Теория биоритмов: псевдонаучное заблуждение

none
the pseudoscientific beliefs

The biorhythm theory is the pseudoscientific idea that peoples' daily lives are significantly affected by rhythmic cycles with periods of exactly 23, 28 and 33 days, typically a 23 day physical cycle, a 28 day emotional cycle, and a 33 day intellectual cycle. The idea was developed by Wilhelm Fliess in the late 19th century, and was popularized in the United States in the late 1970s. The proposal has been independently tested and, consistently, no validity for it has been found. According to the notion of biorhythms, a person's life is influenced by rhythmic biological cycles that affect his or her ability in various domains, such as mental, physical, and emotional activity. These cycles begin at birth and oscillate in a steady (sine wave) fashion throughout life, and by modeling them mathematically, it is suggested that a person's level of ability in each of these domains can be predicted from day to day. It is built on the idea that the biofeedback chemical and hormonal secretion functions within the body could show a sinusoidal behavior over time. Most biorhythm models use three cycles: a 23 day physical cycle, a 28 day emotional cycle, and a 33 day intellectual cycle. Although the 28 day cycle is the same length as the average woman's menstrual cycle and was originally described as a "female" cycle (see below), the two are not necessarily in synchronization. Each of these cycles varies between high and low extremes sinusoidally, with days where the cycle crosses the zero line described as "critical days" of greater risk or uncertainty. The numbers from +100% (maximum) to 100% (minimum) indicate where on each cycle the rhythms are on a particular day. In general, a rhythm at 0% is crossing the midpoint and is thought to have no real impact on one's life, whereas a rhythm at +100% (at the peak of that cycle) would give one an edge in that area, and a rhythm at 100% (at the bottom of that cycle) would make life more difficult in that area. There is no particular meaning to a day on which one's rhythms are all high or all low, except the obvious benefits or hindrances that these rare extremes are thought to have on one's life. In addition to the three popular cycles, various other cycles have been proposed, based on linear combination of the three, or on longer or shorter rhythms.

The 23 and 28 day rhythms used by biorhythmists were first devised in the late 19th century by Wilhelm Fliess, a Berlin physician and friend of Sigmund Freud. Fliess believed that he observed regularities at 23 and 28 day intervals in a number of phenomena, including births and deaths. He labeled the 23 day rhythm "male" and the 28 day rhythm "female", matching the menstrual cycle. In 1904, Viennese psychology professor Hermann Swoboda came to similar conclusions. Alfred Teltscher, professor of engineering at the University of Innsbruck, developed Swoboda's work and suggested that his students' good and bad days followed a rhythmic pattern; he believed that the brain's ability to absorb, mental ability, and alertness ran in 33 day cycles. Charting biorhythms for personal use was popular in the United States during the 1970s; many places (especially video arcades and amusement areas) had a biorhythm machine that provided charts upon entry of date of birth. Biorhythm programs were a common application on personal computers; and in the late 1970s, there were also handheld biorhythm calculators on the market, the Kosmos 1 and the Casio Biolator.

Several controlled, experimental studies found no correlation between the 23, 28 and 33 day cycles and academic performance. These studies include:

James hypothesized that if biorhythms were rooted in science, then each proposed biorhythm cycle would contribute to task performance. Further, he predicted that each type of biorhythm cycle (i. e., intellectual, physical, and emotional) would be most influential on tasks associated with the corresponding cycle type. For example, he postulated that intellectual biorhythm cycles would be most influential on academic testing performance. In order to test his hypotheses, James observed 368 participants, noting their performance on tasks associated with intellectual, physical, and emotional functioning. Based on data collected from his experimental research, James concluded that there was no relation between subjects' biorhythmic status (on any of the three cycle types), and their performance on the associated practical tests.

Peveto examined the proposed relationship between biorhythms and academic performance, specifically in terms of reading ability. Through examination of the data collected, Peveto concluded that there were no significant differences in the academic performance of the students, in regards to reading, during the high, low, or critical positions of neither the physical biorhythm cycle, the emotional biorhythm cycle, nor the intellectual biorhythm cycle. As a result, it was concluded that biorhythm cycles have no effect on the academic performance of students, when academic performance was measured using reading ability.