Ergodicity and human nature: Natural incompatibility

Ergodicity is a concept created at the end of the 19th century, which defines a kind of stochastic process and is very useful in many applied sciences including human sciences. Its main premise says that population and individual averages are equal. In psychometrics, it has been common to use population average to make inferences about the measure of the individual. Indeed, this can be done, but exclusively in ergodic processes and systems. However, none of the processes involving human beings, be they mental or physical, can ever be ergodic. This problem was first highlighted by Molenaar, but later, many researchers including Molenaar began publishing about processes that could be interpreted as not fully ergodic; the literature calls this a “continuum,” as opposed to “all or nothing” which we argue is the only correct approach. We claim that a process is either ergodic or nonergodic, there is nothing in between, and that time is ripe for researchers working in all sciences related to human behavior and health to acknowledge this truth: population measures cannot be used as measures of the individual.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Theory & Psychology
Published
2025-10-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543251383517
Primary Topic
Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ergodicity and human nature: Natural incompatibility

Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes, Enio Galinkin Jelihovschi, Jhonys de Araujo, Heitor Blesa Farias
Theory & Psychology
Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
article

Ergodicity and human nature: Natural incompatibility

Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes, Enio Galinkin Jelihovschi, Jhonys de Araujo, Heitor Blesa Farias
article en

Abstract

Ergodicity is a concept created at the end of the 19th century, which defines a kind of stochastic process and is very useful in many applied sciences including human sciences. Its main premise says that population and individual averages are equal. In psychometrics, it has been common to use population average to make inferences about the measure of the individual. Indeed, this can be done, but exclusively in ergodic processes and systems. However, none of the processes involving human beings, be they mental or physical, can ever be ergodic. This problem was first highlighted by Molenaar, but later, many researchers including Molenaar began publishing about processes that could be interpreted as not fully ergodic; the literature calls this a “continuum,” as opposed to “all or nothing” which we argue is the only correct approach. We claim that a process is either ergodic or nonergodic, there is nothing in between, and that time is ripe for researchers working in all sciences related to human behavior and health to acknowledge this truth: population measures cannot be used as measures of the individual.

Theory & PsychologyVol. 35(6)
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Ergodicity and human nature: Natural incompatibility — Cristiano Mauro Assis Gomes, Enio Galinkin Jelihovschi, et al. · Theory & Psychology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS