# Question
Title: Negative thoughts as cause or consequence of depression
Simplypsychology.org page on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy mentions that

> Lewinsohn (1981) studied a group of participants before any of them became depressed, and found that those who later became depressed were no more likely to have negative thoughts than those who did not develop depression. This suggests that hopeless and negative thinking may be the result of depression, rather than the cause of it. \[...\]
>
> * Lewinsohn, P. M., Steinmetz, J. L., Larson, D. W., & Franklin, J. (1981). Depression-related cognitions: antecedent or consequence?. Journal of abnormal psychology, 90(3), 213.

Has there been more research into the cause/effect relationship of negative thoughts and depression since then? If so, is there some kind of consensus on this cause-effect relationship? Or has the inquiry been judged not terribly interesting or (non-)productive?

# Answer
**Short answer**
The cause of depression is thought to be one of neurochemistry, resulting in depressive thoughts.

**Background**
I think the general consensus is that depression is a psychological disorder with neurochemical causes. In particular, the **serotonin hypothesis** of depression has received much attention, basically due to the success of the serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that **increase overall serotonin levels in the brain**. The serotonin hypothesis basically states that depression is the **result of a lack of serotonin and its metabolites in the brain** (*e.g.*, Nemeroff (1994)). However, the story is of course more complicated that that. For example, other monoamine systems in the nervous system may also be affected.

The general idea is that the consequences of that monoamine imbalance in the brain include depressive thoughts, among other (more physical) effects, such as a loss of weight. The **DSM-V criteria** for depression include:

> 1. **Depressed mood** most of the day.
> 2. **Diminished interest or pleasure** in all or most activities.
> 3. **Feelings of worthlessness** or excessive **guilt**.
> 4. Recurrent **thoughts of death** (APA, 2000, p. 356).

<sub>**Reference**
**-** Nemeroff, *Clin Chemistry* (1994); **40**(2): 288-95</sub>
> 4 votes

# Answer
**Short answer:**

Negative thoughts in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are both a cause and a consequence in depression. In fact if these thoughts are produced by **schemes** this theory considers as a specific factor of vulnerability that predisposes to depression in certain events.

**Long answer:**

First of all we should consider the considerations in terms of **schemes** in depression, there are different theories in depression that address schemes:

* Behavioral Cognitive Therapy.
* Emotion-Focused Therapy.
* Emotional Schema Therapy.
* Mindfulness to avoid recurrence in depression.

All these therapies consider schemas in a central way and there are important **subtleties** in the consideration of such schemes.

The fundamental thing in Behavioral Cognitive Therapy is that the processing from these schemes is a key factor in the maintenance of depression. Also the Focused Therapy in Emotions considers dysfunctional schemes in the maintenance of the depression however, although it considers them necessary, it does not consider them sufficient.

Document with some contents about schemes in Emotion-Focused Therapy: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307869346\_Affective\_Change\_in\_Psychodynamic\_Psychotherapy\_Theoretical\_Models\_and\_Clinical\_Approaches\_to\_Changing\_Emotions

Document with some information about schemes in Emotional Schema Therapy: http://www.thrivetraining.info/wp-content/uploads/CPI-18-A-Model-of-Emotional-Schemas.pdf

Document that you cite, prepared in **1981**: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.380.5119&rep=rep1&type=pdf

**Later**, Peter Lewinsohn formulated his theory of depression (Lewinsohn, Hoberman, Teri and Hautzinger, **1985**). Lewisohn postulates that **environmental factors** are primarily responsible for depression, although there would be **cognitive mediating factors**. The main mediating variable is the increase of self-consciousness, transient and situational state of self-focusing or amount of attention that a person directs towards himself instead of towards the environment.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, depression, therapy
---


# Question
Title: What happens at sampling rates lower or higher that the Nyquist rate?
I do understand that for a signal to be properly sampled, it has to be done on the Nyquist sampling rate. What I do not understand is, what happens at sampling rates lower rate than the Nyquist rate, and at rates higher than the Nyquist rate, for that matter.

# Answer
**Short practical answer**

> for a signal to be properly sampled, it has to be done \[at\] the Nyquist sampling rate

Up front: sampling at the Nyquist frequency is the *bare minimum rate* to reproduce the *frequency* of the input signal. Dependent on your demands, I would advise to go at least 2 times that, if not more, to reproduce amplitude and shape of the signal. In other words, higher sampling rates yield better reconstructed signals.

**Background**
The problem is that in this digital age, analogue signals are sampled digitally, *i.e.* at fixed sampling rates. The **Nyquist criterion** states that the sampling rate should be *at least* twice the target frequency of the signal.

Suppose the target signal is a simple sinusoid with a frequency *f* (Fig. 1). And let us start with the worst-case scenario, namely a digital sampling rate (SR) equaling *f*. In this scenario, we end up with a straight line in the digitally recorded signal (upper panel).

In case we slightly increase the SR to 4/3 the result is not much better (lower panel).

In fact, it is not until we we go to doubling the SR to 2 times *f*, that we obtain a saw-tooth with a frequency equaling the input signal. The shape is, however, unlike the input signal, but **at least we have the target input frequency right**. However, *this does **not** mean we can faithfully reproduce the signal*. For one thing, the **amplitude** of the input signal will depend on the phase shift between SR and the signal. From here on, you can imagine that going to 4 *f* will substantially improve the reconstructed signal in terms of shape and amplitude (see, *e.g.* this web page of Cardif Universiy).

Fig. 1. Discrete sampling of an analogue target signal. source: National Instruments
> 3 votes

# Answer
Here is the **10 KHz signal** (the **maximum frequency** of the signal is 10 KHz):

Now, if we sample the signal at 5 KHz and 10 KHz, the signal will look like as shown below (the brown points):

It is clear that we can't get any **useful information** from the sampled signal. Now, to get some information about the signal, Nyquist said that we must sample the signal at least **2\*max signal frequency**. Now, here are the signals sampled at the **Nyquist frequency** and more than it:

It can be seen that by sampling at the Nyquist rate, we can get the frequency information about the signal. However, to faithfully reconstruct the signal, we have to increase the sampling rate even more.

For more details please visit https://www.gaussianwaves.com/tag/sampling-theorem/
> 2 votes

---
Tags: measurement, methodology, signal-processing, sampling
---


# Question
Title: Are there researched approaches to learning a subject more quickly?
TLDR at bottom.

So from my knowledge(correct me if I'm wrong) there is no evidence to suggest that we can improve general intelligence. But what about improving skills/intuition in specialized fields like programming or mathematics?

I went through this course on coursera called Learning how to learn by Barbara Oakley(engineering professor) who suggests the following to quickly learn new subjects:

1. Pomodoro technique 25 minutes study 5 min break
2. Eliminate Distractions
3. Do not neglect memory training. Recalling what you have studied is a great way to learn.
4. Practice and consistency.
5. Cramming is bad - it takes time to 'build neural chunks' as she says. I wasn't sure if this was based off of actual science or just conceptual.

I do not like method 1 at all from my experience. Often times when I am going through technical textbooks and I have a timer randomly go off on me at 25 minutes in the session, I find myself jumping from my seat and my productivity wanes. However, timers at around 45 minutes(where my brain seems to slow down) does not have this kind of effect.

But in Cal Newports Deep Work book, he suggests:

1. Absolutely no distractions. Even delete social media from your life. Isolation can be a very ideal way of achieving deep levels of focus
2. Be consistent.
3. Do not tap in to willpower
4. Use 'rituals' to turn the deep work mode on.

From my experience, point 1 has severely reduced my ADHD symptoms and as a result my productivity has greatly improved. But even then, I still wonder to myself how much validity there are to these two professors approaches? Neither are neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, or psychology professors. I want to know if there is some kind of research, evidence(strong or weak), that there are more effective approaches to learning a specific field at a much faster pace. I have also read summaries of 'Peak' by Anders Erikson who is an apparent authority in this topic but I still haven't found anything eye opening.

**Basically, is it possible to learn a subject at a much faster pace through the use of different studying techniques such as mnemonics, spaced repetition, etc.**

# Answer
This question is pretty vague and broad, but the most researched techniques, according to a reasonably recent (and highly cited) review, Dunlosky et al. (2013):

It looks like distributive practice (spreading out activities over time, the opposite of cramming, I guess) and practice testing (i.e. trying to apply what you've learned) get the highest generalizability ranking. The techniques that get a moderate rating are somewhat related to these two (interleaved practice: alternating the types of activities involved), self-explanation (being aware of the steps during problem solving) and elaborative interrogation (somewhat related to the previous one: explaining \[oneself\] why some statements are true based on the previously learned concepts). Mnemonics, mental imagery, summarization, highlighting or re-reading were ranked low in overall utility.

But even for the high utility techniques some questions remain (that's why they're tagged with P-I for instance):

> For instance, self-explanation received a P-I rating for criterion tasks because the available evidence is positive on one dimension (generalizability across a range of criterion tasks) but is insufficient on another key dimension (whether the benefit of self-explanation generalizes across longer retention intervals). As another example, rereading received a Q-I rating for criterion tasks because evidence for the effectiveness of this technique over long retention intervals is qualified (i.e., under some learning conditions, it does not produce an effect for longer retention intervals), and insufficient evidence is available that is relevant to its effectiveness across different kinds of criterion tasks (e.g., rereading does boost performance on recall tasks, but little is known as to its benefits for comprehension).

You'll have to read the full for details as it's too much material to summarize here.

Also, I can't say if the findings still hold for special groups like ADHD.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: intelligence
---


# Question
Title: Beyond CBT and MBI, what are effective behavioral interventions for modern lifestyle addictions during their engagement?
Some modern activities exploit the primitive mammalian reward areas in the brain. They include immediate access to social media, video games, music, sugar, pornographic material, gambling etc. Worse, excessively engaging in these activities without inhibition may enhance the neuroplasticity of the reward centers (and undermine the plasticity of areas involved in self-control, including the anterior cingulate cortex), thus leading to long-term changes of higher reward tolerance, lower self-regulatory abilities, and other exacerbating effects. Unfortunately, most worthwhile work (e.g., proactive learning, writing, thinking about new mechanisms and concepts etc.) usually doesn't offer nearly as much dopaminergic stimulation in the mammalian reward centers of the human brain.

**Next to the obvious mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., being aware of the moment and noting the emotional occupation) and cognitive behavioral therapy based approaches (CBT), what interventions have proven to be effective or are likely to be effective for the use case below (\*)?** References to support these techniques are welcome. Perhaps some techniques from the substance abuse literature has some application. The main focus of this question mostly deals with the following situation:

(\*) An adult is currently engaging in the addictive task and wishes to context-switch to the productive task. Additionally, the person is aware that the current (addictive) task offers a lower expected utility than the productive task.

# Answer
Alas there's not much in the way of interventions that can curb impulsivity on the spot. Quoting from a somewhat dated but widely cited review, Moeller et al., 2001:

> Of the operant therapies used in treating individuals with impulsive-related disorders, contingency management procedures have received the most clinical and research attention. Contingency management involves the use of predetermined positive or negative consequences to reward or punish (and thus deter) the occurrence of a target behavior. \[...\]
>
> Reinforcement and response cost contingencies have been used in reducing impulsive behaviors in children. In the classroom, token economy systems have proven to be an effective short-term method for reducing disruptive behavior and promoting on-task, academic behavior (89, 90). Outside the classroom, the efficacy of contingency management procedures has not been demonstrated, and such procedures are generally considered to be impractical in home settings (91). Furthermore, recent studies have shown that contingency management procedures produce smaller gains than stimulants like methylphenidate, and gains engendered by contingency management treatment do not persist once reinforcement is terminated (92). Thus, generalization and maintenance continue to be central problems in using these behavioral reinforcement systems.

I quoted mostly the parts relating to ADHD since this seems to be the actual interest behind your question. And nothing on adult ADHD was mentioned in that review (only studies in contingency management in substance abuse in adults were mentioned in that review.) There's a fairly interesting ongoing trial on contingency management in smoking cessation in subjects with and without ADHD; quoting from the design:

> The investigators hypothesize that prior to a quit attempt, smokers with ADHD will exhibit significantly lower levels of intrinsic motivation to quit, and equal or higher levels of extrinsic motivation to quit compared to smokers without ADHD. \[...\] investigators hypothesize that smokers with ADHD will exhibit relatively less readiness for change than smokers without ADHD. \[...\] The investigators hypothesize that the CM \[contingency management\] intervention will result in relatively greater change in extrinsic motivation to quit versus intrinsic motivation to quit, and that this effect will be more pronounced among ADHD smokers. \[...\] The investigators hypothesize that overall motivation to quit (intrinsic and extrinsic) and readiness for change will be significantly influenced by the CM intervention versus treatment as usual among ADHD smokers.

Results haven't been published; they're scheduled for 2019. One very, very small trial was completed by another group on this same topic

> The prevalence of smoking among individuals diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is twice as high as the general smoking population. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of delivering a smartphone-based contingency management (CM) smoking cessation intervention with 3 adults diagnosed with ADHD. Using a multiple-baseline design, participants (N = 3) used their smartphones to upload 2 daily videos showing themselves measuring their carbon monoxide (CO) levels (abstinence was defined as CO ≤4 ppm). Monetary vouchers, redeemable for gift cards, were used to reinforce smoking abstinence during tapering, treatment, and thinning phases that lasted up to 28 days. During a 1-week follow-up meeting, participants provided 1 CO sample that was not rewarded. Preliminary results demonstrated that participants decreased their exhaled breath CO relative to baseline (from a mean of 24 ppm at baseline to a mean of 6 ppm during treatment). Participants rated the smartphone application as effective, convenient, and easy to use. Results suggest that a smartphone-based CM intervention is both feasible and acceptable for initiating smoking abstinence among individuals diagnosed with ADHD.

On a related note to these two latter studies, there have been conlficting results whether methylphenidate does or doesn't increase smoking in subjects with ADHD.

One more interesting observation (which, unfortunately, does not seem to have resulted in any particular treatment approaches) is that anxiety is correlated with more impulsivity in bipolar, ADHD, and other kinds of high-impulsivity disorders:

> Further, children and adolescents diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorders (ADHD, ODD, conduct disorder), conditions characterized by impulsiveness, often present with co-occurring anxiety disorders; for example, in a meta-analysis of community-sample based studies of comorbidity of diagnoses among children and adolescents, Angold, Costello, & Erkanli (1999) found that the median odds ratio for the association between ADHD and anxiety disorders was 3.0 (2.1–4.3) and for CD/ODD and anxiety disorders was 3.1 (2.2–4.6). Thus, while our study did not include an assessment of behaviorally disinhibited temperament, prior literature supports the proposition that anxiety may particularly influence impulsivity in individuals with an underlying predisposition toward behavioral disinhibition.

Also worth mentioning perhaps is a recent (and very large) epidemiological study on the overlaps of ADHD, anxiety, and bipolar (alas without a separate measure of impulsivity):

> We examined the relationship between ADHD, anxiety disorders and bipolar disorder in a birth cohort of 2,409,236 individuals born in Denmark between 1955 and 1991. \[...\] Over 37,394,865 person-years follow-up, 9250 onsets of bipolar disorder occurred. The incidence rate of bipolar disorder was 2.17 (95% CI 2.12–2.19) in individuals with no prior diagnosis of ADHD or anxiety, 23.86 (95% CI 19.98–27.75) in individuals with a prior diagnosis of ADHD only, 26.05 (95% CI 24.47–27.62) in individuals with a prior diagnosis of anxiety only and 66.16 (95% CI 44.83–87.47) in those with prior diagnoses of both ADHD and anxiety. The combination of ADHD and anxiety increased the risk of bipolar disorder 30-fold (95% CI 21.66–41.40) compared with those with no prior ADHD or anxiety.

Interestingly the link between anxiety and ADHD isn't strong considering the known genetic factors (from the mega study published in Science this summer), although the genetic link of ADHD with bipolar is significant and so are the genetic links of ADHD with major depression (MDD) (which is even stronger), and of anxiety with depression. Also OCD is (genetically) linked with bipolar but not with ADHD. (Schizophrenia is genetically well-linked to almost everything psychiatric except the anxiety disorders.) Research into genetic causes of most psychiatric disorders can be considered in its infancy through (genetic factors can currently explain only a small fraction of the variance in disorder incidence).

(Yes, I know this is a fairly large divagation from the topic of the question.)
> 2 votes

---
Tags: addiction, adhd, dopamine, self-control, reward
---


# Question
Title: Is there any reason why chunking the digit span test would not help?
Is there any reason why chunking the digit span test would not help, and what is the average score without chunking? By chunking I mean any rehearsal besides saying the numbers one time as they appear.

I asked a similar question already:

Does the digit span test draw on any executive functions besides working memory, if "chunking" is not used?

Just intrigued why chunking might not work as well (and it's trivial that it won't always work as well), or not at all.

# Answer
> 2 votes
As far as I know the effectiveness of chunking depends on (1) test speed and (2) amount of practice.

At low speed simple techniquest benefit almost everyone a little, even with virtually no practice. Quoting from Dempster and Zinkgraf

> Recently, in fact, evidence has been found that questions the validity of the assumption that chunking plays a role in digit-span variance. In one experiment, Lyon (1977) presented 12-item digit sequences to adult subjects for whom conventional digit-span estimates were available, and instructed them to think of each successive group of three digits as a three-digit number. The important result was that subjects with high spans (average = 8.3) benefited just as much from the chunking instructions as those with low spans (average = 6.1). Thus, prompting all subjects to impose a common structure on the lists did not produce the convergence of the two groups that would be expected if chunking was the source of differences between subjects in the high- and low-span groups.

On the other hand

> However, it does seem plausible that the temporal characteristics of the digit-span task (rapid presentation rate and single trial) simply allow little opportunity for chunking, unless the individual is exceptionally adept at creating chunks (Hunt & Love, 1972, pp. 248-250), or has received an extended period of practice (Ericsson, Chase, & Faloon, 1980; Gates & Taylor, 1925; Martin & Fernberger, 1929). For such an individual, chunking can be a highly successful strategy.

The "extended practice" mentioned there involves associative techniques not merely chunking.

---
Tags: memory, working-memory, short-term-memory
---


# Question
Title: Does the brain have a mechanism to protect from death by laughter?
Death from laughter seems like a possible way to die, either by heart failure or asphyxiation according to this Wikipedia article.

Why doesn't the brain have a mechanism to stop a person from laughing if it has reached lethal levels? If I witness a person laughing to death, can knocking them out save them from dying?

# Answer
The brain does regulate body functions towards a homeostasis that keeps the organism alive, including starting breathing again if the person is holding their breath, or losing consciousness and slowing breathing again if the person is hyperventilating. The Wikipedia article includes many cases that look speculative. Cardiovascular events like infarction (heart attack) can occur for many reasons, some structural and long-term even if there is a proximate trigger like excessive laughter. So to your first question: It does; to the second, that seems like a poor therapy at best, but sure, is likely to interrupt laughter.

> Background on cardiovascular disorders: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cardiovascular-disease/
>
> Homeostasis - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis "Homeostasis is the state of steady internal conditions maintained by living things. This dynamic state of equilibrium is the condition of optimal functioning for the organism and includes many variables, such as body temperature and fluid balance, being kept within certain pre-set limits (homeostatic range)."
>
> Over-breathing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperventilation
> 1 votes

---
Tags: humour, death
---


# Question
Title: What pro- or anti-environmental behaviors are feasible to measure objectively rather than with self-report?
One of the central challenges in understanding pro-environmental behavior is measurement. Currently, most researchers (including myself) lean on self-report of behavior.

I'm looking for a brainstorm. What kinds of pro-environmental behaviors might be realistically measured by researchers? I think there's room for more creativity. I'd love to hear some ideas. For example, recycling bins have been measured at the curb for weight (time-consuming), electrical meters have been read by students (time-consuming), household water usage has been measured by partnering with a water district (long-term negotiation due to privacy).... there are also laboratory tasks such as recycling, donation, and turning out the lights, but these are lower-quality measures because they only occur once.

There's room here for more creativity. What other pro- or anti-environmental behaviors can be observed by researchers in the real world or in an online survey? I'm looking for a brainstorm, not a literature review. I work in this area and know the key papers well. Thank you for any suggestions!

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is barely on-topic here (as it's more of an economics question), but Kurisu (2016) says

> This chapter provides an overview of pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs). There is no catchall definition or way to categorize PEBs; therefore, I propose various definitions and ways to categorize PEBs. Two main definitions for PEBs are shown here: purpose oriented and fact oriented. \[...\] I summarize behaviors proposed by various environmental agencies and present a list of 200 PEBs. In the list, the main classification is based on the major targets for reduction, such as greenhouse gases, air pollutants, water pollutants, resource consumption, and disturbance of nature, with 12 categories under the main targets, which are standard in many places.

Since the whole list is obviously too long to give here, here's an examples table

Kurisu also notes at least two government lists, one by the UK in Annex A of "A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours", which has something like 30 PEBs and one by the US' EPA, "At Home and in the Garden". (There's was also a Japanese one "Challenge 25", which is a dead link.)

Alas Kurisu doesn't have a chapter on objective measures (only has one on subjective surveys and one on \[objective\] life-cycle assessment).

But there's a (2014) meta-analysis comparing declared with actual PEBs:

> Do self-reports match objective behavior? We performed a meta-analysis to quantify the association between self-reported and objective measures of proenvironmental behavior, and to evaluate the moderating influence of two socio-demographic and seven methodological moderators. Data from 6260 individuals or households, involving 19 measures of association in 15 studies, revealed a positive and nominally large (Cohen, 1988) effect size (r = .46). However, this means that 79% of the variance in the association between self-reported and objective behavior remains unexplained, which is especially troubling given the environmental context. We conclude that although this effect size is conventionally large, it is functionally small for testing theory and devising intervention campaigns, possibly leading researchers to draw misleading conclusions about the usefulness of theories that employ self-reports to predict objective behavior. These findings highlight a crucial need for research that strengthens the validity of self-reports for well-defined types of environmental behavior.

What could be useful from this paper is its list of studies that have performed actual PEB measurements (see their table 1). Alas this isn't too encouraging or creative; there are only two dozen studies or so in that table, and most measured stuff that's easy to measure: energy usage or recycling behavior. Of these, Kaiser (2001) probably has the most extensive list in a single study, with 14 PEBs.

---
Tags: social-psychology, measurement, experimental-psychology, psychology, survey
---


# Question
Title: What is the name of the phenomenon that would make me choose A over B because I was influenced by a trend?
I've looked at these ,, and I don't think they answer my question fully.

Let's say it's election time and I'm on the fence about who to vote for. I see some survey on the news and seeing party A has more vote intentions, it tends to sway my decision towards party A.

Closer to home, I see a question or answer on SE and I may feel swayed to vote +1 or -1 if there are pre-existing votes that have been cast.

What would this phenomenon be called (if there is a name for it other than simple influence or conformity)? Also, can there be a bias for going against what the current trend is?

# Answer
Bandwagon effect:

> The bandwagon effect is a phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases the more that they have already been adopted by others. In other words, the bandwagon effect is characterized by the probability of individual adoption increasing with respect to the proportion who have already done so. As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence.

And the reason why you were not completely happy with the other questions you found (mostly on social pressure) is that there's perhaps not a single source of "bias" for the bandwagon effect. Depending on the actual phenomenon studied, social pressure or information cascades make more sense as an explanation for a given instance of the bandwagon effect. At least with respect to SE voting patterns, probably the latter makes a bit more sense. The two causes are probably not mutually exclusive.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: decision-making
---


title: Study about addiction to placebo

text:
# Question
Title: Study about addiction to placebo
I was wondering if anyone knows about a study where people were given a placebo, then told over and over that it was addictive and would have terrible trouble coming off of it. It would be nice if these studies involved a brain scan as well.

I don't want to complicate this post, so I won't give my reason for asking this, but if you're interested I'll add it to the comments.

# Answer
I'm not aware of a more systematic study, but I'm aware of some (old) case reports, best summarized in this 1978 1-para letter-to-the editor (of AJP):

> SIR: I would like to comment on the interesting paper ‘‘A Note on the Addictive Personality: Addiction to Placebos” by Ira Mintz, M.D. (March 1977 issue). Dependence on placebo might not be rare. As far as I know, I published the first case report nine years ago (1). Similar descriptions by Czech authors followed (2, 3). Dr. Mintz’ patients and my patient were schizophrenic, but the other patients never have been psychotic.
>
> REFERENCES
>
> 1. Vinar O: Dependence on a placebo: a case report. Br J Psychiatry 115:1189-1190, 1969
> 2. Boleloucky Z: A contribution to the problem of placebo dependence: case report. Activ Nerv Super(Prague) 13:190-191, 1971
> 3. Honzak R, Horackova E, Culik A: Our experience with the effect of placebo in some functional and psychosomatic disorders. Activ Nerv Super(Prague) 14:184-185. 1972
> 1 votes

---
Tags: addiction, placebo
---


# Question
Title: What is a good measure of self-regulation?
Is there self-regulation or self monitoring test. I am interested in measuring why people are not commited to their goals (quit smoking, dieting etc) so you can suggest another measure instead of self-regulation failure.

# Answer
> 2 votes
You could look at the Self-Regulation Questionnaire. See here for a summary of the instrument in terms of what it purports measure, items, response scales, psychometric properties such as reliability and validity.

### References

Brown, J. M., Miller, W. R., & Lawendowski, L. A. (1999). The Self-Regulation Questionnaire. In L. VandeCreek & T. L. Jackson (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 17, pp. 281-289). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You can also use a stop signal task that measure response inhibition. It has been associated with dependencies like smoking http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3077266/ and http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0018898 for a go/nogo task, though the stop signal task is preferred. There is also some studies linking inhibtion to self regulation and self control, although I dont remember the sources at the moment. Sorry for poor formatting, new here at s.e.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Also consider more fundamental personality differences such as Conscientiousness, "...the personality trait of being careful, or vigilant. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They exhibit a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness

It can be measured along with other major personality factors in the Big Five Inventory (BFI): https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/bfi.htm

---
Tags: measurement, motivation, self-discipline
---


title: Frissons on demand

text:
# Question
Title: Frissons on demand
Have you ever listened to music and it gives you "chills?" This response is called a "frisson," a french word meaning "to shiver."

When I want to access certain emotional and inspirationally charged visualisations I get frissons that I can create or stop at will. I practice this exercise when I need a quick energy/mood boost. It feels very calming and relaxing, as if pure wave-like energy is ebbing and flowing - pulsating throughout my body.

$(1)$ What percentage of people experience frissons?

$(2) $ What percentage of people can create frissons at will?

Wikipedia says about this topic:

> Frisson (French for 'shiver') is a sensation somewhat like shivering, usually caused by stimuli other than cold. It is typically expressed as an overwhelming emotional response combined with piloerection (goosebumps). Stimuli that produce a response are specific to the individual. Frisson is of short duration, usually no more than 4–5 seconds, usually pleasurable.\[1\] Typical stimuli include loud passages of music and passages that violate some level of musical expectation.\[2\]

Found this article about "voluntary piloerection:"

https://www.inverse.com/article/42005-goosebumps-control-voluntary-piloerection

# Answer
> 3 votes
Apparently voluntary piloerection is extremely rare amongst the popoluation. Only about 35 people out of about 7.6 billion people in the world have been confirmed to exhibit voluntary piloerection in the scientific literature.

For piloerection in general, only 2/3 of the population exhibit this trait.

As is stated in the abstract of the cited source below (which discusses voluntarily controlled piloerection), the ability correlates with personality traits of openness to new experiences, and highly emotionally developed parts of the brain:

> "Compared to previously collected samples, participants reported significantly higher openness to experience, and absorption in response to aesthetic situations. These preliminary findings suggest that this rare and unusual physiological ability has strong emotional and personality correlates."

https://peerj.com/preprints/26594/

---
Tags: cognitive-neuroscience, neurophysiology, neuroimaging
---


# Question
Title: Why this guilt discrepancy in human beings?
I believe no person is born a criminal.

Then why do some people have compunctious guilt after a wrongdoing even when they were raised in an unhealthy family and some people have no guilt at all even when they were raised in a healthy family?

Why this guilt discrepancy in human beings?

# Answer
Lack of guilt is related to psychopathy, although there could be other reasons for it, e.g. ideological self-justifications, like breaking a law you don't agree with. Psychopathy is partially inheritable, which means the genetically-unexplained variance is usually attributed to enivronmetal differences.

The propensity for guiltlessness is part of a narrower trait (of psychopathy) called "callous-unemotional traits", and these can be identified around the age of 7, according to one (fairly cited) study of Viding et al. (2005). Although the abstract of this paper is a bit... abstract, its intro is a bit more insightful what it is talking about:

> ‘Mark does not feel guilty if he has done something wrong, he does not show feelings or emotions, and he is rarely helpful if someone is hurt.’ This description of one of the 7-year-old children (name changed) in our twin study captures the core emotional impairment of individuals with psychopathy. Psychopathy in both childhood (psychopathic tendencies) and adulthood involves both affective-interpersonal impairment (callous-unemotional traits; e.g., lack of empathy, lack of guilt, shallow emotions) and overt antisocial behaviour.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: human-error
---


# Question
Title: Why does the graph have a logarithmic shape? That is, why does the increase rate in %/hr decrease over time?
The graph attached has a logarithmic line, but I can't figure out why. Does anyone have any potential justifications with respect to neuroscience?

Thanks!

# Answer
A really satisfying answer would need a full account of what memory is and how forgetting happens, and the full story on that does not exist yet. But there's been some pretty solid progress since Ebbinghaus.

The first step towards an answer would be to nail down exactly what shape that curve is. There's a careful look in: Averell, L., & Heathcote, A. (2011). The form of the forgetting curve and the fate of memories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55(1), 25-35.

But the TLDR version is that the first-pass description of the shape as logarithmic is pretty ok, there's a power-law rule for forgetting. Interestingly the asymptote doesn't seem to be zero! So some elements of memory seem to be effectively permanent.

Why and how that works is a bit of a mystery. Averell and Heathcote cite

Arshavsky,Y.I.(2006). The seven sins of the Hebbian synapse: can the hypothesis of synaptic plasticity explain long-term memory consolidation?

as discussing possible biological mechanisms for the results they found about the shape of the function, so that might be a nice place to start. But I don't think that's the last word on this! It's an ongoing research question.
> 4 votes

# Answer
It seems more like the equation which describes the charge of capacitors (among other phenomenons):

$$y = 1 - e^{-x}$$

This function converges to $1$. The property of this function is that it gets closer to $1$ multiplicatively, *i.e.*, the distance of the function from $1$ at $x = 1$, $x = 2$, $x = 3$ is:

$x = 1$: distance = $e^{-1} ≈ 0.36788^1$

$x = 2$: distance = $e^{-2} ≈ 0.36788^2$

$x = 3$: distance = $e^{-3} ≈ 0.36788^3$

The interpretation is that, just like exponential function gets bigger quickly, this function get closer to $1$ quickly.

The image you linked describes the Ebbinghaus Forgetting Curve. The meaning of the orange functions is that, after a repetition, you gradually forget learned notions over time. After each repetition, the lower end of the quantity of things you remember increase time by time, until you remember almost everything you learned.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience
---


# Question
Title: how to statistically analyse accuracy data (psycholinguistics)
My experiment is a naming task, in which participants name pictures and their vocal responses are recorded and the onset of vocalization. The data I am dealing with are reaction times in ms and accuracy ( correct answers in percentages. I did the analysis of reaction times and what is left is the accuracy data in which I need your valued help.

Now, just to explain what I have done so far: Each subject has an average score results for four conditions: Condition A, scored 10/15 , B 9/15, C 6/15 , and D 7/15. I transferred the discrete numbers into percentages and intended to use a mixed anova as I have One independent variable with two levels and two dependent variables with two level each.

My questions are:

1- Do I have to run a normality test for these data? the data size is over 30? 2- what if they were not normally distributed? what should I do? 3- Is transferring data into percentage right or wrong?

Many Thanks.

# Answer
Sounds interesting! Transferring counts into percentages definitely loses some information: 1/2 is not the same evidence as 100/200, but the difference is lost as a percentage.

ANOVA is pretty popular, but as you note in the question it can have problems. Because you have the classic linguistics/psych use-case of non-independent data (ie grouped by participant), you probably want to jump on the mixed effects model bandwagon if you possibly can. I hear it's all the rage.

Some justification/motivation here:

Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of memory and language, 59(4), 434-446.

And R package to do the heavy lifting for you here:

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glmm/vignettes/intro.pdf

Sounds like you have the binomial-input case.
> 2 votes

# Answer
The comment by @steveLangsford is good. Also, you should always make a habit of checking normality of your statistical tests have it as an assumption. If they are not normal, you can adjust your analyses or use transformations. If they are unmanageably non-normal, the original tests can't be interpreted anyway. Ideally, these decisions and their criteria would be settled before you see the actual data. But it's normal to just transparently disclose what you decided and when in terms of analysis.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: experimental-psychology, psycholinguistics
---


title: Is synesthesia tied to experience?

text:
# Question
Title: Is synesthesia tied to experience?
For example, do color blind people only able to perceive experienced colors through synesthesia? E.g. if a person both has synesthesia (like grapheme-color synesthesia or chromesthesia) and some kind of color blindness (say, protanopia, when individual can't experience "red" color) will all his/her synesthetic experiences be tied to the colors experienced? Or can synesthesia make a person feel "new" color (or any other experience)?

# Answer
Can synesthesia make a person feel "new" color (or any other experience)?

The answer **may be** yes. You can find this quote “V. S. Ramachandran and E. M. Hubbard (in their 2001 PRSL paper) described a partially colorblind man with letter-color synesthesia who said that when synesthetically stimulated, he saw colors he had never seen with his eyes—he called these “Martian colors.” Ramachandran and Hubbard subsequently found that “the Martian color effect” might occur in noncolorblind synesthetes as well.” from several websites, such as this site and this site.

But I can’t find the original paper of V. S. Ramachandran and E. M. Hubbard. So, it’s impossible to verify the finding. Also, I can’t find any other reports of such a patient in the literature or any report of non-colorblind synesthetes who experienced “the Martian color effect” either. So, personally, I think this finding and the speculation that “the Martian color effect” might occur in non-colorblind synesthetes as well needs more confirmation.

Anyway, is there evidence that a person who is color-blind since birth can experience a color that he/she has never experienced before? Will his/her cortical color perception areas, which have never generated the missing color perception, able to generate it when given appropriate stimuli, such as from the eyes after gene therapy that restores the missing cone function in the retina? The answer from animal experiments is yes (for example see Ref1 and Ref2). So, potentially, a colorblind brain can still generate a color percept that it has never generated before, when given appropriate stimuli. Theoretically, then, synesthesia may be able to make a person feel “new” color he/she has never felt before if it can deliver appropriate stimuli to the color perception areas.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: perception, color, synesthesia
---


title: "Dependence" in DSM-5

text:
# Question
Title: "Dependence" in DSM-5
I've read with some interest and amusement the following first-hand account (2006) on the confusion surrounding the DSM-IV meaning of "dependence" :

> One of us (C.O.) was a member of the committee who attended every one of the \[DSM\] committee meetings throughout the 1980s. There was good agreement among committee members as to the definition of addiction, but there was disagreement as to the label that should be used. The proponents of the term “addiction” believed that this word would convey the appropriate meaning of the compulsive drug-taking condition and would distinguish it from “physical” dependence, which is normal and can occur in anyone who takes medications that affect the CNS. Those who favored the term “dependence” felt that this was a more neutral term that could easily apply to all drugs, including alcohol and nicotine. The committee members argued that the word “addiction” was a pejorative term that would add to the stigmatization of people with substance use disorders. **A vote was taken at one of the last meetings of the committee, and the word “dependence” won over “addiction” by a single vote.**
>
> **Experience over the past two decades has demonstrated that this decision was a serious mistake. The term “dependence” has traditionally been used to describe “physical dependence,” which refers to the adaptations that result in withdrawal symptoms when drugs, such as alcohol and heroin, are discontinued.** Physical dependence is also observed with certain psychoactive medications, such as antidepressants and beta-blockers. However, the adaptations associated with drug withdrawal are distinct from the adaptations that result in addiction, which refers to the loss of control over the intense urges to take the drug even at the expense of adverse consequences. For example, research has shown that when opiates are administered to a naive animal, adaptation begins to occur after the first dose so that the second dose has a discernibly decreased effect from the first. After several days of taking the medication, abrupt cessation produces a withdrawal syndrome varying with the duration of treatment and the dose level. This is an expected pharmacological response, and although it may occur among addicts, it is quite distinct from compulsive drug-seeking behavior. **This has resulted in confusion among clinicians regarding the difference between “dependence” in a DSM sense, which is really “addiction,” and “dependence” as a normal physiological adaptation to repeated dosing of a medication. The result is that clinicians who see evidence of tolerance and withdrawal symptoms assume that this means addiction, and patients requiring additional pain medication are made to suffer.** Similarly, pain patients in need of opiate medications may forgo proper treatment because of the fear of dependence, which is self-limiting by equating it with addiction.
>
> The authors are now in the planning stages for DSM-V. There will be careful reviews of the criteria, but in the case of substance use disorders, the medical world drastically needs a change in labeling. **Addiction is a perfectly acceptable word. It is used by the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the American Association of Addiction Psychiatrists, the American Journal on Addictions, and the oldest journal in the field, simply known as Addiction. It is clear that any harm that might occur because of the pejorative connotation of the word “addiction” would be completely outweighed by the tremendous harm that is now being done to the patients who have had needed medication withheld because their doctors believe that they are addicted simply because they are dependent.**

So what (if anything) has DMS-5 done with respect to the dependence/addiction terminology?

# Answer
To me, the copy of DSM-5 follows the idea put forward by proponents of the term “addiction” in the meetings mentioned in your quote whereby

> proponents of the term “addiction” believed that this word would convey the appropriate meaning of the compulsive drug-taking condition and would distinguish it from “physical” dependence, which is normal and can occur in anyone who takes medications that affect the CNS.

In the second page of the preface to DSM-5 (page xlii), the following is stated.

> **Restructuring of substance use disorders for consistency and clarity**. The categories of substance abuse and substance dependence have been eliminated and replaced with an overarching new category of substance use disorders—with the specific substance used defining the specific disorders. "Dependence" has been easily confused with the term "addiction" when, in fact, the tolerance and withdrawal that previously defined dependence are actually very normal responses to prescribed medications that affect the central nervous system and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an addiction. By revising and clarifying these criteria in DSM-5, we hope to alleviate some of the widespread misunderstanding about these issues.

The section on **Substance Use Disorders** is within the section titled **Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders** which starts on page 481.

> The substance-related disorders encompass 10 separate classes of drugs: alcohol; caffeine; cannabis; hallucinogens (with separate categories for phencyclidine \[or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines\] and other hallucinogens); inhalants; opioids; sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics; stimulants (amphetamine-type substances, cocaine, and other stimulants); tobacco; and other (or unknown) substances. These 10 classes are not fully distinct. All drugs that are taken in excess have in common direct activation of the brain reward system, which is involved in the reinforcement of behaviors and the production of memories. They produce such an intense activation of the reward system that normal activities may be neglected. Instead of achieving reward system activation through adaptive behaviors, drugs of abuse directly activate the reward pathways. The pharmacological mechanisms by which each class of drugs produces reward are different, but the drugs typically activate the system and produce feelings of pleasure, often referred to as a "high." Furthermore, individuals with lower levels of self-control, which may reflect impairments of brain inhibitory mechanisms, may be particularly predisposed to develop substance use disorders, suggesting that the roots of substance use disorders for some persons can be seen in behaviors long before the onset of actual substance use itself.
>
> **\[...\]**
>
> The substance-related disorders are divided into two groups: substance use disorders and substance-induced disorders. The following conditions may be classified as substance-induced: intoxication, withdrawal, and other substance/medication-induced mental disorders (psychotic disorders, bipolar and related disorders, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunctions, delirium, and neurocognitive disorders).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: terminology, addiction, dsm
---


# Question
Title: How to measure personality using an internet questionnaire?
I am a computer science student. I am trying to do my project in **personality judgement** with **multiple questions**.

My idea is to make a **software** that asks **multiple questions** from a user and then as a result tell them what type of personality they have.

But it is quite hard for me to work on personality judgement with questionnaire.

# Answer
In general, your question suggests that you need to do a lot more reading. It sounds like you need an adviser who knows at least the basics about personality measurement. Perhaps you need to collaborate with a personality researcher.

If you simply want to administer a personality test and provide feedback to participants, this is fairly straightforward for a personality researcher.

There are a wide range of personality tools that are in the public domain. You could look, for example, at some of the measures listed on the IPIP website: https://ipip.ori.org/newMultipleconstructs.htm

If you look up the literature on these measures, you might be able to get some basic norms that could inform feedback. Equally, after you have administered a particular test to participants you could develop local norms used to inform feedback.

You could also take a few online measures that provide feedback to get a few ideas:
> 2 votes

---
Tags: personality
---


# Question
Title: Can't we teach other intelligent animals "complex" languages?
I assume I'm not the first person to think about this, but I find this idea very useful, and if it works it would really be a major breakthrough (IMO, more important than getting to space).

Animals already have their own "kind-of-language", but it is based more on feelings, moods, and whatever the sounds/body-language naturally inspire, and not on abstract thought. Given that there are primates capable of using sign language, I am left to believe that the barriers preventing animals from learning to speak are not simply their smaller brains, but their inability to pronounce the letters of most human languages and the lack of incentive or a good teacher (human parents are the equivalent language-teacher for the human-baby)

The scenario I though of would be the following (I used chimps as an example, but you can replace it with other animals if you wish): A group of world-class language-scientists develop a language with words and letters that can be easily pronounced by chimps. The language could even be constructed to be a very "beginner" language, to ease the learning process, as long as it keeps its properties of being able to express various thoughts and ideas. A few people then spend a some years to learn and practice this language until they can speak it more or less fluently, and adopt a baby chimp (or more) to raise, like a human baby.

There are, of course, a lot of details left to discuss. The "parent" should probably form a close bond with the chimp, so that it trusts them and pays attention to them. Luck is also a factor, as maybe only some current chimps would be able to pass this experiment.

**In summary, my question is:** Are there currently any species likely to be able to learn a language specifically made for them? And if yes, is there nobody researching this? I want to talk with my cat!

I am interested in your thoughts about this, and in any useful information you might have regarding this subject.

# Answer
Many researchers into animal language have presented results of studies as evidence of linguistic abilities in animals. Many of their conclusions have been disputed (Jannedy, Poletto, & Weldon, 1994; Wallman, 1992).

It is now generally accepted that apes can learn to sign and are able to communicate with humans.

The Smithsonian Institution talked about apes communicating and the following are YouTube videos of a gorilla communicating through sign language

A Conversation With Koko
Koko signing with Robin Williams (with translation in subtitles)

## References

Jannedy, S., Poletto, R., & Weldon, T. L. (Eds.). (1994). *Language files: materials for an introduction to language & linguistics*. Ohio State University Press.

Wallman, J. (1992). *Aping Language*. Cambridge University Press.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: learning, language, animal-cognition
---


# Question
Title: What is the fastest way to make an intermittent reinforced behavior become extinct?
Let's suppose I trained my dog to touch a button and win a prize in random sequences.

Now I want to make this behavior become extinct.

What is the fastest way:

1. Not allow my dog to see the button for a time, after that the dog will see the button but not react.
2. Allow him to touch the button indefinitely until my dog stops.

# Answer
The fastest way to extinct any behavior is negative reinforcement. But except few specific cases (e.g. self-biting), it's pretty much unethical. Regarding your 2 hypotheses: hypothesis 2 is the classical extinction paradigm. It will first get worse: the animal will repeatedly, almost obsessively, touch the button hoping for a reward. But it will eventually fade away (think weeks for total extinction though). Hypothesis 1 is hard to predict. I'm quite sure the dog will press the button if it remembers it (even after durations longer than in hypothesis 2). But it will probably fade away very quickly. In any case, this would avoid distress and confusion the animal would experience when pressing the button and not getting rewards. Whether it is faster or not is honestly anyone's guess and would presumably depend on how long you trained your dog, how big were the rewards he got and how memorable the button is.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: behaviorism, reinforcement-learning
---


# Question
Title: Kinetic synesthesia evoked by abstract thoughts?
Can the experience of movement when mentally visualizing the network/structure of the code of a complex application, and the information that flows through the network as a programmer be a kind of synesthesia experience, or is there something else at play? Movement akin to being drawn in different directions or tilting forward, as a result of experiencing the structure.

# Answer
**Short answer**
No.

**Background**
The definition of **synesthesia** is generally as follows:

> ... a perceptual condition of mixed sensations: a stimulus in one sensory modality (*e.g.*, hearing) involuntarily elicits a sensation/experience in another modality (*e.g.* vision). Likewise, perception of a form (*e.g.*, a letter) may induce an unusual perception in the same modality (*e.g.* a color).

The most common form of synesthesia is thought to be colored hearing: sounds, music or voices seen as colors. Most synesthetes report that they see such sounds internally, in "the mind's eye." Only a minority see visions as if projected outside the body, usually within arm's reach (source: APA).

Most of the discussions I've had with peers in that field reported to work with people that see letters and numbers to have a particular color. Indeed WebMD reports that

> One of the most common responses \[of synesthetes\] is to see letters, numbers, or sounds as colors.

Hence, I think that synesthesia often (but see the APA site) manifests itself through relatively 'simple' visuals brought about by relatively 'simple' stimuli. The number '4' appears to be green *etc*. In contrast, the highly cognitive complex associations you are envisioning seem unlikely to occur. Further, synesthesia is mostly coupled to the senses of vision and hearing, and not to motor functions. So, to answer your question, no I don't think so.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, neuroscience, perception, visualization, synesthesia
---


# Question
Title: Talking about a problem helps (software developing)
I am 42 and doing software developer since 20 years.

Since several years I know that talking about a problem helps.

If I can't find a an easy solution myself I talk to a team mate or ask at a site like stackoverflow.

Often it is enough to speak about it (or write the question). If I do this, I often find the solution myself.

I would like to find a matching term (from psychology or neuroscience) for this.

Question: How do you call this?

If you have links to related studies, please leave a comment. Thank you.

# Answer
> 2 votes
I can think two reasons why talking about a problem helps :

* **Explaining your knowledge can reveal gaps and bugs**

The following extract is from the book Smart Thinking by Art Markman :

* **Talking about a problem changes its mental representation**

> Our mental representation is the ideas, concepts, stories, theories, and skills that make up how we internalize something in our mind. Gardner writes:
>
> “Generically, mind change entails the alteration of mental representations. All of us develop mental representations quite readily from the beginning of life. Many such representations are serviceable, some have notable charm, others are misleading or flatly wrong. Mental representations have a content: we think of these contents as ideas, concepts, skills, stories, or full-fledged theories (explanations of the world). These contents can be expressed in words — and in a book, that medium is customarily used. However, nearly all contents can be expressed in a variety of forms, media, symbol systems: these systems can be exhibited publicly as marks on a page and can also be internalized in a ‘language of the mind’ or a particular ‘intelligence.’”

The mere fact of trying to formulate our thinking into speech, changes its representation (see this article).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Well, first of all, let's briefly discuss the process of thinking.

Lone, silent thinking is the internalization of words taught to you at a very young age. Clinical literature suggests that if you miss learning period you cannot learn it anymore. Feral Child Wikipedia

**Speculation:** Based on this, I strongly believe that understanding words and speaking came earlier in our evolutionary process than thinking. This posits the idea that we're better at discussing things in social settings than thinking them internally.

Now, writing obviously came later than understanding words, speaking words and thinking, however, it is a bit different than thinking. When you are writing you externalize something within and actually look at it, which entirely changes the perception of the subject.

Also, to further my point. As I mentioned above, thinking is the internalization of a conversation and it is really hard to think properly because it requires you to activate different parts of your personality that can actually argue/communicate as you would in a normal conversation. Technically speaking in order to think properly you need to create a cognitive dissonance otherwise it is going to be confirmation bias.

It's also useful to bring in terms such as subconscious and conscious. Carl Jung thought that those two exist 'in different dimensions'. You can attribute symbolic and metaphorical aspects of your psyche to the subconscious, while the verbal aspect of your mind is conscious. In other words, there is a difference between unarticulated and articulated knowledge.

Unarticulated knowledge is somewhat subconscious, so you do not have full access to it, however, if you manage to articulate it - you gain full access. Thinking is a quick process and thoughts might slip away while writing is slower and you actually perceive, correct yourself and rectify the issues as you go through. (Same applies to the communication except there are two or more heads instead of one.)

# Answer
> -1 votes
I found this related Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber\_duck\_debugging

Rubber duck debugging

> In software engineering, rubber duck debugging or rubber ducking is a method of debugging code. The name is a reference to a story in the book The Pragmatic Programmer in which a programmer would carry around a rubber duck and debug their code by forcing themselves to explain it, line-by-line, to the duck.\[1\] Many other terms exist for this technique, often involving different inanimate objects.
>
> Many programmers have had the experience of explaining a problem to someone else, possibly even to someone who knows nothing about programming, and then hitting upon the solution in the process of explaining the problem. In describing what the code is supposed to do and observing what it actually does, any incongruity between these two becomes apparent. More generally, teaching a subject forces its evaluation from different perspectives and can provide a deeper understanding. By using an inanimate object, the programmer can try to accomplish this without having to interrupt anyone else.

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, problem-solving, human-factors
---


# Question
Title: Are there detectable differences in brain activity when thinking about people of different degrees of closeness?
Once upon a time I read an article (or perhaps study/paper - I don't know) regarding different brain activity when referring to / thinking about different people:

* You
* Your close people, like family
* Your not-so-close people, like friends or the keeper of the shop you usually go to
* People you don't know like, say, politicians and celebrities

There is a chance that I read just crap from the internet (again) \[**Edit**: I struggled trying to find the article on google but couldn't\], but I'd like to know if there is any reliable source for that claim (a peer-reviewed-and-not-yet-dismissed paper, say).

Is there any reliable source (peer-reviewed & non-dismissed research paper - you all understand this matter better than me) regarding that topic?

# Answer
This domain is extensively explored as a "self-referential processing" The largest difference between self vs. non-self is higher activation for self-relatad activation of medial posterior and frontal regions (e.g., https://davidcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/self-ref-vs-valence.png?w=694&zoom=2) Those two regions are part of the Default Mode Network.

One of the most prominent researchers is Georg Northoff:

https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=-w-9zOQAAAAJ&hl=en You can check his reviews and found references to many additional studies.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: reference-request
---


# Question
Title: How to define "current" in artificial neural network?
How do neuroscientists define current/current densities in artificial neural networks?

Assume I have some deep network and I would like to study its dynamic/evolution in time during the training session what kind of model are there to study the flow?

Maybe there is some information I can extract from the PDE's of back-propagation? or some evolution of the Graph $G=(V,E)$ in time.

# Answer
> 4 votes
**Short answer**
In artificial neural networks currents are not involved, other than those flowing *in silico* in your pc. Instead, those currents are represented by weighted mathematical functions.

**Background**
Artificial neural networks as applied in machine learning (*e.g.*, deep learning) perform stuff like automatic feature extraction from raw data, also called feature learning. These models are algorithms that have little to do with the basic physiology of neurons. Hence, current/current density is not a matter of interest. It's the coupling between elements that matters, namely which cells couple to which cells and how strong that interaction is (Fig. 1).

> A given node \[(Fig. 1)\] takes the weighted sum of its inputs, and passes it through a non-linear activation function. This is the output of the node, which then becomes the input of another node in the next layer. The signal flows from left to right, and the final output is calculated by performing this procedure for all the nodes. Training this deep neural network means learning the weights associated with all the edges.

source: Towards Science

In other words, there is no current involved, only weighted functions.

Artificial neural network. source: Towards Science

---
Tags: theoretical-neuroscience
---


# Question
Title: How do psychologists ensure they are measuring innate intelligence and not just education?
Certain groups perform worse on IQ tests than other. How do psychologists ensure that those differences aren't purely related to differing levels of education between those groups?

How do we know that IQ is a real phenomenon, and not just a purely social factor based on level of intelligence?

# Answer
**Short answer**
Any intelligence test will be designed for a certain target population. That target population's score is set at an index of 100 for the standard IQ test. The same test applied to people from a different cultural background, or other socioeconomic status may yield numbers that are unreliable, as they my not understand the question (albeit knowing the answer), or they may lack the vocabulary, or even interest altogether.

**Background**
IQ is highly dependent on education; For instance, an illiterate person cannot perform an IQ test at all. And indeed, education can generally affect IQ scores (*e.g.*, Dear & Johnson, 2010). Further, IQ tests are Western constructs and do not apply in many other cultures. So IQ tests are anything but objective. They only apply validly to compare people with a certain educational background. Bush people in the outbacks of Africa may not use numbers at all, but instead may rely on 'one', 'two', perhaps' three' and 'many'. They may be highly intelligent, we simply cannot assign a number to it, simply because they don't care about numbers, geometry, classifications, logic, and other standard components of IQ tests. The APA says rightfully

> Researchers of cultural differences in intelligence **face a major challenge**, however: balancing the desire to compare people from various cultures according to a standard measure with the need to assess people in the light of their own values and concepts.

<sub>**Reference**
**-** Dear & Johnson, *Int J Epidemiol* (2010); **39**(1): 1362–9</sub>
> 6 votes

# Answer
I'm a research psychologist. I don't agree with some of the assertions by @AliceD above. A lot of the disagreement on this topic is about what we mean when we say intelligence, so it would be helpful to define what you mean by IQ. To a psychologist, IQ refers to a specific measure, not the general construct of intelligence. Certainly the use of measure matters a lot:

> Discussion of what intelligence means across cultures: https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligence.aspx

The original IQ tests such as the Stanford-Binet were more culturally dependent, similar to the infamous SAT question about a 'regatta', which is a term that certain income and ethnic groups learn about more frequently.

However, for decades cognitive scientists measure intelligence with diverse methods, many without words at all (so there's less room for some types of bias). Performance on these tasks all correlate positively in populations, and are taken to indicate a stable underlying trait: g for general intelligence. Education improves g, but not very much! About 1 IQ point per year of education, or ~1/15th a standard deviation per year.

The biggest effects on g are genetic mutations, lead exposure, malnutrition, stuff like that. All g outcomes are complex interactions between genes and environment.

> Accessible, affordable, brief book of the research that addresses many misunderstandings: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877

About the original question, if one measures education and g separately, one can see whether variation in one is due to variation in the other. That's how psychologists assess independence. These are reliably linked, but only weakly.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: measurement, test, iq
---


# Question
Title: Finding largest level of imperceptible noise in an image
Suppose that we want to find the "largest level" of a random noise that can safely be added to an image such that the resultant noisy image cannot be distinguishable from the original noise-free image. For this purpose, we design the following subjective experiment:

Let I be the reference (noise-free) image. We first add a high level of noise to I to get a noisy image J. We then display I and J side by side, and ask a user to reduce the level of the noise in J gradually using a slider until he/she cannot distinguish between the reference image and the noisy image. The resultant level is then considered as the largest level of imperceptible noise for I.

But do you think that this experiment is technically sound? Also, can we use an adaptive procedure like QUEST to find the desired threshold/noise level? What do you think?

# Answer
You are describing two classical psychophysical techniques. The first one is called matching: you try to perceptually match stimulus J to stimulus I. The problem I can see here is that under the level of noise for which the two images are indiscriminable (called absolute threshold), any value would be a match, so that's an ambiguous task. There is another technique where you would ask your observer to press a button when she first notices a difference between the two images while the noise is slowly increasing. You alternate with trials where the observer reports when she cannot perceive a difference between the two images while the noise is slowly decreasing (these values will be different because of perceptual hysteresis). Then you take the average of these values.

The second technique is called a 2-alternative forced choice task. It's the technique used by most psychophysical studies today. There are different ways you could implement it but the simplest would be to ask your observer which of 2 images displayed simultaneously (or successively) contains noise. Then you can indeed use an adaptive technique such as QUEST, a fixed-step staircase or any of the hundreds of staircases that exist to find the threshold at which your observer is N% correct (N being an arbitrary value you fix in advance).

A last technique could be useful. If you want to find not only the threshold at which your observer can perceive noise but the entire function that links noise level to perceived "noisiness", then you could use Maximum Likelihood Difference Scaling. See the paper below.

Sources

Any psychophysics textbook would do, this a very good one: Kingdom, F. A., & Prins, N. (2010). Psychophysics: A practical introduction.

MLDS technique: https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2192635
> 6 votes

---
Tags: experimental-psychology, vision, psychophysics
---


# Question
Title: Word for naming your negative self-talk to overcome it
I'm trying to find some research - or at least a professional analysis - on the concept of naming your negative self-talk so that you can "take away its power" - that is, separate it from yourself and dismiss it. I've also heard this referred to as "naming your fear."

For example, an actor might name his negative self-talk "the critic" so that he can dismiss those thoughts as being "just the critic running his mouth."

Another example (and the one that I'm specifically curious about) is in software engineering, where there's a lot of talk about "imposture syndrome," which in this context is just a fancy way of describing the common experience of feeling like you're underqualified for the job you're doing. Giving it such a formal name has the added benefit of being "proof" that it's an irrational fear - that is, "Even qualified people are afraid that they're underqualified, so me thinking that I'm underqualified doesn't mean that it's true."

The specific questions that I'm trying to answer are:

1. Is there a name for this kind of technique?
2. Have there been any studies done on this technique?
3. Specifically relating to the "imposture syndrome" example, how is this different from hypochondria? And,
4. Are there any related concepts that I might want to take a look at?

# Answer
What you are talking about is the powerful technique of Compartmentalisation. As highlighted in the Wikipedia link I provided here, **normally speaking** (emphasis mine)

> Compartmentalization is a **subconscious** psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
>
> Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states (Leary & Tangney, 2011).

Carolin Showers (1992) described compartmentalisation as

> the tendency to organize positive and negative knowledge about the self into separate, uniformly valenced categories (self-aspects). As long as positive self-aspects are activated, access to negative information should be minimized.

however, you can consciously compartmentalise negative thoughts, feelings etc.

With regard to hypochondria in your question, compartmentalisation can be extremely difficult for hypochondriacs, as can they have trouble separating personal health facts from false perceptions of their personal health (see Illness Anxiety Disorder in DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) or Merck Manual, or ICD-10 code F45.21).

There are a lot of concepts directly and indirectly related to compartmentalisation, so that part of your question is too broad to answer fully here. However as a start, you could look at secondary trauma (also called vicarious trauma).

Compartmentalisation is often employed, for example, by people within the emergency services (fire officers, paramedics, police officers, coastguard etc.) in order for them to concentrate on the immediate task whilst temporarily isolating themselves from their emotions. Problems can come later for these people if they do not deal with their compartmentalised emotions afterwards during debriefing or clinical supervision sessions.

When studying primary and secondary trauma in medical emergency personnel, Jane Shakespeare-Finch (2011) described this as

> adaptive compartmentalizing of emotion during a scenario in which focus on the patient is paramount.

## References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (5th Edition)*. Washington, DC.

Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). *Handbook of self and identity*. Guilford Press.

Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2011). Primary and secondary trauma in emergency personnel. *Traumatology*, 17(4), 1-2.
DOI: 10.1177/1534765611431834

Showers, C. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-knowledge: Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 62(6), 1036-1049.
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.1036
> 5 votes

# Answer
I do not believe compartmentalization is the answer to the original question. The original question is about naming, identifying, not separating which is compartmentalization.

Two people can have exactly the same knowledge and one can compartmentalize and the other cannot. The fallout of that is that one person may have more anxiety than the other as they are not as adept at resolving the cognitive dissonance.

I believe the answer to the original question is “distinguishing” – formalizing, giving identity, objectifying. When something is objectified it can now have be assigned characteristics which allow a decision to be made about it’s framing, compartmentalization, etc.

The feeling of inadequacy, imposter syndrome, is the fallout of not being able to objectify ones role, their subjective being. A plumber is never “really" a plumber In the same way that a pebble stays a pebble until it’s not pebble anymore (perhaps it was crushed into powder).

"Plumber" is the name of their role at the moment (which speaks to the description, and value in self-therapy, of "acting" that was previously mentioned.)

Since that role can always change a person can never actually know who they "really are" because they really are not anyone (any one, any single) person.

As there is no way to objectify oneself to oneself then who a person “really is“ is unknown which can result in anxiety (imposter, fraud).
> 1 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, terminology, fear, positive-thinking
---


title: Reference signal when measuring EEG

text:
# Question
Title: Reference signal when measuring EEG
When performing EEG, a number of electrodes are placed on the scalp to measure the electric potential difference between those locations and a reference. In the unipolar configuration, the reference is often the signal on another electrode (and is common to all measurement electrodes) or an average of the all measurement electrodes. In the bipolar configuration, the reference is specific to each measurement electrode (and is often another electrode located nearby). For examples, see here and here.

Questions:

1. For the unipolar configuration, why can't we just use Earth ground as our reference instead of having a reference electrode or performing an average of measurements on all the electrodes?
2. For the bipolar configuration, if the electrodes are too close to each other, wouldn't we measure very low voltages since much of the signal appearing on one electrode would also be picked up by the other?

# Answer
> For the unipolar configuration, why can't we just use Earth ground as our reference instead of having a reference electrode or performing an average of measurements on all the electrodes?

The ground has a different function than the reference. The reference is the electrode that the voltage is recorded against; a voltage is a potential difference so you need two electrodes. The ground is used for common mode rejection. The primary purpose of the ground is to prevent power line noise from interfering with the small biopotential signals of interest (source: Biopac).

> For the bipolar configuration, if the electrodes are too close to each other, wouldn't we measure very low voltages since much of the signal appearing on one electrode would also be picked up by the other?

Yes. The smaller the distance, the better the rejection of unwanted signals. But with that, you're also risk to throw away the baby with the bath water.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: measurement, eeg, electrophysiology, signal-processing
---


title: How addictive is Heroine?

text:
# Question
Title: How addictive is Heroine?
I keep hearing that "\*Heroine is *so* addictive the very first dose is enough to get you hooked on it\*".

Personally, I have a hard time believing any substance could do that to you. But I could believe people spreading that idea to discourage people from consuming it.

Now obviously, I have zero desire to test that hypothesis myself. :P

Still, I'm curious. Does anybody know papers that shed some light on this matter?

# Answer
"The United Nations World Drug Report 2013 estimated that approximately 16.5 million people worldwide aged 15 or older used heroin or opium. Of these users, approximately 23% are estimated to develop opioid dependence."

This is from the introduction section of Hser, Y. I., Evans, E., Grella, C., Ling, W., & Anglin, D. (2015). Long-term course of opioid addiction. Harvard review of psychiatry, 23(2), 76-89.

They cite: United Nations Office on Drug and Crime. World drug report 2013. Vienna: UNODC, 2013.

&

Anthony JC, Warner LA, Kessler RC. Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substances, and inhalants: basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 2: 244–68.

There are various factors that push that probability up or down, sex, age, personality factors, circumstantial factors, some people would have a higher probability, some lower. But the base-rate probability is roughly 1 in 4. For perspective, it's worse odds than Russian roulette (1 in 6), but better odds than unprotected sex leading to an unplanned pregnancy (somewhere around 1 in 3, depending on various things). If you're comfortable with the folk-wisdom of either "Russian roulette will kill you" or "sex leads to pregnancy" you should also be comfortable with the statement "heroin will get you hooked". Sure, they're all approximations, but not terribly misleading ones.
> 5 votes

# Answer
**Short answer**
Addicition is defined as: ***repeated involvement with a substance or activity, despite the substantial harm it now causes, because that involvement was (and may continue to be) pleasurable and/or valuable***. The 'repeated involvement' basically excludes any drug from a diagnosis of addiction after first-time use. Addiction is a behavioral dependence characterized by repeated and prolonged abuse. So because of the criteria needed to be medically 'addicted', a one-time drug use cannot lead to a diagnosis of addiction.

**Background**
This question is a matter of definition. The question hinges on the use of the term 'addiction'. Addiction is diagnosed as such using the following criteria:

1. Impaired control
2. Social impairment
3. Risky use
4. Pharmacological indicators (tolerance and withdrawal)

**Impaired control** may be evidenced in several different ways, namely 1) using for longer periods of time than intended, or using larger amounts than intended; 2) Wanting to reduce use, yet being unsuccessful doing so; 3) Spending excessive time getting/using/recovering from the drug use; 4) Cravings that are so intense it is difficult to think about anything else.

**Social impairment** is related to the addiction being defined as **repeated involvement with a substance or activity, despite the substantial harm it now causes, because that involvement was (and may continue to be) pleasurable and/or valuable**. Social impairment is one type of substantial harm (or consequence) caused by the repeated use of a substance or an activity. For example, people may continue to use despite problems with work, school or family/social obligations. This might include repeated work absences, poor school performance, neglect of children, or failure to meet household responsibilities. Addiction may also be indicated when someone continues substance use despite having interpersonal problems because of the substance use. This could include arguments with family members about the substance use, or losing important friendships because of continued use. In addition, important and meaningful social and recreational activities may be given up or reduced because of substance use. A person may spend less time with their family, or they may stop playing golf with their friends.

**Risky Use**; the key issue of this criterion is the failure to refrain from using the substance despite the harm it causes, as addiction may be indicated when someone repeatedly uses substances in physically dangerous situations. For instance, using alcohol or other drugs while operating machinery or driving a car. Some people continue to use addictive substances even though they are aware it is causing or worsening physical and psychological problems. An example is the person who continues to smoke cigarettes despite having a respiratory disorder such as asthma or COPD.

**Pharmacological indicators**: Tolerance and Withdrawal. For many people, tolerance and withdrawal are the classic indicators of advanced addiction. As such, these are particularly important concepts. This criterion refers to the adjustment the body makes as it attempts to adapt to the continued and frequent use of a substance. Tolerance occurs when people need to increase the amount of a substance to achieve the same desired effect. Withdrawal is the body's response to the abrupt cessation of a drug, once the body has developed a tolerance to it. The resulting cluster of (very unpleasant and sometimes fatal) symptoms is specific to each drug.

A person needs to meet at least 2 of these criteria to be diagnosed with a substance-use disorder. The severity of addiction is determined by the number of criteria met. In any of the criteria a matter of prolonged use is characteristic.

Sometimes **craving** is also included in the criteria list.

<sub>**Source**
**-** ASAM
**-** Horvath *et al*., AMHC (2017)</sub>
> 3 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, psychopharmacology, addiction, drugs
---


# Question
Title: What does "affect component" mean in this article on well-being?
> Previous research lends support to the view that the **negative affect component** of well-being is strongly associated with neuroticism and that **positive affect component** has a similar association with extraversion. This research also supports the view that positive emotions—central components of well-being—are not merely the opposite of negative emotions, but are independent dimensions of mental health that can, and should be fostered.

Emphasis mine. Source.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As the CDC page you linked states,

> Well-being integrates mental health (mind) and physical health (body) resulting in more holistic approaches to disease prevention and health promotion.

Mental health and physical health are the 2 main components to well-being, and both these components have components within them.

Mental health will have **positive affects** and **negative affects** as 2 of its components.

---
Tags: emotion, terminology, well-being
---


# Question
Title: What is the learning/memory type which requires active contribution called?
I observed I best memorize information when I actively compile it into meaningful hierarchy. That encompasses creating PowerPoint presentations, explaining the topic to someone or writing summaries. I think my active contribution is what matters here.

For a while, I used the term *social memory* but I've learned it refers rather to obervational learning. So is there a term for it?

# Answer
**Short answer**
This type of engaged learning is referred to as active learning.

**Background**
In contrast to the traditional, mostly passive ways of teaching (one-way lecturing), nowadays there's a trend to **active learning**.

> Active learning is any approach to instruction in which all students are asked to engage in the learning process. Active learning stands in contrast to "traditional" modes of instruction in which students are passive recipients of knowledge from an expert.

Markant *et al* (2016) explain in a review article that active learning leads to better outcomes than passive forms of instruction. They summarize that the opportunity to control the information while learning leads to improved memory. Mechanisms involved in this effect include the formation of **sensorimotor associations**, adaptive selection of material and metacognitive monitoring.

Active control over a learning situation results in large areas of the brain being recruited and interconnected during active exploration (source: Psych Central). For example, active exploratory behavior during the observation of objects enhances memory recall (Voss *et al*., 2011), resulting in enhanced activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the cerebellum and the hippocampus is higher and more coordinated after active learning (source: Illinois News Bureau).

<sub>**References**
**-** Markant *et al* Mind, Brain, and Education Society (2016); **10**(3): 142-52
**-** Voss *et al*., *Nat Neurosci* (2011); **14**(1): 115-20</sub>
> 1 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, learning, memory, terminology
---


# Question
Title: What happens in the brain that allows access to a previous unavailable memory?
What happens in the brain that allows you access to a memory previous unavailable?

For example I forgot the name of someone I've known for years. Two weeks later, without notice, "Diana" popped up.

Why was it not accessible when I found I couldn't remember?

What was the chemistry that occurred that allowed it to happen later?

(Secondarily, is this the same breakdown in dementia and alzheimer's? That is, a breakdown of the 'search memory' mechanism? Or is that the memories themselves are 'losing coherence.')

# Answer
These kinds of research questions are interesting, but notoriously hard to investigate empirically, because:

1. You need human subjects that are able to provide complex feedback, *i.e.*, you can't use invasive, long-term recordings in animals;
2. You need subjects to undergo long-term experiments, as your example indicates in the order of weeks, for *one single measurement*;
3. You need subjects that experience this regularly and frequently;
4. You need a way of faithfully time-stamping the exact moment of recall and somehow establish a procedure to grasp what's happening inside the brain against a variable, uncontrolled background.

In essence, it's next to impossible to find out.

There is, however, a large body of literature around memory recall in general, including detailed imaging studies, *e.g.*, Heckers *et al*. (1999), Hall *et al*. (2001), Liu *et al*. (2012) and I'm sure there will be much overlap between spontaneous and deliberate memory recall.

<sub>**References**
**-** Heckers *et al*. *Arch Gen Psychiatry* (1999); **56**(12): 1117-23)
**-** Hall *et al*. *J Neurosci* (2001); **21**(6): 2186-93
**-** Liu *et al*. *Nature* (2012); **484**: 381–5</sub>
> 5 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, memory
---


# Question
Title: Is there research to prove that humans achieve more when challenging ourselves or when we challenge others?
Given that there is a single player game, let's say, Tetris. I play the game for 5 days and my friend is also playing the game for 5 days. At the end of the 5 days we would like to see who has the highest score and that person wins some prize.

Is it better that we see the scores of our opponent and try to better it, or is better that I do not see my friend's score and focus on just constantly beating my own score?

Which of the 2 scenarios is likely to yield the higher score at the end of the 5 days? And why?

I'm doing some research on gamification and how competition can help us progress a skill.

# Answer
> 6 votes
Generally, being observed raises performance on simple tasks and can hinder performance on complex tasks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_facilitation

For trivia, notice that the experiment widely regarded to be the first in social psychology was of observed vs. unobserved cycling. Being watched made people cycling faster: https://www.simplypsychology.org/Social-Facilitation.html excerpt:

> "According to Cottrell (1968), it’s not the presence of other people that is important for social facilitation to occur but the apprehension about being evaluated by them. We know that approval and disapproval are often dependent on others’ evaluations and so the presence of others triggers an acquired arousal drive based on evaluation anxiety."

---
Tags: social-psychology, learning
---


# Question
Title: Does a non-knowledge based, or knowledge corrected IQ test exist, and what are its results per race?
If you google

> IQ gap race

and open the google images, you will see many diagrams showing the differences.

I went on some IQ test pages, and I noticed that the test includes mathematical questions, that have nothing or less to do, with IQ.

That is: if your school you went to is bad, you will have less knowledge after leaving it. For example solving a mathematical question formulated in an IQ test. You cannot solve, but others will be able to solve, because they dealt with it in school, and you didn't. But the real IQ is the same.

So what I am asking is:

**does a non-knowledge based, or knowledge corrected IQ test exist, and what are its results per race?**

# Answer
> 4 votes
No, such a completely knowledge-free test has not been devised. Fluid intelligence (a component of IQ tests) is probably the closest thing to the claim of being "knowledge-free", but it isn't quite so. As typically measured, e.g. using Raven's progressive matrices one still needs to have some clue what the test is talking about in terms patterns etc. And prior exposure to similar test makes a difference (see Hayes et al. 2015) in test results, i.e. there's a learning effect.

In the US, where most such race-intelligence research is conducted, there's still a racial group difference on fluid intelligence tests (e.g. Raven's) in the usual test settings, although some evidence suggests it depends how the test is interpreted by the takers may matter, e.g. Brown & Day (2006):

> This study addresses recent criticisms aimed at the interpretation of stereotype threat research and methodological weaknesses of previous studies that have examined race differences on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). African American and White undergraduates completed the APM under three conditions. In two threat conditions, participants received either standard APM instructions (standard threat) or were told that the APM was an IQ test (high threat). In a low threat condition, participants were told that the APM was a set of puzzles and that the researchers wanted their opinions of them. Results supported the stereotype threat interpretation of race differences in cognitive ability test scores. Although African American participants underperformed Whites under both standard and high threat instructions, they performed just as well as Whites did under low threat instructions.

A slightly more recent meta-analysis (Nguyen & Ryan 2008) still found an effect though

> For minorities, moderately explicit stereotype threat-activating cues produced the largest effect, followed by blatant and subtle cues: ds = |.64|, |.41|, and |.22|, respectively; explicit removal strategies enhanced stereotype threat effects compared with subtle strategies: ds = |.80| and |.34|, respectively.

Alas most such meta-analytic research does not isolate just one type of IQ testing.

IQ testing under stereotype threats is still a pretty controversial area of research in itself, see Ziegler (2017) and reply by Nguyen & Ryan.

---
Tags: intelligence, iq
---


# Question
Title: Readiness Potential vs. Lateralized Readiness Potential in ERP
Readiness Potential (RP) has been obviously discovered before Lateralized Readiness Potential (LRP). I wonder, is simple RP still used for something today? Is the LRP preferable over RP because of more precise localization of the effect / component?

# Answer
The Lateralized Readiness Potential can be considered a later component of a more generalized Readiness Potential, i.e., an LRP would develop out of an RP. As such, RPs can be interesting if you want to determine the earliest point in time at which a movement plan "gets worked on" in the motor cortex.

For reference, I recommend reading these sources and I hope you will be able to find your way around the paywall:
> 3 votes

---
Tags: eeg, event-related-potential
---