# Question
Title: Is a network of neurons the only factor in memory?
**Background**

I'm actually writing a science fiction novel set a couple decades in the future. Brains are not my field. I've done as much research as I could.

In the story, the protagonist finds out he has died, but to have his deceased brain scanned, mapping out all the nuerons and synapse connections. Perhaps with an advanced MRI.

Then a "system" essentially iterates over many various stimuli. Simulating to the brain the visual sensation of seeing a bird, for example. The machine looks for the corresponding neurons to fire when seeing a bird. The machine iterates over many birds to understand how this brain stores "birds", and repeats this process for basically anything that could be detected from the senses.

Then this brain could be stored in a computer and bioprinted.

I've seen videos of researchers today simulating a primitive network of neurons, so this seems vaguely possible. I know we are also currently capable of bioprinting blood vessels and skin today.

**Question**

If a brain was bioprinted with the exact neuron network and synapse connections as a host brain, would this brain theoretically hold the previous memories from the host it's made from?

# Answer
> 8 votes
**Answer**

Yes, theoretically.

---

**Now**

According to my ongoing informal research, there are two sides of brain preservation innovation: 1) the preservation and mapping (building) the connectome; and 2) the reinstantiation of memories and/or creating consciousness from a connectome.

From http://www.brainpreservation.org/overview/:

> \[N\]euroscience is now identifying the synaptic and nuclear structures that contain our unique memories and identity, and new electron microscopy (EM) imaging techniques are allowing us to verify when these structures have been successfully preserved, from gross connectivity in the connectome, all the way to particular synaptic features, receptor distributions, and even the signal states (phosphorylation, methylation, acetylation, etc.) of individual brain proteins and epigenomic DNA.
>
> \[…\]
>
> Recently, MRI machines have been built that can image individual cell proteins, improbable as this sounds. Such technology may one day give us the ability to inexpensively and nondestructively scan preserved brains to upload the molecular features of memory and identity.

From http://www.brainpreservation.org/content-2/connectome/:

> What is a Connectome?
>
> A connectome\* is the complete map of the neural connections in a brain. It is sometimes referred to as a “wiring diagram” of the molecular connections between neurons, trading on the analogy of a brain to an electronic device, where axons and dendrites are wires and neuron bodies are components. Depending on the scientist, the term connectome may or may not also include learning-relevant molecular states at each synaptic connection (the “synaptome”) and any learning-relevant changes in the nucleus of each neuron (the “epigenome”).

---

**Progress**

Recently, "The Small Mammal BPF Prize" was won. It's one in a series of competitions for brain preservation (BP) achievements. This competition is doing for BP what XPRIZE is doing for space innovation with competitions like the Ansari X Prize.

The winning team used a combination of plastination (chemopreservation) and cryonics (cryopreservation) to preserve a rabbit brain. From the press release http://www.brainpreservation.org/small-mammal-announcement/:

> The Small Mammal Brain Preservation Prize has officially been won by researchers at 21st Century Medicine. Using a combination of ultrafast chemical fixation and cryogenic storage, it is the first demonstration that near perfect, long-term structural preservation of an intact mammalian brain is achievable.

---

**Future**

In regard to reinstantiation of memories and/or creating consciousness: when progressive innovations in technology enable mapping of the entire connectome, the next step is applying a "runtime" to the structure. This runtime is described as "cycles" by György Buzsáki in his book Rhythms of the Brain.

> In a sequence of "cycles," György Buzsáki guides the reader from the physics of oscillations through neuronal assembly organization to complex cognitive processing and memory storage.

Book resources:

---

**Example 1**

The OpenWorm project is an example of contemporary connectome innovation, which is a necessary step for the memory/consciousness side of BP. From http://www.openworm.org:

> OpenWorm is an open source project dedicated to creating the world’s first virtual organism in a computer, a C.elegans nematode. Throughout the years we have built a network of relationships with with many biologists and neuroscientists interested in C. elegant.

From http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/c-elegans-connectome/:

> Because a lone connectome is a snapshot of pathways through which information might flow in an incredibly dynamic organ, it cannot reveal how neurons behave in real time, nor does it account for the many mysterious ways that neurons regulate one another's behavior. Without such maps, however, scientists cannot thoroughly understand how the brain processes information at the level of the circuit. In combination with other tools, the C. elegans connectome has in fact taught scientists a lot about the worm's behavior; partial connectomes that researchers have established in the crustacean nervous system have been similarly helpful. Scientists are also learning how to make connectomes faster than before and to enhance the information they provide. Many researchers in the field summarize their philosophy like this: "A connectome is necessary, but not sufficient."

---

**Example 2**

I believe Stanford's computer model of an organism is in the scope of BP and could be the foundation of what eventually becomes entire brain/connectome virtualization. This breakthrough is an example of the technological capabilities in 2012. Now, in 2016 with AI tech on the rise, exponential progress in this field may become a reality in our lifetime.

From http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/july/computer-model-organism-071812.html:

> \[In 2012\] Stanford researchers produce first complete computer model of an organism. A mammoth effort has produced a complete computational model of the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, opening the door for biological computer-aided design.

From http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(12)00776-3:

> Understanding how complex phenotypes arise from individual molecules and their interactions is a primary challenge in biology that computational approaches are poised to tackle. We report a whole-cell computational model of the life cycle of the human pathogen Mycoplasma genitalium that includes all of its molecular components and their interactions. An integrative approach to modeling that combines diverse mathematics enabled the simultaneous inclusion of fundamentally different cellular processes and experimental measurements. Our whole-cell model accounts for all annotated gene functions and was validated against a broad range of data. The model provides insights into many previously unobserved cellular behaviors, including in vivo rates of protein-DNA association and an inverse relationship between the durations of DNA replication initiation and replication. In addition, experimental analysis directed by model predictions identified previously undetected kinetic parameters and biological functions. We conclude that comprehensive whole-cell models can be used to facilitate biological discovery.

---
Tags: neuroscience, memory, neural-network, philosophy-of-mind
---


# Question
Title: What theory explains where motivation to do something depends on perception of others' input?
I'm trying to read up on the phenomena where one person's desire/motivation to do a certain task or obligation within a system of process is influenced by whether he thinks others in that process are also doing their job.

For examples:

* "John's willingness to report a crime to the police is low because he feels the cops in his town are incompetent. He thinks his efforts will just be wasted"
* "Mike's desire to recycle is high because he sees how serious the city council are in collecting and separating the waste"

Currently I'm thinking Ryan & Deci's Self-determination Theory might fit to explain this (the competence part or the 3 SDT pillars), but SDT only concerns with the individual's sense of achievement/competence. My angle is more like "I will do \[won't do\] my part because I know someone else down the line will do \[won't do\] their part to achieve the objective", so there is a social/systems element to it.

I'm also thinking maybe it's literature around scepticism, but that concept is closer to James Randi-esque 'scientific scepticism' rather than what I'm going for. Pessimism doesn't really work as well, since it deals mostly with personal/internal factors as opposed to external..

Any ideas what theory/literature talks about this?

Edit: answered my own question below.

# Answer
> 1 votes
I've found if not an answer then at least a good starting point to this.

The theory of trust in management literature explains that in a contractual situation, the actors may be motivated to fulfil their end of the bargain based on the trust they place to the actor on the opposite side. Specifically, there's two types of trust:

* Competence trust = perception that the other party is able to fulfil their end of the contract.
* Goodwill trust = perception that the other party will fulfil their end of the contract.

Even though this discusses it in a formal contract setting, I feel this applies to 'social contract' context as well, i.e part of why a person is willing to spend effort on something like fill up tax reports is because he trusts that his effort will not be reciprocated by the tax agency who will then handle the money and make use of it properly.

The paper is here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.3411&rep=rep1&type=pdf

---
Tags: motivation
---


# Question
Title: What is a belief, and how does it differ from an opinion?
While many theories in cognitive science rely on the concept of a "belief" I do not see much on the definition of a belief or how it compares to other mental states. What is a belief, and how does it compare to things like opinions?

# Answer
Edit: This article from the Guardian reviews research into what forms and influences belief, gives some make up of what a belief is, but I could not find a, and separate, scientific defintion.

A opinion is a judgement based on facts while a belief is a conviction based on personal values.

> An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. (For example, we know that millions of people go without proper medical care, and so you form the opinion that the country should institute national health insurance even though it would cost billions of dollars.) An opinion is potentially changeable--depending on how the evidence is interpreted. By themselves, opinions have little power to convince. You must always let your reader know what your evidence is and how it led you to arrive at your opinion.
>
> Unlike an opinion, a belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values. Statements such as "Capital punishment is legalized murder" are often called "opinions" because they express viewpoints, but they are not based on facts or other evidence. They cannot be disproved or even contested in a rational or logical manner. Since beliefs are inarguable, they cannot serve as the thesis of a formal argument.

Colorado State University
> 3 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, philosophy-of-mind
---


# Question
Title: Is mindfulness meditation an effective method to fall asleep?
It's my understanding that brain activity in the prefrontal cortex is suppressed during sleep and that mindfulness stimulates activity in that region. Based on this, it seems counterintuitive to think that the average person who is lying in bed and using mindfulness meditation reduces his/her sleep latency. Is there any empirical indication or theoretical argument either way?

# Answer
\**Is there any empirical evidence meditation is good for sleep? \**

Yes. There is. But it definitely depends on the type of meditation. Some types of meditation increase alertness. A few articles I found mentioned a study based on this, but failed to link properly.

The below link is the empirical evidence. Mindfulness Meditation and Improvement in Sleep Quality and Daytime Impairment Among Older Adults With Sleep Disturbances

This second study demonstrates that people who meditate may need less sleep. I don't know if that qualifies for you. Meditation acutely improves psychomotor vigilance, and may decrease sleep need.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: sleep, meditation
---


title: Can Prozac cause anxiety?

text:
# Question
Title: Can Prozac cause anxiety?
I know some selective serotonin inhibitors, such as Prozac, are prescribed for anxiety, but can they also cause anxiety?

# Answer
> 2 votes
Prozac (the generic drug fluoxetine) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and is primarily prescribed as an **antidepressant**, but also as an anxiolytic.

The side effects of fluoxetine indeed include anxiety, but this is a rare phenomenon (source: Drugs.com). The more common complaints are restlessness and skin rash. In fact, Mayo Clinic doesn't even list anxiety as a general side effect of SSRIs.

---
Tags: psychopharmacology, anxiety, serotonin
---


# Question
Title: What cognitively interesting event-related potentials at FP1, FP2, TP9 or TP10 can be measured with consumer-grade EEG hardware?
I'm looking for cognitively interesting event-related potentials at places like FP1, FP2, TP9 or TP10 that can be measured with consumer-grade EEG hardware. Right now I have an Interaxon Muse EEG and want to see how effective it can be for capturing ERPs. Does anyone have any experience/recommendations?

# Answer
> 2 votes
I don't have experience with consumer grade EEG, but at fp1 and fp2 you should be able to measure the P3a response. Given the high impedance you will need a lot of trials, but the response is typically seen at fp1 and fp2 in research. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168559798000331

For the Tp sites they are a bit posterior but you may be able to pick up the T complex. Typically this response is measured at more anterior sites. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245703000051

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, cognitive-neuroscience, eeg, event-related-potential
---


title: Importance of interactivity in learning

text:
# Question
Title: Importance of interactivity in learning
Not sure if this is the right place for this question that I find hard to formulate in the first place...

In a paper, I'd like to argue that interactivity helps to develop an understanding of a thing. This is in context is astronomy, scientists learning about the universe basically. I'd like to argue in favour of interactive data exploration. This is not going to be a psychology paper. To put it bluntly, I'd like to better understand this to write the motivational section, use the proper terms, and have a nice citation I can put at the end of it :)

Let me try to explain what I'm after.

Google Maps analogy:

Interative maps give an overview of the world and then allow the user to zoom in, pan around and look at streetview pics. If this information would be presented in a non-interative way, say a box you can put coordinates in and you get the streetview picture out a minute later, the user would not just be slower, but would not be able to explore and understand the world in the same way that interactive maps allow.

Slider analogy:

Say you have two parameters and an result value that results from it due to some hidden math. If I give you two sliders, you can play around with them and develop a sense for the correlation easily, a child would get an intuition for it. But if I give you a form where you have to type in two numbers and press a button to see the result, it be almost impossible to develop the same level of understanding.

I think that the instantaneous feedback and the ability to 'play' with it, really make it far easier for us to learn.

**edit:**

Has there been some study of this kind of learning? Does it have a name? Where would I start to research this? How do I go about arguing that interactivity offers a great benefit to explore, say, a dataset? That interactivity offers more than just the efficency gained from less waiting for results.

# Answer
You can attack it from many different angles.

Perhaps a good place to start is the distinction between the **behaviourist and cognitive learning theories**. Although both can be facilitated using interaction, behaviourist theories put the teacher as the focal point, whereas cognitive ones put the learner first. In that respect, a good interactive learning design will give learners more control over the learning experience. I also believe you can demonstrate that interactive learning has greater potential to be mapped to experiential learning (see Kolb Cycle for instance).

Another related topic is that interactive learning based on **self-exploration** is likely to result in higher intrinsic motivation compared to guided learning.

Another line of argument can many aspects of interaction that can aid cognition (or reduce cognitive load, if you wish) - A book (non interactive) is a get-it-or-leave-it type of delivery; interactive systems enable techniques such as **progressive disclosure** or **contextual help** which can markedly improve comprehension.

Perhaps important to assert that interactive learning, on its own, does not secure better comprehension - the experience design is what really matters; interactive learning can simply enable features that non-interactive learning cannot.

You should be able to find some research papers on the topic via Google Scholar.

These are just a few leads.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: learning
---


# Question
Title: Does "hearing" give off an electronic signal?
I'm thinking in terms of the middle ear and the very intricate and tiny bones that process a "sound wave" into "what we hear." Is there an output to the middle ear ossicle chain bones such that a signal is being sent from the ears to outside of our body too? If so what is that frequency?

# Answer
No there isn't any output for these bones other than mechanically pushing against the oval window.

In short:

* Sound waves travel through the ear canal.
* They hit the ear drum (Tympanic membrane).
* The three bones (ossicles) in our middle ear are simply an impedance matching device (very much like gears on bicycles). They amplify the ear drum movement with the Stapes pushing against the oval window (part of the inner ear).
* The mechanical movement of the stapes against the oval window causes liquid within the Cochlea to oscillate.
* Within the Cochlea there are tiny hair cells that discharge (snap) in response to a specific frequency/amplitude (See this answer).
* When discharge, a nerve pulse is sent to our brain.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: hearing
---


# Question
Title: Relationship between processing speed and IQ in twice exceptional children
How come some twice exceptional children (i.e., intellectually gifted children who have some form of disability) have high iq, but low processing speed? Isn't processing speed a factor of intelligence? If not, why do iq tests have a time limit?

# Answer
Being twice-exceptional (2e) myself I can tell you what I know. As another reply indicated the appearance of "slowness" is an effect of the observer's perception. This is true because of a fundamental difference with the mental processing techniques adopted by twice exceptional, gifted people and people described by the autism spectrum.

For most people mental processing inclinations involve a bottom-up orientation, which is like stacking Lego blocks to build up coherent thought. While 2e people, and their like, are inclined towards a top-down mental processing orientation.

Bottom-up processing is immediately productive because each block added builds the resulting product. Top-down processing is not particularly productive because it doesn't really make things--instead organizes things logically so results are arrived by removing irrelevant or senseless aspects of structural relationships (basically reclassifying info sets towards task relevancy, i.e., grouping and ordering things). (Catron & Wingenbach, 1986)

So basically 2e kids design systems when needing to produce results. Mainstream western culture places greater value on products (visual materiality) than processes (incremental materiality) in terms successful activity, particularly since we are addicted to immediate gratification. Therefore our value system allows the appearance of "doing nothing", thus organizing information for systemic comprehension is not valued do to its lack of visual materiality (you can not see it) which is attributed to being unproductive or slow.

Furthermore, to specifically answer your question: A high IQ does not specifically indicate lightning fast thinking abilities; instead it shows a person's aptitude. The tests original intention was not to sort people by levels of intelligence but instead identify those who are generally less informed than their age peers. The association is referred to as aptitude which can be described as their intellectual attitude or their inclinations towards being apt to learn (apt-attitude, aptitude). Speedy thinking is in this way an accidental symptom.

<sub> Catron, Rena M., and Nancy Wingenbach. "Developing the potential of the gifted reader." Theory into Practice 25.2 (1986): 134-140. \[PDF\] </sub>
> 2 votes

# Answer
This is not an answer to your question but you probably want lookup Howard Gardner and his theory of Multiple Intelligence (MI).

The basic proposition here is that the IQ test (origins in the work by Alfred Binet) is not a wholistic measure of intelligence and that it measures the ability of one to think in a certain expected way. Gardner proposes that there are many ways to think (and thus how one learns) and he comes up with 7 distinctly different types of intelligence (his later work adds more).

I'm not familiar with your child subjects, but in comparison if you measure IQ of some Autistic children they may measure extremely high IQ, but may be perceived as slow or unresponsive to other tasks like social interaction (or low "EQ"). This does not mean that they are either intelligent or not intelligent, just that they think in a different way than the observer.

Speed (and age) is a factor of intelligence, but irrelevant if the underlying measure is fundamentally flawed. For example, you can be quick at maths or slow at maths, this will just tell you if you are intelligent at mathematical thinking. But it will not tell you is your are "intelligent" because you could be quick to learn music rhythms (thus musically intelligent) but this is not measured in IQ.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, intelligence, iq
---


# Question
Title: What leaps in technology would be needed to scan the total state of the human brain?
What technological leaps would be necessary to capture the absolute state of the brain? This would need to include:

* a representation of each neuron
* a representation of each neural connection
* the chemical balances of the dendral connections between each neuron

And maybe we would also need to capture:

* the current synaptic activity of each neuron

I'm not sure if we need that, perhaps if you lose the flow of synapses, you break the mind, or perhaps the state of the neurons will continue to work properly the next time synaptic input is introduced and the mind will "wake up".

Either way, that's an incredible amount of detail, especially chemical information, that would have to be captured so we could convert it into a virtual simulation of the functional aspects of each neuron making up that brain.

**What are the major technological gaps that we would need to overcome in order to scan the brain with that level of detail?** I'm interested in the specific aspects of scanning technology that would have to be invented beyond our current brain scanning technology.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Your question can be reduced to "What level of detail do we need to know about a brain to be able to simulate it?"

The answer to this question is *we have no idea*. The Blue Brain project has bet on the synaptic level, but they haven't been able to scale up to behaviour yet. But why stop at the synaptic level? Why not go down to molecules or atoms? Sure the computational power required goes up, but then we get a better model! And computers are getting faster and lower power all the time, right?

Actually, traditional processors have hit a wall in terms of power efficiency \[1\]. So you do end up needing to choose a reasonable level of detail for what you're choosing to model, since detail for detail's sake isn't going to get you anywhere \[2\]. Once we can understand the basic functions the brain is computing and how it's computing them, we can start looking for that level of detail in the human brain for simulation.

In conclusion, rather than a simple technological advancement, we need a theoretical advancement in understanding *what the brain is even doing in the first place* before we can use the data meaningfully.

---

\[1\] "Finding a roadmap to achieve large neuromorphic hardware systems" by Jennifer Hasler and Bo Marr. Specifically, Figure 17 shows the "power efficiency wall".

\[2\] "The use and abuse of large-scale brain models" by Chris Eliasmith and Oliver Trujillo

# Answer
> 2 votes
> What leaps in technology would be needed to scan the total state of the human brain?

**Preface**

In 2016, the "Small Mammal BPF Prize" was won, see: http://www.brainpreservation.org/small-mammal-announcement/. It's the first of two stages of competition for brain preservation (BP) achievements. This competition is doing for BP what XPRIZE is doing for space innovation with competitions like the Ansari X Prize.

> Researchers from 21st Century Medicine have developed a new technique to allow long term storage of a near-perfect mammalian brain. It’s a breakthrough that could have serious implications for cryonics, and the futuristic prospect of bringing the frozen dead back to life.
>
> By using a chemical compound to turn a rabbit’s brain into a near glass-like state, and then cooling it to -211 degrees Fahrenheit (-135 degrees Celsius), a research team from California-based 21st Century Medicine (21CM) showed that it’s possible to enable near-perfect, long-term structural preservation of an intact mammalian brain. The achievement has earned not just accolades from the scientific community, but a prestigious award as well; the 21CM researchers are today being awarded the $26,735 Small Mammal Brain Preservation Prize, which is run by the Brain Preservation Foundation (BPF). — http://gizmodo.com/brain-preservation-breakthrough-could-usher-in-a-new-er-1758022181

---

**Answer**

If you consider focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIBSEM)-level scanning to be adequate, than the technology is already available:

> In the types of electron microscopy neuroscientists commonly use (FIBSEM, etc.), preserved neural tissue can be visualized down to about a 6 nanometer resolution. This allows them to directly see each neuron’s synapses and dendrites (connections to other neurons). This level of detail also includes the ability to image, directly and indirectly (via molecular probes), many elements of the “synaptome,” the number and types of special proteins (vesicles, signaling proteins, cytoskeleton), receptors (Glutamate, etc.), and neurotransmitters (at least six types in human neurons) that are known to be involved in long-term learning and memory at each synapse in the brain, and elements of the “epigenome” (learning-based DNA methylation and histone modifications) in the nucleus of each neuron. — http://www.brainpreservation.org/tech-prize

If you don't consider FIBSEM-level scanning to be adequate, then the *leaps in technology* needed for this feat are on the horizon:

> Our ability to scan and verify is also rapidly improving. New types of electron microscopy, such as Cryo-TEM, can image at an amazing 3 angstrom resolution, 50 times greater magnification than FIBSEM, a scale where *brain proteins and even individual atoms can be directly seen.* — http://www.brainpreservation.org/tech-prize/

In conclusion, the scanning technology is either currently adequate or will be in the near future. The major leap, will be the actual preservation of a large mammalian brain: BPF Prize Stage 2.

---

**Related Topic**

> perhaps the state of the neurons will continue to work properly the next time synaptic input is introduced and the mind will "wake up".

In regard to the "wake up" part, (IMO) once mapping the brain's connectome is achievable, the next step is virtualization including a "runtime" wikipedia.org/wiki/Run\_time\_(program\_lifecycle\_phase) by applying what's already known from scientific research:

> … self-emerged oscillatory timing is the brain's fundamental organizer of neuronal information. The small-world-like connectivity of the cerebral cortex allows for global computation on multiple spatial and temporal scales. The perpetual interactions among the multiple network oscillators keep cortical systems in a highly sensitive "metastable" state and provide energy-efficient synchronizing mechanisms via weak links. — https://global.oup.com/academic/product/rhythms-of-the-brain-9780199828234

John Smart, VP of the BPF, via io9's article, "How to Live Forever By Turning Your Brain Into Plastic":

> "We appear to be our special, complex patterns," Smart told io9, "not our matter, or even our type of matter." He notes that each of the 250,000 or so people who have had cochlear implants has had one small nervous system pattern replaced, or "uploaded", into technology. Retinal implants are coming next. It's the pattern replication that we care about, not the matter, or "substrate."
>
> Patternism, in conjunction with connectomics, may eventually reveal our neural correlates of identity — and allow us to preserve capacities like memories, thoughts, emotions, even consciousness. "Consciousness is transitory, it's like a pattern in a stream," said Smart, "and it's also overrated. You don't have it when you sleep, and it's rebooted, at a later time, from much more durable cellular and molecular patterns when you are knocked unconscious, given anesthesia, drowned for an hour in cold water with no EEG, and so on."
>
> Identity, argues Smart, is what really matters — those patterns that are stored in our neural architectures. — http://io9.gizmodo.com/5943304/how-to-preserve-your-brain-by-turning-it-into-plastic

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


# Question
Title: Why are religious people seemingly unable to hypothesise about a universe without God?
I know many devoutly religious people despite being totally atheist myself. I have occasionally discussed their beliefs and their religion with them, always respectfully. I am able to hypothesise scenarios assuming their beliefs are correct. However, when I ask them to consider my point of view, they seem unable to do so, because to them it doesn't make sense that God doesn't exist, or whatever else is said in their religious texts.

I view it like visiting their home. I can visit them and enjoy their hospitality and they enjoy showing me around their home but I don't want to move in with them (convert to their religion). If I invite them to visit my home (hypothesise a universe without God), they always refuse. I'm not suggesting that they move in with me (become an atheist), and in fact, I don't care whether they do or not, and I don't even have any expectation that they would.

It seems as though atheism is so uncomfortable to them that they reject it without examining it except in a very general and distant way. The strange thing is, that they all view me as a good person despite me not sharing their beliefs.

Why is it so difficult for them to discuss atheist principles when I have no trouble discussing their religion with them? In fact, I find religions fascinating in the same way that I find people living in other countries fascinating.

# Answer
To quote the great Aldous Huxley :

> How shall we define a god? Expressed in psychological terms (which are primary-there is no getting behind them) a god is something that gives us the peculiar kind of feeling which Professor Otto has called “numinous”. Numinous feelings are the original god-stuff from which the theory-making mind extracts the individualised gods of the pantheon.
>
> — Aldous Huxley

Even "the Hitch" acknowledged **the Numinous** :

> I’m a materialist…yet there is something beyond the material, or not entirely consistent with it, what you could call the Numinous, the Transcendent, or at its best the Ecstatic. \[…\] It’s in certain music, landscape, certain creative work, without this we really would merely be primates. It’s important to appreciate the finesse of that, and religion has done a very good job of enshrining it in music and architecture.
>
> — Christopher Hitchens

However, he also pointed out this :

> I think everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter. But I think it’s very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by \[…\] those who think that God has given them instructions.
>
> — Christopher Hitchens

This is the cause of the divide between Theists and Atheists. Both experience the Numinous more or less the same way, but Atheists look for explanations in science whereas Theists look for ancient texts they believe to be divine revelations.

So why do some look for explanations in science whereas others look for explanations in ancient texts? It's a matter of **cognitive style**. More in particular, in depends on your **empathy and systemizing quotients**.

Extreme systemizers are not very likely to follow **"their gut"** (they may even be incapable of experiencing **intuition**). Because of that, they're also less likely to follow any kind of external authority. Their systemizing nature requires a rigidly consistent logical framework to make sense of things, which they often find only in science.

In contrast, extreme empathizers are more likely to follow "their gut", and also more likely to follow any kind of authority (including ancient religious texts). They tend to feel a lot more comfortable with experiencing **cognitive dissonance** and logical frameworks lacking consistence, which is common for religion.

Still, I believe the gap between Theism and Atheism largely relies on purely semantic differences with respect to how both approach the Numinous. I address this in greater detail in my article **The Atheistic approach to God… or how to bridge the gap between Atheists and Theists**.

---

### Edit :

With respect to extreme empathizers being more comfortable experiencing cognitive dissonance, I'm refering to cognitive dissonance at the level of belief. It's more important to them that their emotions correspond with their beliefs than that their set of beliefs as a whole is a consistent set.

In contrast, extreme systemizers care mostly about their set of beliefs forming a consistent framework.
> 4 votes

# Answer
As a former atheist: I can, for the sake of argument, make a point in the form "If there is no God...". So in that sense, I can easily hypothesize the non-existence of God. However, many religious people, myself included, find the universe without a God to be a mess of contradiction to the point that it is essentially self-refuting and absurd. Therefore it is difficult to actually "hypothesize a universe without a God" because the consequences of such a thing being true would render so many other things nonsensical.

Often my discussions with atheists end up being a bit frustrating on one or both sides because the consequences of the existence or non-existence of God on a worldview are so profound and far-reaching that one could spend years simply working those consequences out. A short list of things that require at least some reassessment: Morality, Free Will, Epistemology, Scientific Philosophy, Logic.

I think for most people they think of God as something that could just as easily exist or not exist, no different from whether a unicorn exists or a black swan exists. But if you look at theology, at least in the Christian sense, you find that the existence of God is so intertwined with everything else that you can't rip it out. Asking a person reasonably well-versed in Christian theology to imagine a universe without a God would be like imagining a world where math doesn't work. Maybe you could do it in a very limited scope, as long as you fudge the details, (In such a world I wouldn't have to learn math in school!) but you can't really extrapolate it to a substantive worldview because the contradictions render the whole thought experiment nonsensical in fairly short order.

This being said, when I was an atheist I did in fact notice some of these nonsensical conclusions and had to live with the cognitive dissonance that my worldview did not match my experience.

Some quick caveats to the above. Not being able to imagine a world without God is not the same as not being able to imagine not believing in God. Also, it doesn't hinder us in imagining certain consequences of that non-existence in isolation. (Like if there is no God, then \<fill in the blank\>).
> 2 votes

# Answer
**Short answer**: Some people just like anthropomorphizing more than others do.

**Long answer:**

The comment made by user "a human" on the original question inspired the following train of thought:

Take two people, Alfred and Zack. Alfred is a "people person". Zack is a mathematician. Your satisfaction with this answer will likely depend on your tendency to support the following intuitions about Alfred and Zack.

Alfred likes to think of the world in terms of what people intend and want. Key word: people. So when confronted with more abstract concepts, like chemistry, Alfred handles things better when he can assign them names and talk about their behavior in terms of human behavior. This is called Anthropomorphizing. When dealing with people, it works really well. When dealing with abstractions, it's kind of a hack; it gets him by, but doesn't provide him a platform with which to excel at, say, vector calculus.

Zack is less socially apt than Alfred. Maybe a little nerdy, withdrawn. Maybe he has Asperger's. But, he's very good at abstract thought. He doesn't "get" people like Alfred does, but he can do proofs like a boss. Calculus? No sweat. Physics? Easy.

(If you're Zack, you might wish I had just talked about "people person" and "not-people person" in the abstract, rather than creating concrete examples and giving them names.)

I'm going to venture a guess that Alfred finds it harder to believe in a Godless universe than Zack. And that these perspectives aren't likely to change much with time.

So, what makes Alfred and Zack different? Is it neurostructural, neurochemical, or simply habitual? If it's neurostructural, they're doomed to disagree, but maybe their kids aren't. If it's neurochemical, then maybe one or the other will go on Prozac (or something stronger) and temporarily come to Jesus (or run away from him), then go off Prozac and revert back to his old self. If it's habitual, then maybe they'll switch places down the line due to some personal experiences.

EDIT: In light of the above post (about empathizers and systemizers:) the Alfred I described is an extreme empathizer, while the Zack I described is an extreme systemizer.

In the field of neural networks, the number of layers in a network is sometimes said to have to do with the "amount of abstraction." To me, this suggests that different human brains might also have different network depth. So, a 'deep' human brain might be more abstraction-focused and, perhaps, systematic (Zack) while a 'shallow' one might be more feeling-focused and empathetic (Alfred.) (I apologize for the slightly stigmatic nature of the words "deep" and "shallow" -- maybe someone can suggest alternative terms.)

That would be the "neurostructural" explanation. But it seems clear that neurochemistry also plays a role in empathy (we're starting to think that even Tylenol might have an effect on empathy, not to mention stronger substances like cocaine) so clearly the issue is more complex than the above duality would like to suggest.
> 0 votes

# Answer
While it is true that some denominations are more attractive for some personality styles, Christianity is a broad movement encompassing all kinds of personalities.

We live in a mostly secular culture now, so most Christians already know in great detail what atheists believe. Many have at least pondered the atheistic worldview - or have been atheists or agnostics themselves. So it's hard to learn something new from a random atheist.

Also, not that many people are really interested in exploring different worldviews in great detail. That's true for atheists and religious peolpe alike. You yourself are an exception. So keep looking.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-dissonance
---


# Question
Title: Are liars inclined to lie to themselves?
Reading the famous quote of Oliver Sacks, can we draw conclusions about liars?

> "We speak not only to tell other people what we think, but to tell ourselves what we think. Speech is a part of thought." \[Oliver Sacks\]

If speech is part of thought, then maybe liars can begin making fallacious thoughts in the long run?

**Is there scientific evidence that suggests that speech affects thinking, possibly in relation to (pathological) liars?**

# Answer
Although I cannot answer the question on lying, (self-)speech and thinking are intimately linked to each-other, and actually used in UX-design (e.g. Krahmer, 2004). He compared two different approaches of thinking-aloud. In other words, people are perfectly able to verbalize their thoughts and actually do so.

One of the approaches he compares is a proposal of Ericsson and Simon (1993). In their nice and brief paper, they discuss (and refer to) many scientific papers (e.g. cognitive scientific and psychological) where self-speech is used during problem solving. Moreover, it showed that self-speech is related to other variables that correspond to thoughts.

> In their review, Ericsson and Simon (1993) found that \[\[...\]\] there seemed to be close correspondence between subjects’ thoughts and what information that they looked at--when subjects verbalized thoughts about objects in the environment they very frequently looked at them.

I must admit that self-speech in this way is only used as a methods of identifying cognitive processes, and is often a mandated task in the experiment. However, the fact that people are able to reflect on their thoughts, gives me reason to believe that they can do so unconsciously too. If someone could correct me or confirm this, I invite you to do so.
> 2 votes

# Answer
It is my belief that liars inclined to lie to them selves. Freudian psychology can illustrate this point through the concept of the ego-sensor. Liars can be compelled to lie to themselves in order to protect the ego. Thereby, preserving their sense of identity. This usually occurs in the form of denial, detachment, or reattribution. I do not believe that they intentionally lie to themselves nor do I find that to be possible. Still I've found that the ego will do anything to protect it self when feeling threatened.
> 2 votes

# Answer
Well practiced liars often convince themselves of their own lie, it being an alternate truth for them. When you are convinced that a lie is the real truth and that truth is either mellowed or expanded upon an original truth it becomes much easier to tell that false reality to others. When you know someone is lying it's usually because of involuntary movements such as rapid eye movement, quivering, or just that look in their eyes. If a well practiced liar removed or subdued those warning signals and reduced nervousness by making themselves believe their own lie, there will be no or less fidgeting and anxious movements. It is also beneficial for liar to convince themselves of their false truth so that they can repeat the same story or explanation when its needed. They also always keep a lie simple and concise, and only volunteer extra information when they anticipate the next interrogative inquiry. If they offer the information up front it becomes more believable but at the same time, if they lie up a life story leading up to this moment you would think, *"Whoa, this is way too much information, what are they hiding?"* But yet too little information leads to the same result of someone wondering if the lying person is holding something back or not telling the whole truth. If a true liar can convince them self that their lie is in fact reality it becomes much easier to tell that truth. Say, with a polygraph machine, **aka the *lie detector***. If that person cant hide their anxiety or nervousness the machine will detect those emotions and start spiking off the grid.
> -1 votes

---
Tags: social-psychology, thought, speech, deception
---


# Question
Title: When we are sad, why do we feel pain in our stomachs?
I thought everything is in the brain.

Why do we feel pain in our stomachs when we are sad?

# Answer
> 10 votes
I certainly wouldn't say "everything is in the brain"; even the central nervous system is defined more broadly than that (to include the spinal cord)...and then there's everything else in the peripheral nervous system to consider...

I also wouldn't say that feeling pain in one's stomach when sad is normal (you didn't say this either, but it's implied by your phrasing, so I think you might've assumed it), but this and the many other varieties of somatization aren't necessarily abnormal either, in as much as it may occur for most people in some way at some point in life (an intuitive guess informed by personal experience; don't quote me on this). From Wikipedia: "Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychological distress in the form of somatic symptoms," which includes bodily pain of pretty much any variety. Note that this definition raises some interesting questions, e.g.:

Setting these aside and assuming sadness is your original source of stomach discomfort, there are a number of ways this could occur, and the stress of strong negative emotion (which includes sadness) could exacerbate it. Stress in general can cause ulcers (e.g., stress from head injury; Li et al., 2010). Here's a good (and very long) section from *The Cortisol Connection (Talbott & Talbott, 2007)* \[**bolding** added\]:

> The phenomenon of stress-induced ulcers and other digestive problems has been documented in the medical literature for more than fifty years. From a physiological point of view, we know quite clearly that **any stressful event will cause digestion to cease**. Blood flow is diverted from the digestive organs to the heart and muscles, secretion of saliva and digestive enzymes is slowed, and intestinal contractions and absorption of nutrients stop. This rapid shutdown of the digestive process makes perfect sense, because from the standpoint of long-term survival it is more important to get away from the dangerous stressor (the lion) than to fully digest all your food...However...even while stress hormones are signaling the body to shut down digestion, these same hormones, when kept elevated for more than a few minutes, are telling us to eat...
>
> Medical evidence shows quite clearly that **ulcers** of the **stomach** (gastric ulcers) and intestine (duodenal ulcers) are much more common in people who are anxious, **depressed**, or under chronic or repeated **stress**. In the face of these conditions, which are **all also examples of chronic stressors**, many of the digestive actions are curtailed, and the body also backs off from its production of other protective measures—such as the mucus that lines the stomach, and the bicarbonate that counteracts the highly acidic gastric juices...The problems start to occur when a person experiences the repeated cycles of **high stress** followed by low/normal stress...This sets up the digestive system for total confusion. Most of the time the body won't be able to secrete enough digestive enzymes to properly digest food (producing nausea, constipation, gas, and bloating). During the "lucky" times when a body *can* secrete enough digestive enzymes to properly break down food, the protective mechanisms are far from fully operational—which puts the person at risk for damage to her gastrointestinal tract (because the food enzymes digest the gut's lining in addition to digesting the food). This scenario says a lot about why **several bouts of intense stress are known to cause more ulcers than a longer continuous period of heightened stress.**
>
> To compound the problem, other factors, such as immune-system function and the body's control of inflammation and wound healing, come into play. It is well described in the medical literature that both **repeated periods of acute stress and continuous periods of chronic stress are associated with suppressed immune-system activity**. This has a direct bearing on ulcer development, because less immune-system activity means more growth and higher activity of a bacterium called *Helicobacter pylori*, which infects the stomach and causes ulcers in 80 percent of the people infected with it. Compounding the tissue damage caused by the accelerated growth of *H. pylori* is a suppression of the body's ability to heal that tissue damage because of an inhibition in prostaglandin synthesis. Prostaglandins are typically produced in response to tissue damage, where they help reduce inflammation and accelerate healing. During times of stress, however, the synthesis of prostaglandins is curtailed, which suggests that **stress not only increases the rate at which ulcers may form, but also slows the rate at which they are repaired**.
>
> **Aside from ulcers, the most common stress-related gut disease may be irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)**. Most of us will experience some degree of IBS during our lifetime. The name "IBS" is really a catchall for a variety of intestinal disorders...The majority of the gastrointestinal conditions falling under the IBS umbrella are either **caused by or exacerbated by periods of heightened stress**. Irish researchers have solidified **the link between stress, inflammation, and gastrointestinal diseases** such as IBS through a series of experiments involving 151 subjects that **showed IBS to be clearly exacerbated by stressful psychological events**, with cortisol and inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and IL-8 elevated in all forms of IBS...
>
> So, again, we have bad news about stress and cortisol for an important bodily system. **Stress leads to poor digestion, ulcerated stomachs, and inflamed intestines**—not a pretty picture. These effects tend to result in poor dietary choices, suboptimal nutritional status, and a **drop in energy levels and overall feelings of well-being. Getting stress and cortisol levels under control can help to reverse these problems.**

Pardon the wall of text; I could hardly shorten it further without cutting out directly relevant material or supportive explanation of the responsible anatomical mechanisms. Anyway, given that sadness (a form of stress) can cause our stomachs to go haywire when it's intense or chronic enough, haywire stomachs can then reduce energy and well-being, which forms a wicked little feedback loop between emotional and gastrointestinal distress. Feeling stomach pain can also cause one to clench the abdominal muscles, leading to cramping, which itself also leads back to pain and stress, so that's two feedback loops! Severe and chronic stress can also lead to rumination among those without better coping mechanisms, which is another cognitive-emotional feedback loop unto itself: the more you worry about your stress (both emotional and physiological) is the more you have to worry about!

Given at least these three, distinct, vicious cycles, it's not hard to imagine how a person can spiral out of control and into true disorder. Somatization disorder (SSD) is one such possibility; pain disorder is another. Both involve physical pain that is largely, sometimes completely caused by psychological stress, and are sometimes comorbid with mood disorders, among others. SSD is also sometimes comorbid with IBS.

Extreme cases might best relate to the sentiment expressed in your question, but that doesn't mean your case is extreme or even abnormal necessarily. If you or anyone else is concerned that you might have a disorder such as pain disorder, SSD, IBS, or if you're in any way concerned about how depressed you feel, I'd encourage you to talk to a counselor or therapist (some help is even available for free), seek diagnosis only from licensed professionals, and focus on what you can do about it instead of how bad it might be right now. Most psychological problems can at least be improved through patience, persistence, and positivity, so don't worry about labeling your problem or yourself; focus on finding and pursuing improvements and hope.

Here are some ideas that may help break feedback loops that exacerbate psychogenic stomach distress:

* Dietary choices that ease digestion (including anti-inflammatory, low acidity foods)
* Nutritional improvement (e.g., vitamins & minerals for stress response, probiotics for digestion)
* Stress reduction (as via lifestyle choices, R & R, social support, counseling, etc.)
* Cognitive behavioral therapy and biofeedback
* Limited, careful, pharmacist-supervised medication of some physical and neurochemical problems
* General mindfulness of automatic negative thoughts and unconscious muscle tension
* Exercise, recreation, and positivity—generally spending more time looking on the bright side of life!

**References**

Li, Z. M., Wang, L. X., Jiang, L. C., Zhu, J. X., Geng, F. Y., & Qiang, F. (2009). Relationship between plasma cortisol levels and stress ulcer following acute and severe head injury. *Medical Principles and Practice, 19*(1), 17-21.

Talbott, S. M., & Talbott, S. (2007). *The cortisol connection: Why stress makes you fat and ruins your health - And what you can do about it* (pp. 120-122). Hunter House.

# Answer
> 4 votes
Coming in super late to this one, but I think Nick's answer only gets at one side of the equation. He's suggesting that sadness might cause stomach pain (somatization), which is likely true.

However, it's also possible that stomach pain causes negative affect (in a non-trivial way, independent of the affect associated with the pain itself). That is, stomach pain represents an allostatic (cf. homeostatic) deviation, and affect is the mental representation of that deviation. So if something bad is happening in your body that your brain does not predict, this is represented mentally as negative affect. Indeed, that's the function of affect--to represent bodily allostasis and motivate action to maintain it.

---
Tags: emotion, pain
---


# Question
Title: Difference between Instinct and Intuition
Sometimes I've heard people using the term *gut feeling* rather than their 'intuition or instinct' and I'm not sure which one do they mean. So, can both the terms be used interchangeably and simply referred to as a 'gut feeling'? Is there a real difference between Instinct and Intuition?

# Answer
> 14 votes
**Intuition**, as defined by Wikipedia:

> Intuition may be defined as understanding or knowing without conscious recourse to thought, observation or reason.

Intuition is currently understood to be the subliminal processing of information that is too complex for rational thought, e.g. mate choice. The processes that make up intuition are learned, not innate.

**Instinct** is not a feeling, but an innate, "hardwired" tendency toward a particular behavior. Instincts are automatic reactions to environmental stimuli that cannot be repressed and occur in every individual of a species. The current opinion in psychology (since Maslow) is that human beings have no instincts.

A **Gut Feeling**, according to the reference, arises from intuition.

# Answer
> 5 votes
Instinct - a motor response initiated by the body totally controlled by an external stimulus. An instinct is by definition, a behavior.

Intuition - A sudden alignment of neuronal pathways that joins weakly associated concepts, ideas, facts, into a neuronal network that pulls conscious selective attention skills away from current activities. May induce a positive somatic reaction estbalishing a pleasuraable experience from the thought or idea.

In more colloquial terms (e.g. woman's intuition) its activation of an established network in response to multiple external stimuli that alone would not draw attention. However, it is still a cognitive process whereas instinct is a behavioral process. This should help:

The setting was all wrong, his intuition was telling him this was a set-up. Suddenly it all made sense, the ill fitting uniform on the guard, the broken security camera, the elevator being out of order, instinctively he dropped to the floor and reached for his gun" - intuition - thought resulting from multiple stimuli meaningless on their own, instinct ; immediate reaction WITHOUT forethought.

# Answer
> 1 votes
Instinct is neither learned nor developmental behavior. Intuition is awareness outside of conscious searching or conscious algorithmic behavior. Autonomous activity is a reflex or heart beating that is automatic (may be a conditioned responding).

# Answer
> -4 votes
★★★★★INSTINCTS★★★★★

If the “hunger instinct” and the “sex instinct” are in fact instincts, then one can deduce instinct to be: “ a biological force that has the capability to produce a periodical biological urge of a particular type."

According to this theory, the following is the list of the instincts that are present in men and women: 1. Respiratory instincts - instinct of inspiration and instinct of expiration. 2. Hunger instinct. 3. Thirst instinct. 4. Defecation instinct. 5. Urinary instinct. 6. Blinking instinct (of the eyes during waking). 7. Instinct of sleep. 8. Orgasm instinct (in grown-ups), commonly known as the sex instinct. The orgasm instinct periodically produces an urge for orgasmic ejaculation.

Besides the above-mentioned instincts, women also have the following special instincts: a) Instinct of menstruation.

b) Instinct of ovulation and pregnancy. c) Birth-giving instinct in pregnant women. d) Lactation instinct in nursing mothers.

Three of these special instincts make women biologically superior to men in the propagation and survival of the human race!

---
Tags: terminology, unconscious, intuition
---


# Question
Title: What is the prevalence of lifelong, early onset, chronic depression?
What is the prevalence in the general population?

# Answer
From Wikipedia, with dysthymia being another word for "chronic depression":

> Globally dysthymia occurs in about 105 million people a year (1.5% of the population). It is slightly more common in women (1.8%) than in men (1.3%). The lifetime prevalence rate of dysthymia in community settings appears to range from 3 to 6% in the United States. However, in primary care settings the rate is higher ranging from 5 to 15 percent. United States prevalence rates tend to be somewhat higher than rates in other countries.
> 5 votes

---
Tags: depression
---


# Question
Title: How would slowed message over the reflex arc work?
Take, for example, a person with average reflexes/a normal reflex arc. The person touches an extremely hot stove and immediately pulls away. Slowing this event down, upon touching the stove, it takes 10 milliseconds to register the pain and then 10 milliseconds to pull away (made up numbers here — not realistic).

If this person's reflex arc was then altered to make the neural message take longer, would the timing be different between (1) afferent neurons and interneurons (e.g., 20ms to feel pain), (2) interneurons and efferent neurons (e.g., 20ms to pull away), or (3) both?

To add on to this: are both paths mentioned above linked together or can they be lengthened/shortened independently?

# Answer
A prototypical reflex arc just consist of two or three neurons, an afferent (sensory) neuron, possibly one or more interneuron(s), and an efferent (motor) neuron. A reflex arc is a rather direct connection, e.g. just from the sensory organ to the spinal chord and from there to the effector organ – it does not involve processing by the higher parts of the nervous system. To answer your second question: **this is one path, consisting of two or more parts (two or more neurons)**.

It is conceivable that some manipulation would change the reaction time. If we could e.g. somehow replace one of the three neurons with a longer version, the reaction time would somehow grow, and since there are several neurons, their processing time might indeed be manipulated individually. It would not really matter which one of the neurons was manipulated, or if more than one would be manipulated. The total additional reaction time would be the sum of the individual additional reaction times.

To answer your first question: **at which of the three neurons the signal were to take longer (»the timing would be different«) would depend upon which one of them was previously manipulated**.

There are reflexes that involve more complex neural structure, but nothing like (conscious) bodily feelings/pain.

The withdrawal reflex that you mention is likewise based on receptors in the skin that through their relatively direct linkage with motor neurons can effect a withdrawal reaction without any (consciously) perceived heat or pain.
> 0 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, pain
---


# Question
Title: What is the optimal mean correct on a multiple choice test in order to maximise the measurement of individual differences?
What is the optimal mean correct on a multiple choice test item in order to maximise the measurement of individual differences?

# Answer
> 1 votes
My understanding is that in general a percentage correct of 50% is optimal where there is no scope for guessing. However, on multiple choice tests there is a certain number of response options. Thus, the probability of getting the correct answer if you know nothing, is one over the number of response options.

In this case I believe that the optimum is:

$$1/k + \frac{1 - 1/k}{2}$$

where k is the number of response options.

So the optimum for different values of k would be:

* k = 2: optimum proportion correct = 0.75
* k = 3: optimum proportion correct = 0.67
* k = 4: optimum proportion correct = 0.625
* k is infinite: optimum proportion correct = 0.50

That said, I'd still like to find the classic references where I obtained these ideas from. And I imagine item-response theory might have a little more to say about this, particularly regarding the common recommendation to vary the proportion correct over a range.

Furthermore, none of the above recommendations address the issue that setting the difficulty at the above level for most items can be intimidating for some test takers.

---
Tags: measurement, test, educational-psychology
---


# Question
Title: How many words are toddlers "making up"?
My 20-month old has learned many words to express herself. In addition she says many other words that are indecipherable from context nor pronunciation. It's most noticeable in novel or unusual situations.

Is she inventing words to express the new or not-yet-learned situation? If so, (until she learns the "correct" word), will she continue to use the invented word for a while, or will she invent a different word should the situation recur? What does the literature in developmental psychology have to say about this?

# Answer
> 1 votes
From my knowledge. Children do make up words and sounds that feel similar to the ones they are intended to mean. However, as the child develops these pseudo-words begin to disappear. New temporary replacement words may form as they begin to understand that they are not using the correct words. However, developmentally a child should be **speaking in full sentences by about 3 years old** and definitely by 4 years old. They will most likely continue to have problems with various connecting words, plurals, and saying words how they appear to sound (even if they say them wrong).

**It helps with their learning to** break down words into syllables so that they can grasp how each sound works together to form the words that you are using to communicate with them. I'll see if I can find my old developmental psychology book to back this up more, but I'm going on a class I took years ago. That and watching 3 kids move through the stages (got a 22 month old, 3, and 7 year old myself).

---
Tags: learning, developmental-psychology, language
---


title: Do synapses have special types?

text:
# Question
Title: Do synapses have special types?
I assume synapses/dendrites/axons are relations which connect one entity/neuron to another, for example:

* a car is a vehicle: "is" relation
* Bob has a sister: "has" relation
* etc.

I would just imagine that when car is fired it would activate the connected neuron vehicle. But how does the brain differentiate between the relation types? What makes it "know" that a car "is" a vehicle and not "has" a vehicle?

# Answer
> 2 votes
This question seems to be asking "How is knowledge represented in neurons" and then jumps to the assumption "synapses represents relations". As discussed in the linked question, there is a lot of evidence that this method of binding is not biologically plausible, given that it doesn't scale well to the level of human vocabulary.

So, to answer your question, it is hypothesised that there are "special" synapses to do certain operations/relations, however the model you seem to be holding in your mind is incorrect. For more information, please check out "How to Build a Brain" by Chris Eliasmith or the other reference below.

**Reference**

Eric Crawford, Matthew Gingerich, and Chris Eliasmith. Biologically plausible, human-scale knowledge representation. In *35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society*, 412–417. 2013.

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


# Question
Title: Other emotions relative to angry/happy base emotions
In my layman's experience, I'm vaguely aware there are four base emotions: **happy, sad, afraid/surprised, and angry/disgusted**.

Some background: We're training an AI to learn the difference between happy voices and angry voices. We've had some success, by showing it 200 **angry** audio clips, 200 **happy** audio clips, and 200 **neutral**. It can now reasonably tell when we're talking pleasantly or confrontationally... but the accuracy could be better.

Our total training dataset is made up of these audio clips: **Happy, angry, neutral, calm, sad, fearful, disgust, and surprised**. I think we can be more accurate by including these emotions.

But this is the problem:

Happy/angry/neutral span opposite ends of a spectrum; like binary. It's easy to say:

```
Happy     1
Neutral   0
Angry    -1

```

That's the shape of the data we need to train a neural network to recognize 'Happy'.

So the question would be, is there any 'right answer' on filling in these blanks? I've given it my best guesses below, but I'm hoping for something more scientific....

```
Happy     1
Angry    -1
Neutral   0
Calm      X  (0.5?)
Sad       X  (-1?)
Fearful   X  (-0.5?)
Disgust   X  (-0.75?)
Surprised X  (0.75?)

```

<sub> 1: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/new-research-says-there-are-only-four-emotions/283560/ </sub>

# Answer
> 1 votes
As I mentioned in the comments, the tool we're using is pyAudioAnalysis. The tool's author, Theodoros Giannakopoulos, also wrote an earlier paper "A dimensional approach to emotion recognition of speech from movies"

This "Emotion Wheel" from that paper appears to be exactly what I was looking for:

It's also worth mentioning, maybe, that this later paper seems to describe all the specific characteristics that pyAudioAnalysis analyzes: "signal energy, entropy of energy, zero crossing rate, spectral centroid, spectral flux, Mel Frequency Cepstral Coefficients, Chroma-based features, etc."

---
Tags: emotion, reference-request, neural-network, artificial-intelligence
---


# Question
Title: Were the subjects in the Stanford prison experiment randomly assigned to the study?
The Stanford prison experiment tested what would happen when a group of subjects was pushed in the role of prisoner, while a second group was assigned the role of guards. Within merely a day or so, the guards started to harass the prisoners, humiliate them and made the prisoners physically and mentally suffer, forcing them to cleaning out toilet bowls with their bare hands, do push-ups, jumping jacks and what not.

Now I am wondering - how can normal people turn so evil? Were the assigned guards tested for any existing psychological problems prior to the experiment, or were they randomly chosen? In general, how *did* the researchers choose the subjects?

# Answer
The subjects in this experiment were randomly assigned in two groups (prisoner versus guard). They were all healthy and without any identified psychological issues. I quote from the Setting-Up page of your linked website:

> We wanted to see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. To do this, we decided to set up a simulated prison and then carefully note the effects of this institution on the behavior of all those within its walls.
>
> More than 70 applicants answered our ad and were given **diagnostic interviews** and **personality tests** to **eliminate candidates with psychological problems**, **medical disabilities**, or a **history of crime or drug abuse**. Ultimately, we were left with a sample of 24 college students from the U.S. and Canada who happened to be in the Stanford area and wanted to earn $15/day by participating in a study. On all dimensions that we were able to test or observe, they reacted normally.
>
> Our study of prison life began, then, with an **average group of healthy, intelligent, middle-class males**. These boys were arbitrarily divided into two groups by a flip of the coin. Half were randomly assigned to be guards, the other to be prisoners.

Note that people can do pretty nasty stuff under experimental conditions. For instance, take the **Milgram experiment**. In this experiment, actors were placed behind a closed door. They would be faking a test subject being electrocuted up until the point of agony. The real test subjects were instructed that they would be helping in an experiment where the effect of punishment through electric shocks would be tested in a learning task. The actors had to answer questions and when they were wrong, the test subjects were instructed to deliver increasingly stronger electrical shocks by pushing a button, until the trainee would improve their performance on the task. This experiment ended up with people consciously electrocuting innocent volunteers. Although everything was faked behind the scenes, it did show that regular, healthy test subjects obediently followed the instructions of the authorative experimenter when instructed to increase the voltage and electrocute the person behind the door, even when the actor was screaming in agony and explaining having a heart rhythm disorder.

Note that both the Milgram experiment and the Stanford study have been questioned because of lack of scientific rigor (Grigs, 2018; Texier, 2019).

<sub>**References**
**-** Grigs, *Teaching Psychol* (2017)); **44**(1): 32-7
**-** Texier, *Am Psychol* (2019); **74**(7): 823-39</sub>
> 8 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, abnormal-psychology
---


# Question
Title: Why do we have so much neurological research on and treatment designed for dyslexia, yet less so for dyscalculia?
I know next to nothing about intervention methods designed for dyscalculia, or 'dyslexia with numbers', as I have heard it colloquially referred to (considering how obscure the term seems to be compared to its language-related twin). I have also read that dyslexia and dyscalculia often occur in conjunction, and both seem to affect the population at equal rates. Yet I can find far more literature and neurological research on dyslexia than on dyscalculia.

**Is there a reason for this?** And what do we know about dyscalculia from a neurological standpoint, as well as a treatment standpoint? (By 'neurological standpoint', I mean what do we know about neurological causes and/or areas of the brain that appear to be affected in those with dyscalculia)

# Answer
> 1 votes
This website http://www.aboutdyscalculia.org/causes.html provides answers to some of the questions you posed, although I am not sure it is the most up to date information. I would always advise one to do research on more scientific grounds. From my perspective, dyslexia has also been more studied than dyscalculia as its impact in academics seem more easily perceived thus easier to diagnose. Furthermore, I think that there is a social component to the issue as people often accept with ease someone struggling with mathematics but respond with more preoccupation towards difficulties with reading and spelling. I leave you one article that may be helpful to you. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3514770/

---
Tags: learning, abnormal-psychology, mathematical-psychology, mathematical-ability
---


# Question
Title: What causes the spokes of a Wagon Wheel to "move"(rotate) in the opposite direction of the Wagon Wheel itself?
Is it my mind's eye that is the problem or is this a "artifact" of the film? I would think it was my mind's eye as the medium of film is purely analog and not a digital representation that exists to conform to "what should be" and not in fact what is visually seen.

# Answer
This happens when the wheel is observed as an image through a projector or with light shining on it that is periodically blinking. What you are seeing is essentially the additive effects of two periodic functions, the first is the period of the light flicker and the second is the period of the wheel rotation.

So, if the wheel is rotating at a frequency that is evenly divisible by the frequency of the light, then the spokes appear to be standing still. If it is rotating faster, then they are appear to be moving in one direction. If it is rotating slower, then it appears to be moving in the other.

Under household lighting, the light pulses are at 60 Hz. The frame rate of movie cameras is usually 24 Hz.
> 4 votes

# Answer
As John and Robin mentioned above, it relates to the superimposition of periodic functions. These functions can be an oscillating light source such as 60HZ AC lighting (power plants deliver electrical energy as oscillations to avoid the increased resistance presented by direct current), an oscillating image capture device such as a video camera, or the neuronal oscillations in your retina and primary visual cortex.

Let's start by going through the example where the "reverse spoke illusion" is caused by the interaction of the rotation and neural oscillation. We can then generalize this to all the forms of this illusion.

You perceive rotational motion when your eye "takes pictures" of a rotating object (we'll use a clockwise-rotating wheel with a single spoke for simplicity) as it moves. If the spokes in each picture are slightly clockwise of the spokes in the last picture, then higher order visual processing areas in your brain infer that the cause of this systematic difference in successive images is the physical rotation of the wheel. You experience this accordingly.

However, your brain only takes these pictures so fast. If the wheel is rotating slowly, the successive images are very similar, and it is easy to infer the clockwise rotation of the wheel from the series of small differences in spoke position. However, as the wheel spins faster and faster, the spokes travel farther and farther between pictures (the rate at which these pictures are taken is relatively fixed.) Because the wheel is rotating, it is a periodic function. Every time the wheel rotates once, it is in the same position it was in before. As the wheel continues to spin faster, the rate at which pictures are taken is exactly the same as the rotational period of the wheel. At this point, each picture will look exactly the same, because the wheel will be in the same position at each picture. The wheel will then appear to be fixed and not moving at all. At other speeds, each picture will be taken when the wheel spoke is slightly *behind* (counterclockwise of) where it was in the last picture. Since the brain infers motion by the relative distance between pictures, it will take this to mean that the wheel is traveling in the opposite direction!

This effect is multiplied by the number of spokes in the wheel. If the spokes are visually indistinguishable, then this period at which the wheel looks the same is the time it takes the wheel to rotate once divided by the number of spokes. A 5-spoked wheel will only need to spin 1/5th as fast for the same effect to occur.

You can now imagine how this phenomenon would present itself in other contexts with interacting oscillations. In the case of household lighting, the oscillations of the electric current effectively serve as the times at which pictures are taken (although this is a little more complicated because there are three sets of oscillations interacting, since your brain is still only taking pictures at a certain speed.) The same occurs when a digital or film camera takes pictures at a certain frequency.

These articles go into more depth on the scientific research that has been done on this phenomenon: Wikipedia article, a relevant research paper.

These pages are nice because they build a little more intuition for the effects of superimposition and convolution of periodic functions: math page, acoustics as an example.

Let me know if you could use some visual illustrations of the effect.
> 1 votes

---
Tags: cognitive-psychology, spatial-cognition
---


# Question
Title: Using a Linear Non-linear Cascade with a Non-Random (deterministic) Stimulus
I'm attempting to use a computational model, in particular a linear non-linear cascade (LNP) to encode the spiking of a neuron responding to a thermal stimulus. In a LNP, it assumes that the stimulus is 'radially symmetric' \[1\], for example having a Gaussian probability distribution. However, is it possible to use a LNP model (or another well known encoding model) when the stimulus is deterministic? The stimulus I'm using is a ramping thermal stimulus.

\[1\] Chichilnisky EJ (2001) A simple white noise analysis of neuronal light responses. Network (Bristol, England) 12: 199–213.

# Answer
The short answer is yes. The longer answer involves a more precise meaning of deterministic and a number of research considerations.

In the strict sense of deterministic, which means that given the same input, the same output will always occur, any probability distribution modeled on a computer is deterministic, since most digital computers have a deterministic instruction set. However, this isn't quite relevant for your task, since the samples from the distribution that your model sees are largely uncorrelated with the model properties, making them appear random *to the model.*

Researchers often use probabilistic or stochastic stimuli because they are the simplest option and because they do not want to introduce a number of potential biases that occur when the model interacts with or entrains to specific patterns in deterministic stimuli. Such patterns would produce effects that are not representative of the general properties of the model, which may be misleading. Introducing a probability distribution therefore becomes a simple way to explore more of the state space of the model. Additional reasons why people introduce noise (through a stochastic stimulus) include the fact that real neurons tend to exist in noisy environments (modeling considerations), and the fact that some kinds of proofs about model performance are easier to perform for probabilistic stimuli.

Your choice as to whether you want to use a deterministic stimulus depends largely on your goals in this research project. Do you want to know what happens when the model sees a specific pattern? Do you care if this pattern has noise in it? Do you want to perform mathematical proofs? Do you care about perturbation stability (some deterministic models may falsely appear stable because they are not moved off of their tiny equilibrium point by noise)? What process are you modeling?

Given these considerations, you should be able to choose what kind of stimulus to use. Your model will accept many kinds of stimuli as input, but the choice of stimulus affects what you will learn from the specific simulation.
> 2 votes

---
Tags: theoretical-neuroscience, computational-modeling, linear-mixed-model
---


title: Membrane resistance of a neuron

text:
# Question
Title: Membrane resistance of a neuron
I am about to simulate a neuron activity with the "Leaky Integrate and Fire" neuron model. But for that I need the membrane resistance. I was really looking a lot online, but I just cant find a value. Does anybody know the measured resistance value, or the value usually used in this model?

# Answer
If there is literature that you are building off of or comparing your approach to, I would look in their papers to see what values they used and use the same. This is the standard approach, as it yields easily comparable experimental results.

If you are just looking for some ballpark numbers for less formal research, these guys used 1 mΩ, these guys did the same, and these guys say they use 10 MΩ (I think they might mean mΩ). If you want, you can also tune the model by altering this parameter until it yields expected behaviors you are looking for under conditions where you know how the model performs. Different kinds of neurons have different resistance. It's hard to be more specific without knowing more details about what you want to do.
> 6 votes

---
Tags: neuroscience, electrophysiology
---


# Question
Title: What is the role of (why )universal gas constant in Nernst equation?
The Nernst equation is an equation that relates the the total voltage, i.e. the electromotive force, of the full cell at any point in time to the standard electrode potential, temperature, activity, and reaction quotient of the underlying reactions and species used. I have been wondering why Universal gas constant (R) is included in Nernst and Goldmann equations while describing the steady state of membrane potential?

# Answer
> 6 votes
As in the ideal gas law, the universal gas constant allows for calculation of amount of energy associated with a certain group of molecules (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas\_constant). As the Nernst equation compares the "osmotic pressure" to "electrical pressure", the universal gas constant is needed to convert amount of an ion on the two sides of a membrane ("osmotic concentrations") to the amount of energy associated with that concentration differential ("osmotic pressure").

Carefully looking at the units of all of the constituents of the equation can help clear things up. R is in units of J / (mol * degree), and V is J/coulomb. zF in the denominator gets you your coulombs.
In short, both the left and right sides of the equation are more or less measures of energy. R converts amounts of ions to the energy associated with their osmotic pressure so that it can be compared with the electrical energy associated with their charge.

---
Tags: neuroscience, theoretical-neuroscience, electrophysiology
---


# Question
Title: Does dopamine signal become stronger when goal distance is defined using time?
Howe et al (2013) found that a dopamine signal becomes stronger as a goal is approached. The experiment involved rats running in a maze. If the rats were close to solving the maze, the dopamine signal became strong. The intensity of this signal did not depend on how fast the rats completed the maze.

Goal distance was defined in terms of space and distance (i.e. how far a rat was from the end of the maze). **Would this dopamine signal also become stronger if the goal distance was defined using time instead?** ***More specifically, if the rats were under some type of time pressure, would their dopamine signals become stronger?***

**Source**

Mark W. Howe, Patrick L. Tierney, Stefan G. Sandberg, Paul E. M. Phillips, Ann M. Graybiel. Prolonged dopamine signalling in striatum signals proximity and value of distant rewards. Nature, 2013

# Answer
> 2 votes
Hamid et al. Mesolimbic dopamine signals the value of work. Nature Neuroscience 2016. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v19/n1/full/nn.4173.html

Here is a paper that argues that dopamine signals discounted value of future returns. This is precisely what you are asking.

the authors argue, that if rewards are further away in time or space, they are discounted, and that DA release in the ventral striatum is more strongly related to this discounted value than prediction errors (current dominant theory of DA function).

I think you should take a moment to read it! It is a seminal paper that makes a profound point about dopamine function, very neatly unifying previously disparate ideas of what the hell is DA good for.

# Answer
> 1 votes
EDIT: Note: **This is an answer in progress, as trying to answer your specific question has led me to finding the answer to many other questions around it, but not that specific one.**

---

Well, when one is in the process of completing a task where they pass by, say, measurable goals, then that's just pure reinforcement and you can literally feel the dopamine pumping through your brain towards the finish line each step you take...especially as you get closer and closer towards the finish line. Everyone has experienced that.

Which actually leads me to another interesting hypothesis, I bet the graph for the dopamine signal of these rats was exponential, wasn't it? I'll go look at the graphs now and check....I seriously havn't looked at them before this. And here they are:

Yup, exponential curves. Interesting the DA \[nM\] had quite a bit slower rate of acceleration of sloping up than its partner, the shorter timed one.

**Whoa, you know what's weird**....(and I"m sure they mentioned this in the study too) it looks like the brains of these rats actually know where they are at in the maze after a certain common point - which looks like around 2 seconds) and then the brain increases the signal to just the right spot so that it makes that curve which is like a predefined function in their heads (you could totally regress that) so it will eventually hit a specific point at just the right spot, Nearly the same spot as the rat that had the shorter test. It's a little higher, but not that much. I wonder why there's a big peak and then a drop very end though For that lower orange one.

You know, maybe the implications for that big tip at the end right before the finish line for the orange bottom rat with the long term test could represent our (humans) misrepresentation of how we will actually feel once we accomplish a long term goal and maybe realize that it wasn't as great as we thought it would be...like getting a new car maybe. Traveling. Etc. Maybe the rat just did not perceive the work he had to put in for the longer course to be a fair trade for whatever reward, if there was any reward at the end o the test.

He saw his small plate of cheese and disappointment filled his psyched as he approached it.... :(

Great great study. I bookmarked it, then went to pubmed and realized there are HUNDREDS of studies similar to this, some even in humans, many in monkeys.

**Unfortunately I couldn't find what you wanted specifically (although I did find several potential derivatives) and I gotta go to sleep - super tired. I focused more on the studies done in monkeys, which there are a ton of, even though you asked about rats due to the fact that I believe you would like a citation with a mammal closer to humans if possible.

So here's where I left off at: just keep going through the citations on the side. If anyone wants to build upon my unfinished answer with their own answer by using the research I did, feel free to. This is the way academia works most of the time anyways.**

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2329364

Neuron. 2005 Jul 7;47(1):129-41. Midbrain dopamine neurons encode a quantitative reward prediction error signal. Bayer HM, Glimcher PW. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15996553

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Sep 13;108(37):15462-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014457108. Epub 2011 Sep 6. Dopamine neurons learn to encode the long-term value of multiple future rewards. Enomoto K, Matsumoto N, Nakai S, Satoh T, Sato TK, Ueda Y, Inokawa H, Haruno M, Kimura M. Source Department of Physiology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto 602-8566, Japan. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896766

Science. 2008 Sep 19;321(5896):1690-2. doi: 10.1126/science.1160873. Reward-predictive cues enhance excitatory synaptic strength onto midbrain dopamine neurons. Stuber GD, Klanker M, de Ridder B, Bowers MS, Joosten RN, Feenstra MG, Bonci A. Source Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, Emeryville, CA 94608, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18802002

Nature. 2008 Jun 26;453(7199):1253-7. doi: 10.1038/nature06963. Epub 2008 May 11. Rapid strengthening of thalamo-amygdala synapses mediates cue-reward learning. Tye KM, Stuber GD, de Ridder B, Bonci A, Janak PH. Source Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center, University of California, San Francisco, Emeryville, California 94608, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469802

J Neurosci. 1993 Mar;13(3):900-13. Responses of monkey dopamine neurons to reward and conditioned stimuli during successive steps of learning a delayed response task. Schultz W, Apicella P, Ljungberg T. Source Institut de Physiologie, Université de Fribourg, Switzerland. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8441015

Neuroscience. 2001;103(1):65-85. Modeling functions of striatal dopamine modulation in learning and planning. Suri RE, Bargas J, Arbib MA. Source USC Brain Project, Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520, USA. suri@salk.edu http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11311788

J Neurophysiol. 1990 Mar;63(3):607-24. Dopamine neurons of the monkey midbrain: contingencies of responses to stimuli eliciting immediate behavioral reactions. Schultz W, Romo R. Source Institut de Physiologie, Université de Fribourg, Switzerland. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2329364

PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 May;7(5):e1001133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001133. Epub 2011 May 12. An imperfect dopaminergic error signal can drive temporal-difference learning. Potjans W, Diesmann M, Morrison A. Source Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Computational and Systems Neuroscience, Research Center Jülich, Jülich, Germany. w.potjans@fz-juelich.de http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21589888

Eur J Neurosci. 2000 May;12(5):1801-16. Influence of the predicted time of stimuli eliciting movements on responses of tonically active neurons in the monkey striatum. Sardo P, Ravel S, Legallet E, Apicella P. Source Laboratoire de Neurobiologie Cellulaire et Fonctionnelle, CNRS, 31 Chemin Joseph Aiguier, 13402 Marseille cedex 20, France. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10792457

---

---
Tags: cognitive-neuroscience, animal-cognition, goals, dopamine
---