text:
What are the effects of casual sex on men versus women?
There is a lot of research citing that men are more physically primed for sex than women. Graziottin (2004) discusses this difference and other differences of strength and vulnerabilities between the sexes:

The clinical correlate of the neurobiological condition is that men have a stronger, more biologically and genitally focused sexual drive, expressed more as lust (7). Women tend to have a romantically driven sexual drive with a more relational expression and emphasis on intimacy (6,7). Women have a stronger oestrogen priming of two other basic emotions command systems, the fear- anxiety and the panic with separation-distress, which contribute to and modulate their parenting abilities and social bonding skills (2,19). The gender-based different biological modulation of seeking pathways in men and women may be an important contributor to different desire vulnerability in the sexes, both in the early phases of a relationship and later stages of a long-term relationship (34,35).

Is it really fair to say that men are more inclined to benefit by casual sexual encounters than women, or is this a presumption stemming from social-stereotyping?

I seem to remember that the situation for women has changed in recent years: in the wake of equal rights and financial independence, more women have begun to indulge in casual sex, from one night stands to sex tourism to paying gigolos. Besides that, there have always been a multitude of female nude models, porn stars, and prostitutes. A local website for amateur escorts lists around 20 locally resident female escorts in a town with a population of 50.000 women. And since these are extreme cases of sexual non-romanticism, I would assume that a large part of the rest of the women are [contd.]

[contd.] equally "cool" and unromantic about sex or situated somewhere along a continuum from romantic to unromantic.

@what I am citing what the researchers tell me, so it must be true! lol Care to refute in an answer??? Would love to hear.. the more diverse ideas the better... btw I am studying a double degree, one major in programming, one in philosophy :)

One factor that should be considered is the culture surrounding casual sex and the social judgments that men and women may experience as a result of casual sex. Conley, Ziegler, and Moors (2012) report a series of experiments conducted on an American university campus that show that women who accept offers of casual sex are perceived more negatively on a variety of dimensions than men. In their experiments:

Subjects judged women who accepted offers of casual sex as being "less intelligent, less mentally healthy, more promiscuous, less competent, and more risky" than men who accepted offers of casual sex.
When subjects imagined a hypothetical offer of casual sex, men were more likely to accept than women. Subjects were given a series of questionnaires to examine their attitudes towards offers of casual sex. A mediation analysis indicated that "part of the reason that women are less likely to accept casual offers than men is that women perceive that they will be evaluated more negatively for accepting the offer (or more positively for rejecting the offer) than men do."
Similar results were found when subjects recalled a recent offer of casual sex, and imagined the reactions of people had they accepted the offer.

Thus, social stigma seems to play a significant role in how men and women perceive casual sex, which may explain the relative willingness of men and women to engage in casual sex. This particular set of social stigmas will certainly not be universal across cultures, and the point of this answer is not to suggest that the experiences of American college students are universal. What is likely to be universal is the idea that the culture surrounding casual sex will have a direct impact on how men and women choose to engage in casual sex.

My point
I find that it is fair to say men benefit from casual sex encounters more than women.

Evidence
In the Penguin publication the "Red Queen" by Matt Ridley, he writes:

Throughout our evolutionary history, men and women have faced different sexual opportunities and constraints. For a man casual sex with a stranger carried only a small risk - infection, discovery by the wife - and a potentially enormous reward: a cheap addition of an extra child to his genetic legacy. Men who seized such opportunities certainly left behind more descendants than men who did not. Therefore, since we are by definition descended from prolific ancestors rather than barren ones, it is a fair bet that men possess a streak of sexual opportunism. Virtually all male mammals and birds do, even those that are mainly monogamous... men are more likely to be tempted by an opportunity for casual sex than women.

So, Ridley states that because men who were more promiscuous left more offspring. Modern men too posses a streak of sexual opportunism inherited from their ancestors.
On the other hand, he writes of women:

Women are likely to be different. Having sex with a stranger not only encumbered a Pleistocene woman with a possible pregnancy before she had won the man's commitment to help rear her child, but it also exposed her to probable revenge from her husband if she had one, and to possible spinsterhood if she did not. These enormous risk were offset by no great reward. Her chances of conceiving were just as great if she remained faithful to one partner and her chance's of losing the child without a husband's help were greater. Therefore women who accepted casual sex left fewer rather than more descendants, and modern women are likely to be equipped with a suspicion of casual sex.

This provides an evolutionary explanation as to why the two sexes behave differently. However, Ridley does account for social pressures writing:

A modern women is exposed to pressure from men to be sexually uninhibited, but she is also exposed to the same pressure from other women. Likewise, men are under constant pressure to be more 'responsible', sensitive and faithful - from other men as well as well as from other women.

So he also acknowledges that this could be skewed by people pressuring women to be more promiscuous and men to be less so. However, I found conflicting evidence to one of Ridley's assertions: that men are not as pressured by other men to avoid casual sex. Personally, I agree with the conflicting evidence, which can be found here under the title: "Social Psychology and Human Sexuality: Essential Readings", page 156. I quote:

Of particular interest was the fact that the male peer groups agreed to support each other in their efforts to obtain sexual experiences during the vacation, whereas the female peer groups were more likely to agree to support each other in refraining from sex.

Discussion of above evidence Taking the arguments and research above into account, I would say that in terms of genetic legacy men benefit more in that they are able to have more offspring from casual sex, without having to raise them. Socially it is difficult to say, for example, women, who are caught having casual sex, may be rejected by their partners, who don't want to raise a child that isn't there own, and thus have no support in raising the potential offspring. Also, looking at the evidence above, it seems that their friends don't support casual sex and thus they may be scolded or even rejected by them. However, I have inferred this from the evidence and cannot say with certainty. There could also be repercussions for males, for example, would a prospective female partner want to reproduce with a male whom she knows has had casual sex with multiple women? What's to say they won't do it again? So, it is possible that social repercussions also would happen for men.
Conclusion As a final concluding argument, I will say: casual sex has more genetic benefits for men, as it is an easy opportunity to extend their genetic legacy. The full social repercussions are unclear for both sexes, however, it is likely both sexes face negative repercussions, if found out. Both sexes can potentially face negative consequences but the male will always earn the greatest potential benefit from casual sex: new offspring, with no parental investment on his part.

I think this answer depends way too much on one particular source that is mostly theoretical; that's not always a problem, but in this case I think it could be.

"Therefore women who accepted casual sex left fewer rather than more descendants" - that's a great insight here. Thanks.

@KaiNoack No worries.

@BryanKrause I was thinking the same thing towards the end. However, the book itself relies upon multiple articles and papers published in journals so I trust it. I also included one other source. It's not comprehensive, just a suggestion.

I did not see anyone mention violence. Women who have gone home with men casually have on occasion ended up, murdered or raped. And that with the possibility of becoming pregnant and having an unwanted pregnancy certainly changes the calculations. That was especially true before birth control and abortion were easily available.  We now see that abortion may not be easily available. Women are actually more likely to get aids, and STDs and encounters. Women have many more reasons to think before they act.  In addition, in this culture in the US women have many more ways of connecting intimately, other than sexually. Because so many men don’t have those channels, maybe some revert to sexual intimacy as a mean way to feel intimacy in their lives  I have graduate degrees in both counseling and social work and worked with many couples, families, adolescents, individuals and children.

Nonetheless, references to back up claims would be much appreciated.

I second @ArnonWeinberg especially when bold claims are made such as "Women are actually more likely to get [AIDS]". Saying "I have graduate degrees in both counseling and social work and worked with many couples, families, adolescents, individuals and children" does not absolve anyone from the requirements to back claims with reputable citations. You would have needed to provide citations to obtain graduate degrees, so it should be second nature.


text:
Is the ability to discern between living and non-living things learnt or innate?
This question   What optical features do we use to distinguish “life” from “non-life”?  on Philosophy SE prompted me to write this question.
The question poses, do we recognise a living thing, from what we already know to be a living thing.  I am posting some of this to give a background of what prompted this question.
I quote from the original question:

Imagine you see a picture of a tiger: You instantly recognize it being
  a living thing, more specific: Something you call "tiger". You have
  seen tigers before (or at least heard of them and saw pictures or so).
  You have some kind of (vague) concept of what a tiger might be and this
  thing fits perfectly in it. And you know that a tiger is a living
  thing and you believe that what you see is a tiger: So you believe
  that the thing you see is a living thing called tiger.
  ...
What exactly are the features we all recognize living things kind of accurate (even though when they don't exist in reality and are, just like the Nasobēm, just imaginary animals someone invented)?

I have modified this question to ask:
Is the ability to discern between living and non-living things learnt or innate?
In the original question the OP includes an image of a 'Nasobēm', a make believe creature that looks a little squid like.

Imagine you see a picture of a tiger: You instantly recognize it being a living thing, more specific: Something you call "tiger". You have seen tigers before (or at least heard of them and saw pictures or so). You have somekind of (vague) concept of what a tiger might be and this thing fits perfectly in it. And you know that a tiger is a living thing and you believe that what you see is a tiger: So you believe that the thing you see is a living thing called tiger.

Human beings are wired to innately discern living from non-living things. It does not need to be taught. There are no particular features, other than it is living and human beings are capable of perceiving this.
It would appear it has nothing to do with conditioning or experience (except for the sake of providing words of other similar things to provide a description).
As to why this is innate, requires further investigation.
There are two theorised models of memory which pertain to the recognition and distinction between living and non-living things, both involving semantic memory.
A category-specific  model and a modality-specific model.
What optical features do we use to distinguish “life” from “non-life”? perhaps is a little ambiguous, but we do process a lot of information and memory through our visual cortex.
Semantic memory is created through the vision, naming and functionality. Non-living things tend to be remembered semantically for their function. Whilst living things are processed more through vision and the names attached, and learned semantically.
When there is damage to the visual part of semantic memory, the ability to  name living things is substantially damaged, whilst the ability to name non-living things, is  affected on a much smaller curve. Whilst damage to the functional part of semantic memory, has no effect on the ability to recall names, when being shown images of living things, but does impair the ability to name non-living things (though not as severely as the damage to the visual semantic memory and name recall for living things).
It's not the ability to discern living and non-living things that is affected, but identifying the name them.
Given this, it would seem, our brains are wired to automatically perceive and discern the difference between living and non-living things. So, even when shown a picture of a living creature, never be seen before, it is still instantly recognizable as a living creature. Just as the a person first recognizes each living creature they encounter in their lives, either in real life of through images.
There is a first time to see a tiger or a squid and the human being innately distinguishes this as a living thing. Just as they would the first time they see an image of a Nasobēm. Even mould, moss, fungus can be perceived as living (an eclectic example of unusual contenders).
Conversely, the first time an individual sees a rock, or a rocket, they can distinguish this as a non-living thing. Just as the first time someone sees an image of a flying cars. It does not have to exist to be distinguishable from living/non-living.

... the most straightforward interpretation of the double dissociation between knowledge of living and nonliving things is that these two bodies of knowledge are represented by two separate category specific components of the functional    architecture  of  semantic memory.  (1)

image courtesy of Neural Network Models and Cognitive Neuropsychology (1)

For example, our knowledge of an animal  such as a  leopard, by which we distinguish it from other similar creatures, is predominantly visual. In contrast, our knowledge of a desk, by which we distinguish it from other furniture, is predominantly functional (ie, what it is used for). Thus, the distinctions between impaired  and  preserved   knowledge in the cases reviewed earlier may not be "living/ nonliving" distinctions   per se,  but   "sensory/ functional"  distinctions ...  (1)

image courtesy of Neural Network Models and Cognitive Neuropsychology (1)
This being said, convoluted or abstract art work, could, possibly, be an area of crossover depending upon the individual's cognitive processes and so interpretation of lines and movement and what may appear out of a mess, as threatening. This is totally another topic altogether and my own hypothesis.

References:

(1) Neural Network Models and Cognitive Neuropsychology
by MARTHA J. FARAH , PhD, and JAMES L. McCLELLAND, PhD PDF

I would like to turn your attention to this book, that has some excellent insights into this: http://www.amazon.com/Naming-Nature-Between-Instinct-Science/dp/0393338711

@boblet which brings up another question. How much we impede our own progress with scientific advancement.. hm totally different subject

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Non coitus sexual activity and the brain
Most animals will only engage in sexual activity that can result in reproduction. There are some exceptions; Bonobos, for instance, engage in a lot of sexual activity that does not involve coitus.
Human beings have a large range of sexual activities and fetishes that do not involves exual intercourse that can result in pregnancy (I am not referring to the use of birth control).
Oral sex, anal sex, and a variety of fetishes that do not involve coitus between a human male and female.
Given that the origin of sexual acts pertained to reproduction, somewhere along the line there has been development in the brain of humans and some animals, to include sexual activity for pleasure and acts that have no possibility of impregnating the female.
It can be argued why and what purpose these acts have, whether they are indeed part of the mating process. I am not interested in this so much as, the development in the brain which has offered this variation in sexual activity to some species.
This is not at all a social-psychological question, but a question focusing on evolution, embryology and the brain. From a macro to microscopic view, if applicable.
What is the difference in the brains for animals capable of these great differences in sexual activity and what part of the brain is responsible for this?
edit
I am not assuming that all sexual activity involves pleasure. Dogs are known to dry mount other dogs in an assertion of power. So there does appear to be a development throughout evolution, as to the use of sexual activity and communicate and purpose. Definitely, human beings have a wide range of pleasurable sexual activity derived from non-vaginal intercourse, that the vast majority of species do not. It could be argues to be counter evolutionary for want of a better term, as, like much human behavior, it serves no purpose in the continuation of the species.. OR maybe it does. Either way, it is an interesting advent of behavior.

We don't know that "most animals will only engage in sexual activity that can result in reproduction". For most animals we are unable to properly interpret much of their behavior. We don't know how those animals "feel", if what they do causes some kind of sexual arousal or has to do with "sexual" behavior in some other way. For example, there is homosexual mating behavior in bugs. This seems sex related to us, because we don't know how else to interpret it (we assume the bugs made a mistake due to the similarity of the sexes). But how do we know those bugs aren't "gay"? Lots of assumptions.

@what it's not about feeling it's about activity. the bonobos rub gential with same sex and perform oral sex. MOST animals do not do this. Yr being unnecessarily picky.. If you can prove I am wrong pls do so. It's a valid Q. Which part of the brain is different and may be responsible for this. I know enough about animals to know this. And from study

But the "feeling" is important in interpreting a behavior as sexual! At night I have non-sexual erections. They serve a physiological purpose (the limp penis has low blood flow and needs the erections to remain functional). Or: I non-sexually caress my son; I sexually caress my wife (with the exact same movements at the exact same body parts: arms, hands). The difference between sex and no sex is not behavior but how that behavior feels to the participants. Ignoring the cognitions and emotions will make it impossible to understand the difference between sexual and non-sexual behavior.

A good example for this is the discussion surrounding rape. Feminist authors often interpret rape as non-sexual and power related! So what you observe is a non-sexual behavior, if you follow that perspective, although it looks like sex. The same has been theorized about some homosexual behaviors in apes (they may serve the purpose of cementing hierarchy). So they are not sexual in the narrow sense at all, because they are not meant to cause pleasure or bonding.

Sex for the purpose of pleasure will activate different parts of the brain than the same behavior for other purposes! Because your cognitions and emotions activate your brain!

@what yes I agree the MOTIVE for such behavior may have nothing to do with sex in terms of pleasure, but coitus is not always pleasurable for many species anyway.. It's still a behavior that has developed in animals through evolution.. and sex is only one thing, there's many others

@what not entirely true. Some people will orgasm when being raped - that is an extreme example of how sexual arousal is not just about cognition per se, it is a physiological event firstly. then cognition plays a role.. Pls don't get worked up about it.

@what also there can be pleasure derived from power seeking behavior.. this still is a phenomena that has developed with evolution.. eg dogs will mount each other in a mock mount to assert power

It's too late for me to delete it. I think this discussion warrants a separate question.

The first question is, what is normal human sexual behavior. The answer to this changes over time. For example, a hundred years ago masturbation was thought to cause physical degeneration and be a sin, today it is perceived as healthy, even recommended. Research shows that adolescent girls who masturbate have more and stronger orgasms as adults.
So, if anal sex is normal, then there should not be any basic difference in how the brain processes this from vaginal coitus. The difference between different normal sexual practices should be like that between different words that you hear (as compared to non-verbal sound, which should be processed differently). Maybe anal and oral sex where processed differently a hundred years ago or in different cultures. I don't know of any research into this, but maybe there is.
Paraphilias like fetishes, pedophilia, incest, voyeurism and other "deviant" sexual behavior have not been well researched. There are many psychodynamic and cognitive theories of paraphilias, but since you ask for the brain, I'll focus on biological theories here. The following is taken from the chapter on paraphilias in Davison & Neale, Abnormal Psychology.

Since most paraphiliacs are men, it has been theorized that androgen plays a role in the etiology of paraphilias. Research into hormonal differences between paraphiliacs and normal people have had ambiguous results.
Sadism and exhibitionism appear to be caused by malfunctions of the temporal lobe (Mason 1997; Murphy, 1997).
Life experiences (like childhood abuse) are seen as the most important factor in a complex net of causes.

Besides psychological therapies of paraphilias (that will obviously influence the brain), there are biological therapies:

castration: results were highly ambiguous, so this therapy has been largely abandoned
medroxyprogesterone acetate lowers the testosterone level in men, cyproterone acetate lowers the androgene level, both reduce sexual appetency: this works in many paraphiliacs, but when they stop taking the medication the symptoms return; also, the substances can cause infertility and diabetes

As you can see, that's not much, and only two articles deal with the difference in brains. There may be more in recent articles.

The sources for the temporal lobe malfunction:
Mason, F. L. (1997). Fetishism: Psychopathology and theoriy. In D. R. Laws & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance (pp. 75-91). New York: Guilford.
Murphy, W. D. (1997). Exhibitionism:  Psychopathology and theoriy. In D. R. Laws & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance (pp. 22-39). New York: Guilford.

these discuss what is regarded as normal human sexual behavior and how this may be subjective http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4383/how-objective-are-scientific-measures-of-paraphilia http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4255/is-mutually-consensual-bdsm-a-symptom-of-a-sick-mind-or-an-expression-of-freedom

Maybe you'd like to rephrase your question so it becomes clear that you are interested in the neuronal representation of different sexual behaviors and not the difference between normal (i.e. reproductive and/or healthy) and deviant (i.e. non-reproductive and/or unhealthy) sex? Your question focusses on these aspects and is therfore misleading.

I like your edit, before I assumed you were voicing your ideas, the citations helped a lot thnx +1

along with the comment As you can see, that's not much, and only two articles deal with the difference in brains

What is the difference in the brains for animals capable of these great
  differences in sexual activity and what part of the brain is
  responsible for this?

In my opinion is a matter of creativity and curiosity. Evolved species try to interact with their ambient in unusual ways, testing different approach to the same "problem" not only to satisfy primary needs but also to satisfy secondary needs as the need to try new things, something we call curiosity, and to socialize with the others members of our species. Primitive species interact with instinct-based responses to satisfy primary needs.
So I think you need an evolved frontal lobe capable to mediate divergent thinking, be able to modulate neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine then you will need an evolved anterior cortices and striatum.

My answer to this question would be pretty straightforward. From a neurobiological standpoint, sex causes the release of various pair-bonding influencing hormones oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine.
These "feel good" hormones promote bonding and basically encourage the couple to stay together.
The more the pair have sex, the more these hormones get released.  Non-functional sex would just increase the pair bond via these hormones.  When a couple stays together, their offspring would have a greater chance of reaching adulthood and themselves producing more offspring.

authors: عبدالكريم الظهابي

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


text:
The Ben Franklin effect and cognitive dissonance
The Ben Franklin effect is the phenomena that if a person does a favor toward another person, there is an increased likelihood that the person will do another favor for that person. The same is true for acts of harm. A person who has inflicted harm on another person is more likely to repeat an act of harm.
It is theorised this is to relieve cognitive dissonance and the gap between feelings towards the person and the act.
How can the Ben Franklin effect best be explained, what research has been done about this, is it adequately explained in cognitive dissonance theory or other theory?

concept courtesy of a dear friend :)

@user3747 see if you can answer this. http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/4179/the-effects-of-pain-on-cognitive-function-and-incidence-of-depression

The Benjamin Franklin Effect is generally cited as being an example of cognitive dissonance, which is when your brain struggles to reconcile your beliefs with your actions.
So let’s say your beliefs about your job are that you deserve to be paid a higher rate, you deserve to be treated more respectfully by your employer and your skills are being wasted in your current role
For every day that you go to work in that same job, your brain has to deal with cognitive dissonance. Your brain is thinking, “you believe this, but you do that—the two don’t gel. What’s going on?”
Dissonance means literally “lack of harmony between musical notes.” In this case, it’s a lack of harmony inside your brain—the thing that controls everything you think and do! So you feel uncomfortable, or uneasy. You carry around a lot of tension. Your body doesn’t like this, and neither does your brain.
David McRaney describes it like this:
“When you experience this arousal it is as if two competing beliefs
 are struggling in a mental bar fight, knocking over chairs and smashing bottles
 over each other’s heads. It feels awful, and the feeling persists until
 one belief knocks the other out cold.”

To compensate, your brain changes your beliefs—after all, your actions can’t be undone. You’ve already gone to work. You’re sitting at your computer, banging your head on the desk. But your thoughts can change. Your beliefs about yourself can change. Because your brain is malleable.
So all of a sudden you find yourself rationalizing your behavior.
Jecker and Lendy verified the phenomenon in a study that challenged participants to an intellectual contest.  The winners were subsequently either:
1. Asked to return their prize money by the researcher
   because he had been using his own money and was running short
2. Asked by a secretary to return their prize money
   because it was from the department and budget was running low
3. Allowed to keep their prize money (i.e. not approached).

Everyone was then surveyed to see how they liked the researcher.
Consistent with the Franklin effect, group 1 rated him higher than group 3 showing that a personal request for a favor increases likeability.
In addition, group 2 rated the researcher lower than group 3 suggesting that an impersonal request decreases likeability.
Dale Carnegie's book, How to Win Friends and Influence People  where the request for help is explained as a subtle but effective form of flattery.
As Carnegie suggests, when we ask a colleague to do us a favor, we are signalling that we consider them to have something we don't, whether more intelligence, more knowledge, more skills, or whatever.
This is another way of showing admiration and respect, something the other person may not have noticed from us before. This immediately raises their opinion of us and makes them more willing to help us again both because they enjoy the admiration and have genuinely started to like us.

The way you describe this makes me think you are actually Benjamin Franklin.

I just realized the irony of my above comment.


text:
How are hallucinations generated, is it related to dreaming?
I was thinking how powerful auditory and visual hallucinations must be, for the individual experiencing them to be unable to distinguish them from reality. I, personally, have not experienced a hallucination, but have experienced vivid dreams and know that when I'm dreaming it can seem real, and at that point, that is my reality (even though I am asleep).
Is there a correlation between the part of the brain responsible for dreaming and hallucinations?
What generates hallucinations, to make them indistinguishable from reality?

Psychosis results in hallucinations. States of psychosis are thought to be like seizures caused by imbalanced levels of at least dopamine and serotonin. Psychosis like depression creates new pathways in the brain which allow for the senses to be flooded with internal information. The person who is experiencing hallucinations may be forced by the psychosis to think that it is real. Some are able to realize that the hallucination is not real. For instance, it is a common condition of humanity to have isolated instances of hallucinations. People hear music when there is none or think someone calls their name but no one did. Normal people are able to recognize that there was no music and no one called their name.
Psychosis can be caused by extreme excitement. Excitement alone impairs judgment but if it goes to an extreme a person can become psychotic and begin to hallucinate or have other odd behaviour.
Often times people schizo type and bipolar disorder are accompanied with insomnia. If the illness progresses far enough the sick person can become caught in a state between awake and asleep. The hallucinations are combined with greater degrees of dissociation (day dream).

The short answer is "Yes" - there is a practice of taking conscious control of one's dreams called "Lucid Dreaming". This practice involves a number of techniques used to achieve awareness and control within a dream.
One of the techniques, called Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming (WILD) involves staying still in bed for extended periods of time. After a fairly long time (~45 minutes) the dreamer slips into a dream while being awake. The transition between waking state and dreaming state, when experienced consciously features numerous different types of hallucinations.
The phenomenon has been confirmed by a lot of people, the types of hallucinations most frequently described are: feeling "vibrations", hearing things, seeing things, feeling a presence of others in the room, falling through one's bed or being drawn out of the body. In most cases the dreamer is acutely aware that everything that is being felt is just a symptom of the WILD transition phase.
Because of the diversity of hallucinations experienced, I would conclude that dreaming and hallucinations are connected.

One way of describing it is that the brain is experiencing a case of non-shared deception. I say, "non-shared deception", for the following reasons....
People see cars stop, move, move faster, slow down, and stop again. However, a simple analysis of "motion", via the use of nothing but the mind, soon leads you to seeing the fact that all cars are constantly in motion, and that they never stop moving. This constant motion applies to all objects. All that can be done is change the direction of this constant motion as it is constantly on the go within a 4 dimensional structure known as Space-Time.
This simple ABC analysis of motion soon has you independently understanding Special Relativity, and it also has you independently, and successfully, creating all of the Special Relativity equations with absolute ease.
(To watch this easy breezy analysis of motion in action, goto youtube videos 1-9 at http://goo.gl/fz4R0I )
Thus, those who see objects, such as cars, speed up and slow down etc., are those whom are obviously "Seeing something that isn't really there.". They are experiencing an hallucination.
Now if the outward extension of the mind is reduced to an even smaller scale, via drugs or whatever, then the magnitude of the ongoing hallucinations are magnified even further, magnified to an even greater scale than the hallucinations that are being shared on a global scale.

I don't think I follow this. A car can certainly speed up or slow down in my frame of reference, which I can perceive. How is this a hallucination?

Exactly, ..Variations in speed is seen while in "Your" frame of reference. What is occurring on the absolute scale, is a different matter all together. But many would say that this is absolute nonsense, and do so while being confined within a particular "frame" of reference.

I'm still not sure how that makes it a "hallucination" when I see a car stop.

Hallucinations are not confined to motion. In fact, auditory hallucinations are far more common in psychoses


text:
How do auditory and visual hallucinations differ within the brain?
I asked this question.
It occurs to me that auditory hallucinations may well be generated in a different part of the brain to visual hallucinations. From my understanding, some hallucinations involve both auditory and visual components.
Which parts of the brain are responsible for generating various hallucinations and how does this correlate to auditory vs visual hallucinations and a combined hallucination?

Short answer
It is mainly aberrant activity in the higher sensory association areas that is linked to hallucinations.
Background
Brain imaging studies of hallucinations come in 2 flavors: “state” and “trait”. State studies are so-called symptom-capture studies, where subjects signal the start and end of a hallucination. During this window, the brain activity is recorded and compared with the resting state. Trait studies compare people with hallucinations to those that do not (Ford et al., 2015).
A state study suggested modality-dependent activation of association sensory cortices during auditory, visual, and multisensory hallucinations (Fig. 2). However, primary-sensory-cortex recruitment was not systematic and was shown to be only associated with increased vividness of the hallucinatory experiences (Jardri et al., 2013).
References
- Ford et al., Schizophrenia Bulletin (2015); 41(1): 223–32
- Jardri et al., Cerebral Cortex (2013); 23(5): 1108–17

Fig. 1. Brain areas involved n sensory processing. source: Impremedia

Fig. 2.  fMRI analysis of the hallucinatory experience in 20 adolescents with brief psychosis disorder. (a) The bilateral ASCs activated during hallucinations: the cuneus (Cun), lingual (LG), and fusiform (FG) gyri during visual hallucinations; the anterior insula (Ins), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), inferior parietal lobule (IPL), and superior temporal gyrus (STG) during auditory hallucinations. (b) An overlapping visualization of the auditory (purple), visual (green), and cross-modal (orange) components superimposed on a bilateral and flattened cortical mesh. OTJ and STS were activated during audiovisual hallucinations (AV, see Table 2). Activity in the STS was specific to multisensory hallucinations, whereas the OTJ presented a variable organization with overlaps between voxels responding to A, V, and AV inputs. Figure and legend source: Jardri et al. (2013)


text:
What traits does a man have, when he is apt to feeling threatened by strong women?
This isn't intended as a gender biased question, as both men and women can have strange hang ups when it comes to either sex.
I am curious about men who are threatened by strong women. By strong women, I mean intelligent, capable, financially independent, self assured and assertive.
By threatened I mean unduly intimidated, nervous or uneasy, which can result in a number of reactions.
What personality traits, background or pathology do men who are threatened by this type of woman, generally,  have in common?
Are there any studies on this?

A person of substance accepts everyone with
Respect, an open-mind, and heart...Gender is not a factor!

I think it's really important to know if the type of woman you are defining is also physically attractive. If she is, then such woman can be perceived as being "way out of one's league", thus eliciting a response similar to crossing a narrow bridge very high up - there's too much attention being paid to "not screwing it up", which disrupts normal thinking patterns


text:
Are there physical techniques to relieve eye strain?
I asked a question about eye strain Does looking into a mirror relieve eye strain in a similar way to looking at distant objects?.
Are there any physical exercises or techniques that can help to alleviate eye strain?
Is there any evidence to support this, if so please provide citations?

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about biology

I've seconded that vote, but I hope this question will be migrated to fitness.SE, not merely closed. It is a useful and clear question that should be on-topic over there.

Possibly relevant Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_eye_chart

@NickStauner agreed

EYE RELAXATION

Sit comfortably, close your eyes and cover them with your palms. Be sure that both palms are cupped and do not press on the eyes. Imagine the blackness getting darker and darker. Rest in this manner for five minutes at a time, at least thrice a day.
Stand upright in front of an open window, preferably overlooking greenery. Keep your feet a foot apart, let your arms hang loosely at the sides and be as relaxed as possible. Gently oscillate your body from side to side like a pendulum.
Raise your heels alternately, keeping toes firmly on the ground. Gently swing the whole body to and fro without bending at the waist or hips. Start the exercise with eyes open. Swing like this for a minute and then close your eyes gently, while still swinging. Imagine the apparent movement of the window as clearly as possible.
Open the eyes after a minute and continue this exercise for 10 minutes, alternately closing and opening the eyes. Repeat this exercise at least thrice a day.
Close your eyes and, facing the sun, move your head slowly from side to side. Sun rays cause a rushing of blood to the eyes, relaxing optical muscles and nerves. Do this exercise for 10 minutes thrice a day.
Take a handful of cold water and, bending forward, splash your eyes rapidly, several times. Do not forget to hold water in your mouth while splashing eyes as this cools them down to their nerve ends and freshens them a great deal.

EXERCISES FOR EYE MUSCLES

Sit erect in a comfortable position. Keep your head and neck as relaxed as possible. Gently move your eyes up and down 10 times. The motion should be very slow, uniform and effortless, without moving the head or neck. Let your eyes see as far up and as far down as possible without causing strain. As the eye muscles relax, you will be able to look lower and higher. Repeat this exercise five to six times in a sitting. You can add to the relaxation by resting your eyes in your palms in-between.
Sitting in the same posture as before, move your eyes from side to side. Repeat 10 times. The motion should be very slow, uniform and effortless without moving the head or neck. As in the earlier exercise, you will able to move them farther and more easily with practice. Repeat this exercise five to six times.
Move your eyes gently and slowly around in a circle five times, alternating between clockwise and anti-clockwise motions. Rest for a second and repeat the process five times. Remember that it should be done slowly and effortlessly.
Sit on a terrace where you can see far off objects on the horizon. Look at a distant object and then look at the tip of your nose. Look from one to the other object 10 times. Close your eyes for a second and resume the exercise. Repeat five times and rest your eyes.

The following exercises may be used to alleviate eyes strain
Bhastrika Pranayam (Breath holding exercise)– 2 to 5 minutes.
Kapalbhati Pranayam (Skull shining breath exercise).
Bahya Pranayam (External breath exercise).
Anuloma – Viloma Pranayama (Alternate nostril breathing exercise).

All these can be found here
Yoga- The name popular in West is actually a derivation from the word YOG (which is a Sanskrit word with meaning 'to combine together'). Yog means to combine one's being with the Supreme Power. Sage Patanjali (Pronounced as Paa+ ta + n + ja + li) brought together postures and techniques of breathing together and created Yog Sutra. (The thread of Yog).
This actually transcended from the ideology that a healthy person can understand the meaning of God and compassion better. Therefore, it aims at relieving a man of the diseases so that a healthy body can provide shelter to a healthy soul.
But Yog is trying to handle a Lion. It should be practiced under the guidance of a learned Yog teacher...

ty +1, do you have any evidence to support this? I'd like to mark it as answer

@Skippy, I may come up with the evidences, but it's much better if one starts practising Yog and feel its benefits himself. Being told how it feels to be in love is one thing and Falling in love is  another... Therefore...

Yes, but this site likes researched answers. It's a scientific site. Cheers

Here's a good set of eye exercises, and a quote from its intro:

When your eyes get tired and you start feeling the eye strain, but still have some work to do, use the Exercises For Eyes. Regular eye exercises can help you to improve eyesight and prevent eye diseases such as nearsightedness and farsightedness.

How is this not an answer to, "Are there any physical exercises...that can help to alleviate eye strain?"


text:
Has there been any research done that contrasts point-based and achievement-based gamification methods?
Stack Exchange is a good example of these two methods of gamification:

Reputation
Badges

I am curious as to whether there has ever been any research done that defines and contrasts these methods?  I am specifically interested in discovering what sort of goals and behaviors collecting achievements encourage as opposed to collecting points.  How do end-users respond differently to these methods?  Or do they?
Taking Stack Exchange as an example, we could ask what sort of behaviors are we attempting to encourage with reputation as opposed to badges that require them to be separate entities?

@Hyper Unfortunately, I'm not aware of a way to do such a merge at this point.

Reputation is a recognition system for participation, while the badges represent the type of participation.
Reputation amasses over time simply by recognizing that the individual is participating in a meaningful way, and that their experience can be judged by the amount of reputation. Badges, on the other hand, show where their aptitude and participation lies (Such as being a prolific editor, having insightful answers, etc.)
Both of these will appeal to people in different ways, and both will contribute to a thriving site, as it encourages several levels of participation. The reputation will be more of a benefit system, as you get increasingly advanced privileges on the site for higher reputation, and the badges are the "pat on the head" motivation.
While I don't have access to the full text, the precis for this article suggests that they presented specifically on the Stack Exchange model, and the badge/reputation system as applied to an online community. Other than that, most of the gamification models that I found searching scholarly articles were more geared toward education and social media rather than Q&A type sites.

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


text:
Are points still a relevant mechanic?
When talking about gamification people's mind almost immediately go to points. It is probably the quintessential mechanic.
However, thinking of games, it's no longer heavily used. It's still in use but doesn't seem to be a main driver in most games. While people may have cared about high scores in Pac-Man or Donkey Kong, many modern games either don't use points at all or have them but players seem to not really pay too much attention to them.
Have their been any studies regarding the efficacy of using points in a gamified system or their performance against any alternatives?

Have points gone away or have they been splintered into multiple specialized areas (so Levels of Proficiency,  # of Battles and % wins, instead of one generic Points unit).?

@ClayNichols Nice point. I'd say they have just gone away. These new specialised areas are such a different thing from the original "generic points" that I really can't put them in the same box.

Hmm. It's possibly I'm misunderstanding, in which case I will happily retract my answer. But does gamification really apply to, well, games? I thought the idea behind gamification was to take user engagement elements present in games and add them into non-gaming situations to increase user retention/satisfaction etc.
So I would say that if you're making a game, you're not using gamification. You're making a game, which inherently has some of these characteristics. After all it's called gamification because the concepts were borrowed from games, right?
That said, to answer your question, I think points are still valuable in games when they're used as currency. When you can use the points to get stuff, that adds a whole new level of value.

Your second paragraph makes much sense!

Sorry, I'm asking if points make sense in a gamified system, not in a game. I referenced games since that's where points come from and mostly to point out that most modern games don't use them anymore.

The level of gamification in games has risen far beyond what we have applied in other real world situations, which is why gamification has such great potential. Much of the point systems have been masked by things like a superior avatar, indirectly showing your proficiency of the game.
To answer your questions, I am unsure of studies looking at points in a gamified system.
I am a healthcare professional and a major issue with health is compliance. Health and fitness apps like FitBit and Nike+ use points to a very great extent. I believe using a point system is the easiest way to gamify a system, even if it is for the short term, which might be enough to get someone jump started on being healthy in the long run.

I disagree with the premise the question.
Some of the most popular casual games in the world use the classic points systems that have been used since the 90s. Angry Birds, Plants vs Zombies, Bejeweled, Subway Surfer are played by millions of players worldwide and they all use a classical points system. Also, many users regularly share their scores on social networking platforms and compare/compete with others. So, points systems are not on their way out as far as the non-hardcore gaming audience is concerned.
Secondly, game systems are far less prone to change than gamified systems. Stack Exchange gets updates and changes every few weeks. Games do not undergo significant changes for months or years. This means that points as a metric serves a very different role in gamified systems than in games.
In gamified systems, points can be a metric for various things ranging from participation, skill, engagement, quality of participation, social status, connections and more (discussed in Gamification By Design, Chapter 3). The same cannot be said for conventional modern games.
Third, one of the reasons for the success of gamified systems at present is the familiarity with game mechanics that the 80s and 90s generation had. To be specific, points systems, since they were the one consistent game mechanic in that era of games along with levels. This familiarity is what makes adoption of gamified systems easy for most audiences, and hence, they serve as more than just a performance metric.

Have their been any studies regarding the efficacies of points in a
  gamified system or their performance against any alternatives?

While there are implementations of systems that do not use points, there does not seem to be any research on the effectiveness of points systems as a whole.

What is your high score in Angry Birds or Plants vs Zombies? No one knows - they might know how many levels they still need to 3 star or what wave they have gotten to, respectively. While games still use points, they are rarely seen as a metric that drives performance in games anymore, and that was my point.

@RyanElkins One of the reasons for the success of gamified systems at present is the familiarity with game mechanics that the 80s and 90s generation had. To be specific, points systems, since they were the only comparable game mechanic in that era of games along with levels. This familiarity is what makes adoption of gamified systems easy for most audiences, and hence, they serve as more than just a performance metric.

@RyanElkins From the evidence that I see around me, points + social sharing are what drives most casual games and gamers to play. This might be a cultural difference since I see and hear about scores both on Facebook feeds and sometimes during commutes, which is when most people play such games.

I didn't even notice there were points neither in PvZ nor in Angry Birds...

Points are a method, and as with everything else in life, there are trends and differences of appeal/use for different populations.
Points provide a way to clarify value. And they are used to show relative importance between actions in a system.
As a method it's very effective: users can quickly compare assigned value to specific events, and then choose how they invest their time to get what they want.
If the point system becomes too complex, people can become disinterested: the effectiveness of representing value dissipates (people can't associate likely events with points). And maybe that's why it's trending down in some games right now, because the point systems aren't simplified enough.
A good comparison is between Mario points and SE points:
Assume that you get Mario points for ending a level quicker, jumping and hitting the end flag highest, and for killing each Oomba.
That's simple. You know that it rewards diligence and dexterity.
Now look at SE. How do people get points? The least random way seems to be up-votes. But I know that those votes can come from various people, some smart, some immoral, etc.
The system in Mario is much simpler than in SE.
Summary: points are a method; in principle it has value; must be applied correctly to avoid complexity that significantly diminishes the value.

The only reason I'm answering this right now is for points. (oooh, so meta).
But seriously, StackExchange is built on the relevance of points. Most users would post some things even without points, but almost all of them answer quick and easy questions primarily for the points (whether they admit it or not). That is why the FGITW (fastest gun in the west) problem is such a problem on SO.

I disagree with the Premise of the Question.
Points are essential for measurement - which is at the core of Gamification.
While Badges are simple YES or NO, Points give the ability to measure stuff at a continuum. Points also form the basis of Leader-boards, Levels, XP, etc...

Leaderboards are metric based - points are only one possible metric. XP - experience points - ARE points. Levels are simply a delineation between point totals. Points are a commonly used mechanic but they are by no means essential for measurement. Gamification is far more than just points, badges, and levels. For example, we are running a large (5k employee) gamification system right now that doesn't use points at all.


text:
How can I incentivize users to perform creative tasks?
Gamification is often used to incentivize people into performing small, repetitive tasks. For example, as a Stack Overflow user, I receive 2 reputation points for an accepted edit. I can earn badges by reviewing series of potentially problematic questions, etc. This seems to work fairly well since the user is given a reward for a easily achievable objective.
In contrast to this, what elements are required to incentivize users into performing creative tasks? Unlike with small 'assignments', a creative task bears the risk of not being solved satisfactory, therefore the user risks investing an effort without being rewarded.
Simply offering a higher reward introduces its own set of problems like having to deal with cheating, therefore my question:
How can I incentivize users to perform creative tasks (e.g., creating a new recipe)?

I think the methods you describe (i.e. those employed by Stack Exchange) work for creative tasks as well.
Asking good questions, and providing helpful answers can be considered creative. It's entirely possible that a user can put a lot of effort into an answer only for it to not solve the problem at all.
Whilst it can be disheartening when content isn't as good as you imagined, the feedback given (through upvotes and comments) allows you to improve upon what you've already produced, with the hope that it can be salvaged into something useful. This is essentially the benefit of gamification for sites like SE, by rewarding good content it encourages users themselves to improve and expand their knowledge - it's a learning experience.
So if a user is put off from submitting a recipe because they fear the community will react negatively to it, then maybe it was never very good to begin with.

I agree that Feedback is a crucial aspect. To get a concrete method, I'll interpret your answer as follows: not only reward the creative task itself, but also giving feedback (as it's the case for StackExchange's edits). Would you agree?

Yes that's a fair point and would be an effective way to ensure (as on SE) that content is improved upon.

This is actually a perfect fit for the best kind of gamification that illuminates the progress you're already making (but weren't aware of)
1. Break the creative task into steps in a creative process
2. Measure that progress for the user.
You don't even need to reward progress, just how them how it gets them closer to the goal. Success may not be guaranteed, but if you can show them that the Process is the best way to get there and that it often succeeds you can get buy in on that. (You can also reward them for that progress but it should be intrinsic not extrinsic
Example
Let's use creating an Advertising campaign (I've been watching a lot of The Pitch lately )

Interview customers to find out what they like about the brand.
Interview the brand owner to find out why they they think the customers like them.
Restate that in a dozen different ways, iterating though different ways of viewing that and focusing on benefit to the user I've done that with my own products. I'll work with a marketing guy and he'll ask "what makes your product unique" and I'll give a feature and he'll ask "no, what does that do for the USER", etc.
Synthesize the benefits in #3 down to their essense.
Come up with lots of way to express #4.  This is pobably where most people think advertising starts. The benefit of our new product is that it's a comprehensive app in a world filled with apps that each to a tiny piece of what our target users need. So our ideas were : The Last App you'll ever need. That seemed a little too much so we went with "The One App That Does It All". (We had lots of other ideas but narrowed it to this.)

Measure their progress in each of these.  Compare a successful outcome's process to an unsuccessful one.

Using your analogy of creating a recipe:
On a site where recipes are shared, users should earn points for the times when their recipe is upvoted, but they should not lose any reputation/points/levels, if it is down-voted. This can discourage creativity and experimentation.
I think that not having bad things happen when there recipes (or otherwise) go wrong or at not generally well-liked, should be a key element in the design of a gamification system for  a site like that.

I agree, taking away the down vote is import otherwise people will be less willing to experiment and submit creative suggestions


text:
How can employee anxiety over poor evaluation be avoided by management?
When implementing gamification, what are steps that management can take to prevent a culture of anxiety among employees, when employees feel they are constantly being monitored and begin to worry that they will be judged as poor performers at their work?
For example, employees may grow anxious over things like:

Ranking near the bottom of some leaderboard
Having fewer badges than others
Not being as excited about the gamification of their work as other employees

What should management avoid to prevent this kind of anxiety?
What can management do proactively to prevent such fears or put them to rest, without getting rid of competition altogether?

Make it less obvious.
If you can implement gamification a bit more subtly, then any anxiety employees may have of being evaluated based on a leaderboard will be reduced.
For example a 'leaderboard' could implemented as a statistical tool, to determine the usability of an application. If you take feedback from less performant employees, then they may feel that they are benefitting. This keeps the competition element present, but also has the added advantage of improving your application.
The top answer to this question raises a good point about keeping the stakes low, if you do offer any tangible rewards (which would help with those less interested in badges) you must ensure that they are of low value. Focusing on rewarding employees for good work is (typically) better than ranking them based on performance, this could also be on a team level to take stress away from individuals.

+1 for "keeping the stakes low" reference

Now it's a dead link, due to closing of Gamification SE.

@Lohoris The data dump of Gamification would have that question. I'll try to do download that and paste the content of it here in the next few days.

@JoshGitlin wow, you're really dedicated, gg!

This is definitely a legitimate concern and one that can't be completely avoided but it can be mitigated.
The first thing to consider is whether people rank at the bottom because the standards are too high or because they are not a good fit for their position. This is where relative performance comes in. Being at the bottom of the leaderboard isn't so bad if you're not far from everyone else. If the gap between last place and second to last place is huge then there may be a problem (for the person at the bottom).
The second thing to consider is that it's not necessarily bad to identify poor performers. It makes it easier for managers to identify who they should work with and helps employees know they need to step things up.
With those things in mind, if gamification is causing anxiety here is what I would recommend. You'll need to shift the focus so that it is more about recognition that performance evaluation. What I mean by that is that achievements (for example) should be viewed as a celebration of good work rather than an expectation of normal work. Help people understand the expectations. Consider building a more cooperative system where the gamification is on a team level rather than an individual level. You may or may not also have competition among teams.
You're always going to have people who compare themselves to the best and that may create seemingly unattainable standards for some people. Gamification has the added benefit of exposing to a degree what those people do to be good and in a well designed system, their performance can act as a blueprint for others to follow.
Ultimately you have to understand your culture. A Customer Support team might thrive on cooperation and generally needs a different approach than a Direct Sales team that feeds on competition. The competitive nature of the system can be adjusted by focusing on different things and building systems that emphasize team goals rather than individual goals if needed.


text:
Can rewards incentivise shortcuts to be taken which wouldn't be done otherwise?
With a rewards-based system, some may be so incentivised by these rewards that they end up losing the end goal of what is meant to be the aim of gamifying otherwise boring, repetitive activities.
Why do rewards manage to detract users from the example of good behaviours in a non-game environment, and how should implementers of gamified systems work around this issue?

TL;DR
When a boring, repetitive task is being gamed for rewards, there are two things that you need to look at. First, the problem definition and whether it is accurately defined (keeping in mind that autonomy is not lost). Second, the conditions of the reward and what is the actual behavior that is being rewarded.

There are two main factors influencing how effective or ineffective the system is for encouraging a certain behavior and they are:

The Problem Definition
The Reward Conditions

I will use two examples to discuss this problem:

First, the task of folding and putting in envelopes 40 letters.
Second, the task of proofreading 20 articles.

The Problem Definition
The first and foremost thing to look at is the problem itself. We are well-aware of human tendencies well before we even start to define a gamified system and so, I feel, it is the responsibility of the designer to be smart in defining the problem.
In the first example, the task itself consists of folding letters, and then putting them into envelopes. In this, a person may fold a letter in any way, any number of times, and may even just stuff it into the envelope. One way of reducing individuals from succumbing into bad habits is to redefine the problem to: fold letter, put in envelope and seal the envelope. Just this small change will now make it less likely for people to stuff an unfolded letter into the envelope as they themselves have to close it as well.
However, it is important to remember that one of the biggest motivators for gamified systems is autonomy, and over-defining a task will reduce it, thereby reducing the motivation to participate at all.
In the second case, there are multiple avenues by which the actual task can be avoided (read a few pages, read a few papers, etc.). So, its pretty clear, that this task has significant chances of being gamed.
Now, we come to the second factor that affects good behavior in a gamified system and how it can be leveraged to regulate it.
The Reward Conditions
The rewards being offered can be divided into three major types:

Participation-Contingent: The reward is awarded if the individual simply starts the task. In the first case, if the person, just does even one envelope, then he is given the reward. Similarly, in the second case, if the individual proofreads even one paper, he is given the award. This as can be seen will be least effective and promoting good behavior over long periods of time.

Completion-Contingent: The award is given to the individual if he completes the task, irrespective of the quality of the results. That is, all envelopes filled with letters folded (however they may be) and all articles proofread, not looking at accuracy or errors missed.

Performance-Contingent: The individual is rewarded if the quality of the work done is above a certain fixed threshold. None of the envelopes have any bulges anywhere and seal easily, and 18/20 articles are error-free. This is the most effective in preventing individuals from falling into bad behaviors within the system.

Therefore, it is important to think clearly about what the reward is and what is actually being rewarded.
Summary
Be aware of the task and what it requires an individual to do, and also, what a reward encourages and what is the minimum that needs to be done to get it.

Yes.
The biggest step of any gamification process is the design phase. It is very easy to design a system that sounds good but actually encourages people to do things that are contrary to what the end goal is. It's interesting because this shows that gamification works - but also that it is a powerful tool that can cause a lot of problems if not used carefully.
Ideally you want people to "game" the system. That term is often a pejorative but if you do things right, gaming the system leads to the outcome you want.
I generally recommend people start small and build up rather than try and design a fully blown out system from the get go because most likely you will get a lot of things wrong and have to change large swaths midstream. It's easier to build up from some basics.


text:
Which human instincts do gamification systems appeal to?
As a Stack Exchange user, I spent quite a while thinking about how they managed to trick me into putting so much effort into it.  Reputation, badges, etc., are all virtually useless, yet I put great effort into gaining them.
I've come to the conclusion that the system at least partially exploits that I am not an entirely rational being but instead rely on instincts, for example by exploiting the urge to collect badges. What other instincts do gamification systems appealed to?

In general, I believe gamification taps into 2 main human behaviours. Competition & Pride (in that order)
Competition should drive more engagement and Pride should help breed loyalty (b/c their stature is linked on your projects stature)
1. Competition

contests (top editor of week)
leaderboards
featured users

2. Pride

badges
achievements
unlocked features

Various systems balance these differently, and of course it's also very subjective but I believe that when people first sign up, it's about competition, and after they compete (and win trophies) it's about Pride.
Update: OCT-25-2013
The above 2 drivers really refer to those users who indeed buy-in and engage with your gamifications - But if you run a public website where buy-in rate could be considerably low you may have many users simply exploring. Below are some considerations to keep these users involved in your gamifications and hopefully convert them to competitive patrons.
3. Exploration (Look Before Leap Users)

public profiles (customizations, badges)
public leaderboards
faq / knowledge-base for details on rewards

I can see how these are the main drives for achievers and killers. How do "explorers" and "socializers" fit in?

I'm not sure what "socializers" really would entail, but exploration is a very good point, as I believe it touches on whether a user buys into the system.

+1 Though, I wonder whether there are any psychological or neurological resources that could be introduced into this answer. I'd be pretty thrilled to see some.

I read about game theory a lot (from the math perspective) so I might be able to dig up some of my pocketed wikipedia articles ;)

I'd +2 or +1000 for that effort if I could.

I think this is a very polarized view of games (competition is the main reason people play). But it's obviously (from people down-voting my alternative suggestions) a very common belief.

Maybe the zeigarnik effect could also be considered as an instinct that pushes all the others. Once you started in a contest, you remember more details and feel pushed to interact until it is completed. Once you started an activity that leads to a badge, you will fell compelled to continue until you get that badge, so on and so forth.

I feel like competition only applies to those few near the top. I'm surprised no one talked about "random reward". A lot of the time when you click on a question you can't answer it, or it's not very clear, but occasionally you do answer a question and it feels good to see that hard earned green +25

The most comprehensive analysis of human motivation to participate in gamified systems I've come across is the Octalysis framework by Yu-Kai-Chou

He highlights 8 Core Drives of Gamification and also gives a more holistic view of human motivation. People do not only play for the sake of winning and designing a system with only that perspective in mind will not yield very long term benefits.

Epic Meaning & Calling
This is the Core Drive where a player believes that he is doing something greater than himself or he was “chosen” to play.
Development & Accomplishment
This is the internal drive of making progress, developing skills, and eventually overcoming challenges.
Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback
This is when users are addicted to a creative process where they have to repeatedly figure things out and try different combinations
Ownership & Possession
This is the drive to “want” something. When a player feels ownership, she innately wants to make what she owns better and own even more.
Social Influence & Relatedness
This drive incorporates all the social elements that drive people – including: mentorship, acceptance, social responses, companionship, as well as competition and envy.
Scarcity & Impatience
This is the drive of wanting something because you can’t have it.
Curiosity & Unpredictability
Generally, this is a harmless drive of wanting to find out what actually happens. Many people watch movies or read novels solely because of this drive.
Loss & Avoidance
This drive is based upon the avoidance of something negative happening

You can find more on the framework here - http://www.yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/octalysis-complete-gamification-framework/

excellent find, mainly because it tries to be comprehensive. I'll look more at this

His video introduction to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxRZNpu3u4

I read once that a sticky application needs to impact one of more of the seven deadly sins. Pride, Envy, and Greed and probably your main go to's when evaluating gamification. Some or all may apply to different people and systems to varying degrees.
Pride
This is probably the main one that everything stems from. People love being seen as experts. They want to excel and win when it comes to competition. Standard gamification works great here.
Envy
This is tied pretty closely to Pride. The desire to get what other people have is exacerbated by gamification, which enables people to feel envious of others and drive them to better performance.
Greed
You've got some achievements - but do you have them all? Something drives people to collect and complete and accumulate and hoard. I'm not sure what it is but it does seem to be a fairly strong human trait.

I think this is convenient assumptions of categories rather than a helpful answer

Overview
According to a White Paper that Bunch Ball came up with, Gamification appeals to the following human desires:

Reward

Status

Achievement

Self Expression

Competition

Altruism

Below are my thoughts on each one.  The White Paper describes each one in more detail.
Reward
People like getting rewarded.  This is one of the most basic things gamification provides: rewards.  On Stack Exchange sites, rewards take three forms:

Reputation Points
Badges
Privileges

Of these three, privileges are probably the most powerfully motivating reward.
Even though Reward is one of the most basic things about gamification, it is also one of the most abstract.  Rewards aren't a stand-alone motivation.  For a reward to be valued by the recipient, the reward itself must meet another desire.  The desires that rewards meet are usually status, achievement, or competition.
Status
Julius Caesar once said, "I would rather be first in a small village in Gaul than second in command in Rome."  While not all would agree with such a sentiment (There's also the "Big fish in a big pond" adage), it does show the value many people put in status.  People naturally want to be looked-up-to, to be considered higher up on the ladder, to feel like they have more ownership of a place.  In Stack Exchange sites, status is conferred most obviously in the privileges one gains with the site by reaching certain reputation thresholds.  When a user has enough reputation to edit almost anything and make new tags, that user will feel a deep satisfaction that he is high up in that site's community.
Status.  It's powerful.  Don't underestimate it!
Achievement
Most people likes achieving things to show how great they are.  On Stack Exchange sites, this is expressed as badges.  If you are good at asking really useful questions that everyone else wants an answer to, you can get badges for good questions.  You also get badges for writing good answers.  If you achieve writing the answer most useful to the one who asked the question, you get +15 reputation when it's accepted.
Personally, the achievement I want most on Stack Overflow is to earn "tag" badges for technologies that I want the world to know I'm good at -- Java, for example.
Self Expression
This one is probably not as central to Stack Exchange sites.  The idea is, the more you participate, the more you can customize how you look on that site.  For example, maybe a site will let you decorate your profile with custom bling or flare as a type of achievement or award.
Competition
This one is probably the most obvious.  When you see that you are rising up on the leaderboard, or that someone lower than you is starting to draw even with you, it stirs up your competitive spirit and urges you on to do better to maintain your lead or take the lead from someone else.  (This can also lead to problems if not balanced out -- for example, not upvoting a good question or answer that was useful to you because you're trying to outpace the person who posted it.  But that's another topic.)
Altruism
The noblest of all our desires.  Even without the virtual rewards, the competiton, and the excitement, people tend to feel good about themselves when they've helped out someone else or aided someone in becoming better at what they do.  (This is also why I dislike seeing rude comments or answers from people with a know-it-all attitude on Stack Overflow towards people who are new to the site and didn't research or make their question specific enough. It suggests to me that the person making such a remark had little Altruism in them.)
Altruism also gives you motivation to upvote someone else's post if it's good -- that person helped you by posting a question or answer you needed, and you help them back with an upvote.
Interactions of Desires and Mechanics.
Here is a diagram from the White Paper that shows how these desires and the the mechanics of gamification typically interact.
The green dots signify the
primary desire a particular game mechanic fulfills, and the blue dots show the other areas that it affects.

Link to the White Paper: http://www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/downloads/gamification101.pdf


text:
How can you gamify the recruitment of new employees?
We recently had a user on our site ask if they could add game mechanics to their employee recruitment. To be honest, I'm having a little trouble finding solutions for this. I'd really appreciate any insight you guys might have.
I guess my first question is, who would you incentivize for this, and how? Are there any case studies that cover a scenario like this?

What kind of company are they?

I have read one study about this in the past. The results were not promising, since the game mechanics in recruitment have to account for abstract qualities in individuals which is hard to do, with any degree of accuracy to be able to rank potential hires. Moreover, the qualities vary with position making it an extremely complicated process.

^^Well said. These are the objections I have as well. I was hoping that there was something I wasn't thinking of. I appreciate your insight, thanks.

@AsheeshR: I think this is a good answer. Why not post it as one.

@kdzia Without reference to the actual study, its just an opinion, not an answer. If I find the study I had read, I will surely post it as an answer.

That's right, of course. I assumed you had the study at hand - my mistake.

I would try to work on stimulating rejected candidates to become referrals.
Every candidate who has been rejected is already quite well into what the job is all about. S/he should be very good at explaining the job requirements. (The pitfall of the majority of job ads, IMHO is that they bitterly fail at explaining what the job is about.)
At the same time rejected candidates must be likely to know colleagues good for that job. And it is in their self-interest to promote those colleagues, because they would have less competition for all the other vacancies.


text:
How can we determine an appropriate rate of decay for our scoring algorithms?
We build scoring algorithms for different customers in an enterprise environment. Typically they tend to measure most goals in either weekly, monthly, or quarterly intervals. We use a scoring algorithm to score individuals based on performance relative to goals and other metrics.
We assume that the rate of decay should vary based on the goal interval they primarily use. Meaning, a company focused on weekly goals should have a faster decay rate than one focused on quarterly goals.
What's a good way to determine how quickly to begin the decay process based on past performance relative to metric interval length?

The game League of Legends utilised an Elo Rating System which incorporated within it a decay system. The decay worked on a user score and reduced it dependent on both user performance and time. Here, user score was an indicator of skill level and was used in another formula to calibrate the actual scores they received from other in-game activities. So, while this system may not be directly applicable in a customer engagement scenario, its worth looking into first.
The system calculated score based on this formula:
Ra_Old = Ra_New + K(Sa-Ea)
The sytem had various category of players such as:

Bronze: Between 0 and 1149 (Team: 0-1249) (Top 100%)
Silver: Between 1150 and 1499 (Team: 1250-1449) (Top 68%-13%)  Majority of Active Player Base
Gold: Between 1500 and 1849 (Team: 1450-1649) (Top 13%-1.5%)
Platinum: Between 1850 and 2199 (Team: 1650-1849) (Top 1.5%-0.1%)
Diamond: 2200 and above (Team: 1850+) (Top 0.1%)

and varying decay rates based on certain player properties:

Elo decayed at a rate of 50 Elo for Diamonds, 35 Elo for Platinums, 25 Elo for Golds, 10 Elo for Silver, and 0 Elo for Bronze for every 4 consecutive weeks of inactivity and every 7 days thereafter.
For normal rating, inactivity was defined as no activity in any queue.
For ranked rating, inactivity was defined as no activity in the specific queue
Ranked decay only applied to people who were ranked above 1400 rating.
The decay timer was reset after a game was played in that specific queue.

The major changes that will be required in the case of performance scoring will be:

Less aggressive scoring than in this system
Decay rates calibrated to maintain a bell curve distribution centred depending on the level of competition you wish to achieve.
A bell curve spread such that the leaders are not out of reach of the majority of players as that may end up demotivating the users.

Are you using past tense because they switched to another system now? If so, might it be useful to say why they did it?

@Lohoris They have gone through multiple major versions of the rating system. Most of the information here is about an older iteration.


text:
Do the brains of non-altruistic persons mirror the observed experience of suffering?
Altruistic behavior can have different motivations: from the hope that the help you give will ultimately benefit yourself (social exchange theory) to a selfless wish to alleviate someone's suffering.
Selfless altruism is motivated by empathy. According to C. Daniel Batson, "if you feel empathy towards another person you will help them, regardless of what you can gain from it".
An observer experiences empathic concern when brain regions are activated in him that are similar to those activated in a person who is experiencing a particular sensation (cf. mirror neuron).
Do the brains of non-altruistic (selfish, egoistic) persons – i.e. persons who do not show altruistic behavior in the face of suffering – mirror the observed experience of suffering (and is this information simply ignored) or do their brains not mirror the observed emotions at all?
If selfish brains show mirroring, what hems altruistic behavior in selfish brains, or what facilitates it in selfless brains?

I've decided to start inventing some tags :) We've got a lot of questions on empathy and a few on altruism, so I think they're justified.

I'd go for the jugular in non-empathetics: sociopaths and psychopaths, people who clinically lack the ability to empathize. There is a difference in their brains.
You might be interested in the story of the neuroscientist Dr. James Fallon..
Fallon wanted to identify lack of empathy as a brain patern. He had PET scans of serial killers mixed with a host of other mental illnesses and disorders in an attempt to predict accurately psychopaths. He found a particular pattern again and again which was striking.

“I was looking at many scans, scans of murderers mixed in with schizophrenics, depressives and other, normal brains,” he says. “Out of serendipity, I was also doing a study on Alzheimer’s and as part of that, had brain scans from me and everyone in my family right on my desk.”
“I got to the bottom of the stack, and saw this scan that was obviously pathological,” he says, noting that it showed low activity in certain areas of the frontal and temporal lobes linked to empathy, morality and self-control. Knowing that it belonged to a member of his family, Fallon checked his lab’s PET machine for an error (it was working perfectly fine) and then decided he simply had to break the blinding that prevented him from knowing whose brain was pictured. When he looked up the code, he was greeted by an unsettling revelation: the psychopathic brain pictured in the scan was his own.

Perhaps because boldness and disinhibition are noted psychopathic tendencies, Fallon didn't hide that discovery; instead he started to study it. He found that his family line included seven alleged murderers, including Lizzie Borden*. A series of genetic tests revealed the presence of high-risk alleles for aggression, violence and low empathy.
You can see normal empathy vs. psychopath scan differences in the linked source.
*Maybe you remember this childhood rhyme (I do): Lizzie Borden took an axe/ gave her mother forty whacks./ When she saw what she had done,/ She gave her father forty-one.


text:
How is the focal point determined when looking into a clear sky?
When looking into a clear blue sky, no cloud, birds, trees or any object to give a frame of reference. When a person is actively looking, as opposed to day dreaming or gazing.
The sky goes for a long distance, and with uninterrupted view, and I guess the first question would be:
-  At what point into the atmosphere can the human eye see (which is not a topic for this site), following this,
What I want to know; is at what point to the eyes come to rest and How is the focal point determined?
Another consideration is:
How can this be measured?
 Would any attempt to measure this would involve putting a device between the eyes and focal point?

I can provide some details to answer the question about how far into the atmosphere we can see, if required.

Accommodation is the process where the lens in the eye changes shape to focus on an object. The eyes have a default accommodation distance, called the resting point of accommodation (RPA). The RPA is the distance at which the eyes focus when there is nothing to focus on. The RPA is not identical to the acommodation state of the eye when focusing at infinity. Instead, the RPA can be measured in total darkness. There, the eyes' focal distance will equal the RPA after accommodation is complete. If the lights were then turned on, an object placed at that distance would be in clear focus. The RPA averages 30 inches (approximately 760 mm) for younger people and gets farther away with age (source: D. Ankrum).
The RPA can be measured by using infrared optometry, which is a non-invasive technique to measure the refractive state of the eye and the accommodation (Roorda et al., 1998).
Reference
- Roorda et al., Vis Res (1998); 38(13): 1913–24


text:
Can bipolar develop in childhood?
Is it possible to develop bipolar in childhood? Does the same diagnostic criteria for bipolar in adults apply for children?

Yes but it is referred to as Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder in DSM 5 and is characterized by persistent irritability and frequent episodes of extreme, out-of-control behavior.

This seems partially backed up in the Pediatric News article "When is it bipolar disorder and when is it DMDD?": "A new diagnosis called disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) was introduced into the DSM-5 to describe these chronically irritable children and, in part, to reduce the number of children receiving a bipolar diagnosis." However, it makes no claim that it is always diagnosed as DMDD as you imply in this answer. -1

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


text:
Is there a way to hasten recovery from sleep inertia?

Sleep inertia is a transitional state of lowered arousal occurring immediately after awakening from sleep and producing a temporary decrement in subsequent performance. (1)

There is study demonstrating what increases sleep inertia

One of the most critical factors is the sleep stage prior to awakening.  Abrupt awakening during a slow wave sleep (SWS) episode produces more sleep inertia than awakening in stage 1 or 2, REM sleep being intermediate. Therefore, prior sleep deprivation usually enhances sleep inertia since it increases SWS. (1)

I am interested in what can be done to alleviate sleep inertia (rather than reducing the causation).

Finally, sleep disorders represent risk factors which deserve new insight in treatment strategies to counteract the adverse effects of sleep inertia. (1)

(1) Sleep inertia.
Tassi P, Muzet A.

Not a completely scientific answer, but a few suggestions that I'd make based on a general understanding of the sleep literature:

Increase the amount of sleep you are getting in general and thereby reduce sleep debt
Increase the amount of sleep you are getting on the immediately preceding night (i.e., both these points are that its easier to wake up when you are less sleep deprived)
Permit morning light to enter your room (to trigger various arousal responses)
Maintain a regular sleep pattern to ensure that your various circadian rhythms are aligned (i.e., sleep with temperature with arousal, etc.)
Set a mental alarm clock the night before regarding when you want to wake up
Have a consistent morning routine to minimise the need for executive control after waking.

I know you haven't cited any studies, but all the points you make are well established within research on sleep. You are also a professional in the field of [cogsci.se] (although it is broad), but for that I respect your answers and approaches


text:
Learned dyslexia? adult predicament from childhood teacher´s incompetence?
I have a friend, over 30, who is convinced she cannot really read. Of course; she can  read, but she struggles so much with sorting letters into words that she cannot absorb the content. Playing - say - Trivial Pursuit - she looks at the letters; pronounce the words, makes them into sentences, but (says) she does not understand the question until I either answer or say it back to her, or she reads it a second time. She is now, for other reasons, back to school, as she needs to find another profession. I am, in an unofficial capacity, her personal tutor.
The consensus during her school years was that she was extremely dyslectic, a hopeless case, and her teachers let her "get away with it": unlike other students, she did not have to read aloud in class etc (this makes me furious to think about, that they did not give her the help she needed).
She is nowhere near stupid, but insists she is, and that she is so dyslectic that there is nothing that can be done about it. Recently, she took a dyslectic-test and consistently get the worst scores possible.
My suspicion is that she is NOT half as dyslectic as she is made out to be: I think this is largely a learned thing. Since teachers gave up on her; why should she believe she can? Yes, she probably is dyslectic, but the result of incompetent teachers have made her predicament much, much worse.
Fact is; when she has to write things, there are not really all that many spelling mistakes, the sentences are coherent, and she is very good at the logic needed to write - say - a (slightly academic) essay, she is excellent at writing stories, petites. She does, however, have a problem extracting the essence of what she reads. I do think though, that this is largely due to the learned view "I cannot do this, I am too stupid and massively dyslectic". Interestingly, last semester she consistently got top grades in the (native) language class where both content and spelling was important.
This results in (partly learned?) dyslexia as a "gateway" to the crippling thought: "I am an idiot. Why should I try? I will simply spend my life watching television.".
We do not read single letters in words we are familiar with; we largely see the "picture" of a word and make an educated guess/reasonable assumption based on the context. She is visual enough to master this. Having given up on words; there is a possibility that she does not bother to learn them, and hence cannot recognise the word-picture.
I realise this is a very specific example, but my general question is:

How do you teach adults to read?
Is it possible to somehow measure the "I have given up" against real
dyslexia?
How is it possible to motivate an adult other than "you will get
good grades if you improve on this"? (grades, as we all know, can at
times be a little arbitrary and subjective).
Any research on learned dyslexia?
Have our acceptance of dyslexia in a way gone too far? (to the point
of accepting it and "giving up" on students?)
Anyone with experience in this?

There are ways to deal with dyslexia if it's real (and it seems to be, though self-confidence can of course be a real issue as well): special fonts, careful spacing between letters, certain filters to put on top of the page... Maybe those are some avenues worth exploring?

True, @Ana, there certainly are. She has all these, but in this case; I think it is a struggle uphill against 20 years of "learning" to be stupid. She has written herself off before it can even start. Do you think we have taken the acceptance of dyslexia to the extreme?

I really can't say, as I come from a country where dyslexia is not such a well known issue. I do however live with someone who is brilliant yet reads with considerably more difficulty than myself, and I can see how it can be hindering... yet it's clearly unrelated to intellectual ability.

Ah, @Ana, yes of course you are right in that the way of dealing with dyslectics vary depending on geography. And yes; it is certainly not a measure of intellectual ability.

Try this: give her a short sentence to read then a larger one then 2 sentences in a row then a small paragraph. Let her read the paragraph, record her voice, let her hear her mistakes and repeat the words. After she can read this paragraph well begin a time challenge with her. Read the paragraph yourself in front of her and mark the time you need to finish it then let her read it many times and mark the time she needs. As for motivation, let her read the part she's interested in a newspaper or magazine or any book. If you like let her imagine herself reading the news in front of a video-camera

@metacompactness not a bad idea; I will try, but I think she will be totally uninterested .. and since my role as tutor is very unofficial, I cannot really put much weight behind suggestions. She simply hates every kind of communication or information transfer that consists of letters... "that is why we invented television". I have tried to focus a little on the fact that she has a good memory, and if she just can get the essence, getting things out is not really a problem.

I will answer your questions out of order. I hope that is ok.
6 I have dyslexia and other "stuff". I have been diagnosed as such by a psychologist and diagnostician multiple independant times.
2 Dyslexia is quantified as a DSM 5 Neurodevelopment Disorders subcategory Learning Disorder.

“difficulties learning and using academic skills.”

Before DSM 5 dyslexia was identified by a difference between verbal and performance IQ which would effectively measure the severity of the dyslexia in comparison with the persons ambition. I'm sure psychiatrist have a new standard test which is able to perform such functions as well.
1 Dyslexics typically learn coping strategies at school. Without foundation of those coping strategies I know reading and writing would be even more difficult for me. I was taught to read and spell with the Scottish Rite Dyslexia method. Its basicly phonics on steroids. It seemed to work very well for myself and the others with learning disabilities though not all were dyslexics. I would recommend finding curriculum based on the framework the Masons provide and that is at least is phonetic.
3 Motivating an adult is very difficult. You might do some research on Social Influence which is ethically acceptable manipulation like what doctors use.
4 Absolutely no one knows what causes learning disabilities like dyslexia all major theories point to something biological involving the brain. Finding the source of the problem doesn't help the person. Only treating the symptoms is rational.
5 No. Your friend comes from a time just before the major push for treatment of learning disabilities in public schools. Now learning differences and disabilities are given coping strategies and other tools (primarily time and technology) to help them perform and live healthy normal lives.


text:
Things not physically moving very hard to concentrate upon - suggestions?
Hello dear cogsci users,
I am a (fledgling) programmer by profession, one who also squarely fits the description of an ADHD person.
The symptoms have been making it tremendously hard for me to advance my career. However, I refuse to be put on meds - I'm a firm believer in fixing neurobiological defects with the proper diet and exercise (and have already noticed that curbing my carbohydrate intake alleviates much of the problem).
Somewhat surprisingly, I discovered that if either me or the things I'm studying were in motion, learning most anything became a breeze.
Things I have come up with to combat my concentration issues:
1) To pass my math exams, I would hop on the bus and do my algebra/calculus there - the changing scenery made me both concentrate better on the task at hand, and provided natural 'hooks' to remember things such as formulas (as they were automatically paired up with the places I was passing through). I had used to fail classes because of math in secondary school, but got an A on the exam for which I was 'studying in motion'.
2) When reading eBooks or some such, setting the screen to slowly scroll downwards greatly improves my concentration (by about a half).
3) Keeping widgets such as the Windows desktop clock within my field of vision also helps.
4) I have been thinking about using a rhytmically shifting, dynamic background for the applications I use to learn (browser, eBook reader). The Ubuntu Linux 'it is raining' desktop effect also really helps me concentrate.
However, I need a powerful, overarching technique that I could use during studying, one that would also be easy to access anywhere.
Would you have any interesting suggestions? In exchange, I welcome you to use any and all of my observations for research.
BTW: I do not believe I am primarly kinesthetic (more like auditory first [knack for picking up foreign languages], kinesthetic second, visual third).

I'm also only able to concentrate reading with something moving, something animated, it feels like I am 500% more awake, would like to see some answers :)

@Enoque - look into SPD (Sensory Processing Disorder). It has similar symptoms to ADD/ADHD, but is not temporarily alleviated after taking stimulants. Exactly my case.
In kids, it is treated with sensory integration therapy (yay, no drugs!) - something we might try as well.

I made a script that animates all letters on a webpage. Would that help? :D

Requiring certain movements from self or environment may be an example of stimming, which is often seen in autism spectrum, among other conditions.