Question:
Is it possible to effect both positive and negative reinforcement through the same action?

Consider the following scenario: a rhesus monkey is being put under severe duress somehow (isolation, sense of physical threat, whathaveyou). It is desired that a behavior, like pressing a lever, is increased. Let's say administration of a CNS depressant as a reward is used to try to get this outcome. This could possibly be seen as positive reinforcement (due to euphoriant effects in themselves) and as negative reinforcement (because stress is being taken away). Is it possible to model both sides of this picture and is this done in practice?

Explanation: We need to find association or classification between positive and negative reinforcement.

$\begingroup$

Yes.

In fact, [ the modern view
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755378/) of positive and
negative reinforcement is that they are essentially synonyms. They are
different ways of looking at the same thing, like describing a glass of water
based on how full or how empty it is:

> In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years.
> However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory
> that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a
> negative reinforcer.

[ Wikipedia
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Further_ideas_and_concepts) as
well:

> Distinguishing between positive and negative can be difficult and may not
> always be necessary; focusing on what is being removed or added and how it
> is being removed or added will determine the nature of the reinforcement.


Question:
Is "not going to doctor because of fear of illness" a psychological disorder?

Some people don't like to go to the doctor because they are afraid of being diagnosed sick in medical examinations or being diagnosed exacerbated when they have an illness even they know if they don't treat the illness it will get worse.

A really large population of these kind of people exists, especially in Asia.

Is it a subtype of hypochondria? Or it is another psychological abnormality or even is normal?

Explanation: This is a behavior that avoids dealing with people that cause stress to protect themselves.

$\begingroup$

What you are describing is most likely **[ avoidance
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidance_coping) ** , which in itself isn't a
disorder.

People are most likely afraid of the illness in itself, and so not going to
the doctor means that they don't have to confront the possibility of having
that illness. This avoidance is a _mechanism_ that maintains hypochondria or
health anxiety (however you wish to call it) by _negative reinforcement_ : 'I
don't go to the doctor, I'm not told if I'm sick or not, so I'm less anxious'.

The reduction in fear or anxiety is usually short lived and only makes it
worst over time. This coping mechanism is not adaptive, and may aggravate
health anxiety, but in itself, is not a disorder.

**Sources**
**-** [ David Veale's website ](http://www.veale.co.uk/resources-
support/public-information/health-anxiety/)
**-** [ Centre for Clinical Interventions
](https://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/~/media/CCI/Consumer%20Modules/Helping%20Health%20Anxiety/Helping%20Health%20Anxiety%20-%2007%20-%20Challenging%20Avoidance%20and%20Safety%20Behaviours.pdf)
**-** [ Psychology Today ](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/in-
practice/201303/why-avoidance-coping-is-the-most-important-factor-in-anxiety)


Question:
What's the psychological reason for the fascination with gossiping or scandalous life?

Why do people find fascination in a tabloid magazine, paparazzi magazine, gossiping or whether prince and kings are dating or not or if actors, actresses, singers having any scandalous affairs or not?

I find gossiping similar to character assassination.

I have no business in their lives.

So what's the psychological reason for the fascination with gossiping or scandalous life?

Explanation: The central question is to ask why do we need gossiping/its function. It has influence on society and people.

$\begingroup$

Only evolutionary psychology seems to have something to say about the "why"
here. And (somewhat predictably) the [ hypothesis advanced
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip#Evolutionary_view) has something to do
with social information in ever larger groups:

> From Dunbar's evolutionary theories, gossip originated to help bond the
> groups that were constantly growing in size. To survive, individuals need
> alliances; but as these alliances grew larger, it was difficult if not
> impossible to physically connect with everyone. Conversation and language
> were able to bridge this gap. Gossip became a social interaction that helped
> the group gain information about other individuals without personally
> speaking to them. It enabled people to keep up with what was going on in
> their social network. It also creates a bond between the teller and the
> hearer, as they share information of mutual interest and spend time
> together. It also helps the hearer learn about another individual’s behavior
> and helps them have a more effective approach to their relationship. Dunbar
> (2004) found that 65% of conversations consist of social topics.
>
> Dunbar (1994) argues that gossip is the equivalent of social grooming often
> observed in other primate species. Anthropological investigations indicate
> that gossip is a cross-cultural phenomenon, providing evidence for
> evolutionary accounts of gossip.

FYI: depending who you ask, [ it's a social skill and not a character flaw
](https://theconversation.com/gossip-is-a-social-skill-not-a-character-
flaw-51629) .

> When disparaging gossip, we overlook the fact that it’s an essential part of
> what makes the social world tick; the nasty side of gossip overshadows the
> more benign ways in which it functions. [...]
>
> In the workplace, [ studies have shown
> ](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2012.07.002) that harmless gossiping
> with one’s colleagues can build group cohesiveness and boost morale.
>
> On the flip side, the awareness that others are likely talking about us can
> keep us in line.
>
> Studies of California cattle ranchers, Maine lobster fishers and college
> rowing teams confirm that gossip is used in a variety of settings to hold
> individuals accountable. In each of these groups, individuals who violated
> expectations about sharing resources or meeting responsibilities became
> targets of gossip and ostracism. This, in turn, pressured them to become
> better members of the group.
>
> For example, lobstermen who didn’t respect well-established group norms
> about when and how lobsters could be harvested were quickly exposed by their
> colleagues. Their fellow lobstermen temporarily shunned them and, for a
> while, refused to work with them.
>
> Belgian psychologist [ Charlotte de Backer
> ](https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/charlotte-debacker/) makes a
> distinction between strategy learning gossip and reputation gossip.
>
> Indeed, de Backer discovered that our interest in celebrities may feed off
> of this [latter] thirst for learning life strategies. For better or for
> worse, we look to celebrities in the same way that our ancestors looked to
> role models within their tribes for guidance. [...] From an evolutionary
> standpoint, “celebrity” is a recent phenomenon, due primarily to the
> explosion of mass media in the 20th century. Our ancestors, on the other
> hand, found social importance in the intimate details of everyone‘s private
> life, since everyone in their small social world mattered. [...]
>
> [Additionally, in a highly mobile, industrial society] Because of the
> familiarity we feel with celebrities, they can serve an important social
> function: they may be the only “friends” we have in common with new
> neighbors and coworkers. They’re shared cultural touchstones that facilitate
> the types of informal interactions that help people become comfortable in
> new surroundings. Keeping up with the lives of actors, politicians and
> athletes can make a person more socially adept during interactions with
> strangers and even offer inroads into new relationships.

I.e., it's a matter of degree and content whether it greases the wheels of
society enough to make them spin well (rather than slip).

A couple of peered-reviewed refs for the latter quote (from that research
group):

  * De Backer, C., Nelissen, M., Vyncke, P., Braeckman, J. & McAndrew, F. (2007). Celebrities: From Teachers to Friends. A Test of Two Hypotheses on the Adaptiveness of Celebrity Gossip. Human Nature, 18(4), 334-354. (IF2007: 1.814)

  * De Backer, C. J., Larson, C., Fisher, M. L., McAndrew, F. T., & Rudnicki, K. (2016). When Strangers Start to Gossip: Investigating the Effect of Gossip on Cooperation in a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1-10.

The [ latter paper
](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-016-0063-7) concludes that:

> gossip may spark initial relations, yet is insufficient to ignite a social
> bond sustained by cooperative action among complete strangers.

And [ the former ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26181311) :

> The Learning Hypothesis explains interest in celebrity gossip as a by-
> product of an evolved mechanism useful for acquiring fitness-relevant
> survival information. The Parasocial Hypothesis sees celebrity gossip as a
> diversion of this mechanism, which leads individuals to misperceive
> celebrities as people who are part of their social network. Using two
> preliminary studies, we tested our predictions. [...] In support of the
> Learning Hypothesis, age proved to be a strong predictor of interest in
> celebrities. In partial support of the Parasocial Hypothesis, media
> exposure, but not social isolation, was a strong predictor of interest in
> celebrities. The preliminary results support both theories, indicate that
> across our life span celebrities move from being teachers to being friends


Question:
Kinetic synesthesia evoked by abstract thoughts?

Can the experience of movement when mentally visualizing the network/structure of the code of a complex application, and the information that flows through the network as a programmer be a kind of synesthesia experience, or is there something else at play? Movement akin to being drawn in different directions or tilting forward, as a result of experiencing the structure.

Explanation: We need to figure out what is Synesthesia, in particular, its association with researcher, programmers, etc.

$\begingroup$

**Short answer**
No.

**Background**
The definition of **[ synesthesia ](https://www.synesthete.org/) ** is
generally as follows:

> ... a perceptual condition of mixed sensations: a stimulus in one sensory
> modality ( _e.g._ , hearing) involuntarily elicits a sensation/experience in
> another modality ( _e.g._ vision). Likewise, perception of a form ( _e.g._ ,
> a letter) may induce an unusual perception in the same modality ( _e.g._ a
> color).

The most common form of synesthesia is thought to be colored hearing: sounds,
music or voices seen as colors. Most synesthetes report that they see such
sounds internally, in "the mind's eye." Only a minority see visions as if
projected outside the body, usually within arm's reach (source: [ APA
](http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar01/synesthesia.aspx) ).

Most of the discussions I've had with peers in that field reported to work
with people that see letters and numbers to have a particular color. Indeed [
WebMD ](https://www.webmd.com/brain/what-is-synesthesia#1) reports that

> One of the most common responses [of synesthetes] is to see letters,
> numbers, or sounds as colors.

Hence, I think that synesthesia often (but see the [ APA site
](http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar01/synesthesia.aspx) ) manifests itself
through relatively 'simple' visuals brought about by relatively 'simple'
stimuli. The number '4' appears to be green _etc_ . In contrast, the highly
cognitive complex associations you are envisioning seem unlikely to occur.
Further, synesthesia is mostly coupled to the senses of vision and hearing,
and not to motor functions. So, to answer your question, no I don't think so.


Question:
What is the name of the phenomenon that would make me choose A over B because I was influenced by a trend?

I've looked at these 1,2,3 and I don't think they answer my question fully.

Let's say it's election time and I'm on the fence about who to vote for. I see some survey on the news and seeing party A has more vote intentions, it tends to sway my decision towards party A.

Closer to home, I see a question or answer on SE and I may feel swayed to vote +1 or -1 if there are pre-existing votes that have been cast.

What would this phenomenon be called (if there is a name for it other than simple influence or conformity)? Also, can there be a bias for going against what the current trend is?

Explanation: This is the behavior where people to adopt certain behaviors, styles, or attitudes simply because others are doing so, somewhat related to trend-following.

$\begingroup$

[ Bandwagon effect ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect) :

> The bandwagon effect is a phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs,
> ideas, fads and trends increases the more that they have already been
> adopted by others. In other words, the bandwagon effect is characterized by
> the probability of individual adoption increasing with respect to the
> proportion who have already done so. As more people come to believe in
> something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying
> evidence.

And the reason why you were not completely happy with the other questions you
found (mostly on social pressure) is that there's perhaps not a single source
of "bias" for the bandwagon effect. Depending on the actual phenomenon
studied, social pressure or [ information cascades
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade) make more sense as an
explanation for a given instance of the bandwagon effect. At least with
respect to SE voting patterns, probably the latter makes a bit more sense. The
two causes are probably not mutually exclusive.


Question:
What is the learning/memory type which requires active contribution called?

I observed I best memorize information when I actively compile it into meaningful hierarchy. That encompasses creating PowerPoint presentations, explaining the topic to someone or writing summaries. I think my active contribution is what matters here.

For a while, I used the term social memory but I've learned it refers rather to obervational learning. So is there a term for it?

Explanation: This is a process to engage in the active learning.

$\begingroup$

**Short answer**
This type of engaged learning is referred to as active learning.

**Background**
In contrast to the traditional, mostly passive ways of teaching (one-way
lecturing), nowadays there's a trend to [ **active learning**
](https://cei.umn.edu/active-learning) .

> Active learning is any approach to instruction in which all students are
> asked to engage in the learning process. Active learning stands in contrast
> to "traditional" modes of instruction in which students are passive
> recipients of knowledge from an expert.

[ Markant _et al_ (2016)
](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/mbe.12117) explain in a
review article that active learning leads to better outcomes than passive
forms of instruction. They summarize that the opportunity to control the
information while learning leads to improved memory. Mechanisms involved in
this effect include the formation of **sensorimotor associations** , adaptive
selection of material and metacognitive monitoring.

Active control over a learning situation results in large areas of the brain
being recruited and interconnected during active exploration (source: [ Psych
Central ](https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/12/06/how-active-learning-
improves-memory/21563.html) ). For example, active exploratory behavior during
the observation of objects enhances memory recall [ (Voss _et al_ ., 2011)
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21102449) , resulting in enhanced
activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the cerebellum and the
hippocampus is higher and more coordinated after active learning (source: [
Illinois News Bureau ](https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/205467) ).

**References**
**-** [ Markant _et al_ Mind, Brain, and Education Society (2016); **10** (3):
142-52 ](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/mbe.12117)
**-** [ Voss _et al_ ., _Nat Neurosci_ (2011); **14** (1): 115-20
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21102449)


Question:
How does Kohlberg's moral reasoning work, can I measure it myself?

Is there any way I can work out what stage Kohlberg would claim I was operating at?

I do refer, when thinking about what is best, permissible, etc., to laws and other people's opinions, punishment etc., but not as conclusive judgments on what is right or wrong etc., only as one aspect of how to try to make that judgment myself. And while my actual judgments I would claim apply to anyone, not just myself, they are also provisional, and subject to revision, reappraisal.

With some exceptions:

My happiness is often more valuable than other's, maybe just because I'm especially well set to work on that. Likewise I wouldn't be obliged to martyr myself for any reason, e.g. to save a million lives, though I would say the same of anyone. And certain actions are always and unequivocally wrong, for anyone, they are that heinous.

I think enough and loosely enough about morality to say that I'm probably post conventional, and perhaps that's all that really does matter. But I wondered if I could learn more!

Explanation: The moral assessment is complicated. It may be inconsistent among people, e.g., in difficult dilemmas where drinking, driving or business is involved.

$\begingroup$

That can't be answered with one particular stage [ because
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development)
:

> Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that people frequently demonstrate
> significant inconsistency in their moral judgements.[26] This often occurs
> in moral dilemmas involving drinking and driving and business situations
> where participants have been shown to reason at a subpar stage, typically
> using more self-interest driven reasoning (i.e. stage two) than authority
> and social order obedience driven reasoning (i.e. stage four).[26][27]
> **Kohlberg’s theory is generally considered to be incompatible with
> inconsistencies in moral reasoning.** [...] [ Krebs and Denton
> ](https://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/krebs/publications/Toward%20a%20More%20Pragmatic%20Approach%20to%20Morality.pdf)
> have also attempted to modify Kohlberg’s theory to account for a multitude
> of conflicting findings, but eventually concluded that the theory is not
> equipped to take into consideration how most individuals make moral
> decisions in their everyday lives.

Having said that Wikipedia also mentions that some tests have been developed
based on Kohlberg’s theory anyway, e.g. [ DIT
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defining_Issues_Test) (presumably averaging
reasoning over a number questions), so you could try to take some of those
tests.

As far as I can tell from their description(s), the [ DIT tests
](http://ethicaldevelopment.ua.edu/about-the-dit.html) only involve abstractly
reasoning about some scenarios that don't involve sellf-interest of the test-
taker, so they don't quite seem to address the criticism, and they probably
won't capture your exceptions in that area either, e.g "My happiness is often
more valuable than other's". Krebs and Denton found that [ self-serving bias
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias) affects most people when it
comes to moral judgements:

> Self-serving biases. In contrast to the third-person moral judgments evoked
> by Kohlberg’s test, most real-life moral judgments are made in the first
> person and second person. As examples, people say such things as “I was
> wrong; I should never have done that” and “You should do your share.” Krebs
> and Laird (1998) found that first-person moral judgments made by
> participants about transgressions they had committed were significantly more
> lenient than the third-person judgments they made about transgressions
> committed by others, especially when others’ transgressions were committed
> against them


Question:
Is there a formal name for the compulsive and recurrent urges to pick one's nose in order to remove perceived imperfections?

Under which formal category does the following condition fall?: the condition of experiencing frequent and compulsive urges to pick one's nose searching for any possible perceived imperfections (be they wet snot, dry snot and even scabs) in order to remove them or "smooth them out" by means of scratching, in a sort of endless pursuit for a sensation of perfect smoothness within one's nose (endless because the sensation of perfect smoothness is never quite achieved and usually the scratching itself leads to bleeding and scabs which paradoxically become the fuel for future nose picking sessions, in an endless cycle). References are very welcomed.

Explanation: In general, this is the repeated urge or impulse to pick at one's own skin.

$\begingroup$

[ Excoriation disorder ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excoriation_disorder)
(ED) formerly known as dermatillomania, and more popularly as Skin Picking
Disorder (SPD):

> a mental disorder characterized by the repeated urge to pick at one's own
> skin, often to the extent that damage is caused.

The status as a separate disorder is somewhat controversial, because of high
comorbidity:

> There has been controversy over the creation of a separate category in the
> DSM-5 for excoriation (skin picking) disorder. Two of the main reasons for
> objecting to the inclusion of excoriation disorder in the DSM-5 are: (1)
> that excoriation disorder may just be a symptom of a different underlying
> disorder, e.g. OCD or [ BDD
> ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder) , and (2) that
> excoriation disorder is merely a bad habit and that by allowing this
> disorder to obtain its own separate category it would force the DSM to
> include a wide array of bad habits as separate syndromes, e.g., nail biting
> and **nose-picking** .

Your case seems to be one of those overlapping ones.

There's also a [ 2017 neuroimaging study
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604737/) which concludes:

> data offer partial support for the view that sub-cortical structures
> contribute to the pathophysiology of SPD, both supporting its categorization
> as an OC-Related Disorder in DSM-5 and suggesting that there exists a
> pathophysiological difference between SPD and OCD.

Wikipedia has a lot to say about various treatments even though

> Knowledge about effective treatments for excoriation disorder is sparse
> despite the prevalence of the condition.

The usual suspects have been tried: SSRIs, anti-psychotics, anticonvulsants,
glutamatergic agents (used to treat drug addictions) etc. As well cognitive-
behavioral psychotherapies. It's not clear from there what might be most
effective.

Wikipedia aside, there's been a [ "preliminary meta-analysis"
](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2013.02.003) published in 2014, but its [
review at CRD notes
](http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12013022819)
:

> Authors' conclusions:
>  Both pharmacological and psychological interventions appeared to be
> effective in reducing the severity of pathological skin picking;
> psychological interventions could have a larger effect.
>
> CRD commentary:
>  The authors did not report a quality assessment, so it is difficult to know
> how reliable the results of the individual studies were. Many of the studies
> had designs prone to bias. Details about the comparator interventions, in
> the studies with control groups, were not reported. Given the heterogeneity
> across the studies, the limited reporting of study details and the unknown
> quality of the included studies, it seems inappropriate that the results
> were statistically synthesised, particularly for pharmacological and
> psychological interventions, for pathological skin-picking severity.

So I wouldn't put too much stock on it.

A [ more recent (2016) meta-analysis
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4930073/) has basically the
same conclusions; this one was not reviewed at CRD, but it relies basically on
the same small number of studies. Its conclusions were similar to the
"preliminary" one: psychotherapy seems to work better than medication based on
the limited data available. It only looked at SSRIs and lamictal for
medication though.

There's also a [ 2016 RCT on N-acetylcysteine
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27007062) , published in a high-impact
journal, concluding:

> N-acetylcysteine [NAC] treatment resulted in significant reductions in skin-
> picking symptoms and was well tolerated.

The result was [ fairly unsurprising
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325313/) given that NAC was
previously found effective for trichotillomania (TTM -- hair pulling) as well;
both studies with NAC were conducted by the same research group. But there
were a few more interesting comments on those papers:

> In striking contrast with what we know about OCD, SSRIs have not been proved
> to be superior to placebo in TTM treatment. As for ED, the evidence
> regarding the efficacy of SSRIs is still scarce. **So far, there are no US
> Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for ED** and TTM. The
> divergent results of the trials testing either SSRIs or NAC for ED/TTM and
> OCD suggest that treatments may not be used interchangeably between OCD and
> related disorders.
>
> In addition, results from genetic studies also suggest that the neurobiology
> of pathological grooming may not be necessarily related to OCD. It had been
> demonstrated that Sapap3 knockout mice groomed themselves excessively.
> However, using family-based association analyses, [ Bienvenu et al
> ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19051237) found that variation within
> the human equivalent of the Sapap3 gene appeared associated with ED/TTM, but
> not with OCD. The conflicting results regarding the efficacy of NAC for
> ED/TTM and OCD, in addition to the findings of translational studies,
> suggest that the neural basis of repetitive behaviors observed in patients
> with these disorders might not be the same. So far, similarities between
> ED/TTM and OCD do not seem to go beyond the characterization by repetitive
> behaviors and some degree of familial aggregation.

(But note that this last statement appears somewhat incorrect in view of the [
2017 neuroimaging study
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604737/) \--some overlap with
OCD seems to exist after all.)

NHS Choices also has consumer-oriented page on [ "Skin picking disorder "
](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/skin-picking-disorder/) which doesn't say much
I haven't told you already except for some behavioral tips. YMMV.


Question:
My Mind Shows Me My Future [closed]

When I sleep, I can see some phenomenon as a dream. After some days or months or years that phenomenon happens in my life and forthwith my mind reminds me of that earlier dream that I saw. There are simple things such as for example getting down pen from my hand like wise.

My problem is how can this happen? I have heard this happens to others also. What kind of situation is this in the mind? Is it normal or abnormal?

Explanation: This is a situation where people experience something they have already dreamed. We need to check whether this situation is normal or not.

$\begingroup$

It's a phenomenon called [ déjà rêvé ](https://curiosity.com/topics/deja-reve-
is-even-weirder-than-deja-vu-curiosity/) , the French for "already dreamed":

> If you've ever felt like you predicted something in a dream, you might have
> felt it wise to keep that feeling to yourself so that others don't think
> you're as out-there as an ancient oracle. Well, good news: you don't need to
> be so secretive about your psychic dreams. They're actually a well-
> documented phenomenon called déjà rêvé — but they don't actually mean you
> can see the future. [...]
>
> According to a new study that looked back on the medical reports of
> epileptic patients from 1958 to 2015, déjà rêvé experiences are common after
> electric brain stimulation, a pretty standard treatment method for epileptic
> symptoms. It suggests that the "already dreamed" feeling is the result of
> something happening physiologically in the brain, and that in turn could
> point to a better understanding of how dreams work. [...]
>
> If you experience déjà rêvé, take comfort in knowing that it's totally
> normal — the feeling is just a harmless quirk of your brain.

And there's is actually a [ 2017 paper
](http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2017/00000024/F0020007/art00008)
, on the occurrence in the general population; it looks like it happens to
most peple at least some times:

> Deja reve ('already dreamed') has been hypothesized as a cause for various
> forms of déjà experience. With deja reve one has the distinct impression
> that the uncanny familiarity one is sensing has come from a preceding dream,
> but one not usually remembered until the experience is taking place. In this
> exploratory investigation, 2,492 respondents filled out online
> questionnaires in which they were queried about the incidence of their deja
> reve experiences, about dream frequency, and about their attitudes to
> dreams. The Big Five personality factors were also measured using a
> separate, standardized questionnaire. **Nearly 80% claimed to have had such
> experiences** and the associated frequencies are presented. Age was
> negatively correlated with the incidence and there was little gender
> dependence. The results of the Big Five personality factors are also
> presented.

Studies of déjà rêvé aren't very numerous however. The [ "new study"
](https://www.brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-861X\(18\)30079-2/fulltext)
mentioned in that first popsci article distinguishes déjà-rêvé from [ déjà vu
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu) (basically déjà-rêvé
elicits some specific dream/memory content, not mere impression of having seen
something before) and proposes a further sub-classification:

> Déjà-rêvé appears to be different from déjà-vu—the two must not be confused.
> By construction, all déjà-rêvé episodes we collected had content, which is
> not the case for déjà-vu. Furthermore, déjà-vu and déjà-rêvé never involved
> the same bipolar contacts in the instances when both could be induced by EBS
> [electric brain stimulation] in the same patient. These results are critical
> since they support the idea that déjà-rêvé is a true phenomenon, different
> from déjà-vu.
>
> Moreover, déjà-rêvé is a generic term for distinct entities: recollection of
> a specific and detailed dream similar to an episodic memory, reminiscence of
> a vague dream or elements of dream(s) which feels familiar, and finally
> experiences that resemble or feel like what happens during dreams. Explicit
> content with mental imagery referring to a previous dream exists in the
> first two types, but the exactness of the details and contextual elements
> vary. In the third type, the content of the experience is not at the
> foreground, but the subject has the feeling of a known sensation or a state
> of consciousness similar to night dreaming. Only the first two types should
> be called déjà-rêvé, while the last type should be referred to as “dreamy
> state”.

They also discuss why déjà-rêvé is apparently not simply a hallucination,
basically because of the association of the phenomenon with electrode
placement in memory- and dream-related brain regions:

> It may be disputed that we cannot be sure that déjà-rêvé (episodic-like or
> familiarity-like) are linked to true previous dreams. EBS could simply
> produce a random combination of visual and auditory elements, creating
> phantasmagoric and unrealistic experiences similar to dreams. However, EBS-
> inducing déjà-rêvé were all located in the temporal lobes, although
> extratemporal brain areas were commonly stimulated [4]. They were also
> exclusively induced by medial temporal lobe EBS in our database. Thus, like
> other subtypes of experiential phenomena, specific locations of EBS seem to
> correlate with déjà-rêvé subtypes. This suggests it is improbable the déjà-
> rêvé we reported here are pure hallucinations, otherwise patients would have
> reported similar phenomena after stimulation of other brain areas.
> Furthermore, the brain regions implicated in déjà-rêvé include structures
> involved in long-term memory (especially in episodic memory and familiarity
> processes) [27, 28, 29], in memory formation during sleep [29], in normal
> dreaming [30,31] and probably in dream recall [32].


Question:
Saying things to shock others

Is it strange or categorically bad to say things that shock others knowingly, and enjoy their reaction?

I have a close friend who partakes in such behavior, and I want to understand his motivation a bit better.

Some context

I am not speaking about an attention aspect, per se, since this satisfaction from saying "shocking things" would be usually in a personal relationship context, whether that be friendship, intimate, or familial.

Perhaps the idea stems from hurting others as a coping mechanism?

Further, the satisfaction is not sexual at all, but merely a satisfaction from the reaction to whatever was said.

I am currently investigating this idea, as I have seen my friend partake in such behavior, and often at that. This behavior is private, so I am doubtful that it is for attention.

$\begingroup$

If I understand the question correctly, [ this article
](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/obesely-speaking/201411/excessive-
attention-seeking-and-drama-addiction) might interest you.

To break it down, it suggests that actions taken out to seek attention are a
coping mechanism that have their roots in early neglect by the family. Since
attention is an important social need, if it is not readily available as a
child, the brain wires itself to go to extreme lengths to receive it.

In the case you mentioned, saying inflammatory things to enjoy a reaction
fulfills that need for attention. According to the article, this releases
endorphins that reduce the anxiety that accompanies not receiving adequate
attention.


Question:
Is there a term for the desire to maintain a level of anxiety?

As a war veteran who has/had PTSD, I've noticed in myself a desire to maintain a level of anxiety and stress closer to what I was used to.

You've probably also heard/seen this type of behavior from other veterans who engage in High Risk Behavior after separation from service.

I've also known former incarcerated individuals and PhD graduates who do the same.

Is there an official term for this behavior? Further reading on the topic?

Explanation: This is related to sensation seeking, where people pursue experiences and feelings, that are "varied, novel, rich and intense".

$\begingroup$

With "normal" risk taking related to "thrill seekers" what you could be
talking about can be

  * **Sensation Seeking** ( [ Zuckerman, 2007 ](http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317124.aspx) )

> Risky behavior can be an expression of a normal, genetically influenced
> personality trait, sensation seeking. Its expression in risky behaviors such
> as extreme and risky sports, vocations, substance abuse, unsafe sex, and
> crime, among others, is the topic of this fascinating and accessible book.

or

  * **Disinhibition** ( [ Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinhibition) ), which is a lack of restraint manifested in disregard for social conventions, impulsivity, and poor risk assessment.

In the case of PTSD (or other mental health problems) causing the behaviour,
it is **Negative Urgency** ( [ Cyders & Smith, 2008
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705930) ), which is the
tendency to engage in rash action in response to extreme negative affects
(experiences of negative emotions, [ poor self-esteem and/or poor self-concept
](https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/media/Media,366009,en.pdf) )

[ Cyders & Smith (2008)
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705930) believe there is

> striking circumstantial evidence that positive and negative urgency play an
> important role in adolescence. It seems likely that the normative adolescent
> experience involves a developmentally limited increase in levels of urgency,
> and also that there are important individual differences in the urgency
> traits during these years.

A study conducted by [ James, Strom & Leskela (2014)
](https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00241) looked at the risk-taking
behaviours and impulsivity among veterans with and without PTSD. They also
compared the results with those who not only suffered PTSD, but also mild
Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI).

> [A] 42-item scale developed for the study permitted the assessment of a wide
> range of behaviors that are not captured in existing risk-taking measures
> but tend to be common and problematic among veterans (e.g., risky driving
> practices). Items were derived from a review of relevant literature.
> Participants reported how frequently they engaged in each of the behaviors
> using a 5-point [ Likert-type scale
> ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale) ranging from 0 (never) to 4
> (very often). Total scores range from 0 to 63. In addition to the total
> score, scores on four subscales (substance abuse, aggression, risky sexual
> practices, and thrill seeking) were also evaluated **[...]**
>
> As expected, the co-occurring PTSD + mTBI group endorsed significantly more
> risk-taking behaviors and Negative Urgency than the control group and
> significantly more risky substance use, aggressive behavior, and Negative
> Urgency than the mTBI group. An identical pattern was found for the PTSD
> group compared to the control group and the mTBI group. Counter to
> expectations, the co-occurring PTSD + mTBI group did not endorse
> significantly more impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors than the PTSD
> group. That is, individuals with PTSD, regardless of TBI status (i.e., PTSD;
> PTSD + mTBI), tended to engage in more risky behaviors and more impulsive
> behaviors in the context of negative affective states than controls and
> those with mTBI only. The control group and mTBI group did not significantly
> differ from each other. Across all four groups, thrill-seeking behaviors
> were the most frequently reported risk-taking behaviors. There were no group
> differences in Sensation Seeking.

Not surprising, considering the nature of PTSD and its effects, the study also
found other highly problematic behaviours

> Notably, both theoretical and empirical works also link disinhibition, or
> the highly related construct of impulsivity, to suicide-related behaviors.
> In the present study, the PTSD groups (i.e., PTSD, PTSD + mTBI) were not
> only characterized by greater levels of the Negative Urgency facet of
> impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors than the mTBI and control groups but
> were also more likely than the control group to have thought about suicide
> and purposely driven a vehicle into another object. Thus, premorbid
> disinhibition may place people on a track toward later involvement in risky
> or other highly problematic behaviors that ultimately result in
> psychopathological and self-destructive outcomes.

(See also, [ Cyders & Smith (2008)
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705930) about urgency and
psychopathology)

**Due to risks involved with Negative Urgency, therapy needs to be sought with
regard to this too.**

##  Therapy Available

When receiving psychological help for PTSD, it is best to highlight the fact
that you have a desire to maintain a level of anxiety and stress closer to
what you are now used to compared to the past. That way, the best form of help
can be ascertained via your therapy provider.

Your therapist may be able to incorporate therapy for this using the same
techniques they use for your PTSD, or they may tweak the sessions to
incorporate other techniques such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) or
Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT; see [ Linehan, 1993
](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/19580590_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder_Theory_and_Method/links/553076c80cf20ea0a06f7fb8/Dialectical-
Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder-Theory-and-Method.pdf) or
[ Lynch, et al., 2007
](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/6124095_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder/links/599ce0290f7e9b892bb003d9/Dialectical-
Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder.pdf) )

> One main focus of DBT is teaching individuals to respond adaptively to the
> experience of extreme emotional states, referred to in this treatment as
> Distress Tolerance Skills.

##  References

Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Emotion-based Dispositions to Rash
Action: Positive and Negative Urgency. _Psychological Bulletin_ , 134(6),
807–828. PMCID: [ PMC2705930
](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705930) DOI: [
10.1037/a0013341 ](https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013341)

James, L. M., Strom, T. Q., & Leskela, J. (2014). Risk-taking behaviors and
impulsivity among veterans with and without PTSD and mild TBI. _Military
medicine_ , 179(4), 357-363. DOI: [ 10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00241
](https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00241)

Linehan, M. (1987). Dialectical-behavioral treatment of borderline personality
disorder: Theory and Method. _Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic_ , 51(3),
261—276
Free ResearchGate PDF: [
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/19580590_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder_Theory_and_Method/links/553076c80cf20ea0a06f7fb8/Dialectical-
Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder-Theory-and-Method.pdf
](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/19580590_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder_Theory_and_Method/links/553076c80cf20ea0a06f7fb8/Dialectical-
Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder-Theory-and-Method.pdf)

Lynch, T. R., Trost, W. T., Salsman, N., & Linehan, M. M. (2007). Dialectical
behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder. _Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology_ , 3, 181-205. DOI: [
10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095229
](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095229)
Free ResearchGate PDF: [
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/6124095_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder/links/599ce0290f7e9b892bb003d9/Dialectical-
Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder.pdf
](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/6124095_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder/links/599ce0290f7e9b892bb003d9/Dialectical-
Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder.pdf)


Question:
People who climb the social hierarchy

We know that people on top of the social hierarchy have (at least in developed countries) 30 or more years average life expectancy , more stable marriages, happier life and so on. So my question is for people who managed to get from the bottom to the top, what is their expected divorce rate, life expectancy and so on. It is more like the bottom or more like the top. Any research would help.

Explanation: This is related to Life Course Social Mobility, and we need to know how does it affect life expectancy, marriages and life happiness.

$\begingroup$

I think you want the term Life Course Social Mobility. Try searching for it
and the outcomes of interest, e.g., life expectancy:

  * [ Climbing the social mobility ladder: where does health fit in? ](https://www.health.org.uk/blog/climbing-social-mobility-ladder-where-does-health-fit) on "The Health Foundation" blog by Hannah Jones.

> [ [The UK] Social Mobility Commission
> ](http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/569410/Social_Mobility_Commission_2016_REPORT_WEB__1__.pdf)
> also touched upon the idea that health and wellbeing play a role in an
> individual’s social circumstances and, thus, their mobility. For example,
> the report concluded that those in social housing are less likely to find
> employment as they are more likely to have a mental health condition,
> disability or other health condition.

  * Heller, R. F., McElduff, P., & Edwards, R. (2002). [ Impact of upward social mobility on population mortality: analysis with routine data. ](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7356.134) Bmj, 325(7356), 134.

> 16% of the reduction in deaths between 1970–2 and 1991–3 among men in
> England and Wales was attributable to increases in the proportion of men in
> higher social classes

It is difficult to summarize across many different outcomes, and it also
depends on a) the starting and ending classes as well as b) the life stage
when the transition occurs and c) the speed of the transition.

So I think the question as originally phrased, whether they appear more like
the bottom or the top, cannot be answered in the general case. It is generally
going to be in-between.


Question:
Is it possible to over burden yourself?

If someone thinks a lot about their future like what are they going to do 1 year down the line or how will the live the rest of their lives and some of these ideas can be really extreme like taking a vow of celibacy in their thoughts. Can they end up over-burdening themselves. Also what are the symptoms of such a man/woman?

Thanks in advance!

Explanation: Any overburden with enough time can lead to burnout. We need to find definition, signs, and symptoms for the burnout.

$\begingroup$

As indicated in my comment, it is possible to "overburden" yourself, and there
are different degrees of effects from overburdening depending on severity and
timescales. Any overburden with enough time can lead to burnout ( [ Carter,
2013 ](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/high-octane-women/201311/the-
tell-tale-signs-burnout-do-you-have-them) ). Other names for burnout include [
"mental breakdown" or "nervous exhaustion/breakdown"
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_breakdown) . Another form of burnout,
but essentially the same thing is Compassion Fatigue ( [ Carter, 2014
](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/high-octane-women/201407/are-you-
suffering-compassion-fatigue) )

##  Definition of Burnout

Burnout is a state of chronic stress that has led to extreme physical and
emotional exhaustion, which in turn can lead to cynicism, detachment, and
feelings of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment.

[ Carter (2013) ](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/high-octane-
women/201311/the-tell-tale-signs-burnout-do-you-have-them) has given a good
rundown of the problem, but I would suggest subsituting the section header
**Signs of Ineffectiveness and Lack of Accomplishment** with **Feelings of
Ineffectiveness and Lack of Accomplishment can lead to...**

##  Prevention/Remedy for Burnout

This can be a huge subject, but to narrow it down in a nutshell, as burnout is
caused by chronic stress, the only way to prevent it or remedy it is to do
whatever relieves stress for you and incorporate it into your day, **every
day** . Burning the candle at both ends along with the midnight oil every day
is going to lead to burnout.

##  References

Carter, S. B. (2013). The Tell Tale Signs of Burnout ... Do You Have Them?
_PsychologyToday_ [Online]
Retrieved from: [ https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/high-octane-
women/201311/the-tell-tale-signs-burnout-do-you-have-them
](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/high-octane-women/201311/the-tell-
tale-signs-burnout-do-you-have-them)

Carter, S. B. (2014). Are You Suffering from Compassion Fatigue?: What to do
when showing compassion feels like a burden _PsychologyToday_ [Online]
Retrieved from [ https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/high-octane-
women/201407/are-you-suffering-compassion-fatigue
](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/high-octane-women/201407/are-you-
suffering-compassion-fatigue)


Question:
Is there research to prove that humans achieve more when challenging ourselves or when we challenge others?

Given that there is a single player game, let's say, Tetris. I play the game for 5 days and my friend is also playing the game for 5 days. At the end of the 5 days we would like to see who has the highest score and that person wins some prize.

Is it better that we see the scores of our opponent and try to better it, or is better that I do not see my friend's score and focus on just constantly beating my own score?

Which of the 2 scenarios is likely to yield the higher score at the end of the 5 days? And why?

I'm doing some research on gamification and how competition can help us progress a skill.

Explanation: This is related to a social phenomenon in which being in the presence of others affects individual performance. We need to see more studies, analysis, etc.

$\begingroup$

Generally, being observed raises performance on simple tasks and can hinder
performance on complex tasks: [
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_facilitation
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_facilitation)

For trivia, notice that the experiment widely regarded to be the first in
social psychology was of observed vs. unobserved cycling. Being watched made
people cycling faster: [ https://www.simplypsychology.org/Social-
Facilitation.html ](https://www.simplypsychology.org/Social-Facilitation.html)
excerpt:

> "According to Cottrell (1968), it’s not the presence of other people that is
> important for social facilitation to occur but the apprehension about being
> evaluated by them. We know that approval and disapproval are often dependent
> on others’ evaluations and so the presence of others triggers an acquired
> arousal drive based on evaluation anxiety."


Question:
Is there a name for the phenomenon of perceived repeated interruption?

Is there a documented name for the phenomenon of repeated social interruptions. It's something I've discussed with others who seem to share the observation that often, when one is alone in a public space, others will consistently run into them.

One example is in single stall bathrooms. This is one that I've discussed with others, to much amusement: it seems that whenever I find an unattended public restroom, even in a secluded space away from population, more often than not someone will approach and knock within seconds.

Another would be driving along a typically empty road late at night, and having someone follow every single turn you take up until you get home, where they turn around and go from whence you both came, making seemingly no sense.

Obviously, this is a cognitive bias of some sort and likely not truly indicative of some social behavior. It reminds me of the spotlight effect, but the spotlight effect is defined as heightened self awareness, no? This seems to happen regardless of that, like there are people just waiting around to stumble upon oneself at the most inopportune times.

Paranoia might be one word for it, but talking with others anecdotally, it seems like most people have had this thought before.

$\begingroup$

I would classify this as a [ _cognitive bias_
](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) . Specifically, [
**selection bias** ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias) :

> Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals,
> groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not
> achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of
> the population intended to be analyzed.

These are 'every day' actions you describe. They are not very memorable. In
contrast, when encountering such interruptions during these otherwise 'normal'
actions they become more memorable and stick with you.

Consequently, this then leads to a selection bias: only the interrupted
actions come to mind immediately. If you were to systematically count how many
times this occurs it would be less frequent than it seems.


Question:
Opposite of White Bear principle?

Is there any phrase/term to describe the opposite of White Bear principle (also known as ironic process principle)? I'm looking for a word to describe the process where something eludes you the more you try to think of it (or remember it). I think I may have come across a term to describe this phenomenon but I'm not sure if such a phrase/term exists.

Explanation: This is like, the more you think, the worse it is, and can be related to implicit and explicit memory.

$\begingroup$

**Short answer**
**[ Over-thinking ](http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2013/013593/overthinking-can-be-
detrimental-human-performance) **

**Background**
**[ Unconscious recall of information ](https://qz.com/113458/want-to-
remember-something-forget-it/) ** can be more effective than conscious recall
of that same information. Disruption of the activity of the **[ dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsolateral_prefrontal_cortex) ** (by TMS)
improved image-recall in healthy subjects (source: [ UC Santa Barbara
](http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2013/013593/overthinking-can-be-detrimental-human-
performance) ). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is associated with
executive functions including working memory and selective attention [ (Lehner
_et al_ ., 2016) ](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780128001059) .
The effect over paying too much attention in an attempt to remember something
has been referred to as [ over-thinking ](https://qz.com/113458/want-to-
remember-something-forget-it/) .

**Reference**
**-** [ Lehner _et al_ ., _Genomics, Circuits, and Pathways in Clinical
Neuropsychiatry_ , 1  st  ed. Elsevier (2016)
](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780128001059)


Question:
What is the term for the "knowing what you think but can't explain it" phenomenon?

I think we all experience this phenomenon once in a while, and I am experiencing it right now. It's the feeling that whatever word one tries to say it seems to be wrong (for them) or confusing (for the listeners), and would require a period of time to think out the right word that they have already known. If severed, it can lead to frustration, but it's not really about feeling insecurity.

What is the word for that?

Explanation: This is an inability to continue with words even with thoughts in mind.

$\begingroup$

#  [ Mental block ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_block)

> A mental block is an uncontrollable suppression, or repression of painful or
> unwanted thoughts/memories. Also can be an inability to continue or complete
> a train of thought, as in the case of writer's block. In the case of
> writer's block, many find it helpful to take a break and revisit their
> topic.

You can also check out [ a list of synonyms and related words for "forgetful
and forgetfulness" ](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus-
category/british/forgetful-and-forgetfulness) .