Is there a cognitive bias for ascribing agency to inanimate objects? I am curious to know if any research might have been done on this topic or if it is any way even described in scientific literature.

It's not uncommon for people to ascribe agency to inanimate objects and when objects "act" in ways that are contrary to the person's expectation (a computer that is loading files slowly, a  car that won't start, an appliance that breaks frequently) some people can become angered and feel that this specific object is behaving maliciously towards them in particular.

Even when we rationally know that a computer program does not have consciousness and cannot intentionally target us we can still feel persecuted by it. I know there are a few cognitive biases that deal with incorrectly attributing malicious intent to other people (attribution bias, hostile attribution bias, etc) but I have not heard of one regarding inanimate objects and yet it clearly exists. As a software developer I find this interesting as it impacts user experience. As an example, if software attempts to be overly personable by calling a person by their name and interacting with them so as to give the illusion that the software is "alive" might it increase the potential for people to ascribe malice to it when it behaves in ways they feel it should not or when there are frequent errors.

I want to be clear I am not suggesting that people literally or consciously believe that inanimate objects are sentient and possess agency, but that is how they behave and likely what at some level increases their frustration. When a person, for example, takes a tool that has been on the blink for a while and out of frustration smashes it or tears it apart I do not find it unreasonable to believe that the relief they feel is a shot of dopamine that they are getting for "justly" punishing the tool for it's "behavior". How many times have we heard a child or maybe even an adult exclaim, "That thing hates me!" Rationally they know the thing in question is not conscious yet at some level they feel it is actively persecuting them.

A classic example is in a Canticle for Lebowitz when one of the characters is having issues with a computer that is constantly misbehaving exclaims,

  "That thing-” he waved irritably toward the Abominable Autoscribe- "is
  a damned infidel or worse."

I was asked for scientific evidence, but I cannot provide any because that is in fact what I am asking about. Is this recognized as a cognitive bias and if so, has it ever been studied?

Personal information in messages (UX StackExchange)

Malicious Objects, Anger Management, and the Question of Modern Literature

Evil by Design: Interaction Design to Lead us into Temptation

Fortunately, some psychologists have looked into it, and in accordance to your observations, people do tend to attribute intentional agency to inanimate objects.

In the seminal work by Heider and Simmel (1944), participants were shown shapes of a triangle and disc moving around a two-dimentional landscape. They were not moving in random directions, but in ways that convinced the participants they were acting, fighting, playing or helping each other. When objects move in a purposeful manner, and not just fall to the ground aimlessly, we naturally tend to think they have intentions, belonging to the kind of beings with some kind of intelligence. See also Barrett and Johnson (2003): The Role of Control in Attributing Intentional Agency to Inanimate Objects.

Further more, this tendency is used by the camp of the skeptics, like Dan Dennet or Steven Pinker, to explain why people recognize many events around them as the actions of of gods or super-natural beings. By coincidence, they see some random event or movement, which has no obvious or natural explanation. The witness of such event looks for the agent behind it, and when one can't be found, it is attributed to a hidden or unseen intentional being. The way from there to gods, deities and religion, these thinkers claim, is very short. See Dennett's BREAKING THE SPELL.

Computers interact with you and so we treat them like other, real people. Even expert MIT computer users behave this way. We all do it. I'll try to find the research on it. Someone actually wrote a book about this.

We also tend to blame ourselves when we can't accomplish something on the computer. This is great for computer programmers, but bad for people. The truth is a lot of error is attributed to bad design. So rather than feeling stupid, you can put the locus of control outside of yourself and say whoever made this program didn't empathize with you enough and perform enough tests or user observation.


Is variation in human brain size related to mental functioning? It seems that the head size of human beings has evolved to be relatively similar, yet there is still some amount of variation. While I'm sure the correlation is not absolute, I read that larger heads do imply larger brains.

Thus, my questions:

What is the correlation between head size and brain size?
What is the relationship between brain size and mental processing ability (e.g., intelligence, emotional responses to certain stimuli, reaction time, etc)?
Why might these correlations exist or not exist?

One relatively recent review on this topic is Rushton & Ankney (2009). They report that there have been a large number of studies with varying results:

28 studies, covering a total of 1,389 subjects, used brain imaging techniques to estimate the size of the brain. Correlations with general mental ability (GMA) ranged from 0.04 to 0.69, with an unweighted mean of 0.40. Weighting the correlations with the sample size produces a mean of 0.38.
59 studies, covering a total of 63,403 subjects, used external head measurements to estimate the size of the brain. Correlations with general mental ability ranged from 0.02 to 0.55, with an unweighted mean of 0.21. Weighting the correlations with the sample sizes produces a mean of 0.20.
6 studies used Jensen's method of uncorrelated vectors to distill g, getting a mean correlation of 0.63.

The last point probably needs some explaining. The g-factor, or g for short, is the quantity that IQ tests are designed to measure. The name "g factor" comes from the fact that it is a common, general factor which all kinds of intelligence draw upon. For instance, Deary (2001) analyzed an American standardization sample of the WAIS-III intelligence test, and built a model where performance on the 13 subtests was primarily influenced by four group factors, or components of intelligence: verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, working memory, and processing speed. In addition, there was a common g factor that strongly influenced all four. The model indicated that the variance in g was responsible for 74% of the variance in verbal comprehension, 88% of the variance in perceptual organization, 83% of the variance in working memory, and 61% of the variance in processing speed. In other words, if a person has a lot of g, then (s)he is likely to also get a high score on tests measuring all subtypes of intelligence. This is possibly because g is something in the brain that all the subtypes of intelligence benefit from. But note the word likely - the correlation is not perfect, so it's still possible to have a high g but be worse than average in some subtype of intelligence. It's just less likely than the converse.

Now experts might be cringing at that previous paragraph, because I talked about an individual having a lot of g. Technically, g is something that is computed from the correlations between various test scores in a given sample, and there's no such thing as the g of any specific individual. The technique doesn't even guarantee that g actually corresponds with any physical quantity, as opposed to something that the method just happened to produce by accident. So when you want to measure someone's intelligence, you make a lot of people take tests that are known to be strongly g-loaded. That means that the performance on the tests is strongly correlated with g. Then you take their raw scores and standardize them to produce an IQ score, so that if e.g. only 10% of the test-takers got a raw score of X, then anyone getting the raw score of X is assigned an IQ indicating that they're in the top 10% of the population. And although this still doesn't tell us what an individual's g score is, it gives us a score that's closely correlated with g. IQ also seems to predict a large number of things like life outcomes and performance in a variety of tasks and so forth. See e.g. Jensen (1998) for (much) more on this.

So now that I've explained all that, what does the "6 studies used Jensen's method of uncorrelated vectors to distill g" bit mean? Well, if I'm understanding the paper right, then the 28 + 59 other studies calculated the correlation between brain size and IQ. In other words, between brain size and performance on some particular intelligence test, that ultimately measures performance on one or more subtypes of intelligence. Subtypes which are closely, but not perfectly, correlated with g. The 6 studies were different in that they attempted to calculate the actual correlation between g and brain size, which is different from the correlation between IQ and brain size. Which one is better? Here I must admit that my expertise isn't sufficient to answer the question confidently, but I'd suppose that it depends on what you're trying to measure. If you want to know the extent to which the common factor influencing all the subtypes of intelligence varies between brains, then you want to use the estimate where g has been extracted. If you want to know how much brain size seems to correlate with mental ability in practice, you might want to use the correlation with IQ. Neither is more correct than the other.

Other findings from the paper:

The brain volume–GMA correlation is equally strong in males and females.
It is also found in people of East Asian, East Indian, European, Turkish, African, South American, and Amerindian descent.
Studies using a narrow age range of younger or older samples show the same magnitude of correlation.
Many studies appear to show that the size effects are manifest throughout the brain and not specific to any particular region; however, other studies show GMA centered in the frontal brain regions. Two studies found support for both positions - the more g-loaded subtests were distributed throughout the brain but concentrated most in the frontal lobes.
The correlation between head size and GMA is found both within families and between families. From the paper: "the within-family finding is of special interest because it controls for most of the sources of variance that distinguish families, such as social class, styles of child rearing, and general nutrition, that differ between families."
Body size and brain size are correlated. The average correlation is 0.2 for MRI studies, or 0.3-0.4 for studies that use skull measurements. But body size and GMA are also correlated, at around 0.20-0.25. There is disagreement about whether the size of the body should be controlled for when estimating brain size/GMA correlations, but a correlation is found regardless of whether or not body size is controlled for. In other words, both relative and absolute brain size are correlated with IQ.
The brain size/intelligence correlation is also found in non-human animals, both within a species (e.g. rats) and between different species (e.g. species of birds, species of primates).
Brain size is also environmentally sensitive: for instance, rats raised in complex environments have thicker cortices and larger brains than rats reared in impoverished environments.
The paper also reviews results showing that brain size and GMA are correlated with age, socioeconomic position, sex, and population group differences, but those aren't relevant for the question so I won't go into them here.

References:

Deary, I.J. (2001) Human intelligence differences: a recent history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 127–130.

Jensen, A.J. (1998) The g Factor – The Science of Mental Ability. Praeger.

Rushton, J.P. & Ankney, C.D. (2009) Whole Brain Size and General Mental Ability: A Review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119(5), 692-732.

Kinda : p

The overwhelming consensus is that it has more to do with brain/body mass ratios.  If you are an elephant, you need a lot of wiring to control everything, and that all takes room.  Humans have the best ratios by far.

That being said, think about a child prodigy vs an adult.  One clearly outmatches the other in terms of brain size.  In some brain structures, size or density does increase with expertise.  But overall, you need to understand that these are really complex networks and size/space is only one factor affecting their performance.


How can a human carry out a mass shooting whilst remaining calm? In the wake of the horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch New Zealand, it became known that the shooter had live streamed 17 minutes of his rampage to Facebook. In the video, of which I have only watched about 15 seconds from the point of the first shot being fired, the shooter can be seen extremely calmly carrying out his attack.

My question to the people here is, what is the root cause of a human being such as the shooter, being able to carry out such inhumane, disgusting, horrifying and downright evil acts whilst remaining so chillingly calm?

As someone with very little to no knowledge or experience with the relevant psychological literature, I have to ask, is this shooter a straight up psychopath? Surely the people who carry out such attacks have had some prior brain damage or genetic mental condition?

There may be less apparent contradiction if the shooter doesn't consider those behaviors as immoral, disgusting, etc. Consider a soldier in wartime: they might sometimes appear calm as well.

If you look at the stated justifications for mass shootings, they often have a specific purpose and apparently see moral reasons for their actions. Broadly speaking, people differ widely in what they consider ethical or moral. One person's virtue is another's sin. There are shared features between many ethical traditions, such as a prohibition against murder, but murder and war remain common. There is no need for a specific physiological fault like a brain injury or a particular genetic variant for humans to disagree wildly on what actions are appropriate. It's famously difficult to sympathize with the moral intuitions of other people; see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory. Instead of universal reasons, we generally have the strong feeling that something is right or wrong, and then we construct reasons.


Way to influence readers subconscious to memorize technical data? I'm writing a technical book. Is there any studies/books on how can I influence the readers subconscious to help them memorize the technical data easier? Preferably ways that do not involve images, styles, etc.. as such techniques are not suitable for technical books.

Priming involves the perception of similar elements between information. The similarity between information influences the memory as it has already been primed by previous memory traces.

I do know of a study that suggests that when simple contours of an image are primed before complex versions of those contours, those contours are rated more positively (Reber et al., 2004).

The study relates to the theory of processing fluency, which proposes that the visual information is more liked because the information is more compatible than it would be otherwise (if the complex contour was shown without the simple one) that's only one part of the theory. The article is called:

The most simple answer is to relate the information with previously memorized information as it may be more likely to be recalled because it is connected to other memories.

Reference
Reber et al., Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review ( 2004); 8(4): 364–382

You can use priming but that assumes that the reader is already familiar with the subject or has read about connected topics. Priming has various aspects but with your requirements you just eliminated the most important ones: images, styles etc. Read more about priming, I am not an expert, there might be more than the above


Why are counsellors not supposed to give advice or lead the client? Is it possible for a counsellor not to be leading? I’ve taken a course on counselling psychology and have attended a counselling sessions myself. All the literature I’ve read has said counsellors should not give advice. My question is why is this possible?

I know when talking to a counsellor they think they’re being self-empowering by not “giving advice” or asking leading questions, but I don’t believe it’s possible to have a neutral conversation with someone where they have no effect over you. In a sense, is the way councillors/psychologists speaking to people actually underhanded as they try to dress-up advice as non-advice? I know at advance stages of counselling the counsellor is supposed to challenge the client’s incongruent views. Which views the councillor challenges are up to him, so that’s exerting change on the client. Wouldn't it be better for a councillor to clearly say what he thinks instead of trying to trick a client into thinking they came up with the idea?
For example if a counsellor says “you’ve listed many bad qualities about your girlfriend” while this may be a fact, the councillor is trying to steer you in a certain direction. Wouldn’t it be more honest to say “you’ve listed many bad qualities about your girlfriend, maybe you should breakup with her?” even though the breaking up bit is considered advice?

UPDATE: I think I've finally found the words to express what I'm thinking. I know councilors are not supposed to give advice and act in a very "neutral way" as to allow the client to sort things out for them self, as this is seen as self empowering. It's been my observation that councilors (inadvertently) just find ways to mask what they are asserting as a question or a seemingly neutral statement. For example, client "my neighbor was parked in my drive way and it made me late for work", councilor "I could see how that would make a person mad" (this implies the correct response would be mad). client: "my date cancelled on me", councilor "do you feel let down?" (this is planting the idea in his head). Now wouldn't it be better if the councilor gave advice like "there are plenty of fish in the sea". I know councilors are not trained to ask leading questions or make leading comments, but as humans, I believe it is inevitable to do this, and it's much better just to say something directly than to (subconsciously) think up a way to hint at it.

Counselors can be taught to "not give advice" and there are good reasons for this school of thought. But in professional practice such passivity is only one style among many counselors may choose. If you find yourself unhappy with your counselor's style, do both of you a favor and keep looking for greater compatibility. Better results will follow from greater comfort in sessions. The burden of finding the best match is on the client - the counselor will try to help the client as well as possible with the style the counselor believes is best for the client, but if you don't like such passivity, look for another counselor and say what you want during the first meeting (on the phone, even better.)

As to "why" some counselors believe it is helpful to not give advice: much work in psychotherapy requires the client to make every step, every decision following the client's own insight; this is a process of internal awareness and growth which places the counselor in the role of facilitator. A facilitator will make it easier for the client to make progress, but will not tell the client answers even if the counselor has opinions or preferences. As you put it, the goal is for the client to become more "self-empowering."

I hope this helps.
I have a Counseling M.A. and years' practice in a variety of healing arts.
clinical-psychology, conversation, style,counseling

I am a counselllor and use many different therapies and techniques with clients. Different therapies offer different ways to work with a client. CBT is more of a teaching therapy teaching the clients strategies and coping skills to help them with solving their issues. Psychoanalysis as mentioned in an above comment as Freudian is one of the foundations of psychology and works with the belief that all disorder stems from the childhood. This is because this is when we learn the most and learn how to react and behave in certain situations. It is a very good way to work on issues stemming from childhood. Erikson's theory expanded on Freud's theory and included other stages we go through to become fulfilled as human beings.

As for the reason we don't give advice is not because we don't want to or we like to avoid it, it is merely a legal; one, we are not legally or ethically covered to give advice and if we did and it went wrong we would get sued. It is ok to ask the opinion of the counsellor however that is not important what is important is why does the client need to hear it from someone else and have trouble knowing what to do. This can also be stemed from a childhood issue where they don't have good enough boundaries and rely on the thoughts of others to make decisions for them so when it goes wrong they have someone else to blame other than themselves. Also it could be that they constantly need other peoples approval another issue stemming from childhood which caused them to not be strong enough in themselves to make sound decisions.

Good psychologists and counsellors are aware of a lot more than just issues and what should you do about it, we are trained in problem solving and helping people to become autonomous. The saying "you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime" applies here. Counsellors teach their clients about themselves and help them understand why they are like they are and then help them learn new ways to solve their problems. So they don't always need to be asking others what they should do. Be strong make a decision, learn from mistakes, readjust your goals and keep moving forward toward success. There is no need for approval, blame or asking of opinions.
Sorry it is a long one but legally that is how it is.


How successful is hypnosis or hypnotherapy over a distance, for example, over Skype? Some hypnotherapists offer healings over the internet, whereas some other don't. I'd like to know how successful is hypnosis or hypnotherapy over a distance, for example, over Skype?

A literature review was conducted Barak et al. (2008) that compared the effectiveness of internet-based psychotherapy in general (not specifically hypnosis). From their abstract, the results indicate that:

  The overall mean weighted effect size was found to be 0.53 (medium effect),
  which is quite similar to the average effect size of traditional, face-to-face
  therapy.

Following, they

  [...] examined interacting effects of various possible relevant moderators of the effects of online therapy, including type of therapy [...], type of outcome measure, time of measurement of outcome (post-therapy or follow-up), type of problem treated, therapeutic approach, and communication modality,
  among others. A comparison between face-to-face and Internet intervention
  as reported on in 14 of the studies revealed no differences in
  effectiveness.

In short, the studies reviewed,

  provide strong support for the adoption of online psychological
  interventions as a legitimate therapeutic activity [...].

I think you would have to define 'successful' before you could get a meaningful answer to this question. Is success a happy client? Maybe a deep trance state? Or a trance state at all?
My professional experience with skype and hypnosis is that it is much harder to determine the client's state from a monitor than in person. Feedback is limited in that you cannot hear breathing changes, see small movements easily or easily hear quietly spoken words.
On top of this, you have the possibility of disconnection at any moment that makes the practice more challenging since the client will not know that you are disconnected versus just being quiet, and is likely to either fall asleep or become alarmed/alerted after some time has passed. Neither of those would be considered successful in my mind.


What, if anything, sets humans apart from other species? As I grew up, I was taught that the difference between humans and animals was that human beings have free will and animals do not. The basis is that animals will act accordingly to the nature of their species. I never fully understood this statement and still wonder whether it is a valid claim.

From an evolutionary  perspective, we would be regarded as a species at the top of the food chain. The main advantage in our development is our brains.

If we put aside the differences in what human beings are capable of, e.g. making clothes, machinery, etc., is there a real distinction between human beings and other animals? Do we really have free will, or an illusion of free will? Or are we behaving, as other animals, in accordance with the nature of our species?

I know this is a big question and could result in a range of debates over my definitions. So for the sake of clarity, let's keep this question limited to what defines a human brain as opposed to an animal brain and any evidence that supports any significant difference, allowing for the fact that the human brain is well-developed (as opposed to, e.g. to our canines).

Some articles with some information pertinent to your question, hope this helps:

According to "Human and animal cognition: Continuity and discontinuity" (Premack, 2007), that as several species have skills once thought to be unique to humans, that this suggests that there is a misleading (the article's word) disparity between 'brain' and 'mind'.  So the article's focus is on:

  What are the dissimilarities?

When examining 8 aspects, or competencies, including teaching, short-term memory, causal reasoning, planning, deception, transitive inference, theory of mind, and language, the authors found that the similarities to be minor, but the dissimilarities to be very large and that there is no disparity.

Each of these points are discussed in depth in the article (too big for this answer); however, the article's author concludes with a fundamental difference:

  Animal competencies are mainly adaptations restricted to a single goal. Human competencies are domain-general and serve numerous goals. For instance “planning” may be tied to episodic memory, suggesting a broad competence.

Going further, according to "Evolution of the brain and intelligence", (Roth and Dicke, 2005), that a main difference is due to:

  factors that correlate better with intelligence are
  the number of cortical neurons and conduction velocity,
  as the basis for information-processing capacity.

and critically (bolding mine):

  The outstanding intelligence of humans
  appears to result from a combination and enhancement
  of properties found in non-human primates, such as
  theory of mind, imitation and language, rather than from
  ‘unique’ properties.

Our large cortex allows us to produce survival behaviour more sophisticated than any other species. Our basic traits are co-operation, competition and cheating. We excel at all three and can switch in a heartbeat according to the perceived situation.
I suggest an evolutionary feedback loop between the traits and cortex size. Cheating, for example, only works if one or more others can be deceived. If their cortex is as large as yours you are less likely to succeed. The traits drive behaviour at every social grouping: family, tribe, nation, economic bloc. Language is only a tool for the traits.
However in recent times the aforementioned feedback loop may have stopped working or even reversed. Increasing our species is reshaped by relative levels of fertility and promiscuity more than any other factor. We cannot countenance eugenics. Can we countenance the consequence of that distaste?


What role do circular network structures play in neural networks? I'm developing small virtual neural networks and for the most part, the networks have remained feed-forward. When I create circular structures, it becomes a challenge to find a balance with the neural refactory period, stopping neurons from firing again for a period of time, giving them high action potential thresholds, then reducing that back down to fire again -it's tough to find a balance that stops infinite feedback loops but allows circular structures to play a role in processing.

I've done some reading on this and my vague idea so far is that circular structures perhaps allow the network to react to information based on its pattern, react to the information over time, so the C in an input series of A, B, C can be handled differently than the C in input series A, A, C.

Is that accurate, basically? What's the role of circular connection structures in a  neural network? I'm asking not only about multi-neuron circular structures like N1 => N2 => N3 => N1 but also about neurons that connect to themselves (N1 => N1) (which from my reading is something that happens if I understand correctly, but I'm unsure whether it achieves a similar affect as a larger scale circular structure).

 (=> represents a neural connection)

In contrast to artificial neural networks, which are almost all feed-forward architectures, networks in biological brains are highly recurrent. In the networks of cortex, the majority of synaptic inputs a neuron receives come from nearby neurons in the same area of cortex (Binzegger et al. 2004). These are the "circular" connections that you are referring to.

So recurrent connectivity is the rule, and simple feed-forward (or feed-back) projections between cohorts are the exception. The networks that result are therefore highly dynamic, and respond in complex ways to inputs changing over time. In general there is no one "reason" why recurrent connections exist. But there are guidelines about how connections between excitatory and inhibitory neurons are made.

The patterns of connections which define a network determine the computational properties of that network. At a first level, the strength and connectivity between excitatory and inhibitory neurons control the overall stability of the network (e.g. Wilson & Cowan 1973; Tsodyks et al. 1997). It's certainly possible to have self-connections and high recurrence, and still keep the network stable.

Secondly, changing the rules by which neurons connect to each other (Ko et al. 2011; Cossell et al. 2015; Lee et al. 2016; Wilson et al. 2017) changes the computational properties of the resulting network (Muir & Mrsic-Flogel 2015).

In general, biological neural networks are highly recurrent dynamical systems which bear only passing relationship to the acyclic networks that we use to think about feed-forward and feed-back connections in the brain.

The Neural Engineering Framework uses Principle 3 to describe these "circular" or "recurrent" connections as dynamical systems similar to those used in control theory. However, the only reason it's able to do this is it's focus on spiking neurons and modelling their dendrites as filtering, so I'm not sure how much this applies to your case, but I thought it might still be a helpful hint on a different approach if you're interested.


Why are biosignals from the body said to be continuous? Whether we talk about EEG, ECG or EKG aren't all these signals discrete as we are reading the voltages from the electrodes that are due to certain bio-chemical or bio-electrical activities. I do not get why people say that EEG is continuous and hence we need to convert it to digital when it is already digital.

Biological signals are analogues and hence continuous. Early EEG systems simply recorded the analogue signals and displayed it as a continuous signal graphically as wiggly lines written by little pens on a roll of paper (Fig. 1). Only after analogue-to-digital converters became available, could EEG signals and the likes be digitally sampled.

Fig. 1. Analogue EEG signal. source: Britton et al., 2016)

Reference
- Britton et al., Electroencephalography (EEG): An Introductory Text and Atlas of Normal and Abnormal Findings in Adults, Children, and Infants, 2016. Chicago: American Epilepsy Society

I disagree with the other answers, to an extent. Biological signals are generally created by ion passing through a cell membrane. Each of these ions cause a tiny current/magnetic field which is too small to measure in most cases. Each cell action potential is made up of hundreds (???) of ions passing through the membrane at a variety of positions. Most measures of biological signals measure potentials from many cells. These cells are distributed in a non homogeneous extracellular matrix. At the limit the biological signals are discrete and made up of individual ions, but by the time we measure them, they are so mixed up that they are continuous.


When does the brain 'switch on'? I am pursuing Computational Neuro-Science and learning about human Brain. After some reading I got this doubt that when does the brain actually gets switched on? Does it happen right in the mother's womb or when the baby comes out? or Is it wrong on my part to assume that the brain gets switched on one particular moment?

I love this question. While I don't have a definitive answer, I can help with some known factors of child development.

There are studies suggesting that the parents' voices and repeated music is heard in the womb by the fetus and responded to after birth.

Specific studies (see: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/08/babies-learn-recognize-words-womb) classify the third trimester (last three months) of development in the womb to be the key point at which sensory hearing and brain function/classification is active, thus suggesting the brain is "turned on" during or prior to the last trimester.

I would love to hear further studies from others that clarify this point.

auditory and sensory systems if you will are 'on' from within womb visual stimuli confirms all those sounds with visual feedback after birth while sensory information starts to form memories along with those new images.


Quit smoking supported by mental training Given that mental training/workout releases acetylcholine (something I read in a popular-scientific book and on Wiki, see also below) , and that acetylcholine and nicotine bind to the same receptors. Is it possible to reduce the craving for nicotine by doing a brain-training task such as mathematics or memorising poetry?

There is many methods to change craving for nicotine. You can train your brain by the suggesting to yourself (or by hipnotherapeutists) something as: I don't need nicothine. When you are in the trance state for exemple or when you have highly good responses for hipnosis suggestions it will be usefull. In trance people have diffrent reality and their body tell them that i can do that and people can change even chemical responses of their bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotherapy

Another thing is that you can focus on mathematic or poetry so much that you forget about your bad habit and when you do it again and again its Pavlov's Dog effect that it will be automatic response for your psyche. For example - your mathematics will be the cure for the craving for nicotine. However if you stop doing your mathematic, you probably will be smoking again (old habits activate again without mathematics or poetry cure).


What can one do to permanently increase one's baseline happiness (subjective well-being)? According to the hedonic treadmill theory of subjective well-being each human has a hedonic set point. Positive or negative life events cause relatively short-term deviations to one's happiness before it returns to the baseline happiness level determined by the set point. The set point appears to be stable over the course of one's life. One's happiness, measured over time, looks something like this:

Question: What, if anything, has been demonstrated by research to cause long-term, significant upward shifts of the baseline happiness? And, if so, which of those interventions are accessible to an average person (in wealthy countries)?

Going off the findings in this paper, it seems that one's baseline level of happiness can be increased and maintained at a (weakly) significant level by "continual effort and engagement in  some  intentional  process" (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2006, pg. 59), which the authors refer to as "activity-based changes". Examples given include, starting to exercise, beginning a new project, or gaining a new perspective.
This as opposed to circumstance-based changes which deliver only minimal, short-lived increases in happiness, such as getting a raise, or buying a new car.
I feel it is important to note that this is only one paper which uses a short time frame of only 6 months to measures changes in happiness. However, it seems then that to achieve lasting increases in our happiness set point, we are better off working on ourselves than our surroundings.

Neural networks tend to maintain limited sustained activation to preserve functional properties, i.e. they can't convey information or compute things when completely active or inactive. This only happens within a small range of parameters. Let's then pseudoscientifically pretend that this awesome paper can provide the neurological basis for the hedonic treadmill and can be self-similary extrapolated to conscious functioning: We don't function optimally if we continually over or under react to our average stimulation, and evolution wants us to function optimally.

So to keep our functions optimized we want to be able to respond to the broadest range of inputs possible, we want to be dead center on "average stimulation" so that we can still compute and respond appropriately in events of lower or higher than usual stimulation: the hedonic set point here is your relation to your average stimulation. You might be a happy peppy person slightly overreacting to average stimulation or a lethargic person, underreacting. But it doesn't really matter, it's evolution using you to test whether that happiness point might be optimal to make you behave well and reproduce.

Let's continue assuming that this set point is achieved by a regulated process in neural networks by adapting their sensitivity to their inputs over time to stay at that optimal point.

Final assumption: if we don't optimize to our average inputs and too many of our neural networks respond too little or too much to their input for too long our brain will compute for a depressive or manic lifestyle. Both perfectly valid lifestyles, but seen by the evolutionary watch dogs as 'inferior' lifestyles. And usually reported to not be all that great. But hey, life itself is usually reported not to be all that great.

This paints the picture of the hedonic treadmill: as far as subjective well being is concerned, people tend to get used to their situation and be content, unless they become depressed or manic. That's ignoring all other things that can go wrong in the brain that aren't purely 'happiness disorders'.

This was what I believe keeps us at a point where we "behave evolutionary optimal". For evolutionary purposes however it does not matter if we consciously enjoy or detest the ride we're stuck in, as long as we see it through and procreate. That gives us some artistic freedom in the conscious experiencing of our ride. We can change our outlook on things: it is perfectly possible to be completely content with being eaten by a bear in the near future, but completely impossible to have any kind of control over your behaviour while it is happening. So when receiving negative or positive inputs we lose control over our consciousness, and evolution takes the wheel, but at our hedonic set point when things that we're used to are going on we can take control over our outlook of our existence.

So while I don't think you can, or want, to be in a permanent elevated happiness state (mania is no fun) you can permanently change how you perceive being forced by evolution to be stuck at a hedonic set point.

Intuitively you might want to resist this, or find it unfair or unwanted and it is this resistance that will create suffering while you're neurologically at a state where you could be perfectly content and at ease.

Unless we develop technology capable of changing how our neural networks function, I think nihilism (as viewed by for example Albert Camus, not online edgelords) and radical acceptance (as part of Dialectical Behavioral Therapy) might provide the most useful tools of permanently changing your outlook on your existential conditions.

To provide an answer to your question: I think in wealthy countries our best intervention to improve our subjective well-being is a continuous effort toward radical acceptance of our existential condition aided by philosophy, therapy and a healthy lifestyle.


Why are people insecure? Many people, especially teenagers, are insecure about some aspects. They may be insecure about their looks, their (odd) behavior, or may question whether they belong to a group (of friends, colleagues and what not). I quickly looked at some social psychological literature but I could only find that in some cultures people are more self-oriented and in others they are more group-oriented (see the abstract of this book, I was not able to read more).

I was wondering thus: why people are insecure?

If I would consider an evolutionary perspective, insecurity (1) should have some beneficial effects, (2) should disappear if harmful for people, or (3) is not harmful enough to disappear. It is not likely to be the second for it then should not exist, so hypothesis (1) and (3) remain. Is there some benefit to being insecure, or is their some other explanation for why it exists?

Short answer
Hypothesis (1)

Background
The question is quite broad, as exemplified by the statement: They may be insecure about their looks, their (odd) behavior, or may question whether they belong to a group (of friends, colleagues and what not).

Personally and anecdotally, I think that a healthy self-doubt forms the core of self-reflection and allows a social animal like Homo sapiens to improve its behavior and mold itself according to the social structure with all its rights and obligations.

To approach this question with a less opinion-based perspective, I think that the root of a possible answer is the question what happens when people lack any self-doubt. I'm not a psychologist, but narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) comes to mind. The characteristic features of this condition are dominance, arrogance, superiority, power seeking, and disregard of others. All these traits seem to fit a total lack of self doubt (Ronningstam, 2011). However, some phenotypes of this condition may include insecure people, but it is just for the purpose of showing what people may turn into that lack self-doubt (and admittedly oversimplifying NPD). The typical NPD sufferer therefore won't fit in well in a social structure, and humankind, obviously, has built highly complex social societies.

In terms of evolution, Joseph Henrich explains that long before the origins of agriculture, when humans expanded across the globe from the arid deserts of Australia to the frozen tundra of the Canadian Arctic, survival in the immense diversity of habitats depended not on specific genetic adaptations, but on large bodies of culturally transmitted know-how, abilities, and skills that no single individual could figure out in his or her lifetime. Even among foraging societies, humans show an immense variety of social organizations, group sizes, kinship structures, and mating patterns. He explains that this diversity is at least partially rooted in culturally-acquired and widely shared social rules.

Reference
- Ronningstam, J Psychiatric Practice (2011); 17(2): 89–99

I suggest you read about attachment theory. The most common reason for insecurity is a failure to form secure attachments or a traumatic loss of an attachment. This is especially harmful in early childhood. By the way, narcissistic personality disorder is invariably associated (and caused by) severe insecurity. It is the result of an attempt to overcome that insecurity.


Is what psychologists define as subconsciousness proven in neuroscience and can the psychological subconsciousness be visualized by neuroscientists? We read phrases like

The subconsciousness makes up 90% of our brain.
The subconsciousness makes up 95% of our brain.
The subconsciousness can be influenced by hypnosis.

I have yet to see a study in neuroscience that picks the topic up. There seems to be no proof of its existence other than a psychological crutch to explain behaviour.

People like Bruce Lipton try to connect neuroscience to psychology and do not convince in doing so.

Is what psychologists define as subconsciousness proven in neuroscience and can the psychological subconsciousness be visualized by neuroscientists? I am alluding to pictures or video of the images perceived...........

The vast majority of neural processes (and their associated mental processes) in the brain are subconscious (or unconscious), i.e. we are not consciously aware of them and cannot consciously control them. Yet, without these subconscious processes, we will not be able to live as we do now – we will have to spend an incredible amount of time and effort to consciously control all the processes that are naturally subconsciously controlled now. As a matter of fact, we will not be able to consciously do such tedious yet demanding tasks well, and we will die.

All neural processes except the final-stage sensory perception neural processes and the highest cognitive neural processes are subconscious. The subconscious neural processes are in all parts of the brain:

Brainstem and autonomic system. For example, neural processes that control breathing, heart contraction, pressure in the arterial and venous systems, body temperature, sleep-wake cycle, secretion of various body fluids (sweat, tear, saliva, gastric juice, etc.), secretion of various hormones, various reflexes (pupillary light and accommodation reflexes, optokinetic reflex, vestibulo-ocular reflex, etc .), homeostasis of various blood constituents, etc.
Cerebellum. For example, neural processes that control contraction & movement of hundreds of millions of muscle fibers of various agonist and antagonist muscles for balance and accuracy in walking, writing, speaking, playing various sports, playing various musical instruments, etc.
Deep cerebral nuclei. For example, neural processes that control the tone of your trunk muscles (when sitting, standing, walking, etc.), emotion (*1), formation, storing, and retrieval of memory (*2), etc.
Cerebral cortex. For example, neural processes that perform early-stage sensory perception (*3), early-stage language functions (*4), some stages of decision, some forms of thinking (*5), etc.

And, if you include spinal cord, the majority of their neural processes are subconscious too.

N.B.

*1. That's why we can't completely control our emotions at will: we can't get out of anger, sadness, depression, etc. or get into any emotion we want instantly at will, because they are partly controlled by subconscious neural processes. Also, we will not be able to have any emotion even if we try to if the subconscious neural processes (in the amygdala and other nuclei in the limbic system) for emotion are impaired (such as in various apathy disorders: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, fronto-temporal dementia, etc.)

*2. That's why you can't memorize new events or recall past events, even if you try, if the subconscious neural processes (the hippocampus and other nuclei in the limbic system) that form, store, and retrieve memory are impaired.

*3. That's why we can't consciously see in colors (achromatopsia), can’t recognize familiar faces (prosopagnosia) (including one’s own face), or can't recognize what the object is (visual agnosia) if the subconscious processes that process color, object identification, or face identification are impaired.

*4.That's why we can't understand what people say even if we hear them clearly (sensory dysphasia) or can't understand what the text in the book means even if we see it clearly (alexia) if the subconscious neural processes that processes the meaning of the sound or of the image is impaired.

*5. See more details in the references below.

References.
General, basic information about unconscious processes in the brainstem, autonomic nervous system, cerebellum, and deep cerebral neuclei (basal ganglion, thalamus, amygdala, etc.) can be found easily by searching the internet.

Some of the more in-depth, interesting articles about this matter are as follows (and more references can be found inside these articles):

Bargh JA, Morsella E. The Unconscious Mind. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008 Jan;3(1):73–79. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00064.x.
Dehanene S. Fathoming unconscious depths. In: Consciousness and the brain. Penguin Books. 2014. New York, New York, USA. ISBN 978-0-670-02543-5, 978-0-14-312626-3. p 47-88.
Dijksterhuis A. First neural evidence for the unconscious thought process. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013 Dec; 8(8): 845–846. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst036.
Dijksterhuis A, Strick M. A Case for Thinking Without Consciousness. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016 Jan;11(1):117-32. doi: 10.1177/1745691615615317.
Hallett M. Volitional control of movement: The physiology of free will. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Jun;118(6):1179–1192. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.03.019 PMCID: PMC1950571 NIHMSID: NIHMS24077.
Horga G, Maia TV. Conscious and unconscious processes in cognitive control: A theoretical perspective and a novel empirical approach. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012; 6:199. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00199.

The neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux has advised us to consider ALL behaviours as non conscious unless proven otherwise.

I’m guessing the percentages you have given in your question originally derive from computations of data coming into the brain per second, versus the brain’s neuronal capacity to process it. This is covered in Tor Nørretrander’s book The User Illusion, and Timothy Wilson’s Strangers to Ourselves. Contrary to Bryan Krause’s comments above, this is quite widely accepted in the academic community and has nothing to do with Freud. Quiroga has also demonstrated that we only ‘see’ the equivalent of a penny piece on our finger held out at arms length, the rest being constructed by our experience, predictions and imagination.

Nørretranders 1998 - The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size

Wilson 2002 - Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious

LeDoux 2016 - Anxious: Using the Brain to Understand and Treat Fear and Anxiety

Quiroga 2017 - The Forgetting Machine: Memory, Perception, and the "Jennifer Aniston Neuron"


Thinking, Fast and Slow vs. Mindfulness vs. Flow I've been wondering how dual-process theory, which is described in Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow", relates to mindfulness and the state of being in the present moment and the flow experiences coined by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi.

Dual-process theory describes two different ways the brain forms thoughts, as described on Wikipedia:

  System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic,    subconscious
  System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical,    calculating, conscious

Mindfulness is defined on Wikipedia as follows:

  Mindfulness is "the intentional, accepting and non-judgmental focus of
  one's attention on the emotions, thoughts and sensations occurring in
  the present moment", which can be trained by meditational practices.

The flow or zone experiences, on the other hand, are defined as follows:

  In positive psychology, flow, also known as zone, is the mental state
  of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully
  immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and
  enjoyment in the process of the activity.

How do these relate? Do they overlap, mutually exclude each other or are the same thing or can exist at the same time independently?

Are there any brain studies that would compare the brain's response under each of those states?

Short answer: Dual-process, mindfulness and flow theory are related by way of attention theory. Two previous posts that may be of interest are "What is the relation between concepts, constructs and measures?" and "How can we realize when a sociological question is impossible to answer?".
Commensurability
This is an apt example of what Thomas Kuhn would have called a question of commensurability.  In normal terms, commensurability means the extent to which we can or cannot talk about two or more theories within a common framework, while incommensurability is a fancy way of saying we're comparing apples to farming equipment or dress shirts. In order for two theories in the cognitive sciences to be commensurable, they generally need to satisfy two criteria:

A common conceptual denominator.
At least one common construct.

If they satisfy these, then can look for comparable ways of operationalizing and measuring these comparable constructs that can be related to the common concept. In other words, two theories are comparable if they are conceptually related AND conceive of this concept in some at least partially related way.
Dual-process, mindfulness and flow theory: commensurable?
In this case, there is a clear common conceptual denominator, and that is attention, although they differ in how they express that denominator. For Kahneman and Tversky, there is a generalized resource allocation mechanism which produces qualitatively different modes of thinking; for mindfulness, there exists a discrete mental state partly characterized by a particular attentional pattern; for flow theory, there exists another discrete mental state partly characterized by another attentional pattern.
We can therefore talk about these theories in principle, although how effective our ability to do so turns out to be will depend on the merits of the underlying theory of attention. For example, it is meaningful to ask whether meditational practice involves fast or slow thinking, or whether flow states may be considered a form of meditation, and so forth, but only insofar as we can state those questions in terms of a third (attentional) theory. If one of the theories had assumed that attention was infinite, for example, it would be incommensurable with the other two.
Concluding remarks
A direct three-way comparison of these theories does not exist in the literature. It is possible that someone has directly related one theory to the other for each combination of theories, but it would take three fairly extensive literature searches (dual-process/mindfulness, dual-process/flow, mindfulness/flow). Even if these comparisons actually exist, summarizing them all would almost certainly be beyond the scope of a single SE answer, so I will leave it at this generalized answer.
I think your question about whether these theories are related by neuroimaging evidence is a good intuition, but establishing that similar brain areas are involved in the same behavior does not provide evidence that these are the same, because brain function is dynamic and areas therefore 'have' many functions. It's not just about what areas are active, but also when they are active, in what order they are active, the exact quality of the activity and where the areas are getting input from and sending output to.

A novel procedure for linking flow and mindful states, quickly refutable with a good swift kick.
The ideal for any scientist with a great idea is to be able to explain it in a minute, and to confirm or falsify it as quickly. The world record for this arguably goes to the English philosopher Samuel Johnson, who rejected Archbishop Berkeley’s argument that material things only exist in one’s mind by striking his foot against a large stone while proclaiming, “I refute it thusly!”
Here is a similarly novel and useful idea that can be confirmed or refuted with a proverbial large kick, and can also be easily explained through affective neuroscience (links below).
Basic Facts:
Endogenous opioids are induced when we eat, drink, have sex, and relax.  Their affective correlate, or how it ‘feels’, is a sense of pleasure.
Fun Fact:
When we are concurrently perceiving some activity that has a variable and unexpected rate of reward while consuming something pleasurable, opioid activity increases and with it a higher sense of pleasure.  In other words, popcorn tastes better when we are watching an exciting movie than when we are watching paint dry. The same effect occurs when we are performing highly variable or meaningful activity (creating art, doing good deeds, doing productive work) while in a pleasurable relaxed state.  (Meaning would be defined as behavior that has branching novel positive implications). This is commonly referred to as ‘flow’ or ‘peak’ experience.
So why does this occur?
Dopamine-Opioid interactions: or the fact that dopamine activity (elicited by positive novel events, and responsible for a state of arousal, but not pleasure) interacts with our pleasures (as reflected by mid brain opioid systems), and can actually stimulate opioid release, which is reflected in self-reports of greater pleasure.
Proof (or kicking the stone):
Just get relaxed using a relaxation protocol such as mindfulness, and then follow it by exclusively attending to or performing meaningful activity, and avoiding all distraction. Keep it up and you will not only stay relaxed, but continue so with a greater sense of wellbeing or pleasure. (In other words, this is a procedural bridge between mindful and ‘flow’ experiences that are not unique psychological ‘states’, but merely represent special aspects of resting states.)
A Likely Explanation, as if you need one!
A more formal explanation from a neurologically based learning theory of this technique is provided on pp. 44-51 in a little open-source book on the psychology of rest linked below.  (The flow experience discussed on pp. 81-86.) The book is based on the work of the distinguished affective neuroscientist Kent Berridge, who was kind to review for accuracy and endorse the work.
Implications for meditation and stress management:
The modulation of pleasurable affect induced by rest is not dependent upon a species of attention (focal meditation, mindfulness meditation), but is ‘schedule dependent’, or correlates with the variability of contingencies of reward and the discriminative aspects of incentives (i.e. their cognitive implications).
In other words, affect in resting is not static but dynamic, as the opioid systems activated by resting protocols are always modulated by dynamic or phasic changes in dopamine systems that are induced by concurrently perceived positive act-outcome discrepancies or expectancies.
References:
Rauwolf, P., et al. (2021) Reward uncertainty - as a 'psychological salt'- can alter the sensory experience and consumption of high-value rewards in young healthy adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (prepub)
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0001029
The Psychology of Rest
https://www.scribd.com/doc/284056765/The-Book-of-Rest-The-Odd-Psychology-of-Doing-Nothing
The Psychology of Incentive Motivation
https://www.scribd.com/document/495438436/A-Mouse-s-Tale-a-practical-explanation-and-handbook-of-motivation-from-the-perspective-of-a-humble-creature
Meditation and Rest, from International Journal of Stress Management, by this author
https://www.scribd.com/doc/121345732/Relaxation-and-Muscular-Tension-A-bio-behavioristic-explanation
Berridge Lab, University of Michigan   https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/


Is it possible to be completely impartial when considering yourself? Consider the following quotation by Poulain de la Barre:

  Everything that has been written by men about women should be viewed with suspicion, because they are both judge and party.

Is it possible to be completely impartial when considering yourself, or matters in which you have a significant vested interest, or will one always be biased?

For most people, I would say no, they lack the self-awareness and self-control to be able to make such a judgement. Those who have practiced a good amount of meditation would, on average, be better candidates. Moreover, nearly anyone experiencing strong emotions would have extra trouble thinking objectively and detached from personal interest. Those who can turn their emotions off would be better candidates.

Another method to consider is creating an objective measuring system that does not rely on subjective information. Technology or strict definitions may be needed for the method to be reliably applicable. If the person making the measurement system created it with the intent to use on others, it could be good to use back on the creator. Some simple examples here are those measurement systems intended to assess physical abilities and strength. Granted one had reasonable self-control and integrity, it would be pretty easy to accurately measure one's own physical strength using a weight set, for example. A fair person could also measure his or her own maximum running speed with pretty good accuracy.

As for matters of "significant vested interest", I would need some specific examples to really be able to say whether it would be reasonable to expect a person to be able to self-assess. The only example that comes to mind right now is that of whether the world would be a better place without oneself. That would be difficult for many people to answer accurately since, at least it seems to me, many people do not consider their own value to society when considering their career or other choices that affect others. Some people have a net positive effect on society while others have a net negative.

I believe everytime you express yourself you are being considered by yourself on the reflection that the expression has about and on yourself. So one would never be impartial (in the sense of being removed as individual with a construct of inconscious interests, from the equation) even not being yourself the subject of opinion.
One would consider that all expression is consubstantiated to the unique core identity of an individual.
Who you are in conscience it is not who you are within unconsciousness.
In a strict sense the huge array of variables at play within one's mind would not allow for impartiality in any circumstances.
I agree with the meditation possibility... but would place it solely in the very long experienced individuals with secluded life.
Being this just a conceptual opinion.


Looking for the term for the relationship between "confidence" and "knowledge" I'm looking for the name of an effect that relates confidence in your decisions (dependent variable) against your level of knowledge for a specific domain (independent variable).  I don't remember where I first heard of this.  It could have been more than 20 years ago in college psych classes, or years later in management seminars.  It could have been junk science I heard from a friend.  It's been too long ago to remember.

The gist is this: A graph of decisiveness or confidence in your ability to make decsion (on the y axis) vs. education/experiences/fund of knowledge (on the x axis) is shaped like a U.  When you have little knowledge, you underestimate the complexity of a situation, and you think making decisions is easy.  The nadir of the U happens when you know enough to understand a domain's complexity, and you find it hard to make decisions because you're overwhelmed by all the possibilities.  With experience, at the upper end of the x-axis, you have started to assimilate the information in a more intuitive way, you can better estimate the most likely outcomes, and you're better at accepting uncertainty. So you find it easier to make decisions.

Ideas that are vaguely similar are the Hype Cycle ("valley of expectations"), the Dunning-Kruger effect, and source amnesia.

I may be thinking of the "Four Stages of Competence."  Perhaps the U-shaped graph and the emphasis on confidence in decision making was just a unique way one of my instructors presented the data.  It may have got this idea from a medical internship manual (I no longer have) with a graph very much like the Hype Cycle, but related to experience gained over the course of an intern year.

Does this effect sound familiar to anyone?  I'm looking for a name for the effect. Part of me thinks that over time, I may have conflated the Hype Cycle with the Four Stages of competence.

I cannot know what your friend or teacher ever told you, but you would be talking about cognizance.

Cognizance and Experience of Technology

http://staffweb.ncnu.edu.tw/clhung/MOT/papers/9.pdf

Knowledge base as a set of cognizance objects

http://web.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/issues/20004/paper3.pdf


Please recommend a book about codependency that is not in regards to substance abuse I would like to find a book that would be helpful to a codependent person with the following criteria.

The book focuses on relationships with needy people who don't care for themselves, instead of focusing on relationships with substance abusers.
The book emphasizes leaving and avoiding these kinds of relationships instead of helping the reader improve these relationships.

Most any book on codependency will mention substance abuse, if for no other reason than the concept began there. Treatment of codependency is about empowering the person who is the caregiver to stop that sort of behavior. The best book I can recommend (I'm a LMHC) is Codependent No More. I would also suggest looking at Attachment Theory, as some researchers believe it can encompass the problems ascribed to codependency in a wider-reaching theoretical approach. To that end you might read Attached.

This is a non-scientific suggestion

[Please be open-minded since we're all just trying to help here]

Maybe we can try looking at codependency from a different angle. We are made of the physical body, emotional and spiritual elements.

If biology is the logical step towards understanding the pathway of the physical body, then astrology explains the whole gravity of your personality. Not only does it explains who you are, it also explains how you became who you are. One can only heal when there is an awareness of the root of an event. (There are many psychotherapists that are astrologers as well, a faster way to identify the cause of a trauma or event.)

The placements of Neptune and Pluto between two individuals are highly related to codependency and empath/narcissist or victim/saviour relationships. Know your boundaries and make them known, instead quietly resenting yourself for being submissive to the other party.

Healing might take place after reading a book, meeting someone, witnessing an event. What harm does it do to give it a try?

Codepency from an astrological point of view:

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vaJ2YiuRrQ
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a93jjY_Lj3g
3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg_5xxlhxeM

Astrology book suggestion: Alive and Well with Neptune (Bil Tierney)


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

Intuition, as defined by Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

★★★★★INSTINCTS★★★★★

     If the hunger instinct and the sex instinct are considered as instincts, then we can define an instinct as follows: "An instinct is a biological force that has the capability to produce a periodical biological urge of a particular type."

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

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

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

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


Analysis of psychology/sociology of fashion? I'm looking for some good place to start read about sociology of fashion. I guess there are some researches about why people "invented" fashion and is it some natural for human as a biological species or it is accidentally happened social phenomenon.

Is there some social functions of fashion? I suppose that from the anti-capitalism point of view fashion cult is a just a consequence of consumer society, but maybe there some scientific studies of psychology and sociology of fashion and it's social functions?

Mair, C. (2019). Speaking of Psychology: Psychology of Fashion. Retrieved August 25, 2020, from https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/fashion


Why is the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard so intolerable? I am curious as to what current research shows regarding why scraping noises such as fingernails on a chalkboard, a knife/fork scraping against a plate, metal grinding against metal or stone etc are so intolerable to humans. In doing some initial research for this I read the wikipedia article on Sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard (there's a wikipedia article on everything!) but I am looking for more references or updated research.

From the reading I have done, there seems to be two competing theories:

The sound is reminiscent of the warning calls of primates and triggers an evolutionary response left over from an earlier age designed to protect us from predators
The sound hits a resonante frequency of the inner ear which causes it to be particularly intolerable

To me personally the first theory makes very little sense. Hearing the warning calls of primates does not personally trigger anywhere near the same feelings of extreme frustration and irritability that I feel when I accidentally scrape my knife on my plate. Furthermore the feelings caused by the "nails on a chalkboard" sound do not at all trigger a fight-or-flight response or put me on edge as a loud noise or something that startles me does. If anything it is almost paralyzing, which seems counter to the evolutionary theory.

How accurate is the wikipedia article? Is there any newer / more widely accepted research available on what causes the sound of "fingernails on a chalkboard" to be so intensely awful to human beings?

My initial thoughts are that the sound produced a dissonant sound, that is (from the link):

  "An unstable tone combination is a dissonance; its tension demands an onward motion to a stable chord. Thus dissonant chords are 'active'; traditionally they have been considered harsh and have expressed pain, grief, and conflict."

—Roger Kamien (2008)

According to the article "Psychacoustics of a chilling sound", (Halpern et al. 1986), it is the low frequency components of the sound that cause the most discomfort. In their tests, removing the low frequency part in a digital simulation, made the sound a bit more bearable.

In the conclusion of the article, there is some support for the Wikipedia article that Josh Gitlin linked to in his question:

  the complex acoustic stimulus pictured in Figure I
  very closely resembles some of the spectrograms of warning
  cries emitted by macaque monkeys (Green, 1975). As
  another possibility, the signal may be similar to the vocalizations
  of some predator.

I don't understand why there's a bias to assuming that something that doesn't actually touch us can't cause pain. I assure you: the sound that Styrofoam makes is enormously painful to me. (And I grew up in the egg business, where I would have to plug my ears on a daily basis when my father or someone else had to do something with Styrofoam cartons. Ugh.)

We all have different tolerance levels for pain in other ways. The guys who go for Navy SEAL (or equivalent) training, or who play NFL football, clearly have a different tolerance for pain than I do. Why would anyone assume that this is different in terms of one's hearing?

The simplest answer is the best: some of us are caused actual pain when certain sounds are made, most likely because there are frequencies in the sound that we can perceive more or more clearly than others can. I'm an audiophile, and have lots of anecdotal evidence that I can hear higher-pitched sounds than my friends... my guess is that for those of us who have massively painful reactions to these sounds, our ears are genetically wired to be able to hear those frequencies far more clearly than those who aren't susceptible.


What is the effect of scolding kids Is there any harmful effect of scolding kids. Also does that affect more to kids who are 1 year old or  to those who are much older like 5 years and so.

By the term scolding I mean: Shouting, yelling,  using intimidating gesture (staring with wide open eye), showing anger, using harsh words (irrespective of the fact the kids know the meaning of the word or not ), and like... and any of the combination of these. And even shouting and hitting with hands but very gently with anger

I have a feeling that many answers to your question will be influenced by anecdotes and personal parental style than actual research. A quick literature review suggests that there is evidence for both positive and negative influences of customary, nonabusive physical punishment, such as spanking.

A literature review by Larzelere (2000) found that nine studies indicated beneficial outcomes, such as reduced noncompliance and fighting.  In contrast, five studies that controlled for the level of child misbehavior did find detrimental outcomes. However, a further analysis found that alternative forms of discipline also showed detrimental outcomes when using a similar research method. The author concludes that "The outcomes differ by methodologic, child, and subcultural factors as well as by how the physical punishment was used".

A later meta-analysis by Larzelere and Kuhn (2005) found that conditional spanking was more effective in reducing child noncompliance and antisocial behavior in 10 of 13 studies. They added that overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment "compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics". In short, there seems to be a threshold whereas some amount of scolding (physical spanking in this case) can be a beneficial tool in a parent's disciplinary toolkit, while excessive amounts of scolding (such as relying on spanking exclusively) can be detrimental.

Larzelere RE. (2000). Child Outcomes of Nonabusive and Customary Physical Punishment by Parents: An Updated Literature Review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 199-221.
Larzelere RE and Kuhn BR. (2005). Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(1), 1-37.

Is there any harmful effect of scolding kids. Also does that affect more to kids who are 1 year old or to those who are much older like 5 years and so.

The simple answer is, "yes there can be harmful effects" and "yes younger kids are probably more affected."

Scolding and the perceptions by the child being scolded are both multivariate in nature. The act of scolding is multivariate because there can be multiple actions of differing intensities taking place during the scolding. No two scolding episodes are precisely alike. The perceptions of the child being scolded are very important. How does the child perceive the angry face or the raised spanking hand? Does the child experience intense fear that can have long-lasting effects? These are important questions.

The age of the child is important with regard to the child's perceptions. An older child getting spanked by his mom or yelled at by his mom might find it to be somewhat humorous. A much younger child, with much less life experience, could find the same scolding horrendous.


systems of thinking - how to relearn According to Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow), we have two types of thinking:

I. fast, instinctive and emotional
II. slower, more deliberative, and more logical

I found interesting Kahneman's remark that IQ score represents a person's System II ability (it does not measure System I nor the subject's ability to apply them appropriately).

I assume that it is possible to prioritize the System I early on in one's life because it is a fast way to the end.
(Example: In elementary/high school Maths, many tasks can be solved somewhat intuitively since they are simple reoccurring problems. And instead of real deep understanding of the rules, the problems can be solved by application of problem-solving patterns. This applies especially to situations when competition is promoted, thus speed is rewarded.)

Now, Is it possible (how?) to (re)train oneself to apply more of the System II?

2) Yes, I think so. If you think of your systems as a pattern recognizer, and continuously exposing it to more complex patterns and associated solutions, you can literally invoke your system 2 more easily, for example, in higher level math, you can prove properties and theorems in certain way that is efficient and effective, which depends on experiences to know what's the best method. Proving is certainly an act of system 2, it's complex and logical. Another example, meditation can be used to identify negative thoughts, once you recognize that you are being bothered by your own thoughts, you can immediately ignore them, this takes training of recognizing the pattern and let your system 2 focus your attention on other more important things than the negative thoughts brought up by your system 1. One more example is recognizing your own logical fallacies and cognitive biases. The key is to know the existence of the patterns, repeatedly recognize patterns, and correct/solve the patterns.


Perfectionism, and approval addiction: how are these two generated from a trauma? Depression and anxiety most of the time stem from a past trauma, but it is actually not the events, but the thoughts that create the symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Out of those thoughts, perfectionism and approval addiction are prominent, and I, myself, am an example of it. So how does a traumatic event tend to generate the cognition of perfectionism and approval addiction, or does it even tend to generate it or is it, itself a result of it(depression and anxiety)?

I want to say that this kind of issue is environmental. Behaviours of perfectionism are developed because of certain factors that may stem from early childhood (as in how the parents treat the child). If self esteem is measured based on the standards that the authority sets, but the child cannot reach them, they may come to know themselves as inadequate. Freud talks about this in his theory of psychoanalysis and in the psychodynamic theory.

I don't think it's specifically one case of trauma, but a series of evaluations that causes the development of low self esteem.

Before the child has a complete theory of mind he may not seperate himself from his environment and in turn mirror or internalize the negative image of how his parents treat him.
Some evidence suggests that perception becomes more global with age (which may reflect the development of a pragmatic perceptive system that allows faster identification of objects in the environment. ) (Akshoomoff et al., 1995).

Its possible that this global perceptive system may become tied to negative emotional trauma. Which makes negative behaviours more easily developable.
Predictions of outcomes of events have also been tied to perception, as perception as been shown to be constructive (in the sense that it builds on itself from past experiences, even emotional ones)  (Sinke,  et al., 2012)

Individuals who experience abuse may unconsciously recall the outcomes of that abuse during similar situations, causing distress.

Also, some Self theorists may also see the traumatic experiences as negatively affecting the sense of self. Approval addiction may be seen as an act taken to strengthen self identity, as the authority figure did not properly bolster the self esteem during development, so the individual may try to compensate for that by seeking approval.

Reference

Developmental trends in visuospatial analysis and planning: I. Copying a complex figure. Akshoomoff, Natacha A.; Stiles, Joan
Neuropsychology, Vol 9(3), Jul 1995, 364-377

Sinke, Charlotte B. A. et al. “The Constructive Nature of Affective Vision: Seeing Fearful Scenes Activates Extrastriate Body Area.” PLoS ONE 7.6 (2012): e38118. Web.

I doubt trauma would create personality factors. If one is a perfectionist addicted to approval, the features might become stronger after a trauma, yet trauma itself would not be the source.

Possibly, one might feel weaker after a trauma but then, self-criticism strictly is not the resolve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism

I cannot agree "a traumatic event tends to generate the cognition of perfectionism and approval addiction".


Can one learn not to panic? How? It's always impressive to listen to the professionalism of a commercial pilot communicating in a crisis situation, apparently remaining calm and in control in terrifying circumstances, with terrible responsibility. I imagine this occurs because (a) the industry does not promote those who panic to this position and (b) pilots practice a great deal in simulators, learning to cope with crisis calmly.

Am I imagining correctly, here?

To what extent can practice (b) overcome a deficiency in (a) a natural tendency to calmness?

Does practice at staying cool in one field (say, making decisions during play of a fast computer game) transfer to staying cool generally (say, being accosted by an aggressive stranger on the street)?

I read What characterises people who stay calm in crisis situations? and that does relate (a) to calmness in a crisis but I don't think it says anything about (b).

I believe that there is a fundamental flaw in your scenario in that, pilots are not promoted to being a pilot from being something else. Pilots take intensive training courses that may include simulation training and do include many hours of practice in an actual aeroplane, under supervision of a trained instructor.

To more generally answer your question:

  Can one learn not to panic?

Yes, using behavioural training techniques we can train ourselves, or be trained by others, to respond to situations or stimuli in a different way than is our instinctive reaction.

With the situation you noted about pilots, a trained pilot will have all of the knowledge of how to deal with a situation that they may encounter and will have practiced this knowledge in an applied setting (an actual plane) many times, making the training become the pilots first response to a dangerous situation (Exposure Therapy, and  Repetitive Learning are some ways of doing this).

A novel situation can also be trained for. In your scenario, I would suspect that their training would include an emergency checklist type of activity that would then be repeated over and over so that it is ingrained in their memory and behaviours and will also become the pilots first response to a novel dangerous situation.

How to learn not to panic is really all about training your brain to behave in a different way then its instincts tell it to, this may or may not mean that you totally remove the instinctive fear response.


What adjectives can be used to describe emotional intelligence competences? After reading the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman, I'm having a difficult time comparing emotional intelligence (EQ) with Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

When talking about someone's IQ we use adjectives as: intelligent, genius, fool, stupid, brilliant, etc.

What adjectives can we use to describe the competences of:

being able to recognize and name one's emotions
being able to recognize and name other people's emotions
being able to understand the root cause of certain emotions
being able to keep calm in the middle of strong emotions

Note: I'm not really sure if this question belongs to Cognitive Science Stack Exchange, if not please point me in the right direction.

Thanks

These are the best words I could find using the atlas of personality, emotion and behaviour (Mobbs, 2020).

being able to recognize and name one's emotions: self-aware, self-observant, reflective, contemplative.
being able to recognize and name other people's emotions: empathic, compassionate, understanding, sensitive, sympathetic.
being able to understand the root cause of certain emotions: wise, perceptive, insightful, discerning, astute.
being able to keep calm in the middle of strong emotions: self-governing, self-restrained, temperate, level-headed, dispassionate, balanced.

Mobbs AED (2020) An atlas of personality, emotion and behaviour. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0227877. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227877

Well, you address things that are being addressed by different adjectives, in this combination contradicting in some of their other meanings.

If I should provide a list of common words for every trait you have described:

Sincere, honest (as of not being afraid to admit the emotions), self-aware (as of understanding what's going on inside)
Sensitive (feeling with others), empathetic, solicitous (caring for other people)
Here I'm a bit lost but: Insightful (a person that generally understads, but needs a context specification as it could as well apply to a mechanic and machines), wise (a general word for somebody with experience and the ability to use it).
Calm, wise (again, universal word that fits any context)... Well anything you'd call Obi Wan Kenobi

Now some of the therms might probably sound contradicting if used together. For example a sensitive person is not expected to withstand strong emotions calmly.

However these are just words I thought up. I'm not native English speaker so you only get the words that are frequently used.

I don't see what do all these words have to do with Cognitive sciences. I think this should get moved on English.SE. In that case I hope my answer gets deleted as native English speakers would downvote the hell out of me.


Is general intelligence meant to underlie all intelligence? Is general intelligence, supposedly measured by IQ, meant to underlie all intelligence, be the thing that accounts for all intelligence / ability, or does all intelligence account for general intelligence? Who claims the former, that g is more basic, and why do they claim that?

I think the question matters a little, because, if it doesn't, then IQ scores are a product of learning and teaching successes, rather than vice versa -- given that ability in any sphere [mathematics e.g.] is not innate.

Is general intelligence meant to underlie all intelligence?

I don't know what you are trying to ask.  Are you trying to ask if general intelligence is the basis of all other intelligence?  If this is what you are indeed asking, the answer is no.  Long ago, scientists thought of g, general intelligence to be a number that encapsulates the sum of all of one's different intellectual abilities.  (I know.  It sounds vague and doesn't sound very scientific.)  I don't think they intended to mean that g was like some precursor to each type of intellectual process and thus, the best indicator of a person's intelligence.

  Is g, measured by IQ, the basis of a person's intellectual abilities
  or does a person's overall intelligence lead to a number, g?  Who
  claims the former and why?

I reworded this person's question because it wasn't very clear as written.  I also think the question is almost exactly the same as the first question, except the person also asks who believes in g as the basis of intelligence.

There was once a time that most scientists and other experts in the field of intelligence believed in the concept of g, a number that encapsulates all the intellectual abilities of that person into one simple score.

As it still happens frequently today, in the early 1990's, there was a remarkable discrepancy in what most scientists believed intelligence was and what popular news articles and media such as movies believed.  (This is a topic for a different question but it amazes me sometimes the huge difference between what scientists believe and what the public believes.  I personally don't think this vast difference just happens by accident.  The information conveyed to the public is usually distorted intentionally.)

Anyway, going back.  In 1994, scientists in the field of intelligence were shocked by the public's completely backward notions of what intelligence was.  The media was apparently butchering what scientists were saying.  As a result, some 50 leading scientists and experts in the intelligence community signed a list of statements that was published in the Wall Street Journal, expressing dismay at the media's incorrect depiction of intelligence.  This public statement was titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence".  It stated facts that were widely accepted by scientists and experts in the study of intelligence.  Some of these statements were:

IQ can be measured well and IQ tests are very accurate.
There are different types of intelligence tests but there is only one type of intelligence.
Intelligence tests are not culturally biased.

Such outrage by the scientific community!  What a shock!  Why would the media intentionally distort what the real science was?

Well, all these questions became moot because something really ironic occurred.
 It was determined that most of the claims made by Mainstream Science on Intelligence were wrong!  It's ironic but no reputable scientist or expert in intelligence today would ever sign that statement that they had once so confidently signed and published in the Wall Street Journal.  Studies made during and after the 1990's, actually disproved most of the statements in Mainstream Science on Intelligence.  Scientists did a complete 180-degree turn.  The lying media turned out to be right!

What's more ironic is that there are now laypeople who believe in the statements made by Mainstream Science on Intelligence.  Not scientists but laypeople who haven't been keeping up with the science.  They are accepting the statements made in the Mainstream Science on Intelligence as true.  They believe things like IQ is an accurate and precise measure of general intelligence, g.  Or, g actually is a great indicator of how smart a person generally is.  Funny, no?

Anyway, the original question had asked who claims that general intelligence underlies all intelligence.  I don't think anyone believes this.  I never heard of anyone who believes that there are some group of genes (aka g) that has an effect on all our intellectual abilities and is the factor that mainly accounts for a person's intelligence.  Next question...

  I think the question matters a little, because, if it doesn't, then IQ
  scores are a product of learning and teaching successes, rather than
  vice versa -- given that ability in any sphere [mathematics e.g.] is
  not innate.

I didn't understand this question.  How did you logically conclude "IQ scores [are] a product of learning and teaching successes" since "IQ scores [are] incorrect representation of intelligence"?  It happens to be true but how did you conclude that from anything you said before or after?  And, what do you mean by vice-versa?  It doesn't make sense.

To set the record straight, there is no such thing as a g that represents the general intelligence of a person.  Just because you are good at one thing, it's been determined that you might not be necessarily good at other intellectual pursuits.  I strongly believe this to be true.  Research has proven it.  And, you personally see instances of this in real life.

Let me also state that an IQ test is also a very inaccurate method to measure intelligence, especially at the tail-end of the distribution on the right side.  Furthermore, please keep in mind that the scientific field of intelligence is actually still in its infancy.  Many basic concepts are still unproven to be true or not.  We are still learning about ourselves.  Current studies include determining what types of events appear in what part of the brain.  It's all so very new.


What is the difference between emotions, intuition and affect? From what I know, intuition is affect-based. But how do they differ?

Affect is a fundamental feature of consciousness and is a mental representation of input from the body to the brain.  Affect corresponds to feelings of (un)pleasantness and activation (arousal).

Emotions are conceptualizations (interpretations) of your affect in a given context.  You might feel pleasant and highly aroused (an affective feeling) on a roller coaster, and your conceptualization of that affect in that context would be "excitement" (an emotional feeling).  In this sense, emotions are what we would traditionally consider to be "cognitive."

Source

Under this scheme, intuition doesn't really have a direct, formal relationship to affect or emotion, although intuitions are often affective (well, pretty much everything is affective).  But see here for a more informed discussion of the literature.

Intuition: my environment is totally uncorrelated with anything I am aware of but it still leads me to believe something is about to happen.
Emotion: a state of mind evoked by physical sensations, particular memories, and expectations of the future.
Affect: the outward manifestation of my emotions which may or may not be deliberate.