text:
Do graphemes relate to communication and thought disorders?
The question Does language and/or culture affect an individual's cognitive capacity? explores the possibility of  differences in cognition based on language and cultural variations.
In this question I am focusing on certain aspects of language only:
the orthography, in particular, the types of graphemes.
Syllabary graphemes are shallow orthographies, where each kana represents and maintains a consistent sound throughout that language (with some exceptions).
The well recognised scripts of some Asian cultures (Chinese, Japanese, Korean,...) use syllabary systems.
Alphabetic graphemes are more complex.
English, and a good deal of European languages use alphabetic graphemes, where each letter and its usage represents a sound. The great variation in how one symbol (letter) can sound, depending on the context of the letter within a word or sentence, is referred to as a deep orthography.
Given the level of complication with alphabetical languages;   I am interested if they
can  lead to increased incidence of faulty cognition, for instance, thought disorders, dyslexia, circumstantiality, clang association, phonemic paraphasia, blocking, neologisms,.. to name a few.
Have there been any studies on this, and if so, what are there findings?

We have this tendency to explore, in detail, language abilities and label them "disorders". Some are disorders, like those stemming from autism, but, in any traditional sense, none of the listed qualify. They are simply biases in what people are good and not good at or classifications of errors. There's a title of a talk by Raymond Klein I've always liked.
Klein, R. M. (2002, November) Dyslexia, dysdrivia and dystennisia: Is it reasonable to expect everyone to read well? Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience chapter presentations. Lake Tahoe, Nevada.
Imagine if we considered weak tennis playing a social problem. We would carefully examine these poor souls and work out very carefully the defects in their minds that cause them to be outcasts of society. We'd label said defects and work diligently to rehabilitate who we could...etc...you can see where it's going. What we've done with dyslexia is similar.
Of course there will be people who are good and bad readers and writers, and there will be characteristics that some of those bad (and good) readers have in common. And we can categorize them. This does not, in itself, a disorder make.
In any field of endeavour, if you change the requirements of something that's an acquired skill, which reading and writing are, then you change the set of cognitive abilities that facilitate that skill. Different people have different cognitive aptitudes therefore their abilities in different kinds of writing systems, and the translation of those to phonemes, will differ. Furthermore, some systems will be easier than others and in different ways. There may be systematic variations in how those errors work out.
If you had asked whether clay tennis players have differences from grass players would it really be a question worth considering? It's only one because there's some belief that the common errors in reading are named and the people who aren't good at it are labelled.
But, in spite of the fact that some people do it, I think it's pretty difficult to call any of those differences disorders.
(As an aside, several of the listed "thought" disorders are pretty independent of orthography. Most would be considered thought errors.)

You might want to read The International Book of Dyslexia: A Cross Language Comparison and Practice Guide edited by Ian Smythe. Searching dyslexia and languages turns up tons of stuff that's pretty easy to find. But that's not my answer since I'm arguing you don't need research to know there will be differences and you would only really care what they were if you had an odd notion about disorders.


text:
The manifestation of OCD with the use of information technologies
There have been many studies on Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Typical OCD behavior in day to day life has been well documented. Repeatedly checking that the stove or iron has been turned off being two examples.
I can surmise that OCD behavior, within using information technologies might involve the excessive back up of files, overboard security measures, compulsively running scans, using multiple firewalls simultaneously, inability to ignore application notifications eg from Facebook, diverting phone calls, forwarding emails, ...as some examples.
Has OCD behavior within the use of information technologies been examined and if so, what are some typical behaviors associated with OCD and the use of IT?

I have touches of OCD. I now also back up my photo files (5K+) after having a hard drive go down & having paid $600 to recover all my photos of life in the Philippines while I lived & worked there for 6 years.

@MarkRowntree This is not a forum, but a Q&A site. Don't expect a discussion on your particular experiences here. If you contribute to this topic, try to answer the question.

To put it simply, OCD is a symptom of being alive and having the ability to learn from the environment- the varying degrees, and higher forms of response may be an evolutionary advancement, even contextually. To some degree, if one is more responsive to sensory input or basically opportunistic, they may be diagnostically considered to have OCD because they will be more likely to respond to these environmental cues more often-leading to more feelings of security now, and in the future. If these compulsive behaviors or round-about thought patterns become detrimental to everyday life, then si

OCD is a disorder not something to be promoted as boosting efficiency.

Please don't just answer for the sake of answering.

Yes this topic has been discussed in detail. There are two main ways of describing mental illness: Continuous and Discontinuous spectrum of behaviour. (Most clinicians favor discontinuous.) The Continuous spectrum of behaviour states that OCD and other mental illnesses are just extremes of normal behavior. The Discontinuous spectrum of behaviour states that while mental illness has some traits with normal behaviour they are not on the same spectrum as normal behaviour. Both theories hold to the fact that enough extremes of normal behaviour can cause mental illness. Whether someone actually has OCD involving technology or is just at an extreme normal behaviour can only be determined accurately by a psychologist/psychiatrist.
I can't say that I agree with "iDisorder: Understanding Our Obsession with Technology and Overcoming Its Hold on Us". Some of it is silly like counting the number of first person pronouns but some of the concepts it relates are interesting.
Obsessively checking in with technology seems to be the biggest attribute.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What is the psychology behind male pornographic actors having larger than average penises?
There is a question What does scientific research say about the relationship between penis size and attractiveness?
This  answer and this link give the statistics of penis size. Given these statistics, the average man performing in porn, would likely be in the top 2.5% of the population of penis size.

Porn stars are statistical outliers, not the norm; men are more likely to be over 6’3” than to have a penis longer than 7.5 inches.

It also "appears" that men may be inclined to having poor self-perception, regarding their penis size.

Males self-perception
  Males may quite easily underestimate the size of their own penis relative to that of others, because of the foreshortening obtained from looking down, due to repeated observation of atypical penises in pornography, or because of the accumulation of fat at the base of the penis.[34] A survey by sexologists showed that many men who believed that their penis was of inadequate size had average-sized penises.[35]

Given that men are the main consumers of pornography, why does pornography feature so many men, out of the norm for penis size?
Would it be more appealing to men, if the men starring in porn, had average sized penis?    what is the psychology behind using men with such, abnormally, large penis?

What percentage of women like that sort of thing? My guess is not as many as you'd think. I'd bet a fair sum that women would prefer the 6'3 guy over the >7.5 tallywacker.

Men like big things... big muscles, big machines, etc, so I guess first we need to understand why that is. Also, I think we need to establish that women may not typically like members of epic proportions, then it will be concluded its an all-male desire.

I'm gonna go watch some monster trucks on youtube now.

Well, whoever has the biggest probably has the most testosterone (and DHT - androgenic) which is supposed to be something women want. So guys compete with each other and brag about how big it is... Just like they watch overgrown men beat each other up on tv or big trucks smashing cars. Its all testosterone, being the biggest, baddest. Women are attracted to it, even though they say they don't like it. But they have to, or it wouldn't have evolved that way.

Also, there is a study showing women who live in countries with great healthcare, choose men with less manly features while women who live in countries with crappy healthcare choose manly men. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145810050665030.html So testosterone is associated with health, but if genetically afforded health is not necessary (substitute medically afforded health), then big muscles and all that isn't that attractive.

Besides the simple mechanics of it being easier to position actors and film the details of intercourse there is probably a supernormal stimulus effect. The term, coined by Tinbergen (1948) when he observed birds laying artificial eggs of ridiculous size, is used to describe the effect of a stimulus which elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which it evolved. Very large breasts, buttocks, penises, tall heights, etc. are not necessarily particularly useful but because we evolved to prefer larger values of these for fitness reasons we suffer from a supernormal stimulus effect when they are exaggerated. Imagine the rarity of such things for millenia of our evolution during which food and leisure time were relatively scarce. There was little reason to evolve a preference against extreme proportions.

+1 Great answer, John.

There is one problem with this answer for me and that is in this line: "but because we evolved to prefer larger values of these for fitness reasons we suffer from a supernormal stimulus effect when they are exaggerated." Why would men evolve a preference for large penises in other men? If women have such a preference, that is irrelevant, since the pornography in question is filmed to appeal to men and not women. In other words, I believe this as an answer for breasts and buttocks, but I feel there is an extra something missing when it comes to penises.

Artem, the question evolved a bit since my answer but you're right, the question doesn't exactly address that as male consumers. I believe the male consumers angle probably has less to do with attraction toward penises at all and more to do with visualizing oneself in the male role.

@John I agree with you, I've been meaning to add an answer that stresses this aspect (as well as discussing in passing some dangers of evo-psych), but it might make more sense as an edit to your answer if you wanted.

There is another problem with the assertion that humans evolved to prefer larger penis sizes: It contradicts the evidence.  Historical evidence suggests that penis size preference (if any) is cultural, not inherited.  For example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size#Historical_perceptions

That's absolutely correct except that in modern society. But for all of the older relics where one would hypothesize social constructs like fashion would have less and less influence over biology relics suggest size of penises, breasts, and buttocks are all terribly important. It also turns out that regardless of our current cultural obsessions with particular body types sexual attractions on more direct measures are influenced by extreme measures (mostly studied with waist to hip ratio).

a) Since pornography is about visuals, not actual physical stimulation, visual properties of the body part are more important: big breasts and big penises are more attractive in pornography than they are in real life, because larger penises and breasts "stand out more" and are more impressive to the viewers, even though the same men (or women) might not find such features important (or even attractive) in real life.
b) Pornography is not about making anyone happy, it is a product that must leave its consumers unsatisfied. More pornography can be sold, if men are unhappy in real life and use pornography instead of working on their relationships. Making men and women unhappy with themselves and each other will make relationships less likely to function and men and women to use consumption as a substitute.
c) In pornography for a male public it does not matter what women find attractive, because they are not the main consumers of that medium. The male organs visible in for-men-pornography must be attractive for men and therefore conform to their ideas about male attractiveness.

-1 A lot of unsupported assertions and opinions here. a) is similar to @John's answer, though I don't see why people should prefer large penises or breasts in porn but not in real life. In b) you seem to be asserting that porn producers cast men with big penises because they are in cahoots with the penis enhancement pill producers. Similarly, c) seems to state that porn is deliberately produced to be "unsatisfactory" and make people unhappy about themselves. d) just restates the OP's point that men seem to prefer big penises but doesn't attempt to answer why.

@ThomasH I like this answer, it does provide a theory, much of of consumerism is based on keeping people unhappy and wanting more

@ThomasH It seems to me that you didn't even read my answer. For example, you write that you "don't see why people should prefer large penises or breasts in porn but not in real life". I answered that: Because they are more visible. etc.

Could it be that men are more strongly aroused by porn actors with large penises?
This would be implied by sperm competition theory. The basic idea is that if females have more than one mating partner, there is an evolutionary pressure on men. According to the theory, over time, this results in adaptations in response to this "sperm competition" that increase the chance that own sperm is successful.
If this is the case, then seeing sexually aroused rivals should be a strong stimulus indicating sperm competition. This idea has been investigated in various studies that have looked at the kind of pornography that men consume, and the consequences of doing so.
For example, Pound (2002) found that in pornography, depictions of sexual activity of several men with one woman are more frequent than depictions with several females and one male, and that men select the first category of pornography more frequently.
As another example, Kilgallon and Simmons (2005) showed men pornographic images of either two males and a female (sperm competition images) or pictures of three females (without males). Their results indicated that the semen quality (sperm motility) was better when the men saw pornography involving other men.
I couldn't find any research that has look at penis size directly. Nevertheless it is a straightforward conjecture that, as aroused penises are a sperm competition stimulus, larger penises should evoke more arousal.
References
Pound, N. (2002). Male interest in visual cues of sperm competition risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(6), 443–466. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00103-4
Kilgallon, S. J., & Simmons, L. W. (2005). Image content influences men’s semen quality. Biology Letters, 1, 253-255.

On a personal note, this answer will be my farewell to the site. My career at cogsci.se is coming to an end. It's only fitting that this and the answer before that http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/12598/7759 will be the climactic endpoint of my short tenure here (scnr). It was fun while it lasted. Without irony, I can say that I have learned a lot. So long! MaríaAnt

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What are the neurological differences between varying types of love?
It stands to reason that the biochemical cascade involved when a person experiences love, gives a feeling of well-being and drive.

Studies in neuroscience have involved chemicals that are present in the brain and might be involved when people experience love. These chemicals include: nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin. Adequate brain levels of testosterone seem important for both human male and female sexual behavior. Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

and

Romantic and maternal love are highly rewarding
  experiences. Both are linked to the perpetuation of the species
  and therefore have a closely linked biological function of crucial
  evolutionary importance. 1

There's a lot of research about romantic love and parent/child love. Apparently there are correlations, between the neurological patterns observed with romantic and maternal love.
I am wondering, do we know what the neurobiological differences are between romantic, maternal/paternal, platonic love and the  love of non-human entities for example a pet?
1. The neurobiology of love
S. Zeki*
University College, Department of Anatomy, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, United Kingdom

Related: Death caused by "Failure to Thrive" (FTT), as lack of loving attention for a baby can lead to death.


text:
Current theories of the psychology of ambivalence
This question querying the authenticity of people's words and actions and the resulting commentary after this answer, has led me to ask this question.
Ambivalence is a state of having simultaneous, conflicting feelings toward a person or thing.1 Stated another way, ambivalence is the experience of having thoughts and/or emotions of both positive and negative valence toward someone or something. The term also refers to situations where "mixed feelings" of a more general sort are experienced, or where a person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness concerning something. The expressions "cold feet" and "sitting on the fence" are often used to describe the feeling of ambivalence.

Ambivalence is experienced as psychologically unpleasant when the positive and negative aspects of a subject are both present in a person's mind at the same time. This state can lead to avoidance or procrastination, or to deliberate attempts to resolve the ambivalence. When the situation does not require a decision to be made, people experience less discomfort even when feeling ambivalent.
It is normal to have ambivalence from time to time about how we feel about another individual, whether we can trust the authenticity of a person. As human beings are multidimensional creatures. Trials and triumphs both bring out different aspects that are part of the one person. A person's mood, can change the way that person relates to others. Combined with the modulation of the observer's own internal processes, there can be a varying perception between two people.

If my ideas are correct, and a degree of ambivalence can be quite normal, almost expected within human interactions (or relationships);
How can  reasonable ambivalence be differentiated from  pathological ambivalence?
What are the current theories regarding the psychology of  ambivalence?

Many studies have examined ambivalence,

Interest in attitudes and ambivalence has highlighted problems with the adequacy of conceptualizing attitudes as unitary, unidimensional, evaluations...//..
   the hypothesis that ambivalence will attenuate observed attitude-intention relationships (since the evaluations influencing the expression of attitudes are more likely to differ from the evaluations influencing the expression of intentions for people who are more ambivalent. 1
Negative interactions may occur with ambivalent social partners (i.e., partners involved in both positive and negative exchanges) or exclusively problematic social partners (i.e., partners involved in negative exchanges only), but conflicting views exist in the literature regarding which type of social partner is likely to be more detrimental to older adults' physical and emotional health. 2

Pathological ambivalence appears to be rooted in infancy 3 and/or childhood, and is categorised as an attachment disorder, known as Ambivalent Attachment Disorder or Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment Disorder or a type of Reactive Attachment Disorder 4 under the umbrella of Insecure Attachment Disorders.
It is theorised to be causal, or at least linked to psychopathy 5 and personality disorders, in particular, Borderline Personality Disorder 6. It is theorised to begin in infancy and/or childhood. When a child's needs are met inconsistently.

The first type of insecure attachment is called ambivalent attachment. This occurs when caregivers are inconsistent – sometimes answering infants’ needs quickly and responsively, and sometimes letting the infant ‘cry it out’. This may also occur if caregivers respond only to the physical needs – feeding, changing, etc, but ignore the infant’s need for human interaction and connection.
Looking at baby, touching, singing, talking about what we are doing, etc is very important for infants’ emotional development. Without this, babies do not ‘feel felt’, an expression coined by Dan Siegel in his book ‘Parenting From the Inside Out’. It can become very difficult for these babies to develop the qualities of compassion and empathy.
With insecure ambivalent attachment characterized by ‘only sometimes’ type of caregiving, babies learn that the world and their ability to have an impact on it is basically inconsistent – sometimes things happen, sometimes they don’t – sometimes all their needs are met, and sometimes only some of them are. Infants learn that others are not dependable or consistent. They often also do not learn or understand emotions – their own or others. 3

Being deprived of basic care, the child manifests an ideation that there is not enough to provide for everyone in this world, and so will grab to get their needs and/or wants met.

AMBIVALENT ATTACHMENT DISORDER (AmAD) children see scarcity everywhere, and therefore what is wanted should be taken as it is not going to be given by anyone. Having to hurt someone to get what is wanted is viewed simply as “the cost of doing business”, and the other person is seen as deserving being hurt for having been in the way.

Attachment, Parental Bonding and Borderline Personality Disorder Features in Young Adults

Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that parental bonding and attachment scores (especially insecure attachment, anxious or ambivalent attachment, and a perception of a relative lack of caring from one's mother) were uniquely associated with borderline features beyond what could be accounted for by gender, childhood adversity experiences, Axis I disorder, and nonborderline Axis II symptoms. Although relatively modest, these relations suggest that bonding and attachment constructs might be considered in comprehensive etiological models of borderline personality disorder.

Symptoms of Ambivalent Reactive Attachment Disorder are:

Passion to intimate contact and declarations of love at all times from their partners;
Show inveterate care giving nature;
Tend to idealize others;
Feel themself uncomfortable with anger;
Show too extreme emotions;
Very jealous;
Frequent mood swings;
Imbalanced relationships with others;
Never have prolonged relationships;
Too possessive;
Feel that their partner is unpredictable;
Tend to be concerned or have dependence on relationship;
May show suicide attempts;
Have a tendency of frequent depression;
Often feel themself unlovable or undesired by others.

 1.
Br J Health Psychol. 2001 Feb;6(Pt 1):53-68.
Ambivalence about health-related behaviours: an exploration in the domain of food choice.
Sparks P, Conner M, James R, Shepherd R, Povey R.
Source
School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, UK. P.Sparks@sussex.ac.uk
Psychol Aging. 2012 Dec;27(4):912-23. doi: 10.1037/a0029246. Epub 2012 Jul 9.
2.
Ambivalent versus problematic social ties: implications for psychological health, functional health, and interpersonal coping.
Rook KS, Luong G, Sorkin DH, Newsom JT, Krause N.
Source
Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-7085, USA. ksrook@uci.edu
Attachment, Parental Bonding and Borderline Personality Disorder Features in Young Adults
Angela D. Nickell, Carol J. Waudby, Timothy J. Trull, (2002). Attachment, Parental Bonding and Borderline Personality Disorder Features in Young Adults. Journal of Personality Disorders: Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 148-159.
doi: 10.1521/pedi.16.2.148.22544
Maryland's Source for
Attachment Disorder Related Information
Reactive attachment disorder
Insecure Attachment

Lol, nice answer.

Except for NLP apparently :p


text:
What is the maximum size of content the human eye can focus upon?
What is the maximum size of content the human eye can focus upon on a computer screen?
Is there a general equation that gives this size as a measure of distance from the screen etc.?
What is the shape of this focus area- is it a square? a circle?

The fovea (highest-resolution area of the retina) can only "see" the central two degrees of the visual field; the field of foveal vision is approximately circular, although it varies slightly by individual.  This depends on the distance from the eye or sensor.  This is called "visual angle" or "angular size", and it can be calculated using the formula

where S is the object's linear size and D is the distance between the eye/sensor (sometimes called point O) and the object.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_angle
Calculator here: http://www.oocities.org/robertellis600/va.html

When you extend your arm and look at your thumbnail, that is approximately the area that is focussed ("sharp") in your field of vision (about 2°). Your vision is sharp only in your fovea. Your attention can "focus" on other areas in your field of vision, although they are and remain blurred.


text:
Does looking into a mirror relieve eye strain in a similar way to looking at distant objects?
Sometimes when having an eye exam the eye chart is viewed through a mirror to increase the distance between the person and the chart.
When using consoles, it is recommended to look away from the console and look into the distance.
My question is:
For the purposes of relieving eye strain, does the perceived increased distance of looking at an object in a mirror, serve the same purpose as looking at the same object from twice the distance?

Ha, I was wondering this exact same thing the other day, except without that idea.  My room is small and its hard to look at far away things, but with the mirror idea, that would help.  I'll answer it too, but without research this time.

Unrelated to your question friend, there are some wonderful techniques of removing strain in Patanjali Yoga... If you are interested, I may provide you some information about those asanas and Yoga postures...

@user3747 I will post a question about it and you can provide an answer..

@user3747 http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4892/are-there-proben-physical-techniques-to-relieve-eye-strain

As far as I understand it and as per explained by my eye doctor,
If we separate this variable from the other possible ones that can cause eye strain while staring at a monitor like amount of "blue light" (check out the program f.lux), overall brightness, refresh rate, etc., then-
-the variable that can cause eye strain as you explain, "looking at something too close for to long," is caused by overextending the muscles and/or the way in which they contract (some combination of this most likely) in your eyes that causes you to focus on something up close.
So, by looking off into the distance, you are stretching those muscles (changing the way their contracting kinda) and/or giving them a chance to relax for a bit.
I'm quite sure that you and not your environment are actually the true controllers over how these muscles contract.
Try this experiment: Imagine there are mountains behind your computer screen and try to look through your computer screen in order to see them.  It may feel unusual at first, and a bit difficult - however if done right you'll be able to feel it.
Here's another experiment: Find some shadow or corner in your room where absolutely no light shines into.  It could be a crevice or whatever - you could even make it artificially. It could even be in the depths between the keys in your keyboard.   Just as long as it's pitch black.  When you look into something that is pitch black, from a visual perspective, neither you nor your eyes know how far that darkness extends - meaning it's left up to you to determine how you focus or not focus on it.  I can look between the keys on my keyboard and see pitch black - I know that only extends a a few millimeters if any in reality...but my sight isn't telling me that.  For a sight perspective, those depths might really end at the center of the earth or travel on for millions of miles.

ie. you can change this focus just like as if you were changing the focus on a camera.  It is somewhat of a skill, but not too hard of one to acquire.

Now trying to achieve this effect is easier admittedly when there is true distance to look at or into.  If you're trying to fake it, I also wouldn't recommend trying to look through your computer screen as in my example above for relief.  That was just an extreme example to prove a point - it's possible, but not ideal (and you are still also left with other variables like refresh rate, brightness, etc.).
So as long as you are able to induce this change in eye muscle contractions by actually looking off into the distance, or artificially induce it by tricking your eyes into thinking they are doing so - it doesn't matter as the end goal was accomplished either way.  The only thing that differs is the potential intensity of this relief you'll get when trying to induce artificially in contrast to doing so in reality; the artificially part is obviously dependent upon your skill and belief that you can actually do that though.

For the purposes of relieving eye strain, does the perceived increased
  distance of looking at an object in a mirror, serve the same purpose
  as looking at the same object from twice the distance?

If you perceive it to be true, then your eyes will too - so it would cause the same change in muscle contraction/stretching/relaxation effect that accompanies changes in focus.
After thinking about your mirror trick, I don't actually think it would work.  Your perception of the objects will be just as close as if you were looking right at them.


text:
Why does a person temporarily go blind without any apparent cause?
A person experiences the alternating, intermittent, and temporary, loss of different sensory and motor functioning, such as finding himself unable to see or walk. None of these symptoms are caused by an accident, illness or psychological distress immediately preceding them, but seem to appear at random and with no discernible unifying situational characteristic.
What's going on?

Loss of sensory or motor functioning are possible symptoms of a conversion disorder.
Conversion disorders usually appear during adolescence and are mostly caused by situations of extreme stress (such as the frontline experience of soldiers). Often the disorders enable the patient to avoid specific tasks or responsibilities or recieve the attention of specific persons.
It is important to make sure that the symptoms are not caused by neurological disorders, such as an illness of the central nervous system. Most paralyses and sensory impairments have neurological causes and many are mis-diagnosed as conversion disorders.


text:
Are closed eye movements related to the content of dreams or the imagination?
During rem sleep there are observed eye movements, which seem like they would correlate with the person visualizing their dreams.
Do their eye movements actually try to follow what they're dreaming about?  If so, do the eyes ever actually focus on something?
When a person closes their eyes and are thinking, are the eyes actually being used. By this I mean are the muscles moving in accordance with focusing. How is the focal point determined?

Lol, and again I think I can answer this...I've even been in sleep studies where I've had this measured.  Gimme just a sec! Omg you didn't like my answer to http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4444/vision-and-focal-point-with-out-mirrors/4446#4446 ?

I undeleted my answer since it fits now with your edits.  I can elaborate on the second point a bit later.

Good for you, a little R+R always helps!

I'm gonna edit your question and see if you agree with it so it encompasses both of ours.

I just imagined you sipping on pina coladas, sitting on the beach, and posting questions on stack exchange.  It made me a bit jealous :) Hope you know I was only kidding :)  - I feel you on the eye strain thing too.  I have the exact same problem.  There's alot of tips on it in the other more programming related sections of stackexchange too.  My eyes hurt now agggh

In regards to actively trying to control your eyes while they are closed, like attempting to do visualization like NLP, I believe that you choose what to focus on and where to focus at, exactly the same as my "pitch black" analogy whereby if you look into, say, a pitch black room, then although you know it's only 15 feet towards the wall, your vision does not.
Therefore, if you believe that it extends for millions of miles, then you can choose quite easily to focus into the darkness that way.

In regards to if you close your eyes and just kind of forget about them without going to sleep...like "resting your eyes", then I believe Chuck in another answer answered this best in his bottom two paragraphs.  Quick link: https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/4467/3433

Now in regards to during REM sleep, this gets tricky.
I did not think I'd find a study that answers your exact question about "how is focal point determined during REM sleep?".  I'll just start with that study first, then throw in a few others that are related to something called the "scanning hypothesis" which will help to unravel some of your other questions more specifically if they're about REM sleep specifically.
Let's start off with a definition of the "scanning hypothesis":
According to psychologydictionary.com,

The scanning hypothesis is a concept hypothesizing that rapid eye
  movements identified in the course of the REM stage of sleep correlate
  to subjective gaze adjustments of the dreamer casting their gaze about
  in the dream with fixations in particular places.

At first I was worried that all the studies would just focus on this "scanning hypothesis," then I came across this gem:

Exp Brain Res. 1997 Oct;117(1):153-60. Binocular eye movements not
  coordinated during REM sleep. Zhou W, King WM.
Department of Neurology, University of Mississippi Medical Center,
  Jackson 39216, USA. wuz@vor.umsmed.edu
Abstract
Rapid eye movements (REMs) are a defining characteristic of REM sleep
  during which vivid dreams occur. It has been suggested that REMs may
  be binocularly coordinated and related to "watching" dream images. For
  the first time, binocular eye movements were recorded during natural
  REM sleep in monkeys to test the conjugate nature of the oculomotor
  system and the "scanning hypothesis" of REMs during sleep. During REM
  sleep, the lines of sight of the two eyes are frequently misaligned up
  to 30 degrees horizontally and/or vertically. Since the lines of sight
  usually don't intersect, there is no fixation point. Instead, each eye
  is aimed at a different part of the visual field during REM sleep.
  Furthermore, REMs are not usually conjugate, but are disjunctive or
  even monocular in horizontal or vertical directions. These data argue
  against the idea that REMs actually "track" dream images, unless each
  eye is watching its own dream! Binocular misalignment and disjunctive
  (even monocular) REMs during sleep suggest that separate left eye and
  right eye pathways generate saccades in each eye and control the
  position of each eye. Binocular coordination cannot be the passive
  result of anatomical connectivity as has been argued previously, but
  instead must result from a high-level process associated with the
  awake state that coordinates activity in left-eye and right-eye
  pathways. Hering's law of equal innervation is not consistent with
  these data. PMID: 9386014 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Apparently also, part of the "scanning hypothesis" is that your eyes are trying to track down something...in other words fixate upon it...which would cause them to focus.  This results from this study say no to that.
So, as far as...

"By this I mean are the muscles moving in accordance with focusing.
  How is the focal point determined?"

...during REM sleep, this study says that there is no fixation upon one thing and thus there is no focal point.  So, no, according to this study the muscles are not moving in accordance with focusing.

As a precursor to this study, a definition of "rapid eye movement disorder" is good to know.  So here is wikipedia's definition:

Rapid eye movement disorder is a sleep disorder (more specifically a parasomnia) that
  involves abnormal behaviour during the sleep phase with rapid eye movement
  (REM) sleep. It was first described in 1986. The major and arguably
  only abnormal feature of RBD is loss of muscle atonia (paralysis)
  during otherwise intact REM sleep. This is the stage of sleep in which
  most vivid dreaming occurs. The loss of motor inhibition leads to a
  wide spectrum of behavioural release during sleep. This extends from
  simple limb twitches to more complex integrated movement, in which
  sufferers appear to be unconsciously acting out their dreams. These
  behaviours can be violent in nature and in some cases will result in
  injury to either the patient or their bed partner.

It's important to note the difference between the first study which was done in 1997 and this one done in 2010.  Perhaps the overall definition of the "scanning hypothesis" changed, or there is slight subjectivity to it.
For instance, in the first study the author says,

"It has been suggested that REMs may
  be binocularly coordinated and related to "watching" dream images. For
  the first time, binocular eye movements were recorded during natural
  REM sleep in monkeys to test the conjugate nature of the oculomotor
  system and the "scanning hypothesis" of REMs during sleep."

So he's trying to test the "scanning hypothesis" by looking to see if the monkeys actually do focus on something by looking to see if the eyes are working together (ie. trying to triangulate distance and thus focus) are actually working together.
Now these French people (they always seem to have creative ideas actually) admit that the "scanning hypothesis" has been testing in this way...as in...by monitoring the muscles in the eyes.  So they're taking a different approach and (cleverly might I add) exploiting people who essentially have a disorder that is very similar to sleepwalking...but they lay in bed...THEN they are mixing in control patients who are normal so that they can compare the two and use that mixture to extrapolate it to the normal population as well & noone can criticize them for only using patients with that 1st specific disorder.
They're looking to see how their eyes align/what direction they move to when they are acting out certain motions.

Brain. 2010 Jun;133(Pt 6):1737-46. doi: 10.1093/brain/awq110. Epub
  2010 May 16.
  Do the eyes scan dream images during rapid eye movement sleep? Evidence from the rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder model.
  Leclair-Visonneau L, Oudiette D, Gaymard B, Leu-Semenescu S, Arnulf I.
  Source Sleep Disorder Unit, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Assistance
  Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, 75013 Paris, France.
Erratum in Brain. 2011 Jul;134(Pt 7):1286.
Abstract
Rapid eye movements and complex visual dreams are salient
  features of human rapid eye movement sleep. However, it remains to be
  elucidated whether the eyes scan dream images, despite studies that
  have retrospectively compared the direction of rapid eye movements to
  the dream recall recorded after having awakened the sleeper. We used
  the model of rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (when
  patients enact their dreams by persistence of muscle tone) to
  determine directly whether the eyes move in the same directions as the
  head and limbs. In 56 patients with rapid eye movement sleep behaviour
  disorder and 17 healthy matched controls, the eye movements were
  monitored by electrooculography in four (right, left, up and down)
  directions, calibrated with a target and synchronized with video and
  sleep monitoring. The rapid eye movement sleep behaviour
  disorder-associated behaviours occurred 2.1 times more frequently
  during rapid eye movement sleep with than without rapid eye movements,
  and more often during or after rapid eye movements than before. Rapid
  eye movement density, index and complexity were similar in patients
  with rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder and controls. When
  rapid eye movements accompanied goal-oriented motor behaviour during
  rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (e.g. grabbing a fictive
  object, hand greetings, climbing a ladder), which happened in 19
  sequences, 82% were directed towards the action of the patient (same
  plane and direction) (Taal Note: Note what they just said in parenthesis). When restricted to the determinant rapid eye
  movements, the concordance increased to 90%. Rapid eye movements were
  absent in 38-42% of behaviours. This directional coherence between
  limbs, head and eye movements during rapid eye movement sleep
  behaviour disorder suggests that, when present, rapid eye movements
  imitate the scanning of the dream scene. Since the rapid eye movements
  are similar in subjects with and without rapid eye movement sleep
  behaviour disorder, this concordance can be extended to normal rapid
  eye movement sleep.

So,
1) Although behavioral movements and what the eyes are doing do not always seem to correlate:

"Rapid eye movements were absent in 38-42% of behaviours."

When they do correlate at least during goal-oriented motor behavior, they do "imitate the 'scanning' of the dream scene." And that seems to happen about 82-90% of the time when they do this sort of behavior.
The math confuses me there as well though in contrast to how 38-42% of movements were absent of eye moments as well, but I believe the discretion is due to using the control vs. disordered group and lumping different group(s) into different calculated percentages.
Now also note above that when the goal-oriented behavior occurred and the eyes reflected this, they did so in the "same plane and direction."  This was peculiar as the word "plane" could mean horizontal or vertical plane I believe...it could also mean focal plane.  I wish they distinguished that better - I'm going to hypothesize it was just either the vertical or horizontal plane so that
In essence, a large part of the time people are acting out their behaviors when asleep the eyes correspond highly to the direction, but only to one plane, which means there wasn't really focal point - as you'd need to correspond to both the horizontal and vertical planes then.

@WhyDoYouThinkThatIsTrue I updated my answer to include both of your potential questions for each question you had once I reread your question again as I falsely assumed you were only asking about REM sleep. The answer to that question is in my edited response, but I believe it's similar to my response in your other question that coughnotawardedanswerifdeservedcough uses the analogy of looking between the depths of your keyboard keys. You know that the space down there is only a few millimeters. Your sight doesn't know if it goes on for millions of miles though. It's my "pitch black" theory.

@WhyDoYouThinkThatIsTrue In essence it's your choice...but I do think now that I think about it you're wondering what happens when you close your eyes and purposefully "forget about sight completely," which is an interesting question.  Let me finish up the REM part then I'll try to find your answer.

Chuck got part of it too, I had no idea about the things he mentioned.

It has been theorized that it has to do with "visualizing" dreams, but the movements themselves are by virtue of the pattern of electrical activity as the waves travel between the Pons (in the brainstem), Geniculate nuclei (in the thalamus), and Occipital lobe.
From PGO Waves

PGO waves and REM sleep
PGO waves are an integral part of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. As stated earlier, the density of the PGO waves coincides with the amount of eye movement measured in REM sleep. This has led some researchers to further theorize about the usefulness of PGO waves for dreaming.
One key use of REM sleep is for the brain to process and store information from the previous day. In a sense, the brain is learning by establishing new neuronal connections for things that have been learned. Neurophysiological studies have indicated a relationship between increased P-wave density during post-training REM sleep and learning performance.  Basically, the abundance of PGO waves translates into longer periods of REM sleep, which thereby allows the brain to have longer periods where neuronal connections are formed.
The importance of PGO waves during REM sleep also aids the idea of PGO waves as a signal that a person is dreaming.  Since dreaming occurs during REM sleep, the PGO waves are theorized to be the signals that make the brain start to recount the experiences from the previous day. This, in turn, allows us to "see" our dreams since our visual sense is quickly going through the information it has stored.

In other words, the eyes are moving by virtue of the brain activity, not the other way around.
So, the fact that we are "seeing" is only in the abstract sense, and there's not really a specific point of focus that the eyes are following.
As far as the second point goes, you are speaking of the concept of "vergence", where the eyes are moving to attend to a stimulus.  It turns out that in the dark, according to this lecture, the eyes are reflexively brought parallel:

Simply being conscious, even without a visual stimulus (i.e., in the dark, or with the eye closed), will cause innervation to the muscles that brings the eyes to a nearly parallel (or slightly eso) orientation. This is known as
tonic vergence. It is also called dark vergence

@ChuckSherrington Heh, I quoted you in my answer chuck (your last two paragraphs), would you prefer me to edit that out and simply defer to your answer without the quote?  I'm assuming so....

@Taal Either way is fine.  I think it's better to have just a link to the other answer in case it changes or something.


text:
How effective is cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders?
How effective have cognitive behavioral therapy type techniques been shown and proven to work for anxiety based on published literature?
Citations please.

My answer in https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/1977/7604 may help to gain some balance against the accepted answer.

Meta-analyses are usually pretty accurate, as they essentially bring together the data from many studies that investigate the same topic of interest together and use statistical methods to effectively get the most conclusive answer possible, throughout all of the studies assessed, just HOW effective is a certain treatment?
For your specific question, there's one in particular that strongly supports CBT for anxiety.  It looks at 71 different studies (that's a ton).  It also investigates it's effectiveness in a variety of different environments and versions of it's therapy.
 It was even published only last month.

Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Jul 20;33(8):954-964. doi:
  10.1016/j.cpr.2013.07.003.
A meta-analysis of nonrandomized effectiveness studies on outpatient cognitive behavioral
  therapy for adult anxiety disorders. Hans E, Hiller W. Source
  Department of Clinical Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University
  Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: hans@uni-mainz.de. Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to assess the overall
  effectiveness of individual and group outpatient cognitive behavioral
  therapy (CBT) for adults with a primary anxiety disorder in routine
  clinical practice. METHOD: We conducted a random effects meta-analysis
  of 71 nonrandomized effectiveness studies on outpatient individual and
  group CBT for adult anxiety disorders. Standardized mean gain effect
  sizes pre- to posttreatment, and posttreatment to follow-up are
  reported for disorder-specific symptoms, depression, and general
  anxiety. The mean dropout from CBT is reported. RESULTS: Outpatient
  CBT was effective in reducing disorder-specific symptoms in completer
  (d=0.90-1.91) and intention-to-treat samples (d=0.67-1.45). Moderate
  to large (d=0.54-1.09) and small to large effect sizes (d=0.42-0.97)
  were found for depressive and general anxiety symptoms posttreatment.
  Across all anxiety disorders, the weighted mean dropout rate was
  15.06%. Posttreatment gains for disorder-specific anxiety were maintained 12months after completion of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: ****CBT for
  adult anxiety disorders is very effective and widely accepted in
  routine practice settings.**** However, the methodological and reporting
  quality of nonrandomized effectiveness studies must be improved. ©
  2013.

Across 71 studies, the conclusion used the word "very effective," which is very rare to see in any study in the conclusions section, especially a meta-analysis,  the weighted mean dropout rate across all different types of its application was only 15.06%, AND gains were generally maintained for 12 months (maybe more, I don't have full text) after beginning therapy.
The only caveat they mention is that the methodology and reporting quality must be improved, but I feel that's a general trait that almost all studies need improvement in.
Plus when you investigate SEVENTY-ONE (71) studies, statistical laws start to take over anyway.
Based on this, I'd have to say that there is very, very strong evidence that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is an effective treatment for anxiety disorders.
In my opinion, and as an analogy, it's almost just as if not more proven than using aspirin or acetaminophen to relieve a simple headache.  It just works according to the literature, which, if you have that many studies then "routine clinical analysis" really does become reality.  More and more clinical psychologists are switching over to this method or attempting to make some sort of derivative of it.

Best answer ever.

Considering the non-randomized studies (even via a meta-analysis) as "best evidence ever" is pretty silly. A lot of low-quality studies have concluded various dubious things "work", e.g. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6860/has-most-peer-reviewed-research-on-homeopathy-given-positive-results

Frankly, I don't see how the meta-analysis of 70-something non-randomized studies from the self-accepted answer is such amazing evidence. On the other hand, there's a 2008 meta-analysis of just the randomized (and double-blind) studies (RCTs), and these are not so few either:

We included studies that randomly assigned adult patients meeting DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria for an anxiety disorder to either CBT or placebo. Of 1,165 studies that were initially identified, 27 met all inclusion criteria. [...]
Random effect models of completer samples yielded a pooled effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.65) for continuous anxiety severity measures and 0.45 (90% confidence interval, 0.25–0.65) for depressive symptom severity measures. The pooled odds ratio for completer treatment response rates was 4.06 (95% confidence interval, 2.78–5.92). The strongest effect sizes were observed for obsessive-compulsive disorder and acute stress disorder. The advantage of CBT over placebo did not depend on placebo modality, number of sessions, or study year.
Our review of randomized placebo-controlled trials indicates that CBT is efficacious for adult anxiety disorders.

The notion of placebo is however not always clear when it comes to psychtherapy; in this meta-analysis it

had to involve interventions to control for nonspecific factors (e.g., regular contact with a therapist, reasonable rationale for the intervention, discussions of the psychological problem). Placebo interventions that included active treatment ingredients for the target problem (e.g., an intervention that specifically instructs participants to engage in exposure exercises to test certain predictions or to challenge a maladaptive thinking style) were not included

Also only double-blind studies were included in these 27:

(c) Participants and evaluators were blinded to treatment condition (i.e., participants and evaluators were not aware whether they received active treatment or placebo intervention); (d) The evaluators were blinded to treatment conditions (i.e., evaluators were not aware which treatment condition participants had received; and (e) the description of drop-outs was provided.

There's even a newer (2018) meta-analysis of the same kind

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety-related disorders based on randomized placebo-controlled trials. We included 41 studies that randomly assigned patients (N = 2,843) with acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder (PD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or social anxiety disorder (SAD) to CBT or a psychological or pill placebo condition. Findings demonstrated moderate placebo-controlled effects of CBT on target disorder symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.56), and small to moderate effects on other anxiety symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.38), depression (Hedges' g = 0.31), and quality of life (Hedges' g = 0.30). Response rates in CBT compared to placebo were associated with an odds ratio of 2.97. Effects on the target disorder were significantly stronger for completer samples than intent-to-treat samples, and for individuals compared to group CBT in SAD and PTSD studies. Large effect sizes were found for OCD, GAD, and acute stress disorder, and small to moderate effect sizes were found for PTSD, SAD, and PD. In PTSD studies, dropout rates were greater in CBT (29.0%) compared to placebo (17.2%), but no difference in dropout was found across other disorders. Interventions primarily using exposure strategies had larger effect sizes than those using cognitive or cognitive and behavioral techniques, though this difference did not reach significance. Findings demonstrate that CBT is a moderately efficacious treatment for anxiety disorders when compared to placebo. More effective treatments are especially needed for PTSD, SAD, and PD.

Since this 2018 meta-analysis presented itself as the successor of the one a decade before (it shares some authors as well) it still included OCD, acute stress disorder, and PTSD even though these are no longer classified as
anxiety disorders in DSM-5.
It's also interesting that there few RCTs of CBT in GAD though (only 2).
Also RCTs aren't all the same quality-wise...

the strength of the effect of CBT depended on whether the analysis
  was conducted on completer or ITT [intent-to-treat] samples, with completer samples
  producing significantly larger effect sizes, though not ORs [odd ratios], compared
  to ITT samples. Such a discrepancy between ITT and completer samples is particularly important given that CBT was associated with significantly greater dropout rates than placebo in the present analysis,
  a result not found in Hofmann and Smits (2008). Notably, this result
  appeared to be driven by greater dropout rates among CBT patients
  in PTSD studies, which has also been found in previous meta-analytic
  research (Imel, Laska, Jakupcak, & Simpson, 2013). Such a finding suggests that for PTSD studies, the superior effect of CBT compared to
  placebo may be inflated by lack of data from dropouts.
[...] only 16 of the 41 studies included used ITT analyses,
  and the use of completer analyses appeared to lead to greater effect
  size estimates. Even among studies using ITT analyses, results from our
  risk of bias assessment indicated that many studies did not account for
  missing data properly, or did not provide adequate information for why
  data were missing or how missing data were dealt with. Relatedly, the
  present results may have been influenced by publication bias. In addition, criteria for treatment response varied between studies, potentially contributed to increased heterogeneity in the effect sizes for
  categorical outcomes.

They also note that meta-analyses using only waitlists as opposed to more active placebos had reported even greater effect sizes:

For instance, the metaanalysis by Bandelow et al. (2015) comparing CBT to waitlist produced
  an overall effect size of 1.23 for anxiety disorder symptoms. In contrast, we observed that CBT was associated with an effect size of 0.56
  when compared to placebo.

The  metaanalysis of Bandelow et al. is also interesting in its own ways; although it targeted fewer disorders (I think they adopted to the DSM-5 view) namely only Panic disorder/agoraphobia, GAD and Social anxiety disorder, it compared treatments multiple treatments, with some interesting conclusions:

In direct comparisons, individual CBT/exposure was
  significantly more effective than waiting list, psychological
  placebo and pill placebo conditions (Table 3). Group CBT was superior to waiting list, but not to pill placebo. Relaxation and non-face-to-face therapies were superior to waiting lists.

In that last table, "Fail-safe N" (number of
negative studies needed to reject the hypothesis that a
treatment differs from a control group) and "Egger P" estimate publication bias; the "adjusted d" is using the publication-bias-correcting ‘trim and fill’ method of Duval and Tweedie (2000). (Alas the meta-analyses of Hofmann and Smits did not report something like this.)

I can only give my experience, which is that it did not help one bit.
I had two lots of 6 sessions, and was described as a " very compliant patient"
It was like standing on a motorway trying to persuade one car to slow down, sometimes they did, but there were so many more it was exhausting.
I have no doubt it works for some, but I rather think its effects are being over hyped.
Try this :
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/conquer-fear-flying/201402/why-cbt-cant-regulate-anxiety
Its relatively cheap and is fashionable.....but as I said..did absolutely nothing for me and for others I know.
I guess at least it is without side effects....as long as those administering it do not see the patient as the problem if it fails.....its too easy to do that
Gina x

Opinions and anecdotes are frowned upon here, please edit the answer to summarize evidence from valid references.

My answer in https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/1977/7604 may help to gain some balance against the accepted answer.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Does hypnotherapy/hypnosis, in any form, for any type of disorder, work?
Does Hypnosis Work for Treating, or Curing, any Form of any Mental Disorder?
Let's say my definition of hypnosis is related mostly to the classical way people think about it.  This is subjective of course, but I've purposefully made it that way. I do realize at times it may overlap into other types of therapy as well.
If there are other forms of hypnosis I'd like to hear about those too though!
Citation/Research Wise:

I'd like to know if its backed by literature.  I want the specific citation's abstract   quoted.
I'd like to know their findings, conclusions, and methodologies and your analysis of that.
I'd like to know how long the treatments lasted after they stopped being hypnotized.
I'd like to know how effective it was for whatever specific goals that it was used to treat.  How long did the affects last if there were any?
I'd like to know if you found any potential errors or flaws in the study - and you're overall analysis of that.

Citing Wikipedia is not an acceptable answer or comment as it is not a reputable source, it's citations are.  If you are going to do that, pick the most compelling and valid studies (no matter the disorder), or something like a meta analysis that Wikipedia cites and then post that along with the answer to the above questions.  Thanks.

Anecdotally:

I'd like to know what it feels like to be hypnotized if you've had the experience of it.
I'd like to know why if it worked really well for you then why did you stop doing it or have you actually continued?

It can be any disorder of any kind, just as long as someone could classify it as a psychological "problem" in some context.  The more angles you come at it with the better though.

I asked a Meta question which I had based on this question. For now I am leaving this question open because it has an active bounty and has some great answers. I'm cleaning up some of the comments here; if anyone feels I deleted their comment in error, please flag/chat with me and I will restore it. Thanks everyone!

What is Hypnosis?
First of all, we need to define hypnosis. Hypnosis, by definition, is a natural state attained by individuals. It is the calm, place achieved by meditation, reflective thought or day dreaming. In and of itself, yes hypnosis can be beneficial to all individuals. A caveat applies to this statement, however, as to the current mental state of an individual. One could suggest that hypnosis is to the human mind, as eating vegetables is to the human body; nourishing and vital for our well being.
What is therapeutic hypnosis?
Hypnotherapy, which is the use of hypnosis as a therapy is another thing. It has been proven to have success. However, it's success is contingent upon the individuals willingness for change, insight, and mental capacities (as are Factors Influencing Successful Psychotherapy Outcomes). Hypnotherapy teaches the individual to use hypnosis as a therapeutic technique. Hypnotherapy has success rates in helping mental disorders. A person is more suggestible under hypnosis.
When I refer to mental capacities, I am not so much referring to intellect, as mental health. For psychotic illness, by definition, is unable to be improved with logic or reasoning, any form of therapy, other than medication to adjust the brains chemistry, after which, other therapeutic processes may assist in the individual's well being. **note my comment about  psychosis is broad; I believe it is too big a topic to detail here*
What is Hypnotherapy and How Does it Differ From Hypnosis?

Hypnosis is a totally natural state of mind. When under hypnosis you will feel very relaxed, just like that wonderful feeling when you are
     tired lying in your bed and you are so overcome with comfort that you
     wish the moment could last forever. Through simple hypnotic,
     relaxation techniques you can easily attain this state at which time
     it becomes easy, with the help of a trained hypnotherapist, to
     visualise yourself becoming healthier, happier, more confident, a
     non-smoker.
Hypnotherapy, or self-hypnosis once you've learnt to use the tools for yourself, can be a very effective tool for asking the right kind
     of 'internal' questions. ..//...
Many people claim that they have never been hypnotised, but they do admit to having drifted off whilst thinking about a loved one,
     forgetting large chunks of a car journey (commonly known as highway
     hypnosis), or 'going somewhere else' while reading a book. These are
     all examples of natural trance states. One of the great things about
     hypnosis is that in the hands of a reputable practitioner it is
     harmless and produces no damaging side effects, whilst providing
     positive therapeutic benefits. (1)

How is hypnosis used within current therapies?
Hypnosis is the principle used in mindfulness, a popular therapeutic technique used in a variety of therapies, including Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT); which was developed from CBT  by Dr Marsha Linehan. It is specifically designed to help people with Borderline Personality Disorder.
Hypnosis is also commonly practiced to assist individuals with problems of addiction; examples being smoking and weight loss. citations to follow
It has also shown to have beneficial effects in pain management. citations to follow

- Does Hypnosis Work for Treating, or Curing, any Form of any Mental Disorder?
This can be answered with an uncategorical Yes, as an adjunct to the therapeutic process.
It has proven useful in assisting personality disorders, addiction, pain management, phobias, anxiety and depression, as broad examples.

Hypnosis, when using proven therapeutic procedures, can be a highly effective form of treatment for many mental, psychosomatic, and
  physical disorders. For example, through the use of regressive
  techniques, an adult patient may mentally voyage back to a point in
  youth that was particularly troublesome, allowing the healing of old
  emotional wounds. Another patient can be led to understand that
  emotional pain has been converted to physical pain, and that the pain
  can be eliminated once the source has been addressed. Or, a person
  suffering from chronic pain can be taught to control the pain without
  use of medications. There are a number of techniques for correcting
  dysfunctional behaviors such as self-destructive habits, anxiety
  disorders, and even managing side effects of various medical
  treatments and procedures.
Hypnotherapy has been used to stop self-destructive and addictive habits like smoking. It has also been used to curb the urge to eat
  for overeaters, to stem the disruptive actions of tics, cure insomnia
  , stop bed-wetting, and minimize anxiety. Excessive stress can be
  generated from any number of sources and can be the springboard for
  anxiety. Some of the more prominent sources of anxiety and stress for
  which people seek hypnotherapy are: public speaking, test taking, and
  job stress. Hypnotherapy also works well for other anxiety disorders
  such as phobias and has proven to be an effective treatment for mild
  to moderate depression. In one study, hypnotherapy was used in
  conjunction with traditional cognitive therapy, to assist persons who
  had severe aversion to needles. The treatment was necessary, because
  it was essential that each participant receive periodic medical
  injections. However, the participants would have become non-compliant
  without the adjunct intervention of hypnotherapy. In another case,
  involving care for terminally ill cancer patients, it was concluded
  that hypnotherapy was more effective at enhancing quality of life and
  relieving anxiety and depressive symptoms, when compared to others
  who received traditional care. (2)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)

- I'd like to know if its backed by literature. I want the specific citation's abstract quoted.
There have been numerous studies demonstrating the usefulness of hypnosis within a therapeutic setting and the long term benefits.
The following links and excerpts provide citations with conclusive research about the efficacy of Hypnosis as a useful and lasting therapeutic technique. I have inserted bold to highlight the various conditions being discussed.

It is argued (a) that the integration of techniques from behavior modification and hypnosis can expedite therapy for specific
     disorders and (b) that hypnosis intensifies the perceptual and
     cognitive factors involved in "visual voyages" or hypnagogic
     experiences, evocation of fantasies, feeling states, and "altered
     states of consciousness" to bring about behavioral changes. (4) Hypnosis and behavior modification: Imagery conditioning.
Thus hypnosis was shown to be more effective than nonhypnotic techniques for reducing procedural distress in children and
     adolescents with cancer. (5) Hypnosis and nonhypnotic techniques for reduction of pain and anxiety during painful procedures in children and adolescents with cancer
Hypnosis, when used by trained professionals, in other words, can allow those who suffer from panic attacks to learn to effectively
     and rapidly regulate their internal states.     These techniques, in
     addition to curing phobic conditions or panic attacks, support
     patients, allowing them to regain the possibility of managing their
     own well-being and restoring their sense of self mastery, which is
     often lowered by these disordersibid. (3)

I have merged the following points
- I'd like to know their findings, conclusions, and methodologies and your analysis of that.
- I'd like to know if you found any potential errors or flaws in the study - and you're overall analysis of that.
I cannot analysis or critique all these studies, as there are  many studies which demonstrate the effects of hypnosis. The nature of any study, is it is time consuming and requires much work and effort outside of the scope of these types of questions and answers. I agree with this answer here, to this question Striking a balance between citations and common sense in answers about providing effective answers.
The  question about potential flaws, in this study, it is made clear that, given the small difference between therapeutic techniques, with or without the addition of hypnosis, there was a significant difference for patients, having hypnosis as part of their treatment.

These results were particularly striking because of the few procedural differences between the hypnotic and nonhypnotic treatments. (3)

There is also the issue, that hypnosis, as a therapy per se, is generally used as part of an integrated therapeutic approach. One example being, children undergoing treatment for cancer, are not given hypnosis in isolation, it is within a structured supportive framework. So the measure of hypnosis, per se, is difficult to quantify at times; as the willingness to use hypnosis as a therapeutic technique, also demonstrates a more holistic viewpoint in the management of the individuals health. Almost akin to natural therapies, as hypnosis is a natural tool, available to individuals and does not need to be taught to be practiced. Being a natural tool available, it can be taught to those who neglect to use it. Much like education about a healthy diet. It is a healthy practice for the mind.

I have merged these questions-   "I'd like to know how long the treatments lasted after they stopped being hypnotized." In these studies the hypnosis was a part of the therapeutic process, so the hypnosis continued whilst the therapy continued.
-  I'd like to know how long the treatments lasted after they stopped being hypnotized.
- I'd like to know how effective it was for whatever specific goals that it was used to treat. How long did the affects last if there were any?

Effects seemed particularly pronounced for treatments of obesity, especially at long-term follow-up, indicating that unlike those in
     nonhypnotic treatment, clients to whom hypnotic inductions had been
     administered continued to lose weight after treatment ended. These
     results were particularly striking because of the few procedural
     differences between the hypnotic and nonhypnotic treatments. (6)

This paper discussed the usefulness and longer term effectiveness of hypnosis for people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

This research represents the first controlled treatment study of hypnosis and cognitive– behavioral therapy (CBT) of acute stress
     disorder (ASD). Civilian trauma survivors (N  87) who met criteria
     for ASD were randomly allocated to 6 sessions of CBT, CBT combined
     with hypnosis (CBT– hypnosis), or supportive counseling (SC). CBT
     comprised exposure, cognitive restructuring, and anxiety management.
     CBT– hypnosis comprised the CBT components with each imaginal
     exposure preceded by a hypnotic induction and suggestions to engage
     fully in the exposure. In terms of treatment completers (n  69),
     fewer participants in the CBT and CBT– hypnosis groups met criteria
     for posttraumatic stress disorder at posttreatment and 6-month
     follow-up than those in the SC group. CBT– hypnosis resulted in
     greater reduction in reexperiencing symptoms at posttreatment than
     CBT. These findings suggest that hypnosis may have use in
     facilitating the treatment effects of CBT for posttraumatic stress.
     (7)

This study demonstrates that the beneficial effects of hypnotherapy appear to last at least five years. Thus it is a viable therapeutic option for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. (8)

- I'd like to know what it feels like to be hypnotized if you've had the experience of it.
As to personal experience I have experienced self and therapeutic hypnosis at varying stages throughout my life. It creates a feeling of relaxation and peace. It gives me a personal power of feeling more self control and reducing distress levels.

- I'd like to know why if it worked really well for you then why did you stop doing it or have you actually continued?
Personally, I have practiced it throughout my entire life. The times I need it the most, are the times I practice it the least. It is something I should tattoo on myself to remind me to use it more often, as it is helpful. Not a cure all, but helps me in any and every situation. It slow down my emotional reaction time and intensity and assists in making ill-timed, rash and bad judgements. It is when in a distressed state it is the hardest to practice. I am glad for this question, as it is a reminder to me, to practice this and I need to practice it daily.
To go into explanation as to why people have discontinued, would be similar to asking, how long is a piece of string. People stop therapy or positive coping techniques for a vast number of reasons. I cannot begin to address this within the scope of this answer. I have posted this question:
What are the key predictive traits of therapeutic success?

(1) What is Hypnotherapy and How Does it Differ From Hypnosis? Oxford Hypnotherapy
(2) Hypnotherapy  Encyclopedia ofMental Disorders
(3) PANIC ATTACKS AND PHOBIAS: HEALING WITH HYPNOSIS Milton H Erickson Institute
(4) Hypnosis and behavior modification: Imagery conditioning.
Kroger, William S.; Fezler, William D.
Oxford, England: J. B. Lippincott. (1976). xxv 426 pp.
(5) Hypnosis and nonhypnotic techniques for reduction of pain and anxiety during painful procedures in children and adolescents with cancer
Richard W. Olmsted (Editor), M.D. Lonnie ZeltzerCorresponding author contact information, Ph.D. Samuel LeBaron
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas USA
(6) Hypnosis as an adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy: A meta-analysis.
Kirsch, Irving; Montgomery, Guy; Sapirstein, Guy
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 63(2), Apr 1995, 214-220. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.63.2.214
(7) The Additive Benefit of Hypnosis and Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy in
Treating Acute Stress Disorder
Richard A. Bryant, Michelle L. Moulds, Rachel M. Guthrie, and Reginald D. V. Nixon
University of New South Wales
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 73, No. 2, 334 –340 0022-006X/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.2.334
Gut. 2003 Nov;52(11):1623-9.
(8) Long term benefits of hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome.
Gonsalkorale WM, Miller V, Afzal A, Whorwell PJ Department of Medicine, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK. wgonsalkorale@compuserve.com
(9) Iglesias, A. & Iglesias, A. (2005). Awake alert hypnosis in the treatment of panic disorder: a case report. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 47(4), 249-256.
(10) McNeal, S.A. (2001). EMDR and hypnosis in the treatment of phobias. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 43:3/43:4, 263-274.
(11) Kirsch, I., Montgomery, G. & Sapperstein, G. (1995) Hypnosis as a adjunct to cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy: a meta analysis. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 63, 214-220.
(12) Crawford, H.J. & Barbasasz, A.F. (1993). Phobias and intense fears: facilitating their treatment with hypnosis. In J. W. Rhue, S. J. Lynn & I. Kirsch, (Eds.), Handbook of clinical hypnosis (pp.311-338) Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
(13) King, Brenda J, Michael Nash, David Spiegel, and Kenneth Jobson. Hypnosis as an intervention in pain management: A brief review. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 5 (2001): 97–101.
(14) Liossi, Christina and Paul White. Efficacy of clinical hypnosis in the enhancement of quality of life of terminally ill cancer patients. Contemporary Hypnosis 18 (2001): 145–160.
(15) Segal, Robert. Hypnosis in the treatment of an eating disorder. Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis 29 (2001): 26–36.
(16) Yapko, Michael. Hypnosis in treating symptoms and risk factors of major depression. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 44 (2001): 97–108.

Ok, you did answer most of my questions.  I suppose I wish you cited more than 1 study at least :( or it was organized a bit more towards how I asked the questions.
You also don't seem to address these:
I'd like to know if you found any potential errors or flaws in the study - and you're overall analysis of that.
I'd like to know why, if it worked really well for you then why did you stop doing it or have you actually continued?

"Hypnosis is the principle used in mindfulness" - Oh no, it most certainly is not.

If a mental disorder has a genetic source, how can it be cured by hypnotherapy?

Hypnosis "works" only insofar as it induces1 a trance. Hypnosis is not a type of therapy. Hypnosis does not cure any disorders or do anything at all, except induce a trance.
Hypnotherapy, from the perspective of psychodynamic theory, utilizes this trance to directly access the subconscious. In traditional hypnotherapy (of the Victorian era), direct suggestions were "planted" in the "unprotected" subconscious; in modern Ericksonian hypnotherapy, the unconscious is stimulated to participate in the healing process.
So the question we are dealing with asks:
Does hypnotherapy work for any type of disorder?
Yes, it does. Standard works (Burrows & Dennerstein, 1980; Brown & Fromm, 1986; Cheek & LeCron, 1968; Crasilneck & Hall, 1985; Hammond, 1990; Kossak, 1989; Kroger & Fezler, 1976; Peter et al., 1991; Revenstorff, 1993; Lynn et al., 1996; Wester & Smith, 1984; Erickson, 2007-2010; O'Hanlon & Hexum, 1990) show that hypnosis has been successfully applied to a multitude of psychosomatic, psychiatric and somatic cases including:

behavioral problems

nail biting
enuresis (bedwetting)
smoking
overweight
academic and athletic increase in performance

psychoneurotic disorders

phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders
depressive reactions
post-traumatic stress disorder
dissociative disorders
sleep disorders

psychosomatic disorders

chronic pain
migraine, tension headache
morbus crohn, ulcers
asthma, hay fever
hypertonia (high blood pressure)

somatic disorders

immunology: warts, dermatosis, ichtyosis, tumors
vasomotoric: bleeding control, morbus raynaud, wound healing
acute pain: obstetrics, dentistry, postoperative pain
neurology: amnesia, rehabilitation after brain lesions

In addition to case studies, there is a growing number of controlled group studies on the effectiveness of hypnotherapy which show empirically confirmed indications for this method. Meta-analyses have become the accepted method of judging the effectiveness of a therapeutic procedure, so I will confine myself to these in the following overview.
In a meta-analysis (Rominger, 1995) of 36 control group studies with more than 1200 patients  the effect sizes ranged from g = .54 to g = .952. This corresponds (converted after Rosenthal, 1984) to a correlation between treatment and effect ranging from r = .26 to r = .44. From this a success rate (in %) can be estimated for treated and untreated patients (table 1).
                 Number of Studies    Success Rate    Success Rate
                                      untreated (%)   treated (%)
all studies      36                   31              69
smoking           4                   30              70
anxiety           6                   29              71
pain             14                   37              63

Table 1. Results of a meta-analysis of hypnotherapy (after Rominger, 1995).
In a more recent meta-analysis, Bongartz et al. (1999) found comparable results in 112 studies with 5600 patients (table 2).
                       Number of Studies    Success Rate    Success Rate
                                            untreated (%)   treated (%)
psychotherapy (all)    85                   32              68
addiction               6                   37              63
somatoform disorders   11                   35              65
anxiety                11                   26              74
behavioral problems     4                   33              67
pain (all)             27                   35              65
pain (cancer)           6                   36              64
pain (surgery)          8                   38              62
pain (birth)            5                   36              64

Table 2. Results of a meta-analysis of hypnotherapy (after Bongartz et al., 1999).
In a new meta-analysis (2002), Bongartz et al. again confirmed the effectiveness of hypnotherapy. The abstract recapitulates:

From 193 studies published until 1998 that investigated the efficacy
  of hypnosis 43 randomized clinical studies were selected that compared
  a patient group treated exclusively by hypnosis with an untreated
  control group (or with a group of patients treated by conventional
  medical procedures).The 43 studies were integrated into a
  meta-analysis that yielded a weighted average post-treatment effect
  size of d=.60 (medium effect size) for hypnotic treatment of ICD-10
  coded disorders (24 studies; average treatment period: 5.1 weeks)
  and d=.38 (small effect) for hypnosis as an adjunct for supporting
  medical procedures (19 studies).These estimates are conservative
  since all variables of a given study were used. Most of the studies
  employed methods of the classical approach to hypnosis. In order to
  obtain an estimate to which extent non-clinical factors
  (design-quality, way of comparison of dependent variables) have an
  influence on the effect sizes, effect sizes were computed for all
  studies of the original 193 studies that reported the necessary
  statistical information (N=89). For those studies with an average
  effect size of d=.80 a mas- sive influence of non-clinical factors was
  demonstrated with a range from d=.51 for randomized studies with group
  comparisons to d=2.0 for non-randomized studies using
  pre-post-comparisons.

A table listing all 43 analyzed studies and their area of application ("Störungsbild/Anwendungsbereich"), number of patients ("Patientenzahl"), type of hypnosis ("Hypnoseart"), treatment period in weeks ("Behandlungszeitraum") and effect sizes ("Effektstärke") is included in the publication which is available online at http://bscw.rediris.es/pub/bscw.cgi/d4416025/Bongartz-Effektivitat_hypnose.pdf (in German). It gives a more discriminating view and shows the large variance in effect sizes among the studies, but does not add anything new to this overview.
All the studies included in the meta-analysis used a control group, randomized assignment of patients to the groups, and used hypnotherapy as the only psychotherapeutic treatment (and not in conjunction with other forms of psychotherapy), but sometimes in conjunction with the medical standard therapy. As such, from my point of view, the meta-analysis is quite flawless. Some of the studies included measurements taken some time after the end of the treatment, but these were not considered in this meta analysis, because the 193 studies from which the ones included in the meta-analysis were selected are all the studies that the authors could find in relevant databases and literature ("footnote chasing") between 1974 and 1998, and the number of studies including "longer-term" effects were apparently not enough for a separate analysis. Thus, the authors of the meta-analysis considered only the immediate post-treatment measures of all studies.
In summary, it seems to me that the effectiveness of hypnotherapy has been shown especially for behavioral, anxiety and (psycho)somatic disorders and symptoms, while it seems not to have been applied, or not successfully, to psychotic, affective, dissociative, sexual, eating, sleep, impulse control, adjustment and personality disorders.

Footnotes:
1 Sometimes. An attempt by a clinical psychologist and trained hypnotist to hypnotize me did not lead to any trance.
2 In an analysis of 302 meta-analyses of psychologica, pedagogical and behavioral therapies, Lipsey and Wilson (1993) found 90% of effect sizes to be above 0.10, and 85% above 0.20. A more methodically severe selection of 156 meta-analyses returned a mean effect size of 0.47.

Sources:

Bongartz, W., Flammer, E., & Schonke, R. (1999). Die Effektivität der Hypnotherapie: Eine meta-analytische Studie. Vortrag auf der Jahrestagung der M.E.G., Bad Orb.
Bongartz, W., Flammer, E., & Schonke, R. (2002). Die Effektivität der Hypnose: Eine meta-analytische Studie. Psychotherapeut, 47, 67-76.
Brown, D. P., & Fromm, E. (1986). Hypnotherapy and Hypnoanalysis. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burrows, G. D., & Dennerstein, L. (Eds.) (1980). *Handbook of hypnosis and psychosomatic medicine. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cheek, D. B., & LeCron, L. M. (1968). Clinical hypnotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Crasilneck, H. B., & Hall, J. A. (1985). Clinical Hypnosis: Principles and Applications* (2nd ed.). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Erickson, M. H. (2007-2010). Collected Works (10 vols.). Milton H. Erickson Foundation Press.
Hammond, D. C. (ed.) (1990). Handbook of Hypnotic Suggestions and Metaphors. New York: Norton.
Kossak, H. C. (1989). Hypnose: Ein Lehrbuch. Weinheim: PVU.
Kroger, W. S., & Fezler, W. D. (1976). Hypnosis and Behavior Modification: Imagery Conditioning. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Lynn, S. J., Kirsch, I., & Rhue, J. W. (eds.) (1996) *Casebook of Clinical Hypnosis. Washington, DC: APA.
Lipsey, M, L., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
O'Hanlon, W. H., & Hexum, A. L. (1990). An Uncommon Casebook: The Complete Clinical Works of Milton H. Erickson. New York: Norton.
Peter, B., Kraiker, C., & Revenstorf, D. (eds.) (1991). Hypnose und Verhaltenstherapie. Bern: Huber.
Revenstorff, D. (1993). Klinische Hypnose (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
Rominger, M. (1995). Metaanalyse der Hypnotherapie (Diploma thesis). University of Tübingen.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research*. London: Sage.
Wester, W. C., & Smith, A. H. (1984). Clinical Hypnosis: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Obviously this is well cited and a very nice short summary - but.....you only seem to answer two of my questions (correct me if I'm wrong).   Which include: 1) "I'd like to know if its backed by literature (I want the specific citation's abstract quoted)."  However you did not quote any specific citations abstracts - at least pick the most interesting ones and bold the important points.

"I'd like to know how effective it was for whatever specific goals that it was used to treat." You answered this very thoroughly.

I cannot find "I'd like to know their findings, conclusions, and methodologies and ----your analysis of that-------."
"I'd like to know how long the treatments lasted after they stopped being hypnotized."
"I'd like to know if you found any potential errors or flaws in the study - and you're overall analysis of that." -  In this one you're gonna have to look for flaws in your studies and point them out.
It's 500 bounty so, I'm gonna be a bit picky :)

Well you should be!  Don't you want to be a point pimp?!? I feel like they should be in the same question as they affect the credibility of your answer.  Also, as for CBT, if you are just generalizing psychotherapy there are many studies that look at the long term effects.  Go look at my "Is cognitive behavioral therapy beneficial for anxiety?" answer.  The meta-analyses says that.  I'm also just in general familiar that CBT studies do that alot.  Well you did just point out the -potential- (but I only believe slightly) flaws generally in some of your citations I suppose in your comment.

Wow, nice answer that displays a lot of effort. In particular I like that you referred to meta analyses for your answer.  (+1)

If a mental disorder has a genetic source, how can it be cured by hypnotherapy?


text:
Differences between the way men and women interpret body language
There are many socially accepted ideas about the differences between men and women, I am wondering how much of this is misconception or based in reality.
I was reading this question: How important is eye contact for attraction between a man and woman? and found some interesting discussion in the comments.
I quote from this answer:

females are very good at picking up subtleties like that - however, they are very bad at explaining them usually.

I quote from one of the comments:

"Females . . . are very bad at explaining them usually"? That seems like an unnecessarily dangerous statement--humans in general are quite bad at pinpointing reasons for social behavior

I found this article:
Gender Affects Body Language Reading
Arseny A. Sokolov, et al doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00016

The findings show that gender affects accuracy rather than speed of body language reading. This effect, however, is modulated by emotional content of actions: males surpass in recognition accuracy of happy actions, whereas females tend to excel in recognition of hostile angry knocking. Advantage of women in recognition accuracy of neutral actions suggests that females are better tuned to the lack of emotional content in body actions. The study provides novel insights into understanding of gender effects in body language reading, and helps to shed light on gender vulnerability to neuropsychiatric and neurodevelopmental impairments in visual social cognition.

However, this is only one study, and it raises the interesting point that women may be better at interpreting "lack of emotional content".
Has current research reached a consensus on the  differences between the way men and women interpret body language?
If so; What are the proposed reasons for these differences?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні