title: Why do therapists need therapy?

text:
# Question
Title: Why do therapists need therapy?
I have no educational background in psychology, just a casual curiosity. Do therapists need therapy because it’s impossible for people to see their own blind-spots (I think this is called the shadow)? Are there ways you can train people to see weird distortions in their own logic on their own, or do they always need an outside party?

# Answer
> 7 votes
As pointed out in another answer of mine, therapists are not immune to psychological problems. In fact, one study shows the lifetime rate of depression in psychologists and social workers to be higher than that of the general population (Deutsch, 1985).

They hear about difficult, sometimes traumatic experiences as their clients share their issues. This can lead to problems due to the phenomenon known as *Emotion Contagion*. They too occasionally have personal problems and things they may find difficult work through without some assistance. See This TalkSpace article for some other examples of how therapists might need therapy.

As you indicated in your question, sometimes this may not be immediately noticed by the therapist for reasons like hidden issues. As I have pointed out in another previous answer - see for more info., there is Clinical Supervision which helps to highlight any possible psychological issues or hidden traits — e.g. prejudices or other incorrect thought patterns/conclusions) — which may need therapy (See my answer talking about Johari Windows for more on that). This is standard practice, and required in codes of practice for registered counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. and those in training.

## References

Deutsch, C. J. (1985). A survey of therapists' personal problems and treatment. *Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16*(2), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.16.2.305

---
Tags: therapy, jung
---


title: Is there visual focus during a saccade?

text:
# Question
Title: Is there visual focus during a saccade?
Has anyone succeeded in measuring where the focus is between saccades? Through some kind of nonintrusive brainscan perhaps? I would like to be able to draw with my thought :) (Something similar would be okay, like the position or shape I am thinking of overlayed on what I see)

# Answer
> 2 votes
**Short answer**
The retinal image cannot be refocused on an intermediate target during a saccade.

**Background**
Psychophysical experiments have shown that during a saccade, attention is aimed at the target location. Instructing the subject to make a saccade from location A to C, while focusing on another point B proved impossible.

The authors conclude that:

> \[A\] saccade executed to a peripheral location in the visual field involves the orienting of attention to that location, prior to the actual execution of the saccade. The inability to orient attention to one location and simultaneously execute a saccade to another location suggests that orienting of attention may be an essential component of preparing and/or executing saccades.

In other words, a saccade is meant to shift the point of focus, and attention cannot be paid to another point during a saccade.

<sub>**Reference**
**-** Hoffman & Baskaran, *Perception & Psychophysics* (1995); **57**(6), 787-95</sub>

# Answer
> 0 votes
Because of perisaccadic space compression effect, the focus lies inbetween from the saccade onset position to its future offset (target position), but only given the target is inside this region.
In case the target changes its position during saccade; or was not inside it from the start (antisaccade task), there is no compression effect and, therefore, no objects are focused.

---
Tags: neuroscience, vision, eye-movement
---


# Question
Title: What has changed in your brain after electroconvulsive "therapy" (ECT)?
From this Wikipedia article:

> Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), formerly known as electroshock therapy, is a psychiatric treatment in which **seizures** in the brain (without muscular convulsions) are electrically induced in patients to provide relief from mental disorders. Typically, 70 to 120 volts are applied externally to the patient's head resulting in approximately 800 milliamperes of direct current passed through the brain, for 100 milliseconds to 6 seconds duration, either from temple to temple (bilateral ECT) or from front to the back of one side of the head (unilateral ECT).

This procedure is applied to people ("patients") who suffer from depression or bi-polarity (though I think the last is not a disorder, as is very exemplified in the movie "One flew over the cuckoo's nest"; it's a common feature of all human beings and we are taught at an already young age to keep our attention, concentration, actions, etc. between unnatural boundaries). Depression can emerge from such conditioning, from exterior impulses (seeing that Nature gets less and less, for example), maybe there is a genetic component. Exogenous and endogenous depression.
Most people relapse (as can be read in the article) before a year after the treatment and there are side effects (the most common adverse effects are confusion and transient memory loss).

In short: it's not an effective therapy in the long run.
In this advertisement of the Mayo Clinique (where ECT is still used) it is said:

> ECT is much safer today. Although ECT may still cause some side effects, it now uses electric currents given in a controlled setting to achieve the most benefit with the fewest possible risks.

Of course, they put it that way out of commercial interest.
I think a combination of medicines with therapy does a better job in the case of depression.

All that I've written is just a preliminary for my question:

**What happens on the neuron-level if ECT is applied to someone's brain?**

# Answer
There is actually quite some information on this. After a cursory Google Scholar search using the keywords "long-term neuronal effect of ECT" I found the following effects on the brain:

* A week or two after the ECT, gray matter of depressed patients seemed to be increased in volume throughout the brain (Ousdal, 2020);
* In rats, ECT resulted in behavioral improvements and neurogenesis in the hippocampus. Quite some of these new neurons survived up to 12 months (Vestergaard *et al*, 2017);
* In mice, a single ECT triggered cortical snaptogenesis and a sustained neurogenesis, accompanied by behavioral improvement. Relapse occurred 40 days later. However, a 5-week continuation protocol following the initial ECS treatment led to a more persistent improvement of behavior and better survival rates of new neurons, but the authors did not investigate how long effects last after ECT was stopped fully (Jonckheere *et al*., 2018);

<sub>**References**
**-** Jonckheere *et al*., *Brain Stim* (2018); **11**(6): 1336-47
**-** Ousdal *et al*., *Biol Psych* (2020); **87**(5): 451-61
**-** Vestergaard *et al*., *Hippocampus* (2017); **27**(1): 52-60</sub>
> 1 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, neurophysiology, depression
---


# Question
Title: Why are counsellors not supposed to give advice or lead the client? Is it possible for a counsellor not to be leading?
I’ve taken a course on counselling psychology and have attended a counselling sessions myself. All the literature I’ve read has said counsellors should not give advice. My question is why is this possible?

I know when talking to a counsellor they think they’re being self-empowering by not “giving advice” or asking leading questions, but I don’t believe it’s possible to have a neutral conversation with someone where they have no effect over you. In a sense, is the way councillors/psychologists speaking to people actually underhanded as they try to dress-up advice as non-advice? I know at advance stages of counselling the counsellor is supposed to challenge the client’s incongruent views. Which views the councillor challenges are up to him, so that’s exerting change on the client. Wouldn't it be better for a councillor to clearly say what he thinks instead of trying to trick a client into thinking they came up with the idea? For example if a counsellor says “you’ve listed many bad qualities about your girlfriend” while this may be a fact, the councillor is trying to steer you in a certain direction. Wouldn’t it be more honest to say “you’ve listed many bad qualities about your girlfriend, maybe you should breakup with her?” even though the breaking up bit is considered advice?

UPDATE: I think I've finally found the words to express what I'm thinking. I know councilors are not supposed to give advice and act in a very "neutral way" as to allow the client to sort things out for them self, as this is seen as self empowering. It's been my observation that councilors (inadvertently) just find ways to mask what they are asserting as a question or a seemingly neutral statement. For example, client "my neighbor was parked in my drive way and it made me late for work", councilor "I could see how that would make a person mad" (this implies the correct response would be mad). client: "my date cancelled on me", councilor "do you feel let down?" (this is planting the idea in his head). Now wouldn't it be better if the councilor gave advice like "there are plenty of fish in the sea". I know councilors are not trained to ask leading questions or make leading comments, but as humans, I believe it is inevitable to do this, and it's much better just to say something directly than to (subconsciously) think up a way to hint at it.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Counselors can be taught to "not give advice" and there are good reasons for this school of thought. But in professional practice such passivity is only one style among many counselors may choose. If you find yourself unhappy with your counselor's style, do both of you a favor and keep looking for greater compatibility. Better results will follow from greater comfort in sessions. The burden of finding the best match is on the client - the counselor will try to help the client as well as possible with the style the counselor believes is best for the client, but if you don't like such passivity, look for another counselor and say what you want during the first meeting (on the phone, even better.)

As to "why" some counselors believe it is helpful to not give advice: much work in psychotherapy requires the client to make every step, every decision following the client's own insight; this is a process of internal awareness and growth which places the counselor in the role of facilitator. A facilitator will make it easier for the client to make progress, but will not tell the client answers even if the counselor has opinions or preferences. As you put it, the goal is for the client to become more "self-empowering."

*I hope this helps.* I have a Counseling M.A. and years' practice in a variety of healing arts. , , ,

# Answer
> 1 votes
I have only come across this question today, and seeing as you asked this question in 2015, I hope you have been able to work the answer out now during your training. However, to address this question here with supporting citations, here is my answer.

---

Many people know that friends and family want the best for them so they may find it difficult to avoid offering advice or opinions when you share your thoughts.

> But occasionally their advice is not sufficient, or we are too embarrassed or ashamed to tell them what is bothering us, or we just don’t have an appropriate person to turn to. Counselling is a really useful option at these moments (McLeod, 2003).

There is one issue with that if seeking advice and opinions. Counselling does not involve the provision of advice. Many people come to therapy expecting the therapist to act as an expert offering specific advice and guidance. This often leads to confusion as this is not the case in a therapeutic relationship.

Advice given from friends, family or even counsellors can be totally incorrect for the client and therefore the client should be given the opportunity to work the answers out for themselves.

> Other forms of helping will usually involve the individual being given advice or guidance on the most effective way to solve a problem or achieve a goal.
>
> For example, a teacher may help a student by advising them on how to revise in order to successfully pass an exam (Short & Thomas, 2015).

You gave an example where a counsellor might say:

> you’ve listed many bad qualities about your girlfriend

While you are not criticising your client when saying this as a counsellor, this is criticism of a third person who is not there to defend themselves.

A client may present qualities in their girlfriend which may be seen as bad qualities, but they are the client's view of their girlfriend and not the counsellor's. Who is to say that the client may have the wrong impression? There is always 2 sides to a story when looking at relationships.

A therapist who is working ethically will not sit in judgement of the client, their experiences, or others around them.

> Therapy does not usually involve criticism, although it can be challenging for the client.

Other forms of helping may use constructive criticism to highlight areas for improvement or motivate further action.

> For example, a personal trainer may help a client by criticising them in order to motivate them to work harder in the gym (Short & Thomas, 2015).

With regard to expertise in the client's situation:

> Therapy involves equality between therapist and client – it is essential that the relationship between the therapist and client remain equal throughout the therapeutic process in order for the client to take ownership of their own growth and development.
>
> Other forms of helping may involve a power imbalance as the helper holds more expert power than the person being helped.
>
> For example, a lecturer may help a student in many ways but the relationship is always imbalanced because the lecturer has the power to award good or bad grades (Short & Thomas, 2015).

Counselling involves exploring your thoughts and feelings along with looking at your options in how to move forward in life.

> Therapy does not have a guaranteed outcome – it frequently focuses on the self-exploratory journey rather than the eventual destination, and goals established at the start may not be the desired outcome by the end of the process.
>
> Other forms of helping may set a specific outcome at the start and the relationship may be considered a failure if this outcome is not met by the end.
>
> For example, a dietitian may help a client by instructing them to eat a wheat-free diet to alleviate allergies and this will have a successful outcome provided that the client follows the advice (Short & Thomas, 2015).

Sutton & Stewart (2002) gives distinctions between therapy, guidance and advice.

* **Advice**
Persuasive one-way exchange involving the advice-giver offering an opinion, making a judgement or making a recommendation.
* **Guidance**
Encouraging a one-way exchange involving the guide showing the way, educating, influencing or instructing.
* **Therapy**
Facilitative two-way collaborative and supportive relationship that allows clients to explore their problem, understand their problem and resolve or come to terms with their problem.

> Therapists should not give advice as this would result in the therapist taking control of the life of the client rather than the client learning to control his/her own life (Sutton & Stewart, 2002).

You asked:

> In a sense, is the way councillors/psychologists speaking to people actually underhanded as they try to dress-up advice as non-advice?

Not only will a therapist who is working ethically not sit in judgement of the client, their experiences, or others around them; they will not offer advice as it will affect the client's autonomy, as explained just now.

Any therapist who is found to be advising on what to do (underhandedly or overtly) can find themselves in trouble with their governing body.

Ethical frameworks for governing bodies of counsellors and psychotherapists (e.g. BACP, 2018, BCPC, 2011, NCS, n.d., UKCP, n.d.) state that all therapists must follow the principle of autonomy in therapy.

> Autonomy: respect for the client’s right to be self-governing (BACP, 2018).

> BCPC members aim to respect the dignity, autonomy and integrity of each individual (BCPC, 2011).

> **Respect for the dignity and rights of the client** (Autonomy)
> Clients have the right to self-determination and to be shown dignity and respect for making their own lawful decisions (NCS, n.d.).

> All Practitioners undertake to:
>
> 1. Work in ways that promote client autonomy and well-being and that maintain respect and dignity for the client (NCS, n.d.).

> Best interests of clients
>
> 1. Act in your client’s best interests.
> 2. Treat clients with respect.
> 3. Respect your client’s autonomy (UKCP, n.d.).

Even psychologists registered with the American Psychological Association (APA) are to respect client autonomy.

> Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. (APA, 2003)

Let's examine some of your assertions and examples.

You also said:

> \[T\]he counsellor is supposed to challenge the client’s incongruent views. Which views the councillor challenges are up to him, so that’s exerting change on the client.

Challenging views which **may** be incongruent with reality **may** invoke change within the client's views, but done autonomously, it may not. The client has the choice whether to thoroughly examine their thoughts or not. If they choose to stick to their point of view in an autonomous therapy session, their views will not change.

In an example you said:

> client: "my date cancelled on me", councilor \[sic\] "do you feel let down?" (this is planting the idea in his head). Now wouldn't it be better if the councilor \[sic\] gave advice like "there are plenty of fish in the sea"

You are correct in your assertion that asking "do you feel let down?" is "planting an idea in the client's head" as it is a leading question (you can only answer **yes** or **no**). This is not ethical practice, again under autonomy rules. The client should be given open questions in order for the client to be able to answer in their own way. A better example question to the statement first given would be "and how did that make you feel?". This leads to a myriad of answers which could come from the client such as "angry", "annoyed", "upset" or even "let down". There may be a surprise nonchalant response in some occasions.

## References

APA (2003) *Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct* (Last Amendment 2017) https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

BACP (2018) *Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions*. https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/ethics-and-standards/ethical-framework-for-the-counselling-professions/

BCPC (2011) *Bath Centre for Psychotherapy and Counselling Statement of Ethical Principles*. https://www.bcpc.org.uk/uploads/files/Statement-of-Ethical-Principles-2011.pdf

McLeod, J. (2003) *An Introduction to Counselling*. Buckingham: Open University Press.

NCS (n.d.) *Code of Ethics* (Last Updated May 2020). https://nationalcounsellingsociety.org/about-us/code-of-ethics

Short, F. & Thomas, P. (2015) *Core Approaches in Counselling and Psychotherapy*. Hove: Routledge.

Sutton, J. & Stewart, W. (2002) *Learning to Counsel*. Oxford: Spring Hill House.

UKCP (n.d.) *The Code of Ethics and Professional Practice* (Last Updated October 2019)https://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/UKCP-Code-of-Ethics-and-Professional-Practice-2019.pdf

# Answer
> -1 votes
I am a counselllor and use many different therapies and techniques with clients. Different therapies offer different ways to work with a client. CBT is more of a teaching therapy teaching the clients strategies and coping skills to help them with solving their issues. Psychoanalysis as mentioned in an above comment as Freudian is one of the foundations of psychology and works with the belief that all disorder stems from the childhood. This is because this is when we learn the most and learn how to react and behave in certain situations. It is a very good way to work on issues stemming from childhood. Erikson's theory expanded on Freud's theory and included other stages we go through to become fulfilled as human beings.

As for the reason we don't give advice is not because we don't want to or we like to avoid it, it is merely a legal; one, we are not legally or ethically covered to give advice and if we did and it went wrong we would get sued. It is ok to ask the opinion of the counsellor however that is not important what is important is why does the client need to hear it from someone else and have trouble knowing what to do. This can also be stemed from a childhood issue where they don't have good enough boundaries and rely on the thoughts of others to make decisions for them so when it goes wrong they have someone else to blame other than themselves. Also it could be that they constantly need other peoples approval another issue stemming from childhood which caused them to not be strong enough in themselves to make sound decisions.

Good psychologists and counsellors are aware of a lot more than just issues and what should you do about it, we are trained in problem solving and helping people to become autonomous. The saying "you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime" applies here. Counsellors teach their clients about themselves and help them understand why they are like they are and then help them learn new ways to solve their problems. So they don't always need to be asking others what they should do. Be strong make a decision, learn from mistakes, readjust your goals and keep moving forward toward success. There is no need for approval, blame or asking of opinions. Sorry it is a long one but legally that is how it is.

# Answer
> -1 votes
I want to stress why this can be very risky to not only a client's situation, it can disrupt their affairs with family, friends and professional connections.

A life-coach can give advice just like a friend can also. Any connection from one's inner circle is natural to want a listening ear and another's view and opinion when one wants support and help. Ethical boundaries are strictly held in the field of a professional working in the mental health field like a social worker, psychotherapist and counsellor. Therapists can give their views and opinions only when asked from their patients/clients and unsolicited advice is a big no-no. And advice that was not asked for is very unethical because we never know what this client is capable of. For instance, a mother tells her new psychologist that her children are not listening to her when she asks them to do stuff and rants how she is tired of repeating herself. The ethical situation would be for a therapist to first sympathize and then ask the mother why she thinks her children are not listening. If a therapist tells the parent to set rules for the children, this is breaking a boundary. How old are these children? Do they come from a family of divorce? Did the mother explain briefly the situation that her children are adopted and have had trouble focusing in school when things get rough with the family? The children may suffer from ODD (Oppositional defiant disorder). Sometimes it can be the mother herself where she constantly yells and this causes the children to rebel and distant themselves from her fearing her own energy. The mother may blame the children that are not listening and lie to the therapist that her children are selfish and rebellious when in truth, the children fear the mother for always yelling and have learned a coping mechanism of just shutting themselves in their rooms. Parents are very responsible for their actions as well and many times, the behaviour must be changed for all parties and not just the children to unify a family together with healthy boundaries and trust. If the mother leaves this information out to the therapist, the therapist may assume that the children are not coming from a dysfunctional family and how setting strict rules does not work for all kids as they can rebel.

To conclude, this is why a therapist should not give advice on their own terms. It can damage a client's reputation. Especially if the therapist is new and the counsellor has not yet taken notes on how the environment is in one's situation. The therapist must ask further questions to understand as to why the children are not listening and should ask about the situation at home and if there is a strong bond between the mother and her children.

---
Tags: clinical-psychology, therapy, ethics
---


title: Why is the shoemaker badly shod?

text:
# Question
Title: Why is the shoemaker badly shod?
In other words, why are professionals/experts good at doing what they know to do for others but not for themselves ? What is the psychological bias behind this ?

Of course this questions comes from the popular saying which is only a saying, but for the sake of the question we'll assume that most professionals fall to this flaw. Dentists have poor teeth, doctors are fat, webdesigner have ugly sites, hairdressers have bad haircuts, masons have bent houses, etc

I read that the simple explanation is that they are humans like others and have flaws. But it doesn't explain why their flaw happens to precisely be in their field of competence.

# Answer
> 0 votes
I've been asking myself this question for a couple years now and so far the best explanation that came to my mind this :

Shoemakers are badly shod because they are the only one who they as shoemakers can put bad shoes on without risking complaint. Moreover they are also the only one who will not reward them for putting on good shoes.

In other words it is a bit like vacations. When they put on bad shoes for themselves, they feel relieved from work.

---
Tags: bias, behaviorism
---


# Question
Title: How is Pain Subjective and Different from Nociception
So pain is the sensory feeling that tells indiviual that something bad at some part of the body has happened. What I fail to understand is how is pain subjective? If we have touch receptors in the body we can technically all feel hyptactic simulation, why this cannot be said about pain.

In this article it is mentioned:

> pain is different from nociception, which is the ability to respond to damaging stimuli. All organisms have nociception. Even bacteria can move away from harmful environments such as high pH. But not all animals feel pain.

Question: How is pain subjective? Why nociception isnt considered pain?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Q: How is Pain Subjective and Different from Nociception?**

**A:** Pain is not nociception because their definitions are different. The usual definitions are like this:

> ***Nociception refers to the peripheral and central nervous system (CNS) processing of information about the internal or external environment, as generated by the activation of nociceptors***. Typically, noxious stimuli, including tissue injury, activate nociceptors that are present in peripheral structures and that transmit information to the spinal cord dorsal horn or its trigeminal homologue, the nucleus caudalis. From there, the information continues to the brainstem and ultimately the cerebral cortex, where the perception of pain is generated. ***Pain is a product of higher brain center processing*** … (1)

Or

***Nociception (also nocioception, from Latin nocere 'to harm or hurt') is the sensory nervous system's process of encoding noxious stimuli***. In nociception, intense chemical (e.g., cayenne powder), mechanical (e.g., cutting, crushing), or thermal (heat and cold) stimulation of sensory nerve cells called nociceptors produces a signal that travels along a chain of nerve fibers via the spinal cord to the brain. Nociception triggers a variety of physiological and behavioral responses and ***usually results in a subjective experience (or perception) of pain in sentient beings.***”(2)

That is, nociception is defined to be the processing of noxious stimuli, which involves several levels of processing, but pain is defined to be the perception of the result of nociception processing. As there are many factors that can affect nociception at each level of processing, such as the pain control mechanism (e.g. the pain gate control) in the spinal cord and brainstem, analgesics, and even the mood of the subject, the pain perception can be altered/modified, and the final pain perception can be different even if it occurs in the same individual and from the same noxious stimuli. Also, because these factors are different among different subjects, the final pain perception in each individual is subjective – depending on various factors in each subject and different among different subjects even if it occurs from the same noxious stimuli.

For example:

* When your shin hits something hard and you feel pain there, if you stroke or massage the injured shin lightly, you’ll feel better with less pain – this is because the pain is modified by the pain gate control or other pain control mechanisms by the touch sensation. (3,4)
* In a person who has a spinal cord transection with a loss of all sensations and voluntary movements of the legs, if you prick his foot, his foot will involuntarily jerk away from the prick, which means nociception is still being processed, but you won’t feel any pain because the pain perception in the brain does not occur (due to the spinal cord transection).
* Alice has been given a flu shot in her arm, but she is a strong person and is in a good mood, so she feels little pain in her arm. On the contrary, Bob has been given a flu shot with the same needle size and ease of injection, but Bob is an irritable person and already in a bad mood, so he feels that the pain from the shot is very severe. So, the pain perceived from the same noxious stimuli is different among different subjects, depending on various factors in each subject.

Therefore, the pain is different from nociception and is subjective.

**References:**

1. National Research Council. 2009. Mechanisms of Pain In: Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12526.
2. Wikipedia. Nociception
3. Nachum Dafny.Chapter 8: Pain Modulation and Mechanisms. Neuroscience Online. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth).
4. Wikipedia. Gate Control Theory

---
Tags: neuroscience, cognitive-neuroscience, pain
---


title: Brain network datasets

text:
# Question
Title: Brain network datasets
I am a student from Computer Science and interested in graph theory. I was looking for datasets for brain networks (structural and functional) for graph analysis.

I have found brain image datasets such as HCP and nilearn but I was wondering if there are raw graph datasets to work with. It would be great if these brain networks are designed for also tagged with phenotype or disease because I am looking to perform graph analysis.

# Answer
> 2 votes
If you create an (free) account at: https://db.humanconnectome.org , I believe you should be able to find connectomes through here.

It seems like a bit of a hassle to download the files though (and they only seem to come in very large packs).

Another perhaps easier method, if you just want some simple and easily accessible files to work with right away is:

https://neurodata.io/project/connectomes/

which you can read more about in this article.

There you can just download some graphs directly in .graphml format. Then you can use them in e.g. python with networkx. For example, to construct a graph object from a graphml file, plotting it and getting the adjacency matrix, you'd simply write:

```
import networkx as nx

G = nx.read_graphml("/rhesus_brain_2.graphml")
M = nx.adjacency_matrix(G)
nx.draw(G, node_size = 10, width = 0.1, arrowsize = 2, pos = nx.spring_layout(G))

```

This is just a simple example, but I hope it helps. It sounded as if that was perhaps just what you needed: something raw and simple to get you started; and those datasets are sometimes the hardest to find.

(I am myself on the lookout for more specific types of connectomes; see my question here. If you happen to come across anything more, I'd be really grateful if you'd let me know.)

---
Tags: neuroscience, brain, data
---


# Question
Title: Public domain scientific intelligence test available for use in research
The IPIP is an example of a public domain scientific personality inventory that can be used for research.

* Are there any good public domain scientific measures of intelligence?

### Requirements

* **Do not** link to the kinds of hits you get when you type "free online intelligence tests" into Google (i.e., tests where you can only do the questions and get summary normative feedback at the end)
* Full text of instrument should be available, ideally with some form of test manual
* Information about test has been published in a refereed journal
* Test is freely available for use for scientific purposes, and ideally can be modified, adapted,

# Answer
PEBL is a free open source programming language to help construct psychological experiments. A wiki and developer community provide some documentation and support.

PEBL has a Psychological Test Battery of many common or simple psychological tests so you may be able to use it out of the box without constructing your own test. PEBL includes free versions of many accredited and popular psychometric tests.

> Many of them represent the only Free version of proprietory tests available anywhere. They include a free Iowa Gambling Task, a free version of the TOVA®, a free Wisconsin Card Sort Test®, a free version of Conners Continuous Performance task, and a number of other useful tasks, with more to come.

If one of the included tests does not suit your needs, you or a programmer can create your own tests with PEBL's programming language which is customized specifically to create psychometric tests.
> 14 votes

# Answer
### Gf/Gc Quickie Test

The Gf/Gc Quickie Test Battery (Stankov, 1997) is a one-on-one administered intelligence test. It is designed for teaching purposes, but has been used in research.

> The Gf/Gc Quickie Test Battery is a collection of tasks used by psychologists to assess human cognitive abilities. It is derived from within the framework of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Horn & Cattell, 1966), which is outlined below. This battery is designed for teaching purposes and the scores obtained must not be regarded as reflecting an “intelligence quotient”.

Here is a link to the test items and administration manual: https://klingenstein09.wikispaces.com/file/view/Sample\_Cognitive\_Tests.docx

Stankov, L. (1997). The Gf/Gc Quickie Test Battery. Unpublished test battery from the School of Psychology. Australia: University of Sydney.
> 2 votes

# Answer
### ICAR: INTERNATIONAL COGNITIVE ABILITY RESOURCE

This project is an attempt to develop a public-domain assessment tool for cognitive abilities. It is being developed by several leading researchers in individual differences.

https://icar-project.com/

You need to register to access a short measure of cognitive ability. They have sample items and a range of resources.

Condon, D. M., & Revelle, W. (2014). The International Cognitive Ability Resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence, 43, 52-64.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Quantified mind is a collection of many tests with published papers. Its free and batteries are easy to customize, but only works online and converts the raw measurements of each test into a score for that item.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: intelligence, measurement, methodology, test
---


# Question
Title: Is Type A personality and being an alpha (male) the same thing?
The question in final jeopardy tonight was "(What is) type A personality". My response was "alpha (male)", which I maintained was the same thing. Later, when I typed in "type a personality vs", the search engine offered up "type a personality vs alpha male" but none of the links I clicked made mention of this. On the off chance that I knew what I was talking about, I wrote this question. If I get an answer, will it be a fluke redemption, or the last nail in my coffin?

# Answer
There's a lot of overlap between the two's personality types but not quite the same. Type A personality is genderless and refers to someone generally meticulous on details and likes to take charge.

Alpha male is a term that was misunderstood and later overturned based on pack behaviors of wolves. The researcher who coined the term 'alpha' as a leader later came out and said his own research was misunderstood and somewhat debunked, in that alphas are not leaders all the time and doesn't mean to take charge of things all the time.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: personality, terminology
---


# Question
Title: any reliable sources or any help for bransford and johnson's laundry experiment?
My classmates and I are conducting a written paper on bransford and johnson's laundry experiment, but we cannot find good reliable sources on the original experiment to provide context and explanation on how exactly it was performed. any help please?

# Answer
There was no laundry experiment *per se*. What you are referring to is part of an experiment to do with investigations of comprehension and memory recall.

The following is a passage from Section 3.4 of the free online course *Starting with psychology* at the UKs Open University **\[with a link to the pdf provided by Erik M. Altmann of Michigan State University Psychology Department added by myself\]**

> John Bransford and Marcia Johnson (1972) carried out a number of experiments which illustrated the role of schemas in our understanding and recall of information. In one experiment the participants were read the passage below and then asked to recall it as accurately as possible. However half of the participants were given a title for the following passage and the other participants were given the passage without the title.
>
> > The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups… Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo any particular endeavour. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short run this may not seem important, but complications from doing too many can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive as well… At first the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the immediate future, but then one never can tell. After the procedure is completed one arranges the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places. Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will have to be repeated. However, that is part of life.
> >
> > (Bransford and Johnson 1972 p. 722)

The passage was given to 2 groups — 1 with the topic of the passage, and 1 without the topic.

> The instruction sheet for the toipc before *S*s included the additional sentence, "The paragraph you will hear will be about washing clothes" (Bransford and Johnson, 1972 p. 722)

## References

Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. *Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11*(6), 717-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
> 0 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology
---


# Question
Title: How exactly are socionics and MBTI different?
Socionics superficially looks exactly as MBTI. 8 functions, 16 personality types. There's even a table, perfectly corresponding socionics types with MBTI types. Then what makes socionics and MBTI importantly differ?

# Answer
Both socionics and MBTI are a try to dig deeper on the path of Carl Gustav Jung, who observed empirically (both from his work as a psychiatrist and from his travels across the globe) that all human brains displayed common cognitive descriptions, which Jung described by two energy-attitudes, two perception functions and two judgment functions.

> **About Jung** (about 100 years ago - his milestone book about cognitive types
> was published in 1921)
>
> The energy attitudes are *introverted* \- the energy flows outward from the
> inside stimulation; and *extraverted* \- the energy flows inward from the
> outside stimulation.
>
> The perception functions are *intuition* \- a misnomer, with intuition you
> take information from a 3,000 ft view and make connections from this - and
> *sensation* \- you take information from your senses and like to get into
> details, like with a magnifier glass.
>
> The judging functions are *thinking* \- you make your decisions based on
> logic - and *feeling* \- a slight misnomer, you make your decisions based on
> your subjective set of values (N.B. objective and subjective are commonly-used
> words in C G Jung's books).
>
> Following Jung, we all have a piece of everything in us, but we also have a
> preference for each dimension - energy management, taking information,
> making a decision.
>
> Jung described a set of 2x2+2x2=8 cognitive functions: introverted thinking,
> introverted feeling, extraverted thinking, extraverted feeling, introverted
> intuition, introverted sensation, extraverted intuition and extraverted
> sensation - also known as Ti, Fi, Te, Fe, Ni, Si, Ne and Se. Yes, N stands
> for iNtuition, as i stands for Introverted.

As mentioned in the comments, the MBTI was developed in the US - Katharine Briggs met Jung in Switzerland and her daughter Isabel Myers-Briggs was raised in a family/friends/colleagues environment that talked about cognitive types and she followed her own path, about 35-to-50 years after Jung.

> **About Briggs and Myers** (about 50 years ago)
>
> They described the structure of the preferences of the cognitive functions:
> sixteen combinations rephrase Jung's preferences, with the three axis from
> Jung (energy orientation of the dominant function, perception function,
> judgment function) and with a fourth axis, describing **whether the
extraverted function among the main two functions used by a profile
is either a perception function or a judgment function**.
>
> This descriptions fits into four letters (E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P)
> that describes the preference of a cognitive profile for two Jungian functions.
>
> Every profile has an inward function and an outward function, every profile
> has a perception function and a judgment function. With a main (dominant) and
> an auxiliary (auxiliary) function, this makes 16 combinations of letters,
> and 16 archetypes to describe common traits of a profile.
>
> The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (or MBTI) is a questionnaire that tries to
> figure out whether your preference is E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P. Its
> main weakness is that this way of typing is not accurate at all - though it
> had a huge success in business. This was a weakness from the science viewpoint,
> as the MBTI never improved upon itself, by trying to describe with better
> accuracy the nature of our cognitive functions (which was Jung's goal).

Now, we turn to the former USSR, where other people followed the path of Jung,
too. They founded socionics, which is an extrapolation of Jung's work to describe
how the 16 profiles communicate and interact with one another.

> **About socionics** (about 50 years ago - USSR)
>
> Socionics also developed a fourth axis beyond Jung's three axis, but do not
> be misunderstood about it, **as it is not the same fourth axis as in MBTI**.
> In socionics, the fourth letter describes **whether the dominant function of
a profile is a perception function (p) or a judgment function (j)**.
>
> However, while MBTI focused on typing with four letters, socionics kept
> working both on the four-letter code and on the description of the Jungian
> functions. For the four-letter code, socionics described one-letter
> archetypes like in MBTI, but also two-letter and three-letter archetypes.
>
> About the Jungian functions, socionics described how a given Jungian function
> (e.g. Introverted Thinking) could be described by a slightly different archetype
> depending on its rank within the eight functions - while MBTI described
> mostly the first two or the first four functions of a profile, socionics
> tried to describe the eight functions of a profile, by decreasing order of preference.

Trying to describe a cognitive profile by an order of functions leads us to
figuring out **how stress states may alter our use of our preferred functions**.

This topic was mentioned by Jung (through the concept of Shadow), it is hardly
described in MBTI (not much developed either is the topic of mastering our
functions as we grow older - there are a few life stages when we care
differently for our preferred cognitive functions), while socionics described
a stress model called Model-A (this is a first step on our journey).

> Wrapping things up - until you ask for more?
>
> When MBTI and Socionics speak (about) the same with a different vocabulary:
> MBTI - Socionics - Jungian functions (descending order)
> INTP - INTj - Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi
> ENTP - ENTp - Ne Ti Fe Si Ni Te Fi Se
> INFP - INFj - Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti
> ENFP - ENFp - Ne Fi Te Si Ni Fe Ti Se
> ISTP - ISTj - Ti Se Ni Fe Te Si Ne Fi
> ESTP - ESTp - Se Ti Fe Ni Si Te Fi Ne
> ISFP - ISFj - Fi Se Ni Te Fe Si Ne Ti
> ESFP - ESFp - Se Fi Te Ni Si Fe Ti Ne
> ENTJ - ENTj - Te Ni Se Fi Ti Ne Si Fe
> INTJ - INTp - Ni Te Fi Se Ne Ti Fe Si
> ENFJ - ENFj - Fe Ni Se Ti Fi Ne Si Te
> INFJ - INFp - Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si
> ESTJ - ESTj - Te Si Ne Fi Ti Se Ni Fe
> ISTJ - ISTp - Si Te Fi Ne Se Ti Fe Ni
> ESFJ - ESFj - Fe Si Ne Ti Fi Se Ni Te
> ISFJ - ISFp - Si Fe Ti Ne Se Fi Te Ni

**I hope this helps!**
> 3 votes

# Answer
Socionics was developed independently of MBTI. The creator of socionics (Aushra Augusta) used Jung as a starting point (as did MBTI) but said that in the process his definitions "were changed beyond recognition" (*The Socion*). She also incorporated the concept of *information metabolism* from a psychologist named Antoni Kempinsky, so that the functions are not only vague collections of behaviors as in Jung, but objective categories we use to describe reality.

MBTI's functional model is not very well-developed; it was initially developed in terms of the four letters/dichotomies and only recently have people attempted describing how types use all eight functions (Beebe), perhaps influenced by socionics. In socionics the functions were defined very early on, in terms of Model A.

Socionics also has a theory of relationships between types, which is absent from MBTI. Socionics makes a distinction between *strengths* and *values*, whereas in MBTI it is not clear that you can value something, yet be bad at doing it for yourself. This is the concept underlying *duality*, the relationship where you have similar values yet can help each other with your weaknesses in the best way.

To get into the specifics, if you look at the basic definitions of the functions (in socionics called *elements of information metabolism*), there are many differences. Si in MBTI has to do with tradition and reflecting on the past, whereas this is more of an Ni theme in socionics. Te in socionics is all about pragmatism whereas it's described as "external laws and rules" in MBTI, more of a Ti+Se theme in socionics. Fe in MBTI is described as "seeking harmony" which is really more about Fe+Si (or Fi+Si) and doesn't describe EIEs who have Fe as a leading function. (Notice here how element pairs are also significant in socionics, not so much in MBTI.)

The dichotomies are vaguely similar, but none of them are the same, really. There is a widespread idea that sensors are unintelligent (and unworthy of interacting with the superior intuitives) in MBTI while this is not true in socionics - sensors and intuitives have different areas of intelligence and in fact depend on each other. The J/P dichotomy might be the most different though - Perceiving sounds a lot like Ne/Si valuers in socionics, who prefer to stay open to new information and options rather than committing to a single one and pushing for that (Ni/Se).

All in all, there is *no direct translation* between types, only correlations. Other types like ENTJ might be something like SLE in socionics.

If you're learning socionics the best practice is to completely keep it separate from MBTI in your mind. Trying to compare them usually ends up confusing beginners more than it helps.

**Reference**

Lytov, D., & Lytov, M. (2005, September 30). Retrieved from Lytov, D. (2005). Introduction to socionics. https://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html
> 0 votes

---
Tags: personality
---


# Question
Title: Do bodily manifestations (e.g. jerking) and intense euphoric sensations (e.g. "heat", "electricity") always co-occur in spiritual experiences?
After analyzing multiple reports of spiritual experiences, I've identified two general categories:

1. Bodily manifestations: shaking, jerking, trembling, contorting, etc. (see this related question for examples).
2. Intense euphoric emotions and sensations: "waves of electricity", "heat", "fire", as well as emotions such as love, peace, joy, etc. (see this related question for examples).

I know several testimonies in which both experiences (bodily manifestations and intense emotions) are reported to have happened concurrently, but I also know testimonies in which only intense emotions and sensations are reported (with no mention of bodily manifestations), and there are also many live recordings of individuals undergoing intense bodily manifestations externally, but we have no way to tell what kinds of emotions and sensations the individuals felt internally (if they felt anything at all).

In the context of spiritual experiences: are **bodily manifestations** and **euphoric emotions and sensations** independent phenomena (which may or may not co-occur), or are they inherently tied (and hence they always co-occur)?

# Answer
An inherent problem with the line of investigation is that the exhibited behaviours are inconsistent with the claimed emotions. In no other situation do the emotions of love, peace, ecstasy and euphoria result in the performance of behaviours such as glossolalia, collapsing, fainting, trembling, jerking, convulsing, contorting and shaking. More likely causes of involuntary jerking, convulsing, contorting and shaking may include anxiety, seizure, and myoclonus. Given the incongruity and incompatibility of the emotions and behaviours, it may seem that they are entirely unrelated; however, it is possible that there is an antecedent cause of both. To assist with this analysis, the following mathematical notation is introduced:

* Let **R** be the reporting of particular emotions (love, peace, ecstasy and euphoria). Note, that the reported emotions may not be the actual emotions.
* Let **B** be the performance of the behaviours (glossolalia, collapsing, fainting, trembling, jerking, convulsing, contorting and shaking).
* Let **C** be the cause of **R** under certain conditions.
* Let **C** be the cause of **B** under certain conditions.
* Let **A** be the actual emotions (not necessarily the reported emotions **R**).

Analysis

* If **C** always causes **R** and always causes **B**, then **R** and **B** will always co-occur.
* If **C** causes **B** under certain conditions and **C** causes **R** under different conditions, then **B** and **R** will not necessarily co-occur.

*Note*: In this analysis, it is important to note that the reporting of emotions (**R**) is not the same as actually experiencing the emotions (**A**). For the reasons given above, it is asserted that the reported emotions (**R**) can not cause the behaviours (**B**), and by implication, the reported emotions (**R**) are never the same as the actual emotions being experienced (**A**). See dramaturgy and self-monitoring as a possible explanations of this.

In the answer to one of your earlier questions, eight strawman hypotheses were offered to explain the claimed emotions (**R**) and observed behaviours (**B**):

1. Unidentified invisible force.
2. Hysterical state induced by the leader
3. Hysterical state induced by the individual:
4. **Conformance to the social norms**
5. Functional Neurological Disorder (FND)
6. Paid actors
7. Hypnosis
8. **Attention seeking**

Of the eight hypotheses, six were excluded as being implausible, leaving only 4) Conformance to the social norms and 8) Attention seeking as being plausible explanations, which I will consider individually.

**Conformance to the social norms**: In this case, the cause (**C**) is the desire to conform. Whether **C** results in **R** and **B** would be governed by the social norms of the particular religious group. It may be possible for one particular religious group to emphasise the reporting of emotions (**R**) and place less emphasis of the behaviours (**B**) (or vice versa), in which case, the answer to your question is “No”, that is, the observed behaviours and reported emotions do not necessarily co-occur. However, in religious groups that emphasize both the reporting of emotions **and** the performance of the behaviours, then it is more than likely that both will co-occur.

**Attention seeking**: In this case, the cause (**C**) is the desire to gain the attention of others. Whether **C** results in **R** and **B** would be governed by whether the attention seeking individual assessed that either or both **R** and **B** are necessary to gain the desired attention. The attention seeking individual may be seeking the attention of only one person, a sub-group, or the entire religious group. If the attention seeking individual is seeking the attention of the entire group, then the analysis is virtually identical to *Conformance to the social norms* analysed above. If the attention seeking individual is seeking the attention of only one individual, then the attention seeking individual would assess whether **B** and/or **R** are necessary to gain the desired attention. In this situation, it is not possible to say that **R** and **B** would always co-occur, however, if the interaction occurred in the confines of one of the relevant religious groups, then it seems more likely that the **R** and **B** would co-occur.

In conclusion, it is not necessary that the reported emotions (**R**) and observed behaviours (**B**) co-occur, however, it is likely in practice that they often do due to the social norms of the particular religious cults.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: emotion, behavior, physiology, religion, spirituality
---


# Question
Title: The unpredictable loading bar -- or, the slot machine effect
Say we A-B tested user reactions to completing some task (e.g. transferring files, restarting their device): would people be quicker to get impatient/ annoyed if they got random percentages as indicators of progress, or if they had a steady, accurate progress bar? What if it was steady but NOT accurate? When would people experience the most intense emotional drops or rises? Would the slot machine effect play a part, i.e. would the chance of getting a "big" leap (21% towards update installation!) keep users waiting patiently during the slower progress intervals?

This question is based off a wandering thought while my laptop was restarting recently, as well as some basic psych understanding. I can certainly see it being possible that people would, on average, be more willing to wait for a 2/3/8 min update with erratic progress than 1/2/5 mins with steady progress. I'd be interested if anyone knows of such/similar studies and, if so, what conclusions they reached.

Edit: internet legend Tom Scott came through and discussed this topic recently, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZnLZFRylbs!

# Answer
A couple of studies (Harrison et al, 2007; Amer & Johnson, 2016) tested pauses/stalls in progress, and concluded (respectively): "... participants perceived progress bars with pauses as taking longer to complete ..." and "... participants preferred a progress bar that moves consistently to a stalling progress bar, and judged the process duration to be shorter ..." suggesting that continuous/steady progress bars are preferred by users over intermittent/random indicators.

There is much more research on continuous progress indicators (eg, Villar, Callegaro, & Yang, 2013; Liu & Wronski, 2018) that suggests that users generally prefer fast-to-slow / decelerating progress - that is, inaccurate progress bars that overestimate progress early on. Slot machines similarly use early success to increase player perseverance, a kind of anchoring bias. However, most of this research is on progress indicators for active tasks such as filling out surveys. Some experiments with passive waiting (like file transfers) align with their results (eg, Gronier & Baudet, 2019; Kuroki & Ishihara, 2015), but other studies show a preference for accelerating progress instead (eg, Harrison et al, 2007), so I would wait for a meta-analysis specific to passive tasks before making a firm conclusion.

There are also various exploratory studies testing alternative progress bar displays, such as different colours and shapes, designs and animations, adding audio and video, suggesting that user perceptions can be altered in a variety of novel ways. As well, progress indicators on passive tasks may be affected by the labour illusion, in which user experience is influenced by the perceived amount of work done.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: perception, time
---


title: Cerebrum and Cerebellum split?

text:
# Question
Title: Cerebrum and Cerebellum split?
What happens when cerebrum and cerebellum are surgically separated (or partially separated)?

Is this lethal, and if not, what are consequences for brain operations?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Q: What happens when cerebrum and cerebellum are surgically separated (or partially separated)?**

**A:** If that happens, the functional connection between the cerebrum and cerebellum will be destroyed. Now, the connection between the cerebrum and cerebellum serves to do these functions (1,2):

> * Coordination of voluntary movements. Most movements are composed of a number of different muscle groups acting together in a temporally coordinated fashion. One major function of the cerebellum is to coordinate the timing and force of these different muscle groups to produce fluid limb or body movements.
> * Motor learning. The cerebellum is important for motor learning. The cerebellum plays a major role in adapting and fine-tuning motor programs to make accurate movements through a trial-and-error process (e.g., learning to hit a baseball).
> * Cognitive functions. Although the cerebellum is most understood in terms of its contributions to motor control, it is also involved in certain cognitive functions, such as language. Thus, like the basal ganglia, the cerebellum is historically considered as part of the motor system, but its functions extend beyond motor control in ways that are not yet well understood.” (1)

If the connection is severed, these functions will be impaired, resulting in loss of coordination of motor movement (such as dysmetria, dysdiadokokinesia, and stuttering speech), loss of motor learning (it will be very difficult to learn new motor skills, be it sports, musical performance, dancing, etc.), and impairment of some cognitive functions (e.g., impaired spatial cognition, dysprosody, anomia, executive dysfunction with difficulties in planning, set-shifting, abstraction, working memory, and verbal fluency, personality change, and inappropriate behavior \[3\]).

**Q: Is this lethal, and if not, what are consequences for brain operations?**

**A:** A separation of the cerebrum and cerebellum will not be lethal. Medically, there is no diseases or conditions that require a separation between the two structures. But there are diseases that, in effects, separate the two structures, such as stroke, tumor, or demyelinating disease that affects the superior cerebellar peduncles (which connects the cerebrum and cerebellum). Or there may be diseases/conditions that destroy the cerebellum, such as stroke, tumor, trauma, or operation that removes the cerebellum to treat these diseases/conditions, and thus having the same effects of separating the cerebellum from the cerebrum. All these pathological conditions and operations that treat them can causes the symptoms and signs mentioned above, but none are lethal by themselves (i.e., none are lethal if there are no other complications).

**References:**

1. James Knierim. Chapter 5. Cerebellum: 5.1 Overview: Functions of the Cerebellum Neuroscience Online. The University of Texas. Health Science Center at Houston. McGovern Medical School.
2. William C Hall. Chapter 18. Modulation of Movement by the Cerebellum. In: Purves D, Augustine GJ, David Fitzpatrick D, Hall WC, Lamantia AS, McNamara JO, Williams SM, editors. Neuroscience. 3rd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates Inc; 2004. ISBN-13: 9780878937257 ISBN-10: 0878937250.
3. Mark Rapoport. The Role of the Cerebellum in Cognition and Behavior. A Selective Review. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

---
Tags: brain, brain-injury
---


# Question
Title: Is there any actual evidence for the common model of the "real you" and a separate section that contains all your weaknesses?
I have heard this model used or implied by multiple community sources, and some which have been endorsed; most will use different names for the two parts, for example the "subconscious" and "conscious"; or "you" and "your "; or, as in Ted Urban's widely circulated TED talk, the "rational human being" and the "instant gratification monkey". It also appears in some much more dubious contexts.

All advice that begins with this model inevitably ends with the assertion that the "real person" is perfect and can achieve whatever goal is being discussed if they only manage to defeat the "weaknesses" part.

Is there any actual psychological or neuroscientific evidence for this model actually being the case? I've never believed that there is, but replying that I believe that there are not two parts, there is only me and I am not perfect, has attracted actively hostile responses and claims that it contradicts established research, although the speakers could not cite such research.

# Answer
> 1 votes
For sure presentations aimed at lay audiences tend to oversimplify and exaggerate research findings, but for the underlying construct, there is a great deal of evidence, and it is considered widely accepted in the field.

The technical term for it is dual-process theory, and is often referred to as System 1 and System 2 based on the popular book Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, which is a very accessible source for anyone interested in the evidence-base behind this theory (or class of theories, as many have been proposed). It is also a popular topic on this forum, so be sure to search for these keywords to learn more (examples: Is Decision-Making Emotionally Based, with Rationalization as the only Conscious Component?, Does fixing cognitive biases do more harm than use?, Research on aversion to cognitive effort?).

One quibble with the way some non-technical presentations refer to this construct is that they seem to imply that System 1 and 2 refer to distinct physical "parts" of a person. For example, the left brain / right brain division can be a reasonable metaphor for lay persons, but it should not imply that a stroke in one half of your brain will turn you into Spock (an emotionless perfectly logical decision-maker). It's important to emphasize the process part of dual-*process* theory, and to this end, authors in the field often use the terms Type 1 and Type 2 thinking instead. For example, Type 1 (intuitive) thinking is likely to be composed of many sub-processes working in parallel, and Type 2 (rational) thinking surely depends on these processes for its own contributions.

Consequently, asserting a good/bad dichotomy to these processes is misleading, as they serve interdependent purposes. There are many scenarios where Type 2 thinking is impractical due to time constraints and bounded rationality. Evans and Stanovich, two of the leading researchers in the field, agree (excerpt from Evans, 2012):

> In recent writing, I have attributed responsibility for a range of cognitive biases roughly equally between type 1 and type 2 processing ... Stanovich ... similarly identifies a number of reasons for error other than a failure to intervene with type 2 reasoning; for example, people may reason in a quick and sloppy (but type 2) manner or lack the necessary “mindware” for successful reasoning.

---
Tags: motivation, categorisation, willpower
---


title: Does there exist a theatre effect?

text:
# Question
Title: Does there exist a theatre effect?
In a lecture by a Chinese CEO with a consulting background, I learned an effect called 剧场效应 (can be transliterated into 'theatre effect' in English, here is a reference) and I can explain that a bit in the following story:

In a theatre, a short man stands up to see the play (and no one can forbid him), and then the audience behind him should also stand up. And finally, everyone stands up in the theatre but no one can benefit from such a change.

This is an analogy of the same phenomena in society. For instance, we can see from the 996.icu project on GitHub that in China everyone tries to perform better than the others and survive. And because there are so many short men in China who cannot even survive if not try their best. Then almost all of the workers in China work very very hard(but more often not efficiently).

I don't know if such an effect is named theatre effect in English. Is there a name for this within research on psychology?

# Answer
This is related to, but not exactly, the concept of the ***tragedy of the commons***. The eponymous scenario deals with a village's common land, where farmers can bring their cows to graze for free. Every individual farmer can rationally act in their own self interest to take advantage of the free grass. But when every farmer in the village does this, the grass is over-grazed and the common is destroyed for everyone. Although every individual acts to improve their own situation, everybody is worse off in the end.

This is related to the "theater effect" in that each individual is rationally acting in their own best interest, but the end result is a worse outcome for everyone. It's somewhat distinct in that it doesn't exactly deal with the over-exploitation of common resources quite so explicitly, but there are a number of parallels.

This is also somewhat related to the ***prisoner's dilemma***, in which two criminals are asked to testify against one another. If neither testify, both go to jail for 1 year; if one testifies and the other doesn't, one goes to jail for 5 years and the other does not go to jail; if both testify, both go to jail for 3 years. Both individuals can improve their situation by testifying, but only if the other one does not. This is similar to one individual in the theater standing up - they will get an advantage, but only if no one else does the same. Every individual has a personal incentive to stand up, but if everybody does so, they wind up in a worse situation than they started with, where everyone had the same view but was seated.
> 3 votes

# Answer
From the macro perspective, this is the so-called involution(or 内卷化) which is recently a hot topic in China. This should be a political problem in nature but can also be viewed from psychology, methinks, from the perspective of individuals.

Reference: From Revolution to Involution: State Capacity, Local Power, and \[Un\]governability in China.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, terminology, social-cognition
---


# Question
Title: Are food rewards a good long term learning strategy?
*This could be a question for parenting SE, but I am looking to understand the mechanism, so I am looking for a core answer from a psychological perspective; without all of the cultural noise that comes with parenting techniques etc.*

Example situation:

A 5 year old child is struggling learning to read and write, for whatever normal reason for that age. So they are losing interest in going to school and or doing school/home work. One option is to provide one on one supervision/encouragement and giving a small food reward‡ for say each letter or word written correctly.

My (simple) understanding is that Dopamine facilitates the 'get up and do something productive' drive, and we have dopamine released when we eat food. *Or in cave man terms, Ug want's Dopamine hit. Ug get out of cave, hunt down some berries, Ug gets dopamine reward. Ug not die of boredom/hunger today.*

Unfortunately in modern society with fridges and infinite scroll on Facebook this mechanism had been short circuited.

**So will rewarding academic work with food help build the mechanisms for reward and help study concentration skills as a person gets older; or will this strategy short circuit and create an unhealthy dependency on food when studying/ loosing interest in study once they have had something to eat?**

Or

**What needs to be done to make this strategy effective, with positive long term outcomes?**

---

‡ Lets assume the food is moderately healthy e.g., raisins, peanut butter on celery, pieces of fruit. Lets also assume the food is partly randomly given, so that the student doesn't always expect a reward, and loses interest as the first time they don't get a reward (Tip I heard for dog training).

# Answer
> 2 votes
Food rewards are effective and safe to use in principle. But in practice...?

The non-caveman term for the process of using consequences to modify behavior is operant conditioning, and the specific use of rewards is called positive reinforcement:

> Example: A father gives candy to his daughter when she tidies up her toys. If the frequency of picking up the toys increases, the candy is a positive reinforcer (to reinforce the behavior of cleaning up).

Notice the very specific phrasing of this example as an *if*, rather than an *is* \- that is, food rewards are a reinforcer only if they work. This means that in order to know if they work, you will have to try them out, it is not something that can easily be predicted in advance.

Positive reinforcement using a variety of different kinds of rewards (tangible rewards such as food, prizes, privileges, and intangible rewards, in particular social rewards such as praise, attention, and affection) are a mainstay of behavioral therapy (BT, including CBT). If a parent consults a behavioral therapist for help with a child struggling with homework, then the therapist will likely start with an assessment that includes determining what reinforcers the child may respond well to, as well as possible obstacles to progress.

Behavioral therapy is commonly used with children, particularly children with learning difficulties such as autism. Since autistic children may initially respond less favorably to certain kinds of social reward, other rewards such as food may be used in early sessions, though patients are ideally weaned off tangible rewards in favor of intangible ones before completing treatment.

Behavioral therapy using positive reinforcement is one of the most evidence-based and effective approaches in the field. However, parents attempting to replicate this process outside the lab or clinic are recommended training, as they may run into a number of pitfalls. As a starter on reinforcement training, I recommend the great, accessible, and very short book Don't Shoot the Dog!

---
Tags: learning, reinforcement-learning, dopamine, reward, habituation
---


title: Cortical Statistics

text:
# Question
Title: Cortical Statistics
I just began reading Dayan & Abbott's Theoretical Neuroscience. I'm barely even through the second page, and I'm already stuck on this paragraph:

> Axons from single neurons can traverse large fractions of the brain, or, in some cases, the entire body. In the mouse brain, it has been estimated that cortical neurons typically send out a total of about 40mm of axon and have approximately 10mm of total dendritic cable in their branched dendritic trees. The axon makes an average of 180 synaptic connections with other neurons per mm of length and the dendritic tree receives, on average, 2 synaptic inputs per micro-meter.

If I understand correctly, the axon connections are essentially output connections, and the dendritic tree connections are input connections. Since all the connections must occur between axons and dendrites only, the number of input connections must equal the number of output connections.

Doing some very basic back-of-the-envelope calculations using the provided data shows that this is wrong:

* **For the axons (output connections):** 180 axonal connections/mm * 40 mm total axon length = 7,200 axonal connections
* **For the dendrites (input connections):** 2000 dendritic connections/mm * 10 mm total dendritic tree length = 20,000 dendritic connections

These two numbers don't match. So there's obviously more to this than just matching the number of input to output connections.

What else could be going on?

# Answer
I don't have a copy of the book on hand so I'm not sure if they say more about this, but I can make some guesses.

* External connections. They are talking about local cortical connectivity but not inputs coming from outside cortex if they are just measuring cortico-cortical axons but all dendrites. Typically external connections are a much smaller fraction than the ratio discrepancy here, though.
* Cell types. Cortex has lots of different cell types, and if they present an average across cells measured but don't account for their different ratios or don't measure all cells equally you wouldn't expect the ratio to match. In particular, I wonder if they're only talking about excitatory cells in a specific layer, for example. You'd expect an imbalance because those cells may be getting more inputs from other layers than they output.
* Axons are probably more likely to get cut off on a histological slice. They are longer and more meandering, whereas dendrites are typically constrained to near the cell body/within the cortical column. They're more likely to underestimate local axonal connections because of this.

Overall also these numbers are quite close, within an order of magnitude. I don't see them as conflicting much. Measuring biology is messy. If you report the sources they cite for these numbers it may be more clear which of the factors I mention are most likely to contribute.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: statistics
---


# Question
Title: Why does a British accent sound smarter to Americans?
This question has to do with how people perceive other accents. It seems that having a British accent makes someone seem more intelligent, even though that isn’t always true.

As funny as it is, I think someone with a British accent could approach me and start talking about dogs sniffing each other’s butts and I would still think, “man, this guy really does knows what he’s talking about.”

I have done some searching, but it seems there isn’t a definite answer answer for why a British accent makes someone appear sophisticated.

The top answer here suggests that maybe the association has to do with people’s original perception of those people to begin with. If you thought British people were smart and you heard someone with what you thought was a British accent you may be quick to think that person is smart.

This suggests the theory that the association could come from countries historical dominance.

**What explains why (a lot of Americans for sure) think someone with a British accent must be smart?**

Note: I’m not sure about good tags for this question

# Answer
> 3 votes
Short answer: This is still debated, but it might be due at least partly to social stereotypes.

**Attitudes:**

There are many British accents, but the one most likely to be used in comparisons to say, American, Australian, or New Zealand accents is called RP, or the Queen's English. Other accents used include MLE and Estuary, which are more common in modern times. American accents also vary, and the one most commonly used in regional comparisons is called Standard American English, or GenAm, or Network English. Much like RP, the Standard accent is most common in broadcast media.

Subject perceptions of accents are tested using the matched-guise and similar verbal-guise paradigms, in which speakers read the same content in different accents, while listeners, unaware of the manipulation, are asked to rate the speakers on various traits. A common finding in matched-guise research is that people in general prefer standard accents over foreign accents, presumably due to in-group bias. However, can exceptions be made for native speakers of non-standard accents, such as the way Americans rate British accents?

An early study by Stewart, Ryan, & Giles (1985) suggested that Americans indeed perceive British speakers as higher status than own-accent speakers. However, in a later study by Bayard et al (2001), Americans rated the American accent higher than British on many traits, including intelligence and class. Had attitudes changed in the intervening years? Or is the difference due to changes in method used? Results of other studies (eg, Scott, Green, & Rosewarne, 1997; Anderson et al, 2007; Gill, 2009; Wang et al, 2009) also question Americans' preference for the British accent. Even if a preference for the British accent exists among Americans, it may only reflect the RP accent (eg, Trudgill, 1983).

**Reasons:**

Several hypotheses have been proposed for why listeners might have preferences for some accents over others:

1. The inherent value hypothesis is favored by many lay people - when asked about their preferences, they often claim that certain accents just "sound better".
2. The imposed norm hypothesis suggests that certain accents are "standard" in a given culture, and consequently preferred over non-standard accents.
3. The social connotation hypothesis is a variation that suggests that traits are associated with accents through social stereotypes, influenced by media.

An interesting way to test these hypotheses is to compare listener preferences when they don't recognize the accents that they are asked to rate. To this end, Giles et al (1974) asked Brits to rate Greek accents, and Giles, Bourhis, & Davis (1979) asked Welsh to rate French accents. Native speakers of the rated accents report clear preferences for one accent over another; however in both studies, listeners with no knowledge of the rated languages were unable to discern the accents and gave speakers similar ratings. This result challenges the inherent value hypothesis.

Furthermore, native speaker ratings do not correlate well with how similar accents are to the "standard" accents, challenging the imposed norm hypothesis. A study reported by Trudgill (1983) also demonstrated that native English speakers that can discern British accents give accents different ratings depending on which region or country the listener is from, contrary to both the inherent value and imposed norm hypotheses. Finally, ratings can differ significantly depending on what trait is measured (eg, intelligence, class, solidarity, success). Consequently, the social connotation hypothesis tends to be the dominant theory in current scholarship.

**Controversy:**

However, while some later studies (eg, Leemanna, Kollyb, & Nolan, 2015) corroborate the social connotation hypothesis, others lend support to the inherent value hypothesis (eg, Ladegaard, 1998; Hiraga, 2005; Gooskens, Hilton, & Schüppert, 2016; Wadas, 2020). It is also possible that accent cannot always reliably be separated from other differences in speech, or that subjects unable to discern accents have nonetheless developed implicit associations through media exposure. Additionally, accent preferences don't always align well with media stereotypes as reported by subjects. More research is needed.

If the social connotation hypothesis is correct, then preference for the British accent may be the result of American Anglophilia \- basically, the British have done a good job of branding themselves overseas. Indeed, subjects from many countries (eg, Spain, Norway, Japan) prefer the British accent, but others (eg, Iran, Korea, Denmark, New Zealand, and Australia) seem to prefer the American accent - attributed to Pax Americana, or the USA doing a good job of branding themselves in those countries.

---
Tags: personality
---


# Question
Title: Why can’t my eyes gaze around at a constant rate?
I’ve wondered about this for quite a long time, but never thought to ask it anywhere:

I’m assuming most people know what it’s like to watch a bird flying by, you can steadily concentrate as the bird flies by, and it seems your eyes move at a constant smooth rate.

As opposed to watching a bird or any object or thing, I can’t seem to use my eyes to sweep across the scene if nothing is moving.

Why can’t I gaze around at a constant rate when I have nothing to watch?

# Answer
> 3 votes
**Short answer**
Smooth-pursuit eye movements require something to pursuit. Intentionally attempting to make such an eye movement in the absence of an appropriate moving visual target will result in a saccade instead.

**Background**
Your question concerns two types of basic eye movements, namely **saccades** and **smooth-pursuit eye movements**.

Saccades are rapid movements of the eyes to change the point of fixation. They occur for instance during reading and while gazing across a room. Saccades can be made voluntarily or involuntary (Purves, 2001).

Smooth pursuit movements are slower eye movements that keep a moving stimulus focused on the retina. One can voluntarily decide whether to follow a moving stimulus or not. However, making a smooth-pursuit movement in the absence of a moving stimulus is next to impossible for most people. Instead, when attempting to do this, a saccade is made instead. Performing a smooth-pursuit movement in the absence of a moving target seems to be possible, but requires a lot of training (Purves, 2001).

**Reference**
**-** Purves *et al*. (eds). *Neuroscience*, 2nd ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates (2001). Types of Eye Movements and Their Functions

---
Tags: neuroscience, vision, eye-movement
---


# Question
Title: What keywords to learn more about sense pleasing?
The article What Makes Something Aesthetically Pleasing? | Simple Minded lists some way to pleasing your senses:

* **Vision:** balance, emphasis, rhythm, proportion, pattern, unity and contrast. Along with the visual elements: color, line, shape, value, texture
* **Hearing:** loudness, pitch, beat, repetition, melody, pattern, noise
* **Touch:** texture, shape, weight, softness, temperature, vibration, sharpness
* **Smell:** sweet, fruity, fragrant, pungent, chemical, woody, minty
* **Taste:** umami, sweetness, sourness, bitterness, texture, pungency

If I want to learn more about **sense pleasing**, where should I start? Which subfields within psychology or neuroscience research about this? The Wikipedia page of Sensation doesn't contain the keyword `pleasing`. Searching on Google Scholar with the keyword `sense pleasing` doesn't yield anything. Two other fields relevant to this are aesthetics and design, but they are just applications of this concept.

# Answer
It seems to me is that sense pleasing is better recognized by the term "**rewarding stimuli**":

> stimuli that the brain interprets as intrinsically positive and desirable or as something to approach

Obviously rewarding stimuli isn't necessarily about sensual stimuli, but that would be a good start.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: emotion, sensation, aesthetics
---


title: Why do humans have sex in private?

text:
# Question
Title: Why do humans have sex in private?
Human couples usually have sex in private, hidden not only from predators, but also - other humans. It is unlike behavior of most species, including our relatives: bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas.

**Is private sex mostly a biological or cultural behavior? What is the advantage (if any) of such behavior?**

# Answer
> 53 votes
## Introduction

It is interesting and quite under-researched topic in psychology. What has been studied and definied extensively are different abnormal sexual behaviours, and exhibitionism is one of them. In the DSM-IV **exhibitionism** is defined as *sexual arousal by revealing one's body or performing sexual acts in public* and it's a form of paraphilia. Attraction to being watched by others during sexual intercourse is a form of exhibitionism called **martymachlia**. Presence of such sexual behaviours in DSM-IV is a clear indication that majority our society have deeply enrooted social and moral norms regarding inhibition sexual behaviour in public. If you think about it, majority of countries bans public sex and limits exhibitionism to designated places (nudist beaches and nudist colonies).

**EDIT**

*Following valid and constructive comments by @Piotr and @Preece I removed speculative part of my answer about cultural factors and expanded my answer arguing for evolutionary explanation.*

## Territorial mating behaviour in animals

Initially I should point out that you are not exactly right in saying that 'most species don't practice private sex'. It's true that many primates do that. But we can argue that some **territorial behaviours** in animal kingdom are a form of providing security during mating. Those behaviours are very common in animal world including lizards (Davis, 1980), birds (Brown, 1969; Greenwood, 1980) and mammals (Greenwood, 1980).

## Evolutionary development of shame

@PiotrMigdal specified that he is mainly interested in the issue of "unwillingness to have sex in public". We can trace the origin of such 'unwillingness' to the sense of **shame** that could be explained from evolutionary standpoint. Darwin (1872) argued that shame represents what would be at the primitive level an instinctive seeking for cover, but his elaboration on this wasn't clear. MacCurdy (1930) took this idea further. He argued that **prehistoric man sought concealment for activities which expose him to danger in a hostile environment, e.g., eating, sleeping, sexual intercourse and excretion** (Maccurdy, 1930). Concealment was sought prior to the fulfilment of any act that would limit or prevent rapid self-defence. For example, Maccurdy (1930) boldly pointed out that postures during both sexual intercourse and excretion prevents people from rapid self-defence.

Malinowski (1927) writes that:

> it is characteristic that sexual activities, sleep and excretion are surrounded by protective taboos and mechanisms of concealment and isolation in almost every society.

In this context, the **sense of shame could have developed as a response to natural drive for self-protection** (Dawrin, 1872; Maccurdy, 1930). Therefore, evolutionarily this would form the basis of unwillingness of having sexual intercourse in public.

Because personal security increased with the development of civilisation, the sense of shame has also transformed and became more sophisticated (Maccurdy, 1930). The shame exists only for specific situations (e.g. public sex), but it doesn't apply in other social conditions. Maccurdy (1930) gives examples with excretion, where it isn't uncommon for partners to urinate in each others presence or in the presence of other friends. We can also put nudist beach in this 'shame-exclusion' category. Overall, evolutionary account would highlight that out **need for private sex is related with growth for security, the extension of shame, and the evolution of modesty**. Along the same line, Malinowski (1927) also points out that **sexual intercourse in public could excite jealousy** and would be an indicator to invite rivals to seize that which is being enjoyed.

References:

* American Psychiatric Association. (2000). "Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders" (4th ed., text rev.).
* Davis, J. (1980) "The times of mating and oviposition of the Western fence lizard *S.o.occidentalis*", J. Herpetol. 14:102
* Brown, J. (1969) "Territorial behavior and population regulation in birds: a review and re-evaluation". Wilson Bull. 81:293-329.
* Greenwood, P. J. (1980) "Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals." Anim. Beha. 28, 1140-1162.
* Darwin, C. (1872) "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals." London: John Murray.
* MacCurdy, J. (1930) "The Biological Significance of Blushing and Shame." British Journal of Psychology, 21, 174-182.
* Malinowski, B. (1927) "Sex and Repression in Savage Society." London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

# Answer
> 16 votes
This is a fascinating question. According to Donald Symons (1979) "The evolution of human sexuality", it is a species specific adaptation that seems to be universal across cultures. Symons argued that having sex in private underlines the exclusivity of the relationship between monogamous couples. This theory does assume that sexual exclusivity is a universal feature of human relations. On the other hand, Ryan & Jethá (2010) "Sex at Dawn" argues that humans are not by nature sexually exclusive, although I don't think they explained why people around the world generally have sex in private.

There are instances, of course, where people have sex more openly. For example, I think it was Captain Cook or someone like that who described scenes in Tahiti where people were having sex while their neighbours looked on. But I don't know if this was considered usual behaviour in Tahiti or if there was some special context, such as it being part of a special ceremony where the usual expectation of privacy was relaxed.

# Answer
> 15 votes
Just a very brief note: in some cultures, sex does not appear to have been confined to private space. One article on the subject reads:

> In fact, it seems that much of Athenian love life took place in public places: many vases show how people are looking when two people are having intercourse. There is not a single written statement that people objected to public sex.

Afther this remark, the author suggests a possibility that "the vases are just as unrealistic as modern pornography" but also offers a way to counter that claim. There is a little more on that subject in the article itself. My guess is that such cultural differences would render a purely evolutionary approach rather hopeless – although I do not have enough expertise in the field to verify the cited claim.

As one might expect, there is some literature concerning similar problems in the humanities. I suppose it could be of use here. However, not being well acquainted with the subject matter, I can only point out two names: Michel Foucault and Anthony Giddens. There is probably more to be found if one digs deep enough.

# Answer
> 6 votes
In chimpz, we see stronger chimps beating up weaker chimps that have consensual sex.

Basically sex is not a purely consensual matter among chimps. It's to the best interest of stronger males to prohibit weaker males from entering mating market especially if the weaker males are more attractive. In gorilla, sex is not about consent at all. The stronger Gorilla beat the hell out of weaker gorilla and get all the girls.

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/toxic-alpha-male/ Amongst primates that live in social groups (baboons, chimpanzees, gorillas), the largest, strongest of the male apes is the alpha male; the others are betas. The alpha rules the pack by dint of his strength and furious violence; he gets the greatest amount of food and unlimited sexual access to the females. The betas subsist on the scraps that are left over once the alpha has moved on and are excluded from sex with any of the females on threat of death. The alpha alone gets to pass along his genes; many apes – chimps and gorillas especially

In humans, it's not much different. The more powerful sultan live in a harem and kill his peasant children by tricking them into jihad. In humans, power is more political than muscle.

If you are a very attractive weaker chimps, what would you do?

You do it in private.

In humans, sex is also not purely consensual. There are so many rules created by more politically powerful humans to prevent weaker humans from having sex.

In fact, it doesn't really matter what the terms are. Someone somewhere somehow will have incentive to hurt you for having sex. I mean, if you get a hot girl, for example, her ex boyfriend would want you death.

The most obvious way to avoid conflict is then to hide your success and have sex in private.

The more a society is based on consent instead of force, the less you have to worry about other seeing you getting the hot mates. Those societies will have more public sex & porn etc.

Or lets' put it this way:

What do you get for having sex in public?

1. Other girls got impressed with your size and want you too? Not applicable for most males.
2. You like fresh air?

There isn't much benefit.

What can go wrong?

1. You can get mugged, robbed, raped, while naked.
2. People know you don't have gun with you.
3. Knowledge is power. If people know too much about you, that's usually bad.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Perhaps it's just because we are vulnerable during sex? Evolutionary speaking, an animal or other person could attack us so it makes sense to seek a safe environment.

# Answer
> -1 votes
The answer has its roots in the evolution of human morality and disgust. I'll point to Steven Pinker for this one -- "Disgust is intuitive microbiology". Sex is among the list of topics that elicit disgust, like spoiled food, bodily waste, poor hygiene, death, infection, inbreeding, etc, and these emotional reactions evolved to avoid diseases. We excrete our waste in private, we have sex in private, we keep our infections covered.

---
Tags: social-psychology, evolution, sexuality
---