Are men subject to optimism bias when it comes to assessing their sexual/romantic appeal? Intuitively, I imagine that men are strongly subject to optimism bias when dating, and in particular facing rejection. (ie. not believing that she's really not attracted to him).

My question is:

How well studied is this? What methods of study do they use?
How prevalent is it amongst men? (Are all men subject it it?)
How strong is the bias? By how much do men overvalue their attractiveness?
How does this compare with women?

Short answer: Yes, but not really...

Self-enhancement:

Self-enhancement (sometimes referred to as positive illusions) refers to a general preference for positive self-views (in men and women alike).  It includes several common strategies, such as: The "above average effect" (aka illusory superiority), self-serving bias, and optimism bias.  Optimism bias however refers to perceived risk, whereas this question is about illusory superiority:

  ... a cognitive bias whereby individuals overestimate their own
  qualities and abilities, relative to others. This is evident in a
  variety of areas including intelligence, performance on tasks or
  tests, and the possession of desirable characteristics or personality
  traits.

Self-esteem is a particularly dicey subject matter - it seems to refer to a conglomerate of fairly independent / mildly correlated factors.  So when we examine say, self-perceived sexual attractiveness (sex appeal), the results are different from a variety of other similar sounding - but independent - constructs such as self-perceived physical attractiveness, sexual self-schema, self-valuation, sexual self-esteem, sexual satisfaction, sexual performance, body image, self-image, etc...

Therefore, to keep the scope of this question manageable, I'll focus on gender differences in illusory superiority with respect to sexual attractiveness, though as will be discussed, physical attractiveness will come into play as well.

Research methodology:

Self-esteem factors such as perceived sexual attractiveness are measured using surveys / self-reporting.  For sexual attractiveness in particular, there doesn't appear to be a well-established scale in common use, so researchers tend to develop questionnaires as needed for their particular studies.  Furthermore, there is evidence that many confounding factors exist that cannot be easily controlled for, such as societal changes.  So unfortunately, some questions of validity and reproducibility of the results exist, as is common in many facets of social psychology and personality research.

Another issue is the extricability of sexual attractiveness from physical attractiveness.  Studies have shown that these are in fact two different constructs.  However, different scales used by different researchers emphasize physical attractiveness in sexual attractiveness measures to different degrees, making the separation difficult.

As suggested in the question, self-enhancement is known in general to increase when under threat - Wikipedia says:

  This motive becomes especially prominent in situations of threat,
  failure or blows to one's self-esteem.

and:

  Positive illusions are a form of self-deception or self-enhancement
  that feel good, maintain self-esteem or stave off discomfort at least
  in the short term.

To manipulate self-esteem in the lab, subjects can be presented with a comparison point (contrast), such as a photo or video of someone else that may be highly attractive, or unattractive.  An ego-threatening contrast may affect self-enhancement differently from an unthreatening scenario.

Summary of results:

As expected, both men and women report a "better-than-average" bias for sexual attractiveness - ie, the average rating compared to others is higher than average.  The bias is slightly greater for men than women on some scales, and not significantly different on others, eg:

  ... on the dimensions of Sexual Attractiveness, Sexual Restraint, and
  Sexual Orientation ... no significant sex differences [were] found.

Here is an example where women actually rated themselves higher than men:

  ... we found that males rate themselves higher on explicitly sexual
  dimensions (e.g., sexually responsive, experienced) and females
  perceive themselves to be more romantic and sexually attractive.

It would be good to see a meta-analysis of such studies to get a better idea of the overall effect, but the bottom line is that it's not clear - it may depend on the particular scale used, or any number of other confounding factors.

Some examples of such factors: Black men rate themselves higher than white men, but women do not; men and women base their ratings on physical traits to different degrees; self-esteem affects females differently from males; and effects vary in cultures where physical attractiveness is more or less emphasized.  That is, it appears that gender differences vary based on societal changes, such as before and after the feminist movement, differences in idealized representations in the media, cultural changes in messages such as "black is beautiful", etc.  And gender differences also vary depending on the incorporation of physical attractiveness.

Physical attractiveness:

In the 1980's and 90's, there was a flurry of research on self-perceived body image and physical attractiveness related to increased diagnosis of anorexia/bulemia, so much more is known about these measures.  In line with suggested epidemiology for anorexia, that is most associated with young women, body image is typically lower in females than males, and females are more often subject to a "lower-than-average" effect, while males more often rate their physical attractiveness as better than average.

As before, there are many confounding factors, including some of the same ones to do with skin colour, cultural context, different physical traits, and self-esteem.  Nonetheless, the effect suggested in the question is perhaps more pronounced for physical attractiveness than sexual attractiveness / romantic appeal.  And since self-perceived physical attractiveness often constitutes an important component of sexual attractiveness, then some of the differences in results may depend on how heavily a particular study incorporates physical attractiveness into their own measure of sexual attractiveness, and how important physical attractiveness is as a component of sexual attractiveness for the particular group studied.  With this factor removed, and limiting findings to modern Western culture, it may turn out that men and women do not differ in self-enhancement of sex appeal, or even that women do so to a greater degree.

Respectfully, I believe there might be a flaw in the thinking behind the question insofar as you are assuming that "attractiveness" is a relatively static property in an individual.

This might be a male perspective because the way that males are programmed to feel attraction for females is based on female attributes which are relatively slow to change.

Females, however, are programmed very differently than males. The amount of attraction or repulsion that she feels can change significantly very quickly because it is largely based on the behavior of the male. This is a concept that most males find hard to grasp because it is not the way that they are programmed so it is not a part of their experience of reality.

An explanation ...

The field of evolutionary psychology suggests that much of animal behavior - including and especially our attraction and repulsion systems is hardwired into our genes.

For example, when a cat hears the squeaking of a mouse, the behavior of the the cat will be somewhat predictable. How is this possible? The belief is that cat has been genetically programmed by evolution to feel an emotional compulsion to behave in a very specific way when it receives a very specific auditory signal. This behavior gives it an evolutionary advantage over those cats which did not have it because it will eat the mouse and the nourishment will give it a better chance of surviving to pass on its genes.

Evolutionary psychology suggests that much of animal behavior - including and especially mate selection choice - is similarly hard-wired. Those who make good choices for selection of mates are more likely to have their genes survive.

However, the programmed mating strategy of males and females is very different for the simple reason that the optimal strategy for the survival of the genes of the male is different than the optimal strategy for the survival of the genes of the female.

In particular the male mating strategy might be described as seeking high “replication value” whereas the female strategy is to seek high “survival value”.

Men have the advantage of being able to make quick and relatively permanent assessments of female attractiveness because all they need is a visual signal to assess her “replication value” and that assessment - before the advent of plastic surgery - is relatively permanent.
Females, however, cannot assess the “survival value” of a prospective mate so quickly. She has to get to know you in order to make an accurate assessment. The level of attraction that she feels for you will be based nearly entirely on how you behave during that “getting to know you” time.

A popular book on the evolutionary psychology of attraction is "The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating" by David M. Buss.

Evidence to support the belief that the attraction mechanism of females is rooted in male behavior is given by the (admittedly non-scientific) experience of “pick-up artists”. For example “Eric Von Markovic” aka “Mystery” wrote a famous book called “The Mystery Method” in which he describes how a male can alter his behavior to “create attraction” in women by behaving in ways that exude the desirable traits and not behaving in ways that exhibit the undesirable traits.

I realize this is not a rigorous scientific source. Someone should do a study to validate the claims. But I personally have a great deal of certainty that the method works because I was a dating coach in a former life, taught it to dozens of men, and saw it work with my own eyes over and over again in the field.

This brings me to my second point.

One of the most important behavioral traits that women seem to be programmed to seek out in men might be described as “self confidence”.

So if you, as a male, have a genuine “optimism bias”, females will actually feel more attracted to you because you are more self-confident. Women are attracted to men who have this trait and feel aversion to those who don't have it.

I do not have a scientific reference to support this. However, all that I have experienced tells me that it is true. You might consider doing a simple survey of women to verify.

In his book, von Markovic suggests that women seem to be programmed to run a “testing” algorithm to ascertain if you really are the attractive mate who can fulfill her needs that you seem to be. If a male “behaves” correctly, her attraction will increase. If he behaves incorrectly, the female’s attraction will decrease.

So all men are punished and rewarded by their life experiences to develop the attractive behavioral traits - including and especially “self-confidence”. It would seem, therefore, that men are rewarded for having the trait of “optimism bias” and punished for not having this trait.
Therefore a male who fails to find a way to generate self confidence with respect to his desirability is putting the survival of his genes in jeopardy by severely limiting his mating opportunities.

Are all men subject to it?

All men are compelled by their life experiences to develop it. Though many give unskillful meaning to and draw the wrong lessons from their painful experience and are thus much slower to develop the correct behaviors.

How is it different for women?

Men are not biologically programmed to punish women for lacking self confidence because we are not looking for her to be our "protector and provider". Women are therefore not compelled to develop this trait by their life experiences.


How has geometry been applied in cognitive science? What areas of geometry are used in psychology/cognitive science/neuroscience? Are the applications of a sophisticated nature or superficial?

Here are a few off the top of my head from neuroscience:

neural activity may primarily exist on low dimensional attractors.
reconstructing PET signal origins from emitted gamma rays
It's widely believed our brains are gyrencephalic (wrinkly) to maximize surface area.
Various distance metrics (Euclidean, Mahalanobis) are common tools for clustering data, for example spike sorting.
Neuron morphology (shape) follows function.
Microgeometry of objects is important for tactile texture perception.
Bat echolocation and fish electrosensation are limited in range due to the inverse square law.

The book Theories of Meaningfulness of Louis Narens deals with Erlanger program, which is the connection between group theory and projective geometry.


Is a person who believe that their depression is curable more likely to overcome it? According to the idea of the growth mindset a person is more likely to successfully change, when they believe that change is possible.

To what extend does that apply to depression? Is a person who believes that it's possible to overcome their depression more likely to overcome it then a person who believes that there's no hope overcoming their depression?

Is a person who believes that it's possible to overcome their depression more likely to overcome it then a person who believes that there's no hope overcoming their depression?

The answer depends on many factors; and if therapy is received, as with all mental health conditions, it also depends on the form of therapy the depressed client receives and the rapport between client and the therapist.

CBT is often the go to form of therapy within IAPT services advocating for therapies which they can easily measure outcomes.  However, as pointed out in my answer on the limitations of CBT,

  There are a fair few factors which can prevent CBT from becoming effective, and a trained and certified CBT practitioner will be able to assess the suitability of CBT. If they operate ethically, they will not go ahead with providing CBT to someone who it would not benefit.

  One of the biggest factors which doesn't allow CBT to work is that if the client is not willing or able to challenge their thoughts and behaviours, then CBT will not be effective.

There are articles covering the effect of positive expectations creating positive outcomes.  Scheier & Carver (1993) pointed out that

  People who see desired outcomes as attainable continue to strive for those outcomes, even when progress is slow or difficult.  When outcomes seem significantly unattainable, people withdraw their effort and disengage themselves from their goals.  Thus, people's expectations provide a basis for engaging in one or two very different classes of behavior; continued striving versus giving up.

Belief that your depression can be cured will help by a considerable margin.

  There is evidence consistent with the suggestion of the cognitive model of depression that certain negative cognitions can produce and maintain the state of depression. There is also good evidence that depressed mood affects the relative accessibility of positive and negative cognitions. Thus, negative cognitions appear to produce depression, and, conversely, depression increases the probability of just those cognitions which will cause further depression. This reciprocal relationship between depression and cognition may form the basis of a vicious cycle which will perpetuate and intensify depression. (Teasdale, 1983).

Owen Lightsey (1994) also looked at positive automatic thoughts (PATs) as a "stress buffer".

  Is it possible that positive automatic thoughts (PATs) may similarly protect against depression? Such a finding could have considerable clinical significance. Cognitive therapies tend to focus on elimination of negative cognitions and on replacing maladaptive beliefs with adaptive beliefs (e.g., Beck et al., 1979); there is little focus on PATs per se. If PATs are found to uniquely buffer the effects of stress, straightforward training in generation of PATs could help to confer resilience

Later in the article he pointed out that things can be a little complicated:

  Results for the overall sample confirmed the hypothesis that PATs predict future happiness: Higher frequency of pre-existing PATs was associated with greater future happiness. This finding suggests that PATs have an impact not only on immediate well-being, as suggested by Goodhart (1985), but also on future well-being. Contrary to hypotheses, however, the overall PATs x Stressful Event interaction did not predict either depression or happiness. Unexpectedly, a subtype of PATs — PATs about social self-worth — behaved in a manner consistent with a stress buffer role: The interaction of PATs about social self-worth with stressful events predicted unique variance in depression, above the variance accounted for by other Factor x Stress interactions.

It won't necessarily mean you are doomed if you feel there is no end to your mental health problems; it just means it will take longer to help you. All depression can be dealt with effectively and successfully given enough time and proper support.

References

Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.

Goodhart, D. E. (1985). Some psychological effects associated with positive and negative thinking about stressful event outcomes: Was Pollyanna right?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(1), 216. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.216

Lightsey, O. R. (1994). " Thinking positive" as a stress buffer: The role of positive automatic cognitions in depression and happiness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(3), 325. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0167.41.3.325

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current directions in psychological science, 2(1), 26-30. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770572

Teasdale, J. D. (1983). Negative thinking in depression: Cause, effect, or reciprocal relationship?. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5(1), 3-25.  DOI: 10.1016/0146-6402(83)90013-9

Let us look at the neurological aspect of depression:

  There appears to be a complex series of areas of the brain implicated
  in the pathophysiology of depression although limited overlap was
  found across imaging paradigms. This included a network of regions
  including frontal and temporal cortex as well as the insula and
  cerebellum that are hypoactive in depressed subjects and in which
  there is increase in activity with treatment.
  (Source: Fitzgerald, 2007)

Now, what does this mean? All we can safely draw from this is that when looking at depression neurologically we are looking at traces of hypoactive activity in the brain. In psychological terms, that can be traceable as delayed answers to reaction-type tasks (Source: Azorin, 1995), lack of interest, negative outlook on life and reality.
To come back to your question and reformulate it: is having a positive outlook on your own illness a sign that you are more likely to get out of depression?

The answer is yes. Looking at the data, having a positive outlook on anything means that your brain is starting to activate more (aka be hypoactive in fewer areas or less hypoactive overall), so your chances to overcome the illness are stronger.

Now, the catch 22 is, if you have a positive outlook on your depression, is that really depression? What if you are suffering from, say, Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar type and you expect to have depression after a manic state, you feel bad, but instead of depression you have only negative symptoms of your illness? (avolition etc) You are not technically depressed, as your reactions to stimuli and your outlook on life and your own illness might be unaffected, but that's not to say you feel better, so you will be a counter-example for the above theory. Likewise, you can feel suicidal for a number of reasons except depression, but report yourself as being depressed and be a counter-example for the theory that expectations of a good outcome are most likely a predictor of depression being on its way to remission.

What I am trying to say is, the answer to your question is yes, definitely, if the illness is typical depression, the ability to expect positive outcomes should be a predictor of remission. However, the neuroimaging tests that would confirm the theory are usually administered to test effects of medication, rarely for effects of therapy alone, so it would be hard to prove this regarding therapy alone.

Depression is hard-coded in our system just like fear, and it would be hard to identify, measure or even generate the effects of therapy without medication to first stabilise the brain activity. After the patient is medicated and somewhat stabilised, you can give them positive insights on anything, including their own ilness, and you will be right to think that those insights are useful to get them out of depression, as well.


What does it mean when we say that "a neuron connects to a certain cortical layer"? For example, if we say "a neuron connects to Layer V of the cortex", does it mean it synapses inside layer V, or does it imply that the soma of the neuron it synapses to is in Layer V (and it could synapse inside Layer II for example)?

Short answer
In complicated matters like neural connections in a layered cortex, it is all about semantics. One should carefully place statements in their context and deduce their meaning.

Background
In Fig. 1 a schematic of the layering of the cortex is shown. The layers can be separated based on their histological and neurophysiological features:

Layer I: the molecular layer, contains primarily axons running parallel (horizontal) to the cortical surface.
Layer II, the external granular layer, is composed of a mixture of small granule cells and pyramidal cells. The apical dendrites of the pyramidal cells extend into layer I and their axons descend into and through the deeper cortical layers.
Layer III, the external pyramidal layer, contains primarily pyramidal cells. Their apical dendrites ascend into layer I and their axons descend into and through the deeper layers.
Layer IV, the internal granular layer, consists almost exclusively of stellate neurons. It can be divided into subdivisions in many neocortical areas. Layer IV is the primary target for ascending sensory information from the thalamus.
Layer V, the internal pyramidal layer, consists predominantly of pyramidal cells. Apical dendrites may extend upward one or two layers, and the larger pyramidal cells may have dendrites extending into layer I.
Layer VI, the multiform layer, contains an assortment of neuron types. The dendrites of pyramidal cells may extend into layer I. (source: Clinical Gate)

As the text in bold above shows, the apical dendrites of pyramidal cells can extend many layers. Hence, it is a matter of reading the text carefully to know what they are talking about.

In your example...

  [A] neuron connects to Layer V of the cortex...

...it would depend on the context, but in this isolated instance it simply reads that a neuron's axon terminates in layer V. Especially in histological texts a line like this would most likely have identified the axon and the axon terminal and have identified the layer where it terminates.

However, as said above, dendrites of pyramids may extend all the way up to layer I, so if a text would say...

  [A] neuron synapses onto a layer V neuron...

it is left undetermined exactly where that connection is made (can be layers I, II, III, IV, or V in the case of pyramidal cells).

What can be of help is the fact that when a text talks about...

  ...a layer V neuron

...you can safely assume that its cell body is located in layer V, as a cell's location is determined by its cell body. Its dendrites can be in any layer (especially of the larger pyramid cells) and its axon may traverse all layers.

Fig. 1. Layers in the cortex. source: Clinical Gate

Both are correct, technically, neurons a lined and positioned through synaptic connections and so logically each layer should comprise both the soma of neurons as well as the neurites for synaptic connections that can or may extend outside its layer and protrude its network outside. I highly recommend studying and understanding the processes and actions that are underscored in neural activity in the visual cortex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10884/

PS. brain has 6 layers, try picturing fetal neurons climbing up radial glia stalks that transcend layers during fetal development!


How are hallucinations generated, is it related to dreaming? I was thinking how powerful auditory and visual hallucinations must be, for the individual experiencing them to be unable to distinguish them from reality. I, personally, have not experienced a hallucination, but have experienced vivid dreams and know that when I'm dreaming it can seem real, and at that point, that is my reality (even though I am asleep).

Is there a correlation between the part of the brain responsible for dreaming and hallucinations?

What generates hallucinations, to make them indistinguishable from reality?

Psychosis results in hallucinations. States of psychosis are thought to be like seizures caused by imbalanced levels of at least dopamine and serotonin. Psychosis like depression creates new pathways in the brain which allow for the senses to be flooded with internal information. The person who is experiencing hallucinations may be forced by the psychosis to think that it is real. Some are able to realize that the hallucination is not real. For instance, it is a common condition of humanity to have isolated instances of hallucinations. People hear music when there is none or think someone calls their name but no one did. Normal people are able to recognize that there was no music and no one called their name.

Psychosis can be caused by extreme excitement. Excitement alone impairs judgment but if it goes to an extreme a person can become psychotic and begin to hallucinate or have other odd behaviour.

Often times people schizo type and bipolar disorder are accompanied with insomnia. If the illness progresses far enough the sick person can become caught in a state between awake and asleep. The hallucinations are combined with greater degrees of dissociation (day dream).

One way of describing it is that the brain is experiencing a case of non-shared deception. I say, "non-shared deception", for the following reasons....

People see cars stop, move, move faster, slow down, and stop again. However, a simple analysis of "motion", via the use of nothing but the mind, soon leads you to seeing the fact that all cars are constantly in motion, and that they never stop moving. This constant motion applies to all objects. All that can be done is change the direction of this constant motion as it is constantly on the go within a 4 dimensional structure known as Space-Time.

This simple ABC analysis of motion soon has you independently understanding Special Relativity, and it also has you independently, and successfully, creating all of the Special Relativity equations with absolute ease.

(To watch this easy breezy analysis of motion in action, goto youtube videos 1-9 at http://goo.gl/fz4R0I )

Thus, those who see objects, such as cars, speed up and slow down etc., are those whom are obviously "Seeing something that isn't really there.". They are experiencing an hallucination.

Now if the outward extension of the mind is reduced to an even smaller scale, via drugs or whatever, then the magnitude of the ongoing hallucinations are magnified even further, magnified to an even greater scale than the hallucinations that are being shared on a global scale.


Why am I more "musically" creative in the last 30 seconds before falling asleep? I am a music producer and often my "best" pieces always came to my mind shortly before I fell asleep. Sometimes I actually grab a recorder, hum the melody and finish the idea on the very next day.

My question is now: how can this be possible? In a state where my brain is supposed to shut down (and pretty much does) it is literally exploding out of ideas. I also feel a huge increase in euphoria in these very moments but I can't really tell whether this happens before or after I get the idea for a certain sound/melody.

Might it be that my creativity is "blocked" all day until my brain finally drops all obstacles which then makes way for my creative flow? Or is it that no new input needs to be processed as I lay in total darkness and silence and therefore new "material" to process isn't coming in which leads my brain to "invent" something?

This doesn't happen every time but most often when I am very tired and don't need longer than 15 minutes to fall asleep - usually this is a matter of hours for me, hours in which I am not productive at all.

This is quite a well documented phenomenon - stereotypically these moments of creative insight occur in the shower. A google for 'psychology aha moment' or 'neuroscience creative aha' will give you some articles, in Psychology Today for instance, talking about this.

One characterisation of thought is that links between neurons are created and by travelling down the intricate pathway, you have the thought. A lot of conscious thought is driven by "picking" the "quickest" path and travelling down that, as it is economical in terms of energy use.
One understanding of creativity is that it is combining of existing ideas in novel patterns. When you enter a more relaxed state, or even just a more distracted state such as showering or exercising, your brain is free to try novel combinations as you are not consciously driving it down specific well-worn pathways (the "easy" paths).

Mark Beeman has done research on this, which he calls it insight. For more information, see the article he co-wrote "The Aha! Moment: the Neural Basis of Solving Problems with Insight".

For another explanation, Alice Flaherty has done research linking these moments to dopamine release, which is more abundant in our brains when we relax. For more information see the publication "Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive".

Creativity is hindered by stress. When you are trying extremely hard to come up with this great musical masterpiece, you're going about it all the wrong way. Think about what artists say about their music so often: "It just came to me". Music (and creativity in general) are linked to inspiration. As you're going to sleep, your body and brain is shutting down. So you start to forget about the logistics of life (the left side of the brain) and your right side is allowed to think more freely.


Are good students truly good at all things? Source: 'Putting a Bolder Face on Google' By LAURA M. HOLSON

  At a recent personnel meeting, she homes in on grade-point averages and SAT scores to narrow a list of candidates, many having graduated from Ivy League schools, whom she wanted to meet as part of a program to foster in-house talent. In essence, math is used to solve a human problem: How do you predict whether an employee has the potential for success?

  A scrum of executives sit around a table, laptops in front of them, as
  they sort through résumés, college transcripts and quarterly reviews.
  The conversation is unemotional, at times a little brutal.

  One candidate got a C in macroeconomics. “That’s troubling to me,” Ms.
  [Marissa] Mayer says. “Good students are good at all things.”

  Another candidate looked promising with a quarterly rating from a
  supervisor of 3.5, out of 4, which meant she had exceeded her
  manager’s expectations. Ms. Mayer is suspicious, however, because her
  rating hasn’t changed in several quarters.

What does research indicate about this claim? For example, can a preeminent literature or law student truly struggle in math, and vice versa, or is this just a common excuse/pretext? What branch of psychology does my question here concern?

I would say that the reasoning behind a statement such as "good students are good in all things" is not one concerning the possibly wide variety of interests and abilities but one of emotional stability and general life competency.

No one in their right mind would doubt that different people are interested in different things and therefore not equally motivated to learn all skills and all knowledge. Most people would probably also agree that not everyone is equally talented at everything. Even the best students can be divided into those that excel at one topic and those that excel at another. There are rare individuals who excel in a lot of areas, but usually the best violinist is not also the best physicist, etc. So while "good" students are probably "good" in most areas, they are not the best everywhere. This makes the statement in question less severe, allowing us to rephrase it as:

"In most individuals, there appears to be a correlation between performance in different areas. Only very rarely is one person a top achiever in one field and a total looser in another."

The reason for this is that performance is, as we view "intelligence" today, not the result of an area-specific talent for, say, language versus maths, but that people differ in such characteristics as memory capaciy or processing speed, and that all skills depend on all of these physiological capacities. You need good memory for both language and math, you need processing speed for music as well as for physics. Therefore, someone who is good at maths is potentially also good at most everything else.

But more important than that all performance in all areas is based on the same physiological requirements is that the statement in question is, as I see it, not about ability at all, but about mental health.

What that woman is saying is that a person successful at life knows that good marks in school or college are important and has the will to get those good marks. Consistent good marks show not superior ability alone, but that a person has the emotional stability, familial support, and the physiological requirements to be successful in their lives in general.

If someone does not have straight As, with maybe a rare B, then you can almost always assume that they (a) are not good, or (b) have personal problems, or (c) are not interested. You want neither in an applicant. In that sense, a "good" (as in "good for our company") employee is (at least) "good" (that is, B) everywhere.

From my studies, I didn't come across any link between moral development and intelligence.

I saw some research that shows people with high IQ are 20% more prone to suicide.

A more rational society could have lower crime/offenses rates. But violence and wrong doing would still exist because more people would derive their morality from the evolutionary theory or some hedonist ethical philosophy (instead of utilitarian philosophy).


How effective is the  NLP Reverse Movie Technique in dealing with traumatic experiences? The Reverse Movie Technique (also konwn as The NLP Fast Phobia/Trauma Cure)  is named as such because it involves playing a traumatic event backwards through your head.

Is the technique effective at dealing with traumatic events?
In particular, is it more effective than playing the event forward through your head?

The Reverse Movie Technique (RMT) is a particular form of what is sometimes called exposure therapy, or prolonged exposure therapy or imaginal exposure therapy. It seems like "Reverse Memory Technique" is a niche term that isn't used in the scientific literature (e.g., 0 hits on Google Scholar). So, if you are wanting to get a scientific answer to your question, I'd check out the literature on "imaginal exposure therapy" (195 hits at time of posting) or imaginal exposure therapy without quotations.

More generally, there are a few links in the Wikipedia PTSD article to evaluations of psychotherapeutic interventions.

To take one example of evaluation research, Taylor et al (2003) compared the efficacy of exposure therapy, EMDR and relaxation training on 60 participants with long term PTSD. They found all three techniques were effective when comparing pre- and post- intervention scores, although for some symptoms (i.e., reexperiencing and avoidance symptoms) exposure therapy was more effective.
You might also find the literature review in the article useful.

References

Taylor, S., Thordarson, D., Maxfield, L., Fedoroff, I., Lovell, K., and
Ogrodniczuk, J. (2003). Comparative efficacy, speed, and adverse effects
of three ptsd treatments: Exposure therapy, emdr, and relaxation
training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2):330.
FREE PDF

Note that this is not my area of expertise, so anyone reading this, don't see it as clinical advice.

The NLP technique known as the "Fast Phobia Cure" works by dissociaton.  The practitioner would have the client imagine themselves in a large movie theatre, watching a movie of themselves having the phobic experience.   Watching it in fast motion, forward, then backward, etc.   This is the first dissociation -- They are watching themselves on that screen.

Next, the client is asked to go into the projection room, and look down at themselves in the theatre, watching the movie.   Same thing, watching it in fast motion, forward then backward.   This is the second dissociation  (watching themselves in the seat watching the movie)

Finally, the client is asked to visualize the movie theatre, watching it from a distance, watching themselves in the projection booth watching themsevles in the seat, watching themselves on the screen.   This is the third dissociation.

This is all happening subconsciously, and disssociates themselves from the reaction to the phobic event.

Source:  I am a hypnotherapist, and NLP practitioner, and I use this technique in my practice.  It


Why would the brain flip the images perceived by your eyes? The following is a common scientific statement, which you don't have to google long for to find:

  The eye views images upside-down in the manner of a camera lens, but
  our brains reinterpret this input to allow us to see things the
  correct way up.

My first question is quite straightforward: Is this statement valid?

I don't understand why you should come to the conclusion that your brain should 'flip' the image. Wouldn't your brain be able to cope just fine without flipping it? If anything I would suspect the brain to not flip the image, if there is no reason to do so.

In order for this statement to be valid, I would expect a scientific theory/experiment from which can be concluded that the brain does process the vision in such a way that, after it being processed all subsequent processing occurs on the 'inverted' image. That seems to me to be the most logical interpretation of 'to flip'.

It is not meaningful to talk about your brain processing something as 'right-side up"' or 'upside-down'. The 'images' in your brain are just collections of neural activations, and not actual pictures. Thus they cannot have an orientation. The only meaningful way to test your question is to try flipping the input the brain receives and seeing if it can cope.
Fortunately, the brain is capable of flipping your visual field if required as measured through perceptual adaptation experiments using inversion glasses. This has been demonstrated very drastically in studies, by for instance requiring a participant to wear inversion glasses for a long time. At first they are confused, and unable to orient themselves and do basic tasks, however after enough time the brain can adopt enough to even do activities like riding a bike. This suggests that from the only way you can measure things (i.e. behaviorally) the brain is capable of adapting to an upside down world (some participants even reported that after extended use the world even seemed "right side up"). This is functionally equivalent to the brain being able to process your visual information in either orientation. If it is capable of processing in either orientation, the question of "does my brain flip the image" becomes a pseudo-question and unanswerable.
References

Taylor, J. G. (1962). The behavioral basis of perception. New Haven: Yale University Pres

Harris, C.S. (1965) "Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision." Psychological Review 72(6): 419-444. [pdf]]

Di Paolo, E.A. (2003) "Organismically-inspired robotics: homeostatic adaptation and teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop", {Dynamical systems approach to embodiment and sociality: 19-42 [pdf

In the image below (related to a chimpanzee) one can clearly see that a dotted actual image, though somewhat distorted, is visible in the neural network structure of the visual system:

The left picture is the picture as it is in the real world. It's inverted on the monkey's retina. Clearly, the image has the same inverted orientation as the image projected on the retina (compare the numbers and letters between both pictures). It is most likely, because of the close resemblance between humans and chimpanzees, that this process also takes place in the visual cortex of our brains.

Maybe more clarity can be achieved if we project an arrow (point up) on our retina, with an angle of 45 degrees with respect to a vertical (or horizontal) line and see (with the same technique used to produce the image shown here) what's the orientation of the arrow in our visual system. My guess, on the basis of these pictures, is that the orientation is the same as the orientation of the arrow on the retina, which means the brain uses other mechanisms to turn the image upside-down.

To invert the external image (which, again, I believe can't be achieved by the visual system itself, but maybe over a long period of time this can happen, and only experiments can confirm this) according to me is necessary because the image is projected inverted on the retina. If we don't invert it again we are disorientated. As a counterargument, you can ask (as the OP does) why we have to invert the projected image again and we can perceive the inverted image in the brain as the correct non-inverted image and not the non-inverted image. But I think the inversion of an inversion returns the true orientation of the image in the real world. We don't walk on ceilings in the opposite directions of our moving feet).


Is ignoring messages a learned behavior? As someone that works troubleshooting stuff, I've seen a surprising amount of people that, when confronted with messages, warnings and errors, tend to seek help fast (or early in the process) in the hope someone will understand what their problem is, rather than reading the error and searching directly for a solution, or solving what they did wrong independently. To illustrate this, consider an example (I'm not sure if this captures the qi of the problem, but here it goes):

  User $A$ performs a certain action that leads to the current error/warning/message:

    Error: your input was greater than two, please use $X$ tool when input is greater than two.

When the user is presented with an error message, there are 4 things that could happen:

User comes back and uses the correct tool.
User tries again until frustrated.
User tries again until frustrated and seeks help.
User tries again until frustrated, seeks help and doesn't get it. The user either figures out the message or just leaves things as they are.

My question: why do endings 2, 3, and 4 happen? Is the message too difficult for some people to understand, or do they believe they are not wrong and the tool should do what they want or the message should be more calling (IN CAPS or bold)? Do people ignore seemingly perfectly crafted messages? Or have we learned to ignore them, given all the media with which we are bombarded?

Several explanations could apply crossing psychology and linguistics:

Cognitive: It is perhaps bold to suggest that there could be a perfectly constructed error message. Reading comprehension and interpretation is impacted by a diverse array of cognitive processes, including literal, inferential and evaluative cognitive processes(Basaraba et al., 2013). Despite having comprehensive vocabulary and general knowledge, individuals may still encounter difficulties with text comprehension due to metacognitive deficits with memory and reading strategies(Oakhill et al., 2015), diversity of cultural background(Yousef et al., 2014), and developmental opportunity(Paris & Hamilton, 2009). Given the extensive array of cognitive processes required to comprehend text, it is not surprising that a range of interpretations will exist, no matter how well constructed the response is.

Opportunity cost: The amount of time an individual will devote to solving the conundrum of the error message is dependent on their other priorities(Kurzban et al., 2013). The individual is unlikely to know in advance how much time it will take to comply with the error message, so they are likely to make assumptions.  If the opportunity cost associated with the estimated time is less than the value the individual estimates is associated with other opportunities, then they are unlikely to respond in the manner expected.

Learned behaviours will also be involved.  If the user has learned from prior interactions that the same result can be achieved through non-compliance, then they are likely to repeat this learned behavior in the future.

In addition to the above, self-efficacy(Bandura & Locke, 2003) and embarrassment avoidance(Jiang et al., 2018) may have a role to play.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited [Review of Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited]. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99. psycnet.apa.org. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87

Basaraba, D., Yovanoff, P., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). Examining the structure of reading comprehension: do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? Reading and Writing, 26(3), 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9

Jiang, L., Drolet, A., & Scott, C. A. (2018). Countering embarrassment-avoidance by taking an observer’s perspective. Motivation and Emotion, 42(5), 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9673-7

Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12003196

Oakhill, J. V., Berenhaus, M. S., & Cain, K. (2015). Children’s reading comprehension and comprehension difficulties. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Reading (pp. 344–360). Oxford.

Paris, S. G., & Hamilton, E. E. (2009). The Development of Children’s Reading Comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension (pp. 32–53). Routledge.

Yousef, H., Karimi, L., & Janfeshan, K. (2014). The Relationship between Cultural Background and Reading Comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.4.707-714

I don't know if this an answerable question but I KNOW exactly what you're taking about. I think much of it can be attributed to how humans learn new things.

People need to be reassured that the process, methods, and results they're getting are correct. When doing something for the first time yourself you need this feedback.

So I tend to attribute this behavior as a manifestation of this. Until a person has been properly grounded in something, their confidence in their own ability and performance of a set of tasks is low. Only with feedback from other humans that they're doing it correctly, does ones confidence rise to a point where they no longer need the affirmation/reaffirmation from others.


Is hypnosis really concentration/focus? It's widely claimed that hypnosis is a state of highly focused attention.

But I've also seen many claims that the hypnotic state is about accessing the subconscious mind directly, essentially "bypassing" consciousness.

However there lies a dissonance; all the material I ever read about focus (mostly from Daniel Goleman and Leonard Mlodinow) indicates that focus is a conscious phenomenon.

Can anyone please clarify?

The answer lies in what is known of the conscious, unconscious and the presconscious parts of the mind, with preconscious is the scientific name for the subconscious, however, for the purposes of this answer and because of how the theory of hypnosis is put together, I will refer to the preconscious as the subconscious.

When I was learning about the basis of hypnosis in formal training, I was taught to visualise the mind as the following diagram

Image: CCF diagram from my training notes - the "memories and belief system" part of the diagram is the subconscious part of the mind.  The CCF (the orange part of the diagram) is the filter between the conscious and subconscious parts of the brain. It compares a new situation with our memories, belief system and morals.

Formation of our beliefs and morals

Internal and external influences form our belief system which is stored in our subconscious mind.  External influences involve things within our environment.  Internal influences involve things we ‘know’ to be true.  I said ‘know’ because what we believe to be true and what is actually true, correlates with the things we have learnt during our lives.  Our belief systems are built from the moment we are born.  Our external influences such as what we have seen, touched, tasted, smelt and heard, help us to learn things whilst a baby.  Listening to words and speech patterns from our parents help us to learn our language including names for objects.

As we get older and start to be able to wander around and explore our environment our parents tell us things such as “Don’t touch that it’s hot” or “Don’t eat that or you will be ill”.  We were told that the grass is green and the sky is blue.  Cultural influences start playing a role too such as the idea that pink is a girls colour and blue is for boys, Barbie dolls are for girls and action men are for boys.  We took those ideas on as literal truth.

As we got older, experiences begin to confirm some of those ideas.  Some got hurt by the heat of a cup of tea.  Some got ill from trying the berries we were told not to eat. In these ways we had a model of the world confirmed and constructed.

Some of those beliefs were absolutely correct, we tested the ideas and had them confirmed by outside sources. Some beliefs may have been left untested but nevertheless all the beliefs in turn developed what many call the, Conscious Critical Faculty (CCF) (Watts, n.d.).

The CCF (the orange part of the diagram) is the filter between the conscious and subconscious parts of the brain. It compares a new situation with our memories and belief system and morals.  Everything stored in the subconscious is essential for your survival.  If the CCF encounters something which goes against the belief systems or morals, stored in the subconscious, it throws the idea out and the belief systems remains intact and life can continue.

But what if there are falsehoods stored in the belief system?  Phobias can develop and other damaging effects can take place.  This part of the belief system can be built by other people who are unfortunately basing their information on their own belief systems.  These in turn were given to them by people who formed their own belief systems.  What can we do about this?

Take a situation where comments from adults, taught someone when they are a child, that they are selfish, unattractive or lacking intelligence.  Once these ideas have taken hold it is very difficult to try and change these beliefs at a conscious level and remove them from the subconscious mind as the CCF will take over and reject opposing beliefs.  This can be damaging to the confidence and opportunities in that persons adult life.  This is why it’s so easy to give advice but so difficult for some others to take it even when you know it is correct.  For a more effective way of doing this, we need to bypass the Conscious Critical Faculty in order for the correct belief system to be accepted.

There are a number of ways that new information can be pushed past the CCF. (Burns, 2009)

They include:

Repetition
Shock
Hypnosis

Repetition

Selfishness and altruism, attractiveness and unattractiveness, intelligence and lack of intelligence etc. taught as a child or later instilled in adult life is often a result of repetitive comments.  The same goes for trust and distrust in certain people or animals.  How this happens is for example:-

A belief that no man can be trusted is put to you on a repetitive basis
This is usually backed up by other people’s actions.  Maybe a man disappointed you in the past
The concept or belief becomes part of your belief system because no one in your circle of friends can give you an opposing concept or belief to compare it to
This in turn affects the way you act towards men
This then causes some men to react in a way which can be perceived to reinforce your belief

Repetitive affirmations and confirmations over time can rectify falsehoods in belief systems.

Shock

Shock that someone may experience as a result of a traffic accident for example, can induce unhesitating acceptance of thoughts and beliefs. (Burns, 2009)  If the thought is given where someone says “that looks bad, I bet that hurts” then of course they will become extremely aware of the pain and in turn may develop a severe aversion to getting into a car again.  Other traumas can have similar effects.

If you look at someone suffering from the trauma of war, rape or sexual assault, this trauma will lodge the memory of what happened straight in the subconscious and develop either conflicting belief systems which cause more problems, or immediately alter the belief system completely.  Counselling sessions can dredge up those painful memories and the resulting shock induced can open the client to opposing thoughts and beliefs which can help to correct the faulty belief system.

Hypnosis

Hypnosis is a natural state of mind where acceptable selective thinking is established, concentration is enhanced and the Conscious Critical Factor is bypassed, opening the subconscious mind to suggestion.  With the subconscious mind open to suggestion without interference by the CCF, therapy will be able to work more quickly (Watts, n.d.) by installing correcting belief systems.

The hypnotic state can be induced by reading, carrying out a repetitive task or listening to a hypnotherapist’s hypnotic induction routine.  Watching television can induce a hypnotic state which helps to explain how effective on-screen advertising can be.

References

Burns, J., 2009. Beating the barriers to making life changes. [Online]
Available at: http://www.somersethypnotherapy.com/articles-by-John-Burns/beating-barriers-to-change.pdf

Watts, T., n.d. *The Conscious Critical Faculty. [Online]
Available at: http://www.selfhypnosis.com/the-conscious-critical-faculty

I would model it as an extreme, prolonged version of captivation.

The conscious mind goes on a tea break when there is loud, rhythmic music with  synchronized  light effects, stimulus that overwhelms the mind so it likely gives up trying to process it at a high level, and instead “goes along” with it... dancing,
etc.

Dissecting when someone becomes highly-attracted to someone else.. external distractions are eliminated, perception of time slows down, the sympathetic nervous system activates strongly to record the event long-term, the superego and most of the ego fall silent and whatever happens at the focus basically goes in to the mesmerized essentially verbatim as they perceived it.

Shaky speculation land: Maybe the evolutionary psych purpose could be allowing true-believer followers to experience unquestionably loyal to their cult leader? Or a mate to another mate. Even a mentor to mentee. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Named conditions that are the result of exposure to psychopathic behavior of another person? Are there any recognized terms for conditions that stem from or are the result of exposure to  psychopathic behavior (by another person) that are distinct from those that might have predisposed the individual to it or made them more vulnerable to it?

In other words, something like a "post psychopath stress disorder"?

It would not have to be an official diagnosis, it's the only applicable tag I could find.

Environmental psychological conditions (conditions triggered by an event arising from another person's actions or other event external to the person) will have the same name irrespective of whether they might have been predisposed to it, more vulnerable to it, or neither.

The question is very broad as there are many different conditions which can arise, which actually can be any condition within the spectrum of environmental psychological disorders. There is no such disorder as "Post Psychopath Stress Disorder" but psychological conditions can include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Anxiety, and Vicarious Trauma.  There can be many others arising from the physical and/or mental actions of the psychopathic individual.

I hink there is not a term for such situation. comorbidity is the condition that one person has more than one psychological disorder diagnosis.  It might cover the condition but as far as I know, it doesn't talk about the relationship between more than one disorder. There might be many reasons for comorbidity, two disorders can as you said, lead to each other or have similar byological dispositions. most of people with psychological disorders have more than one diagnosis. There are many discussions about comorbidity and it's implications on effectiveness of our diagnostic tools. for reference, I found this article by Kendall and Clarkin(1992):
Kendall, P. C., & Clarkin, J. F. (1992). Introduction to special section: Comorbidity and treatment implications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60(6), 833.
If you are talking about interacting with someone with a disorder, some behaviours such as violence by a person with a disorder can lead to PTSD but although I don't know it for sure, it won't be different from any PTSD?


How to compute weights and bias for a McCulloch-Pitts neuron? I am trying to learn how to manipulate McCulloch-Pitts neurons in order to determine their weights and bias based off of inputs. In this example I have inputs:

x, y, z ∈ {−1,1}

The neuron's output is z if x = -1 and y = 1, and is -1 otherwise.

How do I compute the weights and bias for the neuron? An example or link to an example would be greatly appreciated. (Having a hard time finding examples online). Thanks!

So far I have been using the equation out = sgn((w1)(in1) + (w2)(in2) + (w3)(in3) - theta), but I am unsure whether or not I am taking the correct initial steps to solving this problem.

The weights and bias for a given neuron depend on the task you are trying to solve.  Each computation will have a different set of weights that will implement it.


Are all conscious experiences stored as memories? There are people with supermemories, called highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM), i.e., the detailed recollection of events that occurred in the distant past. Although the recollection of, say the weather on this day 15 years ago may not be entirely accurate (errors occur) and may contain gaps (maybe an hour of sunshine on a predominantly rainy day is not recollected), their memories are clearly superior nonetheless.

I have heard these statements that all memories are stored in the brain and that the reason why we forget is because those memories are simply not accessible anymore. This would metaphorically be like the workings of a hard drive, where deletion of a file removes the flag, but the information is physically still stored, it is just invisible to the user and difficult to access. Following this reasoning, everyone would have HSAM in a way, barred that normally the memories can't readily be accessed.

Hypnosis seems to be capable of enhancing the recollection of memories in people without HSAM, and hence hypnosis is said to improve memory, indirectly indicating that memory storage indeed may generally be higher than apparent in everyday life, but that the brain needs a hand in retrieving those memories.

My question is:

Are all conscious1 memories stored, but access is permitted only when its regularly accessed, or enhanced through hypnosis or other means? In other words, does everyone have super memory like HSAM, but do people without HSAM simply lack an efficient way to access those distant memories?

1 With all conscious memories I mean memories of life events that were experienced while being awake and vigilant. For the sake of question focus, I suggest disregarding life events occurring during sleep, coma, anesthesia or other periods of reduced consciousness.

This question can be addressed in many ways. One approach that we have taken is to test memory for what has just recently happened a few seconds ago.  In these experiments we ask people to find a target in a simple visual search, and report its location.  For example we might show them 3 numbers and one letter and ask them to report the location of the letter.  After several minutes of doing this task, we give them a surprise question in which we ask them to tell us the actual letter that they had just located in the most recent trial (which they saw just a few seconds ago).  What we find is that it is easy to find situations in which our participants have very little memory of that letter. What is interesting about this is that they had just located the letter by virtue of the fact that it was a letter.  We presume, therefore, that the letter had briefly entered their awareness.  This can be debated, if one assumes that one can search for letters without actually experiencing the letters.  However we also found the same result with digit-parity tasks (i.e. find the odd number among evens or vice versa).

We called this effect attribute amnesia, since people seem to have amnesia for a specific attribute of a stimulus they had just selected.

So while there are lots of ways to interpret this finding, the clearest result seems to be that performing a mental operation that selects a piece of visual information can leave a memory trace so weak that it cannot be remembered just a few seconds later.  Our interpretation is that the memory was never created in the first place.  We believe that the brain has filters on memory encoding that allow us to process information without remembering it.  It is also possible that it was encoded into memory and immediately forgotten but we do not favor this view as it seems less parsimonious than the filter that prevents encoding in the first place.

Here are some articles on this phenomenon:
Chen, H., & Wyble, B. (2015). Amnesia for object attributes: Failure to report attended information that had just reached conscious awareness. Psychological science, 26(2), 203-210.

Chen, H., Swan, G., & Wyble, B. (2016). Prolonged focal attention without binding: Tracking a ball for half a minute without remembering its color. Cognition, 147, 144-148.

Chen, H., & Wyble, B. (2016). Attribute amnesia reflects a lack of memory consolidation for attended information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 225.

Here are some freely-available pre-prints of related articles if you cannot access the ones above:
https://psyarxiv.com/gbdcr/
https://psyarxiv.com/87yg2/

I apologize that not all of our work is available on preprint servers yet.  I'd be happy to email copies of published articles if you email me at bwyble@gmail.com

This may seem far fetched at first. Give the concepts given below some time. Do your research and experiments first before disregarding the information below. In other words: You might need to put in a little effort/work for the information below to mean anything to you.

Thomas Campbell his Theory Of Everything (TOE) has a view on this. He says you can focus your intent to get any information you desire. He compares a clear focussed intent with a proper database query. You then need to be open to receive the outcome, and not distort it with your analytical mind, at first.
He has several video's where he guides you through remote viewing what is inside boxes. I was stunned to experience accuracies in my perception, over multiple times, which has proven this mechanism to work (for me) without a doubt.

These are slides of one of his presentations. You can view the presentations on youtube. Search for "Remote Viewing by intent".
http://www.my-big-toe.com/uploads/HawaiiSlides.pdf

What he mentions in his book (http://www.intradimensions.net/mybigtoe.pdf) is that your brain is the interface, but not the storage location.

I see a relation here with recollecting past memories. They might well be those intent based queries. You can get better with practise on the mechanism to query, retreive and interpret the information. Whether it are 'your' memories or other information from a past event.


Why do we require social interaction/engagement? By requirement I mean there are so many ill side effects of isolation, and everyone feels loneliness after too much time spent alone (although that threshold is different for different people, e.g. some people can't make it a day without talking to someone, others can spend weeks or months in complete isolation, but everyone eventually will feel loneliness, and it's side effects) whereas there are so many mental health benefits of proper social engagement that it might as well be a necessity of life as much as food and drink.

Isolation is a lot more common than we might realize, just because you are not physically alone does not mean that you are not isolated many of us even fail to realize they are living in isolation (mostly because of the notion that isolation only comes in the physical form of being a shut-in). After isolation when the loneliness starts to kick in, Introverts turn to online communities (often gaming, facebook, or some forums) and extroverts have a tendency to turn to partying (MORE PEOPLE!) and often as a side-effect, alcohol and drugs, both confusing these activites with fulfilling social engagement; while they're really just turning into addicts of their own escape mechanisms which are only momentary reliefs from their feeling of loneliness, always feeling deep down inside like something is missing. The introverts that are isolated are usually physically isolated (shut-ins). While the extroverts that are isolated tend to be isolated mentally (closing themselves off; often without even realizing it) building superficial relationships that do not fulfill them.

We all have an instinct that tells us to interact with other people, an instinct that disregards whether that interaction is positive or negative (as we see for example in "attention seekers" that attract as much attention as they can without any regard for what kind of attention it is)

There is some need every human being has to express themselves to other humans.

Why do we so actively seek social interactions? What exactly are we seeking from these social interactions? Acceptance? Acknowledgement? Approval? Understanding? All of these? None of these?

I need to know the full answer to this because I am wondering what kind of social interaction will most fully satisfy our needs. What kind of environment to look for to truly overcome the isolation element, and the long term loneliness that follows and plagues so many of us.

I think you phrased this well, but you are correct that it is a hard question which could be answered in many different ways which, perhaps, may not satisfy you. It is a "why" question so let me give some speculative answers:

-an evolutionary psychologist might say that we have evolved to seek social interactions because humans in groups are more successful (e.g., they can mate, raise offspring together, defend each other from predators etc). It is hard to refute this kind of explanation, and indeed many/most species show a desire to interact, although some niches may have encouraged more solitary behaviour.

-a behavioural neuroscientist might say that we seek social interactions because they are rewarding on a biological level, for example because they release oxytocin which has a range of positive effects on physiology.

-a social or developmental psychologist might focus more on the way that social interactions change self-reported well-being, or on the qualities of the interaction which are most important (perhaps in line with your bolded question). While it is true that particular types of (positive) interaction are best, even minimal contact increases a feeling of belonging. The developmental literature on social enrichment might be a good place to look if you want to find out how to make satisfying interactions.

So, like most "why" questions, it depends what level of analysis you are interested in, but all of these are probably true to some extent.

From a practical perspective, if you had to bet the farm, I'd put it the need to feel acknowledged and understood. But it's not that easy. Socrates spent his life interacting with random strangers in pursuit of knowledge and the truth. As you know, this was one of the origins of the scientific method.

We have forgotten that when we meet people, the first law of communication is: In order to be understood, first we must understand. The one thing you can give anyone, and that they crave, is your undivided attention.'Twas ever thus, but particularly in recent years.

We want to be listened to, to tell our story, and for the exchange to be about us. It's worth remembering that in a social interaction, one party can choose to change the nature and outcome and make it far more meaningful, if they choose to do so, simply by letting the other person talk or giving them the opportunity.

In other primate species, social grooming takes place more naturally. If I'm not having my fur cleaned, I'll go and clean someone else's, in the knowledge that sooner or later, someone will clean mine. In our species, we tend to wait for our needs to be met before we may or may not reciprocate, even if it means waiting a long,long time.

It's probably wrong to think of any specific emotions we illicit in this context, since it's the other party who we hope to benefit primarily. The actions we take will determine to a large extent what comes back, and we can make of that whatever we choose. Socrates had a good point when he just waylaid people in the street. I doubt social isolation was ever an issue for him, because he was prepared to take the first step.

(I'm sorry if this answer isn't an academic tour do force, but since I couldn't comment.... And in any case, you aren't overburdened by replies!)