Question:
Can our beliefs change without reassessment or new evidence?

I think the strength of our beliefs can change, say from 90-95% as the day wore on. But do people, people with or without psychosis, start and stop believing things without reasons?

Suppose when I stop and think I always know something is impossible. Does that mean, even in the throes of some irrational behaviour (I sleep with my cheating wife again), I know it is, at least without encountering new evidence to the contrary?

Explanation: To verify a claim, we need to find convincing evidence, e.g., scientific paper; To disprove it, we need to find counter-examples. The document provides a counter-example that can show beliefs can change without reassessment or new evidence.

$\begingroup$

Anyone can choose to change their beliefs without reassessment or new evidence
at any time.

These choices can be made without reasons, assessment and reassessment but at
the same time, they **can** involve reasons, assessment and reassessment.
Again, there is a choice on whether to assess and/or reassess.

There are many [ cognitive biases and heuristics which can be in play
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Belief,_decision-
making_and_behavioral) .

As an example, you can be presented with evidence contradicting preconceived
ideas and initially change your beliefs. But, if you later apply, say, [
confirmation bias ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) —

> The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in
> a way that confirms one's preconceptions

because you maybe don't want to believe the opposite, you may stick with the
previous beliefs and go on the search for evidence to back up your
preconceptions.

See the full list of [ cognitive biases and heuristics which can be in play
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases#Belief,_decision-
making_and_behavioral) because:

> Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm and/or
> rationality in judgment.

Above all, you cannot change your beliefs without wanting to.

For example, a devout Christian would not want to disbelieve something written
in the Bible. But, if they were presented with contradictory evidence, they
have a choice.

Do they just shrug it off and disbelieve that false information is in the good
book? Or, do they at least start to doubt it's accuracies?

If they start to doubt the Bible, do they look at the evidence and believe it,
or do they try to discredit it with stronger evidence, which backs the
biblical account?

If they don't find it, what do they believe?

There may be unconscious biases in play with some beliefs ( [ Marcelin, et al.
2019 ](https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz214) , [ Fiarman, 2016
](http://files.partnership-
academy.net/200002623-049ce0690e/Unconscious%20Bias_Educational%20Leadership.pdf)
, [ Page, 2009
](https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1379&context=faculty_publications)
) but, ultimately there are choices involved.

##  References

Fiarman, S. E. (2016). Unconscious bias: When good intentions aren’t enough.
_Educational Leadership, 74_ (3), 10-15. [ http://files.partnership-
academy.net/200002623-049ce0690e/Unconscious%20Bias_Educational%20Leadership.pdf
](http://files.partnership-
academy.net/200002623-049ce0690e/Unconscious%20Bias_Educational%20Leadership.pdf)

Marcelin, J. R., Siraj, D. S., Victor, R., Kotadia, S., & Maldonado, Y. A.
(2019). The impact of unconscious bias in healthcare: how to recognize and
mitigate it. _The Journal of infectious diseases, 220_ (Supplement_2), S62-S73
[ https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz214
](https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz214)

Page, A. (2009). Unconscious bias and the limits of director independence.
_University of Illinois Law Review_ , 237-294. [
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/unilllr2009&div=9&id=&page=
](https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/unilllr2009&div=9&id=&page=)


Question:
Why can't MEG distinguish EPSPs and IPSPs?

I see this fact stated in many places that discuss the basis of the MEG signal but it's never been made completely clear why MEG can't distinguish IPSPs and EPSPs. Please could someone elaborate?

Thanks

Explanation: We need to understand how the MEG works and the nature of IPSPs

$\begingroup$

Two reasons:

First, currents create a magnetic signal that is measured by MEG; from the
perspective of the MEG, there isn't any meaning to whether ions are moving
into cells or out of them, or whether the ions moving are positive or
negative, just that there is some net charge moving a particular direction.
Same for EEG. If you can connect a particular waveform to a particular event
in the brain through other means, though, you may be able to infer that a
given signal is primarily excitatory or inhibitory, but not directly from MEG
itself. The Wikipedia article on MEG talks a bit about how this all works and
how some level of synchrony is necessary for MEG to work: [
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography) Mostly, it works
because of the orientation of neurons and flow within dendrites rather than
across membranes. Here's a paint-quality diagram:

[ ![Current flow](https://i.sstatic.net/pghGx.png)
](https://i.sstatic.net/pghGx.png)

On the left, positive ions enter a dendrite (black arrows). This causes a net
positive flow down the dendrite (red solid arrow). On the right, negative ions
enter a dendrite somewhere else (black arrows). This causes a net positive
flow in the same direction. MEG is measuring synchronous red solid arrow
current flow over many many of these parallel dendrites.

Second, most IPSPs in the brain are [ shunting inhibition
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunting_inhibition) ; they don't create much
net current or voltage change at all, rather they help to maintain membrane
potential near the chloride reversal which is near a typical rest potential.

In any event, the things that MEG or EEG measure are typically rhythmic brain
activity, and we know this sort of activity results from a combination of
inhibition and excitation anyways. So, while it's true that one can't directly
measure EPSPs or IPSPs, that's not at all what these techniques measure. It's
sort of like saying that a scale can't tell you how tall you are.


Question:
Why do fNIRS devices commonly use two different frequencies?

One of the most common techniques used for functional neuroimaging nowadays is functional near infra-red spectroscopy (fun fact: IIRC Natalie Portman worked on a research paper involving fNIRS as the modality), which shines near infrared light into the brain from a source to a detector (both called optodes) in a "banana" shape.

It's not uncommon to read that most of these devices, be they continuous wave (CW) or one of the two kinds that involve fast modulation, frequency domain (FD) or time domain (TD), require two separate frequencies to be emitted. For instance, NIRx explains it as follows on their website:

"For neuro-imaging applications it is by far most common to illuminate with two discrete wavelength, which is the minimum requirement to assess relative variations of both oxygenation states of the hemoglobin molecule independently."

Why is that the case?

I haven't delved into the intricacies of it, but no reason immediately jumps out at me. For instance, in the case of CW, the relative difference in intensity is all that matters, so why do we need two frequencies?

Explanation: In solving the matrix equation of measurements for HbO2 and Hb in a dual wavelength system, we will need the two frequencies.

$\begingroup$

Basically, you have two unknowns, so you need two equations.

From [ Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_near-
infrared_spectroscopy) :

> Using a dual wavelength system, measurements for HbO2 and Hb can be solved
> from the matrix equation

[ ![fnirs matrix equation](https://i.sstatic.net/8SGx6.png)
](https://i.sstatic.net/8SGx6.png)

With just one measurement, you could still describe relative changes in the
signal over time, but you wouldn't be able to measure the ratio of the two.
That might be sufficient within a given experiment, but wouldn't result in
numbers that you could compare to other recordings. Each recording is going to
have a distinct signal-to-noise ratio based on things like the amount of
tissue you're imaging through: most of the light is going to be lost no matter
what the signal is.


Question:
What are the biological reasons for hearing loss?

I recently stumbled upon an interesting online hearing test on YouTube, and it got me thinking about the root causes of hearing loss. I'm curious about the main contributing factors behind the loss of our hearing range as we age.

Is this degradation primarily linked to the loss of gray or white matter in our brains, indicating a neurological issue, or is it predominantly associated with the wear and tear of some other biological input mechanisms within our auditory system?

Explanation: The hearing loss is likely to be related to the inner/outer hair cells

$\begingroup$

**Short answer**
Age-related hearing loss is caused by the loss of hair cells in the inner ear,
i.e., in the peripheral nervous system.

**Background**
Hearing declines with age and, typically, high frequencies are affected first
( [ Kujawa & Liberman, 2006
](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/7/2115.full.pdf+html) ). **Age-related
hearing loss** is progressive: it starts at the higher frequencies and
progresses over the years to lower frequencies as a person ages. The decline
in hearing sensitivity is mainly caused by the **[ loss of hair cells
](https://www.bcm.edu/healthcare/specialties/ear-nose-and-throat/for-
patients/how-ear-works/inner-and-outer-hair-cells) ** . Hair cells are sensory
cells in the inner ear that convert acoustic vibrations into electrical
signals. These signals are transmitted to the brain via the auditory nerve.
Because of this, age-related hearing loss is a type of **sensorineural hearing
loss** .

Because of the **tonotopic organization** of the inner ear (the _cochlea_ )
one can conclude that age-related HL develops from the basal to apical region.
The following schematic of the cochlea from [ Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
](https://www.britannica.com/science/inner-ear) nicely shows the cochlear
tonotopy (i.e., high frequencies in the base, low frequencies in the apex);

![cochlea](https://i.sstatic.net/ERAIB.jpg)

Why the basal regions are more sensitive is a topic of debate. It may be that
sounds enter there first, or because toxins are more readily absorbed basally
than apically.

If hearing loss persists over the course of years, the associated secondary
neurons in the auditory nerve may slowly degenerate [ (Stronks _et al_ .,
2011)
](https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FHuib_Versnel%2Fpublication%2F47660604_Effects_of_electrical_stimulation_on_the_acoustically_evoked_auditory-
nerve_response_in_guinea_pigs_with_a_high-
frequency_hearing_loss%2Flinks%2F0c96053cd1c55581f2000000&ei=JYe8VJjTO-
PPmwX_4oGQCA&usg=AFQjCNHO_pbdR5L3pW2btsnZGDdtEo-
iLA&sig2=S1nw5B9anvl__Iwy7eNgLA&bvm=bv.83829542,d.dGY) and accordingly,
because of neural plasticity, the deafferented cortical areas may be recruited
for other purposes (e.g. vision).

So in case of age-related hearing loss, it is the peripheral hair cells that
are lost first. There are other types of hearing loss where the degenerative
processes become apparent first in the auditory nerve, such as [ auditory
neuropathy
](https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/hearing-
loss-auditory-
neuropathy#:%7E:text=Auditory%20neuropathy%20is%20a%20rare%20type%20of%20hearing%20loss.,ranges%20from%20mild%20to%20severe.)
.

**References**
**-** [ _Encyclopedia Brittanica_ The-analysis-of-sound-frequencies-by-the-
basilar-membrane ](https://www.britannica.com/science/inner-ear)
**-** [ Kujawa & Liberman, _J Neurosci_ 2006; 26:2115-23
](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/7/2115.full.pdf+html)
**-** [ Stronks et al, Hear Res 2011; 272:95-107
](https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FHuib_Versnel%2Fpublication%2F47660604_Effects_of_electrical_stimulation_on_the_acoustically_evoked_auditory-
nerve_response_in_guinea_pigs_with_a_high-
frequency_hearing_loss%2Flinks%2F0c96053cd1c55581f2000000&ei=JYe8VJjTO-
PPmwX_4oGQCA&usg=AFQjCNHO_pbdR5L3pW2btsnZGDdtEo-
iLA&sig2=S1nw5B9anvl__Iwy7eNgLA&bvm=bv.83829542,d.dGY)


Question:
What is the term for the inability to see past one's own current emotional state?

I'm looking for a specific latin or greek word that describes something like the inability to empathize with emotions that are not in line with one's current affective state. It could probably be described as a temporary or permanent deficit in affective perspective-taking that occurs when a person feels that their current emotional state is the only possible state, and that it is permanent.

For example, when someone is experiencing negative affect for some reason and then proceeds to act as if their day, or even life, is ruined, and that this negative affective state is the new norm. Or when someone is experiencing positive affect for some reason and then naively believes that "it will always be like this," perhaps getting very distraught when the positive feelings eventually go away but at the same time not being able to see this pattern from the outside or take long-term steps to prevent this type of roller coaster dynamic from continuing to manifest.

I have consulted various psychology resources and literature online but have not been able to, again, find the term which accurately captures this concept. I've found the following terms, "emotional myopia", "emotional reasoning", "anosognosia", "presentism", "presentist bias", and "egocentrism", which I feel are fairly close. But, apart from "emotional myopia" and perhaps "affective presentism", I feel the concepts I have found are either too general (egocentrism, emotional reasoning) or incorrect (alexithymia, affective agnosia).

The specific term I have previously seen is a single greek or latin word and is very specific, like the term "anosognosia". As a caveat, it might be worth saying that the description and example of the phenomena above might be slightly, but not vastly, out of sync with the term I am looking for.

Explanation: This is related to hot-cold empathy gap and influences of visceral drives

$\begingroup$

This sounds like [ hot-cold empathy gap ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-
cold_empathy_gap) :

> For example, when one is angry, it is difficult to understand what it is
> like for one to be calm, and vice versa; when one is blindly in love with
> someone, it is difficult to understand what it is like for one not to be,
> (or to imagine the possibility of not being blindly in love in the future).

This is a type of intrapersonal (self-oriented) affective [ empathy gap
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_gap#Cognitive_empathy_gaps) :

> One's ability to perspective-take may be limited by one's current emotional
> state. ... People may either fail to accurately predict one's own
> preferences and decisions (intrapersonal empathy gaps), or to consider how
> others’ preferences might differ from one's own (interpersonal empathy
> gaps).


Question:
Are social anxiety disorder and selective mutism classified as communication disorders?

I've been trying to figure this out for a long time, but I don't understand much about classification of disorders and I feel uncertain after looking at the definitions. Based on what I've read, I think these don't qualify as communication disorders, but are instead anxiety disorders.

I've looked at this: https://www.asha.org/policy/rp1993-00208/ and this https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/communication-disorders

If I look at the the second one, it first gives this:

Communication disorders affect a person’s ability to detect, receive, process, and comprehend the concepts or symbols necessary for communication. It can affect hearing, language, and speech. Causes include neurological damage due to a stroke.

But then it gives this definition:

Communication disorders are a group of conditions involving problems with receiving, processing, sending, and comprehending various forms of information and communication.

On the surface, selective mutism and social anxiety disorder would seem to meet the criteria for involving "sending" information, even if they don't meet the other conditions.

And it would seem to me that articulation disorders also do not meet every criteria either, but are included.

An articulation disorder is the atypical production of speech sounds characterized by substitutions, omissions, additions or distortions that may interfere with intelligibility.

If I look at the ASHA definition, I can almost understand that social anxiety disorder would be excluded.

A communication disorder is an impairment in the ability to receive, send, process, and comprehend concepts or verbal, nonverbal and graphic symbol systems. A communication disorder may be evident in the processes of hearing, language, and/or speech. A communication disorder may range in severity from mild to profound. It may be developmental or acquired. Individuals may demonstrate one or any combination of communication disorders. A communication disorder may result in a primary disability or it may be secondary to other disabilities.

I can sort of understand why it would be useful to separate anxiety disorders from these, but I'm not very knowledgeable in psychology, so I was hoping someone could verify what the answer is.

Explanation: One thing to remember is that classification systems, especially in the field of psychology, are not absolute. All human brains search for patterns and attempt to label them in a way that makes it easier for us to understand a phenomena and talk about it with others. However, research indicates that this categorical diagnostic system is actually not even close to how psychological disorders present in reality. We want to put people into boxes (for example, "your symptoms are a communication disorder!", "yours are an anxiety disorder!") but reality doesn't care about our little boxes. So moral of my ramblings, I'd encourage you not to get too hung up on sorting these concepts into distinct boxes.

$\begingroup$

One thing to remember is that classification systems, _especially_ in the
field of psychology, are not absolute. All human brains search for patterns
and attempt to label them in a way that makes it easier for us to understand a
phenomena and talk about it with others. However, research indicates that this
categorical diagnostic system is actually not even close to how psychological
disorders present in reality. We want to put people into boxes (for example,
"your symptoms are a communication disorder!", "yours are an anxiety
disorder!") but reality doesn't care about our little boxes. So moral of my
ramblings, I'd encourage you not to get too hung up on sorting these concepts
into distinct boxes. Heres a little article from NAMI that touches on this
issue: [ https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/August-2021/The-Transdiagnostic-
Dimensional-Approach-Another-Way-of-Understanding-Mental-Illness
](https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/August-2021/The-Transdiagnostic-
Dimensional-Approach-Another-Way-of-Understanding-Mental-Illness)

To hopefully actually address your question, there is no physical or
neurological issue preventing an individual from detecting, processing, or
producing language in selective mutism or social anxiety. That is because the
lack of speech is not due to a problem with the sensory or communication parts
of the nervous system. The problem lies in anxiety. Kids with selective mutism
are perfectly capable of detecting, understanding, and producing speech. Many
of them won't talk at all in one setting, but will be little chatterboxes in
other settings, so long as they feel safe and comfortable there. It's the
anxiety that prevents them from speaking. If we remove anxiety, we remove the
communication difficulties.

HOWEVER, that's not to say that there can't be some co-occurring problem that
impacts speech IN ADDITION to the anxiety. Lots of kids with selective mutism
do also have some actual neurobiological communication difficulties.
Technically a diagnosis of a communication disorder rules out selective
mutism, but they can definitely co-occur, so long as you determine that the
anxiety is also a contributing factor (which kinda brings me back to my first
point about diagnoses. We see soooo much overlap between "different"
disorders, yet we consider them different disorders).

Here are a few scientific articles on issues with categorical classification
and diagnosis: [ https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-11035-001
](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-11035-001) [
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-12889-001
](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-12889-001) [
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mpr.284
](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/mpr.284)

Here are a few on selective mutism and social anxiety etiology and
comorbidities: [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861522/
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2861522/) [
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796716301115
](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796716301115) [
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-011-0201-7
](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11920-011-0201-7)


Question:
Where exactly do Emotions and Feelings arise in the human body?

Traditionally, the heart region was always associated with emotions and feelings in humans. But in one recent philosophy lecture I watched on Youtube, the orator said that the right brain is, in fact, the origin of emotions and the heart is just for pumping the blood.

In Yoga and many other traditional Eastern disciplines, the Chakra Theory is quite prevalent and the Anahata or the Heart chakra/meridian is quite strongly associated with emotions.

What is the stance of modern medical science on this? Can the source of all emotions be explained completely in the right hemisphere of the brain through neuroscience? Or is there any scientific backing for the linkage of Heart to emotions? Or such a discovery might be possible in future?

Explanation: This is related to somatic marker hypothesis which suggests there is a two-way interaction between brain and body for emotional experiences.

$\begingroup$

As far as we know, all the "thinking parts" are in the brain/central nervous
system. That includes emotions and feelings, which are labels for certain
cognitive experiences. Definitely not the "right brain", though, that's some
foolishness that seems to persist in pop science without any evidence. I
wouldn't recommend learning about the brain from someone who repeats those
myths.

[ Brain Right hemisphere is random and left hemisphere is linear? really?
](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/16096/14382)

[ About the left and right side of the brain
](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/6521/14382)

The closest thing to what you mention about the heart in modern psychology or
neuroscience would be the [ somatic marker hypothesis
](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis) which suggests
there is a two-way interaction between brain and body for emotional
experiences. For example, the brain causes an increased heart rate (among
other things) when presented with threatening stimuli, and part of the
experience of the emotion of anxiety includes feeling that faster heart rate.
It isn't that the emotion is _generated in_ the heart, though, it's still an
emotion in the brain, but what leads to experiences of emotion can include
influences of the body.


Question:
What is the mechanism that makes people more likely to act when provided with proof of non-new (and often trivial) information?

Is there a name for the psychological mechanism according to which a person is more likely to act when provided with proof of information they are already convinced about? Information which is often also trivial: e.g., smoking causes cancer. In fact, some studies find that graphical warning labels in cigarette packages affect implicit smoking attitudes (especially among the new smokers). Although comparatively smaller, text labels (compared to no labels) are also shown to have a similar effect.

Explanation: This is related to availability heuristic: people tend to make decisions based on information that is most readily accessible/recent.

$\begingroup$

Probably best considered as an example of the [ availability heuristic
](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic) : people tend to
make decisions based on information that is most readily accessible/recent.

In plainer terms, the label is just a reminder.


Question:
Is it unethical for a psychiatrist to invite a patient and her husband to a social function?

Suppose Emma is a patient of psychiatrist Dr. Jones, in New York State. In the course of their visits, Emma mentions that part of the stress and anxiety she feels is because of the pressure her husband puts on her and his intense personality.

Dr. Jones wishes to explore this more so he invites Emma to bring her husband to a local art gallery exhibit opening where Dr. Jones plans to attend as well, so he could meet them and observe Emma's husband and his interactions with her.

Are there any clear ethical issues with Dr. Jones invitation?

Explanation: We should find code and principles to decide whether this is ethical.

$\begingroup$

Yes, there is a clear ethical issue. If Dr. Jones wants to observe Emma's
husband, he should obtain informed consent from him beforehand.

Various associations of psychiatrists have a code of ethics in which these
types of principles are recorded. See for instance this code of the Royal
College of Psychiatrists: [ https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-
source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/college-report-
cr186.pdf?sfvrsn=15f49e84_2 ](https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-
source/improving-care/better-mh-policy/college-reports/college-report-
cr186.pdf?sfvrsn=15f49e84_2) .

Principle 5: Psychiatrists shall seek valid consent from their patients before
undertaking any procedure or treatment.

However, if both Emma and her husband agree, after being adequately informed
about what this observational research entails, I would see no problem.

Edit: Besides the consent issue, there is another ethical issue. By asking
Emma to bring her husband to observe him, he is making her complicit, which
could further damage their relationship.


Question:
Term for how one's self-image improves when something they associate with, like a sports team or politician, does well?

I'm trying to understand the phenomenon of how one's self-image, self-confidence, or personal regard goes up because something they affiliate themselves with "does well." For example, someone whose confidence and self-regard goes up when their team wins, or a character they relate to in a movie succeeds, or a politician they like says something clever.

What is this called?

Explanation: This is related to Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing), where an individual associates themselves with known successful others such that the winner's success becomes the individual's own accomplishment.

$\begingroup$

This is called BIRGing - [ Basking in reflected glory
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basking_in_reflected_glory) :

> Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) is a self-serving cognition whereby an
> individual associates themselves with known successful others such that the
> winner's success becomes the individual's own accomplishment. ... The
> individual does not need to be personally involved in the successful action.
> ... Examples of BIRGing include anything from sharing a home state with a
> past or present famous person, to religious affiliations, to sports teams.

Although BIRGing is a useful general term, social psychologists typically
study more specific examples, particularly in [ social identity
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_\(social_science\)) , where [ in-
group affiliation ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group) with
a sports team, political party, nation, etc, influences self-image, social
status, and out-group derogation; or [ impression management
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_management) , where affiliation
with successful entities influences the perceptions of others.


Question:
Is it a cognitive bias: "if you guess what I think you do, then what I think of you is true"

"If you've guessed what I am thinking (that you do / you have done / you will do / you are), then what I'm thinking of you is True"
Is this considered a cognitive-bias ? And if not what is it ?

Without enough knowledge in Psychology, I tend to think it is close to something like "dementia" / "paranoia" / "psychosis"

Any pointers ?

Explanation: This is related to confirmation bias, when someone seeks out — or in this case interprets —evidence in a way that “confirms” for them what they already believe to be true.

$\begingroup$

It sounds like you’re talking about [ confirmation bias
](https://lib.taftcollege.edu/c.php?g=861448&p=6298338) . This is when someone
seeks out — or in this case _interprets_ —evidence in a way that “confirms”
for them what they already believe to be true. I would avoid ascribing this to
pathology (such as dementia or psychosis) as these are clinical terms that
refer to specific states or disorders, whereas all humans are subject to
confirmation bias; it can certainly be annoying when someone behaves this way
but usually it is not pathological. Cognitive biases which act as development
or maintenance factors for a disorder are usually referred to as [ cognitive
distortions ](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-to-recognize-and-tame-
your-cognitive-distortions-202205042738) . I would suggest maybe adding an
example next time as the scenario you’ve posed is a bit convoluted. Hope this
helps!


Question:
Is there a standardised test for focus?

Not affiliated with psychology in any way, so my knowledge is essentially zero. I am looking for a way to measure change in my ability to focus during a fast. This is simply for a personal experiment. I had a look online and could not find a standardised tests used in research.

Any help in finding one is appreciated. Thanks

EDIT: edited to clarify that I am not looking for life advice. I am looking for a standardized test used in psychology research to measure my ability to focus (concentration a task?).

Explanation: Eye tracking + Posner queuing is an option for focus testing.

$\begingroup$

Eye tracking + Posner queuing seems to predict it decently well

[ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00205/full
](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00205/full)

> Numerous studies conducted within the recent decades have utilized the
> Posner cuing paradigm for eliciting, measuring, and theoretically
> characterizing attentional orienting.

Example of study:

[ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32984203/
](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32984203/)

> To elicit endogenous and exogenous shifts of attention, we thus used a
> modified version of Posner's cueing task. We compared oculomotor performance
> measured by an eye tracker in a group of 31 children with ADHD (mean age =
> 9.1 ± 1.3 years) and age-, sex-, and IQ-matched typically developing
> children [...]


Question:
Is there a special name for rejection of extremes in the list of cognitive biases?

Is there a special name for the cognitive bias that causes a person choose a compromise solution even the extreme solutions are better or causes person prefer a middle value even the extreme values are more suitable?

Explanation: This is related to Extremeness aversion, which is the tendency of choice makers to avoid extreme options and choose an intermediate option.

$\begingroup$

This is called [ extremeness aversion
](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40622-018-0197-5) :

> Extremeness aversion is the tendency of choice makers to avoid extreme
> options and choose an intermediate option.

This appears to be a well-replicated robust effect - see meta-analysis by [
Neumann, Böckenholt, & Sinha (2016)
](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.05.005) .


Question:
How can someone enjoy something without dopamine?

Andrew Huberman says people and even animals with depleted dopamine levels can still enjoy stuff.

How does one enjoy without dopamine? Isn't it the pleasure chemical?

Can serotonin, oxytocin etc. contribute to pleasure experience like dopamine?

Explanation: It is oversimplifying things that a single compound mediates complex human behavior. To nuance things a bit, we need to understand what is Dopamine. There are more neurochemicals mediating pleasure, such as serotonin, Endorphins and oxytocin, to which we also need more information. In addition, absence of pleasure, is likely to be related to anhedonia, which is not simply due to an absence of dopamine, but may be one of the possible symptoms of depression and other mental illnesses, like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

$\begingroup$

It is oversimplifying things that a single compound mediates complex human
behavior. To nuance things a bit, there are more neurotransmitters and
modulators that mediate feelings of pleasure, as you already indicate.

  * [ **Dopamine** ](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/dopamine-the-pathway-to-pleasure) , indeed, is associated with feelings of pleasure, and most notably that in response to reward. It also mediates reinforcement, and unfortunately the euphoria associated with addictive dopaminergic psychoactive drugs, like heroine and cocaine.
  * But there are more neurochemicals mediating pleasure, such as [ **serotonin** ](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/serotonin-the-natural-mood-booster) , that is increased after working out ('runner's high') and after exposure to sunlight, for instance.
  * [ **Endorphins** ](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/endorphins-the-brains-natural-pain-reliever) are a group of protein neuromodulators with a diverse set of functions, from killing pain to the feelings of bliss after sex.
  * Lastly, there is [ **oxytocin** ](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/oxytocin-the-love-hormone) , the 'love' hormone. We produce oxytocin when we’re excited by our sexual partner, and when we fall in love. So there is more to pleasure than dopamine alone.

What you are referring to, an absence of pleasure, is referred to as [
**anhedonia** ](https://www.webmd.com/depression/what-is-
anhedonia#:%7E:text=Anhedonia%20is%20the%20inability%20to,life%20to%20make%20them%20happy.)
, this is not simply due to an absence of dopamine, but is one of the possible
symptoms of depression and other mental illnesses, like schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder. It can even show up with Parkinson's disease, diabetes,
coronary artery disease, and in substance abuse. While schizophrenia and
Parkinson's are intimitely linked to dopamine, others are, apparently, not.


Question:
What disorder might be considered opposite of the Histrionic Personality Disorder?

If a person might be considered the opposite of Narcissistic or having a Histrionic Personality disorder, what might it be called?

For example, a person who feels a need to be unnoticed.

Of course, I mean "disorder" in the sense that these qualities are "disruptive" to a healthy lifestyle...

Maybe some sort of insecurity disorder? Can anti-social disorders somehow fit? What about situations perhaps stemming from PTSD?

Don't be a target!" -Every military branch, (except maybe the Army).

Explanation: We can look at a chart where the categorical system maps onto scores in the dimensional system.

$\begingroup$

Diagnosis of [ personality disorders
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder) in general is moving
away from a categorical system (patient does or does not have the disorder),
to a [ dimensional system
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_models_of_personality_disorders)
(patient scores extreme on personality traits). In this system, labels such as
HPD and NPD will eventually be deprecated.

The categorical system maps onto scores in the dimensional system as
illustrated by [ this chart
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#Versus_normal_personality)
(based on the DSM-IV-TR, an older version of the standard diagnostic manual in
North America):

[ ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/d9bjJ.png)
](https://i.sstatic.net/d9bjJ.png)

To find the "opposite" (counterpart) of a personality disorder using this
chart, just look for a disorder that is red (low) where the counterpart is
green (high), and vice versa. For HPD, it looks like AvPD ( [ Avoidant
Personality Disorder
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidant_personality_disorder) ) is a close
match.


Question:
What does it mean if a neuron is "expressing" something?

Sorry for the simple question, not a neuroscientist just trying to understand a paper for school. In a study with mice, there was 2-photon calcium imaging done, and part of it read:

We used single- and multi-plane imaging approaches to record the activity of populations of excitatory neurons and two inhibitory classes, Somatostatin (Sst) and Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide (Vip) expressing interneurons, across multiple cortical depths and two visual areas (VSIp and VISl)

First I thought this meant that SST & VIP were inhibitory neurons. But when I Google it says they're hormones.

So is this saying they recorded activity from inhibitory interneurons that were ... releasing? producing? ... SST & VIP ? What does "expressing" mean in this sense.

Explanation: "Expressing" refers to gene expression - in biology we say a cell is "expressing" a gene when the products of that gene are present.

$\begingroup$

##  Gene Expression

"Expressing" refers to [ gene expression
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression) \- in biology we say a cell
is "expressing" a gene when the products of that gene are present. "Sst-
expressing cell" is a way of saying "cell that has somatostatin protein
present", or at least "has mRNA present for producing somatostatin protein" -
biologists are not always explicit about whether they mean they measure mRNA
or protein when they talk of expression, and in modern days often a "Sst-
expressing cell" is identified by producing some reporter protein like green
fluorescent protein (GFP) under a somatostatin promoter (or, most likely,
dependent on a strain of mouse that uses Cre-recombinase to only produce GFP
in cells where Cre is produced under a Sst promoter).

##  Classifying Interneurons

There are lots of different interneurons; they are difficult to classify. Here
are a couple papers to read:

[ Markram, H., Toledo-Rodriguez, M., Wang, Y., Gupta, A., Silberberg, G., &
Wu, C. (2004). Interneurons of the neocortical inhibitory system. Nature
reviews neuroscience, 5(10), 793-807.
](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn1519)

[ DeFelipe, J., López-Cruz, P. L., Benavides-Piccione, R., Bielza, C.,
Larrañaga, P., Anderson, S., ... & Ascoli, G. A. (2013). New insights into the
classification and nomenclature of cortical GABAergic interneurons. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 14(3), 202-216.
](https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3444)

One way to classify some of these interneurons is by their expression of
particular genes. Using that scheme, it then becomes common for, say,
"Parvalbumin-expressing cells" (=cells that have parvalbumin protein/mRNA) to
get shortened into just "Parvalbumin cells" or "Parvalbumin interneurons" or
"PV+ cells", etc.

It's not necessary that these proteins that are used to name cell types are
particularly crucial to their function; for PV cells, it seems like it is,
because one feature of PV cells is that they have very fast
electrophysiological kinetics, and some of those fast kinetics are assisted by
the calcium binding of parvalbumin. For somatostatin interneurons, it's less
clear; somatostatin is certainly an important gut hormone, but it's not
particularly clear why somatostatin-expressing neurons form a particular
important subclass of cells in the brain, as most known functions of
somatostatin are restricted to development or the gut.

##  Back to the Question

> So is this saying they recorded activity from inhibitory interneurons that
> were ... releasing? producing? ... SST & VIP ? What does "expressing" mean
> in this sense.

They're saying they recorded activity from inhibitory interneurons that have
been grouped in the past according to their production of SST and VIP mRNA or
protein. They aren't necessarily interested in either SST protein or VIP
protein, but these have served as markers/names for particular cell
populations. The primary neurotransmitter that brain SST and VIP interneurons
produce is neither somatostatin nor vasoactive intestinal peptide; the primary
neurotransmitter for both is [ GABA
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%93-Aminobutyric_acid#Neurotransmitter) .
You'd be able to find out a lot more about those cell populations by reading
other papers containing terms like "Sst interneuron" or "VIP interneuron".


Question:
What part of brain learns/controls finger motion?

I am learning instruments and am sometimes amazed at how hard a seemingly simple thing like raising two different sets of fingers after one another can be.

I wonder how the brain learns this? Is it the cerebellum and the motor cortex where the "cortical homonculus" is or is it a cooperation between even more brain regions?

Explanation: The sensory-motor learning and control loop which processes sensory inputs to determine which motor action to perform next is perhaps one of the most basic functions of any nervous system including ours. We need more information about motor control and basal ganglia (BG).

$\begingroup$

The sensory-motor learning and control loop which processes sensory inputs to
determine which motor action to perform next is perhaps one of the most basic
functions of any nervous system including ours, and from Wikipedia source of [
motor control ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_control) we know in
addition to cerebellum and motor cortex, it at least also involves basal
ganglia and other cortex areas.

> Mammalian model systems like mice and monkeys offer the most straightforward
> comparative models for human health and disease. They are widely used to
> study the role of higher brain regions common to vertebrates, including the
> cerebral cortex, thalamus, basal ganglia and deep brain medullary and
> reticular circuits for motor control.[17]... The organization of arthropod
> nervous systems into ganglia that control each leg as allowed researchers to
> record from neurons dedicated to moving a specific leg during behavior.

And from the same WP source of [ basal ganglia (BG)
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_ganglia) we know BG acts the critical
_action selection_ role in motor control via its striatum stripes within which
differentially indexed units representing either direct "Go" or indirect
"NoGo" action selection pathways.

> Popular theories implicate the basal ganglia primarily in action selection –
> in helping to decide which of several possible behaviors to execute at any
> given time. In more specific terms, the basal ganglia's primary function is
> likely to control and regulate activities of the motor and premotor cortical
> areas so that voluntary movements can be performed smoothly.[2][5]
> Experimental studies show that the basal ganglia exert an inhibitory
> influence on a number of motor systems, and that a release of this
> inhibition permits a motor system to become active. The "behavior switching"
> that takes place within the basal ganglia is influenced by signals from many
> parts of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, which plays a key role
> in executive functions.

> The basal ganglia have a limbic sector whose components are assigned
> distinct names: the nucleus accumbens, ventral pallidum, and ventral
> tegmental area (VTA). There is considerable evidence that this limbic part
> plays a central role in reward learning as well as cognition and frontal
> lobe functioning, via the mesolimbic pathway from the VTA to the nucleus
> accumbens that uses the neurotransmitter dopamine, and the mesocortical
> pathway... The direct pathway, originating in the dorsal striatum inhibits
> the GPi and SNr, resulting in a net disinhibition or excitation of the
> thalamus. This pathway consists of medium spiny neurons (MSNs) that express
> dopamine receptor D1, muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M4, and adenosine
> receptor A1.[27] The direct pathway has been proposed to facilitate motor
> actions, timing of motor actions, gating of working memory, and motor
> responses to specific stimuli.[26] The (long) indirect pathway originates in
> the dorsal striatum and inhibits the GPe, resulting in disinhibition of the
> GPi which is then free to inhibit the thalamus. This pathway consists of
> MSNs that express dopamine receptor D2, muscarinic acetylcholine receptor
> M1, and adenosine receptor A2a.[27] This pathway has been proposed to result
> in global motor inhibition(inhibition of all motor activity), and
> termination of responses. Another shorter indirect pathway has been
> proposed, which involves cortical excitation of the subthalamic nucleus
> resulting in direct excitation of the GPe, and inhibition of the thalamus.
> This pathway is proposed to result in inhibition of specific motor programs
> based on associative learning.[26]

Thus essentially with input from motor cortex and other possible cortical
areas (parietal, prefrontal, temporal) basal ganglia acts as a gating motor
and other cognitive _action selection_ system with _feedback_ from the
dopaminergic reward system if reward prediction error is large.

Finally with BG's action decision making, the cerebellum further uses
supervised learning to shape the performance of the selected action so that it
is accurate and well-coordinated. From its WP source:

> Animals and humans with cerebellar dysfunction show, above all, problems
> with motor control, on the same side of the body as the damaged part of the
> cerebellum. They continue to be able to generate motor activity but lose
> precision, producing erratic, uncoordinated, or incorrectly timed movements.
> A standard test of cerebellar function is to reach with the tip of the
> finger for a target at arm's length: A healthy person will move the
> fingertip in a rapid straight trajectory, whereas a person with cerebellar
> damage will reach slowly and erratically, with many mid-course corrections.


Question:
Seminal Books of fMRI

I would like to know what books about fMRI do people consider as key or seminal. I am very familiar with a great amonut of MRI techniques, but I am sort of looking for a book in fMRI that really considers the root of the technique (as for teaching material). As a guideline, I consider the book of Diffusion MRI by Derek Jones as being the gold standard: mathematical, physics, biological and clinical considerations. So I guess that the question is what would you consider the fMRI equivalent to Derek's exhaustive book. Maybe even some reviews that you consider important and you yourselfs are (co-) authors.

Best and thanks!

Explanation: One relevant book could be Human Brain Function by J. Ashburner, W. Penny and K. Friston.

$\begingroup$

I think one book that many people hold in high regard is Human Brain Function
by J. Ashburner, W. Penny and K. Friston. It is old but it covers the
principles nicely. It is also freely available online: [
https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/doc/books/hbf2/
](https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/doc/books/hbf2/)

I guess you will be most interested in material from section 2 onwards.


Question:
What work has been done studying methodological reforms in psychology after the replication crisis?

Can anyone point me to academic work that systematically studies how standards and methods have changed in psychology as a response to the replication crisis? Thanks.

Explanation: We need to find papers that study some Organization Behaviour journals over the last decade

$\begingroup$

Ok, I came across "Open science and reform practices in organizational
behavior research over time (2011 to 2019)" (Tenney et al. 2021), a paper
which studies some Organization Behaviour journals over the last decade and
concludes that there hasn't been widespread adoption of research practice
reforms. This paper isn't as comprehensive as I was hoping, but it does help
to partially answer my question.

Source: [ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.015
](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.015)


Question:
What causes this motion illusion?

There are some questions here about various optical illusions. I stumbled upon this one and would like to find out where does it belong. Wikipedia has a page about illusory motion that mentions several types; peripheral drift seems to be closest, but I am not sure about it.

Explanation: We will first need to understand Peripheral drift illusions. This is also related to Similar images that generate illusory motion in the center of the visual field.

$\begingroup$

[ Peripheral drift illusions
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_drift_illusion) , as their name
suggests, create the illusion of motion in the periphery of the visual field.
Similar images that generate illusory motion in the center of the visual field
have been termed [ central drift illusions
](http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/%7Eakitaoka/VSJ04w.html) . Both of these types
of illusions use high contrast "luminance gratings" - repeating patterns of
high and low brightness - to generate illusory motion.

Peripheral drift illusions can be used to generate an illusion of expansion,
as demonstrated by the "Active Volcano" image (a) below (from [ Seno, Kitaoka,
& Palmisano, 2013 ](https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fp7511) ):

[ ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/cpThl.png)
](https://i.sstatic.net/cpThl.png)

The control image (b) does not generate the illusion. The only difference
between the images is their luminance grating pattern.

Many examples of expansion (and contraction) illusions can be found [ here
](http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/%7Eakitaoka/expcont17e.html) . Here is a
particularly powerful example called [ Fujiwara's black hole illusion
](http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/%7Eakitaoka/saishin62e.html) :

[ ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/0nx7O.jpg)
](https://i.sstatic.net/0nx7O.jpg)


Question:
What term can describe the feeling that a job just does itself?

Is there a term that can describe that a job, however exhausting it might be, just does itself? Meaning, for example, that all doubt concerning how you're doing a job, whether or not you should do the job instead of something else, or any doubt of the value you're creating is just not there?

As an example, I saw an interview where an author was asked how much effort it took to write a particular book. The answer was "No effort at all, the book wrote itself", which is of course not literally true, because it takes reasearch, time, dedication and long hard hours in front of a PC to write a book. Still, I understand what they mean by this, when looking back to certain efforts I've made myself. But I don't know if this can be described in full by a certain term.

I'm surprised how hard it was to find anything about this just googling, so any suggestions would be great!

Explanation: This is related to a mental state called flow, in which mental focus is fully taken by one task. In the case of flow, the usual focus on a particular goal is replaced by focus on the task itself, losing both oneself and the future by entering fully into the moment and the action itself. In a way, one's state of being merges with the action, so as to become the action. We need more information about the flow.

$\begingroup$

There is a mental state called [ flow
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_\(psychology\)) , similar in ways to [
trance ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trance) and [ absorption
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_\(psychology\)) , in which mental
focus is fully taken by one task. In the case of flow, the usual focus on a
particular goal is replaced by focus on the task itself, losing both oneself
and the future by entering fully into the moment and the action itself. In a
way, one's state of being merges with the action, so as to become the action.
From [ Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_\(psychology\)) :

> In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in
> the zone, is the mental state in which a person performing some activity is
> fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and
> enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized
> by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting transformation
> in one's sense of time.

Enjoyment of the activity stems from the experience itself, rather than from
what one expects to gain as a result of the action. As such the activity is
said to be _intrinsically_ rewarding. Basically one has transcended worry and
self-reflection, fully engrossed without question. From my experience,
questioning the task can break the flow. From [ Wikipedia
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_\(psychology\)) :

> Some of the challenges to staying in flow include states of [ apathy
> ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathy) , [ boredom
> ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boredom) , and [ anxiety
> ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) . The state of apathy is
> characterized by easy challenges and low skill level requirements, resulting
> in a general lack of interest in the activity. Boredom is a slightly
> different state that occurs when challenges are few, but one's skill level
> exceeds those challenges causing one to seek higher challenges. A state of
> anxiety occurs when challenges are high enough to exceed perceived skill
> level, causing distress and uneasiness. These states in general prevent
> achieving the balance necessary for flow.


Question:
Human/social behavior when one emphasizes their own superior achievements over others'

I'm looking for a name/category/definition of (personality?) disorder(s) that can be described with the following traits in one's (imaginary person) social/human behavior:

this person brings up and emphasizes his own, (according to him) superior achievements whenever another person around him mentions their own success/results/etc. (relevant fact: this person's statements about his own achievements are usually true, so there is no or little exaggeration);
still, this person does this in a way that likely hurts other's feelings or self-esteem (this person does this regardless of who's the other half, like friends/partner/family), maybe even permanently;
when this person has to do something with the achievements of others, he also emphasizes his own role behind the success of the other half (may even claim that the other person would not have been able to achieve their results without his assistance/inspiration);
finally, though this may be a bit further from the previous points, this person may also inspire other people to start doing the same things that he's already started earlier (through which he may have an edge in terms of performance, quicker results, etc.) - e.g., a hobby or a sport.
I'd be also interested in the origin of such a situation/traits (like how one would develop such a behavior, e.g. through childhood events or parental issues).

My research so far: tried to look for an answer online by summarizing the main points and got to "Narcissistic personality disorder" which (according to this site) is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration.

However, I'm not 100% sure that the above traits completely match this definition since they emphasize one's superior results/role in other's success and usually are combined with mean/humiliating remarks. Also, this person rarely steers a conversation etc. in a way so that he'll have the attention/focus.

Explanation: We need to first understand Human perception of location, which may include use of interaural time differences. We also need more information about sound localization mechanisms in auditory system, e.g., they may use time difference and level difference.

$\begingroup$

Human perception of location in azimuth of low frequency sounds (or low
frequency envelopes of higher-frequency sounds) includes use of [ interaural
time differences ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaural_time_difference)
\- this is the phase coding you're talking about. There is some rather
specialized circuitry in the auditory brainstem to perform those calculations.
Your description of how predatory birds accomplish it is the same as is done
in humans - this is an evolutionarily conserved trait in land vertebrates.

At higher frequencies, the time between waves is too fast to estimate phase
lags, but the head is better at attenuating sound so intensity differences are
used. Wikipedia has a [ fairly informative page on sound localization
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization) which would be a good
starting point for further reading.


Question:
Are there results on the null hypothesis of the "surgeon operating on my son" question?

There is a common question used to demonstrate the power of implicit assumptions about gender roles in our society.

Including it here for reference: A man and his son had a terrible car accident and were rushed to the hospital. The man died on the way, but the son was still barely alive. When they arrived, a surgeon was called in to operate. Upon seeing the young boy, the surgeon said, “I can’t operate – this is my son.”

Most people have difficulty thinking of the possibility that the surgeon is the son's Mother.

This riddle strikes me as having elements of the priming experiments whereby subjects primed with certain words perform better/worse in word-stem completion tests, intermixed with the social expectations of our culture. Here the "priming" would be using the male "father", "boy", and "son" throughout the question but asking for a female "mother" as the answer.

I was trying to find results on some sort of "control group" experiment to try and isolate the societal expectations element. Something like subjects being asked the same riddle but with a mother and daughter in a crash and the father a surgeon, or where it's the father and daughter in a car crash.

The only alternative I've seen is about "mother and daughter in crash, father is nurse" which is again combining the two effects.

N.b. I'm expect the priming effect is probably small, I just wanted to know by how much.

Explanation: This is associated with implicit association test. We can take a reference of Balanced-identity research design.

$\begingroup$

The [ implicit-association test ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-
association_test) is a larger example of the same phenomenon. Words are paired
that are congruent or incongruent with societal expectations; incongruent
pairs take most people longer to match.

A caution on this test it is often used to measure bias in individuals and for
some as a surrogate for bigotry. However, it does not account for intentional
methods to avoid biased action, it only measures the "automatic", involuntary
biases imposed by exposure to culture. It should be instructive to test-takers
how the results might shape their behaviors in every day life, but shouldn't
be taken as a measure of "how sexist" or "how racist" someone is. It is also
not apparent that _individual_ results are informative; population-level
results trend with population-level biases, but individual performance on the
test is not a valid way to find "who is more biased" or anything like that.


Question:
What is the inverse of anthropomorphism?

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. However, one often can observe the inverse happening as well. Namely the attribution of non-human entities’ traits, emotions, or intentions to human entities. For example the biography book about Winston Churchill is called “The Last Lion” or professional boxers being nicknamed “Pitbull”, “Tiger”,”The Hammer”, etc.

Or would this be just an extension of anthropomorphism in which humans attribute human traits, emotions, or intentions onto non-human entities and then relate them back to humans again? Because, in order to attribute non-human entities’ traits, emotions, or intentions onto humans, one would first need to attribute human traits, emotions, or intentions onto non-human entities?

Explanation: This is related to the case that imagines humans as non-human animals, e.g., The sphinx from the "Oedipus Rex" by Sophocles.

$\begingroup$

Wikipedia explains [ zoomorphism ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomorphism)
,

> Contrary to anthropomorphism, which views animal or non-animal behavior in
> human terms, zoomorphism is the tendency of viewing human behavior in terms
> of the behavior of animals.


Question:
On talking people out of delusions

One psychatrist I know recently wrote, offhand: "I remember when I was a student I tried so hard to convince someone that they weren't royalty, hours of passionate debate, and it just did nothing."

This got me thinking - are there published descriptions of what it feels like to try and convince a person with a grandiose delusion that it's wrong? When this fails, what are their responses to arguments, etc.? I feel like I've read fictional descriptions of this scenario plenty of times in various fiction books, but maybe in reality it looks different and now like I'd imagine?

Explanation: We first need to know how to support someone suffering from delusions.

$\begingroup$

There is surprisingly little information, publicly, on how you should support
someone suffering from delusions, but there is a good set of information from
Australia's New South Wales Government website at [
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/mentalhealth/psychosocial/strategies/Pages/communicating-
psychosis.aspx
](https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/mentalhealth/psychosocial/strategies/Pages/communicating-
psychosis.aspx)

2 key points relevant to your query are that you **should not** state any
judgements about the content of the person’s beliefs and experiences; and you
**should not** argue, confront or challenge someone about their beliefs or
experiences.

Let's say someone believes they’re the Queen of Denmark, and not [ Queen
Margrethe II ](https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/monarchy) . Your telling
them they’re crazy will result in them still believing they’re the Queen of
Denmark — but now also believing you’re crazy for disagreeing. Attacking
someone with a clinical delusion almost always causes them to put up their
defences and retreat further into their beliefs.

Equally, feeding into their delusion will only give them more reason to think
their beliefs are justified.

Austraila's Queensland Government have also published [ some guidelines (PDF)
](https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/444597/delusions.pdf)
on how to help someone suffering delusions.


Question:
Whether "group polarization" and "social segregation" is the same?

In a paper of (Murase, 2019) use both terms "group polarization" and "social segregation".

The "group polarization" is explained here, and the author also documents about the "social segregation" as

The relationship between homophily and segregation has been recognized long ago.(...)In another approach to social segregation, opinion dynamics is used so that similar people can influence each other

I am wondering whether these two terms "group polarization" and "social segregation" are the same?

Explanation: We need to figure out the definition of Social segregation and Group polarization.

$\begingroup$

Social segregation and group polarization are different concepts.

Social segregation, (i.e. racial segregation, residential segregation, sex
segregation) is defined as " [ the separation or isolation of people or other
entities so that there is a minimum of interaction between them
](https://dictionary.apa.org/segregation) "

Group polarization refers to when an individual's attitude or opinion changes
after the influence of a group, to be more extreme (or polarized) than prior
to being exposed to the group [ (Sieber & Ziegler, 2019)
](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146167219833389) .

**References**

Sieber, J., & Ziegler, R. (2019). Group Polarization Revisited: A Processing
Effort Account. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(10), 1482–1498.
[ https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219833389
](https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219833389)

APA Dictionary of Psychology: [ https://dictionary.apa.org/segregation
](https://dictionary.apa.org/segregation)


Question:
Why a "weak homophilic relationships" can be amplified by "cumulative advantage"

Murase, 2019 has a sentence that

Thus even a relatively weak preference for homophilic relationships would tend to be amplified over time, via a cumulative advantage

Basically, they mean that weak homophilic relationship (relationship between people having no common acquaintance) can be amplified over time due to cumulative advantage. However, they did not explain why it happen, could you please help me to explain it?

I did a search about "cumulative advantage" but I still cannot not link the concept to this situation

Cumulative Advantage states that once a social agent gains a small advantage over other agents, that advantage will compound over time into an increasingly larger advantage. The effect is well known and is embodied in "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

Explanation: We need to understand the definition of homophilic relationship

$\begingroup$

A homophilic relationship is: [ "the tendency of individuals to associate and
bond with similar others" ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily)

I'd re-write

> "the rich get richer"

in this context (or vice-versa) as:

> "those with weak homophilic relationships get more homophilic relationships"

in the context of this paper. Basically, because this structure of
relationship is conducive to forming more homophilic links, its presence tends
to encourage more homophilic groups, even if the extent of homophily starts
out weak.

You can think of a strong community structure where everyone in an in-group is
friends with everyone else; anyone introduced to the group is going to end up
with a relationship with everyone in the group.

The authors are saying the same is true even if the links are initially weak.


Question:
What is the name of this bias or phenomenon?

He lied.

You changed your mind.

I reconsidered my decision.

What is the name for this type of cognitive bias where you are easier on yourself when you describe your behavior, but harder on the second person and hardest on others? It's similar to the justification of your actions in certain situations e.g., when someone cuts you off in traffic, he's a jerk. But if you cut someone off it's because you are really in a hurry and it's justified.

But what I'm specifically looking for is the name of the phenomenon where the same behavior/quality of the first, second and third person are described by decreasing levels of charitability.

Explanation: This is related to the idea of Russell Conjugation, we need more information to understand this concept.

$\begingroup$

Russell Conjugation (or emotive conjugation).

The tendency of people to regard their own characteristics more charitably
than those of others, and to rank others according (at least in part) to
proximity to earshot:

> I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.
>
> I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over
> nothing.
>
> I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back
> on his word.

[ Eric Weinstein expands: ](https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181)

> Russell Conjugation (or “emotive conjugation”) is a presently obscure
> construction from linguistics, psychology and rhetoric which demonstrates
> how our rational minds are shielded from understanding the junior role
> factual information generally plays relative to empathy in our formation of
> opinions.
>
> I frequently suggest it as perhaps the most important idea with which almost
> no one seems to be familiar, as it showed me just how easily my opinions
> could be manipulated without any need to falsify facts.
>
> Historically, the idea is not new and seems to have been first defined by
> several examples given by Bertrand Russell in 1948 on the BBC without much
> follow up work, until it was later rediscovered in the internet age and
> developed into a near data-driven science by pollster Frank Luntz beginning
> in the early 1990s.

[ Luntz ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language) , a US
political and communications consultant:

> Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and
> interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing audiences to
> react based on emotion. "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20
> percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you
> think. ... If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have
> a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion
> and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody
> like this is a freak."


Question:
Using multilevel modeling to assess gender differences in intervention effects of an RCT, and how to look at mechanisms of change

I'm looking for some help here - so I'm a grad student and stats newbie (but trying to move on from newbie status!) and attempting to figure out how to conduct the analyses I'm interested in but I'm feeling very lost.

I'm looking to do MLM with a large RCT (N=434) with the active treatment vs. services as usual (i.e., 2 treatment conditions), and I have four total timepoints - baseline, posttreatment, 6 months follow-up, and 12 months follow-up. The main purpose of the study is to look at gender as a moderator of treatment outcomes, and a secondary goal is to look at whether there are differences in mechanisms/mediators of treatment effects by gender as well. I spoke with a professor in the quant psychology department about my project and he mentioned that the strength of my project is that I have follow-up data with such a large sample (and high retention rates) with a marginalized, hard-to-reach population - so he suggested using MLM. Typically, when I've used MLM in the past, I've done it with looking at clusters or within/between individual change across multiple timepoints. But is there a way to use MLM to address my research questions - 1) to look at gender as a moderator of intervention outcomes in this large-scale RCT, and 2) to look at whether hypothesized, female-specific mediators of change are indeed more predictive of improved treatment outcomes for females relative to males? I'm feeling a little lost as to what would be my level 1 vs level 2 variables here.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!! Thank you so much!!

Explanation: This is related to mixed effects models. We need to first figure out the terminological difference.

$\begingroup$

It doesn't make sense to use MLM merely because you have a lot of data, you
use it because you have data with variance at different levels. That said, I
very much prefer the terminology of "mixed effects models" rather than
"multilevel" models for the sort of question you're asking, where you actually
don't seem to be interested in variance at different hierarchical levels, but
rather about the fixed effects. I'd recommend reading about mixed effects
modeling and starting from there, though if you are familiar with MLM you will
probably quickly discover they are exactly the same thing. There are also
blogs out there talking about the terminology/approach differences that you
might find helpful, like here: [ https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/multilevel-
hierarchical-mixed-models-terminology/
](https://www.theanalysisfactor.com/multilevel-hierarchical-mixed-models-
terminology/)

In your case, it sounds like you have repeated measures in some subjects;
therefore, it would make sense to have a random effect for subject, otherwise
your data are violating assumptions of independence. However, your research
questions are all about the fixed effects of gender and gender interactions
with other parameters. The random effects here would seem to be more of a
nuisance parameter that you include in your model but aren't likely to discuss
at all.

I can't give you a complete answer of how you should structure your models
with the information provided (and don't think I really should, unless you
want to collaborate and give authorship - setting up the model to answer
questions like this is pretty much the main intellectual effort for a project
like this), and there's a whole separate world of mediation analysis, but I
think this should be enough to get you working towards a solution.


Question:
What is verbal memory useful for?

A friend of mine did the Verbal Memory Test at http://humanbenchmark.com/ and got an extremely high score (almost 300 words). English is not his first language and he knew the meaning of only about two thirds of the words (if that's something to take into account).

About the test

This test measures how many words you can keep in short term memory at once.

The number of words you need to remember grows continually, until you can't keep them in your head anymore.

Go as long as you can. You have 3 strikes until game over.

Your score is how many turns you lasted.

Does this have any practical use or influence in other areas of cognition?

Explanation: This is related to word/memory span test. We need to first understand its definition and check how this can be used, e.g., prediction of some ability.

$\begingroup$

This is one of several variations of the _word span_ test, used in many
studies of working and short-term memory. It is a type of [ memory span
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_span) test:

> ... memory span is the longest list of items that a person can repeat back
> in correct order immediately after presentation ... Items may include words,
> numbers, or letters.

[ Short-term memory ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_memory) is a
cognitive capacity that is a component of [ verbal intelligence
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_intelligence) . However, the simple
word span is [ not a great measure
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_span#From_simple_span_to_complex_span)
of verbal intelligence:

> ... memory span with digits and words is only weakly related to performance
> in complex cognitive tasks such as text comprehension, which are assumed to
> depend on short-term memory.

Performance on verbal memory tests can vary substantially based on the
parameters of the test, the effect of practice and training, and the testing
environment.

Nonetheless, research suggests that strong performance on the word span task -
in particular, the non-word span variation which uses "pseudowords" that sound
like real words but aren't - is indicative of superior **secondary language
acquisition** capability ( [ Juffs & Harrington, 2011
](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000509) ). There is also some evidence
that word span may be predictive of ability to follow complex instructions ( [
Kim, Bayles, & Beeson, 2008 ](https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030701803788) ; [
Jaroslawska et al, 2016 ](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0579-2) ). Of
course, these results may not be applicable to the word span recognition
variation of the task.


Question:
Deflection of the basilar membrane

The basilar membrane becomes thicker and heavier from the basal end to the apical upper end - this is why high frequencies are perceived in the lower range and low frequencies in the upper range.

But why? Why does the traveling wave of the membrane reach its maximum amplitude at high frequencies at the bottom and at low frequencies at the top? How is this related to the width, stiffness and mass of the basilar membrane?

$\begingroup$

The wide, slack composition of the basilar membrane (BM) in the apex and the
narrow, stiff characteristics at the base are among the factors that underlie
the tuning of the BM. Slack, wide structures vibrate at low harmonic
frequencies, stiff and narrow structures at high frequencies, just like the
strings of a guitar. The apex of the cochlea transduces low frequencies, the
base high. [ Cochlea.eu ](http://www.cochlea.eu/en/cochlea/function) has an
accessible explanation this. What also adds to this is that the hair cells in
the apex are longer, and in the base they are shorter. Basically, the BM
allows a standing wave to form, where each place on the BM resonates at a
typical harmonic frequency that increases from apex to base. The harmonic
frequency is governed by the physical properties and is sharpened by the outer
hair cells [ (Purves _et al_ ., 2001)
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10946/) .

[ ![cochlea](https://i.sstatic.net/WhdWa.png)
](https://i.sstatic.net/WhdWa.png)
Fig. 1. Cochlear structures with a focus on the frequency tuning of the
basilar membrane. source: [ Purves _et al_ . (2001)
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10946/)

**Reference**
**-** [ Purves _et al_ ., eds. _Neuroscience_ , 2  nd  ed. Sunderland (MA):
Sinauer Associates; 2001 ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10946/)


Question:
Has there ever been a split brain pianist?
Asked 2 years, 6 months ago
Modified 2 years, 5 months ago
Viewed 634 times
0

Has there ever been a split brain pianist?

I was thinking about this yesterday and it occurred to me that a split brain pianist might have an advantage over a non-split brain pianist; they could potentially read the bass and treble clef lines independently and thus process the lines independently. Perhaps this advantage would be meaningless at the professional level, but it surely could have the potential to make it easier for beginner pianists. I spent some time searching but was unfortunately unable to find any case studies of this.

I did, however, find a case study of a ex-professional pianist with alien hand syndrome whose symptoms were exacerbated when playing the piano, but it wasn't what I was looking for.

I'd also be interested in any examples of split brain patients who were able to play any instrument at all – I'd find the outcomes fascinating.

Explanation: We need to know what is split-brain, the cuase, the mechanism and its symptom, e.g., what patients will behave.

$\begingroup$

Your hypothesis that those suffering from split-brain syndrome

> could potentially read the bass and treble clef lines independently and thus
> process the lines independently. Perhaps this advantage would be meaningless
> at the professional level, but it surely could have the potential to make it
> easier for beginner pianists.

is flawed. That is because communication between the two brain hemispheres is
required in order to learn to play the piano.

Encyclopaedia Britannica [ points out that
](https://www.britannica.com/science/split-brain-syndrome)

> **Split-brain syndrome** , also called **callosal disconnection syndrome** ,
> [is a] condition characterized by a cluster of neurological abnormalities
> arising from the partial or complete severing or lesioning of the [ corpus
> callosum ](https://www.britannica.com/science/corpus-callosum) , the bundle
> of nerves that connects the right and left hemispheres of the [ brain
> ](https://www.britannica.com/science/brain) .
>
> **[...]** *
>
> The primary cause of split-brain syndrome is intentional severing of the
> corpus callosum, partially or completely, through a surgical procedure known
> as corpus callosotomy. Rarely performed in the 21st century (having been
> replaced largely by drug treatments and other procedures), this operation is
> reserved as a last measure of treatment for extreme and uncontrollable forms
> of [ epilepsy ](https://www.britannica.com/science/epilepsy) in which
> violent seizures spread from one side of the brain to the other.

With regard to playing a piano with the corpus callosum completely severed,
Encyclopaedia Britannica [ also points out that
](https://www.britannica.com/science/split-brain-syndrome) (emphasis mine)

> Many patients with split-brain syndrome retain intact memory and social
> skills. Split-brain patients also maintain motor skills that were learned
> before the onset of their condition and require both sides of the body;
> examples include walking, swimming, and biking. They can also learn new
> tasks that involve either parallel or mirrored movements of their fingers or
> hands. **They cannot, however, learn to perform new tasks that require
> interdependent movement of each hand, such as learning to play the piano,
> where both hands must work together to produce the desired music** .

So therefore, beginner pianists will not be able gain any more abilities with
playing the piano, and pianists will not be able to learn any new pieces of
music as it will involve learning how to coordinate each hand with the notes
within the piece.

The anterior half of the corpus callosum is significantly larger in musicians
( [ Schlaug, et al. 1995 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932\(95\)00045-5) ),
@AliceD points out in the excellent [ answer to **Unilateral vision in split
brain subjects** ](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/21155/7604)

>   * The corpus callosum is not necessary for low-level visual processing;
>   * Both eyes project to both hemispheres; the left visual hemifield of both
> eyes is projected to the left hemisphere, the right hemifield to the right.
>

and [ Chappell (1999) ](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051799000340) also points
out that;

> It is argued that in terms of brain usage, technical skills and note-reading
> are based largely in the left-hemisphere, while the less used skills of
> improvisation, memorisation and internalisation are based in the right-
> hemisphere.

##  References

Chappell, S. (1999). Developing the complete pianist: A study of the
importance of a whole-brain approach to piano teaching. _British Journal of
Music Education, 16_ (3), 253-262. [ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051799000340
](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051799000340)

Sand, R. (n.d.). Split-brain syndrome: Pathology _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ [
https://www.britannica.com/science/split-brain-syndrome
](https://www.britannica.com/science/split-brain-syndrome)

Schlaug, G., Jäncke, L., Huang, Y., Staiger, J. F., & Steinmetz, H. (1995).
Increased corpus callosum size in musicians. _Neuropsychologia, 33_ (8),
1047-1055. [ https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(95)00045-5
](https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932\(95\)00045-5)


Question:
Can you use harmful addictions to build good habits?

I am reading the Pavlov's dog experiments, from it I learn that associating a dopamine high event with a neutral event will lead to later that neutral event triggering the same receptors in absence of the dopamine high event. I thought about this and wondered... what if I started doing some harmful addictions like cigarettes and smokes before studying something I may not be interested in... does this mean I would later associate studying with the kicks of these two harmful habits?

P.S: I am not saying to do these illicit substances in excess, just a mild amount where your brain can still function.

The above was the motivation, now is the real question: Has there been human trials based on this principle using illicit substances to train the mind in a positive way? Was it succesful..?

Explanation: Smoking is highly related to nicotine. We need to see some study results and analyses to understand the impact of nicotine.

$\begingroup$

Although smoking is highly addictive and should never be started just because
you feel like it enables you to learn something you are not particularly
interested in [ Heishman et al. (2010)
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151730/) note that:

> The significant effects of nicotine on motor abilities, attention, and
> memory likely represent true performance enhancement because they are not
> confounded by withdrawal relief. The beneficial cognitive effects of
> nicotine have implications for initiation of smoking and maintenance of
> tobacco dependence.

Note that tobacco smoking is not only addictive because of nicotine, but also
because tobacco smoke contains potent MAO inhibitors which are speculated to
potentiate the effects of nicotine. [ Berlin & Anthenelli (2001)
](https://watermark.silverchair.com/4-1-33.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsUwggLBBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKyMIICrgIBADCCAqcGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMezGRNW4qQDPOzxBOAgEQgIICeDHUGcLTucxMdWmPu9fIS9agdfpzeIljHgK-
gShT0EwX0_vEjW6FIQGasR9XL6MFS5k32D_0THoXqyImMTSZi5OlHkJbYB0hZJJsDYxhQF9l2hZ56aOI5HePRggp-K7y0w_SVKV7DYCS0Ij_hHfqOpjLWgym4IBIfCIu30gnJf64Xg9qMpHUbPRKK1c9C_0vGGj4zhv6xrIQaSayF7xGantNvnfvQQzy_f5ATGF-
TKmCnEhad0WyMT1pn33o3YrqbCrWFtIS7ypdhty9dncmt635ctlK1349uYRzdehE4xz386-5ytwFFxNS8hFR3Qv2mFr427UL3n_lSjAhIWp3KWdTSmIelMcOHckmQeRm7SLspwZWRuMwnPkU2ju4xQOaV4dkCQqVYseNmPGeOBrQUhe-6xemXZRxIvB2J4RoE-
rZelVNGCIzcUhxtGjIglFJTuzbAmrtFH7CWXA5ofxgN2xlMsw7kvzbgWpwrOYT6Z-qSTe7WsSXeevnNzmz1EyYsZ_LqG8nzR_YB7i20syUrpALDz54tCkt29pme_WZWZGrm1iuyXdKlgazLzqUHHZyt4eAw2SMugcVz10XYaoAUjLt6ZeAiZEBODDDK-S30ikXFWK1dGj55dubhalOMrs7URga10f9pnAKlHamjSicyyIJzvOqHediGogl7h_INtg76NkNKE3zrpMKobo5tDf9z340mMJ-
KvZiADxYN-
PfNf_Ub3M2IKCohJJ7kD2Ixjv0PLPjvVqLd4i6SL3yKpF2b__RSxfj5hPaVwdfYhbzjvX34L867d9Zfs3u6SP5BH_8buT-
gpGK78Xtel4nzHBM2ioPlek_Xvxo) note that:

> We examine the hypothesis that chronic habitual smoking can be better
> understood in the context of two pharmacological factors : nicotine and
> reduced MAO activity. We speculate that MAO inhibition by compounds found in
> either tobacco or tobacco smoke can potentiate nicotine’s effects

Thus if you want to try nicotine your last choice should be smoking. There is
[ snus ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus) or buy nicotine gum. Also
consider talking to a professional so (s)he can recommend medication like [
methylphenidad ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate) or similar
medication.

Let me give you another suggestion to start micro-dosing caffeine (-powder). [
Sholey et al. (2008)
](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666308000196) note
that:

> Cognitive performance, mood, autonomic activity and salivary caffeine were
> assessed pre-dose and at 1, 3, 6 and 9 h post-dose. Compared with placebo,
> performance was impaired by 2.5 mg, whilst 5 mg had negative effects on mood
> and mixed effects on performance and 10 mg improved performance.

Another paper about microdosing caffeine reports:

> This study measured the effects of 0, 12.5, 25, 50 and 100 mg caffeine on
> cognitive performance, mood and thirst in adults with low and moderate to
> high habitual caffeine intakes.Effects on performance and mood confirmed a
> psychostimulant action of caffeine. All doses of caffeine significantly
> affected cognitive performance, and the dose-response relationships for
> these effects were rather flat. [ Rogers & Smit (2000): Effects of low doses
> of caffeine on cognitive performance, mood and thirst in low and higher
> caffeine consumers
> ](https://idp.springer.com/authorize/casa?redirect_uri=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002130000506&casa_token=4uoqOueuEW8AAAAA:9P5TrKWNJJvC9fPZq5SDR5F8s2AuhBlFJ2xAlGX2pugXAqRnPkMX1-30ziDKWo1gvN_IYhf55IGRdY3hGPs)

The effects of caffeine can be enhanced by L-theanin as found in tea (camellia
sinensis). A meta-analysis of the combined effects of caffeine and L-theanin
notes that:

> Evidence of moderate eﬀect sizes in favor of combined caﬀeine and L-theanine
> in the ﬁrst 2 hours postdose were found for outcome measures Bond-Lader
> alertness, attentional switching accuracy, and, to a lesser extent, some
> unisensory and multisensory attentional outcomes. Moderator analysis of
> caﬀeine and L-theanine doses revealed trends toward greater change in eﬀect
> size for caﬀeine dose than for L-theanine dose, particularly during the ﬁrst
> hour post dose. [ Camfield et al. 2014
> ](https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/72/8/507/1919604?login=false)

Also note that what you describe in the first paragraph is very likely to
happen: You will find it increasingly harder to study a subject you do not
particularly like without the help of chemical helpers. This does not
necessarily have to be detrimental. The very prolific mathematician [ Erdös
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s) used amphetamines for a
significant proportion of his life. Just be warned that smoking tobacco might
be the most detrimental chemical aid...


Question:
Name for the effect where people cause others to fulfill their expectations

I recall hearing a social cognition lecture a number of years ago in which the lecturer described a particular idea that centered around the role of self-fulfilling prophecies in relationships. For example, if I believe that x is a hostile jerk, I'll tend to treat them in a way that makes them more hostile. (A good example of a book that subscribes to this type of a view is Feeling Good Together by David Burns; I'm not sure if he subscribes to the exact theory that I'm trying to remember, though).

I'm pretty sure that there was a specific name for this, but I don't recall what it was.

Can someone help me identify which theory or term this is?

Explanation: This is a psychological phenomenon in which high expectations lead to improved performance in a given area and low expectations lead to worse.

$\begingroup$

I believe what you might be referring to is the [ Pygmalion effect
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect) , an effect in social
psychology where high expectations lead to improved performance in a given
area: a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

An interesting idea, but one which has sparked a lot of criticism over the
years. I won't go as far as saying it has been debunked, but you might want to
have a [ look for yourself
](https://thenewstatistics.com/itns/2018/04/03/weve-been-here-before-the-
replication-crisis-over-the-pygmalion-effect/) .


Question:
Why are there so few women in math and science Olympiads?

Why are there so few women in math olympics (IMO and etc)? If this is also related to the low participation of women in the Olympics compared to men, I would like to know.

Why Are There Still Only Few Women in Science An interesting article you can find on Nytimes about why low number of women in science

I also found some studies that try to explain why women's participation in math olympics is low. They have shown that many women also believe the stereotype that women are bad at math. Women who hold this belief may be reluctant to compete in math competitions, so it probably makes up for this effect.

Women and Mathematics: Stereotypes, Identity, and Achievement Both Genders Think Women Are Bad at Basic Math

I sent some studies that I read and found relevant.

Explanation: This could also be related to the different interests between men and women.

$\begingroup$

This is my first answer here, so bear with me. Suggestions on how to make this
answer better are welcome.

There are several studies that indicate that men are more interested in things
and women are more interested in people.

  * [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/ ](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/)
  * [ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189/full ](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189/full)

In Scandinavia where genders are the most equal there is a bigger gap between
men and women in the STEM fields. Which suggests that the interest in people
or things is biological and not perse social or cultural.

  * [ https://www.telenor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-Gender-Gap-in-Technology-in-Scandinavia_Full-report.pdf ](https://www.telenor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-Gender-Gap-in-Technology-in-Scandinavia_Full-report.pdf)

To compete in the math olympics you need to be really good in what you do. Or
for the sake of argument to be a high level engineer or any other high level
position in the STEM field.

You will have more men than women. Because there are less women to begin with.

Plus women excel in verbal skills. So they have more options outside STEM
fields only.

  * [ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/ ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/)


Question:
How long does an area clean-up help it stay clean?

Sometime in middle or high school I remember coming across this popular thinking of, when an area or neighbourhood has some trash, it makes people think it's ok to litter there themselves, and the more trash there is, the more of an unspoken 'norm' littering becomes. However, the hope was that the reverse is also true, and if a neighbourhood's cleaned up, then it signals to people that littering is the anti-norm here.

But I have gone on trash cleaning walks around my neighbourhood in the past few months, and I can't say that that hope is totally founded. The street by my apartment building has trash reemerge with a vengeance within a week. It makes me think there's some discrepancy in how this is thought about. Like, it's harder to see during night-time, so it absolves you from confronting the results of trash on the grass, and the like.

Are there long-term studies around (various) neighbourhoods that study this behaviour, and detangle and clarify the different factors at play here? Other studies are good too.

Explanation: The central question is to find studies with convincing evidence about the hypothesis that: trash encourages litering while clean places become cleaner.

$\begingroup$

Research indeed demonstrates that littering is significantly more frequent
when there is existing litter - for reviews, see [ Huffman et al (1995)
](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916595272003) , and [ Geller et al (1982. pp
84-97) ](https://books.google.ca/books?id=RuBSAAAAMAAJ) .

A more recent review by [ Vos et al (2018)
](https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-06-2017-0025) summarizes:

> Among researchers, there is a general consensus that littering is
> significantly more likely to occur in a littered setting than in a litter-
> free setting.

The authors discuss a number of other factors known to reduce littering
behaviour, including the presence of others, existing litter being in piles,
seeing other people picking up trash, and the scent of cleanser. Factors that
increase littering include lack of trash cans, and the [ broken windows effect
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) .

As for long-term observational studies, your best bet is probably [ Schultz et
al (2013) ](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916511412179) :

> Findings are reported from coded observations of the littering behavior
> among 9,757 individuals at 130 outdoor public locations

Some interesting findings from this study:

> ... of all 8,990 individuals that were observed moving through a diverse
> range of sites, 4% littered.
>
> ... the large majority (85%) of littering behavior results from individual-
> level variables (e.g., age, gender, attitudes, and motivation) ... 15% of
> the variance in observed littering behavior was due to some aspect of the
> context (e.g., existing litter, lack of convenient receptacles, etc.).
>
> ... for every unit increase in the amount of existing litter (from 0-10),
> the observed littering rate increased by 2%.

Lots more detail in the paper.