title: Can we change our personalities?

text:
# Question
Title: Can we change our personalities?
In psychology, a difference is made between personality attributes as a state or as a trait. For example, a usually outgoing and sociable person might find himself uncommonly shy in the presence of a woman he finds attractive. He is not shy "by nature", but only in this situation – his momentary shyness is a state. Another person, on the other hand, might be generally timid around even close friends and family members – his shyness is a trait.

Can this person, who is always and basically shy, decide to change himself and not only learn to overcome his fear, but really and truly become extroverted from the ground up?

*Shyness is just an example here, I'm not interested in therapies for shyness, but in basic deliberate personality changes that take place within a reasonable period of time (a few years, not half a lifetime).*

# Answer
This is my opinion, based on what I know about how the brain works. As all process within the brain are physiological processes. It must be acknowledged, that what we know now about the brain, will, most likely, seem simplistic, to future generations; as more research is done. Will provide some quotes from the links I've provided, as I have time.

---

I don't wish to get bogged down in a debate about what “personality” is, traits, state etc. For the sake of this argument, let's assume personality is the most "natural" way of being of a person. Those innate impulses that arise from the "subconscious" parts of the brain, and these can either be allowed to flow (depending on social context and impulses) or require vigorous conscious action by the frontal lobe, to inhibit action upon such impulses. This latter comment regarding inhibiting these does not pertain to the actual “personality”, but to the efforts required to make conscious change and is a measure of the difficulty in bringing about fundamental personality change.

So for the purpose of this argument, I am viewing personality as the subconscious impulses that arise from the brain.

Which then brings us to the question. What is causing these impulses? To make it short, Long Term Potentiation) LTP of various neural pathways within the brain. There is no guarantee that a connection between two neurons will fire. It is the priming of the synaptic cleft , the membrane endings and contents of both neurons that increases the likelihood that the a connection will form between two neurons. When a pathway is formed, that is “permanent” (as close to permanent as something can be in the brain), it means that pathway of the brain has been Long Term Potentiated. So the neurons fire to form that thought/action/feeling, effortlessly and reliably.

Which brings us to the next question. How is the brain Long Term Potentiated? To make it short (again), for “ordinary” activities; like learning the piano, or not to interrupt people when they are talking; reiteration of experience. The more dull the consequences of each iteration, the more iterations required. Which works, conversely, as in the case of trauma, where there is a cascade of chemicals throughout the body that assists in the LTP of the neural paths being used during the experience.

This then brings us to the next question. How does change one's personality or one “undo” or “reduce” LTP of parts of the brain, we’d like to change and bring about “LTP” of pathways in the brain we find desirable. Now this is the key to answering the OP’s question, Can personalities change within a period of a few years (as opposed to decades).

As already mentioned in one answer, well-practiced psychotherapy (whatever you’d like to call it) relies on the concept of undoing LTP and LTP different pathways. Also, as mentioned in another answer, trauma creates a rapid change in LTP of pathways in the brain.

Now, I say this, using the logic of my above points; From my observation of human beings, my own efforts in life to change my personality and study of neuroscience and interest in psychology and psychiatry. I can honestly say, I have come to the conclusion, that it is most difficult and unlikely that any significant change can be made to someone’s personality, without the use of severe methods. One can practice overcoming (in this case), the action of behaving as a shy person, but the experience of social anxiety will remain and lag. It will eventually change. As the brain is plastic and we can mold it through repetition. However it, usually, would take longer than a few years for the internal changes to follow. This is something that can be achieved over half a life time, but the outward change of behavior, does not equal an inward change of personality; it can be a reflection of a person’s willingness to bring about change (and is most certainly a step in the right direction in achieving change). Look at many disciplines, martial arts, many spiritual vocations, it takes many years for the person to evolve. Which is a change in personality. And in these cases this is people living a full-time existence to transform their personalities. So the poor, every day, folk, with all of life’s pressures bearing down upon them, it makes it even harder to consciously override our natural impulses.

I should add, that it's the gamut of human experience that shapes who we are, combined with the natural chemistry. I have not covered this as in depth as would be to give this discussion full due.

As this site is a minefield of potential controversy and arguments over semantics. For the purposes of this answer I am using “words” that I am defining for the use of this passage here, and the debatable semantics of their use is outside of the scope of the OP’s question. So please comment on the merits and principle of my answer, that addresses the question and not points off topic.

---

**BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1997) 20, 597–655**
**Long-term potentiation: What’s learning got to do with it?
Tracey J. Shors
Louis D. Matzel**
http://hargreaves.swong.webfactional.com/bbs97.pdf

---
> 7 votes

# Answer
The real question here is whether traditional personality dimensions have such a big influence on behavior as usually thought or, perhaps, if there is such a thing as being “really and truly extroverted from the ground up”. Once you begin to admit that circumstances play an important role or that personality traits are fuzzy types, being “truly extroverted” becomes rather vague.

Of course, it could be said that, *by definition,* personality cannot change so quickly but that would not be a very interesting statement. Empirically, there is no such thing as being shy “by nature” outside of a situation, you can at most observe a series of shyness-related behaviors in a range of situations. What is interesting is to determine what exactly is stable across time and situations.

If you look at things that way, “Is shyness impossible to change?” is possibly a tractable question but statements about personality changes in general are mostly empty.

Note that talking about “personality states” extends the notion of personality to the point of uselessness. The debate about traits and states in psychology could rather be seen as a debate about the existence of some commonly posited personality traits and the way to measure them (e.g. if people fill in personality scales based on their mood instead of some stable characteristics, there are simply no “traits” to speak about, no matter how you formulated the instructions to your questionnaire).

One reference on this:

Allen, B.P., & Potkay, C.R. (1981). On the arbitrary distinction between states and traits. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,* 41 (5), 916-928.
> 6 votes

# Answer
As promised, here is an elaboration of my comment.

As you mentioned, what, in one of your comments, environmental factors come into play. A particularly traumatic sequence of events resulted in me making a few changes, and a few changes being made anyway. Basically, several personality traits vanished (both positive and negative ones) and were replaced. This took place over a period of a few years.

A lot of it is 'self-training' - through events around me and my own decisions, certain personality traits were 'trained' into others. Some, I just simply 'grew out of'.

When the same situation resurfaced, I approached it in a very different way.

A term that describes the personality change that occurred in me, and happens to a lot of people is 'hardening up', in my case, the 'sympathy-seeking' part of my personality became a resilient part... but this also resulted in my 'sympathetic' part of my personality to become a more pragmatic aspect (where I do what is needed, but don't verbalise the sympathy).
> 3 votes

# Answer
I'm surprised to see seven answers to this question and no mention of *directly* relevant theory on personality change thus far. Certainly some exists – though I sympathize with the first comment on the OP – and it's really not hard to find. The sixth current Google hit for "change personality" is a directly pertinent literature review by a prominent social/personality/developmental psychologist (Dweck, 2008), and its conclusion favors the feasibility of change in general. Dweck argues that beliefs and expectations are key factors in the process, particularly as they pertain to one's ability to change. This supports a popular aphorism: **the surest way to fail is to not try**.

Other answers of mine are worth referring to here:

This is just the bare skeleton of an answer to what is potentially a very broad and deeply controversial question. Much more can be added if you wish. For instance, strong evidence of biological factors in extraversion implies that some substantial amount of individual differences in this trait are relatively immutable, so it may be quite unlikely that an always-basically-*very* shy individual would become truly "extroverted from the ground up"...though in the spirit of Dweck's answer, I would never call this or any other form of self-motivated growth impossible.

BTW, more of those Google hits are also worth citing here:

**Reference**

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. *Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17*(6), 391–394. Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/cd/17\_6\_inpress/Dweck.pdf.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Up until recently, no empirical research has directly addressed this question. However now, there is **first, initial evidence that people may indeed be able to change their personalities intentionally**.

Hudson and Fraley (2015) have investigated this possibility with two longitudinal studies.

**How did they study this question?**

* In the beginning, they asked participants to indicate their goals to change with regard to the big-five personality traits
* They tracked personality changes of undergraduate students over the course of 16 weeks
* Half of the students were randomly assigned to an intervention intended to help them to make small changes in their daily lives that would translate into crystallized personality changes. To do so, they asked them to indicate and plan ways to achieve their goals.

**What did they find out?**

* People had, on average, goals to change their personality traits
* People's initial goals predicted changes in the desired direction. For example, people who wanted to become more extraverted, did indeed become somewhat more extraverted as the study progressed
* In the first study, the intervention had no effect. However, the authors observed that participants had described very vague plans to change their behavior. Therefore, they instructed them to form very concrete behavioral plans (so-called implementation intentions) in the second study. This time, the intervention led to more personality change in the desired direction.

**Caveats**

* The changes were modest (.05 standard deviations per month)
* The research is based on self-report measures. Thus, participants self-reported their personality with a questionnaire measure. Therefore, the observed changes may, to some extent, be biased (because of the desire to change, or the desire to conform to the implied expectations of the researchers).

**References**

Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 490–507. doi:10.1037/pspp0000021
> 2 votes

# Answer
Similarly to what CPTED is based on, referring to the environment being what defines behavior, I wouldn't think an individual can decide to change his or her personality.

Just as in your example of "turning shy" due to an environmental stimulus, any situation that would trigger the need or want to "change personality" must originate from the environment too.

The individual could, however, learn to perceive itself as being extroverted depending on the environment even if he's doesn't recognize the cause of this change being external.

The quickest way would probably be through therapist though.
> 0 votes

# Answer
No love for Jung yet :)

This depends on where we define our personality. If it's defined as our mask, our ego, then it would be almost as simple as changing shoes, for some people. If we define it instead as the self, centered in the brain and guarded by a great many layers of the mind, then **I'd offer *we* cannot change them but that they *can be changed* through experience.**

Stemming from the conflict between the ego and the shadow archetypes, **whatever parts of our personalities we do not demonstrate in life become relegated to the shadow.** Negative impulses, what we abhor and the things we reproach with unreasonable fervor. In this light, our choice to exhibit sides A, B and C of our selves but repress side D might seem like we are affecting our personalities in an impacting way. Jung states that this is not so.

Those parts of our personalities, the self, that we do not own, take on a sort of life of their own. The naturally shy person who makes a headstrong decision to extravert (ego taking control) with little to no outside stimulus is simply repressing their shyness. Note that shyness is not inherently a "negative" trait: read The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Instead of assimilating and digesting that portion of the personality, the shyness becomes beaten back and called "bad." Since it's undesirable in one's self, that will carry through to noting it in others and still considering it undesirable. This is what leads to the unreasonable reproach. The person does not wish to identify themselves with the trait of shyness, it may be seen as a sign of weakness or them not being "in total control" of their person. Yet they are shy. Their shyness will not be seen as theirs, it'll be launched onto others in a process known as projection. That will cause the persons to misplace their feelings of rejection (I should not be shy) and instead find fault with others who don't make the same decision they did (why can they be shy? It's a weakness, not acceptable).

I am like-minded with other answers here in that I believe the personality is, at least in part, a summation of our experiences. That's due to both the dance between ego and shadow formation, and just what we experience. Only so many choices of *how* to experience are within our hands (ie. glass half full or half empty; perspective). We don't often get to choose *what* to experience. If the person's shyness is a product of X or Y, then running across X and Y again may just reinforce it (my siblings talk over me, it's easier to keep quiet). However, if it's personal choice then all one would need to do is make the contrary choice and gain experiences to compound that (habit building, neuroplasticity, etc.). Either situation will require the latter, for reasons well illustrated by answers already posted here.

**TL;DR** We can make conscious decisions in the short run to alter our personalities. However, it's a decision made by the ego and doesn't reflect the true self. **Our shadow will correct for this and bring us back to our true selves; for better and for worse.** The ego does not have complete control.

Since experiences compound to help shape who we are and our habits, taking new experiences can aid the person wishing to acquire another personality trait, or the contrary one (extraversion versus shyness). I'm not sure we're perfectly plastic though, especially the older we get. In many ways that's a good thing: I know many who, once they knew a little bit about PCs, proceeded to "fix" many things and just ended up buying a new one after several failed reboots. We don't have that option; the auto-regulation inherent in our minds is our last resort. **The shadow is our most honest friend, telling us about *our selves.***
> 0 votes

# Answer
Let's just replace the word shyness with "depression" for a second, just for example's sake. You can easily switch them out with agressiveness, anxiety, shyness, whatever you want later.

"Because depression has been viewed as an **emotional disorder throughout the history of psychiatry**, therapists from most schools of thought place a strong emphasis on “getting in touch” with your feelings.

The research I've come across reveals the unexpected: **Depression is not an emotional disorder at all!** The sudden change in the way you feel is of no more causal relevance than a runny nose is when you have a cold. Every bad feeling you have is the result of distorted negative thinking. Illogical pessimistic attitudes play the central role in the development and continuation of all your symptoms.

Intense negative thinking always accompanies a depressive episode, or any painful emotion for that matter. Your moody thoughts are likely to be entirely different from those you have when you are not upset. Here's an anecdote I found:

> "Every time I become depressed, I feel as if I have been hit with a sudden cosmic jolt, and I begin to see things differently. The change can come within less than an hour. My thoughts become negative and pessimistic. As I look into the past, I become convinced that everything that I’ve ever done is worthless. Any happy period seems like an illusion. My accomplishments appear as genuine as the false facade for the set of a Western movie. I become convinced that the real me is worthless and inadequate. I can’t move forward with my work because I become frozen with doubt. But I can’t stand still because the misery is unbearable.

You will learn, as she did, that the negative thoughts that flood your mind are the actual cause of your self-defeating emotions. These thoughts are what keep you lethargic and make you feel inadequate. Your negative thoughts, or cognitions, are the most frequently overlooked symptoms of your depression. These cognitions contain the key to relief and are therefore your most important symptoms.

Every time you feel depressed about something, try to identify a corresponding negative thought you had just prior to and during the depression. Because these thoughts have actually created your bad mood, by learning to restructure them, you can change your mood.

You are probably skeptical of all this because your negative thinking has become such a part of your life that it has become automatic. For this reason I call negative thoughts “automatic thoughts.” They run through your mind automatically without the slightest effort on your part to put them there. They are as obvious and natural to you as the way you hold a fork.

The relationship between the world and the way you feel. It is not the actual events but your perceptions that result in changes in mood. When you are sad, your thoughts will represent a realistic interpretation of negative events. When you are depressed or anxious, your thoughts will always be illogical, distorted, unrealistic, or just plain wrong.

If your understanding of what is happening is accurate, your emotions will be normal. If your perception is twisted and distorted in some way, your emotional response will be abnormal. Depression falls into this category. It is always the result of mental “static”—distortions. Your blue moods can be compared to the scratchy music coming from a radio that is not properly tuned to the station. The problem is not that the tubes or transistors are blown out or defective, or that the signal from the radio station is distorted as a result of bad weather. You just simply have to adjust the dials. When you learn to bring about this mental tuning, the music will come through clearly again and your depression will lift.

You may experience a pang of despair when they read that paragraph. Yet there is nothing upsetting about it. If anything, the paragraph should bring hope. Then what caused your mood to plunge as you were reading? It was your thought, “For other people a little tuning may suffice. But I’m the radio that is broken beyond repair. My tubes are blown out. I don’t care if ten thousand other depressed patients all get well—I’m convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that my problems are hopeless.” I hear this statement fifty times a week! Nearly every depressed person seems convinced beyond all rhyme or reason that he or she is the special one who really is beyond hope. This delusion reflects the kind of mental processing that is at the very core of your illness!

I have always been fascinated by the ability certain people have to create illusions. As a child, I used to spend hours at the local library, reading books on magic. Saturdays I would hang out in magic stores for hours, watching the man behind the counter produce remarkable effects with cards and silks and chromium spheres that floated through the air, defying all the laws of common sense. One of my happiest childhood memories is when I was eight years old and saw “Blackstone—World’s Greatest Magician” perform in Denver, Colorado. I was invited with several other children from the audience to come up on stage. Blackstone instructed us to place our hands on a two-feet by two-feet birdcage filled with live white doves until the top, bottom, and all four sides were enclosed entirely by our hands. He stood nearby and said, “Stare at the cage!” I did. My eyes were bulging and I refused to blink. He exclaimed, “Now I’ll clap my hands.” He did. In that instant the cage of birds vanished. My hands were suspended in empty air. It was impossible! Yet it happened! I was stunned.

Now I know that his ability as an illusionist was no greater than that of the average depressed patient. This includes you. **When you are depressed, you possess the remarkable ability to believe, and to get the people around you to believe, things which have no basis in reality.** As a therapist (author), it is my job to penetrate your illusion, to teach you how to look behind the mirrors so you can see how you have been fooling yourself. You might even say that I’m planning to dis illusion you! But I don’t think you’re going to mind at all.

Read over the following list of ten cognitive distortions that form the basis of all your depressions. Get a feel for them. I have prepared this list with great care; it represents the distilled essence of many years of research and clinical experience. Refer to it over and over when you read the how-to-do-it section of the book. When you’ are feeling upset, the list will be invaluable in making you aware of how you are fooling yourself."

Taken from From David Burn's Book: "Feeling Good, the New Mood Thrapy." Which you can buy for $5 to your Kindle, Computer, Kindle iPhone App, or anything else. by going here: http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-The-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380810336

Alternatively you can view an abbreviated version of the thinking errors he speaks of by going here: Have the core CBT "Thinking Errors" been found to NOT be effective in evidence-based clinical practice?
> 0 votes

# Answer
\**Part of this is a response to @LitheOhm 's question, but is still highly targetted towards the original question with actionable steps as well.

@LitheOhm I couldn't fit my response into a comment so I had to post it as an answer, although it does answer the question quite well...and I'm getting my citations right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of my interpretations. Also any hostility is not directed towards you, but is towards Jung and associated theories. **Please keep this in mind.**

# 1st Clarifying Your Definitions

> "If it's defined as **our mask**, our ego, then it would be almost as simple as changing \>shoes, for some people."

I'm assuming here that you mean putting on a fake persona that doesn't necessarily reflect how one feels about whatever situation they are in or task they are doing. For instance, someone who is in sales has to put on this "persona" to sell more stuff or acting happy when you are talking to someone on the phone you don't really want to - or even just being polite perhaps. You'd say this is a "mask." I'd agree with you. People's "outer" (I'll try not to throw more semantics in after that word) personalities change to adapt to whatever situation they are in. **You then say this mask = the ego.**

> If we define it instead as the self, centered in the brain and guarded by a great many layers of the mind, then I'd offer ***we*** cannot change them but that they ***can be changed through experience***.

Now you're getting a little confusing with the pronouns not to mention a bit of "poetic psychology." Who or what is we is **"we"**? You don't define this clearly so I'm going to see if I can get at what you're saying:

Your use of **"we"**: Is it the ego? Is it our thoughts? Is it anything we do with our mind? I'm going to assume here (only because of prior knowledge) that when you say "we" you mean the ego, which would include our mind and the thoughts of our mind. Is this correct?

\**I'm gonna skip ahead and go ahead and also assume you don't mean ALL thoughts. You'd just mean "conscious thoughts" Why? Because there are unconscious thoughts too, but are those even thoughts? - I think you'd agree with me that these are more related to the "self" if not ARE the "self"/our personalities.

I'd also assume that "the great many layers of the mind" are also the "ego." In essence, you're phrasing it as these layers (or conscious thoughts) trying to protecting the self when it feels threatened. Is this correct?

So "we," which is also the ego if my interpretation is correct, is our mask, our mind, and our conscious thoughts essentially. They are all intertwined together within the "ego." Please correct me I'm misinterpreting things.

# 2nd Attempting to Reconstruct Your Statement

So would you mind if I replaced the word "we" in your statement with "conscious thoughts" due to my proof using my interpretation of your words? Again, if I'm incorrect anywhere let me know.

Now your statement would be as follows - I added a bit of clarification in parenthesis:

> "then I'd offer ***our conscious thoughts cannot*** change them (our personalitie(s)/self, which we do not own) but that they ***can be changed through experience(s)***."

Simple enough. We just have to have these experiences happen to us. But when will they? Will they ever? What if I want to fix them? Am I just screwed?

**Hmmmm....Can we make choices that improve our odds of encountering these experiences which will change our personalities/self?** **Well, choices involve conscious thought and most likely the use of "we" at some point so technically we can't, at least according to the statement.**

**Since *in reality* "we" can make "choices" that lead to "experiences" your statement is already false**, but...you could still say...

Even if we did make some choices to "try" to do this, we'd have very limited choices anyway. Right? Not to skip ahead but you say later on you say:

> "We don't often get to choose what to experience."

**Oh, you DON'T?** Let's say someone puts a gun to your head and says "if you can list at least 150 choices in notepad you could make and or do right now instead of reading this dude's post, I'll let you go....and you get to meet Justin Beiber." Could you do it? I could, and I'm not even a fan of his.

Thing is...

# YOU HAVE UNLIMITED CHOICES ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WHENEVER YOU WANT.

Some choices may be bad, some may be good, but most you probably don't know the outcome to.
You could run across the street naked which leads to you meeting your future mate.
You could go throw water balloons at people while driving your car around town.
You could read Stackexchange.
Play Everquest.
Go to the mall and try to pick up chicks.
Pay for some "hot lovin" off Craigslist.
Collect Bitcoins.
Learn PHP.
Go to Thailand solely on your credit cards.
Join a meetup group.
Run away from home.
Punch mean kids in the face.
Choose to learn CBT.
Choose to believe you're not trapped by your ego and he is your friend, he just needs to be educated a little bit.
Choose to ask yourself why you're shy in the first place. Is there a reason?
Consider other strategies than just "trying to directly confront your shyness in the most cliche manner possible."

***All of these are experiences which apparently you need to change your "self" or "personality" you'd have would of been made through purposeful conscious thought and the use of "we" - so you're statement = false*** assuming I did not misinterpret anything you said.

# 3rd Want to Change? You Can. Unless You Read Jung. Defeatist Attitude = Defeated.

> "Those parts of our personalities, the self, **that we do not own,** take on a sort of life of their own. The **naturally** shy person **who makes a headstrong decision to extravert** (ego taking control) with little to no outside stimulus is **simply repressing their shyness**."

> **1) "that we do not own"**

-Why don't we own them?
-Where did they come from?
-Are they really even there?
-Does example shy person have any sort of genetic defect that would cause them to be shy?
-Can said shy person think of any counterexamples he's seen before where someone used to be shy and then they weren't?

> **2) "naturally"**

-Does this shy person have any friends at all? Even one? If so, is he shy around them?
-What causes this person to be naturally shy? Just the fact that it's natural and that's how it's always been....any further reasoning?
-Are there different shades of naturally shy? Or is it just black and white? Maybe he's a light grey?
-If said shy person blames his parent's genetics for being shy, has he questioned the fact that maybe not EVERYONE in his entire family is also that way....I mean he has those genetics too. I bet he has a crazy uncle.
-Has he ever considered environment vs. genetics or does he just accept his natural fate? Yes, I know you mention this, don't worry - still not done.

> **3) "Who makes a headstrong decision to extravert (ego taking control) with little to no outside stimulus is simply repressing their shyness.**"
> and later
> We can make conscious decisions in the short run to alter our personalities. **However, it's a decision made by the ego and doesn't reflect the true self. Our shadow will correct for this and bring us back to our true selves; for better and for worse.** The ego does not have complete control.\**

-One big piece you're missing. What if the person actually wants to overcome this trait? I'll speak on that in a second.
-You seem to state this as a law of nature. If someone has shyness deep within as their "self," they will keep it forever. You leave no room for the potential of them overcoming it. That isn't reality. It's all or nothing thinking. And the ego (which you seem to establish as conscious thought, a horrible thing) gives them choice.
-So it's always a bad idea to make a headstrong decision to be extroverted? It doesn't matter HOW MANY TIMES you try - the shadows will ALWAYS bring you back?
-Is it possible the shadow doesn't exist?
-You state yourself that "with experience" you can change your personality...but here you state the opposite. You contradicted the original statement we were discussing here.
-Has this theory been proven?
-Do you have citations that it's been proven with clinical studies in peer reviewed journals?
-Did they get this trait from genetics? How many people have overcome genetic difficulties?
-Did they just "learn to be shy"? If so, then why can't they "learn to be outgoing?"
-I know you're trying to get to the fact that this person should just accept their shyness. Perhaps some people are content on that.
***But what if they don't want to? What if instead of an ordinary life (this is purely subjective of course), they want to maximize their potential and live it out the way they intended? What about an extraordinary one?*** Why are they letting Jung or whomever make the choice for them to accept this trait for the rest of their lives...why?....because Jung said so?

Ok Jung bring out your clinical trials of effectiveness in treating something - because we know nowadays that social anxiety can potentially be a root cause of depression. Oh wait, there's really no therapy or application involved within...just theory...and acceptance. **Thanks Jung. We appreciate your work that we built further upon and turned into practice....somewhat. However, we have some better technology and therapy in today's world. Please go back to 1875.**

By the way, I did not see "Perks of Being a Wallflower" but it is not a citation of real life...it's a fictional story.
I've been a wallflower before. A lot. It's usually not fun.
But you know what? I've learned to overcome it, quite a bit....quite a bit. I've also known many other people who have overcome it. I've seen it. I'm a human, they were human, anyone else reading this is human. If I made progress, then why can't any other human?

Do you have another counterexample besides a fictional movie involving a statistical outlier (and a very strange one according to wikipedia)?

# 4th If This is Jung's theory...it has alot of assumptions

> Instead of assimilating and digesting that portion of the personality, the shyness becomes beaten back and called "bad." Since it's undesirable in one's self, that will carry through to noting it in others and still considering it undesirable. This is what leads to the unreasonable reproach. The person does not wish to identify themselves with the trait of shyness, it may be seen as a sign of weakness or them not being "in total control" of their person. Yet they are shy. Their shyness will not be seen as theirs, it'll be launched onto others in a process known as projection. That will cause the persons to misplace their feelings of rejection (I should not be shy) and instead find fault with others who don't make the same decision they did (why can they be shy? It's a weakness, not acceptable).

My response: Each sentence is an assumption based on no citations besides a fictional movie (which actually doesn't even support the assumptions). There's not even an anecdote. It seems to be written as an assumption wherefor the next sentence is also an assumption built on the previous assumption, wherefor, the next sentence is also an assumption build on the previous assumption that is built on the previous assumption. Maybe this happens to a percentage of shy people? But generalizing this is also breaking laws of reality.

# 5th One Final Contradiction

So the initial sentence I did not like was:

> "I'd offer ***we*** cannot change them but that they can be changed through experience."

but then you say

> "However, if it's personal choice then all one would need to do is make the contrary choice and gain experiences to compound that (habit building, neuroplasticity, etc.)."

I think the problem may just be in your definition of "we". Because "we" are certainly doing things in your ladder quotation.

# 6th You CAN Use Thought to Change Your Personality: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

Picture from *J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 5;15(8):e153. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2714. The Clinical Effectiveness of Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With Face-to-Face Therapist Support for Depressed Primary Care Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial.* which is also cited way down below. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23916965

I think originally this is what you were trying to say you couldn't do. By saying "we" you were trying to say that the only way to change your "self" which is your "true personality" is by having experiences.

I believe in the experiences part, but I also believe, strongly, in the other part - changing the way you think - which I believe you would call the ego. I also believe that they must be used at the same time for the best effectiveness. One must have experiences and one must use those to fuel their CBT therapy, which they can just do by reading a book and writing their thoughts down, then writing a rational response next to it.

Nearly everything I said in this post was CBT based. It simply asked about all the flaws in the theories Jung made. This is exactly what you'd do with a thought like "those people don't want to talk to me because I'm so shy" if you were shy. You'd start asking yourself (usually writing it out works best and is a core component actually) questions like:

1) How do they know that I'm shy? And why does this even matter?
2) Have I, at ANY time in the past, ever been extroverted? If so, why can't I do this again?
3) Why do I really even believe that I'm shy? Do I have any sort of substantial backing for being shy...even if I was picked on in 2nd grade by all the kids - that doesn't mean anything today at all.
4) If you're shy you probably know alot of cool stuff cause you spend more time learning things than most people. This gives you more content to talk about.
5) Let's say they just blow you off after you go talk to them? How does that differ from where you were before? (Except now you actually have a bit of adreneline and serotonin coursing through your body - which you can use to have an even better conversation with the next people you may want to try to talk to.
6) Let me throw a twist in here. Why shouldn't I just accept that I'm shy and that's it? We'll because in today's job market unless you have some sort of specialized skill you need connections and you're going to need people skills sometime in order to survive. Simply put, social skills are something you probably need.

I'm going to go ahead and post this while I fetch a barrage of clinical trials showing CBT's effectiveness for almost any disorder - which can be linked to a "personality" trait one may want to get rid of. They'll be alot of em'.

# 7th Answer: Use CBT Synergistically with Experiences/Exposure to Change Unwanted Personality Traits Quickly, Effectively, & Chronically. It Does Require Work Though.

Try it now. Use this worksheet.
http://media.psychologytools.org/Worksheets/English/CBT\_Thought\_Record.pdf

> Br J Psychiatry. **2013 Aug 22.**
> **Treatment of child anxiety disorders via guided parent-delivered cognitive-behavioural therapy: randomised controlled trial.**
> Thirlwall K, Cooper PJ, Karalus J, Voysey M, Willetts L, Creswell C. Kerstin Thirlwall, DClinPsy, Winnicott Research Unit, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK; Peter J. Cooper, DPhil, Winnicott Research Unit, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK, and Stellenbosch University, Matieland, South Africa; Jessica Karalus, MSc, Winnicott Research Unit, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK; Merryn Voysey, MBiostat, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, UK; Lucy Willetts, MSc, PhD, Cathy Creswell, DClinPsy, PhD, Winnicott Research Unit, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, UK.
> Abstract
> BACKGROUND: Promising evidence has emerged of clinical gains using guided self-help cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for child anxiety and by involving parents in treatment; however, the efficacy of guided parent-delivered CBT has not been systematically evaluated in UK primary and secondary settings.
> AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of low-intensity guided parent-delivered CBT treatments for children with anxiety disorders.
> METHOD: A total of 194 children presenting with a current anxiety disorder, whose primary carer did not meet criteria for a current anxiety disorder, were randomly allocated to full guided parent-delivered CBT (four face-to-face and four telephone sessions) or brief guided parent-delivered CBT (two face-to-face and two telephone sessions), or a wait-list control group (trial registration: ISRCTN92977593). Presence and severity of child primary anxiety disorder (Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, child/parent versions), improvement in child presentation of anxiety (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale), and change in child anxiety symptoms (Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, child/parent version and Child Anxiety Impact scale, parent version) were assessed at post-treatment and for those in the two active treatment groups, 6 months post-treatment.
> RESULTS: **Full guided parent-delivered CBT produced superior diagnostic outcomes compared with wait-list at post-treatment, whereas brief guided parent-delivered CBT did not:** at post-treatment, 25 (50%) of those in the full guided CBT group had recovered from their primary diagnosis, compared with 16 (25%) of those on the wait-list (relative risk (RR) 1.85, 95% CI 1.14-2.99); and in the brief guided CBT group, 18 participants (39%) had recovered from their primary diagnosis post-treatment (RR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.89-2.74). Level of therapist training and experience was unrelated to child outcome. CONCLUSIONS: **Full guided parent-delivered CBT is an effective and inexpensive first-line treatment for child anxiety.**

---

> Cogn Behav Ther. 2011;40(3):159-73. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2011.576699. Epub 2011 Jul 20. **Guided internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial.**
> Paxling B, Almlöv J, Dahlin M, Carlbring P, Breitholtz E, Eriksson T, Andersson G.
> Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. bjorn.paxling@gmail.com Abstract
> Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) has been effectively treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in face-to face settings. Internet-delivered CBT could be a way to increase the accessibility and affordability of CBT for people suffering from GAD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of guided Internet-delivered CBT for GAD in a controlled trial with a wait-list control group. A total of 89 participants were included following online screening and a structured psychiatric telephone interview. Participants were randomized to either an 8-week treatment group (n = 44) or a wait-list control group (n = 45). Treatment consisted of a self-help program based on CBT principles and applied relaxation along with therapist guidance. The main outcome measure was the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Ratings of clinical improvement and symptoms were included as well as secondary outcome measures dealing with anxiety, depression, and quality of life. Among the treatment group participants, 13.6% did not complete the posttreatment measures. **The treatment group showed significant improvement compared with the control group on all outcome measures. Large effect sizes (Cohen's d \> 0.8) were found both within the treatment group and between the groups in favor of the treatment on all outcome measures except on a measure of quality of life.** **Results at 1- and 3-year follow-up indicated that treatment results improved or were maintained.** **The authors conclude that Internet-delivered CBT with therapist support can reduce symptoms and problems related to GAD.**

---

Published last week. Actually investigates and supports CBT therapy through PHYSIOLOGICAL research and the way it changes the brain.

> JAMA Psychiatry. **2013 Aug 14.** doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.234. \[Epub ahead of print\]
> **Impact of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder on the Neural Dynamics of Cognitive Reappraisal of Negative Self-beliefs: Randomized Clinical Trial.**
> Goldin PR, Ziv M, Jazaieri H, Hahn K, Heimberg R, Gross JJ.
> Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
> Abstract
> IMPORTANCE **Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD) is thought to enhance cognitive reappraisal in patients with SAD.** Such improvements should be evident in cognitive reappraisal-related prefrontal cortex responses.
> OBJECTIVE To determine whether CBT for SAD modifies cognitive reappraisal-related prefrontal cortex neural signal magnitude and timing when implementing cognitive reappraisal with negative self-beliefs.
> DESIGN Randomized clinical trial of CBT for SAD vs wait-list control group during a study that enrolled patients from 2007 to 2010.
> SETTING University psychology department.
> PARTICIPANTS Seventy-five patients with generalized SAD randomly assigned to CBT or wait list.
> INTERVENTION Sixteen sessions of individual CBT for SAD.
> MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Negative emotion ratings and functional magnetic resonance imaging blood oxygen-level dependent signal when reacting to and cognitively reappraising negative self-beliefs embedded in autobiographical social anxiety situations. RESULTS During reactivity trials, compared with wait list, CBT produced (1) greater reduction in negative emotion ratings and (2) greater blood oxygen-level dependent signal magnitude in the medial prefrontal cortex. During cognitive reappraisal trials, compared with wait list, CBT produced (3) greater reduction in negative emotion ratings, (4) greater blood oxygen level-dependent signal magnitude in the dorsolateral and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, (5) earlier temporal onset of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex activity, and (6) greater dorsomedial prefrontal cortex-amygdala inverse functional connectivity.
> **CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Modulation of cognitive reappraisal-related brain responses, timing, and functional connectivity may be important brain changes that contribute to the effectiveness of CBT for social anxiety. This study demonstrates that clinically applied neuroscience investigations can elucidate neurobiological mechanisms of change in psychiatric conditions.** TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00380731.

---

> Ment Health Fam Med. 2010 Mar;7(1):49-57.
> **Feasibility of guided cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) self-help for childhood anxiety disorders in primary care.**
> Creswell C, Hentges F, Parkinson M, Sheffield P, Willetts L, Cooper P.
> Clinical Research Fellow.
> This study aimed to examine the feasibility of guided CBT self-help in primary care for childhood anxiety disorders, specifically in terms of therapist adherence, patient and therapist satisfaction and clinical gain.Participants were children aged between five and 12 years referred to two primary child and adolescent mental health services (PCAMHSs) in Oxfordshire, UK, who met diagnostic criteria for a primary anxiety disorder. Of the 52 eligible children, 41 anxious children were assessed for anxiety severity and interference before and after receiving CBT self-help delivered via a parent (total therapy time = five hours) by primary mental health workers (PMHWs). Therapy sessions were rated for treatment adherence and parents and PMHWs completed satisfaction questionnaires after treatment completion. Over 80% of therapy sessions were rated at a high level of treatment adherence. Parents and PMHWs reported high satisfaction with the treatment. **Sixty-one percent of the children assessed no longer met the criteria for their primary anxiety disorder diagnosis following treatment, and 76% were rated as 'much'/'very much' improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. There were significant reductions on parent and child report measures of anxiety symptoms, interference and depression. Preliminary exploration indicated that parental anxiety was associated with child treatment outcome. The findings suggest that guided CBT self-help represents a promising treatment for childhood anxiety in primary care.**

---

Wish I had full text for this one which is specifically for "personality disorders." Heh, looks like it's published next month. These are so fresh.

> Psychol Psychother. 2013 Sep;86(3):262-79. doi:
> 10.1111/j.2044-8341.2011.02060.x. Epub 2012 Feb 20.
> **Three-week inpatient Cognitive Evolutionary Therapy (CET) for patients with personality disorders: Evidence of effectiveness in symptoms reduction and improved treatment adherence.**
> Prunetti E, Bosio V, Bateni M, Liotti G.
> Casa di Cura Villa Margherita, Vicenza, Italy Scuola di Psicologia Cognitiva S.r.l., Rome, Italy Associazione Psicologia Cognitiva, Rome, Italy.
> Abstract
> Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Cognitive Evolutionary Therapy (CET) in an intensive short residential treatment of a wide range of severe personality disorders (PDs) that resulted in a reduction of social functioning and significant personal distress.
> Design. Each patient was assessed at admission, discharge, and 3 months later in order to determine if there was a reduction in symptoms and an improved adherence to former outpatient programs and to check if patients were undergoing new treatment after discharge.
> Method. Fifty-one patients participated in this study. The 20-hr weekly program consisted of two individual sessions and various group modules. Outcome measures included: self-reported measures of depression, anxiety, general symptoms, number and duration of inpatient admissions after the programme, and continuation in an outpatient treatment programme.
> **Results. The results show an overall improvement in general psychopathology after the release and in follow-up sessions, a decrease in the number of further hospital admissions, and an increased level of attendance of outpatient therapy.**
> **Conclusions. This study shows that intensive short residential treatment is an effective treatment for patients with a wide range of PDs.**
> © 2012 The British Psychological Society. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 5;15(8):e153. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2714.

---

I couldn't fit anymore text into this post. If you'd like I can make another answer post with more citations though. I had to trunicate this last one.

> **The Clinical Effectiveness of Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With Face-to-Face Therapist Support for Depressed Primary Care Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial.**
> Høifødt RS, Lillevoll KR, Griffiths KM, Wilsgaard T, Eisemann M, Waterloo K, Kolstrup N.
> Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway. ragnhild.s.hoifodt@uit.no.
> Abstract
>
> CONCLUSIONS: **The intervention combining MoodGYM and brief therapist support can be an effective treatment of depression in a sample of primary care patients. The intervention alleviates depressive symptoms and has a significant positive effect on anxiety symptoms and satisfaction with life. Moderate rates of nonadherence and predominately positive evaluations of the treatment also indicate the acceptability of the intervention. The intervention could potentially be used in a stepped-care approach, but remains to be tested in regular primary health care.**
> -1 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, personality
---


# Question
Title: How exactly do "you" think and interact with your body?
It has been established that our brains control many processes that your body carries out autonomously and involuntarily. However, other actions are controlled by **you**. (e.g. **you** lift an arm, **you** walk). Those are not things that the brain manages without you being aware of it. How does a person communicate with their brain to give commands to rest of the body? Essentially, if I'm wording it correctly: what is the difference between the brain's involuntary motor tasks and consciously managed motor tasks.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You have asked an excellent question. However, this innocently short question involves many dimensions: the philosophical discussion of consciousness, the neurobiological basis of motor movements, reflexive actions, relationship between sensory and motor areas in the brain etc. I'll try my best to elaborate on my answer: meanwhile, your best bet would be to search the term "**Control Consciousness**" online.

Here is an extract that may (if you can navigate through jargon) help guide you in the right direction. Note that the author is trying to argue for the position that the difference between conscious and unconscious motor tasks depends on the hierarchy of the motor cortex:

**Terms:**

Allocentric-Egocentric: Allocentric refers to being linked to a reference frame based on the external environment and independent of one's current location in it. For example, giving the direction as "north," as opposed to "right" (which would be egocentric).

> The main idea of ‘‘directness’’ here means something like ‘‘not mediated by sensory inputs or imagery thereof.’’ To illustrate, even on the sensory theory, motor commands have an indirect influence: I turn my head and thus see something other than what I was looking at. But here the changes exerted on the conscious state by the motor command are mediated by changes in sensory input. **If motor commands themselves or copies of motor commands - so-called efference copies — can make a difference on conscious states without the difference being mediated by changes caused to sensory inputs, then this would be an instance of the influence of motor commands being direct**. As stated, the most basic form of the theory is inadequate for distinguishing conscious from unconscious control states. Not just any contribution from motor commands will make a contribution to consciousness. This is especially evident in the case of unconscious control states. What is needed, then, is a means for distinguishing conscious control states from unconscious control states. And here an extension of AEI can do the trick. The applicability of AEI to motor systems looks to be a straightforward affair. First, **motor systems are arranged hierarchically in much the same manner as sensory systems, with the highest levels being most remote (in terms of intervening connections) from the periphery of the nervous system. Focusing here just on cortex, the highest level is in the prefrontal cortex, the lowest level is in the primary motor cortex, and intermediate is in the premotor cortex. Further, there exist both forward projections and back projections between successive levels of the motor hierarchy (Churchland, 2002, p. 72)**. We may further characterize levels in the motor hierarchy as differing along an allocentric-egocentric dimension. To illustrate, a high-level motor representation may have an abstract content such as 'Grab a coffee mug' - a content that abstracts away from low-level egocentric details about the precise sets of muscular contractions required to get the job done. The most specific details will be the task of motor representations at the lowest levels of the motor hierarchy.

---

**Sources:**

Control Consciousness
Pete Mandik
Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010) 643–657

Brain-wise: Studies in neurophilosophy. Churchland, P. S.
(2002). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

---

**Additional Reading:**

Consciousness of action., The Blackwell companion to consciousness (pp. 540–550).
Jeannerod, M. (2007). M. Velmans & S. Schneider (Eds.)
Oxford, England: Blackwell.

---
Tags: neuroscience, consciousness, motor
---


title: Best ways to improve memory

text:
# Question
Title: Best ways to improve memory
I've once watched a movie in which CIA agent went into a room just for a few seconds and on the next day he could recall every detail of that room, including what was on the monitors.

And I am wondering is there a way to improve my memory to this level?

I would also like to know if there are studied ways of accomplishing this.

There also is something that I remember reading few years ago about training visual memory:

"You go into a dark room with a page of text and a flash light, and every ~30 seconds you turn on and off the flash light very quickly and try to recall as much as you can. And you do this for ~20 minutes. After ~30 days of practice you should have much better visual memory."

What do you think about this method. Could it really work? And if so, could this ability disappear after some time without practice?

# Answer
> 3 votes
You can read book: Trick of the mind - Derren Brown. Derren Brown is a mentalist and in his book you have very powerfull methods to improve your memory based on natural mental processes.

The easiest way for me is to create short story about something, that i want to recall, in the fantasy way - for exemple - i want to remember my list of products to buy when i go to shopping center - i must buy: milk, book, bread, aspiryna, food for my dog and new computer game so...

I create fantasy story - Imagine sea of milk and books as ships, one of the ships must go to port and in this port all buildings are from bread, all people in this small city eat aspiryna and dogs too! Further more these dogs like to playing computer games ... as you create that funny story you will be remember everything better - you can learn this in few minutes!!! And ofcourse - use it :) Try this and tell me if it works ;)

# Answer
> 2 votes
Your best bet is to start looking on YouTube and the Internet for various memory methods used by card memorizers, magicians, and other stunt people. I have used them extensively, and they work. You can also look on Amazon for books. Tony Buzan, Harry Lorraine, Dominc O'Brien. Also the book Moonwalking with Einstein.

Don't believe all the nonsense out there about your limited memory, or it takes years of practice, or you need special supplements. I've met SEALs who used the simple techniques taught in the books to help them. It worked for them.

---
Tags: memory, long-term-memory, brain-training, short-term-memory
---


# Question
Title: Is gaming more addictive than watching movies or tv shows?
Are there studies that demonstrate that gaming is more addictive than watching movies or tv shows?

There's this article that talks about dopamine and rewards. It makes sense, but are there similar studies? Any involving tv shows instead of movies?

# Answer
To answer your question directly, there are so much different factors involved in addiction to games and movies, that I don't believe any study could cover the whole thing. We can, though, try to identify the factors that are different and study them individually.

The fundamental difference between movies/series and games, the one thing that separates more these types of entertainment than anything else, is the following:

> "Mechanics in games imply the need for the player as an active part of the whole system, instead of a mere spectator"
> https://lakitusdevcartridge.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-elements-of-game-design/

## Engagement

Some factors involve personalizing your character, items and environment. Since people value more to the things they themselves made, they attach to the part of the game that has been designed for them (their characters, their items, etc). It makes them a whole lot more engaged in the process. Providing some personalization to the customer has been used a lot in marketing in order, for example, to sell cake mixes.

> "When we talk to people who bake with mixes, they consider themselves every bit the scratch baker as someone who doesn’t use a mix,"
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/business/media/11adco.html?\_r=0
>
> "This decorating obsession sold the idea that, this way, you’re making this cake yours."
> http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/pop-culture/article/cake-mix-history

This type of incentive cannot be applied to movies or series, since the spectator cannot have an effect on the outcome of the scenario. He's a passive observator, probably less attached to the outcome as well.

## Comparison

For MMO's or games where you can share your scores online, Envy and pride are also big motivators. These are feelings you rarely have while watching a movie, since your experience is the same as everyone else watching the movie. You can have a leader-board that shows you who's best, you can have multiple stats on which people can compare, you can even have purchasable cosmetic items to put on your character and show other people!

> In-game or in-app purchases for cosmetic items and customization options rake in a lot of money, and developers go to great lengths to make sure that players see all the cool stuff that their teammates and opponents have acquired.
> http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2015/10/podcast-8-envy-and-microtransactions/

## Other factors

Although I only mentioned a few, there are a lot of other factors that influence addiction and that are distinct from the ones seen in movies or TV series. I don't think there is *one* answer, but you can develop form there and add to this discussion.

Again, the main difference between the two types of media mentioned in this question is *the role of the consumer*. In games, it is an active part of the experience, an actor bound to the media by causality. In Movies, it is a passive spectator and does not hold any power to influence the outcome. This is a good starting point in order to study addiction to both forms of entertainment.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Probably YES and here is why - if you playing games you have your hero which is more connected with you because you do some things in the game by him as YOU (your EGO).

You can also read newest book of Philip Zimbardo - where are these mans? In his book he talk about it. It's interesting that boys can be more addicted from the games and girls can more addicted from the movies and TV series. It's interesting question.

Some companies make experiments when they create game because they want to addicted players - their clients because more clients means more money for their company.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: addiction, video-games, dopamine, reward
---


# Question
Title: Quit smoking supported by mental training
Given that mental training/workout releases acetylcholine (something I read in a popular-scientific book and on Wiki, see also below) , and that acetylcholine and nicotine bind to the same receptors. Is it possible to reduce the craving for nicotine by doing a brain-training task such as mathematics or memorising poetry?

# Answer
> -1 votes
There is many methods to change craving for nicotine. You can train your brain by the suggesting to yourself (or by hipnotherapeutists) something as: I don't need nicothine. When you are in the trance state for exemple or when you have highly good responses for hipnosis suggestions it will be usefull. In trance people have diffrent reality and their body tell them that i can do that and people can change even chemical responses of their bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotherapy

Another thing is that you can focus on mathematic or poetry so much that you forget about your bad habit and when you do it again and again its Pavlov's Dog effect that it will be automatic response for your psyche. For example - your mathematics will be the cure for the craving for nicotine. However if you stop doing your mathematic, you probably will be smoking again (old habits activate again without mathematics or poetry cure).

---
Tags: neuroscience, brain-training, addiction, nicotine
---


title: How to better remember your dreams?

text:
# Question
Title: How to better remember your dreams?
Often times, I wake up with an amazing, yet fleeting glimpse of a dream I had. I would like to recollect those events I had in my dream, and try to adopt ways to better remember those dreams.

There are a few (random) ways that I have tried, but I would like to know if there are studied ways of accomplishing this.

How can I easier remember my dreams and record them for the future?

# Answer
There is a lot of information on 'dream recall' related to research on lucid dreaming. For some quick information, I would take a look at Wikibook's page on Lucid Dreaming/Dream Recall.

I have tried some of these techniques, and I found that what has worked for me in the past was

1. trying to write down everything I can as soon as I wake up
2. lying in bed, not moving, and just letting my mind wander over what I could remember (this usually helps other memories about the dream pop up)
3. doing this consistently every day.

The last one is the most important, you really notice that if you are consistent you start remembering more and more when you wake up. I highly recommend the book "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming" by Howard Rheingold and Stephen LaBerge. It was the required reading for a Psychology of Dreams class I took and is based on a lot of cool research.
> 3 votes

# Answer
The Wiki page on Vitamin B6 gives a reference on a paper that states that it increases the ability for dream recall.

Ebben M, Lequerica A, Spielman A. Effects of pyridoxine on dreaming: a preliminary study.

Abstract

> The effect of pyridoxine (Vitamin B-6) on dreaming was investigated in a placebo, double-blind study to examine various claims that Vitamin B-6 increases dream vividness or the ability to recall dreams. 12 college students participated in all three treatment conditions, each of which involved ingesting either 100 mg B-6, 250 mg B-6, or a placebo prior to bedtime for a period of five consecutive days. The treatment conditions were completely counterbalanced and a two-day wash-out period occurred between the three five-day treatment blocks. Morning self-reports indicated a significant difference in dream-salience scores (this is a composite score containing measures on vividness, bizarreness, emotionality, and color) between the 250-mg condition and placebo over the first three days of each treatment. The data for dream salience suggests that Vitamin B-6 may act by increasing cortical arousal during periods of rapid eve movement (REM) sleep. An hypothesis is presented involving the role of B-6 in the conversion of tryptophan to serotonin. However, this first study needs to be replicated using the same procedures and also demonstrated in a sleep laboratory before the results can be considered certain.

But beware: B6 might be toxic in a certain way. At LED gave some hints here...
> 1 votes

# Answer
I suggest you try another thing - as you know there is some stages when we sleep:

You can change your morning-alarm time when you wake up in the time when there is end of your stages of your dream after those few hours of sleep. In that case you must try on yourself how many hours you sleep and when the lucid dream appear (time when you wake up and write your dream). After that you will be know which hour is good for you and there is better way to remember your dreams.

You can also train your brain to remember your dreams as a Pavlov's dog effect. If you will be do that many times, your brain learn how to do it automaticaly.

WARNING: There are more variables! For exemple - time of the moon. Some people with night-walker disease (somnambulic disease) can feel changes when the moon is full. Evan without this illness it's evidence that this situation can change our brains stages when we sleep. People in epilepsy have more attacks when the moon is full than in time when the moon isn't full (you can ask every doctor who help people with epilepsy) and what is curious about that, many people after attack must sleep quickly to regenerate organism after attack and their brain EEG waves are much more diffrent than normal when the moon is full. There are some ideas that hormones in our body changes when the moon is full (like in the forests when some herbs (herbalism) have some chemical concetration of their substances much more higher than in the other days. Every person who farm herbs know that and there is many books about it.

Another idea is that you can sleep, wake up, sleep again, wake up again ... in some sleep stages. However it's hard process and you can be very sleepy when the sun for your windows will be up. This is also very dangerous technic for long time to practice!

Third method is to train meditation to improve your control of your unconsciousness mind. Check this: http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/meditation.html
> 0 votes

---
Tags: memory, dreams
---


# Question
Title: Why are the founding figures of major religious faiths credited with superhuman qualities?
The founding figures of various religions are usually believed to have superhuman qualities, such as omniscience, ability to predict the future, impeccable control over their own emotions, invulnerability, miraculous healing powers, and so forth. An absolute conviction about the unquestionability of such beliefs form the bedrock of many religious faiths.

What is the psychology behind such compelling collective beliefs? How does one analyse them in terms of various psychological parameters?

# Answer
Perhaps the most compelling explanation of the origins of religions using purely psychological explanations is the theory of religious figures having a high incidence of frontal lobe epilepsy. Of course, this doesn't explain their rise in influence and - which I think should be left to historians since it goes beyond the realm of science that could prove to be reductive and merely speculative in this case.

However, there is a tremendous amount of literature of the psychology of religion, which would be difficult to summarize in one answer. The reason behind this is that this is a multidisciplinary subject involving social psychology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology and so forth - none that can alone provide a compelling answer. The Wikipedia page on this topic can be very helpful. I have tried to quote some sources regardless:

This quoted paragraph **gives a flavor** of the different ways to answer this problem. In this case, the author mentions the semantic memory theory of religious transmission:

> Where religious ideas are expressed in words (e.g. transmitted through oratory), it is likely that the orators themselves will rise above the common herd. Most religious traditions of this sort have cel- ebrated leaders, who may take the form of gurus, messiahs, prophets, divine kings, high priests, mediums, visionaries, disciples, or simply great evangelists or missionaries. The very fact that there are so many different types of, and terms for, religious leadership is an index of how widespread and important the phenomenon is. Partly through their skills as orators, these leaders become marked out as special. But, at the same time, their pronouncements (real or attributed) pro- vide the central tenets of a belief system, and their deeds become the basis for widely-recounted religious narratives, transmitted orally. Both forms of knowledge are stored primarily in semantic memory.

**Primary Source:**

Modes of Religiosity: a cognitive theory of religious transmission.
Whitehouse, H. (2004).
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

**Secondary Sources:**

"Religious Thought and Behavior as By-Products of Brain Functions"
Boyer, Pascal.
*Trends in Cognitive Sciences* 7, pp 119–24

Inside the Cult: Religious innovation and transmission in Papua New Guinea.
Whitehouse, H. (1995).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

---

To get a picture of the TLE theory of the **origins of religious figures**, you should try understanding the behavioral changes caused by Temporal Lobe Epilepsy that involve intense religious experiences and hypergraphia, the intense desire to write - which could account for the cross-cultural production of religious scriptures:

> Revered in some cultures but persecuted by most others, epilepsy patients have, throughout history, been linked with the divine, demonic, and supernatural. Clinical observations during the past 150 years support an association between religious experiences during (ictal), after (postictal), and in between (interictal) seizures. In addition, epileptic seizures may increase, alter, or decrease religious experience especially in a small group of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Literature surveys have revealed that between .4% and 3.1% of partial epilepsy patients had ictal religious experiences; higher frequencies are found in systematic questionnaires versus spontaneous patient reports. Religious premonitory symptoms or auras were reported by 3.9% of epilepsy patients. Among patients with ictal religious experiences, there is a predominance of patients with right TLE. Postictal and interictal religious experiences occur most often in TLE patients with bilateral seizure foci. Postictal religious experiences occurred in 1.3% of all epilepsy patients and 2.2% of TLE patients. Many of the epilepsy-related religious conversion experiences occurred postictally. Interictal religiosity is more controversial with less consensus among studies. Patients with postictal psychosis may also experience interictal hyper-religiosity, supporting a "pathological" increase in interictal religiosity in some patients.

**Primary Source:**

Spirituality and religion in epilepsy.
Devinsky O1, Lai G.
*Epilepsy Behav.* May 2008 ; 12(4):636-43.

**Secondary Sources:**

"Norman Geschwind's contribution to the understanding of behavioral changes in temporal lobe epilepsy: the February 1974 lecture".
Devinsky J, Schachter S (August 2009)
*Epilepsy Behav* (Biography, History article) 15 (4): 417–24.

"Hypergraphia in temporal lobe epilepsy. 1974."
Waxman, SG; Geschwind, N (March 2005).
*Epilepsy & behavior* : E&B 6 (2): 282–91.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, sentiment-analysis
---


# Question
Title: Does playing video games increase attention and learning agility, therefore career performance
Recently, there has been a lot of research into the positive effects of video games on cognition, As business insider reports.

I'm curious as to whether somebody should play video games purely to increase career performance based on the evidence given:

A study states that attention is increased by 14% when playing world of warcraft and another supports this hypothesis of attention and gaming.

Another study in particular states that learning agility is increased after playing action based video games such as call of duty. This is possibly explained by video games improving the performance of perceptual templates.

Though studies in this area usually contradict each other. In that case, I ask how valid are these studies in predicting effects of video games on cognitive performance.

Many high end careers require workers with high concentration and learning agility abilities, especially a computer programmer at google. In this case do video games increase performance of individuals in a career? A study linking career performance and video game play would be valuable.

This article writes the following:

> video gamers were better than non-gamers in ability to fly and land aerial drones and were essentially as good as trained pilots on this skill (MKinley et al., 2011). Another correlational study revealed that young, inexperienced surgeons who were also avid video gamers outperformed the most experienced surgeons in their field (Rosser et al., 2007).

While the evidence is there, it feels very uncomfortable to make the conscious decision to play video games, in order to boost career performance, rather than entertainment reasons. How valid are these studies, and is the decision to play video games purely to boost cognition, and career performance reasonable?

# Answer
> 5 votes
I think your references are good examples of the way that some of this research is covered in the media (World of Warcraft is good for you! Yay!) as opposed to the academic research which is much more cautious and limited. You seem to be familiar with the 10+ years of research by Bavelier, Green and colleagues showing improvements in attention. The first part of your title/question ("Does playing video games increase attention and learning agility?") is well discussed by those papers, and also by this SE answer. My take on it is that there remains some controversy, particularly about whether games (and it is normally action video games they are talking about) actually CAUSE improvements, and the degree to which that transfers to more general tasks.

The second part of your question (does playing games enhance your career performance) is always going to depend a lot on what careers you are talking about. I wouldn't read too much into the McKinley and Rosser papers which you cite, as they both seem to look at highly specific "simulation-like" careers (drone pilot and endoscopic surgery), and I don't find it hugely surprising that skills from gaming transfer there. I'm also not sure of the definition of "learning agility" which seems a bit vague, and would want to see the evidence that "computer programmer at google" requires particular skill X. Why does it "feel very uncomfortable to make the conscious decision to play video games, in order to boost career performance"? Perhaps it is because such gaming takes time (indeed the amount that some spend is astounding), and that is time that could instead be spent on other sorts of more conventional education and training.

So my short answer to your last question is that those studies are not valid for endorsing gaming to boost general career performance, and that you should seek specific training for whatever career you want (be it something game-like or not).

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, learning, attention, video-games
---


# Question
Title: What are the IQ correlations between relatives?
Bouchard and McGue (1981) wrote a review article (linked here) that summarized the correlations between relatives.

McGue asserted in a recent talk (that I'm not able to link) that he's not aware of any more recent work that has updated these figures.

However, I suspect that during the last 25 years something must have been done.

I am most interested in the figures for genetically related reared-together relatives, although data on genetically unrelated people reared-together and genetically related reared-apart relatives would also be welcome.

Here are the 1981 correlations for genetically related reared-together relatives.

Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (1981). Familial studies of intelligence: A review. Science, 212(4498), 1055-1059.

# Answer
Recent studies on this topic deal with more detailed questions, that are analysed using structural equation models (Deary et al., 2006). A main goal has been the identification of specific genes. No single genes have been found until today and Sternberg (2012) also points out that the concept of heritability itself is indirect and maybe inappropriate if measured as ratio of genetic variation, because of neglection of cultural factors.

But yes, there has been a meta-analysis since Bouchard and McGue: Daniels et al. (1997) argue for maternal womb effects, that explain "20% of covariance between twins and 5% between siblings". E. g. the IQ correlation for monozygotic twins being raised together is reported as r=.85. Correlations for dizygotic twins raised together are reported as from r=.46 to .60, siblings IQ values correlate from .44 to .46, depending on the statistical model used. In regard to correlations, the findings seem very comparable to Bouchard and McGue's.

And of course, occasionally there have been studies on this fundamental topic, e.g Van Leeuwen (2008), Pujol et al. (2007).

Literature

* Daniels, M., Devlin, B., & Roeder, K. (1997). The heritability of IQ. In Nature (Bd. 388, S. 468–471). LONDON: MACMILLAN MAGAZINES LTD. doi:10.1038/41319
* Nichols, R. C. (1965). The national merit twin study. Methods and goals in human behavior genetic, 231-244.
* Van Leeuwen, M., van den Berg, S. M., & Boomsma, D. I. (2008). A twin-family study of general IQ. In Learning and Individual Differences (Bd. 18, S. 76–88). AMSTERDAM: Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.006
* David Gallardo Pujol, Uwe Kramp, Carlos García-Forero, Albert Maydeu-Olivares, und Antonio Andrés-Pueyo. (2007). IQ heritability estimation: Analyzing genetically-informative datawith structural equation models. In Psicothema. Universidad de Oviedo.
* Wahlsten, D. (1994). The intelligence of heritability. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 35(3), 244.
* Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Intelligence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(5), 501-511.
> 10 votes

---
Tags: intelligence, iq, correlation
---


# Question
Title: Do unschooled persons think differently from us (schooled persons)? How?
Through past experiences, I am convinced that "unschooled communities" such as tribals, nomads, cattle-herders, etc. (and persons belonging to such communities) have very different ways of thinking through and negotiating everyday issues. We schooled people construct our thoughts in "a different language", and face great difficulties in communicating and negotiating with them (aside from simple tasks such as buying their produce).

Do the schooled have thinking systems that are substantially different from the unschooled?

If so, what are the prominent differences?

# Answer
> 1 votes
Given that 1) schooling intentionally exposes individuals to conventionally prescribed concepts they would otherwise not be exposed to, entailing formation of neurally encoded cognitive representations thereof at different levels of context-specificity (concreteness) and context-generality (abstractedness) and that 2) metacognitive activity (i.e. thinking and thought-processes) is concerned with the accessing and structuring of concepts seemingly relevant to one another, and can entail the emergence both of new levels of awareness and of thinking-related skills, it is logically predictable that wide differences in the nature of schooled and unschooled individuals' thinking would occur.

---
Tags: social-psychology, educational-psychology, communication, anthropology
---


# Question
Title: Brain anatomy- hippocampus and amygdala positions
I'm trying to teach myself about the structure of the brain and am slightly confused as to whether the hippocampus and amygdala are parts of the temporal lobe or whether they are just parts of the cerebrum which are close to the temporal lobe. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you :)

# Answer
> 2 votes
The hippocampus and the amygdala is neither part of the temporal lobe or the cerebrum, it part of the limbic system located at the top of the brain stem and is cover by the cerebral cortex that the temporal lobe is a part of.

---
Tags: neuroanatomy
---


title: Research on time-saving/ preferences?

text:
# Question
Title: Research on time-saving/ preferences?
So, I work at a library and one of my responsibilities is to man a self-service print desk (filling paper, answering questions, clearing jams, etc.). Now, I've noticed some interesting behaviors manifest themselves. We have two printers that are exactly alike. When someone has released a print job and is standing there waiting for it to finish it seems that people are more likely to stand in line rather than walk two yards to the other printer. Is there any reasoning behind this? I'd be interested to read research dealing with a similar question. Thanks!

# Answer
> 3 votes
Your title suggests that you might be interested in individual preferences/differences in who chooses which printer, but the rest of the question made me think of research into "queue joining". There are some classic social psychology papers on this subject. For example, this paper confirmed that people are more likely to join the (wrong) queue if there are more people waiting, presumably because they conform and assume that other people know something that they don't. There is also interesting related research in an applied setting about the balance between preferring a restaurant because it is busy (therefore must be good) and preferring one because it is less busy (therefore you might get served quicker). I'm sure there is recent research along these lines too.

So maybe people stand in line because at least they can be sure that that printer is working!

---
Tags: social-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Is the hypothalamus part of the limbic system?
I believe the hypothalamus is involved in control of appetite and defensive and reproductive behaviours, which are functions of the limbic system, and according to this website http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/limbicsystem.html it would seem that it is part of the limbic system, however Wikipedia and other sites seem to disagree... Any help would be much appreciated :)

# Answer
> 1 votes
**Short answer**
Yes

**Background**
There is no universal agreement on the total list of structures comprising the limbic system. The brain regions constituting the limbic system according to Rajmohan & Mohandas (2007) are:

* Limbic cortex
* Cingulate gyrus
* Parahippocampal gyrus
* Hippocampal formation
* The dentate gyrus
* Hippocampus
* Subicular Complex
* Amygdala
* Septal area
* **Hypothalamus**

Note that wikipedia agrees on the inclusion of the hypothalamus. I dare say that in general the hypothalamus is included as an essential component of the limbic system, as it is involved in the expression of emotional responses, such as rage and fear (Purves *et al*, 2001).

**References**
**-** Purves *et al*, *Neuroscience*, 2nd ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2001
**-** Rajmohan & Mohandas *Indian J Psychiatry* (2007); **49**(2): 132–9)

---
Tags: emotion, neuroanatomy
---


# Question
Title: Calculate criterion values for each confidence level (within SDT)
Take a 2AFC task, where people also give a measure of confidence. In the framework of signal detection theory, the criterion values for each confidence level are simply additional criteria, placed on the same internal response axis as the (first order task) decision criterion.

Can I estimate the values of these additional confidence criteria from the data of a subject? If so, how? Would I simply take all trials with (say) confidence = 3, and calculate the criterion based on those trials alone?

# Answer
There's actually a very simple answer to this question: calculate criterion of confidence level = 3 by counting as hits only those trials where the answer was correct (and the target was there), and confidence was equal or higher than 3.

This is also what Rahnev et al did in the following paper: Rahnev, D., Koizumi, A., McCurdy, L. Y., D’Esposito, M., & Lau, H. (2015). Confidence Leak in Perceptual Decision Making. Psychological Science, 0956797615595037. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615595037
> 2 votes

---
Tags: signal-detection
---


# Question
Title: Is it physically possible to laugh while being angry?
I have heard that it is impossible to both laugh and be angry. I tried and wasn't able to do it, even with simulated laughter and anger.

Is it possible to laugh and be angry?

# Answer
As with all questions about emotion, the answer depends on how you define "emotion." Long post ahead… :P

## Anger as basic

On the one hand, we have basic emotion theories, most famously advanced by Ekman, Tomkins, and Friesen and rooted in the work of Darwin. Basically, these theories suggest that emotions correspond to circumscribed regions of the brain (e.g., the amygdala for fear) and respectively involve specific and consistent patterns of facial, behavioral, physiological, neural, and experiential responses.

According to this view, anger is a basic, universal emotion that is constituted by a specific set of facial movements, with which laughter would be incompatible. **So this theory would not predict that you could laugh while angry.**

## Anger as constructed

The most recent theories of emotion are called "constructionist"--although their ideas date back to William James (late 19th century). Constructionist theories have been most famously advanced by Lisa Feldman Barrett and James Russell. This view deeply challenges the basic-theory assumptions that emotions are discrete, universal, and modular.

Instead, according to one constructionist account (Conceptual Act Theory), emotions emerge when we make meaning out of our situated affective experiences (to put it very simply). In this sense, emotions are just concepts that can be applied to a heterogeneous population of experiences/contexts that share some statistical regularity (e.g., instances of fear often share the presence of threat/danger).

So, one instance of anger need not look like another (e.g., many different facial expressions, CNS/PNS patterns, etc.), but in general I'll know what you mean when you say you're angry. Not to mention, your concept of anger may even be different than mine. This means that you might conceptualize some instances as "anger" that I would not. So you would experience anger in situations that I would not. One such situation might be where you're laughing. If you thought laughter signaled anger, then you might infer from your laughter that you are angry.

**So this theory would predict that it is definitely possible to laugh when angry. Although, the more precise prediction would be: it is possible to be angry when you laugh.**

## Conclusion

I realize these theories are slightly confusing/complex (especially the second one)! I've read at least 600 pages about constructionism, and I still have to remind myself what it says exactly (it gets much more abstract).

I'll be frank and say that I completely reject the "Anger as basic" account. Basic emotion theories are hanging on by a thread at this point, in my opinion--there's a huge and still growing body of evidence against them. **So my inclination is with the latter prediction: you can certainly be angry when you laugh.**
> 2 votes

---
Tags: emotion, humour
---


# Question
Title: Does limiting one's trivial decisions free more energy for bigger decisions?
I've read a number of times that "successful" people limit the number of trivial decisions they make on a day-to-day basis in order to have more energy for bigger decisions. A common example cited (e.g., here) is Mark Zuckerberg wearing the same shirt every day, which saves some creative energy for the business decisions he needs to make.

Is there any scientific evidence for this?

# Answer
> 11 votes
Evidence on this question stems from research on ego depletion and the "Strength Model of Self Control" (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). The theory posits that successful self-control relies on a limited resource that is depleted by tasks requiring self control.

In series of experiments, Vohs and colleagues (2008) have investigated the hypothesis that, because making choices is mentally taxing, subsequent attempts to engage in self-regulation are more likely to fail.

Citing from their abstract:

> The current research tested the hypothesis that making many choices impairs subsequent self-control. Drawing from a limited-resource model of self-regulation and executive function, the authors hypothesized that decision making depletes the same resource used for self-control and active responding. In 4 laboratory studies, some participants made choices among consumer goods or college course options, whereas others thought about the same options without making choices. **Making choices led to reduced self-control (i.e., less physical stamina, reduced persistence in the face of failure, more procrastination, and less quality and quantity of arithmetic calculations).** A field study then found that reduced self-control was predicted by shoppers’ self-reported degree of previous active decision making. Further studies suggested that choosing is more depleting than merely deliberating and forming preferences about options and more depleting than implementing choices made by someone else and that anticipating the choice task as enjoyable can reduce the depleting effect for the first choices but not for many choices.

So judging from this research, if you stand in front of your wardrobe every morning and experience the decision between the black and the grey t-shirt as an arduous and mentally taxing choice exercise, it might indeed be better to always wear grey, as Mark Zuckerberg does.

It has to be said, however, that some people have doubted whether self-control can really be understood as a finite resource that can be depleted and favor a motivational account of the effects (e.g., Inzlicht, Schmeichel, & Macrae, 2014; Job, Dweck, & Walton, 2010).

Furthermore, the specific data about making decisions is only the result of one paper (I am not aware of independent replications, but they might exist) and, more generally, there are some doubts about how strong and reliable ego depletion effects are (see this earlier question).

In conclusion, it doesn't hurt to avoid complicated but trivial choices. Nevertheless, I would still hold on to those black shirts (my heuristic is to take the one that lies on top, by the way).

**References**

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 351–355. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00534.x

Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 127–133. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009

Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion--Is it all in your head?: implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1686–1693. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384745

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 883–898. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883

---
Tags: motivation, decision-making, self-control, ego-depletion
---


# Question
Title: Have EEG signals in auditory speech perception task have ever been analyzed for correlation with auditory stimuli itself?
This can be useful for getting a better grip on understanding the link between actual stimuli, brain processing, and EEG data.

# Answer
Extensively. Most prominently, recently, by David Poeppel, Oded Ghitza and Anne-Lise Giraud, in a series of papers. They've, to be precise, mostly focused on MEG correlations with the filtered speech amplitude envelope. Areas around the auditory cortex track it fairly well it seems. There is still much debate about what this means and where it comes from, but it's been discussed. Example here.

There is also the spectrotemporal response function, which is a somewhat generalized concept and mostly employed in an sEEG context. Example here. It looks like this:
> 3 votes

---
Tags: perception, eeg, neuroimaging, auditory-discrimination
---


# Question
Title: Why do we wake up from sleep (from a dream) as soon as we figure out reality?
In a dream why do we wake up when we figure out that its not real. I mean even in a lucid dream we are lost to some extent and as soon as we stop accepting the situation we tend to awaken?

# Answer
> 6 votes
When you are dreaming, and you realize that it is a dream, the initial surprise can wake you up. However, you can build a skill for staying in the dream by anchoring yourself to simple actions in the dream. For example, as soon as you realize that you are dreaming, look at your hands and start shaking them in the dream. Generally, you will start to wake up, but then will feel yourself moving back into the dream. Once in this state of being fully aware of the dream and fully in the dream, you can start taking control of the dream.

There are several other techniques to help spot your dreams and help you remain in them to facilitate lucid dreaming. Here is a pretty decent article.

# Answer
> 2 votes
No dream is real, yet we dream without waking up, mostly.

In fact, you can argue the opposite - we wake up because we have the illusion our dream is real. Like when you wake up from a dream too distressful to take.

Our brain has two distinct modes:

* Stay on task (central executive).
* Dreaming (day or night).

While awake, we often in the stay on task mode, one of the key mechanism of which is the constant comparison of external stimuli to our mental beliefs (a constant "everything is as I expect it to be" check). Even while awake we drift into day-dreaming mode, and recent research has shown this happens much more frequently than we are conscious of.

While asleep, the dream mode is much stronger - we process little to no external stimuli (depending on the level of the sleep); the brain replays the day events; and there is strong random element to our cognitive processes. Yet, for the most part, we aren't in a vegetative state - the brain still needs waking up in case of true emergency.

Such emergency can be external (smoke alarm) or internal (truly dissonant dream).

So even whilst dreaming, it isn't quite "everything goes" - depending on the sleep stage, some backup mechanism is still in place. Approaching certain death, or having sex with your mother are two example of dreams that may cross the threshold and wake you up.

---
Tags: dreams
---


# Question
Title: Interpretation & Actual Result of "10% of your brain" Myth
It is well known that the common myth that an individual only ever uses 10% of their brain is.. well, a myth. I had a question about a possible interpretation of this idea, and a follow-up question about the result of that interpretation.

After spending a small amount of time with computational neural networks, it seems that at any given time, a small percentage of neurons are actually firing. All neurons have the potential to be firing, and at some point in execution likely will fire, but due to efficiency, only very few are needed for a particular function. This is my interpretation of what I have seen so far.. is this interpretation valid for the activity of neurons in the brain?

If this is valid, what would happen if 90-100% of neurons were firing at all times? I'm assuming this would be a huge disadvantage to whoever this happened to. Epilepsy? Overheating? Would the body be overworked and go into shock?

# Answer
It is correct that only a small percentage of neurons increase their activities relative to their baseline level in response to new stimuli or to more abstract thoughts. There are many computational advantages to this. For instance, in deep learning, sparse coding is a class of unsupervised methods for learning sets of over-complete bases to represent data efficiently. Basically you have more combinations to store patterns if you activate a few cells than if you either activate too few or too many.
> -4 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, theoretical-neuroscience, neural-network
---