence of that former belief will still present itself to you as being true for a while.

However, if you keep believing in your new belief, then, over time, evidence of your new belief must show up in your life, because that’s the nature of belief. Remember that all physical reality is first a thought before being realized or manifesting as your physical reality experience.

The bottom line is that if you believe in any research which denies that visualization works, then you will see evidence in your life that it doesn’t work for you; thus proving to you that your belief is true. And then you may even comment to others that it doesn’t work and you’d be right based upon your current self-limiting viewpoint.

Knowing the true nature of belief systems gives you an edge, in terms of you no longer jumping to conclusions and indeed, no longer having any hard and fixed conclusions about reality. This understanding also gives one an insight into the illusional nature of reality; a reality which can always be molded to fit your preference, simply by changing your beliefs and expectations about it :)


answered 17 Jan '12, 00:37

Eddie's gravatar image


over belief is faith. i totally agree Eddie experience and enjoy.

(17 Jan '12, 04:13) white tiger

In my view, faith is a strong belief, nothing more and nothing less...

(17 Jan '12, 05:51) Eddie

I can see that we gather any evidence that supports our belief. If I believe gay people are more promiscuous than hetrosexuals I will find and continue to notice the evidence that backs that up and ignore evidence to the contrary. This is why people, me included, get defensive when beliefs are challenged and this leads to rigidity of thought and action. Therefore an evidenced based study that showed the opposite was the case would be useful. I notice a lot of us leap on the scientific study of quantum physics because it supports our belief system but ignore findings that dont.

(17 Jan '12, 13:16) Alan Crabbe

Yes, in general I never interfere with people's beliefs. However, I make an exception on IQ because many people are here to ask and answer questions, so I hold nothing back. Can you see that when scientists agree on something, it's because they believe it? They may reach a consensus agreement, but that's still a collective belief. Understanding the nature of belief brings one to a place of knowing that facts are simply evidence of beliefs and a realization that, thus, then, all truths are true... I wonder if you can see how freeing that is?

(17 Jan '12, 19:15) Eddie

Scientists do believe it is true but not because of consensus of belief but because a predicted result has been seen to happen again and again. It still may not be true but it is seen as the nearest we can get to the truth. For example if I say water freezes at -1 and I show that everytime water at that temperature does freeze then my idea will be accepted. If I say when I visualise a certain outcome it manifests in my life and it appears in my life without fail then it will be accepted.

(20 Jan '12, 14:36) Alan Crabbe

Is predicted the same as expected or do you make a distinction? What is the gauge by which you, personally, will determine truth? If I come along and say, “Look, here is ultimate truth.” What criteria will you use as a filter by which you’ll either accept or deny my truth?

(20 Jan '12, 22:38) Eddie

You see, our rational mind likes putting things into boxes, but greater spiritual truth is bigger than any box that can ever be created, thus it lies outside (or inside) of the normal, rational boxistential reality mindset; but it still contains rationality, reason and logic… Just for fun, eh, Alan :)

(20 Jan '12, 22:38) Eddie

well alan if the water freeze at -40. what will you say then? can it be also true that water will freeze at -40? there might be something in the water (like alcool or prestone etc..) and it makes this possible. there is many truth in the absolute truth.

(20 Jan '12, 23:02) white tiger

If water froze at -40 i would be puzzled and look for an explanation. If there wasn't one I would say water freezes at -40 because it freezes at -40. However if someone told me water freezes at -40 and it didn't I would think they were mistaken. If they then told me that it didn't freeze at -40 because I had a negative energy about water freezing at -40 I would walk away.

(21 Jan '12, 14:58) Alan Crabbe

good question about the ultimate truth. The traveller said that he had used a methodical approach and it worked everytime so I believed that. I think that when the truth is goal orientated, like the law of attraction then the truth can be verified and checked. If however it is a question like, what is the sound of one hand clapping? That is not outcome dependent and takes a different understanding- it's like an aha moment. An understanding whereby proving it is irrelevant, it just is.

(21 Jan '12, 15:31) Alan Crabbe

@Alan, I'm enjoying our interaction. I noticed that you asked this question below "What is the formula that will lead to outcome visualizing being successful?" I say: Look around you. Isn't everything in our world the end result of someone's idea? Someone imagined (visualized) it in their mind prior to it manifesting in and as our reality, did they not? Yet had they not believed in the possibility of their imagining then they wouldn't bother visualizing the wanted outcome, would they?

(21 Jan '12, 21:34) Eddie

well alan why would you walk away if someone told you you add negative energy about it? it could be true. i know very well that sometime people do not say what they want to say or do what they want to do because they feel or know other people have negative though. if something so subtul can affect the enviromment and people. why would you walk away?

(22 Jan '12, 05:13) white tiger

that could stop someone from clapping hand then you would not ear the sound of one hand clapping.

(22 Jan '12, 05:15) white tiger

and alan i can tell you that i have notice that around negative people i cannot make things happen by going in the same way has the person because their negativity stop it from happening even if they would want it. while someone that has doubts with no negativity you can push in the same way and it will happen. but when a negative person push against you with their ego it happens on the opposite of what they want.

(22 Jan '12, 05:39) white tiger

@white tiger - yes, nicely put, negative people can interfere with a positive thought :)

(22 Jan '12, 05:55) blubird two

well it explain why jesus said it will be done according to your faith. it explain also why he was trying to stay with people that add no negativity in them. other wise it is a struggle. and it gives different outcomes. but he must have add alot of practice to walk on water and raise the dead and make the blinds see.

(23 Jan '12, 00:04) white tiger

White Tiger, when someone sets out a system, such as the Law Of Attraction, and says that if you do this, and you do that, this will result. And the person follows the instructions and it doesn't work. No result. They then tell you that it is your negative beliefs around money, or negative belief about.... or you are holding on to this belief or that belief. This is what I meant about walking away when someone tells me the water is not freezing because of my negative beliefs.

(29 Jan '12, 04:48) Alan Crabbe
showing 2 of 17 show 15 more comments

Hi Alan

You have a well-crafted question because most of the answers that are given have nothing to do with the question you asked but nevertheless they are the type of answers that come forth as a reaction to the question, dare I say that makes it a brilliantly crafted question.

So I too am going to first react to it in the way you intended me to react.

Although I was interested in the un-explained for a long time before learning about visualization, I experienced a dramatic turning point with visualization.

It was the first time where I was able to take a concept that was pure (to quote Michael Shermer) "WOO" or "Mumbo Jumbo" and put it to test and get actual results out of it.

I started testing Visualization according to the confines within which it is supposed to be applied with situations in my own life and time and time again I started getting results that defied explanation.

Initially I thought it was pure chance or just co-incidence.

So I started testing it with a deliberate methodical approach to eliminate all possibilities of chance and coincidence.

Although it was harder this time, I still managed to get results that just did not fit any conventional explanation.

So for me it wasn't a case of does visualization work?

I was more perplexed with the question why does it work?

20 years later here I am so glad to see that there are others out there who have had the privilege to learn about, test & verify these concepts for themselves and are willing to generously share their techniques without any financial return on this forum.

If you have been here long enough you know who I am talking about.

But everything that I have said so far has absolutely nothing to do with the question you asked.

You asked if anyone has information on the U of C Research that Visualizing doesn't work.

Since this contradicts my actual experience with visualization it is very unlikely that I would give it much attention if I were to stumble upon it.

For me to do so would be no different from me being interested in a research suggesting that the earth is flat after I have experienced it being round, because I Personally verified that it is in fact round when I looked out the window during my last trans-Atlantic flight and did see the curvature of the earth.

So the answer to your question is: No I don't have any more information, or for that matter, any information on the research that visualization doesn't work.

However since you know the names of the researchers, Lian Pham and Shelley Taylor, I'm sure if you are really interested, the University of California would be more than happy to give you an update on their latest findings that visualization doesn't work.


answered 20 Jan '12, 16:27

The%20Traveller's gravatar image

The Traveller

edited 20 Jan '12, 16:39

Thanks for the advice and personal story. How did you test visualisation to see if it consistently worked? By that I mean how did you do the visualisation as I have done it before and it didn't change a thing although visualising what I already had did seem to bring results as there was no need to pretend that I had something I didn;t and wanting always seems to have a tinge of lack about it.

(21 Jan '12, 11:11) Alan Crabbe

When I started, there was no instructions available suggesting exactly how one must go about testing this strange power. I'm glad that it was that way because I was not confined to a specific method or approach. Had there been a single specific method to test the connection between visualization and reality, I would have most likely dismissed the entire concept the moment I experienced failure and would have become more interested in why so many people talk about a concept that doesn't work.

(21 Jan '12, 15:23) The Traveller

Chances are, this has been your experience and how can you expect to take something seriously when it looks like a scam to profit from? The way to go about it is not something that you are going to be comfortable with. Visualization is actually about Consciousness and its relationship to reality. Visualization is just one way to understand it. It is like saying Art, Music, Dance, Poetry, Inventions, Ideas, etc... etc. are all different expressions of consciousness.

(21 Jan '12, 15:32) The Traveller

The way to test Consciousness is to understand the relationship between thinking, believing and acting (physical action) and the resultant outcome of these three in reality. Thinking and believing are capable of affecting what you see and experience. This in a nutshell is essentially what you are trying to test, verify and understand.

(21 Jan '12, 15:39) The Traveller

Now remember those fundamentals. Thinking and believing = opportunity to experience that which you think and believe. Now if this was true how would you test it? You become the scientist that is testing this concept with your own inner drive. If you ask others for their experience, you have no choice but to measure it and criticize it against your own experience. We tend to comprehend things within the light of our own understanding.

(21 Jan '12, 15:46) The Traveller

If you haven't experienced the connection between your consciousness and it's resulting effect in reality, you have no other choice other than to criticize the concept. Once you start on that journey you are on a roller coaster of gathering data to strengthen your criticism. It becomes harder and harder to allow any data through that is not consistant with the pre-supposed openion. The only way to break that is to test it without pre-conceived expectations or instructions.

(21 Jan '12, 15:53) The Traveller

For most people that awakening happens in a crisis, as it was in my case as well. Since you are here asking these questions, there is obviously an inner need within you to discover if there is more to life than what you see. Unfortunately my friend, you have to put the effort to discover this truth for yourself. Since this is about the connection between the SELF and REALITY, you have to depend on your SELF to guide you, for any other method will only result in dismissal and criticism.

(21 Jan '12, 16:03) The Traveller

Thanks for that. I am going to go back to something I started on my blog a few months ago and focus on what I already have. I have read the blog recently and have realised that since then I got a job, sorted out my mortgage and things started to go right. I then got distracted and went on to something more exciting and forgot about it. I also feel that my anger was directed at the system of visualisation and the technique of many to blame the user rather than the truth of the technique itself.

(25 Jan '12, 13:18) Alan Crabbe

I have now come to the conclusion that I don't have to follow those making a quick buck and blaming others for its lack of success- I am still a bit annoyed about it- and I can look, as you say, to myself and my own experience and how it has affected my life and in which ways.

(25 Jan '12, 13:20) Alan Crabbe

Hi Alan. I don't know about others, but I still keep learning and losing money on new ideas and methods. Sometimes I encounter a good argument that makes me question my fundamental ideas. At that point I know that I am upset and I don't know exactly how to proceed. I discovered that the best thing to do is to study why I am so bothered by it.

(25 Jan '12, 16:05) The Traveller

Have you noticed that when someone with great accomplishments does something terrible, like murder, form that point onwards that person's accomplishments become irrelevant because we only remember them as a murder. Why do we do that? We tend to do the exact thing with the ideas that we adopt. We reject an entire concept based on a tiny thing that makes the entire idea appear as a deception. This is where I am learning to be more open-minded so that I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(25 Jan '12, 17:15) The Traveller

You say study why you are so bothered by it. That is exactly what I do and this process was initiated by the question that I asked about the study on visualisation. I am still surprised it takes me so long to realise that is what I am doing and to get to the crux of the matter. Amazing.

(27 Jan '12, 05:42) Alan Crabbe

@The Traveller - "We reject an entire concept based on a tiny thing"...very true. In my view, this has been used for millennia as a deliberate method of keeping the masses ignorant of their true potentials. Those that wish to manipulate never need to disprove an entire concept, only find the tiniest (perhaps even trivial) element or individual and discredit it or them. You can see it happening in so many "skeptic" internet forums. Babies and bathwater are ejected with ease :)

(27 Jan '12, 06:09) Stingray

remain in the truth and you will see that there is nothing to reject just things to understand and know and use them in the rightenous for the salvation of all.

(27 Jan '12, 11:44) white tiger
showing 2 of 14 show 12 more comments

Let's face it; there is no absolute truth ... quantum theories go so far as to "prove" that matter itself is pure energy, so our physical world disappears into a cloud of invisibility ... from this void we have the capacity (i believe and certainly hope so otherwise we really are in trouble, lol) to create whatever we can imagine ...

"The Seven Lies of Success" from the book "Unlimited Power" by Anthony Robbins explains very well the way i enjoy to believe things to be



answered 17 Jan '12, 13:43

blubird%20two's gravatar image

blubird two

edited 20 Jan '12, 16:47

Vesuvius's gravatar image


Hi blubird, thanks for the reply. I think that there is a lot of people making money out of something that doesn't seem to work- how many people do you know that are millionaires- and when it doesn't work the person is blamed not the system being sold. Just a thought.

(17 Jan '12, 13:54) Alan Crabbe

@Alan Crabbe - on this site, "inward quest", the teachings are as good as anywhere ... and we have entire liberty to choose and use them as we wish ... happy hunting

(17 Jan '12, 14:06) blubird two

I will have a good look but remember the greatest lessons don't always come in interactions with people we agree with. Given that you chose not to reply to my thought above I would say you had a negative reaction. This has happened to me a lot on this site and when I have explored why, it usually uncovers a rigid belief. A belief that I haven't questioned. It's almost like I am awake for a moment and not submeerged in my habitual belief patterns. Try it.

(17 Jan '12, 16:22) Alan Crabbe

@Alan Crabbe - yes, the greatest lessons come from where the tensions are highest, that is, with the people with whom we disagree most strongly ... the tarot cards are a good indicator :)

(18 Jan '12, 00:53) blubird two
showing 2 of 4 show 2 more comments

I think this question has been addressed quite well by a few people, so I'm going to skip the part where I just repeat the awesome things that others already said. Just a thought regarding the question itself: I personally think that questions like this are a good thing to be embraced, not a bad thing to be feared.

Alan made a comment that really resonated with me, and it is something I have a lot of respect for and think is a very valuable lesson about lessons:

...remember the greatest lessons don't always come in interactions with people we agree with. Given that you chose not to reply to my thought above I would say you had a negative reaction. This has happened to me a lot on this site and when I have explored why, it usually uncovers a rigid belief.

Since I can only speak for myself I will say this: Just because I will from time to time challenge beliefs [ especially ones I share] doesn't mean that I don't still believe in them. Sometimes [for me at least] it is very healthy to step back and analyze things from a different perspective, and you never know when you'll accidentally learn something you never knew simply because you were willing to look at the picture from another point of view.


answered 21 Jan '12, 16:21

Snow's gravatar image


edited 21 Jan '12, 16:32


My initial response to other posts uncovered a lot of rigid beliefs on my part and exploring these has led to a softening of my perspective. Seeing my own journey from posting the question and now has led to a real opening which I can't put into words. So thanks for helping me explore my assumptions.

(04 Feb '12, 06:08) Alan Crabbe

You don't say the exact study. There have been a few studies performed by them on that topic from what I can see.

I just read through the study entitled "From Thought to Action: Effects of Process- Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance" [DOI: 10.1177/0146167299025002010 Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1999 25: 250 Lien B. Pham and Shelley E. Taylor]. There is another study entitled "Harnessing the imagination: Mental simulation, self-regulation, and coping." which they were involved in and was published a year earlier too. I'm going to presume you are referring to the study I read.

I also have to presume you read an article referring to the study, and not the study itself, since the research absolutely does not show that "visualizing doesn't work."

The study was basically this...101 undergraduates are taken about one week before their exam and randomly sorted into four groups. One of these groups is the control group. One group the process simulation group (which are told to visualize themselves studying in a way that would allow them to get a high grade). One group is the outcome simulation group (which are told to visualize themselves achieving a high grade on the exam). And the final group is a group which are told to do both the process and the outcome simulation.

They were then questioned to determine scores on a whole variety of points, such as motivation, anxiety, outcome expectancy, planned hours of study etc and made to perform the mental exercise. Afterwards they are told to continue doing whatever their mental exercise was for 5 minutes each day until they had the exam (so for around a week).

They are checked up on, and their "scores" retaken again on two other time periods; The day before the exam, and the day after the exam. The final exam marks for the students (where possible) are then obtained and compared. A mathematical model is created and all the "scores" are compared statistically.

I'll just copy the exam results out here for you:

As shown in Table 3, process simulation participants scored on average 3.5 percentage points higher on the exam (M= 78.94) than participants whodid not simulate the process of studying for the exam (M = 75.19), F(1, 89) = 2.89, p < .09. A marginally significant main effect of outcomesimulation was also observed, F(1, 89) = 3.46, p < .07. Participants who simulated the desired outcome received on average four points lower on the exam (M= 75.13) than those who did not engage in outcome simu- lation (M = 79.23). Planned comparisons revealed that the process-only group scored significantly higher (M = 80.60) than did the outcome-only group (M = 72.57), t(89) = 2.52, p < .01, as predicted.

So basically, the group that visualized studying achieved a very marginally higher grade average than the other groups. And a significantly higher mark than those who visualized outcome only.

Further analysis also showed that those who visualized studying actually did study more than the other groups, and were much closer to the predicted amount they wanted to study than any of the other groups (and yes those focused on the outcome studied the least). However, the hours of study were shown to not be important when it came to grades achieved and some other reason for the higher grades had to be proposed (they proposed that the visualizing studying allowed the person to study more efficiently). That is really not surprising since it's known that grades don't really correlate well to time spent studying (I know that personally, since I was always one of those people who hardly ever studied and yet was top of the class).

So the study concluded that process visualization was effective at improving the final grade, but that outcome visualization was not effective and actually turned out to be detrimental.

But that all was not a very interesting part of the study for me, I saw some facts in it far more interesting. Kakaboo pointed out the important of believing it is possible for you to get what you are visualizing when you do those kind of visualizations, or they can backfire. That is considered a fairly standard "part of the equation" nowadays with doing those kind of "outcome visualizations".

In the study, there is evidence given that those visualizing studying effectively (and I quote): "were more certain of achieving their desired grade on the exam than those who did not simulate the process." Further, they showed significantly less negative feelings, to a p<0.006 level.

The day before the exam, when the participants were checked again, those who had been visualizing getting a good grade on the exam were found (significantly at p<0.04 level) to be striving for a lower grade and also showed less desire to get a high grade than all the other groups.

This shows, quite clearly to me, that those doing the outcome visualization categorically did not believe they were going to get a high grade (to the point that they had lowered the grade they were aiming at by the time the exam rolled around). Whereas those visualizing studying well did believe.

And lo and behold, those who believed achieved better grades...and those who didn't believe, got lower grades (exactly as these teachings would predict).

To put it bluntly, those doing the "outcome visualization"...were not doing the common "self-help" teachings on visualization properly. They weren't following the formula.

Keep in mind, these were students taken just one week before an exam, and then asked to see themselves achieving a high grade. They may have been common C or B grade students. And they were really stretching themselves to believe they could get an A grade one week from now...a time when students are stressed and typically cram for exams because they don't know the material.


answered 16 Jan '12, 21:02

Liam's gravatar image


edited 16 Jan '12, 21:17

very interesting liam. i do not know if they could have made another test to see what is the result on long term to use visualising would be interesting since we use memory to learn and not the creative process of the mind to visualise what we learn. i am pretty sure that people that visualise are far more capable to think out of the box to find solution when the memory cannot.

(17 Jan '12, 04:19) white tiger

Thanks for the research liam. I am using the mind palace memory technique for studying which is great and also gives me a sense of control because my thoughts and ideas are fixed into one place and I can find them when I need to. Also good practice for visualising.

(17 Jan '12, 13:36) Alan Crabbe

What is the formula that will lead to outcome visualising being successful?

(17 Jan '12, 13:44) Alan Crabbe

well what i mean is that we learn in school from memory someone discover something and it is put has absolute truth and no one think outside of the box. but when there is no answer to a solution and one needs to find answer and think outside of the box then you need someone that can visualize and find answer like einstein for example: he learned mathematic after ward from a german but the potential to find new solution was is mind because it was more creative and he could visualize.

(17 Jan '12, 18:45) white tiger

In 1901, Einstein had a paper on the capillary forces of a straw published in the prestigious Annalen der Physik.[36] On 30 April 1905, he completed his thesis, with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, serving as pro-forma advisor. Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich. His dissertation was entitled "A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions".[37][38] That same year, which has been called Einstein's annus mirabilis or "miracle year", he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect,

(17 Jan '12, 18:45) white tiger

Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of matter and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

(17 Jan '12, 18:46) white tiger

He did have to use his imagination but his ideas had to be tested empirically. That's the difference between beliefs and empirically tested evidence. Both not true but one can be disproved using our senses.

(20 Jan '12, 14:27) Alan Crabbe

yes alan but should we stop creating and using our mind and relie only on memory and on what has been proof emperically? you see that in advencement in anny thing are made by creative mind that can think outside of the box. i do not say to throw away every thing that has been proof or a truth but i am saying to not stay only on those truth and find other truth. each truth is like a step forward but if you stop looking for truth you limit your self to the truth that you have learn.

(20 Jan '12, 16:28) white tiger

the real challenge comes when there is more truths but no more learned truth about those truths. this is when you see the genie out of the box. experience and enjoy.

(20 Jan '12, 16:33) white tiger
showing 2 of 9 show 7 more comments

Look at @Alan Crabbe's comment, right below the question:

From what I understand the research on students taking exams showed that they felt better because of the visualising but that had an effect on their behaviour: they studied less and so realised poorer results

That's it, in a nutshell.

Visualization works because it changes your behavior. Ask any sports figure who uses visualization to improve their performance, and they will tell you they use visualization to perfect their technique, not to imagine themselves holding up the trophy (although they do sometimes do that to improve their motivation. But it still comes down to behavior).

Merely feeling good about what you want to accomplish is not enough. Practice makes perfect. Actually, perfect practice makes perfect, and visualization is the perfect tool to accelerate the process, because it allows you to mentally practice anywhere, at any time.

So the students who were visualizing doing well on the test, and then studying less, were missing the point. Feeling good does not replace practice and study. If there is a shortcut, it is this: people who are good at visualizing can accelerate the process of practicing their technique, because they are not bound by physical limitations during their visualizations.

To put it another way, if all you do is visualize holding up the trophy, all you will get better at is holding up a trophy.


answered 20 Jan '12, 16:43

Vesuvius's gravatar image


edited 22 Jan '12, 18:58

i totally agree vesuvius: people that visualize get what they put there mind on.while people that study get what they put in their memory. but the thing is that the person using only memory will get stuck when they don't have the answer. and the people that visualize will find away to solve the problem because they do not rely totally on memory.

(20 Jan '12, 21:34) white tiger

If the answer wasn't in the part of the brain we were using, it might be in another. If we're lucky, in the next context we may hear or see something that relates—distantly—to the problem that we had temporarily put aside.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1147152,00.html#ixzz1k3YJ3p00

(20 Jan '12, 21:39) white tiger
Click here to create a free account

If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website

Related Questions