text:
When does a fear of something constitute a phobia?
Obviously, not all phobias are made equal. There are some 'phobias' that involve things that are normally do inspire fear in others (such as, famously, spiders). Honestly, I never understood why being scared of things like spiders constituted a 'phobia', since phobias are supposed to be irrational fears, but being afraid of spiders (at least, certain species) is obviously normal and not exactly irrational.
Personally, I often say I have a phobia of ghosts. But do I? I don't believe in ghosts, so I consider it irrational, but 'ghosts' in general don't scare me. The ghosts of Skyrim never scared me, though the ones in certain quest mods do. And I've certainly never found Casper scary, but I could never force myself to enter a location I've heard is haunted, purely because of that label. Old abandoned buildings (particularly houses) also scare me for no reason. Simply being in one makes me want to get out of there as fast as possible. And considering that ghosts in general don't scare me, I'm not sure my weird and obviously nonsensical fear would actually count as a phobia. Its, of course, normal to find ghosts scary. But is it normal to not be able to enter a supposedly 'haunted' location, or an old rotting building, even though I honestly don't see any reason for ghosts to exist. And thinking about that fact doesn't help one bit for some reason.
So, what's the line between being just scared of something and having a phobia towards it?

The DSM-5 criteria for Specific Phobia are:

A. Marked fear or anxiety about a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood).
Note: In children, the fear or anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freezing, or clinging.
B. The phobic object or situation almost always provokes immediate fear or anxiety.
C. The phobic object or situation is actively avoided or endured with intense fear or anxiety.
D. The fear or anxiety is out of proportion to the actual danger posed by the specific object or situation and to the sociocultural context.
E. The fear, anxiety, or avoidance is persistent, typically lasting for 6 months or more.
F. The fear, anxiety, or avoidance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
G. The disturbance is not better explained by the symptoms of another mental disorder, including fear, anxiety, and avoidance of situations associated with panic-like symptoms or other incapacitating symptoms (as in agoraphobia); objects or situations related to obsessions (as in obsessive-compulsive disorder); reminders of traumatic events (as in posttraumatic stress disorder); separation from home or attachment figures (as in separation anxiety disorder); or social situations (as in social anxiety disorder).

The parts I would highlight are that the fear has to be intense and out of proportion to the actual risk, it has to cause some sort of impairment, and it can't be classified as part of a broader mental disorder.
So, if someone sees a spider at work and is startled by it, you wouldn't call that a phobia by itself from a clinical perspective. You might joke about it among friends and say you have a phobia of spiders, but that's just using embellishing language, it's not a diagnosis.
If someone lives in an area where dangerous spiders are present, and takes reasonable precautions to defend themselves (for example, not walking barefoot outdoors), that would not be a phobia: it's not out of proportion.
However, if someone sees a spider at work and then experiences intense symptoms while at work that interfere with their performance, make them constantly preoccupied that there is going to be another spider, and it's a sustained rather than passing experience, then that's closer to the DSM-5 definition of phobia.
In either case, it's really up to a professional to assess the situation and determine if a diagnosis is warranted.


text:
Are our human brains programmed as materialistic as one can be?
First of all, not all human beings are materialistic. I strongly believe that.
We tend to not be happy with what we have but what we want. We desire for more.
There is a saying that says that the other side of the lawn is greener.
We are inclined to compare ourselves with other human beings. Sometimes I have seen humans become so envious and jealous that they become their only barrier.
Why do we behave like so? We know that we can never be like them. Still, we want to have that kind of car, that kind of house and the list goes on.
Not only that. I have detected a feeling among humans titled A feeling of deprivation and replenishment.
Today we have an $80 Nokia Lumia 630 cellphone. Tomorrow we will see a commercial on an android phone. Little more expensive. Still, we want that. Then the market introduces the next-gen iPhone. We want that too. Then an iPad. Then iMac. Then iDesktop. Then dual-processor Xeon 21 cores the best desktop. Still, something will be missing tomorrow as soon we see the commercial of the next-generation TV with THX certified 8.5 channel Dolby Digital surround sound speakers and subwoofers.
Why does the human brain act this way? Is it right or appropriate to act this way? Is our human brain programmed for materialism and as soon as it perceives that object with its five senses and even though we don't need it we want it anyway? Why doesn't our sixth sense kick in and say hey enough already?
I have also seen in certain conditions and circumstances the sixth sense of homo sapiens automatically kicks in psychologically and it happens to support the lost or damaged senses. For example, when a visually impaired person is walking on the streets, right at that moment they can feel their sixth sense.
So the question are we materialistic by nature and why doesn't our brain have some sort of protection mechanism to protect us from that instinct?

There are a lot of issues with this question which need addressing and they all link to lack of information on prior research. What have you read regarding this subject, and what is this "sixth sense" you talk of? What scientific literature supports this hypothesis?

"Why do we behave like so? We know that we can never be like them. Still, we want to have that kind of car, that kind of house and the list goes on." Because childish immature people don't know themselves. They haven't discovered their life (their taste, the things they love to do, etc.). Childishness and lack of intelligence and real-life experiences. Mature people are build-up from various intense real-life experiences.

I don't know of research that discusses this, as it seems to be more of a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. A quick search in Google Scholar did not yield a lot scientific articles, and rather, showed that this topic may be more theoretical.
Still, I'd suggest a few readings such as Rousseau's Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, or this article I found while doing some quick research : Materialism pathways: The processes that create and perpetuate materialism.
Otherwise, I found this website and a podcast that discuss the topic.

NewScientist
NPR

Enjoy reading/listening to these! Hope it helps.
Best,

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can thought processes be sensed to happen exactly in the head?
It's common knowledge that humans think with their brains. So it's common to associate hard thinking with head and to seemingly "feel" that it's the head which is loaded when one's thinking.
But does this association have any grounds in actual sensing? Can one sense where the thought processes are happening if not taught about this? If we taught some child that he thinks with e.g. stomach (and no one hints him otherwise), would he associate thinking with that location? Or would he somehow suspect that actually it's the head which is thinking, and what he is taught is wrong?

Here's the same question on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ph05i/why_can_i_feel_my_thoughts_originating_from_my/

Interesting question! The ancient Egyptians believed the brain was not important. Other cultures tied the concept of sentience with the abstract idea of a soul. However, without a tighter definition of "sense", "thought", etc, I don't think this question can be answered with confidence. I'm also not convinced that this is a biology question.

In the 4th century BC, Aristotle wrote that the source of intelligence was the heart (source). Other greeks like Alcmaeon of Croton thought it might be the brain. I think the fact that they were having this discussion means that it's not obvious from our sensations alone that the thoughts are happening in the head.

I think this is a nice answer to the subjective question. It shows that prior to empiricism, it was not intuitive that the brain was the centre of thought. This, I think, is at the core of the question. Unfortunately, it is very hard to completely answer an opinion based question.

@James this is actually a perfect answer to an objective question. The question was indeed about receptors' sensations as the meaning of "sense" and the ability to analyze (AKA intelligence) as the meaning of "thought". I don't really understand why you think the question is not a biology question. I'm not interested in the whatever opinion-based aspects the question that you may have found. The only reason I've not accepted this answer yet is that I'm giving a chance for someone else to make their input.

Q: But does this association (that the head is the place where thought processes happen) have any grounds in actual sensing?
A: Yes, the association (that the head is the place where thought processes happen) has the ground in evolutionary neurophysiology.
Thinking, analyzing, deciding, and other cognitive functions are the most important functions for a human or any other animal to survive in the environment that poses endless varieties of challenges. Thus, it is very crucial for a human/animal to be able to locate where these functions are in its body so that it can give the best protection at the correct place. For this, the organ where these cognitive functions occur – the brain – has  evolved complex functional areas (mostly in the temporo-parietal junction and the fronto-parietal cortex) that can create the correct 3-D mental image of its body and environment with the correct relation to the brain itself, that is, with the brain correctly felt to be in the head, not in the hand, the leg, the abdomen, or anywhere else, including outside the body.
You don’t need anybody to tell you that the thoughts occur in your head. Just close your eyes and feel where your thought is. You’ll feel that you’re thinking in your head, again not in the hand, the heart, the body, or anywhere else, including outside your body. That’s the result of the functions of your brain areas that create the 3-D of your body image and your surroundings with the correct relation to the brain.
This is also true in animals. If animals do not evolve to the ability to know that it is in their heads that their thinking occurs, they will not give their heads the first and foremost priority in protection and caring. Their heads (which is the place where they think) will become susceptible to danger, and their species will become extinct from this, leaving only those animals that evolve this crucial ability to persist. Evidently, animals that persist nowadays always try to protect/care their heads above all other body parts. For example, in danger, if they decide to flee, they will turn with their heads furthest away from the danger and they will escape into the protection (cave, tunnel, shield, etc.) with their heads in first. When they hide from the sun or the rain to seek comfort, they always give the priority to their heads to be under the shelter even if other body parts have to stick out in the sun or the rain. So, what that is thinking in the animals knows where it is (i.e., knows that it is in the head) because it protects and takes care of itself correctly.
Moreover, humans and animals must have observed that when their heads are hit hard enough, they cannot think normally or even cannot think at all (i.e., lose consciousness, if the hit is severe). This doesn’t happen if the hand, the chest, the abdomen, or other part else is hit but the head is spared. They must also have witnessed these in other animals. So, in addition to the innate ability to know that the thinking is in their heads, they can learn from these experiences that it is definitely the head that the thinking occurs.
In conclusion, no human or animal needs to be taught that the head is the place where it thinks.
I think the above discussion answers the other questions already too.
References.

Blanke O, Slater M, Serino A. Behavioral, Neural, and Computational Principles of Bodily Self-Consciousness. Neuron. 2015 Oct 7;88(1):145-66. The pdf file can be downloaded from here
Lenggenhager B, Smith ST, Blanke O. Functional and neural mechanisms of embodiment: importance of the vestibular system and the temporal parietal junction. Rev Neurosci. 2006;17(6):643-57. The pdf file can be downloaded from here or here.
Wikipedia. Body Schema

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


text:
What does it mean by "the resulting behavior doesn't produce the consequence"?
A lecture slide says:

classical conditioning causes a stimulus to signal a positive or negative consequence; the resulting behavior doesn't produce the consequence.

What does it mean by the bolded sentence?

The slide is contrasting classical conditioning with operant conditioning.
In operant conditioning, you train that a behavior is paired with a reward or punishment. For example, a lever press dispensing a food pellet.
In classical conditioning, there is no relevant behavior. Some stimulus (rather than behavior) is paired with an outcome. For example, if there is a tone played before a shock, the tone will cause rodents to freeze in anticipation of the shock, but nothing about their freezing behavior is causing the shock.


text:
Can someone be healed from a long-held addiction or compulsive disorder in an instant and without therapy due to a dramatic spiritual experience?
Can someone be healed from a long-held addiction or compulsive disorder in an instant due to a dramatic spiritual experience and without therapy?
My question is motivated by multiple conversion testimonies in which people claim to have had dramatic life-changing spiritual "encounters" or experiences that put an immediate end to behavioural addictions, substance addictions, mental health issues, among others. For illustrative purposes, I'm sharing below two conversion testimonies that I find quite impressive and don't know how to explain from a psychological point of view, and therefore I believe they can be interesting case studies.

Testimony 1: From Atheist To Believer In Jesus Christ - How Jesus Cured My Eating Disorder - Christian Testimony
This testimony has many details, but I want to focus here on the eating disorder aspect of it (from 15:47 to 23:34), and the experience this girl had that made her free in a matter of seconds. This girl had been suffering from bulimia and anorexia for 4 years, with multiple failed attempts to quit the behaviour up to that point. According to her testimony, in December of 2017 she was throwing up in the bathroom, she was feeling impotent, hopeless and desperate. In the midst of this, she had the sudden occurrence to mentally cry out "Jesus" and immediately, in a matter of seconds, a feeling of immense love and peace overwhelmed her. But most astonishingly, as a result of this overwhelming emotional experience, her 4 year bondage to bulimia and anorexia immediately stopped. According to her testimony, the experience happened 2 years prior to the recording of the video, and she has never relapsed or even had the desire to ever since.
She devotes a good part of the video to describe in great detail her bathroom experience. She employs an interesting analogy to help the audience understand her experience: she referenced her maternal love for her 5 year old son as a strong baseline, and then claimed that the sense of love that overwhelmed her in the bathroom greatly surpassed it.
I find this testimony quite impressive, and there are 2 aspects that I find particularly intriguing:

This lady experienced a spontaneous emotional transition from deep despair to overwhelming love and peace in just seconds. How is this possible?
As a result of this 'ecstatic' experience (let's call it that way), she was instantly healed of bulimia and anorexia, despite a track record of 4 years of failed attempts at quitting.

Testimony 2: MY TESTIMONY: JESUS SAVED ME FROM DEMONS, ATHEISM, SEVERE DEPRESSION & MORE!!
This testimony describes a somewhat similar experience to the first one. In short: a woman tells that for decades she used to deal with severe depression, strong anger and hatred issues, porn addiction and compulsive stealing. She also mentions that she used to be a lesbian, and for many years experienced sleep paralysis "attacks" at night and felt "evil presences" during these episodes. According to her testimony, one night she experienced a sleep paralysis episode that was unusually intense (extremely intense). In similar fashion to the previous testimony, she cried out in desperation "Jesus, save me" a couple times, broke down emotionally, cried for 1 hour, and experienced afterwards a sudden freedom from all her past addictions and mental health issues, without relapses. This experience is narrated in detail from 27:37 to 33:41 in the video.
But there is more. At 42:41 she tells that her change was so dramatic that it even affected her sexual preferences. Yes, that's right, her same-sex attraction stopped -- she wasn't a lesbian anymore.
I find this second testimony incredible as well. This woman had an intense episode of sleep paralysis, cried out for help in desperation, broke into tears and cried for 1 hour, and then, boom!, all her addictions and mental health issues were pretty much gone. Back to factory settings. Completely healed. No therapies needed. Just an ecstatic/cathartic experience and that's it.

I'm really intrigued to know a psychological explanation for these testimonies. I imagine that if we could learn how to tap into the power of our minds to suddenly turn our emotions into peace and love (like in the first testimony) or experience a strong emotional catharsis (like in the second testimony) to free ourselves from years of addictions and unhealthy compulsive disorders in a matter of seconds, that would just revolutionize therapy and addiction recovery programs.
So, what is really going on psychologically in these testimonies? Do these experiences have a name? How is it possible for a person to suddenly quit years of addiction or compulsive habits or mental health issues in a matter of seconds, without therapy and without relapsing?

Yes,
Anybody can be healed from any of the addiction, stress, fear n phobia, or any state. simply, it needs to change the subconscious mind with special mind techniques, ant it too in minutes. only need is of a person who is expertise in using theses techniques. when the subconscious mins is programmed for the another state of mind, rest will be done by the power of our mind itself -- that is sure

@RaajKSrivastava can you post your comment as an answer and provide references to credible sources to back it up?

The answer to this question is indeed: We don't know - as @ChrisRogers correctly explained. However, let me mention some related research that may help shed some light on the question.
Previous research has suggested that spiritual experiences may be associated with beneficial outcomes in addiction treatment, though evidence is largely associative, and often retrospective. Cases of spontaneous recovery from addiction linked to intense experiences are also not hard to come by in the literature, but as Sellman (2009) puts it:

... dramatic life‐changing experiences are hard to manufacture.

Hence the crux of the problem: How to practically test this phenomenon? How can researchers manufacture dramatic spiritual experiences in the lab so that they can be studied? There is a fair bit more discussion of this problem in Sellman's book: Future of God in Recovery from Drug Addiction (2007).
Recently, a new venue for such research has opened back up: Psychedelics. Psychedelics can fairly reliably manufacture intense mystical experiences in patients. Thus, we now have a potential practical solution to the problem of studying the effects of dramatic spiritual experiences!
Already, several highly publicized studies have suggested that psychedelic drugs can be useful in the treatment of addiction. A few of these preliminary studies looked at spiritual experience as a potential mediator of this effect. Garcia-Romeu, Griffiths, & Johnson (2014) for example, tested psilocybin on habitual smokers with a history of failed attempts at quitting, in a small non-randomized or controlled pilot study (read: preliminary!), and found:

Smoking cessation outcomes were significantly correlated with measures
of mystical experience on session days, as well as retrospective
ratings of personal meaning and spiritual significance of psilocybin
sessions. These results suggest a mediating role of mystical
experience in psychedelic-facilitated addiction treatment.

Other effects of the drug and its intensity were not predictive of long-term outcomes, suggesting that the spiritual experiences themselves may have been responsible for the effects, with the drug only a trigger. Other studies (eg, Bogenschutz et al, 2015; Dakwar et al, 2014; Dakwar et al, 2018) found similar results (again, preliminary!) with alcohol and cocaine addiction. This is by no means the only interpretation of the effects of psychedelic drugs on addiction - for example, such experiences may simply accompany whatever underlying effects the drug induces.
As research into psychedelics is again possible, we may learn more about the potential mediating role of dramatic spiritual experiences in addiction recovery through them.

Hmmm. I am yet to read these articles, but are these people substituting the primary addiction with another? I realise that psilocybin is considered less addictive, but it is potentially addictive nevertheless https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/hallucinogens/psilocybin-mushrooms/ Having said that, I see the potential link to the question.

It would be interesting to know how dramatic life-changing spiritual experiences can be triggered without the aid of psychedelic drugs. The two testimonies in the OP and several others I've watched do not report the use of drugs to trigger the experience, so the trigger had to be something else. A common factor in the two testimonies is that the individuals were in despair and cried out for help prior to their dramatic life-changing experience. Also they both report feeling positive emotions and freedom from compulsive habits afterward. I've got no idea what exactly happened in between though.

@ChrisRogers I am no expert on this subject, but it is my understanding that the reason that research into psychedelics has opened up again after decades of hiatus is that their safety has finally been established.

@ChrisRogers Addictions to psychedelics are quite unusual. There certainly are some people who use them regularly, but that's an atypical pattern compared to other substances. I'm involved in a group piloting some psychedelic research and potential for addiction is not one of the common concerns. So far the drug is always given in a very controlled setting, as well, with multiple trained guides and with supportive pre- and post-counselling.

I haven't got half an hour at the moment to sit and watch this video at the moment, but there can be many reasons someone with religious convictions may be able to abstain from addictive behaviours.
It is impossible, to determine categorically what exactly invoked the change from a neurological point of view scientifically and from a psychology stand point you only have anecdotes to work from.
Large scale psychological studies on how this works have not been conducted that I know of. And, in order to consistently leverage this potential we would need to be able to measure the state of mind along with how and what that person is thinking at any specific moment in time.
While an empathic person can have an idea what someone might be thinking, mind reading is not physically possible, so therefore this cannot be leveraged from a pure scientific standpoint at this time.
Once large scale psychological studies on how this works have been conducted, we may become closer to leveraging this ability within people.

Thanks Chris for the answer. About watching the whole thing, as I said in the post you can just watch from 15:47 to 23:34 (about 7-8 mins) for the "eating-disorder-freeing" experience. Also, in your clinical experience have you ever heard of people having sudden experiences that made them stop long-held disorders or addictions without relapsing ever since?

Update: I added a second testimony. I think it can be a good complement to the first one.


text:
Why is swearing such an in built part of the mind?
My wife suffered from a Traumatic Head Injury several months ago. She had 2 Brain surgeries due to bleeding of the brain. As a result, she is unable to speak words other than yes, no, don't know and there. She has to learn through Speech and Language Therapy how to say each word. However, right from the start, she's been able to easily say sentences such as "For fucks sake Scott" and "Fuck off". Is there something about swearing that is built in?

Recent research has suggested that swearing may actually be linked to the limbic system, distinct from the usual locations of speech production. This may give some hints as to why your wife's brain surgeries/injury may not have affected her ability to swear. http://helix.northwestern.edu/blog/2013/02/special-place-brain-swearing

The mind is a large landscape as you are finding. Speech centers where new or current ideas are formed into words rely on other areas where conversion elements have already been worked out some time ago. Ready made phrases for non-new ideas and reliable conversation can be brought up with little or no effort. With these peppered into speech one can sound as if they are otherwise fully conscious and thinking about what they are saying.
You can see this when speaking with people when they cannot stop adding the same phrase to their sentences. Such as "...if you know what I mean." Though a complex phrase it has its own quick 'subroutine' to send it to the mouth. After hearing this over and over you would guess that the speaker is not as self aware as you first suspected. This can reflect the effort made as they cast about for ideas and how to express them.
The foul language which would be rare in earlier days probably reflects her frustration and anger with her difficulties in forming speech. Normally there are filters to prevent using bad language if only to spare feelings of listeners. These can also be compromised when the effort is to get any speech together. You can think of her speech as letting you in on parts of her internal, normally private, dialogue as she struggles to express herself.
With patience this should improve as she re-maps her speech abilities along with the boundaries of what to say and not say.
I suggest you read The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks to see how disparate the areas of the mind can be. Good luck to you both.

Welcome to Psychology.SE. Please visit our site [tour]. There are a lot of bold claims in your answer without corroborated evidence. We work differently to most SE sites, where we have a strict policy that all answers should be backed up with reliable references so that the answer can be independently verified, regardless of the reader's/answerer's background. Unreferenced claims can lead to answers being deleted. If you still have trouble with this, feel free to visit the [help] or [meta].


text:
What is the working mechanism of the atypical antipsychotic Olanzapine?
I'm a 3th year medicine student and I'm working on a paper including the possible analgesic effects of Olanzapine on complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The mechanism of pain perception in CRPS is due to central sensitization and sympathetic activated pain. The nociceptive receptors that are responsible for allodynia are located in the spinal column (dorsal horn) and periphery. Now knowing that olanzapine (Zyprexa) is an agonist of alpha-2-adrenergic receptors, does that also include adrenergic receptors in the dorsal horn and periphery (as example  the limbs)? Or does olanzapine only have effect in the brain?

Although this isn't off topic here, I think you're more likely to get answers in Psychology & Neuroscience, so I'm migrating it there.

This is how I'm reading your question: are there alpha 2 receptors in the PNS?

You're likely done with your paper, but I'm going to leave a comment. Your question is complex, so I hope I can provide a useful comment. I have CRPS with my main pain being in my right leg and foot. I see a pain management doctor every month to assess my status and get my meds. I also have bipolar I disorder and Zyprexa is one of my medications for that. I have not noticed any change in feeling with my pain since beginning Zyprexa. It was not helpful for my limb pain. This is purely anecdotal, I know, but it's one person's experience :)


text:
Is general intelligence meant to underlie all intelligence?
Is general intelligence, supposedly measured by IQ, meant to underlie all intelligence, be the thing that accounts for all intelligence / ability, or does all intelligence account for general intelligence? Who claims the former, that g is more basic, and why do they claim that?
I think the question matters a little, because, if it doesn't, then IQ scores are a product of learning and teaching successes, rather than vice versa -- given that ability in any sphere [mathematics e.g.] is not innate.

You should read into positive manifold

how does that answer my question? thanks tho

This is how I understand things: suppose i tested you on things you could learn: vocab; french; capital cities; numeracy and things you couldn't learn such as verbal reasoning; reaction time; auditory memory; visual reasoning. And in total, there are say, 20 tests. scores on those 20 tests are positive correlated with one another i.e. reaction time can help me predict french. why is htis? Well, what if each of these 20 tests are all measuring the same thing 'g' just like shadow length at noon, murder rate, ice cream consumption measure something much simpler to do with the sun.

that's quite a weak analogy: we know that the sun exists and shines independent of ice-cream consumption, and ouor sweet tooth is clearly not underlying the weather

I think more clarity is needed in the question. Can you please [edit] your question to include what have you read about different intelligences, IQ and the g factor? Can you also explain when you are talking about "all intelligence" are you including intelligences such as emotional, existential/spiritual and moral intelligence?

This is an interesting question. Before I even attempt a broad answer, I want to note that we do not have professional consensus on the details here. However, I will cite some research that you can maybe check out and see what you think.
Is general intelligence meant to underlie all intelligence?
To answer this, we first have to define what general intelligence is. A good working definition is the following:
g denotes the shared variance in a set of intercorrelated cognitive tasks.
So, when you look at people's scores in a number of cognitive tasks such as arithmetic, vocabulary-based tasks, etc, you find that this performance is highly correlated. Using factor-analysis, we can load these performances onto a general intelligence factor.
We are basically claiming that this high degree of correlation is the result of some underlying factor. (Spearman, 1927; Flanagan, 2014).
Now, it's important to note here that we can't directly test for g. We can only test for other cognitive factors that load onto g.
Test scores as a product of learning and not internal ability
So, you suggested that IQ could be a result of teaching success and that's a problem. I think IQ is a result, at least partly, of teaching success. The IQ test isn't designed to differentiate between biological tendencies and learned abilities.
g is also not necessarily purely biological or learned, it's usually seen as an factor that combines these together. In fact, most cutting edge models suggest that both innate ability to learn and ability that is gained in life load onto g. (Flanagan, 2014).
IQ Scores and g
Now, IQ isn't supposed to be a measure of g. It is rather a measure of a more limited kind of intelligence that combines reasoning, working memory, and a couple other cognitive abilities. (McGill et al., 2018)
It's got its uses, though these are limited and we are probably paying too much attention to it at the moment. IQ test scores are highly sensitive to test-taking conditions, internal and external. (motivation (Duckworth et al., 2011), attention, environmental conditions, etc).
So, while there is a credible theory for general intelligence, IQ probably isn't measuring it. It probably loads onto it, so it may reflect some aspect of g, but it's not directly measuring our general intelligence.
Other Theories and Literature
So, as far as I understand it, the idea of a general intelligence is widely accepted in the literature right now. However, there are detractors, famously Gardner (1983) who proposed that there are different types of intelligence that can't be loaded onto the same one.
While there is some support for this (Visser et al., 2006), I find that the evidence is largely unconvincing at the moment.  There is evidence to suggest that these "different" intelligences just load onto g, they are second-stratum. MacCann (2014) does this for emotional intelligence and there's others abound for the rest. (The exception is possibly kinaesthetic intelligence? I don't have that much research on this).
(I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Gardner himself suggests that multiple intelligences can't really be tested empirically since they are only exhibited properly in naturalistic settings. I wouldn't want to hold a position on this matter that isn't empirically supported so I can't defend him.)
Summary
So, long answer short.

There is (probably) a general intelligence factor
This general intelligence factors includes stuff that was learned and stuff that's biological, so it does include teaching success
IQ tests are not testing for the general intelligence factor, it is testing for a subset of cognitive abilities
In fact, we probably can't test for the general intelligence factor with a single overarching test anyway
I'd recommend looking into CHC intelligence models for a cutting-edge cognitive model of how intelligence works

Is general intelligence meant to underlie all intelligence?

I don't know what you are trying to ask.  Are you trying to ask if general intelligence is the basis of all other intelligence?  If this is what you are indeed asking, the answer is no.  Long ago, scientists thought of g, general intelligence to be a number that encapsulates the sum of all of one's different intellectual abilities.  (I know.  It sounds vague and doesn't sound very scientific.)  I don't think they intended to mean that g was like some precursor to each type of intellectual process and thus, the best indicator of a person's intelligence.

Is g, measured by IQ, the basis of a person's intellectual abilities
  or does a person's overall intelligence lead to a number, g?  Who
  claims the former and why?

I reworded this person's question because it wasn't very clear as written.  I also think the question is almost exactly the same as the first question, except the person also asks who believes in g as the basis of intelligence.
There was once a time that most scientists and other experts in the field of intelligence believed in the concept of g, a number that encapsulates all the intellectual abilities of that person into one simple score.
As it still happens frequently today, in the early 1990's, there was a remarkable discrepancy in what most scientists believed intelligence was and what popular news articles and media such as movies believed.  (This is a topic for a different question but it amazes me sometimes the huge difference between what scientists believe and what the public believes.  I personally don't think this vast difference just happens by accident.  The information conveyed to the public is usually distorted intentionally.)
Anyway, going back.  In 1994, scientists in the field of intelligence were shocked by the public's completely backward notions of what intelligence was.  The media was apparently butchering what scientists were saying.  As a result, some 50 leading scientists and experts in the intelligence community signed a list of statements that was published in the Wall Street Journal, expressing dismay at the media's incorrect depiction of intelligence.  This public statement was titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence".  It stated facts that were widely accepted by scientists and experts in the study of intelligence.  Some of these statements were:

IQ can be measured well and IQ tests are very accurate.
There are different types of intelligence tests but there is only one type of intelligence.
Intelligence tests are not culturally biased.

Such outrage by the scientific community!  What a shock!  Why would the media intentionally distort what the real science was?
Well, all these questions became moot because something really ironic occurred.
 It was determined that most of the claims made by Mainstream Science on Intelligence were wrong!  It's ironic but no reputable scientist or expert in intelligence today would ever sign that statement that they had once so confidently signed and published in the Wall Street Journal.  Studies made during and after the 1990's, actually disproved most of the statements in Mainstream Science on Intelligence.  Scientists did a complete 180-degree turn.  The lying media turned out to be right!
What's more ironic is that there are now laypeople who believe in the statements made by Mainstream Science on Intelligence.  Not scientists but laypeople who haven't been keeping up with the science.  They are accepting the statements made in the Mainstream Science on Intelligence as true.  They believe things like IQ is an accurate and precise measure of general intelligence, g.  Or, g actually is a great indicator of how smart a person generally is.  Funny, no?
Anyway, the original question had asked who claims that general intelligence underlies all intelligence.  I don't think anyone believes this.  I never heard of anyone who believes that there are some group of genes (aka g) that has an effect on all our intellectual abilities and is the factor that mainly accounts for a person's intelligence.  Next question...

I think the question matters a little, because, if it doesn't, then IQ
  scores are a product of learning and teaching successes, rather than
  vice versa -- given that ability in any sphere [mathematics e.g.] is
  not innate.

I didn't understand this question.  How did you logically conclude "IQ scores [are] a product of learning and teaching successes" since "IQ scores [are] incorrect representation of intelligence"?  It happens to be true but how did you conclude that from anything you said before or after?  And, what do you mean by vice-versa?  It doesn't make sense.
To set the record straight, there is no such thing as a g that represents the general intelligence of a person.  Just because you are good at one thing, it's been determined that you might not be necessarily good at other intellectual pursuits.  I strongly believe this to be true.  Research has proven it.  And, you personally see instances of this in real life.
Let me also state that an IQ test is also a very inaccurate method to measure intelligence, especially at the tail-end of the distribution on the right side.  Furthermore, please keep in mind that the scientific field of intelligence is actually still in its infancy.  Many basic concepts are still unproven to be true or not.  We are still learning about ourselves.  Current studies include determining what types of events appear in what part of the brain.  It's all so very new.

Opinion-based answers are discouraged on this science forum.  Please provide references for claims made.

Arnon, I know what you are saying but I know that you know that is a lot of work.  The above answer didn't come from any specific source.  It's all from memory - my general knowledge of the field.  If the answer was even slightly controversial, I could see the necessity of citations but this answer is just describing the general history of intelligence research over the last few decades.  Nobody is disputing anything I said.  I could cite Wikipedia but I hate doing that because Wikipedia's facts are actually wrong more than you would expect.


text:
Would an electroencephalogram detect a chip in you brain that is sending signals?
To clarify the question, if you had a chip inside your brain that is sending bytes via wi-fii, bluethoot or other kind of waves, would the encephalogram detect anomalous activity?
Are the waves amplitude of normal brain electromagnetic activity very different from what a chip sends?

You can easily look up their wavelengths and conclude they are vastly different.

@AliceD thanks, can you clarify how much different the waves are with a graph or so. Would the wavelengths be also very much high than eg an epileptic atack?

EEG is commonly band pass filtered in the range of 0.1-1000 Hz at the absolute widest; more often closer to 0.1-200 Hz, or even less. Hence, there is no need to sample at higher frequencies, which would make it harder to store and process the data, given this is the normal range of biological signals.
Bluetooth and wifi are in the high 100s MHz to GHz range, i.e., nowhere near the EEG wavelengths. In effect, these signals from cellphones, wireless routers, microwaves, etc., do not interfere with the EEG.
You might pick up lower frequency carrier artifacts, however, depending on the manner of transmission.

It's best practice to add some references to allow other users to background read on your material. I've edited the answer somewhat. Can you elaborate on that last sentence?

EEG electrodes are designed to record the electrical activity of the brain over the scalp. As @Bryan said the frequency of interest is usually less than 200 Hz, although it is possible to record up to 5KHz(e.g. BrainAmp). But we should keep in mind that even in the higher sampling frequencies, it is only recording the electrical potential over the scalp, while the communication devices you mentioned are using electromagnetic fields (Bluetooth and wifi) or radio frequencies (e.g RF modules) for communication, and seems irrelevant to compare these frequency ranges to the sampling rate of the recording device (apples and oranges).
However, any electronic device needs the power to run, and your device needs to be supplied with electrical source (i.e. batteries), and depending on how it is powered I think it would be possible to detected it with altered EEG on the electrodes above it. There exist passive implants that do not need external sources of energy to function, but they are not good enough to transfer data at the bitrates you mentioned. Bluetooth and wifi have a lot of power consumption and need batteries to function.
To sum up, it depends on how your device is powered, and if there is a source of electrical activity, it will alter the EEG and you can detect it, although, you might not be able to say on which frequency exactly is working on (is it Bluetooth, wifi, RF, etc. ?).


text:
What evidences this technique of visualizing different color words in sequence, to help you sleep?
What's this technique called? Any evidence?

I'll make it easier. Visualize the word Red. In big red letters. Examine your creation but don't judge harshly. After a few seconds, switch to the word Blue, in blue letters. Then again with Green. Now repeat the sequence or feel free to wander off into any pattern of colors.
This is how it works. You can't think and feel at the same time (by feeling I mean any of the senses including vision) so exercising your vision causes your brain to shut down. You can do the same by listening intently, etc.
This has usefulness beyond relaxing enough to fall asleep. I have a theory that high level problem solving requires switching to feelings. We feel our way through tough problems because conventional thinking is too tedious, inefficient.
BTW, you now know how to meditate.

Seems like a very anecdotal comment. You might be better off asking the person who wrote it?

Or ask the question to the Skeptics community, this sounds like neuro-BS to me.

Imagery Distraction
The technique referred to is called 'imagery distraction' (Harvey & Payne, 2002).
Some evidence has been found for “imagery distraction” being associated with shorter sleep onset latency and less frequent and distressing pre-sleep cognitive activity.

The success of the “imagery distraction” task is attributed to it occupying sufficient “cognitive space” to keep the individual from re-engaging with thoughts, worries, and concerns during the pre-sleep period.

The type of imagery seems less important.  So visualizing coloured words should be equally as effective as counting sheep.
Harvey, A. G., & Payne, S. (2002). The management of unwanted pre-sleep thoughts in insomnia: distraction with imagery versus general distraction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(3), 267–277. doi:10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00012-2

So basically the only correct part of the description is "Visualize"?

Yes.  Impressive how pseudoscience can rebadge and market something as simple as counting sheep.


text:
Is there research into why people use piercings or tattoos for personal reasons?
I am interested in reasons why people engage in body modifications, such as piercings or tattoos.  I am aware of some religious reasons, and some religions forbidding such activity, but I am interested in personal reasons in particular.
For example, I don't see how piercings and tattoos communicate fitness or fertility, help with symmetry, or improve sexual attractiveness.  Perhaps there are other emotional or linguistic meanings involved?
Is there research into why people use piercings or tattoos for personal reasons?

This question is far too broad for this forum.  In fact, entire books have been written on this topic.  An extensive review by Wohlrab, Stahl, & Kappeler (2006) "Motivations for getting tattooed and pierced" divides the literature into 10 broad categories of reasons:

Beauty, art and fashion
Individuality
Personal narrative
Physical endurance
Group afﬁliations and commitment
Resistance
Spirituality and cultural tradition
Addiction
Sexual motivation
No speciﬁc reason

To keep this answer's length sane, I'll just focus on the areas that you seem most concerned with.
Sexual attraction:
There are probably a few different ways that tattoos and piercings can increase sexual attractiveness.  For example, tattoos can be used to camouflage scars.
Human sexual preference is highly affected by environmental (ie, psychological, social, cultural, rather than genetic or evolutionary) factors.  For example, sexual attraction can be susceptible to conditioning and imprinting, leading to an extensive list of fetishes and paraphilias, including stigmatophilia - "sexual arousal from body modifications such as piercings and tattoos".
Related to this, tattoos and piercings may provide exploitability signals - tattoos on women are associated with promiscuity for example, which is attractive to some:

Results suggest that sexual attraction to exploitability cues
  functions to motivate men to employ exploitative strategies towards
  accessible targets ...

And in much the same way as humans are prone to decorate spaces around them, so they decorate themselves as well - with fashion, accoutrements, and as it so happens, tattoos and piercings.  Just as art and ornaments might decorate a room in your house, so they might decorate human bodies.
Fitness and fertility:
A common explanation for body modification from an evolutionary perspective is as a signal of fitness.  This is called the handicap principle:

... reliable signals must be costly to the signaler, costing the
  signaler something that could not be afforded by an individual with
  less of a particular trait. ... Receivers know that the signal
  indicates quality because inferior quality signalers cannot afford to
  produce such wastefully extravagant signals.

Essentially, this is like saying "I am so fit / masculine / feminine that I can afford to mutilate my body without substantially affecting my attractiveness."  For more details, see research by Carmen, Guitar, & Dillon (2012); Wohlrab et al (2008); and Koziel, Kretschmer, & Pawlowski (2010).


text:
How does Free Running Sleep Disorder (FRSD) in humans get treated as of 2020s?
From reading accessible information about Free Running Sleep Disorder (FRSD) in humans, I understand it is a chronic and cyclic sleep disorder of a totally unentrained 24-hours circadian rhythm.
Description
I recognize a term like totally unentrained 24-hours circadian rhythm as somewhat vague, but a description I find  practical is as follows:

Each day, a person would naturally feel enough tired, to sleep, a
  bit later than the day before; thus, that person won't be able to
  naturally fall asleep before that later time;
Correspondingly:
Each day, that person would naturally wake up a bit later than the day
  before.

It might be reasonable to say that an FRSD sufferer totally lacks the common ability to fall asleep when feeling a bit tired.
Cyclicity
The disorder is chronic and cyclic because the human brain will stubbornly "remember" the need to permit sleep (as well as waking up) later every day.
Approximate exampling of the problem is available with this diagram:
Day 01: Wake up at 06:00
Day 02: Wake up at 06:30
Day 03: Wake up at 07:00
Day 04: Wake up at 07:30
Day 05: Wake up at 08:00
Day 06: Wake up at 08:30
Day 07: Wake up at 09:00
Day 08: Wake up at 09:30
Day 09: Wake up at 10:00
Day 10: Wake up at 10:30

Day 11: Wake up at 11:00
Day 12: Wake up at 11:30
Day 13: Wake up at 12:00
Day 14: Wake up at 12:30
Day 15: Wake up at 13:00
Day 16: Wake up at 13:30
Day 17: Wake up at 14:00
Day 18: Wake up at 14:30
Day 19: Wake up at 15:00
Day 20: Wake up at 15:30

Day 21: Wake up at 16:00
Day 22: Wake up at 16:30
Day 23: Wake up at 17:00
Day 24: Wake up at 17:30
Day 25: Wake up at 18:00
Day 26: Wake up at 18:30
Day 27: Wake up at 19:00
Day 28: Wake up at 19:30
Day 29: Wake up at 20:00
Day 30: Wake up at 20:30

Day 31: Wake up at 21:00
Day 32: Wake up at 21:30
Day 33: Wake up at 22:00
Day 34: Wake up at 22:30
Day 35: Wake up at 23:00
Day 36: Wake up at 23:30
Day 37: Wake up at 24:00
Day 38: Wake up at 24:30
Day 39: Wake up at 01:00
Day 40: Wake up at 01:30

Day 41: Wake up at 02:00
Day 42: Wake up at 02:30
Day 43: Wake up at 03:00
Day 44: Wake up at 03:30
Day 45: Wake up at 04:00
Day 46: Wake up at 04:30
Day 47: Wake up at 05:00
Day 48: Wake up at 05:30
Day 49: Wake up at 06:00

The described approximate cycle will repeat at self about each 49 days until the disorder has disappeared or as long as it is not treated.
Symptoms and Prognose
If an FRSD sufferer is untreated and would forcefully be awoken and forcefully stay awake thought the day (before natural awakening should have been occurred), side effects such as sleepiness, headaches, and possibly "seeing yellow stars" and more would occur throughout the day.
If treatment is unavailable or rejected;
Monetary income wouldn't be optional from a job in predefined time frames (such as from 08:00 to 14:00 every day), and either a job in differentiating time frames or free running in itself would be needed, or otherwise another source of monetary income would be needed (such as social security, grace organization, family, etc).
Etiology
I understand that as of the second decade of the 2000's, the cause of this problem in the general audience is unknown and there might be more than one cause:

The problem is likely organic, whether if innate or if evolved sometime after birth.
It is more common in people with different conditions of blindness
In people without different conditions of blindness it usually start in teen era and might naturally disappear only at, or after, age 30.
In non blind people, selective impotency of melanopsin receptors, might cause it.

Management
I understand that as of the second decade of the 2000's, this problem was considered among some sleep physicians to be very hard to manage, with the first line treatment being instant release melatonin in steadily growing dosages (no more than about 20mg, which if this dosage was reached, other treatment would be considered),
but not only it often doesn't help to entrain the circadin rhythm and the pathway is different, it can include serious side effects such as vivid mightmarish dreams which are commonly reported.
If instant release melatonin doesn't work (or doesn't work good), a subjective, complex treatment might be given and would be likely similar to that of chronic insomnia:

Likely including small dosages (4≤mg) of prolonged release melatonin, possibly combined with other long-term insomnia medications as a synergistic treatment.

My question
How does Free Running Sleep Disorder (FRSD) in humans get treated as of 2020s?

"I understand that as of the second decade of the 2000's, this problem was considered among some sleep physicians to be very hard to manage" What source did you use to come to this conclusion? What specific date was it from? Any reason to believe current treatment (perhaps only a couple years later) would be drastically different than what you found in that source? Otherwise, +1 for a well-researched question. In fact, it perhaps includes a bit too much background info deviating from the question at hand. :)

This particular part is based on synthetic understanding ; you are welcome to reject it.

Okay, thank you for clarifying! Note that in case the crux of your question is based on a 'synthetic understanding', it might make sense to highlight that in the question so that people who might answer the question understand on what your current understanding is based.


text:
How can psychopaths with no sympathy for their victims, exploit empathy to ensnare or torture them?
I understand the difference between empathy and sympathy, but not the emboldened sentence. Please expound?
Empathy vs. Sympathy | Psychology Today Canada

Sympathy (‘fellow feeling’, ‘community of feeling’) is a feeling of care and concern for someone, often someone close, accompanied by a wish to see him better off or happier. Compared to pity, sympathy implies a greater sense of shared similarities together with a more profound personal engagement. However, sympathy, unlike empathy, does not involve a shared perspective or shared emotions, and while the facial expressions of sympathy do convey caring and concern, they do not convey shared distress. Sympathy and empathy often lead to each other, but not always. For instance, it is possible to sympathize with such things as hedgehogs and ladybirds, but not, strictly speaking, to empathize with them. Conversely, psychopaths with absolutely no sympathy for their victims can nonetheless make use of empathy to ensnare or torture them. Sympathy should also be distinguished from benevolence, which is a much more detached and impartial attitude.

The theory, apparently backed up by some experiments, is that psychopaths can make use of empathy at will, which is what allows them to employ emotional manipulation. As related in a popsci account:

For example, consider one particularly fascinating experiment by Dr. Christian Keysers, Professor of Social Neuroscience at the University of Amsterdam.
In one study, Keysers and his team analyzed the brain activity of 21 convicted violent psychopathic offenders, comparing the results with 26 men of similar age and IQ. The participants were shown movies of people hurting each other while brain activity was measured. Later, a doctoral student would slap the patients on their hands to localize brain regions connected with feeling touch and pain. The goal was to see if patients' brains activated a feeling of pain in their own brain when viewing the pain of others.
"The vicarious activation of motor, somatosensory and emotional brain regions was much lower in the patients with psychopathy than in the normal subjects," writes Keysers. "The theory seemed right: their empathy was reduced, and this could explain why they committed such terrible crimes without feeling guilt."
But one question still plagued Keysers.
How could these same individuals prove to be so charming at times?
"I remember chatting with one of the patients...a particularly severe psychopath (he had scored the full 40 points on the psychopathy checklist)," writes Keysers. "Surrounded by the guards, he seemed a most pleasant person. He was smiling, engaging, and seemed to feel exactly what we wanted from him."
So Keysers and his partner decided to let the patients watch the movies again, this time asking them to try and empathize with the victims in the movies.
"What we found was that this simple instruction sufficed to boost the empathic activation in their brain to a level that was hard to distinguish from that of the healthy controls," writes Keysers. "Suddenly, the psychopaths seemed as empathic as the next guy. Their empathy was switched on."
Keysers' conclusion:

"Psychopathic individuals do not simply lack empathy. Instead, it seems as though for most of us, empathy is the default mode. If we see a victim, we share her pain. For the psychopathic criminals of our study, empathy seemed to be a voluntary activity. If they want to, they can empathize, and that explains how they can be so charming, and maybe so manipulative. Once they have seduced you into doing what serves their purpose, the effortful empathy would probably disappear again."

I'm not sure how well accepted this is... The BBC also ran a story on this with some additional more sketpical comments

Essi Viding from University College London, who was not involved with the study, said it was an extremely interesting finding, but that it remained unclear whether the psychopathic criminals' experience of empathy felt the same as that of the controls.
"It's dangerous to look at brain activation and say that it means they're empathising. They are able to generate a typical neural response, but that doesn't mean they have the same empathetic experience," Prof Viding told BBC News.
"We know they can generate the same response but they do that in an active and effortful way. Under free-viewing conditions they don't seem to. [...]"

There's also a newer study that seems to confirm the "empathy switch" in a larger class of "dark triad" personalities. (Also posci story on that.)

My question with these studies is whether the empathy is real or not. As in my previous comment, are they just pretending to empathize based on how they have learnt they should act/feel regarding a given scenario?

@ChrisRogers: I think that's impossible to tell based on the current level of research.

That is what makes the OP question very interesting. Keysers pointed out "He was smiling, engaging, and seemed to feel exactly what we wanted from him." Is the psychopath in this instance displaying real empathy or was it learnt acting?


text:
Why do people suicide?
No, I am not talking about user suicide. I am talking about actual suicide. Isn't the fear of death naturally so big that people couldn't, but how do they? What would be tormenting them so badly that it overcomes the fear of death? Even if they are physically fit teens with a life ahead of them?

Does this answer your question? Why do people commit suicide?

You post this... then suicide?


text:
Is there a criterion to distinct between a philia and a paraphilia?
The terms "Androphilia" and "Gynephilia" describe the two major romantic and/or sexual orientation/s of humans → towards "masculine" humans and "feminine" humans, respectively.
Generally any human (including Asexuals which only lack the desire to have sex but   not the romantic connection desire) will likely be classified by some in society as a "heterosexual", "homosexual" or "bisexual", according to that person's romantic and/or sexual orientation/s and in the context of gender.

One can say that attractions to FTM transgenders and attraction to MTF transgenders are separate major philias "Andromimetophilia" and "Gynemimetophilia"(as somewhat accurate yet probably bad terms).

One could speak of a third and forth philias (or fifth and sixth philias, depending how one counts) to Male-oriented intersex individuals and Female-oriented intersex individuals.

One could go to the extreme and speak about philias to FTM and MTF detransitioned people.

My problem
Any of the above philias can have one or more paraphilias, which can be not harmful or does harmful but it is unclear to me if there is a criterion to distinct between a philia and a paraphilia.
Non harmful examples

A man with gynephilia (heterosexual) can have a paraphilia such as for women in army uniform and on the contrary, a man with androphilia (homosexual) can have a paraphilia for men in army uniform.

A man with gynephilia (heterosexual) can have a paraphilia for women with Gothic appearance and on contrary, a man with androphilia (homosexual) can have a paraphilia for men with Gothic appearance.

Harmful examples

The first harmful example is pedophiliac paraphilia:
A man with gynephilia (heterosexual) can have a paraphilia for little girls (say under sexual maturation) and on the contrary, a man with androphilia (homosexual) can have a paraphilia for little boys (say, under sexual maturation).

Another harmful example is zoophilia which includes exploitation of animals who cannot give consent and might be raped.

Both pedophilia (not to be confused with hebephilia which is attraction to young teenagers) as well as zoophilia, are rare paraphilias that may manifest themselves in harmful or illegal behavior.
Interim note
As I have shown, the "philia" term can describe both sexual orientations and their sub components (not harmful and is harmful).
My question
Is there a criterion to distinct between a philia and a paraphilia?

This question encapsulates the question:

Does the term Philia exists in psychological literature for describing romantic and/or sexual orientation/s and not just fetishes, or alternatively, as a standalone term?

As far as I am aware, there is no such word in the English language as Philia, but it is a suffix within words.
Also, the suffix of -philia in a word does not necessarily denote anything sexual.
The -philia suffix denotes one of the following (Merriam-Webster, n.d.):

friendly feeling toward(as in Francophilia)
tendency toward(as in hemophilia)
abnormal appetite or liking for(as in necrophilia)

The term paraphilia

denotes any intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners (APA, 2013 p.685).

So a man or woman in uniform will not be a paraphilia. For more on paraphilias see McManus, et al. (2013).
On the subject of -philias, there is one point you made which is not entirely accurate. You said

Both pedophilia and zoophilia are rare harmful paraphilias that require hospitalization, therapy, surveillance and generally also chemical castration.

I am not sure on zoophilia, but:

paedophilia and hebephilia is extremely common and therefore not rare (Gerwinn et al., 2018).

Contrary to public perception, child sex offending (CSO) and paedophilia are not the same. Only half of all cases of CSO are motivated by paedophilic preference, and a paedophilic preference does not necessarily lead to CSO. However, studies that investigated clinical factors accompanying and contributing to paedophilia so far mainly relied on paedophiles with a history of CSO.

Estimates on the prevalence of paedophile CSO are wide ranging, and more accurate with better reporting, but they include:

12.7% (Stoltenborgh, M. et al., 2011)
24.7% (Oluwatosin, & Akinbo, 2017) and
27% girls and 16% boys (Finkelhor et al., 1990)
60% girls (McConaghy, 1998).

there are hebephiles and paedophiles who do not act out on their desires, and there are helplines such as Stop It Now! for those who are worried they may act out, so therefore
these sexual tendencies do not necessarily need hospitalization, therapy, surveillance and chemical castration.

Chemical castration is an idea put forward to deal with pedophilia, and even made mandatory in states such as Alabama (LegiScan, 2019). However, there is no strong scientific evidence to back the idea that this helps to stop pedophilia or hebephilia, and many criminologists argue that police investigators treating castrated men as less likely to reoffend than non-castrated men may cause an investigation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy (Horne & Lovaglia, 2008; Sismondo & Greene, 2015; Fridell, 2016).
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
Gerwinn, H., Weiß, S., Tenbergen, G., Amelung, T., Födisch, C., Pohl, A., ... & Wittfoth, M. (2018). Clinical characteristics associated with paedophilia and child sex offending–Differentiating sexual preference from offence status. European Psychiatry, 51, 74-85. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.02.002
Horne, Christine; Lovaglia, Michael J. (2008). Experiments in criminology and law: a research revolution. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-6027-7
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child abuse & neglect, 14(1), 19. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-7
Fridell, Lorie A. (2016). Producing Bias-Free Policing: A Science-Based Approach. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-33175-1
LegiScan. (2019). Alabama House Bill 379.
In LegiScan API Retrieved from: https://legiscan.com/AL/bill/HB379/2019
McConaghy, N. (1998). Paedophilia: a review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265. doi: 10.3109/00048679809062736
McManus, M. A., Hargreaves, P., & Lee Rainbow, L. J. A. (2013). Paraphilias: definition, diagnosis and treatment. F1000prime reports, 5. doi: 10.12703/P5-36 pmcid: PMC3769077
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). -philia. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-philia
Oluwatosin, S. A., & Akinbo, O. T. (2017). Prevalence and Public Perception on Causes of Paedophilia in Osun State Nigeria. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(24). doi: 10.14738/assrj.424.3847
Sismondo, Sergio; Greene, Jeremy A. (2015). The Pharmaceutical Studies Reader. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-89654-9
Stoltenborgh, M., van Ijzendoorn, M.H., Euser, E.M., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (2011) A global perspective on child sexual abuse: meta-analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Maltreat, 16(2), 79-101, doi: 10.1177/1077559511403920

Hello ; if by "pedophilia" you meant to what I would name "hebephilia" then I could see what we differ about. From my experience there is a great lack of distinction between these very different terms. If you actually meant hebephilia, I believe your answer should be edited in this context.

@JohnDoea - Some people do not agree there is a distinction between paedophilia and hebephilia, and my answer applies to both paedophilia and hebephilia. I have edited to suit

Even if an extension is made, I never recognized evidence that pedophilia (say, attraction to children from age 3 to 10-11) is not rare. I forgive to accept such evidence; I would agree that hebephilia is not rare.

I forgive to accept such evidence. → I reject to accept such "evidence".


text:
How does number sense develop in blind people?
From what I understand about number sense and numerical cognition, the visual system is heavily involved in the approximate number system and the object tracking system, which are at the root of number sense and numerical cognition leading to the rest of mathematics. So, how exactly would somebody with a severely impaired or nonfunctional visual system (blindness) develop number sense?

Hi there! Welcome to this interesting site. What do you mean by an approximate number system?

Make a reference to what you understand (From what I understand...).

@descheleschilder cf. The Precision and Internal Confidence of Our Approximate Number Thoughts by Halberda and Odic, Analogical Mapping in Numerical Development by Marchand and Barner, and Understanding the Link Between the Approximate Number System and Math Abilities by Libertus.

Also the Wikipedia article where there is an entire section dedicated to the visual cortex's role in the system. Grazie


text:
Is there a consensus that there are racial differences in IQ scores?
I'm not asking whether the difference is genetic or environmental, or if IQ scores are a racist and flawed measure of intelligence. i.e., I am not asking about causation.
Is there a consensus that today, in e.g. America, there are differences in IQ scores?
I think it is far less racist to assume that black American IQ scores are, at an individual level, on average a standard deviation less than what they measure

Given the correlations between IQ and socioeconomic status and education, and the racial disparities in the US in those measures, what do you think is the value in asking this question?

that's a fair point, thanks @BryanKrause

it'd undermine 'iq' as well as the idea we're post race, etc.. i don't see the problem

I don't know if it would "undermine" IQ beyond what is already known: IQ is a bad measure for comparing across groups of people. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong As far as being "post race" I don't know that serious scholars make any claim for that as more than a theoretical idea, but that doesn't have much to do with IQ and has a lot more to do with those socioeconomic discrepancies.

I'd say that generally we can agree on that much; controversy comes further on. Actually it's even true by definition; as IQ tests aren't ethnicity-normalized there will always be average differences (albeit perhaps insignificantly small). However, this alone doesn't mean much without further assumptions. As you noted, IQ tests could still have different meanings across populations, and aren't inherent (e.g. are environmentally contaminated), so such simple comparisons are largely meaningless.

just to clarify: I do not think this question is racist. I think it is less racist to assume that black American iq scores are, at an individual level, a standard deviation less than what they measure. cheers

I don't understand what this last comment means.  The duplicate question links to 2 other duplicate questions; between them this question has been asked to death on this forum.  Answers discuss whether there is a gap, what is the gap, how to interpret the gap, and what might cause the gap, all at length.  I really don't see what this question adds that hasn't been covered previously.

sorry @ArnonWeinberg I have no idea what you don't understand. or why you think these questions ask the exact same thing. perhaps you are confused into thinking IQ = G , rather than a measurement of it?


text:
Psychological explanation for exorcisms?
I'm doing research on alleged testimonies and evidences of the spirit realm. In particular, I've been lately reviewing testimonies and live recordings of exorcisms, some of which I find particularly impressive. I say impressive because in my opinion the exorcisms look quite convincing, and I lack the expertise in psychology and neuroscience to provide a convincing explanation other than assuming that everything is staged (which I wouldn't be able to prove either).
Common patterns are that the allegedly possessed person seems to switch personality (as though the alleged entity's personality is taking over), sometimes the exorcist and the alleged entity establish conversation, sometimes the person starts to "throw up" the alleged entity out of their body right before full deliverance is achieved.
Here a few examples (timestamps included): example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9, example 10, example 11, example 12.
What is the psychological explanation for exorcisms?

Possibly related questions:

Is there a psychological explanation for people being 'overcome by the Holy Spirit'?
Is there a scientific explanation for dramatic body shaking and trembling in religious settings? (see videos for illustrative examples)
Explanation for the "spinal energy" and other "Kundalini awakening" symptoms?

If you haven't already, I suggest reading about Anneliese Michel or watching The Exorcism of Emily Rose. If you can find a record of the actual court hearings, I believe there was a Catholic Psychologist or medical professional who explained the psychology behind exorcisms.

Will you accept a scientific explanation? Or will you counter any explanation given with some argument that it cannot explain the videos you've seen because you've decided they show something not explainable by science?

@BryanKrause It depends, if the scientific explanation provided effectively accounts for what we observe in the videos, then sure, I don't see why I would not accept that. However, if the explanation presents limitations, e.g. corner cases that are not addressed appropriately, then I will probably point them out in the comments, and maybe accept the answer. Ideally I would like answers to be as honest as possible, e.g. "explanation X can account for 90% of what we see in these and other videos / reported cases, but there is a 10% we don't know how to explain yet because of blah blah ..."

Yeah...sounds to me like you want to argue, so I won't take the time to write what is known. I don't think you're here in good faith, from the extent of comments I've seen here and on other stacks. No matter what someone says, you'll find a corner case or won't quite buy the explanation.

@BryanKrause Are you talking about the MPI answer to the question about shaking and trembling? The same user acknowledged in his own answer that his explanation is not truly scientific but rather speculative. Someone posted a similar answer about MPI to the cross posted question on Skeptics.SE and the moderators deleted his answer, so I'm not the only one who has legitimate objections to MPI. I haven't accepted that answer because there has to be something better. That's why I have a bounty on that question. Please, feel free to post an answer here. If your answer is good, I will accept it.

Google Scholar reveals a substantial quantity of learned research on the topic of exorcisms, of which the items below are but a few:

Ferracuti, S., & Sacco, R. (1996). Dissociative trance disorder: clinical and Rorschach findings in ten persons reporting demon possession and treated by exorcism. Journal of personality assessment, 66(3), 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_4

Ross, C. A., Schroeder, E., & Ness, L. (2013). Dissociation and symptoms of culture-bound syndromes in North America: A preliminary study. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 14(2), 224-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2013.724338

McNamara, P. (2011). Spirit Possession and Exorcism: History, Psychology, and Neurobiology [2 volumes]: History, Psychology, and Neurobiology. ABC-CLIO.

Henderson, D. J. (1976). Exorcism, possession, and the Dracula cult: A synopsis of object-relations psychology. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 40(6), 603.

Bull, D. L. (2001). A phenomenological model of therapeutic exorcism for dissociative identity disorder. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 29(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710102900204

Pfeifer, S. (1994). Belief in demons and exorcism in psychiatric patients in Switzerland. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 67(3), 247-258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1994.tb01794.x

Rosik, C. H. (1997). When discernment fails: The case for outcome studies on exorcism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(3), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164719702500304

As for many religious behaviours, exorcism behaviours appear to exist between non-intersecting religious and cultural groups.
A review of the abstracts suggests that involvement in exorcism is considered to be a Dissociative disorder.  The Mayo Clinic also has an interesting article on Dissociative disorder.

A pattern I've noticed in several of these exorcisms is that people seem to "throw up" the alleged entity or whatever is allegedly possessing them a few moments before they are declared fully delivered. That can be observed in examples 1, 2, 5 and 6. Do you know if any of these articles addresses the "throwing up" pattern observed?

Google Scholar identifies over 6,000 references.  I've only read the abstracts from about 10 of them. Not sure about exorcism, however, vomiting has been associated with dissociative disorder in other contexts - see https://doi.org/10.1080/00029157.1986.10402697.  Also Google Scholar "dissociative disorder vomiting" for many other references.


text:
Short form of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory questionnaire
Recently I have been reviewing several articles related to psychopathy outside the forensic area and I have observed that a very popular questionnaire in a college setting is the Psychopathic Personality Inventory(PPI). So far I have not been able to find this questionnaire explicitly.
As far as I understand, the questionnaire was developed in this paper Psychopathic Personality Traits and Somatization: Sex Differences and the Mediating Role of Negative Emotionality
by Scott O. Lilienfeld and Tanya H. Hess, 2001.
I was wondering if you could tell me where I can find the questionnaire?
I would appreciate it very much, thank you.
Reference:

Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(1), 151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151

An open version of the PPI is available here: https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/LSRP.php

The linked PPI cites the source to be from Levenson, M.; Kiehl, K.; Fitzpatrick, C. (1995). "Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-158. Can you explain the discrepancy between that and the belief by the OP that the source is Lilenfield & Andrews (1996)?

Thanks Chris.  The original question cited a 2001 reference.  Prior to answering the question, I edited the question to include the 1996 reference.  But you are correct, the 1995 reference is better and I've now replaced the 1996 reference with the 1995 reference.  Good pick up.


text:
Is adrenaline rush the real cause behind feelings of "electricity", "fire", "heat" or "burning all over" reported in certain religious groups?
Doing my own independent research, I've noticed a clear pattern of religious people reporting feelings and sensations that they usually describe with expressions such as "waves of electricity", "fire", "heat", "burning all over", among others. I've heard expressions like these mainly from individuals in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles.
For illustrative purposes, here are some example video clips from individuals describing their first-hand experiences: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M.
Also, here is a quote from a very descriptive testimonial posted on Charisma Magazine:

[...] In an instant, the Spirit of God gave me a single word in tongues to speak out, and as I repeated it, more words erupted through me. The power of the wonderful Holy Spirit enveloped me as what seemed like waves of electricity and what I can only describe as God's love and power washed over me. It seemed as though a spotlight exploded out of my mouth as I spoke in tongues, with my arms and hands surging with tremendous currents of electricity as the waves of power washed over the rest of my body as I loudly spoke in tongues, feeling immersed in His Spirit. [...]

Source: https://www.charismamag.com/spirit/revival/32085-this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-holy-spirit-s-electric-power-sweeps-over-you (cached version)
Reviewing literature about these experiences in Google Scholar, I came across a paper published in 2014 by Julia L. Cassaniti and Tanya Marie Luhrmann titled The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual Experiences (https://doi.org/10.1086/677881). In this paper, there is a very interesting claim made by the authors. Here are two quotes:

The “Holy Spirit” experience, for example, is a concept often used to describe an event in which someone feelings an intense surge of power sweeping through their body like electricity, or what we would call the bodily affordance of an adrenaline rush.

These three phenomena—cataplexy, or the loss of muscle
control; adrenaline surge, as if electricity is shooting through
the body; and emotional surge, when someone experiences intense, overwhelming emotion—are examples of physiological phenomena that are common to all human bodies but unusual enough so that people can remember the moment
independent of a specific label.

In other words, these authors are essentially claiming that the overwhelming feelings reported by religious individuals, typically described with expressions such as "waves of electricity", "power", "fire", "heat", "burning all over", etc., would be nothing but physiological symptoms produced by sudden and intense surges of the adrenaline hormone released into the individuals' bloodstreams. However, the paper offers no evidence to justify this claim. Moreover, a quick research into adrenaline rushes shows that they play a big part of the body's fight-or-flight response, which is an evolutionary adaptation that gets triggered by situations that we perceive as dangerous, such as horror movies, extreme sports and similar, which to my layman understanding would make no sense in a typical religious worship setting.
So, is it factually correct that adrenaline rushes are the ultimate cause behind the dramatic spiritual experiences reported by individuals in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles?

@TonyMobbs in the comment section suggests that this question has already been answered here. Concretely, he is pointing to two hypotheses from his answer: H4) Conformance to the social norms and H8) Attention seeking (as the other hypotheses are dismissed in the same answer). I don't agree with his suggestion, for the following reasons:

H4 was proposed as an explanation for the outer behaviour of shaking/trembling, not for the feelings of electricity, fire or heat reported by people. H4 basically proposes peer pressure as the primary incentive for shaking and trembling, and someone who intentionally fakes shaking or trembling out of peer pressure emotion-wise would feel feelings of relief, calm or social acceptance at best (not waves of "electricity", "fire" or "heat").
H8 (attention seeking) was later on proposed after I presented counter-examples to H4 in a chat room discussion. However, at the moment H8 is just a placehoder in his answer, its writing is still pending, and at no moment his answer explains how H8 can account for feelings of "electricity", "fire" or "heat".

Why the downvote, if I may ask? Any suggestions to improve the question?

This is a scientific stack, not a religious one.

@BryanKrause then how come neurotheology is a thing?

You aren't asking about neurotheology. And, frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of your pattern of asking questions here, constantly making trivial edits to bump your questions, and getting in arguments with everyone that makes a good-faith effort to answer you in which you keep moving the goalposts in comments. This is not a discussion forum, it's a Q&A site. Please frame your questions in science, and start from scientific publications rather than from religious YouTube videos and magazines.

You are not citing sources that belong in the on-topic categories of this stack: psychology and neuroscience. This question has now become even more similar to your others.

@BryanKrause wait, the paper I cite is from an anthropology journal, and anthropology is a tag on Psychology.SE. How is that an off-topic category? The second link is talking about adrenaline rush, which clearly has to do with the nervous system and therefore with Neuroscience. How is that off-topic also?

Your previous question reported that individuals concurrently experience particular emotions (electricity, ecstasy etc.) and behaviours (shaking, trembling, etc.). Given that the emotions and behaviours were concurrent, on what basis are you now differentiating them? No doubt you perceive there to be a difference, but it is not clear from your question what it is. Note: Cassaniti & Luhrmann use 'adrenaline rush' in an emotional sense as blood tests assessing adrenaline levels weren't performed. Conflating an actual adrenaline-rush with fringe religious experiences is an unsubstantiated leap.

Tags don't make things on topic. There can be overlap between psychology and anthropology but that doesn't make all anthropology on topic just because there is a tag for it. As Tony points out, because this paper isn't a biological paper there is no indication they are referring literally to the hormone adrenaline, they're just making a descriptive analogy.

Having speculated (in the absence of any data), I must gracefully bow out of further discussion.

@TonyMobbs I remembered a few examples I had watched some time ago showing that the two phenomena do not always co-occur: Example 1: this man reports feeling "an electric current overflowing his body", but he never mentions shaking, trembling or convulsing. Example 2: a woman reports feeling as if her room got filled with "power" and "electricity", but at no moment she mentions anything about shaking or trembling. Example 3: "peace", "warmth", but no mention of shaking or trembling

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The question has completely changed.  The discussion no longer makes any sense.


text:
Solving motivation issues caused by abuse
I remember something in psychology saying some people who are motivated by parent/guardian abuse in their past can have issues motivating themselves unless under pressure of a deadline or other stressor. Is there a known disorder under these traits? What are some treatments that may work? And finally are there any books or readings on the topic.

Can you provide a link or reference that supports this claim?  This sounds like ordinary procrastination to me (which is not a disorder), and I don't know what would be special about a type that results from abuse, so a reference would be helpful.


text:
Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test- item 19- Belongings Delayed Recall scoring
OT student here scoring the RBMT and for the Belongings Delayed recall section the manual does not describe a common situation I have encountered:
The client requires prompting to recall there are two belongings they must retrieve at the end of the assessment which are in 2 different locations. They must correctly say which belongings are in which location. Often times, the client will be prompted to remember the belongings (which automatically deducts two points), then, they correctly identify the belongings (for example a phone and a wallet) as well as the locations they are in (a desk drawer and a cabinet), except the client reverses the locations. For example, in reality, the phone is in the desk and the wallet in the cabinet but they falsely say the opposite: the phone is in the cabinet and the wallet in the desk.
As the client technically correctly identified the locations but got the placement of their belongings reversed, how would one score this? Is it a flat out zero or would they get 1 point for the locations because the belongings are reversed? Or would they get full marks since the locations are correctly identified?
Thanks!