# Question
Title: Aesthetic preference for even or odd numbers
In my experience most people prefer the appearance of even numbers or numbers divisible by 5.

* Is there any research which proves or disproves my theory?
* Is it all about symmetry?

I expect that people prefer the number 5 because it is half of 10 and we live in a world that primarily uses a base-10 system. e.g. I like my gamerscore on xbox-live or reputation here to be even or divisible by 5.

# Answer
Some **ancient historical precedent exists for preferring $10$**, but also for $6$, so that's mixed support from Wikipedia on perfect numbers. As for honest-to-goodness modern research, here's one quick result on prevalence of **round prices in marketing** (Klumpp, Brorsen, & Anderson, 2005): it's higher than for non-round prices. Some other results are reviewed within, including those of Kandel, Sarig, & Wohl (2001), who claim "direct evidence that **investors prefer round** numbers," Harris (1991), who claims, "Stock **prices cluster on round** fractions," and Osler (2003), regarding whose results Klumpp and colleagues wrote, "\[market\] trends tend to increase after certain prices levels (specifically round prices) are crossed." Osler's own wording (with numeric list reformatting and emphasis added):

> 1. trends tend to reverse course at predictable support and resistance levels, and
> 2. trends tend to be unusually rapid after rates cross such levels.
>
> The data are the first available on individual currency stop-loss and take-profit orders. **Take-profit orders cluster particularly strongly at round** numbers, which could explain the first prediction. **Stop-loss orders cluster strongly just beyond round** numbers, which could explain the second prediction.

Klumpp and colleagues' research claims to be a relatively new attempt to apply these ideas outside of financial market analysis...but to some extent, wheat is just another form of currency, so this is debatable.

As for substantive theoretical explanations, a good review and test of theory is freely available (Kahn, Pennacchi, & Sopranzetti, 1999). This paper mentions many circumstantial and traditional peculiarities about financial markets as motivating factors, but the ideas most interesting for our audience pertain to memory. Here's an excerpt (emphasis added):

> Experimental tests performed by Schindler and Wiman (1989) find that individuals tend to **recall odd-ending prices less accurately than even-ending prices**, and that **expressing a price as odd-ending increases the likelihood that it will be underestimated when recalled**. A biological explanation for this downward bias in recalling odd-ending prices is offered by Brenner and Brenner (1982). They propose a **theory of fixed storage capacity** which assumes that the **extra decision of rounding the initially observed number is costly**, so that the **cheapest transfer mechanism involves simply storing the first digit**. Hence, if a prices **right-most digits are not stored in memory, odd-ending prices will tend to be underestimated**. If firms recognize consumers downward bias in recalling odd-ending prices, they may significantly increase the demand for their products by making odd-ending price quotes rather than slightly higher even-ending ones. Even-ending quotes will then represent pricing points where product demand experiences a discrete decline. Blinder (1991) reports some empirical support for this notion. Based on interviews with firm managers, he finds that a majority were reluctant to cross the **psychological barrier of raising prices from an odd-ending quote to an even-ending one**.

**In summary**, it seems people prefer to ignore the last available digit for conservation of memory and attentional resources. People use round numbers as arbitrary thresholds for decision making, probably because they can be simplified by dropping the lowest digit, and hence require less unnecessary cognitive elaboration to select when the decision really is arbitrary anyway. Busy people with lots of other things to worry about would probably experience cognitive dissonance when finding themselves thinking about such arbitrary decisions any harder than they have to. Since people pay more attention to that second-to-last digit, they notice when that number "rolls over", and evidently find it a suitable stimulus to trigger premeditated actions like buying and selling.

I haven't seen any particular references to five or symmetry in general, but if you look into these references further yourself, you might find more than what I've reviewed here. **\[Edit\]:** On second thought, here's one (emphasis added again):

> Consumers disproportionately selected round, whole-dollar, and half-dollar amounts. About 73 percent of customers tipped a round, whole-dollar amount, and an additional 8 percent rounded their tips to a half dollar. They also **clustered their tips around multiples of $5**. And on the occasions when the bill didn’t end in .00, nearly a quarter of diners left an unrounded tip that when added to the bill, came to a round total. This requires some mental math skills, the authors note, implying that consumers’ **preferences for round prices is so strong that they’ll calculate an exact tip amount to arrive at a round total**.

This demonstrates that ordinary people have these preferences too, not just financial marketeers. Read the rest here (Palmquist, 2013), or at his source, a study of tipping behavior in the **Journal of Economic Psychology** (Lynn, Flynn, & Helion, 2013).

**References**

<sup> \- Blinder, A. S. (1991). Why are prices sticky? Preliminary results from an interview study. *American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 81*, 89–96.
\- Brenner, G. A., & Brenner, R. (1982). Memory and markets, or why are you paying \\$2.99 for a widget? *Journal of Business, 55*, 147–158.
\- Harris, L. (1991). Stock price clustering and discreteness. *Review of Financial Studies, 4*(3), 389–415. Retrieved from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~keechung/TEM/Journal%20Articles/Clustering%20-%20Harris.pdf.
\- Kahn, C., Pennacchi, G., & Sopranzetti, B. (1999). Bank deposit rate clustering: Theory and empirical evidence. *The Journal of Finance, 54*(6), 2185-2214. Retrieved from https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/workpaper/1996/wp9604.pdf.
\- Kandel, S., Sarig, O., & Wohl, A. (2001). Do investors prefer round stock prices? Evidence from Israeli IPO auctions. *Journal of Banking & Finance, 25*(8), 1543–1551.
\- Klumpp, J. M., Brorsen, W., & Anderson, K. B. (2005). The preference for round number prices. *Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association annual meetings, Little Rock, Arkansas, February 5–9, 2005*. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/35537/1/sp05kl01.pdf.
\- Lynn, M., Flynn, S. M., & Helion, C. (2013). Do consumers prefer round prices? Evidence from pay-what-you-want decisions and self-pumped gasoline purchases. *Journal of Economic Psychology, 36*, 96–102. Retrieved from http://tippingresearch.com/uploads/Round\_Prices\_JEP.pdf.
\- Osler, C. L. (2003). Currency orders and exchange rate dynamics: an explanation for the predictive success of technical analysis. *The Journal of Finance, 58*(5), 1791–1820. Retrieved from Ben-Gurion University's Department of Economics.
\- Palmquist, M. (2013, November 21). The psychology of pricing: Customers prefer round numbers. *Strategy + Business.* Retrieved from http://www.strategy-business.com/blog/The-Psychology-of-Pricing-Customers-Prefer-Round-Numbers?gko=f4877.
\- Schindler, R. M., & Wiman, A. R. (1989). Effects of odd pricing on price recall. *Journal of Business Research, 19*(3), 165–177.
</sup>
> 3 votes

# Answer
There are numbers - as in groups of objects - that are easily divisible so may have the appeal of symmetry. Other numbers may align with the number system. However, there are different number systems. The ancient Egyptians counted on their fingers using the each knuckle of the four fingers sequentially, so 3 knuckles x 4 fingers allowed them to count to twelve. It's not a bad system. I think they would have liked the number 3 and possibly 3/6/9/12 as "natural" feeling numbers.

As someone who is a bit fascinated with mathematics - and maybe a slightly perverse personality - I have a bit of an attraction for numbers that are difficult: favorite number 17. It's a prime so doesn't divide and it doesn't fit anything much. There are other primes but they don't cut it. 1,2,3: too small; 5: five fingers; 7:lucky number; 11: double one; 13: unlucky number. 17 is the first number without any *obvious* narrative.

So you might be able to test for number preferences but what would it mean? It would be tied up with the individual's cultural milieu and number system. It is likely that counting beyond a few is a relatively recent development that only really got going with farming like 10k years ago - counting sheep and grain quantities - so a deeper/evolutionary basis probably doesn't exist.
> 2 votes

# Answer
I'm not the best man to answer the question – I don't have any reference; I do have some logic behind what I'm saying.

Many years ago, very few people were educated, very few knew how to do math, but they all had money. And they had to count it, and do some math.

If I have 10 employees, each wants 5 coins, I have 1000 coins, I pay 50 and I still have 950 to party. If I have 2243 workers, I have to pay each 227 coins and I have 19353256421 coins in my account, well then, where's my calculator? Oh, no calculator. Call my math genius slave; if you can't find him, kill every worker! :)

We love numbers that can easily be divided and multiplied, It happens to be the even numbers and the 5, because it's easy to divide by 5 and the 1, because getting 1 is easy to work with in math, and 0 of course.

\\$1, \\$5, \\$10, \\$20, \\$50, \\$100: pretty much all currencies in the world are like that.

Old habits die hard: you go to a restaurant, you have to pay \\$13. Where's the tips? Most people will usually pay \\$15. If you have to pay \\$36 for what you ate, most people will pay $40 in total.

It's really about the money, because unless you're a mathematician or something, you'd use numbers for counting money mostly in your daily life.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, aesthetics
---


# Question
Title: What are the cognitive effects of increasing testosterone levels in men?
I've recently became interested in the effects if testosterone on the cognitive function in men, but cannot find much hard scientific evidence on the subject.

**What are the cognitive effects of increasing testosterone levels in men?**. There's a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence from body builders, etc, but I'm looking for hard science, where the levels were measured before and after, and the trials were less than a month long.

Some of the claims made about increased testosterone levels seem very interesting, and I would like to know if any of that is true.

* does increasing testosterone levels increase subjective feeling of well being in men?
* does increased testosterone benefit concentration ?
* does increased testosterone benefit non-sexual motivation or ambition?
* does increased testosterone benefit logical/math/engineering endeavors?

Here's what I see on Wikipedia snippet on testosterone and brain:

> The **literature suggests that attention, memory, and spatial ability are key cognitive functions affected by testosterone in humans**. Preliminary evidence suggests that low testosterone levels may be a risk factor for cognitive decline and possibly for dementia of the Alzheimer's type,\[70\]\[71\]\[72\]\[73\] a key argument in life extension medicine for the use of testosterone in anti-aging therapies. Much of the literature, however, suggests a curvilinear or even quadratic relationship between spatial performance and circulating testosterone,\[74\] where both hypo- and hypersecretion (deficient- and excessive-secretion) of circulating androgens have negative effects on cognition.

# Answer
I've discussed a lot of this recently on my answer to this question: Are there recent theories on physiognomy? In summary, yes.

* Can't remember which of the tons I referenced mentioned well-being, but if you run a search function (`Ctrl F`, or `⌘F` if you don't like good computers) on the text of the freely available articles I provided hyperlinks for, I guarantee you'll find it, and it was a positive relationship with testosterone.
* Testosterone ($T$) might affect concentration, but I'd bet it's not a beneficial effect if so, or at least that it's moderated strongly by context. $T$ relates to spatial intelligence, but also to aggression, which may reflect some effect on impulsivity.
* $T$ affects motivation, but again, I wouldn't call it a benefit, as the specific motives it affects probably aren't optimally healthy to say the least, and every action has its opportunity cost. Specifically, $T$ increases dominance and competitiveness in men, which is probably to say that it increases the need for power. It also increases sensation seeking and risk tolerance / decreases risk aversion, which is probably to say that it affects the behavioral activation and inhibition systems. Some evidence suggests testosterone interacts with competitive experiences differently for women.
* For logical/math/engineering problems, $T$ is probably more unequivocally beneficial, because it relates to spatial intelligence.

$T$ is probably most studied in men; I'm not sure effects are similar for women in general. Estradiol in women may act more like testosterone in men in some ways. <sub> I can copy content from my other answer here if desired, or expand on particular points if there is further interest. Please comment if so; I would also welcome collaborative edits.</sub>
> 6 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-neuroscience, performance, testosterone
---


# Question
Title: What delay between two audio sources is seen as "noticeable" to most people?
I'm completing a project that involves synchronising two audio sources over a network, and I need to find some figures that represent what kind delay would be seen as "noticeable".

I've tried searching but haven't found much; all I can find is papers on localisation.

Is anyone aware of any studies or papers that look into this area? Thanks!

# Answer
> 6 votes
It greatly depends on what you mean as 'noticeable' - what/why do you want to synchronise, and how it reaches the ears from physical speakers.

Keep in mind that a sound source being 30cm/1 feet further from the ear is about the same effect as a millisecond of delay (speed of sound ~340m/s) - thus, synchronising on the order of microseconds is generally unneccessary unless you somehow have and need sub-millimeter localisation accuracy. That being said, small delays can cause phase cancellation issues which would be noticeable, but would depend on exact placement of sound sources.

However, if we're talking about the limits of the mind - there are two well known phenomena; first is the limit where mind perceives sound as simultaneous with visual stimulus (despite them really being slightly offset), and the second is where mind perceives two close-but-separate sound spikes as a single event (with the loudest masking the weaker). I can't find the exact limits now, but both of them should be somewhere between 1 millisecond and 5 milliseconds if I recall correctly.

---
Tags: perception, hearing, psychoacoustics
---


# Question
Title: How to refer to the phenomenon of people only absorbing evidence which confirms their beliefs?
I knew a psychologist who was calling it *self-referentiality*.

People are always trying to see only the *sentence* which confirm their ***beliefs***.

What's the correct name for this?

# Answer
The actual act of "Trying to see only the sentence which confirms his beliefs" would generally be called confirmation bias.
> 7 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, terminology, bias
---


# Question
Title: What part of the brain locks up when a man is in the presence of an extremely attractive female?
This question is specifically about the male brain and its lack of cognition in the presence of a highly attractive female.

This is in contrast to regaining cognitive ability in the presence of an unattractive female. (both subjective of course)

For a better and more specific example, the character "Raj" Koothrappali, on the hit television show "The Big Bang Theory" is a model for the very real issue that some men do experience: please see description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajesh\_Koothrappali#Personality

Selective Mutism is along these lines but is a very generalized description of his/the issue.

Question include and not limited to are: What part of the brain is involved in this phenomenon, is it a stand alone issue or is it always accompanied by some other type of social anxiety, why do some men have it and others do not, is this some sort of protection or evolutionary byproduct and are there any studies specific to this issue ?

# Answer
> 9 votes
I'm no expert, but I can take a stab at it.

> What part of the brain is involved in this phenomenon

**The amygdala** becomes active and locks up other parts of the brain (thank you @KeeganKeplinger for helping me clarify). This is based on the fact that the amygdala is responsible for more responses than fight or flight, as I had previously thought. Recently I read a book by Missy Vineyard on the Alexander Technique, and this review of *How You Stand, How You Move, How You Live* sums up the relevant part I was looking for.

> > the four expressions of fear produced by the amygdala in the brain – attack, withdraw, freeze, and submit
>
> is it a stand alone issue or is it always accompanied by some other type of social anxiety

This would be coupled with **more facets of anxiety than just social.** This report might also corroborate this. I know if I'm withdrawn, determined on fleeing or any other variety of emotional responses - my ability to speak, reason or do much of anything is fairly impaired.

> > Studies have also found that the amygdala modulates the fear response in humans. Fearful stimuli including fearful faces, fear-inducing images, and fear conditioned cues, have been found to activate amygdala in several brain imaging studies using positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging
>
> why do some men have it and others do not, is this some sort of protection or evolutionary byproduct and are there any studies specific to this issue?

**Same reason as some people are easier to fright, others are easier to fright,** I'd imagine. Life differences, not just past but present as well. Lack of experience approaching women (or men), and **I don't believe this is male-specific.** I dated a gal a few years ago who was the shyest person I ever knew. Over the phone it was easy to talk with her and get her to talk, in person she froze for the longest time. Was both amusing and frustrating simultaneously.

*If* one believes that the amygdala is the cause, then it'd be a matter of **evolutionary byproduct. Freezing is a defense that's more passive than running or fighting,** we try and protect ourselves by locking up and becoming like a wall. That book I linked covers the amygdala portion of the brain and it's role in our evolutionary history, as well as it's role in our current lives, as well as select other parts. The author seems well-versed in neuroscience, not just the Alexander Technique.

# Answer
> 2 votes
Perhaps you should think not only about 'parts of brain' but 'functions of the brain' - the feeling of sexual attraction will release multiple hormones throughout the *whole* brain, altering the functionality/balance for the same parts.

For example, there are observed increases in risk-taking behavior (change in loss aversion for decisionmaking) for men in the presence of attractive females - however, I'm not sure if explaining it by 'parts of brain locking up' describes reality, it seems more like a colloquial analogy instead.

---
Tags: social-psychology, communication, sexuality
---


# Question
Title: Neurosurgically grown neural link between two brains?
I guess it's possible to surgically restore neural connection after a trauma (e.g. a severed hand can be reattached if done quickly).

And, from history of evolution of hominids, it seems that just by increasing brain size by 30% it's possible to develop a radically higher level of cognitive abilities.

Putting these two ideas together, I wonder if anyone tried to grow a neural link between two separate brains. Maybe even a narrow, low-bandwidth wisp of neurons between two brains would adapt itself to expand the consciousness. I wonder what will be the effect of such a 100% increase in brain size. And if it works, we can connect three brains, then four, five, etc. Of course, these "compound people" would have trouble moving around as they won't be able to separate their heads more than few centimeters...but if the tradeoff is that they become exponentially more sentient...?

Could you please point to some research performed in this direction? Is it even legal in developed countries? Thank you.

# Answer
Research exists on craniopagus twins, maybe most notably Tatiana and Krista, who seem to share sensory input somewhat. I doubt that connective mechanisms such as this abnormal case would suffice to permit "compound cognition" in ways that would enhance cognitive ability similarly to your point about hominid evolution. Your relatively simple proposal for a connective cord of neurons strikes me as roughly equivalent, though more complex connections may not be entirely unfeasible in the long run.

Before I move on to speculating about that, consider a few other points from cognitive neuroscience thus far. Plenty of split-brain research (on people and animals with dysfunctional corpus callosums) exists as well, little of which shows what I would call "radical effects on cognitive abilities". Results are somewhat more subtle than that: e.g., involving object recognition more than what laypeople would recognize as intelligence, especially social communication and basic reasoning, which remain relatively intact. You might also be surprised at the modest effects of losing an entire cerebral hemisphere: again, it's not what I would call a 50% reduction in cognitive ability, at least as we understand and use such abilities in modern social contexts.

Non-biological methods are already being experimented with for brain-to-computer and even human brain-to-brain interfacing (Armstrong & Ma, 2013), but we're some distance away from really augmenting cognitive abilities through such methods in the way evolution seems to have augmented them in hominids. Consider also that evolution seems to have proceeded in far more complex manners than those by which we're connecting brains now. Changes occurring organically throughout the brain over millions of years of natural selection may have developed our cognitive abilities well beyond those of smaller-brained animals, but these changes have probably been much more sophisticated than simply wiring disparate parts together, let alone only one part to only one other. Cognitive processes are functionally dispersed broadly across our incredibly complex neural structures; we definitely use more than 10% of our brains. There's really no particularly promising hub-of-all-cognitive-ability through which one could connect and expect to provide consciousness-wide augmentation (that I know of), nor would it be as simple as connecting one brain to another.

To throw in a halfhearted computer metaphor, consider how little processing ability is gained simply by connecting two computers by LAN cable. In very many ways, computer processing augmentation has had to proceed much more incrementally, component by component. Multi-core processors and several sticks of RAM per computer are commonplace now, but to truly augment computing performance with these, fundamental architectural changes in connective design have necessarily occurred. Far more than one wire connects these compound components.

Thinking in this manner might pave the way to future innovations that may someday achieve the effects you have in mind. Transhuman cognitive augmentation research is rapidly advancing in very many directions, some of which may bear satisfying similarities to your idea. They're all well beyond the scope of my knowledge or of this answer though, so I'll just toss some Wikipedia links at you to get things started. Please feel welcome to ask separate questions to follow up on cyberpsychological topics; I find them all very exciting, and would be very eager to explore them further with you and our community!

**Reference**

<sup> Armstrong, D., & Ma, M. (2013, August 27). Researcher controls colleague’s motions in 1st human brain-to-brain interface. *Washington University: News and Information*. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/08/27/researcher-controls-colleagues-motions-in-1st-human-brain-to-brain-interface/.</sup>
> 7 votes

# Answer
Nick Stauner’s reply has some nice discussion about concrete existing work; we also discussed some more speculative possibilities in (Sotala & Valpola 2012), considering the possibility of merging together the minds of two distinct people so that they could share thoughts and skills. In particular, we considered the possibility of “exocortices”, neural prostheses which could first become integrated with the brain of a single individual and which could then be used as an intermediary connection to link up with other exocortex-equipped brains.

In addition to considering the technical feasibility, we speculated on some of the potential uses of exocortices, such as allowing two experts in widely different domains to share and pool their skills. This was mostly just speculation, though - nobody knows how it would really work.

Another speculative look is Hirstein (2012), which is a more philosophical treatise which nonetheless has an impressive discussion about the neuroscience of a hypothetical process of “mindmelding”: not a full-blown merging of minds, but rather a link that would allow one person to experience the conscious states of another. I've written a review of Hirstein’s book that covers it in more detail and contrasts it with our paper.

**Refs**

Hirstein, William (2012) Mindmelding: Consciousness, Neuroscience, and the Mind's Privacy. Oxford University Press, USA.

Sotala, Kaj & Valpola, Harri (2012) Coalescing Minds: Brain Uploading-Related Group Mind Scenarios. International Journal of Machine Consciousness 4 (1), 293-312.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, cognitive-neuroscience, consciousness, connectionism
---


# Question
Title: Statistics books for educational psychologists?
I plan to study educational psychology in the near future. I know research methods is a big thing for educational psychologists, so I wanted to get a firm grip on the statistical knowledge required for research methods. Thus, I am looking for good stats books for educational psychologists? Either that or a lists of stats methods that an educational psychologist should master/know.

Thanks!

# Answer
Cross Validated has a long list of answers to, "What book would you recommend for non-statistician scientists?" including an answer from our own @JeromyAnglim regarding SPSS for psychologists. Jeromy has also listed a number of good recommendations in response to The current recommended text for statistics in behavioural sciences, and @Mike suggested one for  users such as myself. I hesitate to recreate their content here because their original wording seems appropriate to preserve, and I'd rather have you read their answers and upvote them than try to take any credit myself.

I'd offer additional recommendations of my own if I had any good ones, but my stats textbooks were pretty deficient in retrospect, and I've had to overwrite a great deal of my formal education in psychological statistics through more diffuse study of sources other than textbooks. My standards for "a firm grip" on statistical research methods are probably more stringent than is truly necessary though, so my experience shouldn't concern you necessarily.

Also, FWIW, I had good but limited experiences with the textbooks that were assigned to me in my graduate stats classes for all areas of doctoral study in psychology (which excluded ed psych at my alma mater). My experiences with these were limited because I borrowed from colleagues instead of buying to save money. I will provide references to these books below. They were assigned by two psychometricians whose professional opinions I hold in high regard, one of whom is the primary author, Bob Rosenthal.

**References**

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). *Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences* (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2007). *Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis* (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Presently available used from \\$1.11.
> 3 votes

# Answer
In my country, studying educational psychology is a postgraduate qualification. It implies that you have completed an undergraduate sequence in psychology, and therefore would have already been exposed to the basics of statistics and research methods (e.g., univariate, bivariate statistics, significance testing, various ANOVA, regression, study designs, measurement reliability/validity, etc.). This may also include a subject on multivariate methods (e.g., factor analysis, logistic regression, perhaps a little SEM, etc.). Popular texts within psychology courses for this material include Andy Field's book and Tabachnick and Fidell *Using Multivariate Statistics*.

Thus, for students coming into an postgraduate Educational Psychology program, they may need a refresher or consolidation of the above statistical methods.

In general, educational psychology uses a lot of the same statistical techniques as other areas of psychology. A few techniques of particular relevance include:

* Multivariate methods: In particular, regression, factor analysis, SEM and so on are all common techniques for analysing observational studies common in educational psychology
* Multi-level modelling: to model longitudinal data (e.g., student change) or students nested within classrooms or schools
* Various models related to measurement and test design: In particular Item Response Theory, Classical Test Theory, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis
* Meta-analysis: to systematically evaluate interventions and other findings across studies

Ultimately, how well you want to learn any of the above techniques depends on your aims. These more advanced techniques can help you read the literature, and are particularly important if you want to do research using the technique.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, statistics, educational-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Does mental satisfaction lead to physical satisfaction?
* Does mental satisfaction lead to physical satisfaction?
* Does physical satisfaction lead to mental satisfaction?

# Answer
> 3 votes
The Canadian Mental Health Association of Ontario is pretty unambiguous about the bidirectionally causal relationships between physical and mental well-being:

> Mental and physical health is fundamentally linked. There are multiple associations between mental health and chronic physical conditions that significantly impact people’s quality of life, demands on health care and other publicly funded services, and generate consequences to society. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines: health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The WHO states that “there is no health without mental health.”
>
> Nowhere is the relationship between mental and physical health more evident than in the area of chronic conditions. The associations between mental and physical health are:
>
> 1. Poor mental health is a risk factor for chronic physical conditions.
> 2. People with serious mental health conditions are at high risk of experiencing chronic physical conditions.
> 3. People with chronic physical conditions are at risk of developing poor mental health.
>
> The social determinants of health impact both chronic physical conditions and mental health. Key aspects of prevention include increasing physical activity, access to nutritious foods, ensuring adequate income and fostering social inclusion and social support. This creates opportunities to enhance protective factors and reduce risk factors related to aspects of mental and physical health.

The Mental Health Foundation's report, "Let's get physical: The impact of physical activity on wellbeing" offers a good review of several connections between exercise and well-being of both kinds. It's very broad, yet accessible, so I'll let it speak for itself. A peer-reviewed research literature review on the same topic is also available (Penedo & Dahn, 2005), as well as some original correlational research that linked physical and psychological health subjectively (Edwards, Ngcobo, Edwards, & Palavar, 2005). These are just some quick results from a Google search for "physical mental well-being correlation"; plenty more out there.

**References**

 \- Edwards, S. D., Ngcobo, H. S., Edwards, D. J., & Palavar, K. (2005). Exploring the relationship between physical activity, psychological well-being and physical self-perception in different exercise groups. *South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 27*(1), 75–90. Retrieved from http://www.sirc.ca/newsletters/mid-jan10/documents/S-996370.pdf.
\- Penedo, F. J., & Dahn, J. R. (2005). Exercise and well-being: A review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. *Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18*(2), 189–193.

---
Tags: well-being
---


# Question
Title: Why do I get smaller accuracy when I use 80% of training sets using HMAX model?
I am trying to compute the accuracy of the HMAX model. I am using the `Face` category (containing 435 images) from the Caltech101 database. I split it into $x$ training and $y$ testing. At each time, when $x$ increases, the accuracy also increases. Furthermore, I heard that the number of training should be equal to 80% by comparing it to the tests. So when I split my data into 348 positive training and the rest for positive testing, I got an accuracy that it is smaller than the other smaller splits (when $x\<348)$!

By the way, I also used the `Background` category and I split it into 50 negative training and 50 negative testing.

Why do I get smaller accuracy?

# Answer
> 1 votes
I got the answer for this question:

Because the dataset becomes imbalanced. That is why the performance of our classifier decreases instead to decrease. Usually you should have a balance between out positive and negative training.

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


# Question
Title: Is cognitive science hypothesis-based or bound to strict experiments involving statistics?
When I look at medical journal articles on Google Scholar I see a lot of stuff based on double blind placebo tests. From this, I've gathered that medicine often performs experiments.

I've been in touch with cognitive behavioral psychological therapy, but not enough to say whether psychology is more "philosophical", in being hypothesis based, or instead bound to strict experiments using statistics.

# Answer
> 3 votes
You may want to have a look at our 40 questions to date that use the tag. These may demonstrate the complexity of our applications in statistics. Wikipedia also has an entire psychological statistics page that seems intended to index other pages on specific applications. Psychological experiments commonly test null hypotheses (e.g., $H\_0$: the experimental treatment and placebo control conditions will not differ in measures of an outcome variable), so experimental methods and hypothesis testing methods do not exclude one another. Moreover, concern for placebo effects implies a study may be at least loosely related to itself, as effects involve , , , and , maybe among others. Plenty to read!

# Answer
> 3 votes
I'm still not clear on what is your question. You ask whether psychology and medicine differ in some aspect of their methodological approach.

*Experiments* are typically analysed using *statistics* to test *hypotheses*. So those things all go together.

Psychology and medicine both perform controlled experiments and observational studies. They both perform studies some of which aim to test a particular hypothesis and others which are more exploratory or data driven.

They both heavily rely on the scientific method, quantification, measurement, and statistics to draw inference.

---
Tags: methodology, experimental-psychology, statistics, history-of-psychology
---


title: Can critical thinking be taught?

text:
# Question
Title: Can critical thinking be taught?
Critical thinking is central to the scientific method and believed to be essential to a successful democracy. Recently, the 2012 Texas Republican platform voiced the party's opposition to the teaching of critical thinking skills in public schools. This stance raises many controversial questions on the GOP's motivation, but also a fundamental question: are public schools in the US successfully teaching critical thinking?

In the West, critical thinking descends from the Socratic method and is a central tenant of the tutor system at the earliest institutions of higher learning (Oxford and Cambridge, for example). This historic dedication of the top institutions to teaching critical thinking suggests that the method is effective. On the other hand, contemporary psychologists of education suggest that critical thinking cannot be effectively taught (Willingham, 2008).

**Can critical thinking be taught?** Are there studies (with proper controls) that show that a course on critical thinking teaching the skill beyond standard domain specific problem-solving/fact-knowing courses?

# Answer
> 30 votes
It seems like somebody's done a lot of **literature pooling** already:

Is Rationality Teachable?

Among influences mentioned are statistics, logic training, and debiasing.

There's also a **book** that summarized findings:

Teaching Critical Thinking: Some Lessons From Cognitive Science Tim van Gelder College Teaching Vol. 53, Iss. 1, 2005

> ABSTRACT: This article draws six key lessons from cognitive science for teachers of critical thinking. The lessons are: acquiring expertise in critical thinking is hard; practice in critical-thinking skills themselves enhances skills; the transfer of skills must be practiced; some theoretical knowledge is required; diagramming arguments (“argument mapping”) promotes skill; and students are prone to belief preservation. The article provides some guidelines for teaching practice in light of these lessons.

Anecdotally, I recognize a tendency for science professors to let students use their intuition at first and then **crush** it in an attempt to make debiasing habitual.

# Answer
> 15 votes
There is a classic paper by Halpern (1998) on the topic. From the abstract:

> Numerous studies have shown that critical thinking, defined as the deliberate use of skills and strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome, can be learned in ways that promote transfer to novel contexts. A 4-part empirically based model is proposed to guide teaching and learning for critical thinking: (a) a dispositional component to prepare learners for effortful cognitive work, (b) instruction in the skills of critical thinking, (c) training in the structural aspects of problems and arguments to promote transcontextual transfer of critical-thinking skills, and (d) a metacognitive component that includes checking for accuracy and monitoring progress toward the goal.
>
> Halpern DF. (1998) Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Americal Psychol. 53(4):449-55.

While I agree with @Xuritio point about importance of statistics, logic training, and debiasing, I have a subjective sense that including modules on Philosophy also contributes heavily to the development of critical thinking. One of the most mind grinding modules I did in my undergrads was close reading of Immanuel's Kant *Critique of Pure Reason*. Doing modules on Philosophy of Mind and Epistemology simultaneously with Cognitive Neuroscience was also a game changer for me. Getting this meta-level perspective clashing with hardcore research somehow enables healthy, critical, creative distance towards empirical studies.

# Answer
> 3 votes
One might argue that the skill of critical thinking is the sum of the goal of higher education. I certainly take that view. On the other hand- we don't really have a good definition of exactly *what* comprises critical thinking. Without a concise definition, it is difficult to answer the question (see the last paragraph below).

From a purely anecdotal perspective of a teacher though: when you see students come into an engineering program as freshmen and leave as seniors, you have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that critical thinking, in every sense, can most definitely be taught.

Here is an excerpt from a paper that I have published on the topic (if I don't remember to put the link in, please leave a comment to remind me).

Excerpt from *How engineers learn: a study of problem-based learning in the engineering classroom and implications for course design* (Mayer and Stone, 2013)

> It can be said that the most important quality in an engineer is the ability to think critically—to analyze a given proposition from a variety of angles and determine its strengths and weaknesses. Critical thinking is generally accepted as a primary goal of higher education (Mason 2007, Abrami et al. 2008, Bailin and Siegel 2003, Sheffler 1973). As educators, it is our responsibility to build these skills in our engineering students, or we will produce engineers who can pass courses but who cannot function in the workplace. Therefore, both the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking skills are very important in an engineering curriculum (Douglas, 2012). It stands to reason that the goals of an engineering education process might best be met through methods which can be proven to build critical thinking skills, in addition to conveying subject-specific knowledge. This implies a need to reliably evaluate both students’ contextual knowledge and their critical thinking abilities simultaneously.
>
> As recently as 2008, Abrami and his colleagues performed an exhaustive analysis of literature concerning the teaching of critical thinking skills. They mainly found that methods which attempt to teach critical thinking skills are generally successful at doing so. In particular, they found that students learn critical thinking most reliably when CT skills acquisition is a stated objective of the course; indirect approaches, where students are expected to learn CT as a by-product, are generally not as effective.
>
> There are, however, some important limitations to the current literature on critical thinking. As Abrami et al. (2008) observe, “\[critical thinking\] is a complex and controversial notion that is difficult to define and, consequently, to study.” Most definitions take a pornographic (“I know it when I see it”) approach to defining critical thinking, which is not terribly useful from a research perspective. On the other hand, the current scientific definition of critical thinking (as defined by the American Philosophical Association – Facione, 1990) comprises the better part of a paragraph, which is nice, but intractable (Anderson et al., 2001). Therefore, it can be argued that there needs to be an engineering-specific definition of what comprises critical thinking, and that this specific skill can be taught in the classroom.

---
Tags: educational-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Why isn't psychotherapy more direct with patients?
While it is possible to tell someone that they are affected by OCD or they are narcissistic, I think that trying to help people simply by giving them direct advice doesn't work. I also think that citing authoritative sources, which show that they are positive to some disorder diagnostic test, usually doesn't work.

Dale Carnegie explains that people don't take into consideration what is right or the truth, but what doesn't hurt their self-esteem.

* Can you explain me better why psychotherapy is not directly telling patients what their diagnosis is?
* Why is it more effective to avoid being direct in trying to correct people's personality traits?
* Is this phenomenon bound to confirmation bias?

# Answer
One therapeutic issue with being **confrontational** – a problem that does not arise unless one is **direct in a bad way** – is **reactance**. I've described this issue in a separate answer to a question you commented on five days ago, "How to change someone's beliefs?" Telling someone who doesn't believe he or she has a problem that s/he does have a problem implies that s/he should change. If the person is inclined to deny the premise of this implied suggestion, the person may also resent the suggestion itself. Thus resistance and defensiveness may arise in reaction to the suggestion that s/he is not free to simply continue behaving "normally" without further consequence.

Another potential problem with **directness in a bad way** may arise by carelessly assigning diagnoses. Diagnosis of psychopathology is a very difficult process; despite my PhD, I am not qualified to perform it. Even those who are qualified (officially, at least) do not perform it with satisfactory accuracy by my (high) standards. Part of the problem is directness **in the context of careless inattention or inexperience** (see also schema modification). I.e., directness is not the real problem here, but it provides a channel for these problems to cause other problems via communication of **misinformation**, especially in the context of professional authority. Non- psychologists tend to defer to the authority of psychologists even on topics beyond the expertise of both parties. This makes restraint on the part of the more authoritative party very important. Failure to withhold first impressions and unexamined opinions about possible diagnoses can result in psychologically harmful **labeling**. This can impose anxiety-exacerbating pathological characteristics on the identity of the person so labeled, especially if s/he does not possess the wherewithal to question these labels or is predisposed toward anxiety or self-loathing, as often apply to psychotherapy patients.

In the opposite contexts of psychotherapy that is not pejorative or otherwise invalidating (e.g., Rogerian and other humanistic modalities) practiced by therapists with appropriate restraint and excellent breadth of experience, directness is probably desirable and helpful. Methods such as motivational interviewing benefit from their direct focus on clients' own ambivalence toward positive changes, which is often the root problem, especially with ego-syntonic disorders. Conversely, ego-dystonic disorders may benefit from treatment via methods such as cognitive behavioral therapy that directly address problematic, derogatory aspects of clients' identities, such as the inflexible conviction: "Something is wrong with me." Thus directness itself is not the problem, but more a moderator of the consequentiality of a therapist's choice of approach to the problem a client presents. If the approach chosen is bad, harm may be reduced by self-restraint. If the approach is good, benefit may be enhanced by directness.
> 6 votes

# Answer
There are many kinds of psychological disorders where the patient is "directly confronted" with the diagnosis or even knows it before he or she contacts the therapist. These disorders include, but are not limited to, pedophilia, eating disorders, post traumatic stress disorder, substance dependence and phobias.

For example, a person seeking help because he is afraid of flying knows perfectly well what he is being treated for. Similarly, heroin addicts are not left in doubt about the focus of their treatment. In fact, psychoeducation, i.e. the explanation of the causes, symptoms, prevalence and treatment of a disorder, is a common part of cognitive behavioral therapy of almost all disorders and a basic element in its effectiveness.

The problem, as Nick already mentioned, is that often, especially with personality disorders, it is not completely clear what the patient is actually suffering from, and that giving a definite diagnosis is simply impossible. Depending on the type of therapy, a therapist will likely explain this difficulty and not be secretive about it. In our psychological day care clinic all patients know their diagnosis, from depression to enuresis to internet addiction – though of course not all patients accept the diagnosis they are given, and (see what Nick wrote about reactance) many abort their treatment because of a lack of self-insight!

Psychoanalysis is a bit different in that the therapist attempts to be a neutral plane for the projections of the patient, and therefore often avoids delimiting statements. Here, not giving a diagnosis may be part of the therapy, although of course the patient has the (legal) right to receive it, if he so insists. A psychoanalyst might answer to the patient's complaint that he did not get a diagnosis with: "You only have to ask me for it." And then, quite usually, the patient avoids this direct inquiry, and the therapy turns to the reason why the patient complains and avoids to demand what is his right to know.
> 3 votes

---
Tags: clinical-psychology
---


title: Prevalence of psychological "problems"

text:
# Question
Title: Prevalence of psychological "problems"
Giulio Cesare Giacobbe is an expert of psychosynthesis. In one of his books (*Alla Ricerca delle Coccole Perdute*) he speaks of childish, neurotic people. He says most people are childish and neurotic.

Dale Carnegie explains in his book *How to Win Friends and Influence People* that people are often cocky, narcissistic and so on.

Wayne Dyer writes in his book *Your Erroneous Zones* that the instruction system creates distortion and problems in persons.

One statistic described 3.5% of people experiencing psychological dystonic problems (anxiety, OCD, etc.). I would guess that the number or people experiencing bad thinking, cognitive distortion, and other strong, dysfunctional personality traits could be very high. Are there any statistics on that?

# Answer
Not entirely sure what specific stats you'd be interested in, but Wikipedia has plenty on prevalences of specific mental disorders. For anxiety disorders, which include obsessive compulsive disorder:

> A review that pooled surveys in different countries up to 2004 found **overall average prevalence estimates for any anxiety disorder of 10.6%** (in the 12 months prior to assessment) **and 16.6%** (in lifetime prior to assessment), but that **rates for individual disorders varied widely**. Women had generally higher prevalence rates than men, but the magnitude of the difference varied \[(Somers, Goldner, Waraich, & Hsu, 2006); emphasis added\].

However, Wikipedia's section on epidemiology of anxiety disorders page gives different numbers:

> **Globally** as of 2010 approximately 273 million (**4.5%** of the population) had an anxiety disorder \[(Vos et al., 2013)\]. It is **more common in females (5.2%) than males (2.8%)**. In **Europe, Africa and Asia, lifetime rates** of anxiety disorders are between **9 and 16%**, and yearly rates are between 4 and 7% \[(Simpson, Neria, & Lewis-Fernández, 2010)\]. In the **United States**, the lifetime prevalence of anxiety disorders is about **29%** \[(Kessler et al., 2005)\] and between 11 and 18% of adults have the condition in a given year. \[Emphasis added.\]

For OCD specifically:

> **OCD occurs in between 1 to 3% of children and adults** \[(Sarvet, 2013)\]. It occurs equally in both sexes...A 2000 study by the World Health Organization found some **variety in prevalence and incidence of OCD around the world**, with figures in Latin America, Africa, and Europe at two to three times those in Asia and Oceania \[(Ayuso-Mateos, 2000); emphasis added\].

Here's a cool figure of "age-standardized disability-adjusted life year rates from OCD by country (per 100,000 inhabitants)" uploaded to Wikipedia by Lokal\_Profil (darker $\>$ lighter; click for the scale):

"Bad thinking, cognitive distortion, and other strong, dysfunctional personality traits" is a little too vague to work with much further, but here's Wikipedia's info on prevalence of personality disorders in general:

> Studies of the prevalence of personality disorders (PDs) have been fewer and smaller-scale, but a broader Norwegian survey found a similar overall prevalence of almost 1 in 7 (**13.4%**), based on meeting personality criteria over the prior five-year period. Rates for specific disorders ranged from 0.8% to 2.8%, with rates differing across countries, and by gender, educational level and other factors \[(Torgersen, Kringlen, & Cramer, 2001)\]. A **US** survey that incidentally screened for personality disorder found an **overall rate of 14.79%** \[(Grant et al., 2004); emphasis added\].

Finally, **neuroticism** is a continuous dimension of individual differences with an approximately normal distribution. As such it is largely defined in terms of degree relative to population norms, and it doesn't make much sense to say "most people are childish and neurotic." (That is, I imagine we'd want to define "childish" in a similar way if we wanted to make any objective statements about population levels.) I'm unaware of any ratio-scaled measures of neuroticism (and find it hard to imagine any that wouldn't be very controversial), so as an interval-scaled construct at best, **there is no meaningful "zero neuroticism"**. Hence, depending on what it means to you, you could either say:

1. "Everyone's a *little* bit neurotic (at least)!" or,
2. "$\approx49.\bar{9}\\%$ of the population is neurotic, and the same proportion are not."

Statement 1 would be Giacobbe's best defense, but that's not saying much – nor does the statement as I've phrased it, though it's an improvement. A better interpretation of his statement (at least, as you've phrased it) would probably be as the subjective opinion, "I find most people to be childish and neurotic \[compared to myself, or compared to how I would expect them to act due to other factors, which I'm probably ignoring\]."

**References**

 \- Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. (2000). Global burden of obsessive-compulsive disorder in the year 2000. World Health Organization. Global program on evidence of health policy, global burden of disease. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bod\_obsessivecompulsive.pdf.
\- Grant, B. F., Hasin, D. S., Stinson, F. S., Dawson, D. A., Chou, S. P., Ruan, W., & Pickering, R. P. (2004). Prevalence, correlates, and disability of personality disorders in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. *Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65*(7), 948–958.
\- Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. *Archives of General Psychiatry, 62*(6), 593–602. Retrieved from http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/faculty/detels/PH150/Kessler\_DSMIV\_AGP2009.pdf.
\- Sarvet, B. (2013). Childhood obsessive-compulsive disorder. *Pediatrics in Review, 34*(1), 19–28.
\- Simpson, H. B., Neria, Y., & Lewis-Fernández, R. (Eds., 2010). *Anxiety disorders: Theory, research and clinical perspectives*. Cambridge University Press.
\- Somers, J. M., Goldner, E. M., Waraich, P., & Hsu, L. (2006). Prevalence and incidence studies of anxiety disorders: A systematic review of the literature. *Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51*(2), 100–113. Retrieved from http://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2006/february/sommers-RP.asp.
\- Torgersen, S., Kringlen, E., & Cramer, V. (2001). The prevalence of personality disorders in a community sample. *Archives of General Psychiatry, 58*(6), 590–596.
\- Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Naghavi, M., Lozano, R., Michaud, C., Ezzati, M., ... & Brooker, S. (2013). Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. *The Lancet, 380*(9859), 2163–2196.

> 5 votes

# Answer
The problem with this question is that the answer depends on your definition of psychological health. In *Civilization and Its Discontents* Freud argued that civilization itself is a source of suffering and that basically all civilized human beings develop neurotic symptoms due to the repression of their drives. According to this theory the prevalence of "psychological problems" would be close to 100%.

If on the other hand your definition of health is functional, instead of naturalistic, you might say that only those people that are unable to "function" within their society are psychologically "dysfunctional". As we all know, many people are well able to raise children and contribute to the gross national product despite severe psychopathological symptoms. From a functional perspective they have no psychological problems.

The question what normality and what pathology are has remained unanswered to the present day. What we have is an arbitrary but practical definition that allows us to treat the worst cases but does not flood the public health system with more cases than taxes can afford to pay for and causes more absences from work than our economy can handle. Prevalence, therefore, is as low as politics can make it, and as high as health professionals can make it. It is a constant and ongoing struggle.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: abnormal-psychology, personality, statistics, bias, anxiety
---


# Question
Title: What is the difference between the MMPI and the Myers–Briggs Type Inventory?
Can you briefly explain in a non-technical way which are the main differences between the Myers–Briggs Type Inventory and the MMPI test?

# Answer
> 2 votes
The MMPI calculates scale scores from dichotomous responses; hence those scale scores – the constructs of actual interpretive interest – are roughly continuous, or at least polytomous.

Yes, there are very many other tests that can assess personality traits that can aid in diagnosis. I'm not sure what you mean by "mature", and I hesitate to judge their sophistication.

I'm guessing by "INFJ" you're referring to the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, of which "INFJ" is one available type. Typology is one primary difference from the MMPI, which measures traits in terms of continuous dimensions. I'll leave the rest of the differences to Wikipedia for now.

---
Tags: personality, test, clinical-psychology
---


# Question
Title: How do thoughts work at the neuron level?
How does thought work at the biological level of individual neurons? I believe there are many neurons which are active in the brain at the same time. For example, our senses are constantly taking in sensory information on a continual basis. However, most of the neurons activated by sensory input are not capturing our attention, and as a result, our thoughts are elsewhere. I believe that thought, an "active cognitive process," is a collection of neurons which are responsible for engaging our complete attention. This collection of neurons shifts as our attention shifts. But this does not explain what is responsible for controlling our attention at the neural level. Can't find any answers to this question.

# Answer
It has been proposed that spontaneous cortical activity may have a lot to do with cortical processing not related to external sensory.

> Within a spontaneously active network, we observe the sudden “ignition” of one out of many possible coherent states of high-level activity amidst cortical neurons with long-distance projections. During such an ignited state, **spontaneous activity can block external sensory processing**. We relate those properties to experimental observations on the neural bases of endogenous states of consciousness, and particularly the blocking of access to consciousness that occurs in the psychophysical phenomenon of **“inattentional blindness,”** in which normal subjects intensely engaged in mental activity fail to notice salient but irrelevant sensory stimuli.

The spontaneous cortical activity itself has been studied at a more reductionist level where they've been separated into multimodal functional motifs. Perhaps these functional motifs form the basis for the nature of stray thoughts.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, cognitive-neuroscience, theoretical-neuroscience
---


# Question
Title: Are words and ideas written in a distinctive font easier to remember?
I read that serif fonts have more distinctive characters, and I was wondering if, at the brain level, the fact that something is written with more distinctive characters would be more easily remembered?

I saw a study telling that less legible fonts were easily remembered, but actually, I'm wondering if they are more easily remembered because they are less legible or more because they have more distinctive characters (even Comic Sans MS that is considered by many, including me, as a very bad font, have some characters that are pretty distinctive)?

# Answer
I can't think of any information relating directly to distiction of letters in the english Alphabet, so instead I pulled out some stuff on our corrolations between shapes and long/short term memory:

> Abstract
>
> In four experiments, we examined the effect of pairing colors with either homogeneous or heterogeneous shapes on a short-term memory task. In Experiment 1, we found no differences in color memory for displays in which colors were each associated with different shapes, paired with individual homogeneous shapes, or paired with heterogeneous shapes. In contrast, in Experiment 2, we found that when participants were asked to remember the specific pairings of colors, memory was improved for heterogeneous-shape displays. The benefit for heterogeneous shapes appears to be memorial, rather than one that occurs at the time of encoding (Experiment 3) or retrieval (Experiment 4). The present study suggests that distinctive shapes can be used to help bind color associations in visual short-term memory.

However focusing more on shape I think this article by Ray Vellest, and particularly its section "Shapes", goes into a nice discussion of how logo's are designed to engage long term memory, and how by differntiating the type font, new meaning can be given to the letter.

This substantially answers your question by giving examples of how differentiating shapes, such as the type font, can make letters easier to remember.

For example:

<sub>(source: img03.mar.cx)</sub>

Clearly, just a small change to the shape of the letter makes it have a completley different meaning. In this case, the sort of letter you would find in your text book, and the one you immeadiately associate with McDonalds

Apllying this to fonts would involve similar logic, but I'm hoping someone can pull in some information more directly related to the Alphabet then shapes.

Besides that, I hoped this helped you out.

Mona

---

### References

Delvenne JF1, Dent K. (2008). Distinctive Shapes Benefit Short-Term Memory for colour association, but not for colour. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18717388

Ray Vellest (2012). THe pychology of logo Design. http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2012/08/the-psychology-of-logo-design/
> 2 votes

---
Tags: memory, writing
---


# Question
Title: Would most people benefit from psychotherapy?
At least in my country, undergoing psychotherapy is perceived negatively. People in my country perceive people as either healthy (normal), or mad and in need of a psychologist. My perception is different. I think most people would benefit from psychological therapy.

**Does the evidence support the idea that most people would benefit from psychotherapy?**

# Answer
> 6 votes
The same methods that psychotherapy utilizes to help people overcome psychological problems are used in **coaching** to help healthy and successful persons to become even more successful and feel even more better.

So, yes, **everyone can benefit from psychotherapy**, you just don't have to call it that, which might make it easier for most people to accept it.

If I were a psychotherapist, I would call my service "mental fitness" and advertise it in the same manner as gyms advertise their services as a lifestyle ("Be sexy and successful!") instead of a health product ("Fight obesity!").

---
Tags: abnormal-psychology, clinical-psychology
---


title: Can creativity be taught?

text:
# Question
Title: Can creativity be taught?
I have heard of classes that teach 'creativity'. To me, the whole concept is absurd. I approached a student of the aforementioned class and asked him why he chose to learn creativity. He stated that creativity is a process in which you learn the basics and the rules and then extrapolate it. I argued that real creativity is innate, and it depends on the surroundings of which you are a part.

And then a thought struck me: What if no one is 'naturally' creative? After birth, a baby knows only what he sees. Whatever a person knows has been absorbed from the surroundings in the form of opinions and experiences. On these lines, anybody can be creative, provided he is exposed to the 'correct' stimulus. Ideas and philosophies are personal interpretations of experiences and opinions. It wasn't our creativity as a race that has made us who we are today, but it was actually necessity that propelled our species forward. What else would possibly stimulate our creativity as a race other than our necessity as a species to survive?

In short, after an hour or so of arguments to and fro, my question: **Can creativity be taught?** I don't mean by giving a kid a crayon and telling him how to draw an apple. I mean creativity at its most absolute form. **Can creativity be inherited?**

# Answer
> 12 votes
The first Google hit for "creativity training psychology" (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013) seems to answer your question pretty thoroughly. Prof. Chamorro-Premuzic is a pretty formidable psychologist, so it's no surprise coming from him! To quote the post:

> In short, creativity is not 100% malleable, but it can be affected by deliberate interventions. People's generic creative potential is more dependent on personality than contextual factors, but domain-specific creativity depends more on acquired expertise and our inspiration to be creative is both dispositional and situational. In simple terms, if you want to be more creative there's a lot you can do to achieve this - the only difficulty is to achieve the same results with people who don't want to be more creative (once again, it is a case of the rich getting richer and...)

Here's one particularly promising way to learn creativity: have other cultures teach you! Psychology Today (Markman, 2010) offers a nice review of a study of multicultural experience and creativity (Maddux, Adam, & Galinsky, 2010) that found creative improvements among travelers abroad. Good excuse for a vacation!

**References**

 \- Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013, May 18). Training creativity: Can psychology boost our creative potential? *Psychology Today: Mr. Personality*. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201305/training-creativity-0.
\- Maddux, W. W., Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). When in Rome... Learn why the Romans do what they do: How multicultural learning experiences facilitate creativity. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36*(6), 731–741. Retrieved from http://psp.sagepub.com.uncensor.it/content/36/6/731.full.pdf.
\- Markman, A. (2010, June 26). Can living abroad make you more creative? Learning to live in another culture has real benefits. *Psychology Today: Ulterior Motives.* Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201006/can-living-abroad-make-you-more-creative.

# Answer
> 10 votes
I'm afraid I have to disagree with Mozibur Ullah's answer. Instead of talking about Plato, Socrates and Picasso I'll mention one, incredibly creative and intelligent person: John Cleese.

> Telling people how to be creative is easy, it's only being it what's difficult.
>
> Creativity is not a talent. It is a way of operating. Creativity is not an ability you either have, or not have. And it is absolutely unrelated to IQ.
>
> If you want creative workers, give them enough time to play.
>
> The most creative people have this childlike facility to play.

To summarise Cleese's point: creativity is a process that can be taught and learnt. It's about setting up a particular mood that opens up your mind and allows you to think up of things people see as creative. Of course, this process will vary for different people, but there are some key points. For example:

* silence - you can't be creative when you surround yourself with distractions
* playfulness - you have to learn to enjoy your mind and thinking of funny, weird things without feeling ashamed or immature.
* trusted coworkers - gather together a group of people you trust and just throw ideas at each other. It is very important that you trust them.
* no stress and deadlines - creativity requires time. A lot of it. Of course, you have to finish a project sometime, but if you want to be creative, you need to give yourself as much time as you need.

...and there's more. Please watch the Full lecture if you want to fully understand what I mean (and learn how to be creative).

# Answer
> 3 votes
"Creativity is an expression of intelligence" - well, there's a bit more to it than that !

It's original thought. An action resulting from inspiration (new idea) or synthesis of existing ideas, which is itself new to the person doing the creating.

How do you think of something original.. If you go with the notion that we're a product of our reactions to our surroundings, then original thought can only come from memories and current circumstance, and thus can be taught/learnt or "induced" as 'Dunno' suggests.

If you believe there's a bit more that's intangible about creativity, an inexplicable spark which provides more possibilities than the surrounding circumstances logically imply, then the intangible nature of that spark probably means it can't be taught, and some people have more innate creativity about them than others.

"Necessity is the mother of invention"- meaning one gets creative when it's required. Why did the UK industrial revolution start with textiles ? Because it's cold here sometimes!

Creativity seems to be an attitude that can be adopted. Some people can / do adopt this generally more than others, some are inspired towards it by their environment, and some people are even made uncomfortable by the notion of trying someting new, so shy away.

I know this because a relative of mine runs creativity courses with good results. So I would say .. can creativity be taught ? Yes, it's an attitude which can be adopted in amny guises but will only be comfortable for the student if their temperement suits it.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Within the research community the generally accepted view today is that aspects of cognitive performance such as what are commonly called "intelligence", "creativity" or "emotional intelligence" are mostly inborn and can be modified both positively and negatively by nutrition, health, a stimulating environment and other factors only to a certain degree.

Intelligence is much better researched, and there are many studies that illustrate how certain interventions affect it, but there has been some research on the effectiveness of creativity training as well. A meta-analysis (Scott, Leritz & Mumford, 2004) found that creativity training has an average effect size of Cohen's *d* = .68. What does that mean?

Let's illustrate it by looking at intelligence. Most people have an average intelligence, and higher and lower intelligence are increasingly rare. This results in a typical bell shaped distribution of intelligence that shows how many people within a certain population are how intelligent:

As you can see, about 68% of all people are of average intelligence, that is they have an IQ between 85 and 115. The mathematical average (i.e. the mean) intelligence is an IQ of 100. Of course only some people have exactly the mean IQ of 100 and most people deviate from this mean to some degree. To better grasp how far most people deviate from the mean intelligence, a "standard deviation" is calculated. For IQ this standard deviation is 15 IQ points above or below the mean.

When you train intelligence, and you find that the average intelligence of your group of trainees has risen by 15 IQ points (for example from 110 to 125) that is an effect size of 1. **If you find an effect size of .68 (as in the meta-analysis on creativity training) this means that your training raised the IQ about two thirds of one standard deviation, which is about 10 IQ points.** An intelligence training that was as effective as the average creativity training would increase your intelligence by 10 points.

Now, as far as I know there is no standard scale for creativity similar to the IQ for intelligence, so I cannot translate the effect size into CQ for you, but I hope through my analogy you have an idea of how much you can increase creativity through training.

The effect is certainly noticeable, but you cannot turn an uncreative person into an artist, just as you cannot train a stupid person to win the Nobel prize. You can get better by training, but you need a good basis to start from, if you want to make creativity your job.

---

Source:

* Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. *Creativity Research Journal, 16*(4), 361-388.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Creativity is an expression of intelligence. And can intelligence be taught?

Human beings are naturally intelligent in many ways and creativity expresses itself in many ways. Through gesture and through speech. These are the raw materials via which formal artistry is attained.

What can be taught are the skills through which expression is enacted. One cannot be a writer until one has been taught about writing. In todays world of mass literacy that fact is forgotten. Given the immense production of books one needs to know what is worth reading, and why. Hence the development of a canon.

Physics is creative - they create physics. Mathematician are creative - they create mathematics. Being far removed from the world-at-hand it is formal institutions of learning that transmit this body of knowledge and nurtures the conditions in which it flourishes.

Famously Picasso dropped out of the art school in Madrid. But then he knew as well how to paint as his father was a polished painter of pigeons. He went to Paris - then the cultural centre of Europe. He went where the 'scene' was. Artistry requires a body of like-minded souls. It amplifies and makes real the substance of art. This is as true of scholarly work as it is of what is known as the arts today. If one looks at the root meaning of college:

> college - late 14c., from Old French college "collegiate body" (14c.), from Latin collegium "**community, society, guild**," literally "association of collegae" (see colleague).

Braque, the leader of the surrealists, when he arrived in New York said that here there were artists, but no art. Meaning no collegial body of artists linked together by affinity and spirit; or perhaps it was a recognition of American Individualism that divides; or the mimicry of art rather than the art itself.

One can discrern two forms of creativity. The arrangement of what is already at hand put into a new form. And that which breaks new ground. Generally form and sensibility come together fluidly and coherently. One is inhabiting the art and made it ones home. I mean by art - artistry in its most general form - as artisan and craftsman - covering both the sciences and the arts.

Artistry is not only thought but know-how. It is embodied thought. Thought made flesh and concrete. Ones hands work at their own accord so that composition can proceed.

Socrates, so Plato tells us, examined the poet to find out if he understood the nature of poetry; and found that he did not. But a poet does not reflect on the nature of his art, or if he does, only in a cursory and casual way. Thus, this is the mode in which the rhapsode Ion answers Socrates in his eponymous dialogue. Socrates, also in this dialogue call poetry a gift of the gods, of the heavenly muse. Plato, through the figure of Socrates interrogating the poet was interrogating the nature of creativity. Look at the root meaning of poetry:

> poet (n.) early 14c., "a poet, a singer" (c.1200 as a surname), from Old French poete (12c., Modern French poète) and directly from Latin poeta "a poet," from Greek poetes "maker, author, poet," variant of poietes, from poein, poiein **"to make, create, compose,"** from PIE \*kwoiwo- "making," from root \*kwei- "to pile up, build, make" (cf. Sanskrit cinoti "heaping up, piling up," Old Church Slavonic činu "act, deed, order").

Creativity, to Plato displays a divine link. It has an affinity with the gods. One might suppose that Socrates or Plato was admitting that at bottom there is no such link. For who can now, believe in gods. Or the divine. The words are quaint or antiquarian. The word sacred is *demode* (out of fashion). But Plato, is not the securalised and desacrilised philosopher of today. The Philosophers then moved in a world of thought that inhabited worlds of myth, religion and thought that today are divided strictly. The word philosopher today does not convey what the word philosophy then did. If one cannot take what Plato say seriously, then one should at least take seriously that the words that he made Socrates say were meant seriously.

So, No - creativity cannot be taught because its an expression of the person - soul, personality and intelligence. But it can be enhanced though the conditions that enable it to flourish: the habitus of an art.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Well as such there is no definite set of rules that one can follow and achieve creativity. At the most they might inspire creativity in certain predefined situations after a lot of effort. BUT after all there is a method that can make a person creative. yes , make a person creative and not induce creativity. The methods I am talking about are taught under a programme called purushakar parakaram dhyan sadhna (search this page on facebook). The program consists of SCIENTIFIC techniques of meditation consisting of a simple process that takes less than a 15 mins, to be done any time of the day, any posture, any place. While the meditation was not invented to make people creative as such but then creativity is certainly a byproduct. Let me know if you need more information on this technique. For learning this contact me on raj.bafna1704@gmail.com

# Answer
> 1 votes
I just realised that I could share something more helpful and so another answer. This is again scientific and I have learnt it from a jain saint teacher in India. Again its scope is far more greater than creativity, but I will stick to it in this answer.

There are a lot of studies that talk about the left brain being the creative one and right one being the analytical one. And there have been surgeries whereby the connection between left brain and the right brain was severed to cure sudden brain impulses that brought tremors to the patient when the moved between the two portions. And so both the brains of the patient worked independently and he was able to use both sides of his body independent of the other eg write with both hands.

But this also brought many limitations as for most situations in life we need a certain coordination between our brains, where we need both analytical abilities and creativity to arrive at a solution. Till date modern science (as well as alternative medical fields and philosophers) have not been able to understand this phenomenon, let alone providing a solution to it.

The technique I'm talking about is called swar shastra which involves monitoring and changing the flow of air from our nostrils and by that means controlling which part of the brain shall remain active and which part inactive. If you frequently examine your breathing, you will realise that you seldom breathe using both nostrils. This is because either your right brain is more active, dominant or the left. Sometimes your creative side is active when you actually need your analytical brain to work or vice versa say when solving a mathematical problem, and you realise that even a seemingly easy problem is taking a significant amount of time and effort to be solved. And no matter how hard you try you just don't seem to move any forward. If you manage to block the active nostril and force breathe from the previously blocked nostril, you will soon realise a shift in your thoughts and the way you feel. This requires training and should be practiced under guidance. You may nevertheless try yourself as it has no side effects.

---
Tags: educational-psychology, training, creativity
---


# Question
Title: Are there more recent and more scientifically valid alternatives to MMPI?
Are there any other newer / more sophisticated and valid test useful in a diagnosis and further treatment of clinical problems?

I'm interested in clinical diagnosis.

# Answer
> 4 votes
In clinical psychology, two kinds of *general* personality tests are in use today.

One kind of test is not a specialized clinical test but tests personality in general. These tests are used outside of clinical contexts as well. There are many models of personality and a multitude of tests to measure personality according to each model, but the most popular model of general personality today is the Big Five or Five Factor model, and one of the most valid and reliable tests for this model is the NEO-PI-R.

The other kind of test is one that tests for symptoms of psychological disorders according to one of the two popular diagnostic manuals, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). The most popular test today is probably the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV.

Besides these general tests, clinicians will use one or more tests to measure specific aspects of personality or specific symptoms, according to their impression of the patient or a diagnosis given by the refering phyisician, psychiatrist or psychologist. These specialised tests are too numerous to list here.

---
Tags: test
---


# Question
Title: What is the difference between a schema and a heuristic?
I am trying to understand the basic differences, in layman's terms, between a schema and a heuristic

# Answer
> 6 votes
**A heuristic consists of preferences that help you decide in a situation where you do not have enough information or do not care enough to make an informed decision**. For example, when you want to buy yoghurt, but are no nutritionist, you might decide on which yoghurt you buy by the familiarity of the brand name (you prefer the familiar, this is called the familiarity heuristic) and other aspects that have nothing to do with the yoghurt itself.

**A schema is a workflow or storyboard that tells you what to do in a recurring situation**. For example, when you go shopping you might follow an internal script to make shopping more efficient: you pick the same products in the same sequence every time. You know in advance what you will buy, there are no decisions involved, in fact you ignore all alternative products. A schema allows you to navigate familiar, recurrent and similar situations by following the same sequence of actions.

# Answer
> 3 votes
Schema and Heuristic are two different things- not really related to one another, so I'm not sure asking for the difference between the two makes sense. That said-

A **Schema** is a cognitive framework for storing information and relating it together. Schemas form the basis for knowledge in the head.

A **Heuristic** is a mechanism for solving problems.

Therefore, a schema is more associated with *what* topics a person might make decisions upon, whereas a heuristic is more associated with *how* a person makes those decisions. Heuristic methods very well may depend upon existing schema; however, schema do not necessarily require the existence of a heuristic method.

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, terminology, cognitive-modeling
---


# Question
Title: Does neuroticism cause people to hurt others?
Is neuroticism related to harming others? Is neuroticism related to increased criminal behaviour? And in this case, would it be useful to coach / help a neurotic person through psychotherapy?

# Answer
> 7 votes
I've edited your question somewhat; I hope I preserved its meaning.

Neuroticism relates to personal discomfort largely by definition, and probably to uncomfortable social interaction as well, though somewhat less by definition. Consider this hypothetical, mediated pathway:

**Neuroticism $\rightarrow$ Anxiety $\rightarrow$ Social** anxiety $\rightarrow$ Personal social **discomfort $\rightarrow$ Others'** discomfort

The first three of these paths are almost definitional; the last only assumes that people ordinarily feel more comfortable when interacting with others who are comfortable. Each step from neuroticism to others' discomfort changes the construct slightly, so the relationship attenuates across each step to whatever extent these mediators are all necessary, but I suspect the relationship is still reasonably strong from one end to the other. For a bit of empirical support (indirect – best I could find quickly), note that marriage satisfaction relates negatively to the neuroticism of one's partner (Fisher & McNulty, 2008), though this may be less true of women with neurotic husbands (Whiteford, 2010; for other moderators, see Larson, Blick, Jackson, & Holman, 2010).

The relationship between neuroticism and crime is somewhat more complex, largely because crime itself is diverse. Incarcerated populations are more neurotic (Dang & Sharma, 1995; Singh, Singh, Sinha, & Kumari, 1985; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1971; I also found support for this via negative emotionality in my own work as a research assistant in Robert Krueger's lab at the University of Minnesota in 2005), but neuroticism may not be the best trait predictor of delinquency (self-reported; Furnham & Thompson, 1991), antisocial behavior, or aggression – agreeableness seems to relate more strongly (negatively; Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011). Neuroticism relates to these, and to substance abuse and antisocial personality disorder, but not as strongly as to agreeableness or conscientiousness (both negative correlates; Ruiz, Pincus, & Schinka, 2008; see also Walters, 2014). Neuroticism doesn't predict criminal recidivism very well compared to demographic factors either (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996).

As @what implied in his response to your other question, "Would most people benefit from psychotherapy?" it seems safe enough to assume that anyone could benefit from psychotherapy, criminals included. Neuroticism is often undesirable from a personal standpoint, so neurotic individuals per se might be fairly motivated therapy clients, whereas antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is more ego-syntonic. ASPD is notoriously difficult to treat, though this reputation may be debatable. Wikipedia:

> ASPD is considered to be among the most difficult personality disorders to treat \[(Gabbard & Gunderson, 2000)\]**\[verification needed\]**. Because of their very **low or absent** capacity for **remorse**, individuals with ASPD often **lack** sufficient **motivation** and **fail to see the costs** associated with antisocial acts...They **may only simulate remorse** rather than truly commit to change: they can be seductively charming and dishonest, and **may manipulate** staff and fellow patients during treatment \[(Oldham, Skodol, & Bender, 2005)\]**\[verification needed\]**. Studies have shown that outpatient **therapy is not likely to be successful**, however the extent to which persons with ASPD are entirely unresponsive to treatment **may have been exaggerated** \[(Salekin, 2002)\].
>
> **Those with ASPD may stay in treatment only as required by an external source**, such as a parole. Residential programs that provide a carefully controlled environment of structure and supervision along with peer confrontation have been recommended \[(Gabbard & Gunderson, 2000)\]. There has been some research on the treatment of ASPD that indicated **positive results for therapeutic interventions** \[(Derefinko & Widiger, 2008)\]. Schema Therapy is also being investigated as a treatment for ASPD \[(Bernstein, Arntz, & Vos, 2007)\]. A review by Charles M. Borduin features the strong influence of Multisystemic therapy (MST) that could potentially improve this imperative issue. However this treatment requires complete cooperation and participation of all family members \[(Gatzke & Raine, 2000)\]...
>
> Therapists of individuals with ASPD may have considerable negative feelings toward clients with extensive histories of aggressive, exploitative, and abusive behaviors \[(Gabbard & Gunderson, 2000)\]. Rather than attempt to develop a sense of conscience in these individuals, therapeutic techniques should be focused on rational and utilitarian arguments against repeating past mistakes. These approaches would focus on the tangible, material value of prosocial behavior \[(Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2006); emphasis added\].

An interesting interaction may occur between ASPD and neuroticism (via depression, a correlated emotional state) in predicting psychotherapeutic outcomes for substance abuse: patients with both ASPD and depression respond better than those with ASPD only (Gabbard, 2000). This further supports a mediated link between neuroticism and criminality:

Neuroticism $\rightarrow$ Substance abuse $\rightarrow$ Criminality

Neuroticism $\rightarrow$ Depression $\rightarrow$ Better outcomes for psychotherapy of substance abuse, given ASPD $\rightarrow$ Less recidivism? Worth testing at least!

**References**

 \- Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., & Davis, D. D. (2006). *Cognitive therapy of Personality Disorders* (2nd Ed.). Guilford Press.
\- Bernstein, D. P., Arntz, A., & Vos, M. D. (2007). Schema focused therapy in forensic settings: Theoretical model and recommendations for best clinical practice. *International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 6*(2), 169–183. Retrieved from http://www.schematherapytraining.com/storage/Bernstein.pdf.
\- Dang, R., & Sharma, M. (1995). Study of neuroticism and socio-demographic factors amongst female undertrials. *Indian Journal of Criminology, 23*(2), 65–70.
\- Derefinko, K. J., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). Antisocial personality disorder. In S. H. Fatemi & P. J. Clayton (Eds.), *The Medical Basis of Psychiatry* (pp. 213–226). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
\- Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1971). A comparative study of criminals and matched controls on three dimensions of personality. *British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10*(4), 362–366.
\- Fisher, T. D., & McNulty, J. K. (2008). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction: The mediating role played by the sexual relationship. *Journal of Family Psychology, 22*(1), 112–122. Retrieved from http://www.recoveryonpurpose.com/upload/Neuroticism%20and%20Marital%20Satisfaction.pdf.
\- Furnham, A., & Thompson, J. (1991). Personality and self-reported delinquency. *Personality and Individual Differences, 12*(6), 585–593.
\- Gatzke, L. M., & Raine, A. (2000). Treatment and prevention implications of antisocial personality disorder. *Current Psychiatry Reports, 2*(1), 51–55.
\- Gabbard, G. O. (2000). Psychotherapy of personality disorders. *Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 9*(1), 1–6. Retrieved from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/19368/27/00jpr001.pdf.
\- Gunderson, J. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (Eds.). (2008). *Psychotherapy for personality disorders* (Vol. 13). American Psychiatric Publishing.
\- Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! *Criminology, 34*(4), 575–608.
\- Jones, S. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, antisocial behavior, and aggression: A meta-analytic review. *Journal of Criminal Justice, 39*(4), 329–337.
\- Larson, J. H., Blick, R. W., Jackson, J. B., & Holman, T. B. (2010). Partner traits that predict relationship satisfaction for neurotic individuals in premarital relationships. *Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36*(5), 430–444.
\- Oldham, J. M., Skodol, A. E., & Bender, D. S. (Eds.). (2007). *The American Psychiatric Publishing textbook of personality disorders*. American Psychiatric Publishing.
\- Ruiz, M. A., Pincus, A. L., & Schinka, J. A. (2008). Externalizing pathology and the five-factor model: A meta-analysis of personality traits associated with antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, and their co-occurrence. *Journal of Personality Disorders, 22*(4), 365–388.
\- Salekin, R. T. (2002). Psychopathy and therapeutic pessimism: Clinical lore or clinical reality? *Clinical Psychology Review, 22*(1), 79–112. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11564340\_Psychopathy\_and\_therapeutic\_pessimism.\_Clinical\_lore\_or\_clinical\_reality/file/60b7d5162d67bf28b8.pdf.
\- Singh, U. P., Singh, L. B., Sinha, B., & Kumari, R. (1985). Extraversion, neuroticism and criminality: A comparative study of different criminal groups. *Indian Journal of Social Work, 46*(2), 259–266.
\- Stone, M. H. (1993). *Abnormalities of personality: Within and beyond the realm of treatment*. WW Norton & Co.
\- Walters, G. D. (2014). *Drugs, crime, and their relationships: Theory, research, practice, and policy.* Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
\- Whiteford, N. R. T. (2010). *Neuroticism, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: An exploration of affect mediation.* (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder).

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


# Question
Title: What is relationship between being a good person and functioning in society?
The phrases "*No more Mr Nice guy*" and "*Nice guys finish last*" imply that being a good person can sometimes be detrimental to your well-being. In corrupt societies being fair and good might be detrimental. I'm interested in what research says:

* What is the relationship between being a good and fair person and adaptive outcomes in society?
* Is being good and fair sometimes detrimental to one's well-being? If so, what contextual or other factors are related to this?

# Answer
Since you asked a vague question, I will provide a relatively vague answer.

A standard way to **test fairness experimentally**, is by having people play the ultimatum game. This is an interaction between two participants, one is randomly assigned to be Alice and the other is Bob. Alice is given a couple of days wage in money (either the local currency or other common units of exchange like tobacco) and can decide what proportion of it to offer to Bob. She can choose to offer as little or as much as she wants. Bob is then told what proportion Alice offered and can decide to accept or reject. If Bob accepts then the game ends and each party receives their fraction of the goods. If Bob declines then both Alice and Bob receive nothing and the game terminates. The interaction is completely anonymous and happens only once. In this setting, homoeconomicus would give the lowest possible offer if playing as Alice and accept any non-zero offer as Bob (any money is better than no money).

Henrich et al. (2001) studied the behavior of people from 15 small-scale societies in the ultimatum game and showed a **great variability in how fairness is conceived** across the societies they studied. None of the small scale societies behaved in the same way as economists would predict (i.e., take everything), and none behaved the way western university student do (western university students tend to offer around 50% and reject offers below 20% about 40% to 60% of the time).

**Read more**: Games, culture, and the Turing test (Part II)

**Related questions**: What are popular rationalist responses to Tversky & Shafir? and Human behaviour in one-shot perfect information games

To restate in other words, in such settings it is in our objective self-interest (homoeconomicus) to be unfair, but our subjective conceptions (shaped by evolutionary and cultural forces) entice us to act prosocially. A lot of times this seeming irrationality can be explained as evolutionarily adaptive if we consider concepts like inclusive fitness or group selection.

**Read more**: Evolving useful delusions to promote cooperation.

Overall, it is an **ongoing research question** to understand why and to what extent humans and various other organisms cooperate in such games and how this relates to evolution. It is usually studied under the banner of **evolution of cooperation**. For an introduction that highlights some of the common themes see Nowak (2006), West et al. (2007), or for a video/blog form: Introduction to evolving cooperation.

For a focus on ethnocentrism (one of the highlighted mechanisms) see this question: Do people like those who are similar to them and why?

### References

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies. *American Economic Review*, 91(2), 73-78

Nowak MA (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. *Science*, 314 (5805), 1560-3.

West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., & Gardner, A. (2007). Evolutionary explanations for cooperation. Current Biology, 17(16), R661-R672.
> 4 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, well-being
---