# Question
Title: Does Big 5 measure preferences for physical activity?
While working on my amateur studies on personality differences, I use both Big 5 and MBTI to map traits. Using the MBTI theories I can fairly easy recognize the "Sensing" personalities, those who prefer experience and physical activities above philosophy and creativity.

Trying to map MBTI to Big 5 I suddenly realised I have no idea how the Sensing trait correlates with Big 5 traits. **So my question is: Do these preferences show in Big 5? If so, where?**

For a quick description on Sensing personalities, see http://www.gradschools.com/get-informed/before-you-apply/choosing-what-study/sensing-and-intuition-meyers-briggs-type-indicator-mbti )

# Answer
One study found a slight correlation between physical activity and extraversion (r = 0.23), neuroticism (r = −0.11) and conscientiousness (r = 0.20), though the results were relatively inconclusive. Another study found that physically active individuals ranked slightly higher on all scales except for neuroticism. A third study found correlations between all traits except agreeableness, with neuroticism being the only negatively correlated trait. \[1\]

Though not every study showed replicable and statistically significant result, they do seem to agree that neuroticism is negatively correlated with physical activity. Among the Big 5, the trait with the highest positive correlation tended to be extroversion, though by a marginal amount at best.

To be fair, I'm not sure if there is a trait that explains 'those who prefer experience and physical activities above philosophy and creativity'. A facility for philosophy and creativity is highly correlated with openness to experience on the Big 5 model. The contrast to this (according to the model) is not an inclination towards the sensate; rather, people with low scores on openness tend to have more conventional, traditional interests, and thus tend to prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. \[2\]

What I think that you are describing is a trait that can be used to describe those who prefer to engage in external activities (sports, physical recreation, external experiences) over internal ones (philosophy, creative abstraction). Based on the evidence above, it would be reasonable to assume that there is no one 'trait' to describe this phenomenon, but rather the contrast is made more evident the higher in extroversion and the lower in openness that a person may be, compared to someone of the opposite temperament.

---

Sources:

\[1\] Kathryn E. Wilson, Rodney K. Dishman. (2014) Personality and physical activity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

\[2\] McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T.; Jr (1987). "Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (1): 81–90.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: personality, mbti, preferences
---


# Question
Title: How does excess of dopamine affect one's mental health?
If a person takes dopamine increasing medication for some illness, what effect will it have on his/her mental health considering that medication doesn't target just one area of the brain ?

In Parkinson's disease, dopamine is lacking in the brain area responsible for motor functions i.e. muscle movement hence creating spasms in muscles. Dopamine medication corrects this but it doesn't target just that area of the brain.

I'm curious what happens with all the dopamine roaming in other parts of the brain, and how it affects mental health?

EDIT: I've made some changes, I hope it's more understandable now.

# Answer
Not all medications administer dopamine in the same way.

For treating Parkinson's specifically, dopamine-boosting medications such as L-DOPA (which are notable for their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, which dopamine itself cannot do) are often administered with a DOPA decarboxylase inhibitor (DDCI) or with a benserazide to prevent peripheral synthesis of dopamine from L-DOPA. This prevents the negative side effects that may result from excess dopamine in the peripheral nervous system.

Other medications (such as stimulant medications, used to treat disorders such as ADHD) convert tyrosine hydroxylase into L-Dopa, which in turn becomes dopamine. Long-term amphetamine use has shown to have positive effects on the brain when administered in therapeutic doses. By contrast, however, certain psychotoxic amphetamines such as methamphetamine have shown to cause long-term brain damage.

When taken in higher doses, these medications can negatively effect heart rate, sleep patterns, appetite, mood, anxiety, aggression levels, and (in cases of abuse and overuse) can lead to psychosis or paranoia. They can also lead to trouble with urination and muscle coordination.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: neurology, dopamine
---


# Question
Title: Full list of the capabilities of human brain
I am studying the concept of multi-tasking. The premise upon which I am asking this question is my belief that multi-tasking is a myth(as discussed in a few books on the same topic) and that the brain processes its tasks/brain requests sequentially, one by one. The moment we try doing two tasks, that interfere with each other in terms of the areas of brain that are activated while doing those tasks, we hit an efficiency bottleneck; our efficiency of brain resource usage goes down.

The same belief now led me to think that an efficient way of performing any task is to schedule the task in the brain in such a way that its adjacent tasks have no chance to interfere with the current task in terms of their usage of brain's resources. So, what are those different brain resources that together accomplish an activity? Can anybody give me a full list of the abilities of the brain as per the latest scientific results available?

In the process I tried to list down the various activities that we enjoy doing while we are able to give our full attention/concentration to them and then tried to see what are the varieties of things that a brain can actually do, so that we can quickly identify the activity and classify it in terms of its effect on brain's usage.

A few significant things brains beautifully do are:

calculations(math) = counting

Literature = imagination + verbal

music skills = counting + aesthetic

learning new language = memory + verbal usage + pattern detection

falling in love = reproductive + courting

imagery and sexual fantasy = reproductive + visual imagination + aesthetics

poetry = verbal + counting(metre) etc

traveling = recall + curiosity

adventure = same as above

sports = strategy + motor skills etc etc etc

The above list includes the types of creative activities that brain does, but does not list the basic, elementary set of abilities that together accomplish these activities. So my question here is, what are those various distinct faculties that a brain uses to accomplish a task? You may provide a list of all the faculties(RHS of the above "so called" equations :)), or map the different parts of brain with unique abilities, or provide a totally different way of looking at the brain altogether...

For more clarity:

As an analogy with a computer system which has processing units and related resources like ALUs, Memory, etc what are the different processing unit and resources in the brain which together accomplish a task. I am looking for that list basically

# Answer
> 1 votes
The length of your question and it's tags make it quite confusing, however what you mentioned about the brain processing tasks sequentially and then hitting an efficiency bottle-neck when using conflicting resources reminds me of the research of Neils Taatgen.

He uses a cognitive model called ACT-R to do computer simulations to predict what efficiency bottle-necks a person might experience. His research might help clarify some theories you have.

---
Tags: intelligence, brain-training, brain-development
---


# Question
Title: Is there a disorder that causes one to give inanimate objects human emotions?
For example, if one is using multiple pens to write something and has not used one of them in awhile, one may think it is "feeling" "left out" and so will switch to use that one. A logical mind KNOWS that inanimate objects cannot feel but one may have such empathy for all things - living or not - that one may attribute human feelings and emotions to them and an emotional brain does this automatically. It is not a conscious action, it is automatic and it dictates how one interacts with things. One can use a logical mind to recognize it but stills feel compelled to make sure everything is taken care of and included. Is this a specific disorder or just a piece of one of another disorder?

# Answer
Interesting question. I have thought about this a lot, and while I cannot offer a conclusive answer, I can offer some ideas that stem from scientific literature.

I should note that this question may technically be considered off-topic, as it seems to be looking for a diagnosis (and self-help questions are prohibited on this website). However, for the sake of my own curiosity and the curiosity of others, I'll provide my answer nonetheless.

**To answer your specific question**: *No, there is no officially-recognized disorder that causes one to assume human emotions in objects.* To be fair, the condition you have described does not constitute the definition of '\[mental\] disorder' because, by definition, a mental disorder is a mental or behavioral pattern that causes suffering or poor ability to function in life. On the contrary, it seems that this behavioral pattern of yours is helpful to you, for reasons that I will explain below.

There is a theory that the brain forms an image of the body's homeostatic sensations in the "primary interoceptive cortex" of the brain. This area is located in the insula, which is linked to emotion (the body's homeostasis), as well as empathy. \[1\] This theory is supported by fMRI imaging, which shows activity in the insular cortex when one is asked to feel one's own heartbeat, or empathize with the pain or emotional state of others. \[2\] Coincidentally, the insula is also involved in psychopathology, or the study of mental disorders. Specifically, it is linked to anxiety disorders \[3\] and emotional dysregulation. \[4\]

The spindle neurons found at a higher density in the right frontal insular cortex are also found in the anterior cingulate cortex, and it has been speculated that these neurons are involved in cognitive-emotional processes that are specific to primates, such as empathy and self-aware emotional feelings. While the mechanisms behind the insular cortex are not well known, it is thought that these functions arise as a consequence of the insula's ability to relay its internal 'homeostasis' (or its overall well-being) to the conscious observer. \[2\]

Given the evidence that empathy is associated with insular activity, and given the evidence that the insula regulates the body's internal sense of 'homeostasis', it can be inferred that those who are highly sensitive (i.e. highly attuned to their internal level of homeostasis) are automatically highly attuned to the others in their environment, as well. Thus, there may be a tendency to expect similar levels of sensitivity in other things, and (by proxy) there may be a tendency to 'tread lightly' around others due to an automatic assumption that they are similarly sensitive. This may extend to inanimate objects, if one recognizes that the 'environment' that the object is in is not maintained in the body's subjective view of homeostasis.

Another thing to consider is that young children often show attachment or subjective association of feelings to objects, and that this is considered normal in young age because of the positive effects it seems to have on children. One study found that children who attended day-care full-time were significantly more likely to develop attachments to inanimate objects than children who only attended day-care part-time. It is not certain why this is the case, though it can be speculated that increased exposure to the real world (and time away from the parent or guardian) increases the child's anxiety as they learn to become independent. A prior study found that there was no link between behavioral disturbances and object attachment; on the contrary, another study found that children used object attachment as a mechanism for arousal reduction (and, thus, anxiety-reduction) in the face of adversity or discomfort in the environment. \[5\] As I mentioned before, it is thought that children use these objects to transition from dependence to independence.

This is different from treating objects as if they were people, because this is essentially using the object as a token of security to replace the mother as the child advances in age, thus allowing the child to become independent. However, it may reveal insight into those who naturally associate objects with emotions, because it may represent an underlying anxiety in the individual. The attachment to the object may be a way for the individual to circumvent that -- though it could also be unrelated, as this is still in a speculative stage.

Overall, however, I would say that this behavior does not implicate disorder in an individual. To the contrary, it appears to be a soothing mechanism. If I had to make an informed guess based on the information above, I would theorize that those who continue to associate emotions with inanimate objects outside of childhood may simply have stronger natural insular activity, and thus a stronger tendency towards one's internal 'homeostasis', or emotional activity. Because the individual is naturally more sensitive to the environment / emotional affect of others due to heightened activity in the insular cortex, they naturally attempt to regulate the environment's 'homeostasis' based on the individual's own bodily concept of homeostasis. Thus, if you were to feel left out if you were a pen that was not being used, then you may very well treat every pen the way you wanted to be treated. :)

---

Sources used:

\[1\] Emeran A. Mayer (August 2011). "Gut feelings: the emerging biology of gut–brain communication". Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12: 453–466.

\[2\] Benedetto De Martino, Dharshan Kumaran, Ben Seymour, and Raymond J. Dolan (August 2006). "Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain". Science 313 (6): 684–687.

\[3\] Paulus MP, Stein MB (August 2006). "An insular view of anxiety". Biol. Psychiatry 60 (4): 383–7.

\[4\] Thayer JF, Lane RD (December 2000). "A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation". J Affect Disord 61 (3): 201–16

\[5\] Passman R. H. (1976). Arousal reducing properties of attachment objects: testing the functional limits of the security blanket relative to the mother. Dev. Psychol. 12 468–469 10.1037/0012-1649.12.5.468
> 2 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, social-psychology, perception, emotion, empathy
---


# Question
Title: Are younger people less capable of driving?
I've seen articles saying that teen drivers have the most accidents out of every age group. Those articles also claim that teen drivers are less capable of driving as their brains are less developed than someone 25 years of age or older.

Are these claims that younger people are less capable drivers true?

# Answer
> 8 votes
Research shows that teenagers are not any less capable at driving, per se, but that the adolescent brain undergoes a period of neural changes that often lends itself to risk-seeking behavior. From Somerville et. al (2010):

> **In adolescence, there is a heightened propensity to engage in risky behaviors that can lead to negative outcomes, including substance abuse, unprotected sex, inflicting harm on others, injuries, and death.** According to the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS, Eaton, et al., 2008) the four leading causes of death that account for 72% of adolescent mortality – motor vehicle accidents, unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide - are preventable. Such statistics suggest that these fatalities may be attributed, in part, to poor choices or risky actions (e.g., accidents, injuries) and/or heightened emotionality (e.g., suicide) underscoring the importance of understanding the biological basis of emotional and incentive-seeking behavior of adolescents, the focus of the present review.

The paper goes on to discuss how the intensity of young adults' emotional states relative to those of adults, as well as a heightened sensitivity toward reward (as well as an immature 'self-regulatory competence') are all underlying factors.

I think that this is what your article is referring to when it mentions that teenagers have 'less-developed brains'. On the other hand, one could argue the opposite. With puberty and adolescent development comes an influx of hormonal changes. With these changes come developments and mental states that are novel, new, and (at first) difficult to control. From this perspective, it is less a question of the brain being 'less-developed' -- on the contrary, there is 'too much' new development in puberty and adolescence, which can be overwhelming. As we learn to cope with these new developments with time and experience, they become easier to manage and control.

# Answer
> 1 votes
As I mentioned in my comment, I would be less likely to blame this on brain chemistry and more likely to blame it on lack of experience. While I have not reviewed the research, it would be very difficult to isolate a mental development pattern from all the other confounding variables of young drivers.

First, driving is inherently a procedural task. It takes time to develop those skills to the point of automaticity, so there is a somewhat higher level of attention and resources being devoted to the mere mechanics of driving.

Second, our ability to respond to dynamic situations is dependent upon our brain recognizing those situations and responding in a preprogrammed fashion. This is also something that cannot be learned other than through time on the road. For example, I learned that it is not a good idea to drive next to someone on the freeway, matching their speed, because they could suddenly decide to switch lanes. I learned that from experience, and it has helped me avoid numerous accidents.

Third, we have to consider the propensity of younger folks to want to engage in stupid things, like texting and driving. While people of all ages do this, there are plenty of reasons to point to younger generations being more active with their texting and other apps that can create major distractions.

Young drivers simply don't have the motor skills, coordination, and mental preparation that older drivers do. They also have more distractions. This doesn't mean that there are some young drivers who couldn't outdrive older drivers, nor does it mean that all older drivers are reasonable drivers. There is a lot of variation.

# Answer
> 0 votes
The most important reason for this is the risk behavior described by Sydney Maples.

In addition, young adolescents simply do not have as much experience as older people - they just recently got their license. They have less practical exercise and less experience about dealing with any specific challenge. They also might be curious and try out behavior that older people have already tried out - and stopped doing.

These two points mean that even a future world champion race driver might have higher than average risk of accidents while in adolescent age.

---
Tags: human-factors
---


# Question
Title: What do the weights of an artificial neural network represent in biological neurons?
In artificial neural networks the connections between neurons are a assigned numbers called "weights" or "parameters". As new data is fed into the neural net, these weights change. This is how the neural net "learns".

I'm trying to understand what these weights might correspond to in a real brain. The idea occurred to me that it might represent the strength of the myelination on the connections between real neurons.

Is this a correct understanding?

Does the degree of myelineation along an axon vary over time as the neural net processes more experiences?

# Answer
> 7 votes
The weights in an artificial neural network are an *approximation* of multiple processes combined that take place in biological neurons. Myelination plays a role, but not a major one. Weights in artificial neural networks can be positive or negative numbers.

**Weight magnitude**. The magnitude of a weight is analogous to a combination of increased dendritic connections between neurons, number of synapses between their dendrites, density of neurotransmitter receptors on the post-synaptic terminals, as well as increased neurotransmitter vesicle formation and fusion on the pre-synaptic terminals.

**Positive weights**. Positive weights are analogous to the pre-synaptic terminals of the synapses releasing excitatory neurotransmitters (i.e. glutamate). They make it *more* likely the receiving cell will fire an action potential.

**Negative weights**. Negative weights are analogous to inhibitory neurotransmitters (i.e. GABA) being released at the synapse. They make it *less* likely the receiving cell will fire an action potential.

Myelination

Myelination increases the distance that action potentials can travel down the axon. The membrane voltage potential decays much closer to the cell body if the axon is not myelinated. One analogy is that of a garden hose. If the axon is not myelinated, then the garden hose is leaky with holes, and less water pressure (that caries water pressure waves, the action potentials) makes it to the end of the hose.

However, increased myelination is not necessarily analogous to an increased weight. For example, if there are few dendrites between two neurons, with few synaptic connections, then myelination would have little effect.

Learning

You also mentioned learning. During learning, the weights in an artificial neuron increase or decrease. In biological neurons, learning takes place at multiple scales and areas (i.e. non-synaptic and synaptic). At first, during increasing connection strength, you may see increased vesicle fusion, then increased neurotransmitter receptors, then new synaptic boutons, and new dendrites. When "unlearning", or forgetting, these processes happen in reverse.

Overall, a weight in artificial neurons clump a lot of biological complexity into one number that only crudely approximates the degree of connection strength between two biological neurons.

# Answer
> 4 votes
The weight matrix is typically considered to be a strength of connectivity metric between nodes in the parallel computronium model that neural networks are based on. That fact is fairly evident when you investigate ANN learning algorithms.

For instance, the backpropagation algorithm for feedforward networks is designed to strengthen a string of associations between layers, thus forming a state vector to represent the optimal solution.

The association seems even more evident in Hopfield networks. A training algorithm in a Hopfield net is designed to adjust the weight matrix until the network state converges to a stability point. Certain stabilities represent certain associative memories; similar to the brain.

However, I think forming too strong of a connection between the current neural network models and the functions of the biological brain might actually be detrimental to your understanding of the former. Neural networks are not designed to work like the brain, they're designed to be a parallel architecture. It just so happens that the brain is also a parallel architecture, but learning in the brain is so different from any ANN model that it makes very little sense to compare the two on such a fundamental level.

# Answer
> 0 votes
Historically, neuroscientists have not thought of myelination to be the biological analogue of weights in an artificial neural network (but see below!).

Instead, **the strength of synaptic connections** seems to be the most likely analogue. Here, strength refers mostly to the size and of the voltage response in the receiving neuron due to the release of neurotransmitter in the sending neuron. So, for example, Neuron A is connected to Neuron B, and then A releases the neurotransmitter glutamate and causes a 1 millivolt response in B. But then another neuron, Neuron C may be connected to Neuron D and when it releases glutamate it might only cause a 0.5 millivolt response--not as strong as the A-\>B connection. *Importantly, the strengths of synaptic connections change due to experience, and this is thought to (in part) underlie learning, similarly to how changes in weights in an artificial neural network are the mechanism of artificial learning.*

All this said, your point about myelination is interesting in light of recent work: an October 2014 paper, published in *Science* showed that production of myelin (in the form of oligodendrocytes) was necessary for motor learning in mice.

---
Tags: computational-modeling, neural-network
---


# Question
Title: Do subjects with a missing cerebellum have a superior ability to verbalize motion sequences?
Since the function of the cerebellum in patients with cerebellar hypoplasia needs to be taken over by other brain components such as the motor cortex, and since the cortex is the source of language, is it easier for these patients to verbalize their movements, i.e. are all their movements voluntary? Or does the brain stem rather replace the cerebellum's function?

# Answer
> 4 votes
I think that this question is hard to answer because there is little known about the cerebellum, and few instances of people who have been born without one. There are only 10 known cases of complete cerebellar agenesis, which can hardly be considered a sample size.

Broadly speaking, the cerebellum can be seen a 'fine tuning' device in the brain. It does not initiate movement, but rather allows movement to be fine-tuned and coordinated by receiving input from sensory systems in the spinal cord. This 'fine tuning' can apply to other areas, such as behavior, affect, and social expectations, as well as speech difficulty (often in the form of slurred speech). However, it is not well known how the cerebellum affects cognitive functions.

The 'output source' for the cerebellum is its Purkinje cells. But since Purkinje cells are found in high quantities within the cerebellum itself, they are unlikely to be of much use if the patient has no cerebellum to begin with. Therefore, it is not clear how the brain could 'replace' cerebellar function. I think that muscle memory and conscious developmental strategies are the only methods to overcome setbacks from cerebellar agenesis, and after reading a few case studies, common anecdote seemed to confirm this.

Given this information, and given the lack of evidence in any of the observed ten cases, I would conclude that it is likely that patients with a missing cerebellum do not have any sort of extraordinary ability elsewhere in the brain -- much less related to their own deficit. However, this cannot be confirmed without more case studies of cerebellar agenesis.

---
Tags: language, motor
---


# Question
Title: According to Yalom, what mental disorders are caused by inefficient anxiety coping strategies?
Irwin D. Yalom is a famous existential psychotherapist who's sporting his own theory about human psychology. Based on psychdynamics, he's stating that questions and thoughts pertaining to *death*, *freedom*, *meaninglessness*, and *existential isolation* lead to anxiety. Further, when it comes to psychopathology, he states (page 110 of his book *Existential psychotherapy*) that his theory

> as do most paradigms of psychopathology, on the assumption that psychopathology is a graceless, inefficient mode of coping with anxiety.

Now, I'm trying to figure out whether he views *all* kind of psychopathology this way, and indeed what he thinks counts as psychopathology in the first place. I recon he's not talking about things like for example autism or psychopathy (even though I haven't found any passages where he explicitly excludes these), but what about diagnoses such as schizophrenia?

For Yalom, where does one draw the line between mental illness caused by inefficient coping strategies for anxiety, and brain disorders that simply are due to other reasons?

# Answer
The scope of Yalom's mainstream branch is pretty much the same as that of existential psychotherapy, and psychodynamic therapy in general. According to Yalom (p. 9-10):

> The dynamic existential approach retains the basic dynamic structure outlined by Freud, but radically alters the content. The old formula of DRIVE -\> ANXIETY -\> DEFENSE MECHANISM is replaced by AWARENESS OF ULTIMATE CONCERN -\> ANXIETY -\> DEFENSE MECHANISM. Both formulas assume that anxiety is the fuel of psychopathology;

Psychoanalysis is focused on psychological symptoms, such as neurosis:

> There are many different neuroses: obsessive–compulsive disorder, obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, impulse control disorder, anxiety disorder, hysteria, and a great variety of phobias. ... anxiety, sadness or depression, anger, irritability, mental confusion, low sense of self-worth, etc., behavioral symptoms such as phobic avoidance, vigilance, impulsive and compulsive acts, lethargy, etc., cognitive problems such as unpleasant or disturbing thoughts, repetition of thoughts and obsession, habitual fantasizing, negativity and cynicism, etc. Interpersonally, neurosis involves dependency, aggressiveness, perfectionism, schizoid isolation, socio-culturally inappropriate behaviors, etc.

and psychosis, but exclusive of known biological causes:

> Medical and biological laboratory tests should exclude central nervous system diseases and injuries, diseases and injuries of other organs, psychoactive substances, toxins, and prescribed medications as causes of symptoms of psychosis before any psychiatric illness can be diagnosed.

As per Yalom (p. 12):

> \*In this discussion, as elsewhere in this text, I refer to psychologically based disturbance, not to the major psychoses with a fundamental biochemical origin.

This is similar in scope to all forms of psychotherapy, except that where the underlying cause is not known to be physiological or medical in nature, it is assumed to be subconscious (rather than say, behavioural, cognitive, or functional). For psychodynamics:

> Psychodynamic therapies depend upon a theory of inner conflict, wherein repressed behaviours and emotions surface into the patient’s consciousness; generally, one's conflict is subconscious.

and specifically, for existential psychotherapy (in Yalom's words p. 8):

> ... a conflict that flows from the individual's confrontation with the givens of existence.

This also means that the scope of therapy may change over time, as knowledge is gained regarding the root causes of mental disorders.

Pretty much all other mental disorders are fair game, including mood disorders such as anxiety, personality disorders such as psychopathy (ASPD), and thought disorders such as schizophrenia. For example, in chapter 4 (p. 147) of his book - under the "Death" concern - Yalom discusses schizophrenia patients who:

> clings to his or her denial of death with a fierce desperation

Note: In cases where some biological factor is assumed, it is common practice to treat disorders with both medication and psychotherapy, as the overall efficacy is improved. In such cases, psychotherapy focuses on the psychological components of the disorder. Even in cases where the role of psychology may seem secondary, such as dementia, learning disability, and autism, psychotherapy may be used to augment treatment. However, psychodynamic therapy is not popular for such disorders, because of the reliance on talk-therapy, that is highly constrained in these cases, so they are unlikely to be discussed much in existential therapy circles.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: abnormal-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Can Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), or a magnets cap make you smarter?
According to wikipedia, TMS is a bunch of magnetic fields directed to the brain which stimulates and activates neurons.

* If I wear a cap full of magnets, will it stimulate my neurons?
* If yes, will a cap of magnets make me "smarter"?

# Answer
**Short answer**
A cap of magnets, or state-of-the-art TMS protocols, will not make you smarter.

**Background**
First off, TMS uses bursts of magnetic stimulation in the order of milliseconds (Rothkegel *et al*., 2010). Pulses of magnetic stimulation are used, because permanent magnetic fields will not induce current flow. Hence, wearing a cap of permanent magnets will not do the job.

TMS can be used using single pulses to evoke motoric muscle twitches when applied to the motor cortex, or to evoke phosphenes when applied over the visual cortex (Thut *et al*., 2003). In the clinic, typically repetitive TMS (rTMS) is used, where the subject is exposed to trains of TMS pulses (Horvath *et al*., 2010). rTMS is nowadays approved to treat depression. A popular description says it 'activates neurons' in the prefrontal cortex (ABC News), but a more realistic view is to say that nobody knows why it works, and whether it works (National Institute of Health). It's also been investigated to treat psychoses or to decrease ear ringing (tinnitus).

Hence, TMS is generally applied to disrupt ongoing neural activity, i.e. to remove something. Indeed, TMS is typically associated with a disruption of function. For example, visual task performance is decreased when folks are subjected to TMS pulses (Thut *et al*., 2003). Hence TMS is not applied to add or enhance brain functions, let alone higher cognitive functions that govern intelligence.

<sup>**References**
**-** Horvath *et al*., *J Vis Exp* (2010); **45**: 2345
**-** Rothkegel *et al*., *Clin Neurophysiol* (2010); **121**(11):1915-21
**-** Thut *et al*., *Clin Neurophysiol* (2003); **114**(11): 2071–80</sup>
> 5 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-neuroscience, neurophysiology, brain-training, cognitive-enhancement, tms
---


# Question
Title: How does it come about that specific areas of the brain are associated with specific functions?
During the development of the human brain, specific areas come to perform specific functions. How (and when) does this differentiation come about?

Presumably, some areas of the brain naturally take on a function that is based on their physical proximity - for example, the visual cortex is the brain area directly connected to the optic pathway. Hence from a developmental perspective, it is natural for it to take on the role of processing visual information.

However, the production of language, for example, could potentially take place in any area of the brain adjacent to the auditory cortex. So how does it come about that it typically always gets processed in Wernicke's area?

* Is it predetermined genetically? And if so, how? (pre-mapped synapses?)
* Or is it determined later through some kind of learning process? And if so, what is the explanation for the similarity of brain maps between individuals?

# Answer
> 2 votes
**Short answer**
Neural wiring is governed by nature and nurture.

**Background**
I'm not a language person, but I will try to address the question on more familiar grounds to me, namely sensory systems.

A bunch of most intriguing studies have addressed your question directly. Among these is the study from Frost & Metin (1985), who severed the optic tracts of newborn hamsters and found that optic axons would project to the somatosensory thalamic (ventrobasal) nucleus instead. The experimentally induced retinal projection to the somatosensory nucleus occurred through the stabilization of an early, normally transient projection. Moreover, ***visual stimulation*** *reliably evoked **neural responses** in the primary and secondary **somatosensory cortices** (SI and SII)* in treated hamsters. Not only that - the representations of the visual field in SI and SII showed a partially **retinotopic organization**. In other words, the animals had effectively **converted** (part of) their **somatosensory cortex** into **visual cortex**.

Later, Sur *et al*. (1988) showed with a similar procedure that retinal cells could be induced to project to the medial geniculate nucleus (MGN), the principal auditory thalamic nucleus, in newborn ferrets. They showed that many MGN cells were then visually driven and that the **auditory cortex became visually responsive**. Some visual cells in auditory cortex were direction-selective or orientation-sensitive, resembling the complex cells in primary visual cortex.

Hence, **functional visual projections can be routed into nonvisual structures** in higher mammals, suggesting that the modality of a sensory thalamic nucleus or cortical area may be specified by its inputs during development. However, there is a **short time window** where the extent of neural plasticity will allow such gross abnormalities to develop - both studies used newborn animals therefore.

<sup>**References**
**-** Frost & Metin, *Nature* (1985); **317**(6033): 162-4
**-** Sur *et al*. *Science* (1988); **242**(4884): 1437-41</sup>

---
Tags: neuroscience, neuroanatomy, brain-development, neurophysiology
---


title: Does synesthesia lack symmetry?

text:
# Question
Title: Does synesthesia lack symmetry?
Some synesthetes report seeing bright flashes when hearing a loud noise. However, in the same person, bright flashes of light are not reported as being loud. I've read of other examples like this; for instance, the number 1 may always be yellow, but yellow is not the number 1.

Has there been any research as to the neurological reasons why synesthesia is asymmetric? Alternately, is my anecdotal assumption that it is asymmetric incorrect and there are actually frequent symmetric presentations of the condition?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Generally spoken, *synesthesia is **unidirectional***. For example, grapheme–color synesthesia (i.e., letter–color and digit–color synesthesia) is the most prevalent type of synesthesia. The presentation of a grapheme leads to an additional synesthetic color percept. Although grapheme–color synesthetes are strongly influenced by the synesthetic color perception triggered by a specific grapheme, they usually do not report that a color triggers the perception of a specific grapheme.

However, while explicit synesthesia is unidirectional, there is evidence that it can be ***implicitly*** *bidirectional*. To show this phenomenon, clever experiments need to be devised. For example, the left-hand responses of digit-color synesthetes were faster for colors representing a small number, whereas their right-hand responses were faster to colors representing large numbers. Hence, apparently there was an implicit association of the color with numbers.

<sup>**Reference**
Weiss *et al*., *J Cognitive Neurosci* (2008); **21**(10): 2019–26</sup>

---
Tags: neuroscience, synesthesia, sensory-perception
---


# Question
Title: What's the optimal way to space out rewards in order to maximise motivation?
I'm working on an educational product, and we're thinking of introducing some gamified aspects to motivate students to use the product. One of these will be the concept of 'levels' - when a student does enough lessons in a particular topic, their 'level' in that topic will increase.

Is there any kind of research on how to best space these 'levels' out in order to maximise motivation? If students can progress through levels too quickly then leveling up will be devalued, but if it takes too long to get through levels then they may be less motivated because the end won't be in sight. How long should we aim for students to take to get through a level? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?

Any advice on how to approach this problem would be greatly appreciated.

# Answer
To add gaming element to education, you have two options:

1. Look at currently successful examples of products that gamify learning
2. Check most successful mobile games (short engagement times)

Here are a couple examples of **language learning products that gamify learning** (Duolingo and ChineseSkill) They use:

* **Very short lessons** which produce instant sense of gratification (3-5 minutes each)
* **Diverse** word sets, so each lesson feels fresh
* **Score and timing** concepts (for example Chinese Skill app lets you peek at a word meaning, but subtracts points from the final score for doing so)
* **Competition** against "general public" - apps tell you how you are doing compared to other people
* Use of pretty **graphics** and friendly imagery

For example chinese skill app starts with just a couple lessons per module, each focusing on a few words. Later on the app expands and starts to add more lessons.

Duolingo has similar approach, although they have a lot more reward systems - you can win points by doing good during lessons.

**To specifically address your timing question**, I can bring up personal experience - I tried both products, and hit a slump when the number of lessons per module exceeded 5. There was less motivation to progress. I quit duolingo completely once I hit a module with 13 courses. To avoid this, I've seen some apps break large word sets into stuff like "Clothing 1", "Clothing 2", etc.

ChineseSkill app

Duolingo App:
> 4 votes

---
Tags: motivation, reinforcement-learning, game-theory
---


# Question
Title: What is the relationship between top-down mechanism and priming the visual system in the following experiment?
I am currently conducting an experiment where a subject is shown a series of photographs of various objects. Each photo contains a single object. Before showing the photograph, a screen with a text indicating the name of the object is shown briefly. The objective is to analyze the eye-fixations that occur as subjects view the objects.

This is a free-viewing task, i.e. the subjects are asked to gaze at the pictures without explicitly searching for any attribute in particular. Typically, a bottom-up mechanism is thought to be active for such situations. Since I show the name of the object before showing its picture, most likely, I am priming the subject's visual system. Does this manner of priming make the task a top-down one even though there is no explicit "search" traditionally associated with top-down mechanisms ?

More generally, what is the relationship between top-down mechanisms and priming the visual system ?

# Answer
> 2 votes
This is potentially an example of a top-down influence on the visual system.

That is, if the experiment demonstrates as expected, that priming the visual system with a word influences the pattern of eye movements (compared to not priming) when free-viewing the following object, then that would support the conclusion of a top-down mechanism at work.

In Biased Competition Theory:

> Top-down processing is based on pre-existing knowledge when interpreting sensory information.

Top-down processes are contrasted with bottom-up processing that is based on sensory input alone - that is, it can be modelled using only features of the stimulus. When attention (eg, eye movement) is directed in ways that are not accounted for by sensory input, this provides evidence for a top-down (higher level cognitive) mechanism.

Although much research on top-down effects on eye movement in scene viewing is done using visual search tasks, search targets are not necessary for demonstrating top-down effects, and many experiments use free-viewing (non-directed) tasks to test such effects.

One of the earlier studies showing evidence of top-down influence in free-viewing conditions is Parkhurst et al (2002), who tracked eye movements in free-viewing of various scenes. Although bottom-up predictions correlated well with the data, some top-down influence was found as well. Since then, most theories of visual attention incorporate both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms in visual processing, whether task-directed or not.

In fact, even conscious awareness is not necessary for top-down influence: Kiefer et al (2012) review the significant literature on top-down influence of masked (unconscious) priming of the visual system. Per this review, priming the visual system in a variety of ways influences attention in a top-down manner.

---
Tags: attention, eye-movement, priming
---


# Question
Title: What is the relationship between the ego, amygdala and consciousness?
I've been reading a lot about emotional responses lately, and the following points seem to surface in different writings:

> "Amygdala is a very ancient system, intended to quickly alert a person of danger".

At the same time, we have a part of our consciousness, where thoughts of danger, lack or negativity towards others may arise. I've seen spiritual/personal development writers attribute these thoughts to the function of the ego. I'm not sure if they are using the term correctly, as they have a mostly negative perception of the ego, as something that strives to dominate cognition and act out of fearful/selfish desires. Here's a description from wikipedia:

> The ego is the organized part of the personality structure that includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions.

I'm trying to understand - **Is person's ego a projection of the responses of their amygdala onto the conscious experience?**

I've looked around and see some bloggers like this one make a claim that the amygdala and the ego are one and the same. Is this true?

To clarify my question - I'm seeking to understand if there's a structure/process in cognition that integrates input from various "lower mammal brain" structures and translates them into thoughts?

# Answer
Assuming your question is *"Is person's ego a projection of the responses of their amygdala onto the conscious experience?"*, I think it would translate to "*Does the amygdala determines or houses the ego*". In that light, the question hinges on the meaning of *ego*. Given the question is asked at Cognitive Sciences SE, I assume the ego is "*The part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity*". In that case I would say ***no****, the amygdala is not involved in the ego*.

Generally, the amygdala is considered to be an essential part of the limbic system. The limbic system controls the core emotions (fear, pleasure, anger) and drives behaviors essential to life (hunger, sex, and the care of offspring). The functions of the amygdala are indeed mainly associated with emotions, but also with learning and memory (Martin & Hans, 1985). A notable example is post-traumatic stress disorder (Shin *et al*., 2006), where it mediates imprinting of memories through fear.

However, the amygdala definitely shapes "the self". Given the Latin meaning of "ego" (literally, "I") one could definitely argue for an essential role of the amygdala in the ego. In that context, though, arguably every single part of the brain at the macroscopic level is an essential part of the ego.

*PS: the 'blog' you linked is an advertisement for the services of Sara Harvey, a personal coach for folks with executive functions. Not the most reliable source of information.*

**References**
**-** Martin & Hans, *Behav Neurosci* (1985); **99**(2):342-80
**-** Shin *et al*., *Ann NY Acad Sci* (2006); **1071**: 67–7
> 6 votes

# Answer
I believe an overactive amygdala certainly plays a pivitol role defines ones ego. As the amygdala is part of the limbic system. An overactive limbic system has been linked to depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and depression.

While I do believe the amygdala does play a small part in defining the ego, I believe other parts of the limbic system, play a significant role in the overall definition of the ego. Having a strong active frontal cortex also helps the person logically define their "ego" or who they are as a person.

So the correct answer is No, the ego should not be defined as conscious experiences projected simply by the amygdala. Other parts of the brain play a significant part in defining ones "ego."

David Lopez Blass
> 1 votes

---
Tags: perception, emotion, cognitive-neuroscience, consciousness
---


# Question
Title: If ADHD is caused by brain structure, why isn't analysis of brain structure used to diagnose it?
My understanding is that people with ADHD have different brain structure to people without.

If this is the case, why isn't the difference of brain structure used to diagnose ADHD, rather than a series of questions relating to behavioral symptoms?

# Answer
> 12 votes
ADHD is not 'caused' by a brain structure. However, there are observable differences in the brains of ADHD sufferers compared to non-ADHD sufferers.

For example, ADHD sufferers have a disproportionately greater decrease in volume in the left side of the prefrontal cortex, as well as the posterior parietal cortex.

In addition, there is typically a reduction in the number of dopamine receptors, as well as a sensitivity to neurotransmitter activity. Thus, stimulants and cognitive enhancements are often used to treat ADHD.

This paper does a good, in-depth job of mapping networks and brain connectivity to ADHD. If you were to read it, you might notice a problem -- it isn't the case that there is one 'brain structure' that ADHD sufferers have that non-sufferers do not have, nor is it just one brain structure that is affected. The way that ADHD seems to 'work' in the brain is very complex, and there is still much to be learned about the brain before we can go about diagnosing people based on MRI data.

Furthermore, the line between ADHD and other mental disorders is not clearly drawn. Inattentiveness could stem from depression, trauma, or insomnia, for example. Mania and/or hyperactivity could stem from bipolar disorder or histrionic personality disorder. We are so far from figuring the brain out that we can only rely on context at this point in time.

# Answer
> -1 votes
The latest research in ADHD scan studies show a lack on activity in the left side of the pre-frontal cortex. As far as your question goes not everyone can afford these scans to come up with an accurate diagnosis. Also a SPECT scan could show two different patterns in activity if the scan was done more than once. It would have to take numerous scans over time to come up with an accurate diagnosis. That is why it is much easier to be honest about symptoms with a psychiatrist you trust.

David Lopez Blass

---
Tags: adhd
---


# Question
Title: Flow diagram of how information flows through the brain?
I am a Artificial Intelligence researcher with a interest in neuroscience.

I was wondering if flow diagrams exist of the way information flows from sensory inputs through the parts of the brain (and their function) to form output actuation signals for moving the body?

This kind of flow diagram might be used as a kind of blue print for constructing intelligent systems.

Such diagrams of information flow of other animals besides humans (less complex systems) would also be very welcome and useful.

# Answer
Most flow diagrams with the detail your require are for rudimentary sensory functions (such as seeing, eye tracking and other simple functions) can be found in any neuroanatomy textbook. The one I have experience with is "Neuroanatomy: Text and Atlas" by John H. Martin.

Alternatively, if you're looking for a more functional interpretation of how information flows through the brain in terms of behaviour, the most detailed model that I know is Spaun. A diagram of the brain model taken from the Science paper can be seen below:

Other models using the Neural Engineering Framework and the Semantic Pointer Architecture used in Spaun may also have the types of diagrams you are looking for. For example, consider this motor control diagram from Travis DeWolf's PhD thesis on Adaptive Control.
> 4 votes

# Answer
I have found the human information processing model (Wickens) to be a good starting point at understanding the high-level processing functions that take place.
> 2 votes

# Answer
There's also Hickok and Poeppel's Dual Stream Model of Speech/Language Processing.

http://www.talkingbrains.org/2008/12/dual-stream-model-of-speechlanguage.html
> 2 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-neuroscience, cognitive-modeling, animal-cognition
---


# Question
Title: Is it ethically appropriate for a client to buy their psychologist a gift?
I have been having free psychology therapy in my school for almost one year. Now the therapeutic relationship is coming to end. I want to give a small gift to my therapist to show my gratitude when my therapy is over.

* Are psychologists forbidden from receiving gift from clients by their ethical code?
* Alternatively, under what circumstances would it be appropriate?

# Answer
> 6 votes
Here you can find an essay that discusses role of gifts in psychotherapy in great detail and from many different angles.

Focusing on US, Canadian, and Australian ethics codes of professional societies, the author concludes that

> Despite the prevalent belief to the contrary, there are no code of ethics or guidelines of major organizations that specifically ban gifts in therapy.

A synopsis of all the reviewed ethics codes can be found here.

In a summary of the ethical and therapeutical implications of gift giving during therapy he emphasizes that (small and appropriate) gifts may actually have a place in therapy and that therapists who rigidly decline them may endanger therapeutic success:

> Giving gifts is an ancient and common way to express gratitude, appreciation and love. Gifts in psychotherapy and counseling are very common and often take place around the holidays, in termination, at an important junction of therapy and with children-clients. Therapists have not only received gifts but have also been regularly engaged in gift giving to clients. Usually this involves symbolic gifts, greeting cards, transitional objects, souvenirs from vacations or educational material, such as books, audiotapes or CDs. While traditional psychoanalysis has frowned upon gift giving in therapy and many therapists are reluctant or afraid to talk about it, the fact is that most therapists practice it regularly and find it acceptable and helpful as long as the gifts are symbolic, nor too expensive and appropriate. Unlike commonly held beliefs, appropriate gift giving in therapy is neither unethical nor constitutes dual relationships. Uncritical and rigid across-the-board rejection of all gifts or putting in place "No gift policies" are likely to make clients feel rejected and humiliated, harm the therapeutic alliance and interfere with the therapeutic progress.

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


# Question
Title: Why do people laugh in serious situations?
I've seen people (including myself) that laugh for no apparent reason in really serious situations, such as in an argument or when receiving bad news. Although the other party is clearly very upset, it seems they have the worst possible reaction: they start laughing. It's probably not because they find it funny, so what does trigger it?

# Answer
This could be what the Psychology Today article "Why We Laugh", (Lickerman, 2011) refers to as '**nervous laughter**', suggesting that this response is both for reassurance (as suggested by Tyler Langan's comment) and also a means to build resilience in the face of potential trauma, specifically (from the article):

> This may explain why some psychologists classify humor as one of the "mature" defense mechanisms we invoke to guard ourselves against overwhelming anxiety (as compared to the "psychotic," "immature," and "neurotic" defense mechanisms). Being able to laugh at traumatic events in our own lives doesn't cause us to ignore them, but instead seems to prepare us to endure them.

Further, it is suggested here, that the nervous laughter is a means to protect our dignity and sense of control.
> 14 votes

# Answer
Laughter relieves stress and lightens the mood.

---

Sources:

* Dugan, D. O. (1989). Laughter and tears: Best medicine for stress. *Nursing Forum, 24*, 18–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6198.1989.tb00814.x
* Toda, M., Kusakabe, S., Nagasawa, S., Kitamura, K., & Morimoto, K. (2007). Effect of laughter on salivary endocrinological stress marker chromogranin A. *Biomedical Research, 28*, 115-118. doi:10.2220/biomedres.28.115
* White, S., & Winzelberg, A. (1992). Laughter and stress. *Humor, 5*, 343-355. doi:10.1515/humr.1992.5.4.343
> 11 votes

# Answer
I have long suspected that laughter has a dual-purpose as a **defense mechanism**, when the "serious" situation is an embodied assailant.

I think it laughter is counter to the nature of an assault, which creates an element of confusing that the laugh-er (*prey*) retains control over. This concept of **retaining control** follows suite with the long-standing ideas that laughter relieves stress and increases coping in the laugh-er.

I think this underscores why laughter from attacked-characters in stories is a cross-over signal for their indomitable nature.

---

You can take this a level further into the psychology of such situations: when the prey introduces a confusing component to the 'theater of war', they can attempt to infer many things about their assailant via the response given to this introduced-confusion.
> 2 votes

# Answer
1. When it comes to serious situations, one may react with feeling the events as surreal. One may have trouble believing that what is happening is actually real.
2. What happens next is that one may be confused and dissociate with the event:

> In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between (1) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (2) the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".\[1\] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

3. Now the incongruity theory for humour say we may respond with laughing:

> The incongruity theory states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept.\[10\] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories\_of\_humor

This in addition to what others have answered, that laughter may be a form of defense mechanism. One starts to laugh as a way to reduce emotional stress.

> First of all we have the relief theory that postulates that laughter serves a homeostatic mechanism by which psychological tension is reduced. According to this theory humor relieves tension caused by fears. You have probably observed how you tend to become more creative and make funny remarks when confronted with situations that are packed with tension and discomfort, such as right before you are about to give a public presentation, or right before an exam. We also use dark humor to distance ourselves from horrifying images and stories of war and human atrocities. http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/10/25/why-we-laugh-at-things-that-are-not-funny/
> 1 votes

# Answer
There is a theory that laughter like this expresses a reaction to absurdity.

When a situation is serious but cannot be assimilated because of dissociation or shock, it is in the same state as an absurd statement -- you are trying to take it seriously, or find meaning in it, but you just can't. You keep giving up, but then trying again.

Since the situation is *real* in this case, the impulse toward laughter can be much stronger than real humorous laughter evokes. In my experience it is accompanied by a specific feeling of dissociation, like living in a Lewis Carroll novel.

People who use forms of therapy that involve planned confrontation can evoke this kind of irresistible laughter by challenging a core belief so directly that the client detaches in the same way they might in an emergency.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, emotion, physiology, humour
---


# Question
Title: Is the Flynn effect in conflict with other studies of intelligence heritablity?
Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins, or occasionally identical twins reared apart have mostly concluded that there is a pretty high heritability of IQ. These studies, in particular the identical twins reared apart studies, imply that *someone with the same genes but different environment would have a highly similar IQ.*

The Flynn effect, though, shows that people's average IQ is increasing, around 15 points every 50 years. All the explanations I have encountered (like this one, from James Flynn himself) focus on environmental reasons for this, for example culture, education, perhaps better health. They seem to imply that *someone with the same genes in a different environment might have a very different IQ.*

Are these two in direct contradiction with each other, or is there some way of reconciling them? If they are mutually exclusive, with which does the scientific consensus lie?

# Answer
> 5 votes
There are several ways in which this apparent paradox can be resolved.

As a starting point, it is important to consider how **heritability** is defined and assessed (also see this earlier answer). As you point out, heritability estimates originate from comparisons between people who differ in their genetic similarity (e.g., monozygotic vs. dizygotic twins). The high heritability for IQ means that genetic similarities correspond to a high similarity in IQ. It's crucial to note, however, that heritability only describes the extent to which **differences in the phenotype (in this case IQ) overlap with differences in the genotype in a given population**. In other words, heritability describes how much of the variance in a trait statistically corresponds to genetic variance (see e.g., Griffith et al. 2000). Heritability does not describe the extent to which genes actually *cause* IQ differences, only the *correspondence* of genetic similarity and IQ similarity. In this vein, high heritability does not exclude the possibility of environmental influences on IQ:

* For example, one reason for the rise in IQ may be better nutrition. If everybody in a society gains access to better nutrition to the same extent, this may increase IQ for all. Nevertheless, heritability does not necessarily change as the genetic differences between people still translate into IQ differences between people.
* Environmental changes may actually increase heritability estimates. For example, consider a country in which people in one geographical region have access to good education (another potential reason for the Flynn effect), and people in another region don't. If missing opportunities for education depresses IQ points, the population's variation in IQ should be affected by this environmental difference. Once good education becomes available for everybody, genetic differences should matter more, leading to a higher heritability estimate.

A detailed model of how high heritability estimates and large environmental influences on IQ can coexist has been proposed by **Dickens and Flynn (2001)**. In their analysis they focus on the possibility that environmental influences can be underestimated because genes and environment shape IQ interactively, in a way that is not captured by heritability estimates.

* They assume that small genetic advantages can translate into strongly favorable environments. For example, if a child is somewhat smarter than others, she will have a higher chance to end up in a better school, where she can thrive, and then go to a better college and so on (an *individiual multiplier*). Nevertheless, this environmental influence would be ascribed to genes, because of the way heritability is defined.
* There may also be a *social multiplier* effect caused by the social environment one lives in. If average IQ in the society is rising for some external reason, everybody should profit from this rise. For example, if more people go to college because this now offers lucrative jobs, this may set examples, encourage others to do the same, make college education itself more widely available, and thus create a social dynamic that leads to IQ gains for all.

Another possibility to resolve the paradox may be to investigate **whether the Flynn-effect is actually due to genetic causes**. Mingroni (2007) posits that higher social mobility has reduced inbreeding of people who live in high social isolation, which is detrimental to IQ. However, reviewing empirical evidence, Nisbett et al. (2012) conclude that this hypothesis seems **implausible**, for example, because the Flynn effect is also observed in societies which have been characterized by high social mobility for a long time.

**In conclusion**, even though there is no consensus on the exact reasons for the Flynn effect (Nisbett et al., 2012), **there are several ways in which high heritability estimates for IQ and the large gains in IQ (due to environmental reasons) can be reconciled.**

**References**

Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108, 346–369.

Griffiths, A. J., et al. (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (7th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21766/

Mingroni, M. A. (2007). Resolving the IQ paradox: Heterosis as a cause of the Flynn effect and other trends. Psychological Review, 114, 806–829. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.806

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–159. doi:10.1037/a0026699

# Answer
> 3 votes
In addition to MariaAnt's good contribution, let me take another angle. You wrote:

> Studies comparing identical and fraternal twins, or occasionally identical twins reared apart have mostly concluded that there is a pretty high heritability of IQ. These studies, in particular the identical twins reared apart studies, imply that someone with the same genes but different environment would have a highly similar IQ.

This is a good example of why it is always good to be as quantified as possible in one's statements. What is "high" in this case? What is "highly similar"?

If you follow that Wikipedia link you provided, it actually does make an attempt to quantify the heritability:

> Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5 to a high of 0.8 ... **The general figure for heritability of IQ is about 0.5 across multiple studies in varying populations**.

If we can take 0.5 as a reasonable value, that is a healthy correlation, but it is not 1.0. Even if the actual value should be more like 0.8, that is still not a perfect correlation. That is consistent with the model that genetics is not the only factor that might go into the observed differences in IQ--which, given what we know about training, nutrition, and the brain, essentially *has* to be true. The Flynn Effect's finding and interpretations of it that refer to an environmental component to IQ is consistent with this view.

---
Tags: intelligence, iq, genetics, nature-nurture
---


# Question
Title: Can asking a leading question in a poll change the opinion of the respondent?
Poll\* questions if phrased in a way to suggest a fact to the reader, may force the person to think of explanations to support the view expressed in the question. This belief may then last on its own because of belief perseverance.

For example, if a poll ask questions of the form :

> How do you think 90% of people behave in {situation}?

or, political questions

> Which party do you believe is trusted by over 70% of the voters? Options:{Plausible Party A} {Small unknown party B}

Or from the opposition party,

> Which party do people relate to when thinking of corruption? Options: {Ruling Party} {Small unknown party}

Or, another of the commercial flavour,

> Which company comes to the mind of 70% of the people when they think of clean water? Options : {Big company A} {Small unknown company B}

By choosing options wisely, the poll creator can force certain ideas into the minds of individuals under the banner of "popular opinion" without them even realising it. By trying to rationalise why or how the most likely option is correct, individuals giving the poll will essentially think up of or create evidence. This will then further reinforce and plant the suggested idea with varying degrees of permanence.

So, does the concept of belief permanence thus imply (as explained above) that polls can be used to plant incorrect ideas/information in people?

Also, can polls thereby be an effective marketing technique for companies and/or political parties when trying to shape public opinion?

<sub> By poll, I mean any form of interaction which involves Q&A with or without the provision of correct feedback at the end. I do not mean only elections or opinion polls.</sub>

# Answer
> 4 votes
> Can asking a leading question in a poll change the opinion of the respondent?

**Yes, apparantly everyone is susceptible to leading questions.**

> Conside rable attention has been devoted to **suggestive questions** and its effects. Experimental research by Elizabeth F. Loftus, an American psychologist and an expert on human memory, has established that **trying to answer such questions can create confabulation in eyewitnesses**.\[8\] Loftus conducted and experiment where participants all viewed the same video clip of a car crash. Participants were then assigned at random in one of two groups. Group one was asked, "How fast was the car moving when it passed by the stop sign?" The participants in the other group are asked a similar question that does not refer to a stop sign. The results showed **participants from the first group are more likely to remember seeing a stop sign in the video clip, even though there was in fact no such sign**.\[9\] Elizabeth Loftus stated that **everyone is affected by suggestive questioning**, and it comes from environmental factors instead of innate factors, meaning that everyone is affected by suggestive questioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestive\_question

**Less educated people are more affected:**

> One of the most common formats used in survey questions is **the “agree-disagree” format**. In this type of question, **respondents are asked whether they agree or disagree with a particular statement. Research has shown that, compared with the better educated and better informed, less educated and less informed respondents have a greater tendency to agree with such statements.** This is sometimes called an “**acquiescence bias**” (since some kinds of respondents are more likely to acquiesce to the assertion than are others). **A better practice is to offer respondents a choice between alternative statements**. A Pew Research Center experiment with one of its routinely asked values questions illustrates the difference that question format can make. Not only does the forced choice format yield a very different result overall from the agree-disagree format, but the pattern of answers among better- and lesser-educated respondents also tends to be very different.

http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/questionnaire-design/

**Children are the most susceptible:**

> **Children are particularly susceptible to leading questions and are more likely to take the lead for an answer from an adult**. Something simple like, ‘Did you have a good day at school?’ points the child towards thinking about good things that happened at school. By asking, ‘How was school today?’ you are not asking for any judgement about how good or bad the day has been and you are more likely to get a more balanced, accurate answer. This can shape the rest of the conversation, the next question may be, ‘What did you do at school?’ \- the answer to this may vary based on the first question you asked – good things or just things. http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/question-types.html

**Examples of leading questions:**

> * With an assumption: "How late do you think that the project will deliver?". This assumes that the project will certainly not be completed on time.
> * By adding a personal appeal to agree at the end: "Lori's very efficient, don't you think?" or "Option 2 is better, isn't it?"
> * Phrasing the question so that the "easiest" response is "yes" (our natural tendency to prefer to say "yes" than "no" plays an important part in the phrasing of referendum questions): "Shall we all approve Option 2?" is more likely to get a positive response than "Do you want to approve option 2 or not?". A good way of doing this is to make it personal. For example, "Would you like me to go ahead with Option 2?" rather than "Shall I choose Option 2?".
> * Giving people a choice between two options, both of which you would be happy with, rather than the choice of one option or not doing anything at all. Strictly speaking, the choice of "neither" is still available when you ask "Which would you prefer of A or B", but most people will be caught up in deciding between your two preferences.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC\_88.htm

**A humourous example** of the phenomenon can be found in the British sitcom Yes Prime Minister:

http://mktresearch.org/wiki/Ordering\_the\_Questions\_in\_the\_Questionnaire

---
Tags: social-psychology, political-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Do introverted people have more emotional stress?
Social support has several times been linked to psychological well-being and even physical health.

Some studies have also shown that shyness correlates stronger with introversion than with neuroticism.

This implies that less social people should score lower on physical health and mental well-being.

Note that I am *not* asking if introversion causes emotional stress, but rather if extroverts are better at coping with emotional stress because their extraversion give better odds for social support.

**Is there any research on correlations between extraversion, physical and mental health?**

References:

# Answer
Neuroticism is more strongly associated with emotional stressors in the form of depression and anxiety than is extraversion. That being said, extraversion is negatively correlated with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and self-reported lifetime mental disorder, even after adjusting for gender, age, and education. It appears that depression is moderately linked to introversion in those who suffer from depression, whereas anxiety is not linked to introversion nor extroversion.

The results of this study indicate that:

> It is argued that (a) one set of traits influences positive affect or satisfaction, whereas a different set of traits influences negative affect or dissatisfaction; (b) the former set of traits can be viewed as components of extraversion, and the latter as components of neuroticism; and (c) personality differences antedate and predict differences in happiness over a period of 10 years, thus ruling out the rival hypothesis that temporary moods or states account for the observed relations.

The paper further argues that one's happiness is relative to one's ability to adapt to new situations in healthy ways, which may be augmented in unhealthy ways by one's level of neuroticism.

So, to answer your question, **it does appear that extraversion is linked to positive mental affect**. However, it is worth noting that this does not necessarily imply that introversion is correlated to negative affect. It appears that neuroticism is a greater predictor of negative affect, which (hypothetically) could have a harsher impact on someone whose social support system is weaker or consists of fewer people, regardless of internal / external orientation.
> 3 votes

# Answer
Research has shown that introverts tend to be more sensitive to stimulus. So, in a highly stimulating environment, the introvert is much more likely to be overwhelmed than the extrovert. In this situation, the introvert is likely to be more emotionally stressed than the extrovert.

The situation is reversed in a low stimulation environment. The extrovert feels underwhelmed, as the activity is below his level of sensitivity. This can also be emotionally stressful. So in this case, the extrovert may be more emotionally stressed than the introvert.

If we could all choose every situation that we are in, we would choose the situations that suit our levels of stimulation. Then, there would be no difference in the levels of emotional stress between introverts and extroverts.

The problem comes about when society is bias towards one or the other. In Western society, extroversion is prized over introversion. So an introverted person is constantly being forced out of his comfort zone. But if this introverted person was brought up in an Asian society where there is much less emphasis on being extroverted, then he might be much more comfortable. http://www.examiner.com/article/asian-culture-more-introverted-researchers-suggest

To sum up, I don't think that introversion is the cause of emotional stress. It is the mismatch between the person's level of stimulation requirement and with society's expectations.
> 0 votes

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


# Question
Title: What explains involuntary imitation of behavior such as shrugging?
Recently, I watched a discussion program on TV and one of the participants shrugged. I found that, not only did I do the same, but I seemed to do it in synchrony the speaker. I didn't *want* to do this, why would I?

It's easy to find popular discussions online about contagious yawning but I haven't found any about shrugs.

It occurs to me that there may be other such involuntary imitative movements - raising eyebrows for example.

**Questions**

Is there a technical name for this type of involuntary imitation? I have tried searching online but either I haven't found the right search terms or there is nothing to find.

What explanation can we give? In what way might this be adaptive behaviour?

# Answer
The kind of involuntary, imitative behavior you are describing is usually called **behavioral mimicry** \- "the automatic imitation of gestures, postures, mannerisms, and other motor movements" (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013).

Chartrand and Lakin's (2013) review is a good starting point into the research that has been done on this phenomenon. They provide references to research that has looked at a wide variety of motor movements \[references deleted for readability\]:

> including body posture, face touching, foot shaking, food consumption, pen playing, coloring, handshake, angle and speed, cospeech gestures, and a variety of health-related behaviors (e.g., smoking, taking the stairs rather than an escalator). Other research has looked at micro movements, such as finger tapping (...) People mimic facial expressions, and emotional reactions of interaction partners (...) In addition, people mimic verbal characteristics of interaction partners, including accents, linguistic style, speech rate, and syntax.

*Shrugging* is not part of this list, but there is also research that has used shrugging as one example of a behavior that can be imitated (Kurzius & Borkenau, 2015).

Chartrand and Lakin (2013) note that even though people can imitate others intentionally, **behavioral mimicry is indeed often automatic:**

> the mimicry of gross and fine motor movements (e.g.,gestures, mannerisms, finger movements), facial expressions, and vocalizations is often nonconscious, unintentional, and effortless. In fact, people often feel it is uncontrollable and are embarrassed when it is pointed out to them (Chartrand et al. 2005, White & Argo 2011).

There are several **explanations** for behavioral mimicry, and some posit that mimicry is (or has been) adaptive (as summarized by in Chartrand & Dalton, 2009).

**1. Shared mental representations of perception and behavior**

According to this explanation, perceiving a motor movement increases the likelihood of engaging in the same movement, because perception and action have a shared mental representation. According to this argument mimicry is an automatic and passive response, because the regions of the brain that are activated when we perceive action and the ones that are activated when we engage in an action are partly the same (see also mirror neurons, common coding theory).

**2. Basic survival benefits of mimicry throughout our evolutionary past**

According to this explanation, we have inherited the tendency to imitate others from our prehuman ancestors, because it may have carried important physical benefits for survival. For example, if you notice others of your group running, it may be functional to start running along instead of first scanning the environment for the dangerous predator.

**3. Mimicry as social glue**

According to this explanation, mimicry fulfills important communicative functions, by communicating togetherness, understanding, and therefore fosters empathy, social bonds and other positive social outcomes. In line with this view is research showing that mimicry increases liking and rapport and that people who have the goal to affiliate with others have a stronger tendency to mimic (e.g., Lakin & Chartrand, 2003).

**References**

Chartrand, T. L., & Dalton, A. N. (2009). Mimicry: Its ubiquity, importance, and functionality. In E. Morsella, J. A. Bargh, & P. M. Gollwitzer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of human action, Social cognition and social neuroscience. (pp. 458–483). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 285–308. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754

Kurzius, E., & Borkenau, P. (2015). Antecedents and Consequences of Mimicry: A Naturalistic Interaction Approach. European Journal of Personality, 29, 107–124. doi:10.1002/per.1990

Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14, 334–339. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14481
> 11 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, motor, evolutionary-psychology
---


# Question
Title: How strong is the correlation between selfies and narcissism?
We have concluded that posting selfies is correlated with narcissism, but **how strong is the correlation?**

Reference: Correlation between selfie and Narcissism

# Answer
Table 1 of Fox and Rooney (2015) report this correlation between selfies posted on social networks and narcissim to be r = .19 in a sample of 800 U.S. men, (mean age = 29, SD = 6.5). I.e., the observed correlation was small in a general sense. But in the broader domain of personality-behaviour correlations, .19 is fairly moderate.

> Participants’ selfie posting behavior was assessed with one item inquiring how many pictures they had taken of themselves and posted on SNSs in the past week (M = 0.56, SD = 2.33; min = 0, max = 30).

Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as predictors of men’s use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites. Personality & Individual Differences, 76, 161-165. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.017
> 7 votes

---
Tags: personality, correlation
---


# Question
Title: What cognitive bias is it when an (ideally objective) evaluation is influenced by the prior opinion of another person?
I'm looking for the name of the cognitive bias that describes the following phenomenon:

Person A asks person B to evaluate and give feedback on a certain topic (a student, a manuscript etc), casually warning person B that the student/manuscript is not very good and so the task will not be particularly pleasant. Person B then tries to objectively do the evaluation, however inadvertently and unavoidably gravitates towards person A's premise, and subsequently has a hard time deciding whether the fact that he too now thinks the student/manuscript is poor is in fact his own opinion or just a regurgitation/confirmation of what person A told him.

First it seemed to me that this is an instance of the hindsight (knew it all along) bias, but I don't think it is, as there the extra (bias inducing) information comes *after* person A's appraisal, rather than before as is the case in the scenario I describe.

Any other cognitive biases this could be an instance of?

# Answer
> 4 votes
It's an example of the **confirmation bias:**

> Confirmation bias (...) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.

Research has shown that people have a strong tendency to engage in a **positive test strategy** when investigating a hypothesis (see e.g., Klayman & Ha, 1978). That is, when testing an expectation (such as in your example) they tend to search for confirming, rather than disconfirming evidence. This tendency then results in the kind of confirmation bias you are describing in your example.

**References**

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211

---
Tags: terminology, bias
---


# Question
Title: What is the result of an excess of dopamine?
I'm pretty familiar with the results of having not enough dopamine, though the reasons are not so clear to me.

To get a better insight on the topic I'd like to know something about having too much dopamine:

1. What behaviour is result of having too much dopamine?
2. Why does it happen?

I am aiming to get insight in disease states associated with excess dopamine, not drug-induced states.

# Answer
Too much dopamine release in the striatum may lead to **psychosis**, and especially to the **positive symptoms** associated with this disease (e.g., **delusions** and **hallucinations**, as opposed to the negative symptoms such as a flattened affect) (Laruelle *et al*., 1999).

The *etiology of psychosis* is complex. Many direct and indirect **environmental factors** are implicated, as well as **genetic factors**. Environmental factors include obstetric complications and frequent cannabis or amphetamine use. The environmental factors are all implicated stronger in psychosis than genetic causes. Genetic predisposition and environmental factors may also interact in complex ways in the development of psychosis (Howes & Kapur, 2009).

<sup>**References**
**-** Howes & Kapur, *Schizophrenia Bulletin* (2009); **35**(3): 549–62
**-** Laruelle *et al*., *Biol Psychiatry* (1999); **46**:56–72</sup>
> 4 votes

# Answer
I came across this list of effects of dopamine on cognition (from the book "Cupid's poisoned arrow").
> -3 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, neurophysiology, neuropsychology
---


# Question
Title: How are the logical and mathematical skills of people with ADHD?
1. How does rationality and the logical thought processes of those with and without ADHD compare? Please explain the source of the differences. Are the differences thought to be caused by dopamine, serotonin, or norepinephrine? Or is there some other neurological explanation?
2. How do the math skills of those with ADHD compare to others? As above, please explain in detail from a biochemical perspective.

# Answer
> How do the rationality and logical thought processes those with and without ADHD compare? Please explain the source of this difference. Is the difference thought to be caused by dopamine, serotonin or norepinephrine or some other neurological explanation.

ADHD is typically associated with a reduction in dopamine and/or norepinephrine. Though the two neurotransmitters are similar on a structural level, norepinephrine is associated with vigilant attentiveness, whereas dopamine is associated with cognitive alertness. ADHD is commonly associated with a reduction in dopamine activity, and since norepinephrine is synthesized by dopamine, there are typically deficiencies in both.

In the brain, cortical norepinephrine (NE) is released during attentional patterns so that learning can commence and be enhanced. When we receive information that goes against sensory information (or what we had previously thought true), NE levels 'spike' and then subside once the information is sufficiently integrated. With lower levels of NE, it is harder to pick up on information, and thus the information may not be consolidated and 'learned'. NE also affects memory for facts and specific details in those with ADHD, and thus it can be harder to recall factual information when necessary. You can guess what happens next, as factual information is crucial for building a 'bank' of information in the brain.

Rationality (by definition) factors in how much information is available, and uses it to maximize expected utility. Those who suffer from ADHD have less information available to them, as they do not pick up on information in the way that the average person might. It is not that they are less capable of rational thought -- they simply have less information to make informed, rational decisions.

ADHD is occasionally associated with lateral thinking, which is a method of problem-solving that relies on creative thinking moreso than step-by-step logic. However, I have found no evidence in scientific literature that suggests a link between the two.

> How do the math skills of those with ADHD compare to others? As above please explain in detail from a biochemical perspective.

It depends on how salient math is to the individual. Albert Einstein and Paul Erdős were both considered to have ADHD, and nobody would doubt their math skills. :)

Learning disabilities do tend to work in conjunction. Of those with arithmetic learning disabilities, a quarter of them have ADHD, and up to 31% of those with ADHD are reported to have math learning disabilities. Inattention is typically associated with mathematical learning, as failure to learn to automize computational skills leads to calculation error and slower internalization rate. Children with ADHD typically have problems with fluency of calculation. In other words, it takes longer for them to make calculations internally, and this does not appear to normalize with age. This is because holding information in your head is an essential component of making mental calculations, and this is something that those with ADHD struggle with.

Interestingly enough, math performance in ADHD sufferers has shown to improve with a) more computational practice (so that mental math becomes more 'intuitive'), and b) music playing in the background while attempting to solve math problems. You can read more about this in the article I linked to above.
> 3 votes

# Answer
I can understand having learning disabilities. I as well have some mostly mine are linguistic and auditory but when I was little the teachers wanted to give me ritalin. Its funny now I'd like some (really its cousin adderall) but cannot have it because of my other problems that developed along the way. Generally speaking learning difficulties tend to come in bunches. Math learning disorders tend to happen among those who have somthing else. So there is a higher probability that those with ADHD will have trouble with something else besides paying attention but that does not mean you have a math ld only that there is a higher chance you will have it. It might go away too. As peoples brains develop sometimes we mature out of parts of the learning disability. I couldn't spell beyond phonics at all even into the 6th grade but by the time I was in high school it became less and less of an issue. Propositional logic and OCD go well together. Finding solutions to logical math requires the detailed work that someone with unnatural amounts of focus can supply. Its difficult for someone with ADHD to argue with the problem to resolve it especially when the answer is obvious from the start. However those with ADHD can master prop log its just not as easy. Logic in general and philosophies tend to come easy for ADHD people because they can grasp the big picture concepts of Kant, Mill and Aristotle ect. There do exist rationality disorders which have faulty logic but they are mostly inversely related to adhd. They are in the schizoid range right around delusions. When a adhd person has trouble with logic it tends to be in maintaining the strand of logical process rather than getting confused about what is true and false.

So you asked about dopamine and I'm sorry to say that the ADHD disorder is not chemically well understood. There is some conflict in the literature. That is to say the schizod series is known to be caused by an imbalance of several chemicals that is corrected in a majority of patients by lowering dopamine (first and second generation antipsychotics) or slightly rising dopamine and lowering serotonin (third generation antipsychotics). It is not currently thought that there is anything wrong with the levels of the chemicals in the ADHD brain but that medicines are able to be therapeutic to the structural difference by raising your levels higher or lower than normal. Others disagree with this new work though and continue to affirm that ADHD is a chem imbalance. This has prompted some to explore expanding beyond the use of major stimulants and ventured into mild stimulants from the antidepressant class like Wellbutrin for the treatment of ADHD. Even third generation antipsychotics show some positive effects in ADHD treatment.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, clinical-psychology, neurology, mathematical-ability, adhd
---


# Question
Title: Can rationalization be objectively recognized?
> In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses\[1\]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.\[2\] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.\[3\] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization\_%28psychology%29

**Is it possible to objectively recognize that someone is rationalizing?**

**Is it possible to make an individual realize that s\he is rationalizing when it happens?**

**Is it possible to assess an individual's tendency to rationalize?**

# Answer
> 4 votes
**Research:**

Rationalization is a defence mechanism \- a Freudian (read: outdated) construct that is still in common use in clinical psychology, but no longer used much in research, so current studies about such mechanisms are hard to come by.

To some degree, rationalization has been superseded by cognitive dissonance, and related self-perception theory. This is a more general theory about rationalizing that includes normal, healthy ways of dealing with internal conflict, as well as pathological forms. However, this line of research has focused mostly on theorized unconscious rationalizing, rather than verbal explanations provided by subjects. There are many other lines of research into verbalized non-pathological rationalizing, which is very common.

**Therapy:**

In modern cognitive therapies, the concept of cognitive distortions generally supersedes rationalization. Clinicians are specially trained to detect many varieties of cognitive distortion in patients, including minimisation, intellectualization, and sour grapes. In general, the idea is to look for inconsistencies or contradictions in the patient's descriptions of their thinking. For example, a patient might say: "Cheating on my spouse was a desperate call for attention." That might sound logical at first blush, but then why hide it? Or why not choose a healthier way to get attention?

Confronting patients with inconsistencies in their thinking is a common part of several traditions of therapy. One of the hallmarks of many personality disorders is patients' inability to recognize or failure to admit to the inconsistencies in their thinking. For most patients without symptoms of a personality disorder however, it is expected that they should confront, recognize, accept, and ultimately find healthier alternatives to their maladaptive distortions.

---
Tags: emotion, measurement, rationality
---