What experiment in a simple decision task should we run to obtain one million trials? Context: Models of cognitive processes require very large datasets to be fitted. Sadly, it is difficult for a single laboratory to achieve this alone. I propose that we work collectively and collaboratively in realizing a 1 million RT experiment. This initiative is described on my ResearchGate page, www.researchgate.net/profile/Denis_Cousineau.

Beyond model fitting, such a dataset will be beneficial for other purposes. Examples: Are parameters describing performances normally distributed across subjects? Does training effect --resulting in faster RT-- imply that the parameters are all evolving in one direction? Does Bayesian estimation more apt than Maximum Likelihood at characterizing the parameters? How can we estimate non-decision times? What is the shape of the RT distributions and how training effect alter its shape? In Bayes again, after how many trials does priors have no longer an impact on the estimates? etc.

Task Requirements:
The task must be behavioral only (response times and response choices) as it is not possible to move EEG or fMRI material all around the world. The precise task used is not a critical constraint because the current models of cognition (sampling models such as LBA or Diffusion) are very flexible; they aim at predicting performance in a wide variety of situations.

The tasks proposed will be evaluated based on the following criteria criteria:

small number of response alternatives
few conditions
low error rates
stimuli that can be characterized for modeling purposes
possibility of extended training on that task.

Possible candidate tasks could include: A redundant target detection task (Miller, 1982) or a same-different task (e.g., Bamber, 1969). These tasks are simple and accuracy is typically high (above 90% correct); they are possibly performed using some form of parallel processing; response times are generally well below 700 ms.

So in summary:

What task and experimental design would be most suitable given the above constraints?

Please let's see what are the possible tasks, comment on others' proposals, and if you find the perfect task, upvote it. Have your colleagues make comments or propose new tasks.

I like this idea! I think the task should be one where the data could be used by many analytic tools. Hence, the data would not only be beneficial for one particular question, for example parameter estimations, but also for other tools such as Systems Factorial Technology (see Townsend & Nozawa, 1995), which provides a deeper understanding of the underlying cognitive sub-processes architecture, and other interesting information such as the process' capacity.

I suggest that the task at least respect a double factorial paradigm. This design is very simple: you have four conditions in a 2 x 2 design, where you vary two variables. It could be any variable, the only restriction is that you have to vary them independently one from another. In other words, each variable should reflect a cognitive sub-process. In one condition, both variables are in scenario where the sub-process should work very effectively (or optimally). In an other condition, both variables are in a scenario where the sub-process should work less effectively (or sub-optimally). And in the two remaining conditions, one variable works optimally and the other sub-optimally, and vice-versa.

As for the very details of the task, such as the stimuli that will be used and the specific variables, I do not have preferences. Letters are very manipulable, but they do carry semantic (more or less). Abstract stimuli could work. We could play with color, shapes, complexity, etc. At Psychonomics this year, they were many experiments which have use this design.

Reference for citation:
Townsend, J. T. & Nozawa, G. (1995). Spatio-temporal properties of elementation perception an investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39(4), 321–359. doi: 10.1006/jmps.1995.1033

Please allow me to question your setup:

Your assertion that you need a million data points to distinguish between models raises the question whether your're still doing valid science, I think. Are you sure that the differences between the models are scientifically sufficiently interesting to warrant a monster project to try and distinguish between them? Especially, if this is all based on a single task. I am sure, your quest will result in a "winning model". But I am not sure that it will result a generalizable scientific insight.


Ways to treat disorganized thinking, other than pharmacotherapy Disorganized thinking is a cognitive deficit symptomatic of thought disorders such as schizophrenia. This affects your ability to process and connect thoughts and ideas, rendering them disorganized, and fragmented. In extreme cases, disorganized speech results.

Are there any activities that have a therapeutic effect and remedy this somewhat? For example, puzzles, computer programming, writing a novel etc. Or employing certain new habits. For example, composing mind maps, writing lists of tasks on your arm etc. Finally, there's cognitive remedial therapy (CRT), and other forms etc.

Metacognitive therapy has been proposed to improve disorganized thinking. Metacognition can be thought of as our ability to "think about thinking." Essentially, it's a person's ability to organize their thoughts into a coherent narrative, reflect on their thoughts and experiences, take the perspective of others, and make sense of the world. Individuals with schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis may experience disorganized thoughts, which can hamper their metacognitive ability. They may even have difficulty recognizing that other people would have thoughts or emotions about other peoples' lives or behavior.

Metacognitive therapy can take different forms, but in many cases it involves helping people organize their thoughts by eliciting narratives about their lives. For example, a therapist may ask a client to tell them about a recent trip to the store, or an event that was meaningful to them. If the client responds in a disorganized manner, the therapist can drill down to details, focusing on helping the client organize the story.

For example, imagine a client is telling a story about attending a basketball game, but has left large chunks of the story out, or has skipped around chronologically. This type of exchange might occur:

Therapist: "It sounds like you had fun, but I'm confused. When did you arrive at the game?"

Client: "Oh, about 7."

Therapist: "And did you go to the game with your friends, or meet them there?"

Client: "Sam and I met Bob there."

Therapist: "Oh, so you and Sam drove over to the game at 7pm, and met Bob."

Client: "No, Sam and I came separately, but we met up first at the game. Then later we saw Bob."

In this exchange the therapist keeps pulling for additional details, helping the client recall and organize the experience by re-telling it. The therapist also "inserts her mind" into the discussion by admitting "I'm confused." This tells the client that a) their story was not clear and b) the therapist is having thoughts and reactions to hearing the story. Over many sessions, metacognitive therapy may help clients organize their thoughts, and become more aware of other people's internal experiences.

This was a very brief explanation, and I've listed a series of papers and books about this type of intervention that can provide additional information. There may be other therapies that address disorganized thinking, but this is one I am most familiar with. I will expand this answer in the future, if time permits.

References

Brune, M., Dimaggio, G., & H Lysaker, P. (2011). Metacognition and
social functioning in schizophrenia: evidence, mechanisms of
influence and treatment implications. Current Psychiatry Reviews,
7(3), 239-247.
Dimaggio, G., & Lysaker, P. H. (Eds.). (2010). Metacognition and
severe adult mental disorders: From research to treatment. Routledge.
Hasson-Ohayon, I., Kravetz, S., Levy, I., & Roe, D. (2008).
Metacognitive and interpersonal interventions for persons with severe
mental illness: theory and practice. The Israel journal of psychiatry
and related sciences, 46(2), 141-148.
Lysaker, P. H., Gumley, A., & Dimaggio, G. (2011). Metacognitive
disturbances in persons with severe mental illness: Theory,
correlates with psychopathology and models of psychotherapy.
Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 84(1),
1-8.
Salvatore, G., Conti, L., Fiore, D., Carcione, A., Dimaggio, G., &
Semerari, A. (2006). Disorganized narratives: Problems in treatment
and therapist intervention hierarchy. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 19(2), 191-207.
Salvatore, G., Lysaker, P. H., Gumley, A., Popolo, R., Mari, J., &
Dimaggio, G. (2012). Out of illness experience:
metacognition-oriented therapy for promoting self-awareness in
individuals with psychosis. American journal of psychotherapy, 66(1),
85-106.

Yes, loving-kindness meditation. Love is the cure for all mental illnesses. I was suffering from schizophrenia until I tried Metta. By sending good wishes of happiness to my family members, my symptoms of schizophrenia were gradually diminishing.

Schizophrenia is closely related to sinning or selfish actions sense gratification. My overindulgence in sense gratifications was the cause of schizophrenia. As soon as I turned to love the things got better.

Sorry for not providing any references from other sources but this is my direct experience of Metta.


How effective is lying down with eyes closed as a substitute for sleep? Resting, as opposed to sleeping, helps with physical recovery and relaxation, but much of the benefit of real sleep is mental.

If I can't sleep, how much, if any, sleep-related benefit is gained by lying down for 6 hours with my eyes closed?

I believe the important⁽¹⁾ point is paradoxical sleep. If you cannot sleep, you should try to defocus your thought, in order to allow neurones to "run freely"⁽²⁾.

(1) It has be shown that rats deprived of paradoxical sleep died in 16-54 day.

(2) I don't know if this will work, but I've been taught at university that neurons can die from sub or over stimulation. For this reason I've come to the conclusion that one of the objectives of dreaming is to allow neurons to fire action potentials in regards with their own physiological needs, instead of coordinated thoughts needs of the brain.

If you lie down under certain circumstances (for 6 hours, eyes closed, comfy, in a quiet place and several hours after the last real sleep), I doubt you will stay awake the whole time.

First, there's is microsleep. Indeed, even if you were driving or in any other dangerous situation, your brain would manage to enter sleep mode for some seconds. So, these microsleep periods will happen and contribute to your rest.

Second, if an insomniac does that, there's a good chance that they are misjudging the amount of sleep they get. They might be entering several periods of low quality sleep, but won't be aware of it.

Third, the amount of sleep you need varies when exposed to stress, stimulus, new activities and so on during the day. Spending 6 hours in a low stress environment will reduce the amount needed.

In summary, it's better than nothing, but if it came close to real sleep, some people would manage to live with 6 hours of resting with closed eyes instead of sleeping.


Defining shyness towards strangers in confrontational situations First of all, I would like to stress that I am not a cogsci person and I have almost no background in those areas of science.
The question is whether there exists a definition of a phenomenon I recently encoutered: A person is shy, but only in confrontational situations - has no social phobia regarding making friends and so on. Furthermore, this "shyness" is only demonstrated towards strangers, i.e. the person in question has no problem confronting somebody they know. Lastly, the problem occurs only in person, not over the Internet or telephone.
All in all, the question is - is this phenomenon described somewhere? And most importantly - does it have a name? Maybe it has already been defined and studied by someone.

Meaning of confrontational
By 'confrontational' I mean 'having different opinions' or 'having to sort out a disagreement'. To provide an example illustrating the problem:

After being ripped off at a restaurant (food bad, late, cold, etc), the person prefers to let the whole thing go and pay rather than argue with the waiter (thus avoiding an in-person confrontation). But,

If the person were ordering a pizza over a phone and it did not arrive for an hour, they would have no problem calling the restaurant and discussing the problem.

I'm not a native speaker :) Hope the above description clarifies the problem a little bit.

That sort of non-confrontational attitude has been researched as an aspect of interpersonal conflict-resolution style/mode/behaviour. The bulk of the research seems to have been conducted in the field of organisational psychology (which is not my field) since it's particularly relevant to how business is conducted.

From what I've been able to glean from Google Scholar, Blake and Mouton were the first to publish on this topic, defining five interpersonal conflict-handling styles: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. Avoiding is simply defined as withdrawing from the conflict situation. Since then other researchers have developed a number of alternatives. The Thomas-Kilmann version dropped one style, compromising, and placed the rest along two dimensions, assertiveness and cooperativeness. This is the result:

Based on your description, your friend could be described as having an avoidant conflict-resolution style when dealing with strangers.

This is an interesting topic for me because I'm somewhat like your friend. I'm quite introverted and I suspect your friend is too to some degree, since there is a link between introversion and having an avoidant interpersonal conflict-resolution style.

In business contexts it's not surprising to find that people who show a high need for dominance are averse to using an avoidant conflict-resolution style.

I'm not sure what the research says about why your friend might choose a different style of conflict-resolution with friends. I'll see what else I can find.

References

Blake, R.R & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R.H. (1974). The Thomas–Kilmann mode instrument. Tuxedo Park, NY: Xicom
Schneer, J.A. & Chanin, M.N. (1987). Manifest Needs as Personality Predispositions to Conflict-Handling Behavior. Human Relations, 40, 575-590
Wood, V. F., & Bell, P. A. (2008). Predicting interpersonal conflict resolution styles from personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(2), 126-131.

(caveat: I am not a trained psychologist, so talk to one before taking any advice from people online!)

This isn't really a definition that I know of for this (beyond social phobia, or confrontational anxiety), though that's not a bad thing.  Something that exists does not need a label to exist, and labels often shortcut and/or constrain our mental processing of a thing.

So, from a psychology perspective (not a CogSci one; just being explicit), there's probably a good chance the person has had multiple negative experiences with regards to confrontation and in-person communication.
The brain has a remarkable ability to create discrete boundaries around fuzzy relational systems, so I suspect that whomever this person is, there is a perceived threat (most likely subliminally processed) which stimulates the anxiety.  In-Person communication is very different from vocal-only communication, and would include a lot more visual and social processing, which in turn can bring up mental links to past experiences that match what's being processed in the moment.  If there are negative associations with those visuosocial links, you'll experience anxiety due to the possiblity of a repetition.

Is the person from a restrictive, socially conservative culture?  Is there a history of controlling and/or fickle parents?  Or a long time spent in/around aggressive, insecure people who personalize everything?  These (and a lot more!) are all things that can create the sort of anxiety you're describing.

But really, a trained psychologist is whom this person should be talking with.  A trend like this can result in intense social isolationism unless addressed early.


Can SSRI make things worse in the long term or cause delayed depression? I found two articles that mention that taking SSRI for depression can actually make the depression worse.

"Now Antidepressant-Induced Chronic Depression Has a Name: Tardive Dysphoria" on Psychology Today.
"Antidepressants Make Things Worse in the Long Term" on the Behaviorism and Mental Health blog.

Is this true? Can Tardive Dysphoria (delayed depression) be caused by SSRI?

They seem pretty convincing and I can't find anything against it but if it's true, it basically means that depression treatment is going back to the 60's before SSRI were invented.

Contrary to another post here, in my opinion and also that of an increasing majority of researchers studying this field, SSRIs and the so called 'antidepressant' drugs cause great harm.

Firstly here is a list of common side effects: Insomnia (which is common in depression anyway), increased anxiousness, feeling sick, indigestion, diarrhea or constipation, loss of appetite, fluctuations in weight, dizziness, blurred vision, dry mouth, excessive sweating, headaches, reduced sex drive, difficulty achieving orgasm, erectile dysfunction.

None of these are good effects which is why we don't give them to people who are 'healthy'. More importantly the devastating effect these side effects can have on a patients life could potentially be far more harmful than before the drug was taken, for example increased marital problems. According to Joanna Moncrieff these effects compound depression, and more importantly disturb the chemical balance in the the brain, and as a result compound or cause the very symptoms they are meant to cure. Central to this notion and the question presented here, the long-term use of SSRIs may causes what we call 'serotonin induced apathy', in other words, after initial positive effect of SSRIs (quiet possibly short-term placebo effect), patients become indifferent to their environments. Furthermore Long-term use of SSRIs leads to abnormal brain neurogenesis not seen in non-depressed samples, this is often taken to as proof of how SSRIs exert there action, or rather it was before 2008 (see below meta analysis). However it seems that this neurogenesis is less likely to be positive considering the negative effects and lack of efficacy SSRIs display.

The long-term use of SSRIs often leads to the development of apathy, which utimatley will lead many patients back into depression. The rate of relapse in people taking 'anti-depressants' is >40% while patients with placebo is roughly 24%. If that isn't bad enough at a 12 month follow up only <5% of patients are in remission for their depression. Why might this be? Well a 2008 meta-analysis by Kirsch et al found that all 'anti-depressants' are below clinical levels of acceptance, in other words no more effective than placebo. However it should be noted that in severe depression SSRIs are useful only!

The reason anti-depressants such as SSRIs are ineffective is because of the simplistic approach taken  to treatment with these drugs. The brain is not some 'big bag of chemicals', neurons  are not purely serotonergic in fact they often release multiple NTs. And crucially serotonin NT is used throughout the central nervous system, for more than mood regulation. The fact that SSRIs do not work over the long-term tells us the serotonin theory of depression is wrong. Perhaps more importantly roughly 10% of people in the UK are on 'anti-depressants', we can talk about over medicalisation of mental health, but the reality is large amounts of people are taking these drugs for large amounts of time (9-12 months recommend). This is not helped by the fact that governments are more interested in investing in cheap medical 'cures' than long-term methods with greater efficacy that cost more.

Sorry its so long, and I'm sorry its so short there is so much to say about how SSRIs don't work and how bad they are regarding people thinking they are getting effective cures, along with the neuroscience and discussions on publication bias. Its a fascinating topic, thanks for the question.

In general no SSRIs lasts long enough as an effective treatment for most patients to cause long term harm. Most of the time people are only on them for weeks or months before many of their symptoms are reduced. If someone remains on antidepressants for long term treatment for something like OCD intrusive thoughts or major depression it is possibility for the medicine to harm the nervous system. This is unlikely though because SSRIs are not that effective and most of the time they have to cycled to another kind of medicine for most diseases as the diseases adapt to the medication. The meds stop working and the doctor and patient must switch to another type.

Yes Tardive Dysphoria does really happen and its happened to me but no its not a big deal nor is it life altering. No we are not going back to the 60s. As there are other options in treatments. Doctors have known that inappropriate dosages or incorrect medications do cause depression. Sometimes more of the same SSRI will fix the problem. The antipsychotics and antidepressants have long since been known to sometimes have inverse effects on some patients. This is the reason why abilify though it be the latest and greatest antipsychotic is not necessarily the medicine of choice because of it high probability to induce psychosis. Thats because there are 8 genes responsible for the schizo type psychosis and how each person responds to medication varies based on their gene and biology. Likewise also for depression a much less understood condition the person's biology is going to determine their response to medication and final treatment.


What is the psychology behind choosing to be weird? There is a saying I was once told:

  "I no longer fear going insane, I am enjoying every moment of it"

For some (including myself), this is in fact a rather happy and liberating reality, albeit a reality that I don't quite understand.  So, my question is, what is the psychology behind choosing to let one's weird side show?

Please note - I am not asking for self help, don't need it - just trying to understand the psychological aspects.  An example of this is when I wore a ballerina suit and walked around a shopping centre as if nothing was out of the ordinary... it was not a pretty sight

The psychology behind choosing to let one's weird side show?
I think the this question would work as effectively as:
The psychology behind choosing to let one's individuality show?

Human beings are social animals. Social pressures  play significant factors in moulding personality.

  The term conformity is often used to indicate an agreement to the
  majority position, brought about either by a desire to ‘fit in’ or be
  liked (normative) or because of a desire to be correct
  (informational), or simply to conform to a social role
  (identification).

So assuming "weird" is more likely to be further away from social norms. The more social pressure to be borne. This means a greater courage is needed to be oneself. There are links between self-acceptance, social pressure and depression.

  Correlational results indicated that all three trait dimensions of
  perfectionism (i.e., self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially
  prescribed perfectionism) were associated negatively with
  unconditional self-acceptance. Also, as expected, depression was
  associated with relatively low unconditional self-acceptance. Finally,
  a path analysis revealed that unconditional self-acceptance mediated
  the association between socially prescribed perfectionism and
  depression, and other-oriented perfectionism was found to affect
  depression only indirectly through its association with low levels of
  self-acceptance.

Dimensions of Perfectionism, Unconditional Self-Acceptance, and Depression
Gordon L. Flett, Avi Besser, Richard A. Davis, Paul L. Hewitt
Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
June 2003, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 119-138

Conclusion
Gaining self-acceptance, one's individuality or "weirdness" is inversely proportional to the incidence of depression; and also improves the individual's capacity to cope with social pressure to conform.  So by accepting one's strengths and weaknesses one is freed from (social and psychological) pressure, improving one's sense of well being.

By being weird you choose a smaller group of similar weirdos to compete for status in. At the limit you're in a group of one. Smaller peer group, easier to be near the top. High status feels good even if it's in a smaller peer group.

It's relatively easy to be the manliest brony as opposed to being the manliest human.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert.


What became of the CAM-Brain project in Kyoto? In The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil mentioned a project at the Advanced Telecommunications Research Lab in Kyoto that was building a brain with a billion artificial neurons. He said that when it was completed, it would be set free to read the internet.

My initial exploration of this revealed that this project was headed by Hugo de Garis, who apparently retired some years ago now. What was the result of the project? It seems like it never reached the stage envisioned by Kurzweil and I would guess this is due to funding issues, but I’m seeking some kind of confirmation of whether or not this is correct.

Hah! That's funny, I was just looking for information about this project too. However, I was one of the guys involved (in Robokoneko project, more specifically).

No, it wasn't due to funding issues. Explaining what actually went wrong is a bit lengthy process and goes deeply into philosophy of mind, so to put this as short as possible: what do you think could be achieved in terms of understanding human mind by randomly evolving neural networks? If a being was created, fully aware of its existence, would you be able to tell what led to forming its consciousness? Their goals were absolutely pointless. Costly and hopeless, and with no applications.

There is no need to recreate complex natural processes, especially with (still) very basic understanding of brain machinery, if what needs to be done can be achieved with abstract constructs. My criticism of their approach led to denying me PhD studies and broke my career in science in general. On the other hand, in terms of software and engineering a lot of great people were involved.


What are some known roles or correlations of glucocorticoid receptor function to behaviour? The NR3C1 gene encodes for a neuron-specific glucocorticoid receptor (GR), of which methylation levels have been shown to relate to altered maternal care and stress response in rodents (Weaver et al., 2004) and to suicide in humans (McGowan et al., 2009).

I am wondering what other behaviours and phenotypes could or has GR function been associated with?

First off, the question is superbly broad and it would have faced closure if it would be asked at the time of this writing. Nonetheless, given the high number of upvotes I think it deserves an answer. Note that my answer is just a small bunch of behaviors associated with the NR3C1 gene, as based on a cursory Google Scholar search, using the terms 'NR3C1 + behavior'.

NR3C1 gene polymorphisms have been associated with alcohol and drug abuse (Zen et al, 2010), aggression (Li et al., 2017) and suicide (Park et al., 2016)
NR3C1 hypermethylation has been associated with being bullied or lacking friends (Efstathopoulos et al., 2018 and with PTSD (Vukojevic et al., 2016)
Cry acoustics in infants is associated with methylation pre-term (Sheinkopf et al., 2016)

References
- Efstathopoulos et al., Translat Psychiatry (2018); 8(121)
- Sheinkopf et al., Front Behav Neurosci (2016)
- Li et al., Genet Test Mol Biomarkers (2017); 21(8): 497-505
- Park et al., Behav Brain Functions (2016); 12:22
- Vukojevic et al., J Neurosci (2014); 34(31): 10274-84
- Zhen et al., Prev Sci (2016)

Previously: All cells have receptors for glucorticoids, see these sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucocorticoid_receptor
Neil R. Carlson. (1993). Physiology of Behavior. Page 404.

You do not want us to include in our response all effects on the behavior of all the cells of the body (in animals and humans of course) (with direct functions or modulating function of course).

In this specific case it does not work safeguard in the subject raised saying: I ask for the gene .. since in that case you would ask about the behavioral functions of that gene ... and we are in the same situation. Or maybe I did not understand your intelligent question.


The art of exploiting people and taking advantage of them As one ages he/she will definitely encounter a lot of people who will do their best to make the most out of him/her.

Are there any books regarding this ??

From a hackers perspective I would recommend to check out a term called "social engineering". This is all about manipulating people in order to get sensitive information.

A great book about this is called The Art of Human Hacking

Look for persuasion methods. Read any book written for sales people. They use these methods a lot. Every time when I came across a sales person I bring my shield up because I know for a fact that most of them are well trained in these methods. For them it is a way of living


Interpretation & Actual Result of "10% of your brain" Myth It is well known that the common myth that an individual  only ever uses 10% of their brain is.. well, a myth. I had a question about a possible interpretation of this idea, and a follow-up question about the result of that interpretation.

After spending a small amount of time with computational neural networks, it seems that at any given time, a small percentage of neurons are actually firing. All neurons have the potential to be firing, and at some point in execution likely will fire, but due to efficiency, only very few are needed for a particular function. This is my interpretation of what I have seen so far.. is this interpretation valid for the activity of neurons in the brain?

If this is valid, what would happen if 90-100% of neurons were firing at all times? I'm assuming this would be a huge disadvantage to whoever this happened to. Epilepsy? Overheating? Would the body be overworked and go into shock?

It is correct that only a small percentage of neurons increase their activities  relative to their baseline level in response to   new stimuli or to more abstract thoughts. There are many computational advantages to this. For instance, in deep learning, sparse coding is a class of unsupervised methods for learning sets of over-complete bases to represent data efficiently. Basically you have more combinations to store patterns if you activate a few cells than if you either activate too few or too many.


Is sexual desire an emotion? I see that in the Wikipedia page of emotion classification, sexual desire is only mentioned once (in Parrott's tree-structured list of emotion). It is absent from other kinds of classification.

What is sexual desire?

  Sexual desire is a motivational state and an interest in “sexual objects or activities, or as a wish, or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in sexual activities”. Synonyms for sexual desire are libido, sexual attraction and lust. Sexual desire is an aspect of a person's sexuality, which varies significantly from one person to another, and also varies depending on circumstances at a particular time. Not every person experiences sexual desire; those who do not experience it may be labelled asexual.

What is emotion?

  Emotions are biological states associated with the nervous system brought on by neurophysiological changes variously associated with thoughts, feelings, behavioural responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure. There is currently no scientific consensus on a definition. Emotion is often intertwined with mood, temperament, personality, disposition, creativity and motivation.

So it seems to me that you can consider sexual desire as an emotion. However, the lack of it in other kinds of classification make me question about that. I think sexual desire is common and basic enough to have a consideration in most classifications.

Sexual desire, libido, horniness, titillation, lust and eroticism are all listed as emotions in the Atlas of Personality, Emotion and Behaviour (Mobbs, 2020).  In the atlas taxonomy, emotion is defined the perception of a neurological impulse that initiates behaviour (typically abstract nouns).

The full catalogue is available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4792323

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

The Wikipedia page of desire counts it as emotion:

  Desire is the emotion of longing or hoping for a person, object, or outcome. The same sense is expressed by words such as "craving". When a person desires something or someone, their sense of longing is excited by the enjoyment or the thought of the item or person, and they want to take actions to obtain their goal. The motivational aspect of desire has long been noted by philosophers (for example, stating that human desire is the fundamental motivation of all human action) as well as by scientists (see motivational salience).


Can a person be hypnotized to act drunk? I was wondering if a person could be hypnotized to act drunk? That is, can a person totally lose all his inhibitions while in hypnosis (similar to being drunk)?

Yes (video example of Derren Brown making a man drunk) with caveats:

Not for every person being drunk means loosing his inhibitions
You can't force people to do something they don't want to do (example by Anthony
Galie)


Are there samples of false but beneficial beliefs? Many people have false beliefs.

The fact that they have those shows that those beliefs may carry some evolutionary advantage.

If so, how?

How can false beliefs be profitable?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "false beliefs". If you mean beliefs such as magical thinking, illusory patterns, superstitious beliefs, etc, then the following may help.

From an evolutionary perspective, Foster and Koko (2009) argue that false beliefs such as superstitious thoughts/rituals may arise due to the consequence of making a false-negative error (i.e. dismissing a real pattern) being potentially dire, while making a false-positive error (identifying a non-existant pattern) may have little consequence at all.

A psychological explanation that is popular is the formation of false-beliefs as a means of gaining control over ones environment. Keinan (2002) proposes three ways in which engaging in false-beliefs may improve one's sense of control:

these beliefs may provide an explanatory power over perhaps
inexplicable events, making the environment seem predictable and
controllable;
false-beliefs may appear to provide a means of controlling a situation, such as engaging in a superstitious ritual;
engaging in false-beliefs may create a self-fulfilling prophecy (the person's faith in their beliefs may make them more optimistic of the situation, reduce their stress, and subsequently improve their performance).

I proposed people have false beliefs for lying.

For example, an insurance agent may say that their product is good even though their product is bad.

Here, the false beliefs, if it is false, only hurt the customers. The insurance agent doesn't lose money if the customers buy the overpriced product.

The difference between false beliefs and lying is thin. Here, because the insurance agent is not losing money anyway, the insurance agent then truly believe the lie so he can more convincingly convince others of the lie.

Most false believes in democratic countries can be thought of as a way to convince people of certain beliefs.

For example, all proponents of Trump believe that Trump is innocent while all opponents of Trump believe that Trump colludes with Russians.

Here, neither truly care about the truth and no evidence will convince them otherwise. They just believe whatever idea that serves their political interests.

This is not the same with "lying". With normal lying, the "secret" will go out. The "liars" truly believe their lies so they can more easily convince the swing voters.

Another sample is how useful IQ is for success. The answer is of course yes. However, the left will think that IQ is not essential for success so they can demand bigger governments for teachers' budget.

The right will say that the poor are poor because they are lazy. The idea that most people simply don't have the right genes to success is not entertained because it's politically incorrect.


What is the simplest entity that would be considered "conscious"? Generally, we think of humans as having a (relatively) advanced level of consciousness, but we don't think of simple molecules as having any sort of mental capacity at all. So where in between does the phenomenon of consciousness arise?

Update: I have chosen G.Tononi's definition: the quantity of consciousness corresponds to the amount of integrated information generated by a complex of elements

As strange as it may seem the answer to the question is that when two braincells or neurons work together a small conciousness is created. We have billions of neurons so that conciousness would be rather small. Of course, this depends on the definition of counciousness and neurons.


Is there a difference between ADD and ADHD? These terms are often used interchangeably.

Is there a difference?

They are interchangeable.  ADD was a term used throughout most of the 80s and ADHD aftewards.  In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 1980 (DSM-III) published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) it was named ADD and the name changed to ADHD in the 1987 edition, DSM-III-R (which I can find no online sources of).

ADD has been used to describe a sufferer without the observable hyperactivity but it is still essentially the same thing.  Which leads to the confusion.

Terms used to describe the condition include:

Before 1980, hyperkinetic reaction of childhood
1980-1987, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
1987, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD
1994, ADHD was disected into subtypes, predominantly inattentive (ADHD-PI or ADHD-I), predominantly hyperactive-impulsive (ADHD-PH or ADHD-HI), and combined type (ADHD-C).

ADD is the term commonly used to describe symptoms of inattention, distractibility, and poor working memory. ADHD is the term used to describe additional symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity. Both are included in the medical diagnosis of ADHD.

1980-1989, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
1997, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD


Reliable channel or method for self-study of Psychology Out of interest, I've been reading some psychology topics online recently (I have zero background in psychology). For example, Maslow theory in depth. On and off, I come across terms that sound like having same meaning. So I need to search their explanation, in order to learn their differences, if any. More and more often, I run into situation where different psychology related websites giving slightly different explanation, or sometimes, even conflicting explanation. So, I'm often confused and unable to determine which explanation is the right one.

Is there a de-facto reliable source to learn psychology (except attending school), where knowledge and explanation given are considered as truth? Or... is the field of Psychology itself still full of ambiguity nowadays?

--- update 4/19 (summary)

My study approach is by keep searching and reading from multiple websites until I reach a point where I feel somewhat confident to take a guess. All along I've been uncomfortable with this approach because I find it not as productive as I wish, and the outcome may not reflect the truth.

My understanding from input of @AliceD and @Chris Rogers is that, it seems that to learn psychology in informal way for non-pro purpose (in my case, for personal growth, to understand myself better), this is the logical and viable way, even though it is not as intuitive as I've been hoping. And for those who suspect they have mental health problem, the best is to reach out to registered mental health professional for help.

Psychology can be said to be an empirical science which is built up out of the elements of experience (Avelin, 1933).

Assuming Psychology in general is empirical, its principles can be investigated by experiments, e.g., through the gold standard of clinical research, namely randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Such studies are generally considered to be reliable, yet they are not always accurate, as they are still prone to all sorts of troubles, to name a few see Fig. 1.

All these potential sources of error can lead to false conclusions and hence different studies may yield conflicting evidence. As such, the 'truth' may be out there, but often it is represented in the scientific community by consensus, rather than fact. Different people may adhere to different beliefs, and rely their views on a select number of results, rather than the consensus. As such, even reputable textbooks may convey a biased message.

To search for the book of truth, as you seem to do, is in vain. It hasn't existed, does not exist, and will not exist. In fact, the best sources are meta-studies that compare the available data critically and come to a consensus, rather then stating them as facts.

Fig. 1. source: Sessley & Imrey (2015)

References
- Avelin, Nature (1933); 132: 841–3
- Sessley & Imrey, Anesthesia-analgesia (2015); 121(4): 134-42

If you are curious about psychology you can find articles about almost anything in "PsychologyToday". I'm a second year psychology student with high GPA and i find it really helpful for my assignments and also i read articles almost everyday.


What is the causal relationship between extreme jealousy and poor mental health? Jealousy can be a powerful and destructive force. It can take over reason.

Can severe to extreme jealousy precipitate or contribute to poor mental health, at the extreme, psychosis.

Or, is it poor mental health that can manifest pathological jealousy?

or both.

I think it can go both ways. According to Tesser's Self Evaluation Maintenance Theory, any two people in a relationship make themselves feel better by comparing themselves to each other. The key idea is that if you are closer to a person then you will tend to feel more jealous. For example, suppose your best friend got a really fancy car. You will naturally feel jealous. However, what if someone told you that Bill Gates got a really fancy car? You wouldn't feel jealous.This is similar to mental construal theory mentioned in this post.

If you tend to be jealous of someone close to you all the time I would think this would lead to depression. Depression is marked by rumination which is what happens if you are constantly jealous. Then again, if you are depressed because of some acute stress (e.g. death in a family) then you could feel jealous of other people without this particular stress.

One of the best ways of overcoming jealousy is to accept that you are jealous and empathize/congratulate the person you are jealous of. Exercises like mindfulness meditation would help promote empathetic behaviors.

"My friend buys a new car. Obviously I'll feel jealous"

What is obvious about this?

Friend, his Pleasure and your Jealousy, does it appear to be a logical frame of mind?

When we accept this belief to be obvious, then it becomes our way of thinking. Therefore, the belief as small as this, may be lying somewhere in our rational neurons, never allowing us to question the logic behind its existence...

Jealousy stems from the immaturity and the fact that we use the term friend very loosely. The one whom a person is jealous of, can not be considered to be a friend.

Secondly, we are always told that it's the competition that takes us through in life. Competition is a very strong ideology. If not explained in a positive sense, it may give birth to jealousy... Therefore, you may find otherwise rational people being envious of others nearly everyday...

The one belief that snatches away peace and spiritual awareness like no other sentiment ever can...


Why do some individuals enjoy watching scary videos? Does watching scary videos affect mental health?
Are some individuals more/less prone to feeling scared than others?

Below are some reasons why some people enjoy and what happens when watching a scary movie:

Horror entertainment can trigger the fight-or-flight response, which comes with a boost in adrenaline, endorphins, and dopamine. The brain can then process surroundings and conclude that the experience is not a genuine threat.

Below are some causes and effects of watching a scary movie:

Excitation transfer: This theory states that people who experience an emotional response to horror also experience more enjoyment when threats are resolved.

Individual empathy: People who are less empathetic enjoy horror films more, according to Professor Ron Tamborini. He suggests that “viewers with high levels of empathy should dislike horror films because they react negatively to the suffering of others.”

Sensation-seeking: People who watch horror movies may want to stimulate sensory reactions. Studies indicate these viewers may be more aggressive than other people.

Source of Reference - Concordia University


Difference between psychosis and schizophrenia Can you please illustrate the difference between the psychosis and the schizophrenia?

Psychosis is part of schizophrenia, and it can be part of other psychiatric disorders, too. Psychosis is a concept that describes specific symptoms. Schizophrenia is a mental illness that has psychotic features. When broken down into symptoms, the notion of schizophrenia vs psychosis makes sense.

Psychosis isn’t a mental disorder by itself. Instead, specific features define the experience psychologists call psychosis. Some of the psychotic symptoms include hallucinations, delusions, confusion, and confused speech.


Does Emotional Intelligence (EQ) demonstrate the Flynn Effect? The Flynn Effect is a well-known phenomenon whereby Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test scores among the general public seem to rise over time.

Does Emotional Intelligence (EQ) demonstrate the Flynn Effect or a similar effect? That is, is there any research indicating that people today are, are likely to be, or appear to be based on their scores more emotionally intelligent than people of the past?

Since the nature of the Flynn Effect in IQ is still controversial (whether it represents true gains in general cognitive ability or whether it represents a measurement error), an answer such as, "Johnson (2013) observed that average EQ scores rose by 20 points between 2000 and 2010, but he suspects that it was caused mostly by people being coached in the correct answers on EQ tests by reading pop psychology books and browsing online Question and Answer sites rather than a true gain in emotional processing and reasoning abilities." would be perfectly acceptable.

The Flynn effect actually says that fluid intelligence is a function of modernization. This is shown as early as Luria's work during the introduction of formal education in rural Uzbekistan, and it can be still observed today in societies that for example do not allow women into formal education.

In such cases one sees that male IQ has increased during the past decades whereas female IQ has not. Thus an argument can be made, based upon cross-cultural comparisons and taking into account differences of various groups within the same culture.

For example between religious and not religious women in Israel -- the former do not serve in the military, the latter do, and this factor interacts with the male-female difference in IQ.

So, in order to find an emotional intelligence parallel to the Flynn effect, the question is whether there are cultural factors that are rapidly introduced to traditional societies and produce measurable differences in emotional intelligence between groups that have a different degree to exposure to these factors.


Is autism caused by genetics? Is autism and Asperger's syndrome caused by genetics or some other factor such as the environment?

I am aware about the Neanderthal Theory of autism, Asperger and ADHD, but am not interested in this due to it appearing too broad and to me seems based off of opinions like preferring the cold to the heat which is not always the case, a the term "lack of social life" seem's very broad and not clear nor specific in the aspects of socializing that they are not good with. The aspect of having big brains is also very broad and does not cover in any detail about what it means by that, however if it means intelligence then this is a development from back when we needed to hunt for food as we started to create things and fleeing particular pray on sight became instinct. The section about being meat eaters does not conclude anything as many autistic people are vegans the same as neurotypicals so does not lead us anywhere. The section about woman being more submissive sexually is also not conclusive as most autistic people are asexual so there is no real dominance by both genders as most do not even partake in sexual activities. The graphs included are also questionable as they all seem to be in favor for aspies as they score higher on everything which i would say for things like the chances of having OCD they would be very much correct as the chances of having this when on the spectrum is 40 times more likely. A lack of organization is mentioned which to me does not seem right i feel that we over plan and organize. These category's specified do not cover everyone on the spectrum so therefore is not conclusive.

In light of a recent question in MedicalSciences.SE, I thought I would update this answer to include some information from my answer there.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) now affects one in 68 births in the United States and is the fastest growing neurodevelopmental disability worldwide (Edmiston, et al. 2017) [free access paper with links to cited papers].

Alarmingly, for the majority of cases, the causes of ASD are largely unknown, but it is becoming increasingly accepted that ASD is no longer defined simply as a behavioral disorder, but rather as a highly complex and heterogeneous biological disorder (Edmiston, et al. 2017).

With information available, the genetic and environmental causes of Autism is open to speculation and interpretation.

The NHS webpage on Autism states (Emphasis mine)

  Most researchers believe that certain genes a child inherits from their parents could make them more vulnerable to developing ASD.

  Cases of ASD have been known to run in families. For example, younger siblings of children with ASD can also develop the condition, and it's common for identical twins to both develop ASD.

  No specific genes linked to ASD have been identified, but it may be a presenting feature of some rare genetic syndromes, including Fragile X syndrome, Williams syndrome and Angelman syndrome.

On environmental causes the NHS say that

  Some researchers believe that a person born with a genetic vulnerability to ASD only develops the condition if they're exposed to a specific environmental trigger.

  Possible triggers include being born prematurely (before 35 weeks of pregnancy), or being exposed in the womb to alcohol or to certain medication, such as sodium valproate (sometimes used to treat epilepsy during pregnancy).

  No conclusive evidence has been found linking pollution or maternal infections in pregnancy with an increased risk of ASD.

Research Autism has some referenced information on leading research into the causes of Autism from the Medical Research Council, National Autistic Society and the Autism Society of America; and the crux of the matter from what is said here is that the causes are still being investigated and

  There is no known single cause for autism, but it is generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in brain structure or function

The site also provides a list of publications on the possible causes of Autism

There has been research into autoimmune disorders causing ASD.

Edmiston, et al. (2017) stated (emphasis mine):

  there are likely multiple, biologically defined subgroups within the ASD spectrum(3–7). Specifically, there is growing evidence that supports maternal immune dysfunction may underlie the behavioral abnormalities observed in a subset of children affected with the disorder(8). Several immunologic risk factors have been described including: genetic associations with immune-related genes(9–16), family history of autoimmune disease(15, 17–21), maternal inflammation and infection during pregnancy(22–27), and altered immune responses in the children, and are associated with increased impairments in core and associated features of ASD(28). More specific to this review, maternal anti-brain autoantibodies, which are thought to access the fetal compartment during gestation, have been identified as one risk factor for developing ASD and are proposed to contribute to early neurodevelopmental perturbations in the developing fetus(29–31).

  References

  Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH, Leventhal BL, DiLavore PC, et al. The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of autism and developmental disorders. 2000;30:205–223.
  Newschaffer CJ, Croen La, Daniels J, Giarelli E, Grether JK, Levy SE, et al. The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders. Annual review of public health. 2007;28:235–258.
  Snow AV, Lecavalier L, Houts C. The structure of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised: diagnostic and phenotypic implications. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines. 2009;50:734–742.
  Ousley O, Cermak T. Autism spectrum disorder: Defining dimensions and subgroups. Current Developmental Disorders Reports. 2013;1:20–28.
  McDougle CJ, Landino SM, Vahabzadeh A, O’Rourke J, Zurcher NR, Finger BC, et al. Toward an immune-mediated subtype of autism spectrum disorder. Brain Research. 2015;1617:72–92.
  Onore C, Careaga M, Ashwood P. The role of immune dysfunction in the pathophysiology of autism. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2012;26:383–392.
  Warren RP, Singh VK, Cole P, Odell JD, Pingree CB, Warren WL, et al. Increased frequency of the null allele at the complement C4b locus in autism. Clinical & Experimental Immunology. 1991;83:438–440.
  Warren RP, Odell JD, Warren WL, Burger RA, Maciulis A, Daniels WW, et al. Strong association of the third hypervariable region of HLA-DRβ1 with autism. Journal of Neuroimmunology. 1996;67:97–102.
  Torres AR, Sweeten TL, Cutler A, Bedke BJ, Fillmore M, Stubbs EG, et al. The association and linkage of the HLA-A2 class I allele with autism. Human immunology. 2006;67:346–351.
  Campbell DB, Li C, Sutcliffe JS, Persico AM, Levitt P. Genetic evidence implicating multiple genes in the MET receptor tyrosine kinase pathway in autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research. 2008;1:159–168.
  Thanseem I, Nakamura K, Miyachi T, Toyota T, Yamada S, Tsujii M, et al. Further evidence for the role of MET in autism susceptibility. Neuroscience Research. 2010;68:137–141.
  Mostafa GA, Shehab AA. The link of C4B null allele to autism and to a family history of autoimmunity in Egyptian autistic children. Journal of Neuroimmunology. 2010;223:115–119.
  Jung JY, Kohane IS, Wall DP. Identification of autoimmune gene signatures in autism. Translational psychiatry. 2011;1:e63–e63.
  Torres AR, Westover JB, Gibbons C, Johnson RC, Ward DC. Activating killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR) and their cognate HLA ligands are significantly increased in autism. Brain, behavior, and immunity. 2012;26:1122–1127.
  Comi AM, Zimmerman AW, Frye VH, Law PA, Peeden JN. Familial Clustering of Autoimmune Disorders and Evaluation of Medical Risk Factors in Autism. Journal of Child Neurology. 1999;14:388–394.
  Atladóttir HO, Pedersen MG, Thorsen P, Mortensen PB, Deleuran B, Eaton WW, et al. Association of family history of autoimmune diseases and autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics. 2009;124:687–694.
  Vinet É, Pineau CA, Clarke AE, Scott S, Fombonne É, Joseph L, et al. Increased Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children Born to Women With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results From a Large Population-Based Cohort. Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, NJ) 2015;67:3201–3208.
  Wu S, Ding Y, Wu F, Li R, Xie G, Hou J, et al. Family history of autoimmune diseases is associated with an increased risk of autism in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2015;55:322–332.
  Chen S-W, Zhong X-S, Jiang L-N, Zheng X-Y, Xiong Y-Q, Ma S-J, et al. Maternal autoimmune diseases and the risk of autism spectrum disorders in offspring: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Behavioural brain research. 2016;296:61–69.
  Chess S. Autism in children with congenital rubella. Journal of autism and childhood schizophrenia. 1971;1:33–47.
  Meyer U, Nyffeler M, Engler A, Urwyler A, Schedlowski M, Knuesel I, et al. The time of prenatal immune challenge determines the specificity of inflammation-mediated brain and behavioral pathology. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2006;26:4752–4762.
  Smith SEP, Li J, Garbett K, Mirnics K, Patterson PH. Maternal Immune Activation Alters Fetal Brain Development through Interleukin-6. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2007;27:10695–10702.
  Atladóttir HÓ, Thorsen P, Østergaard L, Schendel DE, Lemcke S, Abdallah M, et al. Maternal Infection Requiring Hospitalization During Pregnancy and Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2010;40:1423–1430.
  Patterson PH. Maternal infection and immune involvement in autism. Trends in Molecular Medicine. 2011;17:389–394.
  Garay PA, Hsiao EY, Patterson PH, McAllister AK. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity Maternal immune activation causes age- and region-specific changes in brain cytokines in offspring throughout development. 2012
  Ashwood P, Van de Water J. Is autism an autoimmune disease? Autoimmunity reviews. 2004;3:557–562.
  Braunschweig D, Van de Water J. Maternal autoantibodies in autism. Archives of neurology. 2012;69:693–699.
  Fox E, Amaral D, Van de Water J. Maternal and fetal antibrain antibodies in development and disease. Developmental Neurobiology. 2012;72:1327–1334.
  Fox-Edmiston E, Van De Water J. Maternal Anti-Fetal Brain IgG Autoantibodies and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Current Knowledge and its Implications for Potential Therapeutics. CNS Drugs. 2015;29:715–724.

In conclusion, they pointed out that Maternal autoantibody related (MAR) ASD:

  has been noted by numerous researchers describing the presence of maternal autoantibodies reactive to fetal brain proteins in a subset of mothers of children with ASD. Further, there is now an abundance of evidence supporting their deleterious role in neurodevelopment. For the most part, these studies have described similar experimental outcomes and, given the clinical and biological heterogeneity of ASD, there likely exists a complex relationship between the presence of maternal anti-fetal brain antibodies and developmental trajectory of exposed offspring. It is still unclear how and when these maternal autoantibodies arise, but studies currently underway may provide increased insight into their ontogeny.

References

Edmiston, E., Ashwood, P., & Van de Water, J. (2017). Autoimmunity, autoantibodies, and autism spectrum disorder. Biological psychiatry, 81(5), 383-390. Pubmed Central: PMC5373490

Since the 1970s, researchers have found out and known that genes make a contribution to the pervasive developmental disorder or autism when two identical twins have shared a similar condition.

As the world progresses, scientists have found out the variety of genetic changes in the DNA that contribute to the autism spectrum.
However, genetics cannot be solely accounted for the risks of developing signs for autism spectrum.
There are various other factors involved as well,

A child being born to older parents
Low birth weight and premature infants
Hormonal and metabolic imbalances
Fetal exposures to the medications such as valproic acid or thalidomide
Exposure to heavy metals and environmental toxins
Fragile X syndrome and other inherited disorders
Having an immediate family member with autism

Working with Arizona Centers for Comprehensive Education and Life Skills, I have realized children or adults with pervasive spectrum need distinctive care and affection.


Why are trans-women more common than trans-men? Before I begin, note I have no animosity nor prejudice against anyone. Please keep the answers scientifically motivated.
Various surveys on trans populations have shown male to female transitions are 2-4x more likely than female to male (see here).  This is clearly statistically significant and not some anomaly.
I can only think of 2 possible solutions ... either a difference in psychological predisposition between the sexes (but if so what), or some genetic component.
That being said, what is the most likely reason for this?  Does the large discrepancy in numbers suggest such a genetic component?
For context, here is one of the stats I am basing the question on(the stats are similar for all countries for which there is data):
"The American Psychiatric Association, using GID criteria, suggested that MTFs had a 1 in 30,000 (.0077%) prevalence rate, while FTMs were 1 in 100,000 (.0029%)"

Exactly like you, I would like to begin by saying that I have no animosity nor prejudice against anyone. What I am saying below is not meant to be offensive to anyone, it is just an honest account of what the data in my region says.

You wrote:

  "I can only think of 2 possible solutions ... either a difference in
  psychological predisposition between the sexes (but if so what), or
  some genetic component."

But there is in fact a third factor, which is economics.

Where I live (Southeast Asia), there's quite a large number of many male -> female trans people that are prostitutes. I have lived in Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand, which are all countries that appear lower than 80th in the list of countries by GDP per capita, and do have a large population of people living in poverty. If you go to the streets where most of the prostitutes advertise themselves (such as Jalan Jaksa in Jakarta, Indonesia) you will find these days that many of them (and in some areas, the majority of them!) are male -> female trans.

This may get quite controversial, so once again, I begin by saying that I have no animosity nor prejudice against anyone. I just want to point out, if I may, that for men, it is not as easy to make money as a prostitute as it is for women. Men statistically pay for sex more often than women do. I have not seen any homeless women in my city acting as "beggers" (I only see men doing this), but I see far more female prostitutes (in fact I have never in my life seen a male prostitute advertising themselves on a street!). Most of the trans-women I know in my city, started out as pre-operation trans people that made ends meet as escorts or prostitutes or "sugar babies" and many of them got the money for their operation by a "sugar daddy" or a wealthy client that developed a closer relationship with them.

I am not saying this is the only reason. I am just saying that there is at least one more reason in addition to the two that you have suggested as the only two you could think of. What I have written applies to my region of the world and may not apply to wealthier places such as Luxembourg where practically everyone (even the poorest people) are better off than the middle class here (and would less likely need to resort to prostitution).

It is also likely that the answer to the question depends heavily on the region in question, as is the case for sexual orientation demographics.

Let me start with the opening sentence to the Wikipedia article on "Demographics of Sexual Orientation":

  "The demographics of sexual orientation vary significantly, and
  estimates for the LGBT population are subject to controversy and
  ensuing debates."

For example, the same page has this:

It shows that males are more likely to be gay than females in every city in Brazil except for Manaus which is in the Amazon. We cannot rule out the possibility that in Manaus, there might be cultural or societal reasons why 10% of the women have become attracted to women more than the men. I am not saying that the men of Manaus are bad people, I am just saying that genetics and psychology are not the only factors and that culture and society can affect what type of people a population finds attractive (in a misogynistic society women might start to find men less appealing, for example, so it is not just genetics and psychology).

Interestingly, in USA the statistics are the opposite of in Brazil (women are more likely to be gay than men):

I suspect that just as the demographics of LGBT people "vary significantly, and estimates for the LGBT population are subject to controversy and ensuing debates", the same may be true for trans people (in fact trans is the T in LGBT, so already there's at least one other place that says that statistics will vary significantly and be hard to generalize).

I am  not saying that psychology and genetics don't play any role at all, but I do think we also have to consider other factors that would lead to more males becoming trans than females such as geography (are we in a place where it's acceptable for men to transform but not women? are we in a place where more women are in demand for certain jobs? are we in a place where more women are in demand for sex?) and in some cases even economy. Because of this added complication (which gets into "soft" sciences of sociology and economics which are harder describe in a more mathematical or clinical manner than "hard" sciences like neurology), it might be very difficult to get a straight answer regarding psychology and genetics, especially since all the data is also relatively new and people haven't been studying the topic for long enough yet!

The first thing that comes to my mind is the difference in stigma in expression of gender or gender characteristics. To explain: It is much more socially acceptable (at least in Western culture) for a female to display "masculine" characteristics than it is for a man to display "feminine" characteristics. For example, women can wear pants without being ridiculed but a man in a dress is a rare sight. Another example is it is much more socially acceptable for women to kiss women than it is for men to kiss men. To put it in another way, women have a wider range of socially acceptable gender expression. A biological man who expresses themselves in a feminine way is not accepted in modern society in general. It is much more acceptable if that person redefines themselves as a woman and begins to be seen as a woman. Imagine the difference in reception of a person who identifies a man wearing makeup, a dress, and high-heels speaking in a typically feminine tone and cadence versus a person who states they identify as a woman wearing makeup, a dress, and high heels speaking in a typically feminine tone and cadence. On the reverse side, biological women who express themselves in a masculine way are faced with much less aversion. In short, biological men who are more feminine might feel more of a need to transition to fit into our binary society than biological women who are more masculine. Thoughts?


Is it possible to quantify/measure the effect of certain medication on our neurotransmitters and hormones? Is it possible to display the effect of taking for example Prozac on level of Serotonin and other neurotransmitters/hormones in the body?

More generally speaking s is it possible to say: taking 1mg of medication A increases hormones B and C within 3 months by 2 units for the majority of people? or perhaps not this accurate but by some accuracy?

or taking food A, increases hormones C and D?

In other words is it possible to quantify the effect of any drug/food to the body?

Yes it is possible, but it is difficult. The way it would be done currently is to insert a needle into the base of your spinal cord to measure the concentration of a metabolite of serotonin, 5-HIAA, in the fluid surrounding your brain.

It is also possible to measure levels of this metabolite in saliva, urine, or in the bloodstream, but these measures would not necessarily represent the levels of serotonin in your central nervous system (brain). This is because serotonin plays a role in other (non-brain) bodily functions, and serotonin can not cross the blood-brain barrier. In other words, only serotonin that has been produced in the brain can be used by the brain.

Yes but antidepressants are in a class of their own! We do measure the serotonin, etc in R&D and food consumption and various other  lists of increasing the drug and decreases in the body and gathered during clinical trials in the FDA and then continually monitoring is part of the process of legalization and why you see some drugs suddenly pulled from the market. But the brain is still the least understood part of the body in the medical community. The most commonly prescribed antidepressants are currently SSRIs, preventing serotonin,5-HT, from being reabsorbed, as their name, selective “serotonin reuptake inhibitors”, indicates. That resulted in all black box suicide warnings via the FDA bc we just don't know nor understand enough about them and our brain to predict their unpredictable behavior.For example Brintellix,the newest version of the SSRI and It is different enough from the welter of SSRIs currently available that it’s not simply a ‘me too’ drug. By its developer’s own admission, no one knows what effects are produced by 5 of the 6 functions Brintellix was designed to cause. But we do know that the 6th function, serotonin/5-HT reuptake inhibition, ( may cause suicidal behavior in a unique class of individuals:All of the other 5 functions interfere with normal brain activity—and the manufacturer admits that no one knows what those effects will be!Studies show Inexplicable violence, turned both inward and outward,( is the result of SSRIs causing a single change to brain function. )Brintellix  causes several changes. These changes involve the handling of glutamate, which is a critical amino acid that’s required for brain function and cellular metabolism. Glutamate is necessary—at proper levels, in the right places, and at the right times—for learning, remembering, thinking, and emotions. It’s also involved in energy production throughout the body. Glutamate excites neural function. Too much glutamate can burn nerves out and too little keeps them from functioning properly. Not only does Brintellix manipulate 5-HT (serotonin), like all other SSRIs, it also manipulates 5-HT1A: Agonist,5-HT1B: Partial Agonist5-HT3: Antagonist 5-HT1D: Antagonist 5-HT7: Antagonist. An agonist triggers a response from a cell. An antagonist does the opposite. It blocks a cell’s response.No one knows what relationship exists between any of these neural receptors and Brintellix’s effect.  No one knows what these manipulations of the brain will do to the body, intelligence, emotional state, sexuality, criminality, empathy, or anything in the future.So while it is available, it is not much help past the R&D process.


Why is it easier to learn something when you have a teacher explain it? I find that things you learn in school are much easier to learn than before you take the course. For example, there is a mathematical theorem that seems unnerving when I self studied calculus, but the same theorem appeared to be so much easier when I actually learned it in school.

Why is it easier to learn something when you have a teacher explain it?

A bad teacher would explain things in a manner that's harder to digest, when compared to a good teacher. However, in general, for any teacher, even a tutor, it is easier to concentrate because the prefrontal cortex is reminded continuously of the goal (of learning). This is called goal-directed behavior. Learning alone, however, makes it harder to concentrate at the same level. I may have misunderstood what you you were looking for in the answer.

I'm not sure what you mean by harder, because I find things about the same, if not easier(thanks internet), after leaving school and understanding how our memory works.

I think you're noticing the difference between a teacher and a book. A teacher will draw pictures, use gestures, tone of voice, and answer any questions. A book will just tell you things, and assume you understand, and leave you to set the tone of voice.

If you want to learn maths, give the site Khan Academy a go. Also if you really want to learn, use a flashcard program like Anki. I use Anki for learning everything. Once you learn something, you easily forget it. I use Anki to keep reminding me of whatever I'm learning, so I never forget it. You do have to use it every day, but it's a good habit to get into, whilst having breakfast.

EDIT: added this:
You'll also notice on Khan Academy, Sal Khan uses just a blackboard and his voice, because the tone of voice really helps get the point across, also he draws and moves things around, so you can see and hear how it all goes together.


Would Artificial Super-Intelligence From Science Fiction "Speed Up" The Brain and Wear it Out Faster Leading to Earlier Death? In stories such as Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes, the main character, Charlie Gordon, receives an operation on his brain that triples his intelligence.

Could something like this be achieved if the brain is somehow sped up and forced to do more in less time? And wouldn't something like this cause the brain to deteriorate rapidly from being "worn out" by so much use?

I found in this article that as the brain ages, it will shrink and will have larger fissures in it. In the story, after what seems to have been a short life, the mouse dies and is dissected. The mouse's brain is found to have much larger fissures and have shrinked.

Is this wearing out or aging of the brain due to increased activity by surgical means accurate in any way?

Our brain runs on a series of chemical and electrical reactions running at a stable pace. Unlike computers, you cannot "overclock" the brain into running these reactions any faster than normal.
However, if we were to assume the psuedoscience to be true, it would be logical for the brain to undergo premature death. With the rates of these reactions increased you would see the rate of DNA mutations increase along with the amount of oxidative stress. All of which are causes of cancer and cell death.

How to actually improve cognitive function:
http://m.wikihow.com/Increase-Your-Brain's-Processing-Speed

I've seen this TED talk that suggests that cooking allowed humans to ingest more calories in a given day by "pre-digesting" food using fire. This caused "rapid" evolutionary increases in brain size. The talk suggests that gorilla brains are small because they spend almost entire day eating low calorie food and don't have spare energy to devote to brain development.

In the modern age, 50000 calories from sugar costs less than 10$. The definition of "binge eating disorder" is eating 5000-15000 calories in one sitting. From this point of view, the modern man has plenty of energy to dedicate to "overclocking" the brain.

Frequently used neuronal networks develop Myelin sheath, which increases nerve impulse propagation speed. Apparently training a specific move in sports causes myelin sheath to develop around the responsible neural network, causing increased performance. I'm not aware of negative side effects of myelination process.


Do people who experience a psychotic episode ever go back to normal? Do people who experience a fully blown psychotic episode ever go back to their pre-psychosis self?

Short answer

Because some neuroses can involve psychotic episodes, it depends on the cause of the psychotic behaviour.

Longer Answer

When looking at the difference between neuroses and psychoses, although BPD, Bipolar Disorder and PTSD are generally neuroses, they can involve psychotic episodes in some cases.

For example, with Bipolar Disorder (Mind, 2018):

  Psychotic symptoms can include:

  delusions, such as paranoia
  hallucinations, such as hearing voices

  Not everyone with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder experiences psychosis, but some people do. It's more common during manic episodes, but can happen during depressive episodes too. These kinds of experiences can feel very real to you at the time, which may make it hard to understand other people's concerns about you.

Psychotic episodes in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) can involve flashbacks (the sense of being back at the traumatic event) through hallucinations affecting touch, taste, smell, sound and sight either affecting one of the senses or a combination of them.

Once the PTSD or Bipolar Disorder has been resolved through the relevant treatment required, the psychotic effects will not return as the underlying cause has been sorted, and the person will "go back to their pre-psychosis self".

If the psychosis is a "pure" psychosis such as Schizophrenia, the problem cannot be cured, but the psychosis can be managed with medication and psychiatric help (Schizophrenia Society of Canada, n.d.).  Schizophrenia requires lifelong treatment, even when symptoms have subsided (Mayo Clinic, 2018).

Minimizing the impact of the illness depends mainly on early diagnosis and, appropriate psychosocial treatment and medication.  One problem with this is that people with schizophrenia sometimes lack insight into their illness, and therefore do not see the need for medication or other mental health help. Also, medication sometimes has unpleasant side effects and this may discourage individuals from continuing to follow their prescription.

References

Mayo Clinic (2018). Schizophrenia Diagnosis & Treatment[Online]Retrieved from: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizophrenia/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20354449

Mind (2018). Bipolar Mood Symptoms [Online]Retrieved from: https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/bipolar-disorder/bipolar-moods-symptoms

Schizophrenia Society of Canada (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions [Online]Retrieved from: http://www.schizophrenia.ca/faq.php

A lengthy and thorough definition of "psychotic episode" would be needed here, but by definition, if it isn't what is termed chronic or life-long, it is this, From WebMD:

  [...] brief psychotic disorder is a short-term illness with psychotic
  symptoms. The symptoms often come on suddenly, but last for less than
  one month, after which the person usually recovers completely. There
  are three basic forms of brief psychotic disorder:

  Brief psychotic disorder with obvious stressor (also called brief >    reactive psychosis): This type occurs shortly after and often in
  response to a trauma or major stress, such as the death of a loved
  one, an accident, assault, or a natural disaster. Most cases of brief
  psychotic disorder occur as a reaction to a very disturbing event.
  Brief psychotic disorder without obvious stressor: With this type,    there is no apparent trauma or stress that triggers the illness.
  Brief psychotic disorder with postpartum onset: This type occurs in women, usually within 4 weeks of having a baby.


Encouraging Kindness in Rich People? Evidence presented in this video suggests that, statistically, rich people are more likely to be jerks than people with less money. How could this tendency be curbed, especially with regards to rich kids?

This is an interesting question as it has been of the opinion of many people around me that people who drive certain cars or are in a particular job or social status are selfish and don't care about anyone but themselves and maybe a little about those in their own circle of people.  But is this true?

TLDR - It seems to be true from studies presented, however there may be exceptions

For context, we need to define 'jerks' and 'rich' within the studies and the YouTube video you linked to (AppSCIENCE, 2018) had the studies and reports linked to it — NPR (2018), Piff, et al. (2012), Roberts & Zarracina (2015) plus others — which backed their claims.

Rich (Definition)

Roberts & Zarracina (2015) linked to the YouTube video talks of rich people being those who are

  at or near "the 1%" in wealth with an average income of $1M per year or more

some others would define it as someone who is substantially more financially well off and can include some below the top 1%.  My answer is based on this definition (see Social class, or socioeconomic status (SES) below).

Jerk (Definition)

The Oxford Living Dictionary defines Jerk as:

  A contemptibly foolish person

whilst the Urban Dictionary says

  Jerks are selfish, manipulative bas****ds

but Piff, et al. (2012) linked to with the YouTube video talked about:

  how social class is associated with unethical behavior, or actions that harm others and are illegal or morally objectionable to one's community

with Social class, or socioeconomic status (SES) being:

  an individual's rank vis-à-vis others in society in terms of wealth, occupational prestige, and education (Adler et al. 2000)(Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2011)

and there is a MacArthur scale of subjective SES which was used by Piff et al. (2012).

The evidence

Piff, et al. (2012) conducted 7 studies for their report

  In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals.

Roberts & Zarracina (2015) covered the Washington Post story about water restrictions imposed in the wake of California's drought, and how wealthy people were reacting to them, along with research by Gillens & Page (2014) and Page, Bartels, & Seawright (2013) which were studying the political viewpoints of the elite.

The Washington Post story quoted a wealthy Californian resident to have said:

  I think we’re being overly penalized, and we’re certainly being overly scrutinized by the world," said Gay Butler, an interior designer out for a trail ride on her show horse, Bear. She said her water bill averages about $800 a month.

  It angers me because people aren’t looking at the overall picture," Butler said. "What are we supposed to do, just have dirt around our house on four acres?"

when talking about the fact that everyone had the same limit on water usage.  Defending the amount of water she and her neighbors "need" for their vast estates she also said:

  You could put 20 houses on my property, and they’d have families of at least four. In my house, there is only two of us,” Butler said. So “they’d be using a hell of a lot more water than we’re using.

Possible exceptions

On the other side of the spectrum, Rancho Santa Fe resident Randy Woods was feeling burdened by his lush landscape and opted to downsize. The 60-something chief executive of a biotech company moved a year ago from a two-acre estate — replete with two waterfalls, two Jacuzzis, a swimming pool and an orchard — to a condo in the tiny core of town known as “the Village.”

Woods said some of his friends would like to do the same, largely to cut down on their bloated water bills. But they have encountered an unforeseen obstacle, he said: The drought has dampened demand for large estates in San Diego County.  Another friend, Woods said, has seen the value of his nine-acre plot plummet from 30 million US Dollars to 22 million US Dollars.

So my question with those who are choosing not to sell because of drops in property value is, is this greed at play?  You could say that when you can still get $22M and therefore still live comfortably; plus Piff et al. (2012) states:

  Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

Piff, et al. (2012) also highlights:

  significant philanthropy displayed by such individuals as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet

but the cynics would say that these people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honourable or unselfish reasons.  (They are doing it to look good and say "look at how thoughtful I am").

There are also likely to be instances of lower-class individuals exhibiting unethical tendencies, as research on the relationship between concentrations of poverty and violent crime indicates (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).

References

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health psychology, 19(6), 586.DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586

AppSCIENCE (2018). Are Rich People Worse Humans? (YouTube Video)Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90R6PtxFKE

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on politics, 12(3), 564-581.DOI: 10.1017/S1537592714001595

Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2011). Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Current directions in psychological science, 20(4), 246-250.DOI: 10.1177/0963721411414654

NPR (2018). The Power Hour - Hidden Brain: A Conversation About Life's Unseen Patterns (Podcast)Available at: https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/579976635/the-power-hour

Page, B. I., Bartels, L. M., & Seawright, J. (2013). Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspectives on Politics, 11(1), 51-73.DOI: 10.1017/S153759271200360XFree PDF from: James N. Druckman, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University

Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086-4091.DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118373109

Roberts, D. & Zarracina, J. (2015). Rich people are jerks, explained VoxAvailable at: https://www.vox.com/2015/6/16/8790357/rich-people-jerks

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5328.918

The tendency can be altered by proper education.

Yes, that evidence is mostly correct. Rich kids today think they are better than the rest because they can use money in many situations the others can't. That way, they think that they are superior. Further, parents unfortunately encourage and support this type of behavior. The kids become arrogant and will practically learn less than the others.

Rich kids do end up instantly getting many thing way too easy, while the others struggle years to get them and this creates multiple problems: individually, they will not be able to properly act in a situation where they can't bribe they way out of; collectively, overall, the society evolves towards inferiority in this manner.


Is the hippocampus responsible for storing or creating memories? I've heard that severe damage to the hippocampus results in the inability to form new memories but still remember old ones. Am I mistaking something? Is the hippocampus responsible for storing memories, creating memories or both?

It's fair to say storing new memories is an important function of the hippocampus. The most famous example is the case of HM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison, possibly that's where you heard this?

The hippocampus is also heavily involved in navigation, so memory is not the only thing it does, and there are memory systems that don't seem to involve the hippocampus (for example, working memory and motor skill learning. There's some ongoing discussion around how best to classify different kinds of memory, to be able to say more specifically which kinds belong to this hippocampus system). So as always, the story is complicated. But HM's story shows that "severe damage to the hippocampus can result in the inability to form new memories, but still leave old ones intact" is a fair-enough claim.


Can the mind affect the physical brain? - a simple thought experiment Scientists maintain that "a physical action requires a physical cause".
However, if I am in deep thought about my dead spouse, for example, and a tear comes to my eye, how is it that the mind (thought) can cause a physiological response (a tear)?
Does this not contradict the (physical) law of cause and effect?

The short answer is no, this doesn't violate the law of cause and effect because the mind itself is a physical entity. Your thought experiment hinges on the debate of materialism (the mind is a physical thing) versus dualism (the mind is a different kind of thing than physical things). Most cognitive scientists believe that materialism is the correct view.

Regardless of which side of the materialism vs dualism debate you find yourself on, the result is the same. If the mind is "material" then there is no issue. If the mind is immaterial, then the mind is the same kind of thing as a running software program. In that case, it doesn't have a physical form, but affects the state of the device that is running it. How? As long as you remember not to conflate the binary image of the program's instructions with the running task itself, then it makes sense. A running task is little more than a series of states in the device that is running it. Even the active instructions are nothing more than a collection of states. These state collections are constantly accessed as the result of previous state changes from other state collections in the device. The brain can thus be viewed as an insanely complicated collection of nano-computers running software called "mind".


Why do very different people attract each other? I have noticed than many couples are very different from each other but yet they fell in love in spite their differences. I was wondering about the psychology behind this.
Why would someone want to be with someone that has different likes

Concepts like love and attraction are not only poorly defined, but in this context are too complex to discuss meaningfully, if a scientific answer is what you are after. It is also hard to quantify 'different' when it comes to people - there are just too many variables to compare.

But, there is actually some principles and models that could be part of a more complete answer.

Total Free Energy

Both the TOTAL1 model (an extension of the famous TOTE2 model), or the free energy principle3, assert the following:

  Us humans constantly form predictions that serve as expected state, and then compare them to the actual state of the world/body (via senses).

This applies to both micro levels (say, communication between neuron layers) and micro level (consciousness).

It then goes:

  When the predicted state matches the actual state, nothing to do. When there is incongruity, we must either change our predications (models/goals) or the world (by acting).

In this view, the brain is largely a differential processor - rather than processing stimuli all the way bottom-up, it generates top-down predictions and only left with validating them against stimuli.

This is a hugely efficient optimisation strategy for the sake of metabolic economy.

It also goes to explain:

Why we stop perceiving mechanical clocks after spending some time in a room.
Why new objects (shoes, houses) excite when new but hence after peter out.
Why relationships tend to cool-off over time (and in turn why some people cheat on their partner).

In extremely general terms - that that doesn't change doesn't excite.

Now back to Friston:

  For survival sake, all living things strive to minimise surprises by forming and updating a model of their environment.

Things get interesting when survival is no longer a concern...

Diversity

Taking into account the said above, picking someone who's different from you in many aspects means your mental models are challenged more often, which could yield excitement.

I think a good example is dating someone of different nationality, say a Westerner dating an Easterner. Differences can go both way (good and bad), but it is exciting nevertheless.

1 Wang, C. and Mukhopadhyay, A., 2012. The Dynamics of Goal Revision: A Cybernetic Multiperiod Test- Operate-Test-Adjust-Loop (TOTAL) Model of Self-Regulation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), pp. 815-832.

2 Miller, G.A., Galanter, E. and Pribram, K.H., 1986. Plans and the Structure of Behavior. Adams Bannister Cox.

3 Friston, K., 2010. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?. Nature reviews neuroscience, 11(2), p.127.


What is the definition of sanity? How can I prove someone either sane or insane? In my experience the definition of insanity is thus:

  Insanity: The state of being seriously mentally ill, mad, and/or irrational.

Is there a proper scientific definition of this term? While mentally ill is relatively easily to pin down, the others criteria seem subjective.

Is there any test or method that can be used to prove a subject to be either sane or insane? How can any such test give objectively accurate results for this or another similar definition of insanity?

Sanity is an explicit legal definition. It is generally not a psychological term. This is Wikipedia's definition of Sanity which aligns perfectly to my understanding of abnormal psychology. (emphasis mine):

  In criminal and mental health law, sanity is a legal term denoting that an individual is of sound mind and therefore can bear legal responsibility for his or her actions. The official legal term is compos mentis. It is generally defined in terms of the absence of insanity (non compos mentis). It is not a medical term, although the opinions of medical experts are often important in making a legal decision as to whether someone is sane or insane.

Psychologists are often called in to determine "sanity" but they deduce whether one fits the legal definition based on any psychological disorders the individual might have. "Insanity" in this sense could be considered to be one of many psychological disorders that would cause one to be unable to function in a court room and understand their rights.

"Temporary Insanity" was a previously common but largely ill regarded legal excuse in the earlier days of psychology. It is not a psychological term nor does it have a psychological definition.

You'll note the DSM does not include diagnostic criteria for sanity. It is not a term commonly used in research or psychiatry because as you suggest it is much too broad of a concept.

Research on "insane" people is as uselessly broad as it would be on "silly" or "dumb" people. Instead research is conducted on specific conditions or measures.

Wikipedia has some information on Sanity in Psychiatry and Psychology but note these are very outdated ideas and I'm not aware of any current researchers who respect these theories as valid.

Here is a proper scientific definition for insanity:  a disconnection from reality.  If I say I'm a rabbit when it is clear to everyone else that I'm a human, I'm insane (presuming, for completeness that I'm not acting).

Now, philosophers may argue on the use of the world "reality", but let's stop right there -- it's a psychology SE.

Unfortunately, there are so many pathologies extant in some of our present culture, insanity is practically the norm.  There are many misdiagnosed people because the doctors themselves are disconnected from reality.  That's right.  They have no idea, for example, what life is like "on the street" because they've never been homeless.   So, they are getting involved in complex and difficult social-economic dynamics in which they are not qualified in any way whatsoever.  (I will argue that giving drugs to people on the street is an act of psychopathic behavior, too.)

But to get back to your question:  you cannot prove that someone is sane or insane, because you've just broken and blurred a boundary between subject and object when trying to stick with an objective definition (using the word "prove" implies either a closed logical system or a strictly empirical one).  Even attempting to do so makes YOU the suspect of an insanity charge.  Doing so set you up for a State-sponsored type of abuse akin to Nazi Germany, since sanity cannot ever simply be conformity.