What is the relationship between identity and personality? I would like to know whether identity and personality are the same thing, as they both answer the question of who you are.
Nevertheless in a cognitive approach, identity is considered a part of personality, concretely it's considered as a brain structure inside of the memory.

I think the relation is more or less subjective.

Identity is something that you give yourself. It has to do with what you stand for, morals, values, etc.

It is who your are physically and legally, but that's just a basic "you already know that" statement.

Personality is the way in which you portray or "live in" your identity.

For example, you can identify parts of someone's personality: humorous, attractive, intelligent, funny.

Both adapt and change over time, but your identity changes less often, I believe. Together, they are what makes a whole person.

It's really difficult to give a concrete answer because a lot of this can be subjective, debatable and complex.

It's also important to remember that while in some cases your personality and identity may be the same, in the end, they serve different "roles." If someone says "you're unique", it's true. Both your identity and personality are what makes you unique. They help each other in that way.

Let's take a look at this from a different angle: Let's say that we know this guy named Tom is a murderer. That is his identity. His personality, however, may not portray that and can come off as fun or charming. Personality is how someone behaves. They both go really well together but that doesn't mean that they are always similar. In most cases, you will find that they are similar, though.

Sources

Personality vs. Identity | Authentic Systems - Motivation Research & Development
Discover Your Personality | Truity
The Difference Between Personality & Identity | HiNative

In my idea i think identity is a kind of inherit.something that world gives you and you can not change it. for example you can not change your date of birth or where you born. i'm Iranian and being Iranian is one part of my identity. my birth day is another part of my identity.my parents gave me a name so it's another part of my identity. but personality is something that makes me unique. for example there is lots of people who born and live in same country and born same date i was born also lots of them has same name but non of them has my rules,demands,priorities,experiences,education and ... so non of them think and act like me.personalty is all those covers and masks i use on myself in community.this is my personalty. Maybe all i said was false. i just wanted to share my opinion.


Is there a psychological explanation for people being 'overcome by the Holy Spirit'? I am a scientist by nature, and I don't believe at all in God or any form of spirituality or the Holy Spirit (of course).

However, it does confuse me as to how some people genuinely do seem to be overcome by 'spirit' in certain more extreme churches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuOBdGeArZw Watch this clip, and at about 3:35 the man goes into a strange state, and states like this do happen.
As well as this, my dad once began crying for no reason in a Church or Mosque or something at the altar.

Are there any scientifically/theoretical psychological explanations as to why this could be possible without the need for any sort of spirituality?

Research in this area is pretty patchy. Summarizing what Wikipedia says on the topic:

"God helmet" experiments were plagued by failures to reproduce by independent research groups
TLE (temporal lobe epilepsy) and its effect known as Geschwind syndrome is one plausible cause... but that does not explain it in all people
hippocampal atrophy is a more recent hypothesis, although it seems backed by only one study insofar

Independently of Wikipedia I found:

a study by Urgesi et at. (2010) on the effect of brain lesions (following brain cancer removal) on self-transcendence, which determined that "self-transcendence increases after damage to lt and rt inferior parietal cortex".
a 2009 study by Inzlicht et al. found that "religious conviction is marked by reduced reactivity in the
anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a cortical system that is
involved in the experience of anxiety and is important for
self-regulation [...] These correlations remained strong even after we controlled for personality and cognitive ability." And the paper goes as far as having a "xanax of the people" heading for one its sections, and obvious pun on the better known phrase of Marx. The authors also point out that a similar anxiolytic effect was observed in studies of other strong beliefs, but not necessarily religious, e.g. ideological/political, citing Amodio et al. 2007 and Kay et al. 2008. (And starting to digress here, but the Amodio study has elicited strong reactions in the press).

I remember seeing something that mentioned that for people who actually believe that something spiritual is happening to them their actual brain chemistry is changing.

Heightened emotions emit serotonin, dopamine, etc, and that could have an effect on people with a combination of other chemicals. Any time that our emotions are heightened we experience physiological and sometimes psychological changes. To explain why people see strange things or angels and such, those are just hallucinations. These people are not mentally ill, but the way you behave and perceive the world depends on your brain chemistry and brain chemistry is malleable given certain circumstances, so over time, someone could go from a Christian to a pagan and feel and see totally different things.

For an example  I want to mention near death experiences. Near death experiences are typically explained by some scientists as auditory, visual, and sensory hallucinations, some scientists think that the brain is still active to a degree after clinical death. Of course this is still being researched and debated but it would explain near death experiences and why they are all similar. Near death experiences are influenced by culture. Culture is a learned trait and for most people this culture is the same, especially when isolated. That could also be the reason why some people experience the same things as they do rituals, prey, etc. It is shared belief and it creates memories, among other things, as our brains are wired to fit these beliefs.


Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again? There is a common knowledge that several brain areas are involved in memory processes and each area is involved in a different aspect of memory.

But where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?

This is a good question.

The question of "where" is not answered yet by mainstream science. One problem is the huge amount of data we get only through our eyes each day, approximately about one terrabyte if this data is compressed by modern algorithms. A lifetime of 100 years would be almost impossible to store "inside our brain".

There are some alternative theories which could explain how the brain stores data. Maybe our brain works like a antenna, similar to a computer which has a access to a vast data pool from the internet. You could ask the question where is the movie inside the television or where is the internet inside the computer? Certainly a computer has a harddrive, a local data storage unit and a cpu, but it is very limited in processing everyday data for a lifetime. It would be very restricted if it would not access to outer data pools.

Carl Gustav Jung has wrote about the theory of a collective subconsciousness and he was in contact with Wolfgang Pauli, a quantum physics pioneer. I would not wonder if we one day discover that our memory is nonlocal.

To explain this, it depends how far we want to go with the answers.
According to Wikipedia, it's one of the question on List of unsolved problems in neuroscience related to Learning and memory which are:

Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?
How can learning be improved?
What is the difference between explicit and implicit memories?
What molecule is responsible for synaptic tagging?

There are many unknowns in that field, because it's paradox of using our brains to understand our brains. Basically our brains are too complex and if we were simpler, we'd be dumber and couldn't understand it, anyway.
As Ian Stewart quotes:

'If our brains were simple enough for us to understand
them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.'

Here are some answers according to mainstream science:

All our memories do get stored by the brain for varying periods of
time; some are stored in our short term memory and don't stick with us
for very long, while others are filed away in our long term memory.
The actual capacity of our brains for storing memories has been
difficult for scientists to determine, though it is believed that
because our brains consist of a vast number of neurons
Experts believe the brain uses three memory-storing stages: sensory,
short-term and long-term. The different stages act as filters,
beginning with when we first see something, until the flood of
information is processed. The filtering protects us from having too
much unnecessary information requiring storage. Perception, therefore,
is the first step in memory creation and is associated with the
sensory stage, where the registration of information during perception
takes place for a brief second. Sensory and short-term memory
information tends to decay rapidly, with only the important
information gradually moved to long-term memory.
Short-term memories like a possible chess move, or a hotel room number
are processed in the front of the brain in a highly developed area
called the pre-frontal lobe, according to McGill University and the
Canadian Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction.
Science tells us that while our brain may store different types of
memories in various areas of the brain, recalling a memory is a
brain-wide process.
Types of memories and where they are stored in the brain include:

Semantic memory: General knowledge, trivia and facts are stored in    the temporal lobe and the cortex.
Episodic memory: New data and    recent events are stored in the prefrontal cortex and the temporal    lobe.
Working memory: Information and knowledge required for daily    life -- such as telephone numbers and learned skills like driving --
are stored in the prefrontal cortex.
Procedural memory: Secondhand    skills, things we take for granted, such as walking and cycling, are    stored in the cerebellum.

While it isn't known exactly how many connections are possible in the
brain, or how large the storage area for memory might be, scientist do
know that our memories are not stored in one memory center in the
brain, rather, the events and experiences of a single memory may be
stored in many different areas of the brain. For example, when someone
recalls a trip to the beach, he or she might remember that the sand
was white, the ocean was blue, the air smelled like salt water and
seagulls were squawking. To recall that one memory, the brain doesn't
visit the "beach memory center," but pulls the different components
together from various cortices. The blue water and white sand are
retrieved from the visual cortex, the salt water smell from the
olfactory cortex, and the squawking gulls from the auditory cortex.
For the average person, not every memory is consolidated, or stored,
in long term memory, freeing up space. But in certain rare cases of
exceptional memories, some people have been known to store and
perfectly recall nearly every detail of every memory from most of
their lives, a syndrome known as hyperthymestic syndrome. Researchers
declared the first known case of hyperthymesia in a subject known as
AJ, a then 40-year-old woman could accurately recall every event that
had ever happened to her since the time she was 14 years old.

Another thing what is also interesting to point, that Einstein's brain was removed during an autopsy and kept it in hopes of studying it to unlock the secret of Einstein's genius. It's theorized that the lack of the fissure allowed his brain cells to communicate faster than the average human's. In summary the three histological studies of Einstein’s brain have, in spite of claims to the contrary, found essentially no differences between his brain and that of controls. This should not come as any great surprise. The brain is obviously an extremely complex structure… to believe that the analyses of one or a few tiny slices of a single brain could reveal anything related to the specific cognitive abilities of that brain is naive.
Sources:

Are all the memories we've ever had still stored in our brains?

See also:

Where Are Old Memories Stored in the Brain? from the Scientific American
How Human Memory Works
Albert Einstein's brain
The Myth of Einstein’s Brain?

According to New Age movement and similar (not supported by the mainstream science) our brain is a biological computer that interfaces with a conscious entity (our consciousness, soul or higher-self). And our experiences/memories are stored in forms of the akashic records (on quantum level in forms of photons) in our DNA (which is our quantum mechanical biowave computer) as part of our etheric body and are retrieved by our consciousness by our free will. Various of peoples out-of-body experiences supports that theory including some scientific evidences. Our brains still have some storage function, but it's not the main repository of our memories/experiences.
The scientific theories are in favor for above:

Holonomic brain theory
Holographic principle (universe existing as a 'hologram' and everything is made of electromagnetic fields)
Double-slit experiment (which proves consciousness on quantum level)
The DNA Phantom Effect discovered by quantum physicist Dr. Vladimir Poponin
The Big Bang theory and The Big Crunch
Quantum phenomena in biology

Including controversial project called Global Consciousness Project  relating to the anomalous spikes that precede the towers being hit 9/11.
There is also the new research from Emory University School of Medicine, in Atlanta, has shown that it is possible for some information to be inherited biologically through chemical changes that occur in DNA.
See also DNA is a Torsion field antenna by Dr. Len Horowitz and scientist proves DNA can be reprogrammed by words and frequencies.
Scientists which support New Age theory are i.e. Max Planck, Robert Lanza, Gregg Braden and many more.
Famous quotes:

“I  regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative
from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything
that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates
consciousness.” – Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning originator of
quantum theory, as quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
Max Planck said "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most
clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a
result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as
such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which
brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute
solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force
the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the
matrix of all matter" in 1944.
Albert Einstein: "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us
"Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind
of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself
from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish
it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable
measure of peace of mind."


Is there evidence that brain and mind are separate? I've heard countless discussions about whether or not the mind is separate from the brain, but they have all been philosophical.

I am looking for peer-reviewed studies that suggest the mind is not just a by-product of the brain, as I feel this is quite an extraordinary claim.

Are there any such studies?

Another approach to this issue is to consider whether this kind of reductionism ("mind is just a by-product of the brain") is useful. Strictly speaking, architecture is "just a by-product of physics and materials science", but there are phenomena that are usefully described at the level of architecture and would not be well-captured by the atomic and molecular properties that underlie them. The same holds for the mind and brain: we can study the neural correlates of psychological phenomena and these studies are sure to help us understand those phenomena, but they are not logically equivalent. This view has been articulated by many people, here is one (peer-reviewed) example: Miller, G.A. & Keller, J. (2000). Psychology and Neuroscience: Making Peace. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(6), 212-215. You don't need to be a dualist to hold this view, just to understand that phenomena can have different levels of analysis.

"Evidence " means physical evidence, I guess. The paradox is this - are there non-physical phenomena for which there is physical evidence?

Is there evidence for Out-of-body experiences? If you never had one, you would say no. However, try to guess the answer before jumping here :-)

Can we do a thought experiment? Nuclear war, Solar flares, green house effect, whatever. Humanity has gone blind. Lost the sense of sight.

Thus shapes, colours, forms, changes of state of these properties etc cannot be perceived. They do not see clouds, the blue sky, the far-away stars, birds flying silently in the sky, distant blue seas, lush green forests and so on. Undoubtedly a greatly diminished life, compared to people like us.

Now, if one or two of them acquire eyes somehow, a whole new world opens up. They start experiencing and describing things that seem incredible to other people. They may be considered to have too much imagination, or even mad. They may eventually be persecuted or thrown out of the human community.

The history of science itself has plenty of these happenings. Until radio waves were discovered, Science did not know of its existence, though radio waves have existed for all time. This example extends to x-rays, gamma radiation and many other phenomena discovered at some point in time.

If due to some future catastrophes, suddenly the faculty of colour is lost, then Science will gradually start to deny the existence of colour. If people with long memories, or memories of their ancestors’ tales, talk about these things, they will be considered superstitious.

Update: (@Josh) - Another thought experiment. A 2-dimensional being cannot fathom that things are happening in a 3-dimensional world. Any physical phenmenon will appear to arise from other physical phenomena in 2 dimensions. Similarly, things coming from a 4th dimension will appear to be happening in the 3-dimensional world that appears to our senses.

The fourth dimension theories of Hinton and Ouspensky have a thorough treatment of the subject.


Would a diagnosis from a layman be legitimate if it follows the definition of the disorder? Assuming a layman with no formal training (person A) says "person B has disorder X". A should not make such diagnosis because they don't have the training. But if A does that because it fits the definition, then wouldn't their conclusion be correct? For example, I know that for a person to have borderline personality disorder they need to have at least 5 of 9 criteria. So if B does have that, then would A be fine to conclude that B has that disorder, in spite of the fact that A isn't trained?

Here are some basics on the diagnostic process:

  There are two main sources of disagreement in
  assessing psychiatric disorder or, as Feinstein
  (1985) wrote, 'two different phases of the
  observational process'. First, in the assessment
  of psychopathology; to transform ' the observed
  phenomena into certain raw elements of descriptive
  data'. Second, disagreement arises from
  the combining of detected psychopathology to
  yield diagnoses;' In the second phase, these raw
  descriptive elements are converted into a
  category of final expression' (Feinstein, 1985).
  Efforts have been made to standardize both
  these areas. [...]

And if this needs a quote, here's the obvious fact:

  Lay interviewers are unable to exercise expert
  clinical judgements in making decisions about
  the presence or absence of symptoms. [...]

  There are some particular problems in attempting
  to standardize assessments of psychiatric
  disorder. Lack of insight into mental
  illness, a problem when assessing people with
  psychotic illness especially, can affect responses
  to questions. The extreme example is the deluded
  patient who will say there is nothing wrong. In
  the training of a clinical psychiatrist much stress
  is put on obtaining historical details from
  informants other than the patient because of
  clinical evidence that those with severe mental
  illness can be misleading historians. For
  example, a subject with a delusion of persecution,
  may state that neighbours are deliberately
  making loud noises, or moving furniture in
  order to annoy. Such statements would lead
  most clinicians to investigate further by means
  of informants, though others might rely purely
  on clinical impressions from an interview.
  Attempts to standardize assessments of psychosis
  are more difficult and of a different nature
  from the problems of standardizing minor
  psychiatric disorder when insight is rarely
  impaired to an extent which affects the validity
  of self-report. A similar problem arises when
  attempting to standardize assessments of conversion
  hysteria or other physical disorders with
  a presumed psychological aetiology.

It's not a slam dunk that standazing the interviewing process will eliminate experience as a factor, for example

  There are also concerns that lay interviewers
  are an important source of bias when using the
  PSE. Lay interviewers tend to score more highly
  than psychiatrists and so estimate a higher
  prevalence of psychiatric disorder. For example,
  Sturt et al. (1981) found that the mean PSE
  scores for lay interviewers were nearly 30%
  higher (4-12 v. 3-20) than those of the psychiatrically
  trained interviewers. Trends in a similar
  direction and of a similar magnitude have also
  been described by Rodgers & Mann (1986),
  Wing et al. (1977) and Cooper et al. (1977).

PSE is the former name of SCAN more or less the WHO-equivalent of the more commonly used SCID. Both are semi-structured interviews in which open-ended questions may be asked, but the SCID allows more freedom, including skips and completely novel questions from the interviewer.

With this long preamble, there has been a lot of research on instruments that would allow a layman to diagnose mental disorders with some level of reliability. These include CIS-R, CIDI, and even the older GHQ. These generally have a short[er] format and don't try to cover an entire diagnostic manual.

Trying to produce something that would beat the SCID (or even the SCAN) with lay interviewers didn't go well, insofar. Probably the most substantive effort was NIMH's DIS; the combination of its complexity (trying to assess the majority of  DSM-III diagnoses) and use of lay interviewers didn't go well. E.g.,

  Eaton et al., (2000) reported on 349 subjects reinterviewed by psychiatrists using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) following a DIS interview. Results indicated that the DIS missed many cases judged to meet criteria for diagnosis using the SCAN (29% sensitivity), and agreement between the lay versus clinician administered assessments for major depressive disorder was only fair (k=0.20).

(That's frankly understating it fair bit. A kappa of 0.2 for depression is pretty abysmal.)

Besides

  Due to its highly structured format, full administration of the DIS-IV typically
  requires between 90 and 150 minutes. To shorten administration time, the
  modular format makes it possible to drop evaluation of disorders that are not of
  interest in a particular study. Another option is to drop further questioning for a
  particular disorder once it is clear that the threshold number of symptoms needed
  for diagnosis will not be met. Although designed for use by nonclinician administrators,
  training for competent administration of the DIS is necessary. Trainees
  typically attend a 1-week training program at Washington University, during which they review the DIS manual, listen to didactic presentations about the
  structure and conventions of the DIS, view videotaped vignettes, complete workbook
  exercises, and conduct several practice interviews, followed by feedback
  and review. Additional supervised practice is also recommended.

So even this layman-oriented interview is not exactly an exercise where experience and training don't matter. Basically, the obvious conclusion is that the more fine-grained your diagnostic manual is in terms of disorder classification, the more experience and training is required to use it, even with fairly standardized instruments. (Of course that doesn't even bring into discussion whether all diagnostic categories can even be reliably distinguished, even in the best of circumstances, interviewer-wise.)

There's not a lot of research on the use of SCID by non-professionals because its use this way is discouraged. I did find one paper which did attempt this although the contrast was not with another SCID interview by a clinician, but rather with the consensus lifetime best estimate (CLBE) diagnosis (given by professionals) taken to be "gold standard".

  The overall agreement between the SCID-derived [they mean SCID applied by a trained non-clinician] and CLBE [consensus lifetime best estimate] DSM-IV diagnoses was very low (kappa 0.18). The SCID tended to diagnose more patients with major depression and fewer with schizophrenia and schizotypal disorder. It was clear that the major source of the diagnostic differences was information variance. A brief, or sometimes monosyllabic response to a question of the structured interview was often short of crucial psychopathological information that might have been elicited in an epistemologically more adequate manner.

  Fennig et al showed a high diagnostic concordance for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder between the SCID diagnosis by non-clinician interviewers and the best consensus diagnostic estimates performed by psychiatrists. However, that particular study was limited to patients who were already diagnosed with a psychotic condition. More importantly, the SCID-elicited information also served as the main source of the best consensus estimate. This implies little information variance between psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists, i.e. clinician- and non-clinician raters made their diagnoses upon similar information. Minimizing information variance is exactly one of the cornerstones of the structured interview, but it does not guarantee the quality (validity) of the information.

  [...]

  In conclusion, this study demonstrated a poor diagnostic performance of a structured psychiatric interview conducted by a for-the-purpose trained non-clinician. Such an interview approach cannot be recommended for clinical work, due to a high proportion of misdiagnoses. The high specificity for the diagnosis of schizophrenia (100%) may suggest a limited applicability of such interviews in research with the purpose of a confirmation of an antecedent, clinician’s diagnosis.

What I also find interesting in this study, although not highlighted by its authors, is that the non-clinician categorized correctly all [CLBD] cases of major depression (using SCID). The [sub-]sample was rather small though (14). On other hand, he misdiagnosed a whole bunch of other [CLBD] cases (36=50-14) as being major depression. (High sensitivity, low specificity). That's not too surprising to me because even in primary care depression is generally overdiagnosed "for every 100 unselected cases seen in primary care, there are more false positives (n=15) than either missed (n=10) or identified cases (n=10)"; physician training as well as resorting to reassessments seems to lower this bias.

And that brings me to another comparison/point I wanted to make: if it's hard for primary care physicians to diagnose mental health problems accurately, it's not reasonable to expect laymen to do better (in similar circumstances).

As long as the criteria do match, then the diagnosis is correct. Some disorders can have overlap criteria, but a disorder should have a unique set of symptoms. If the symptoms B has match a unique set of a disorder, then we can conclude that B has it, and can conclude that the person making that conclusion correct.

 I know this answer has no reference, but since no one explicitly confirms or disagrees with what I really ask, so I put it as an answer so everybody can vote on it. (Downvotes are welcomed.)

On the other hand, I think that this is just basic logic/epistemology, so there is no need for reference either.


How long does physical attraction typically last in a permanent relationship? How long, on average (and with as much other statistical data, e.g. standard deviation, as possible) does physical attraction between male and female in a permanent relationship last?

I believe this is a well-founded question based on the assumption that elderly couples are almost never physically attracted to one another, so almost always there is a point of earliest physical attraction loss. If you think that assumption is false, please let me know.

I'm not sure I can give you the data purely for physical attractiveness, but what has been intensively researched is passionate love, which includes physical attraction. Passionate love is usually assumed to include sexual desire, and correlates quite well with rated attraction. As Hatfield writes:

  Generally, passionate love is associated with the terms “arousal,” “desire,” “lust,” “passion,” and “infatuation".

I hope that's what you're asking for.
Elaine Hatfield (of the "would you go to bed with me?" study fame) has developed the Passionate Love Scale; Tennov has researched Limerence. Other famous names in this regard are Liebowitz and (Helen) Fisher. The counterpart to passionate love is often called companionate love, attachment, or affection.

Qualitatively speaking, on average, passionate love goes down with relation length. As Hatfield says, time has a "corrosive effect". Past researchers conceptualize this in a multi-stage model of relationships, where relationships naturally transition from passionate love into compassionate attachment. A well-known correlate of this is the "7-year itch", corresponding to a globally consistent mode around 4 years after marriage for divorces. However, some people report passionate love after decades of being together.

In all attempts to quantify any of this, there are a number of critical cofounds. @what has already brought up that some objective component of attractiveness might naturally decline with age. I'm not so sure this is that dramatic though, because there are well-known compensatory mechanisms for attraction within relationships that might be more important than e.g. decline of outsider-rated attractiveness with age. After all, what correlates with how attractive you rate someone is not the same as how attractive your partner is to you.
Moreover, there is a reliable difference between studies on younger and on older couples; the correlation between relationship length and passionate love/attraction is very reliable in young couples, but much weaker in older couples, and while younger couples often break up seemingly because passion has waned (as passion and satisfaction are correlated), there are older couples who're passionately in love (here and here). As Hatfield speculates, this might be because couples were passion is stable have a much higher chance to last, but those where it wanes quicker, end quicker. So that's for cofounds. I did not find any clear solution to this problem, and I can't really think of a good way of dealing with the self-selection problem (where longer relationships will inherently qualitatively differ from younger ones because they must have certain qualities to have come that far).
However, the relationship within relationships seems to hold, with a negative correlation within both older and younger relationships.

Quantitatively speaking, a much-quoted figure is Tennov's "18 months to three years". Exceptions are assumed to be comparatively rare, but also known to exist.
I can't give you the standard deviation on this, but I can give you something better: a regression model. One is by Sprecher & Regan, page 172, one by Hatfield, page 404.
Of course, this will not give you the single point in time where passionate love suddenly ends; but this is not realistic either. In relationships, attraction usually doesn't suddenly stop, it wanes. Graphically speaking:

However, I also found a much more optimistic picture for physical attractiveness over time in a large (almost 2000 people) sample:

What is clear even here however is the "7th-year itch".

I think here is study you are looking for: Sex Differences in the Implications of Partner Physical Attractiveness for
the Trajectory of Marital Satisfaction

Report from 4 independent longitudional studies.

This is not so easy question to answer. For sure there are difference between male and female in M and sd. Especially it is determined by interpersonal dynamics (Koch, Mansfield...)

The second difference is in love style (Sternberg, Triangular theory of love)

Also it is known that attractivnes at age 16 is also important (Benzeval, Green...)

Andy many other variables is important for this simple question...

0) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24128188
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19817035
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love
3) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0063975

EDIT: Im sorry for bad formating. I am on work now so I wanted to reply quick. In first study (you have to download the study and read it) you have a lot of predictors of martial satisfaction including atractivnes of wife) at beginning  of relationship and later. So you can track how physical atractivness decline and other predictors raise in concept of martial satisfaction)

Other articles are here to describe other influential variables which are not described in first article.

Please read the first article, you have APA full text in the upper right corner.


Word for person showing psychological projection Is there any single word for a person who shows more psychological projection (the defence mechanism of attribution of your own undesireable qualities to someone else) than a normal person? And is there a specific term for such condition?Wikipedia link
everydayhealth.com

Let me explain my question. A person showing extreme self importance is called a narcissist. So what do we call a person who shows extreme projections?

Projection is both normal (we all do it always) and (in excess) a symptom of many different psychological disorders.

There is no name for such a person, as that symptom never occurs in isolation.

It is not correct that extreme self-importance makes someone a narcissist. Again, extreme self-importance can be found in many different disorders, and narcissism has many additional symptoms.


Has the perception of time changed over the last century? (e.g. 1960's vs. now) How does one measure perception of time? And has it changed over the last century? My gut feeling says that people in the 50s & 60s found time to be passing slower compared to people in the present generation.

Time perception also changes as we grow older. For older people it seems to pass more quickly than for the young.

I think, for a start, that you are absolutely right that time passes faster for older people. How can you do research to show this? It's a silly comment. Life itself shows that this is the case. When you're young (under your teens), normally, you enjoy life every day, crying and laughing. The days seem to last "forever". Although it is said that time flies by when having a good time. But I think the last is the case for older young ones (like Einstein said when having a good time with your girlfriend time seems to pass much faster than holding you're hands on a hot object for a minute). Though it could be possible that in a Hopi society (to name an example) this isn't the case, but I'm 100% are it's the case when growing older.
Considering your question. It is said we are living in fast times these days. It's a rat's race. Are living fast and the perception of the speed of time connected? I think indeed. When I lay in my bed the whole of the day while feeling depressed, I can tell you that time passes slowly! Except when you sleep, of course. When I have many things to do (which I like) there can't be plenty of time enough, so time flies by. On the contrary, doing a job you hate for eight hours, will slow down your perception of time. Always looking at the clock: when can I go home?
I think this has been the case in all eras we are looking at. Why shouldn't it? I think a physical clock will have no effect on that. In almost all, if not all, cultures a physical clock is present. It's not a Swiss-made precisely ticking clock or an atomic clock, but one that resides in Nature.
So my answer: No.


This is the 2,000th question posted. Why do people care about big round number events more than the surrounding events? People seem to have a preference for celebrating "big round numbers", like the 2,000 post in the forum (although the 10,000 post would probably be more "special" - but not the 10,234 post, so it's not strictly a magnitude bias). There are lots of examples of this. Sports stats are another: baseball players celebrate 3,000 hits, 500 home runs, and 20 wins. Football players 1,000 yard seasons, and so on.

Why do we prefer marking events that are round numbers?

I might be wrong but it might have something associated with the numerical goals we acheive as children, young adults and grown up. For example, becoming 10 years of age is a sign of maturity, mainly due to the double digits it contains. This leads us (as children) to believe that we are that much closer to becoming adults. When people turn 40 or 50 they put a lot more pressure on them selves than they would have if that number was decreased a year or two. Maybe it's the obvious facts such as 50 is closer to 60 than 49 is?

Also, when we learn how to count, we don't necessarily stop at 3, or 7, 10 is usually the number that kids are first introduced to, and once they learn it get appraise from external figures.

Basically, our preffered simplicity for numbers may or may not reflect our own personal achievements during our childhood and other significant life experiences. I know for a fact that I wouldn't be as proud of running a 39.7K as I would have been for running a 40K, even though the difference is a tiny 0.3.

When we announce our achievements to others we say "I'm in the top 10 for my age in cross-country!", assuming we come 7th, top ten sounds like a greater acheivement, this is just me, others may have different opinions.

Growing up and being congratulated for our achievements by older family members and other adult figures for unspecified winnings might have an impact on our greater admiration of "rounded numbers". I'm not quite sure whether or not I explained my self very well but I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Because round numbers are easier than full numbers. For instance, $$10^9=1000000000$$ saves a  lot, instead of $$997843863678632762767267863$$ I do not know how to give you a short description of this number.


What is the term for "What has been seen cannot be unseen" in cognitive sciences? During a discussion with my officemate I told him that I read somewhere that the gas pillar in Carina nebula looks like a cat punching the dog; ever since then, every time my wallpaper slideshow switches to this wallpaper, "cat vs dog" is the first thing that comes to my mind. We were curious whether there is some dedicated terminology for this.

I learned via Google that this is a meme called "What has been seen cannot be unseen", I wonder what is the term for this phenomenon in cognitive science? Like a memory bias during the perception of something? Or it is that people tend to visualize some new concept/picture/term as something they are more familiar with subconsciously?

The most relevant term would be Ironic Processing.

  Ironic processing is the psychological process whereby an individual's deliberate attempts to suppress or avoid certain thoughts (thought suppression) render those thoughts more persistent.

This is a result of a failure of Thought Suppression or more generally Motivated Forgetting. It appears Thought Suppression doesn't work well and generally the attempt to not think about X results in a sudden increase of thoughts about X.

Since you have a sudden increase of thoughts about the "suppressed" thought, you're strengthening retrieval of it, and you might even be conditioning that thought with the reason you don't want to remember it.

An immediate effect comes to my mind, even though the description doesn't exactly describe the problem:
Hindsight bias

Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination, after an event has occurred, to see the event as having been predictable, despite there having been little or no objective basis for predicting it.[1][2] It is a multifaceted phenomenon that can affect different stages of designs, processes, contexts, and situations.[3] Hindsight bias may cause memory distortion, where the recollection and reconstruction of content can lead to false theoretical outcomes. It has been suggested that the effect can cause extreme methodological problems while trying to analyze, understand, and interpret results in experimental studies. A basic example of the hindsight bias is when, after viewing the outcome of a potentially unforeseeable event, a person believes he or she "knew it all along".


Are mentally ill people more violent? A lot of people are afraid of people with mental illnesses because they think they're more violent but is that true?

I think it's wrong even though I don't really understand the pages I found on google. I found this article from University of Washington which states among other things that "the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent". I understand this article but it is really short.

'Mental Illness' covers such a broad range of illnesses that it would be very difficult to answer your question. However, general consensus is  that: people who are receiving an effective treatment for a mental illness are no more violent or dangerous than neurotypical/ 'healthy' people. People with a mental illness are more likely to harm themselves or to be harmed. There is a weak association between violence and mental illness, especially when alcohol or drug misuse is involved. Early treatment of mental illness is the key to preventing violence. This article covers the topic fairly thoroughly:

Link, B. G., & Stueve, A. (1995). Evidence bearing on mental illness as a possible cause of violent behavior. Epidemiologic Reviews, 17(1), 172-181.

This is from their conclusion on mental illness and public safety:

  People with mental illness pose no greater threat to public safety than do such other "high risk" groups as men or young adults or people with less than a high school education.

I love the way this question is structured. It naturally implies a prejudice and a hatred for those who're mentally disabled, which seems to imply that neurotypical people tend to be more violent.

And that's actually true. There's a history of neurotypicality resulting in greater violence and psychopathy than neurodiversity. The thing is? A neurodiverse person has a hard time being a sociopath because they don't have the tools necessary to manipulate people. So when you think of that person who snaps and goes around killing people? That's a neurotypical extravert.

Look up Ted Bundy and you'll see what I mean. Neurotypicals are far likely to snap and become serial killers. Not just that, but numerous studies have shown that neurodiverse people are far less prone to the kind of prejudices and bigotries that neurotyipcal people can have a proclivity for. Prejudices are especially common in neurotypical extraverts a they prefer to have 'their own kind' surrounding them.

So, no. Not really. If anything, the opposite is true. I feel safer being around neurodiverse people, because I know they won't snap and murder me in the most depraved way.


Is Freudian Psychology a scientifically valid contribution to the Cognitive Sciences? Freudian Psychology is based on the work of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). He is the founder of Psychoanalysis and is credited with establishing the field of verbal psychotherapy. Freud is known for his theories of the unconscious mind, dreams, infantile sexuality, libido, repression, and transference, ego, and the superego.

However, despite his acclaimed influence on psychology and psychotherapy, it seems that Freudian Psychology is criticized by many (Horgan, 2017) and is even considered to be pseudoscience.

Is Freudian Psychology considered to be a scientifically valid approach?

Sigmund Freud. source: Wikipedia

Related:
• What are the different branches of Psychoanalysis?
• Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?
• Which schools of psychotherapy are most credible to a hard scientist?

Short answer
Freudian Psychology is considered by many to be pseudoscience, but as pointed out in another answer, there have recently been increasing numbers of comparisons between psychoanalysis and other depth psychology schools (e.g. a long-term study of CBT vs psychoanalysis for depression, where CBT is not much effective) with results which show that

psychoanalysis is just as effective as CBT for many disorders,
it is more effective for certain disorders, and
it is less effective for others.

In other words, psychoanalysis and CBT are both appropriate for certain patients and disorders and that the decision between them has to be made case by case.
Background
Freudian psychology is still applied, and Freudian psychoanalysis is still actively used today and according to the Science Council, Science is...

...the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

It is in the scientific evidence where the support of the Freudian approach is limited. However, Freud's ideas have never been extensively assessed scientifically. For instance, there is no unambiguous evidence that psychoanalysis works (Horgan, 1996) and supporters of Freud’s theories are believed to be influenced mainly on the confirming evidence, while they largely ignore the disconfirming cases (Shermer, 2011). Indeed, Sulloway (Dufresne, 2007) argues that...

The greatest failing of psychoanalysis is its blatant rejection of the
scientific method. Without such methods for critical thinking, a
discipline inevitably drifts from one pseudoscientific system of
belief to another.

It should be stressed, however, that the human psyche is extremely complex and largely not understood. Other theories that are generally regarded as valid science, such as the string theory in astrophysics have never been proven either, and the relativity theory of Einstein took about hundred years to be proven right.
Indeed, distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic (Shermer, 2011). As covered in this answer to Does suppressing a desire make it more powerful?, Freud's work is derived from empirical evidence and backed up with high profile journal articles. Nonetheless, in the gray area between science and pseudoscience, according to eminent critics such as Karl Popper, Frank Cioffi, and Adolf Grünbaum, the theories of Freud are generally placed in the area of pseudoscience as they are seen as non-falisifiable.
Many authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996):

it is not scientific, and
its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific." (Hansson, 2008)

With regard to Hansson's first point, a PsychologyToday article (2016) points out that

psychology was defined by the application of scientific method(s) and psychologists conduct valuable research and have developed some key insights into animal behavior, cognition, consciousness, and the human condition.

Hansson, has since updated his definition of pseudoscience to an "improved version" (Hansson, 2013)
References

Dufresne, T. (2007) Psychoanalysis and Pseudoscience: Frank J. Sulloway Revisits Freud and His Legacy, Dufrense, T (Ed.) Against Freud: Critics Talk Back Stanford: Stanford University Press
Hansson, S. O. (1996). Defining Pseudoscience. Philosophia Naturalis, 33(1): pp. 169—176Still to find DOI/PMID reference
Hansson, S. O. (2008) Science and Pseudo-Science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition) [Online]
Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In: Pigliucci, M. & Boudry, M. (Eds.) The philosophy of pseudoscience, Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 61-77.
Horgan, J. (1996). Why Freud isn’t dead. Scientific American, 275(6), 106-111. or here
PsychologyToday (2016) The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate [Online]
Shermer, M. (2011). What is pseudoscience?. Scientific American, 305(3), 92-92. or here

Supporting network posts

Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?
Why did Karl Popper criticize Freud's theories?

Note
The community is invited to improve this answer. This question-and-answer is discussed here in meta.

Like CBT, EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing) is a clinically tested form of psychotherapy that is strongly grounded in psychological theory and has been shown experimentally to have a positive impact of victims of trauma and complex trauma.  There is some debate about the quality of the evidence and more studies need to be done.

We are now - just - beginning to understand how are genetics, experiences, thoughts and feeling and behaviour interact.  It's an exciting time in cognitive psychology.


What is the fear of having regrets called? What is the clinical name of fear of regrets? I'm thinking of something like arachnophobia or something ending with the prefix "-phobia"
could it be something like apóleiafovía? (the literal greek translation of fear of loss)

Although not a clinical diagnosis, in research on social media the term "Fear of Missing Out" (FoMo) is often used (Przybylski et al., 2013):

Defined as a pervasive apprehension that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent, FoMO is characterized by the desire to stay continually connected with what others are doing.

This sounds related, but perhaps more specific in that it focuses specifically on regret of not having experienced a rewarding experience online.
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in human behavior, 29(4), 1841-1848.

Arachnophobia = fear of spiders.
Neuroticism = condition to feer loss (but I won't diagnose conditions as I am not certified for this).
Atychiphobia = fear of failure


Does pessimism lead to greater happiness because low expectations lead to less disappointment? One might think that optimists would be obviously happier.
However being a pessimist means that your expectations will  usually be worse than the reality. Presumably when reality exceeds your expectations, you will be happier. On the other hand if you always expect something good to occur you will be disappointed when reality does not live up to your expectations.

So in summary:
Does pessimism lead to greater happiness because low expectations lead to less disappointment?

I do believe these concepts should not be applied as in boolean logic, with either ALL PESSIMISTIC or ALL OPTIMISTIC, but in a rather spectral fashion.
Happiness is closely linked to having lower expectations:

(...) Robb Rutledge says, “Happiness depends not on how well things are going but whether things are going better or worse than expected.”

Pessimism also leads to being more careful:

"Our findings revealed that being overly optimistic in predicting a better future was associated with a greater risk of disability and death within the following decade," said lead author Frieder R. Lang, PhD, of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany. "Pessimism about the future may encourage people to live more carefully, taking health and safety precautions."
(...) "Unexpectedly, we also found that stable and good health and income were associated with expecting a greater decline compared with those in poor health or with low incomes," Lang said. "Moreover, we found that higher income was related to a greater risk of disability."

There are pros and cons in each of them:

Being optimistic allows people to pursue their goals in a positive way: to dream a bigger and better dream, which they can work their way towards. Optimists also seem to respond better to positive feedback, and part of being optimistic may be generating this feedback for themselves, i.e. thinking positive thoughts.
On the other hand being pessimistic may help people reduce their natural anxiety and to perform better. Also, pessimists seem to respond better to negative feedback. They like to hear what the problems were, so they can correct them. Again, part of why pessimists generate these sorts of negative thoughts is that it helps them perform better.

Keeping up a mood tending to pessimistic while giving your best in the tasks might be a recipe for greater happiness due to lower expectancies.

I think the two can be mediated with being Realistic.

Sometimes, and in conclusion, this is pessimistic in nature - especially if one tends to dwell on things or generally 'suffer' from dampened, over-extensive neuronal networks.

Pessimism can lead to certain insights that can be a downward spiral of despair, but often lead to recognition of a situation that can be the light at the end of a tunnel.

I think the average stable persons' mindset flickers between the two, regardless of one's perceived outlook on life.  It's about moderation.

I don't believe anything, pessimism or optimism, can lead to happiness - but anything can surely lead to some sort of contentment - which 'realistically' is the best we ought to hope for.

...and painlessness.


Are there psychological explanations for people being drawn to neo-nazism or other bad ideologues? Are there psychological explanations for people being drawn to neo-nazism or other bad ideologues?

Since surely the people are not believing in them for no reason. But what is it that they try to achieve through such ideologues? Are these people "sane"?

Or perhaps e.g. their "superior race" beliefs mean that their ideologue is "rational" in the sense that they feel that they belong to the superior race and other races ought to be discarded in order for only the superior race to flourish?

There are a few questions here which are related:

How does people's sense of right and wrong affect their behavior?
Any research on brain's processes involved in evil actions?

I will try and put some time aside to build a more full answer with references, but to give a starter, there are a lot of studies on this subject starting with conformity studies such as the Milgram Experiment (here is a documentary on the experiment) and the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Philip Zimbardo who was in charge of the Stanford Prison Experiment wrote the book "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" and led a talk on his research on the subject including other examples, but the biggest one for me was turned into a movie in Germany called Die Welle, and in English under the name The Wave.

The movie covered the true story of an experiment with a group of school children who wanted to understand the very same question you are asking, not believing it could happen today.  Things turned nasty and out of control.

Teacher, Ron Jones's "Third Wave" experiment, which took place at a Californian school in 1967 was put together to explain how the German population could accept the actions of the Nazi regime during the Second World War. He founded a totalitarian, strictly-organized "movement" with harsh punishments that was led by him autocratically. The intricate sense of community led to a wave of enthusiasm not only from his own students, but also from students from other classes who joined the program later. Jones later admitted to having enjoyed having his students as followers. To eliminate the upcoming momentum, Jones aborted the project on the fifth day and showed the students the parallels towards the Nazi youth movements.

Image: Cutting of Klink (1967)

All of these studies and experiments provide strong proof that the risk of full Nazi style regimes can return on a national level given the right circumstances.

References

Klink, B. (1967). 'Third Wave' presents inside look into Fascism. Catamount, 11(14), 3Retrieved at: http://www.cubberleycatamount.com/Content/66-67/Catamount%20Pages/V11No14

See Also

Lesson Plan MovieThe documentary by the students and teacher of “The Third Wave” (aka “The Wave”)(http://www.lessonplanmovie.com)

Teacher, Ron Jones' account of the experiment(http://libcom.org/history/the-third-wave-1967-account-ron-jones)

You can look at a number of theories that can explain why people find neonazism seductive.

Schizophrenia- meaning they're delusional.
Social Bond theory- who they respect and bond with
Attachment theory- bonded with a White supremacist caretaker
Belongingness- the need to belong
The idea of manifest destiny and the historical oppression of minorities among others.

I'll edit when I can think of more.


How to specify the quickest movement a human can do based on MTM standards? I am looking for a benchmark as a reference regarding the human Kinesiology that specifies the quickest movement a human can do on basic everyday movements like computer mouse clicking. As far as I know, there is an standard called MTM (Measurement Time Methods) in the field of industrial engineering and ergonomics which specifies the required time for each basic movement to be done by human. This MTM standard time is provided on the basis of not putting the human (worker) in an overload or underload working situation. So I assume MTM cannot provide me with the shortest possible duration (time) a basic movement can be performed.
I am not sure whether we have such a benchmark based on human physiology, Do you have any suggestion in this regard? I recorded response times and have a distribution of these response times for many subjects, however, I would like to estimate the minimum possible response time a human can do in my experiment

I don't know about any MTM standards or benchmarks, but motor response latencies have been assessed in many studies. Importantly, auditory response latencies are smallest, then tactile followed by visual response times. This, because the auditory system is swift, while the visual system is sluggish by comparison (source: Packman & Packman).

For example, Jain et al. (2015) report a mean visual response latency of 247 ms and an auditory response latency of 228 ms. Another study reports approximately 144 and 133 ms, respectively. The lower values are probably because the authors chose the lowest reading as their final measurement Gavkare et al, 2013). Other technical differences may also have yielded deviations. Importantly, stimulus intensity affects reaction time (e.g., louder auditory stimuli decrease reaction time) and other stimulus parameters do so as well (source: Packman & Packman). Importantly, age is positively correlated with reaction time (Ng & Chan, 2012).

A large data set where the authors stratified their subject pool in age groups as well as other parameters can be found in Ng & Chan, 2012.

References
- Gavkare et al,, Indian Medical Gazette, June 2013
- Jain et al., Int J Appl Basic Med Res (2015); 5(2)
- Ng & Chan, IMECS (2012)

Theoretically visual stimuli would be faster than auditory stimuli because of the given speed of light vs sound.  Therefore I personally believe the time from stimuli to recognition would depend on the individual and furthermore the time from recognition to the time of response (ex. Clicking a mouse immediately upon recognition of a sound or sight, followed by [roughly] identifying said object)
With all those variables, in MY OPINION there are  absolute's: 1) light travels faster than sound; 2)visual contains more data than audio


How can I run a placebo medication pills study? Practical advice needed I am a lab manager looking to design a placebo experiment in a behavioral lab with a medical doctor. I believe our study needs to be credible and professional. I'd appreciate any recommendations on details of placebo manufacturer or retailer, type of pill bottle to use, how to create brochures of information about the purported effect of the placebo pill. Info on points of methodology is also appreciated.

Ethical procedures are specific to your country and even differ between universities and sometimes even per department. Of course you know everything about the Declaration of Helsinki, being immersed in the city of its origins (you seem to (have) be(en) affiliated to the University of Helsinki). You seem to be located in NY now, but I'm unsure to your affiliation. So I started wandering on the sites of the uni of Helsinki and the New York University for some information. But note you should look into the local requirements yourself (although your study has likely long since started :-)

First, you need to find out the IRB (or here for NY) you will be dealing with, often operating under a university, or affiliated hospital. These folks can tell you anything you need to know. Here is a site of the IRB with all the specifics you need to submit an IRB proposal to NY Uni. Note that the best thing is for specifics such as pill bottles and placebos is to talk to the IRB, or try to find investigators that have done such a thing recently in your neighborhood.  For example, there's a study from Segal et al (2017):

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with azithromycin selects for anti-inflammatory microbial metabolites in the emphysematous lung,

that was conducted by the New York University School of Medicine and by the looks of it it is exactly the thing you are planning to do. These guys can likely help you out, and reading the papers and related ones may help you as well. For example the linked paper says in the Methods:

  Both placebo and AZM were prepared in an opaque capsule by the NYU pharmacy...

Hence, the NYU pharmacy, apparently, assists in these kinds of matters - the place to go!

Reference
- Segal et al., Thorax (2017); 72 :13-22

This might seem a bit random at the moment, but if you run a 15 minutes personality test on a placebo group you'll be to have a better understanding how it works, so it might help with the methodology and overall conclusion.It might also help the process: a person is likely to cooperate if they believe that you genuinely care. Doing and analyzing test for each subject might come handy for gaining that trust.

I strongly believe that people who have trust in authority are likely to be treated successfully with the placebo. Just like faith healing, but 'modern' one. (No data to back it up, unfortunately.)


Is there evidence that listening to music can aid/hinder concentration or performance? I, like many computer programmers, love to listen to music while I work. I have always believed that music helps me stay focused and motivated, and improves my performance on many types of tasks, espescially "busywork". However my company's CEO disagrees with me, and believes that music is a distraction and leads to reduced productivity. Have any studies been done on whether listening to music while performing a task improves or hinders one's ability to perform that task? Is there a consensus in the cognitive science community regarding this?

It basically depends on how the particular musical performance is perceived by the listener. Cognitive process of listening seems to be comprise several layers, which follows a bottom-up direction.

First step is to decode relevant signal(s), among a complex package of sound. This is where the irrelevant noise is eliminated. Can music be eliminated in this level? Highly unlikely, but still possible. I do not know of a particular experiment but when the music is being played in a far destination, or with a low volume, or if the participant is highly concentrated to the task; then it may be eliminated in this step. But the key point in this step is that the term "noise" refers to aperiodic background sounds. Therefore, my first impression is that music, being periodical, must decrease the task performance. Cutler and Clifton (1999)
gives an overview on the entire listening process. Second step is the grouping of different sound sources. There is also modelling studies that aims to explain this phenomenon (Bregman, 1990). Steps in listening continues further, but those steps are beyond the scope of this question.

But there are other studies also. Ylias and Heaven (2003) showed that the background noise negatively effects reading comprehension. So far so good. Cassidy and MacDonald (2007) showed that task performance on silence is greater than in low arousal music, and that is greater than noise, and that is even greater than high arousal music conditions. This is interesting, because it now introduces the affective state of the listener into the equation, which makes it a lot more difficult to handle. Another result is that the effect of the noise here is comparable to the effect of background music. But we have to note that the details of the noise in this experiment is not given in detail, only commented as "the everyday noise". It would be more conclusive if we just know whether it is the background sound of a television (periodic) or a traffic noise (aperiodic).

Combining these references, I cannot easily conclude that music is taken as a "noise". It seems that music reduces the task performance, by negatively affecting a later step in the listening process.

Ending note: There are several semiformal-informal studies on the web also. They study directly the "work/office performance", therefore I must say that they lack a little bit of a controlled environment. In such environments we can even confidently say that music improves our performance in particular situations. But what we miss is that office environments comprise several unhandled parameters that makes it hard for scientific experimental setup (i.e. listening music may improve the performance if your office mates chit chat next to you).

Ending note 2: I was interested in this topic a time ago. So I welcome more recent references or comments.

Cutler, A., & Clifton, C. (1999). Comprehending spoken language: A blueprint of the listener. The neurocognition of language, 123-166.
Bregman, A. S. (1984, July). Auditory scene analysis. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (pp. 168-175).
Ylias, G., & Heaven, P. C. (2003). The influence of distraction on reading comprehension: a Big Five analysis. Personality and individual differences, 34(6), 1069-1079.
Cassidy, G., & MacDonald, R. A. (2007). The effect of background music and background noise on the task performance of introverts and extraverts. Psychology of Music, 35(3), 517-537.

I realise this is anecdotal, but the answer to this does vary between people. My wife likes to have nothing to listen to while studying or concentrating. I like to have the TV on normally, or Chill Radio, whereas by youngest son has metal music on - not what most people would consider conducive the thought of any sort.

I understand that my wife finds that music or sounds are distracting - she needs to put effort into focussing. I, OTOH, find that the sounds help my focus, but eliminating other distractions - becasue I am in control of the sounds, they are not distracting. Youngest son enjoys the music, so for him it is just pleasant background to studying. Incidentally, my wife and I differ on having a tickign clock in the bedrooom too - she cannot stand it, whereas I fid it soothing and calming, and helps me get to sleep.

I am sure that I have seem studies that back up these sorts of differences, and that they are about differences in the way we think and process information. Cannot find anythig ATM though.


432 Hz vs. 440 Hz frequencies: health and psychological effects? Search for “432 Hz” in YouTube and you’ll find plenty of examples where people have applied a pitch shifter to alter music ranging from a Mozart Requiem to Oasis’ Wonderwall.

But some claim that there is more to this than just preference. There are several blogs that claim that using a normal concert tuning of 440 Hz is bad for our health, but then what do you expect from something first promoted by the Nazis?

  The recent rediscoveries of the vibratory / oscillatory nature of the universe indicate that this contemporary international concert pitch standard may generate an unhealthy effect or anti-social behavior in the consciousness of human beings … There is a theory that the change from 432 Hz to 440 Hz was dictated by Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. [Source: Zen Gardner.]

Also,

432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. Studies reveal that 432hz tuning vibrates with the universe’s golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code and consciousness. When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiraling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the Sun, Earth, and the moon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, the Sri Yantra among many other sacred sites.

  “From my own observations, some of the harmonic overtone partials of
  A=432hz 12T5 appear to line up to natural patterns and also the
  resonance of solitons. Solitons need a specific range to form into the
  realm of density and span from the micro to the macro cosmos. Solitons
  are not only found in water mechanics, but also in the ion-acoustic
  breath between electrons and protons.”

– Brian T. Collins

Another blog wrote that,

  The noticeable difference music lovers and musicians have noticed with
  music tuned in A=432 Hz is that it is not only more beautiful and
  harmonious to the ears, but it also induces a more inward experience
  that is felt inside the body at the spine and heart. Music tuned in
  A=440 Hz was felt as a more outward and mental experience, and was
  felt at the side of the head which projected outwards. Audiophiles
  have also stated that A=432hz music seems to be non-local and can fill
  an entire room, whereas A=440hz can be perceived as directional or
  linear in sound propagation.

Also, there is a group on SoundCloud where people everyday shares different sound tracks based on 432 Hz frequencies.

It is still kind of ambiguous and unclear to me. Does it really work to tune your music to 432 Hz, or it is just a hoax? Does it really effect your sub-conscious state and your health?

One of the claims that is somewhat easy to validate empirically is that "432 Hz sounds better than 440 Hz." This informal experiment tests this in a straightforward way. People listen to pitch-shifted versions of songs at a variety of different frequencies and rate their preference for the song. Importantly, they don't know which frequency the song has been shifted to.

The results pretty clearly debunk the claim that 432 "sounds better" than 440:

The preference ratings were highest at 440, and there was no statistical difference between 432 and 440.

I am a pro musician .... yes i agree that similarity and 'content' in any alleged 'blind' study sample will manifest a relevant INACCURATE difference in results. This has to be done with PET or other diagnostics to arrive at the correct conclusion.

However, as far as 'sacred' or metaphysical......the shape of the cochlea in the ear (natural biologic resonation chamber) and the mathematical science behind the theory of A-432 seems highly plausible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdJinKf-lnw

The human experience detects and reacts to the subtle events...such as 8 cycles per second....IMO.....especially in prolonged exposure..such as normal modern audiophilic activities.

The experiment with the metal and the sand showing the perfectly formed patterns  with A-432 I feel is conclusive to prove a dissonance exists in the tactile and biological architectural realm. Plus the body is 70% 'water' which has been shown to give the same pattern generated results.

As a Professional musician there is NO DOUBT that music effects activity and the  'pace' of human activity.....MUZAK proved that with elevators.....internal thought and healing are natural not psychic human activities so my conclusion is 'YES' A-432 is probably a better vibrational experience which most likely has deeper results in the physical body.


What happens with stress, if there's distraction before a story reaches it's end? I remember reading of a study where children were told stories. During the telling of the story tension rose and the heart rate increased. After the story was over the heart rate went back to normal.

There was another experiment where the story wasn't told to the end. During the telling of the story, attention shifted elsewhere while the tension was still up and the story never reached its end. In that condition, the heart rate stayed elevated.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact source. Can you tell me whether the described effect exists and if so, point me to the studies about it?

When stress is chronic it could provoke bad effects:

High blood pressure
Impaired cognition (maybe it explains the distraction)
Lowered immune system

In my opinion, the distraction could be the effect of the increased level of cortisol... I wish my intervention will be useful.

REFERENCES
Michael S. Gazzaniga, Richard B. Ivry, George R. Mangun (2013),  "Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind: 4th Edition"


What brain wave states are associated with hypnosis? What brain wave states are most correlated with deep hypnosis?

Hypnotic states are associated with increased theta wave activity. Hypnotically susceptible participants also exhibit hemispheric beta wave asymmetry, but non-susceptible participants do not (Sabourin, Cutcomb, Crawford and Pribram, 1990).

References

Sabourin, M. E., Cutcomb, S. D., Crawford, H. J., & Pribram, K. (1990). EEG correlates of hypnotic susceptibility and hypnotic trance: Spectral analysis and coherence. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 10(2), 125-142.

There does seem to be changed activity in the brain, however. The most
  notable data comes from electroencephalographs (EEGs), measurements of
  the electrical activity of the brain. Extensive EEG research has
  demonstrated that brains produce different brain waves, rhythms of
  electrical voltage, depending on their mental state. Deep sleep has a
  different rhythm than dreaming, for example, and full alertness has a
  different rhythm than relaxation.

  In some studies, EEGs from subjects under hypnosis showed a boost in
  the lower frequency waves associated with dreaming and sleep, and a
  drop in the higher frequency waves associated with full wakefulness.
  Brain-wave information is not a definitive indicator of how the mind
  is operating, but this pattern does fit the hypothesis that the
  conscious mind backs off during hypnosis and the subconscious mind
  takes a more active role.

  Researchers have also studied patterns in the brain's cerebral cortex
  that occur during hypnosis. In these studies, hypnotic subjects showed
  reduced activity in the left hemisphere of the cerebral cortex, while
  activity in the right hemisphere often increased. Neurologists believe
  that the left hemisphere of the cortex is the logical control center
  of the brain; it operates on deduction, reasoning and convention. The
  right hemisphere, in contrast, controls imagination and creativity. A
  decrease in left-hemisphere activity fits with the hypothesis that
  hypnosis subdues the conscious mind's inhibitory influence.
  Conversely, an increase in right-brain activity supports the idea that
  the creative, impulsive subconscious mind takes the reigns. This is by
  no means conclusive evidence, but it does lend credence to the idea
  that hypnotism opens up the subconscious mind.

  Whether or not hypnosis is actually a physiological phenomenon,
  millions of people do practice hypnotism regularly, and millions of
  subjects report that it has worked on them. In the next section, we'll
  look at the most common methods of inducing a hypnotic trance.

Source: How Hypnosis Works at How Stuff Works


Does self-rated performance predict objective performance over and above other-rated performance? Context:
I was at a talk today where data was  presented  where a group of sports people ranked their own performance and everyone else in the group. This enabled self-rated performance to be correlated with the average of other-rated performance. The general observation was that there was a strong relationship between the two variables, but that where self-rated performance deviated from other-rated performance, people tended to rate themselves higher.

This raises the question of what this self-other discrepancy represents.
One answer is that people have a self-serving bias.
Another answer is that people have unique information about themselves.

Question:
Thus, I'm interested in studies that have looked at what self-rated performance predicts over and above other-rated performance. In particular:

To what extent does self-rated performance predict objective performance over and above other-rated performance?

I imagine these findings would vary as a function of a range of factors including type of task, number of rated used form the other-rating, and so on. But at first instance, I'd be interested in any empirical examples.

I don't know of a study that tries to answer your specific question but you might want to have a look at illusory superiority, "a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their positive qualities and abilities and to underestimate their negative qualities, relative to others" (wikipedia).

I can especially recommend the paper by Dunning and Kruger (1999): Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments (also the winner of the ignoble price for psychology, 2000). In this paper the authors show that people who are competent in a certain domain are pretty accurate in predicting their performance in this domain (compared to objective standards). On the other hand, people who are incompetent typically overestimate their performance (i.e., predict to perform good, whereas they perfom poorly). This overestimation is mainly driven by their lack of knowledge about that domain. If they are taught that they are poor performers, their prediction goes in line wit their actual performance.

These results could explain your observation of self-other discrepancy, as others might have more knowledge about how to accurately predict performance than the poor perfomers who over-rate their performance.

Reference:

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

Self rated intelligence is garbage.

See

Paulhus DL, Lysy DC, Yik, MSM (1998), Self-Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests?. Journal of Personality, 66: 525–554. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00023

To quote the abstract:

  Correlations between single-item self-reports of intelligence and IQ
  scores are rather low (.20–.25) in college samples. The literature
  suggested that self-reports could be improved by three strategies: (1)
  aggregation, (2)item weighting, and (3) use of indirect, rather than
  direct, questions. To evaluate these strategies, we compared the
  validity of aggregated and unaggregated versions of direct measures
  with four indirect measures (Gough’s Intellectual efficiency scale,
  Hogan’s Intellect composite scale, Sternberg’s Behavior Check List,
  and Trapnell’s Smart scale). All measures were administered to two
  large samples of undergraduates (Ns = 310, 326), who also took an IQ
  test. Although results showed some success for both direct and
  indirect measures, the failure of their validities to exceed .30
  impugns their utility as IQ proxies in competitive college samples.
  The content of the most valid items referred to global mental
  abilities or reading involvement. Aggregation benefited indirect more
  than direct measures, but prototype-weighting contributed little.


How would a psychopath deem their actions? I understand that a psychopath experiences diminished or non-existent empathy and remorse as well as dis-inhibition meaning that they have a certain 'meanness' and a poor impulse control.

I am interested in how they would deem the actions that they perform as a result of their condition. Would they justify their actions as being morally correct? The right thing to do, so to speak.

No, usually they are smart and know that their actions are considered morally incorrect, but they just don't care.


What is the difference between a need, a drive, and a motive? Going by Hull's drive-reduction theory, as stated in Psychology, by Ciccarelli, 4th edition:

  A need is a requirement of some material (such as food or water) that is essential for survival of the organism. When an organism has a need, it leads to a psychological tension as well as a physical arousal that motivates the organism to act in order to fulfill the need and reduce the tension. This tension is called a drive (Hull, 1943).

In the abstract of Mahatoo's (1989) paper, "Motives must be Differentiated from Needs, Drives, Wants: Strategy Implications", the following is stated:

  In a suggested model, motives are suggested as the specific motivational element that directs the consumer′s drive towards a particular response. Thus while needs generate the response tendency, motives determine the specific behavioural action.

What I'm inferring from these two sources of information is that:

1) Need is a physiological/psychological requirement

2) Drive is what propels the organism to eliminate imbalance

3) Motive is the course of action the organism takes when faced with a drive.

An example of point 3 could be the instance where a recuperating substance abuse addict feels the drive to relapse, they may not with the help of proper clinical intervention if their motive is to achieve sobriety.

My question: Am I correct? If not, I would appreciate it if you could post the correction, both for the differences and the example.

The sources and the theory you mentioned are quite old and may be outdated. I learned about drives, needs and motives in a more modern context during my introductory course of Industrial and Organizational (I/O) Psychology. Overall drives are more of a non-human concept that is too simplistic to explain complex human behavior (Landy & Conte, 2013). Nowadays, the definitions below are often used by psychologists.

According to Buchanan and Hyczynski (2013) a need is innate and related to survival such as the need for water, oxygen etc. Needs that are triggered by deprivation are known as drives.

Buchanan and Hyczynski (2013) use the following description of a motive:

  A socially acquired need activated by a desire for fulfilment.

Drives and motives can be contrasted using the information provided by Buchanan and Huczynski (2013):
Drives
 1. are innate
 2. have a physiological basis
 3. are activated by deprivation
 4. are aimed at satiation

Motives
 1. are learned
 2. have a social basis
 3. are activated by environment
 4. are aimed at stimulation

I know I somewhat glossed over the theory you mentioned but I looked it up and it seems somewhat outdated to me. I hope this more recent information helps answering your question!

Further reading:
Landy, F.J. & Conte, J.M. (2013). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (6th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Chapter 8)
Buchanan, D. & Huczynski, A. (2013). Organizational behavior: An introductory text (8th edition). Essex, UK: Pearson Education. (Chapter 9)

In this context, motive does not refer to an overarching goal, but rather, a more immediate one. Judging from the excerpts you provided, here is an example:

1) My body needs nutrients in order to survive.
2) This need results in psychological and physiological discomfort, AKA a drive: hunger.
3) As a result of my hunger, I order take-out. My motive for doing this is that I want food.

The way I conceptualize the distinctions is that it goes need-> drive -> motive -> resulting action.


How does psychiatry judge suicide by military and political leaders? Peru's ex-president Garcia's suicide to avoid arrest reminded me of general officers and politicians who, although wicked, were foxy but rational. They ought've been punished, but they cunningly escaped punishment through suicide.
I'm assuming that some of the jumpers in the Sep 11 2001 attacks on the WTC weren't judged irrational for dying by suicide.

Society in 2019 disapproves and sigmatizes suicide, but what of  such leaders' suicide? How does psychiatry regard their suicides?
See List of suicides, List of suicides in Nazi Germany, Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. Generalfeldmarschalls Robert Ritter von Greim and Walter Model. 2003-2008 South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun - Wikipedia, 1970-183 Chilean President Salvador Allende.

Any similar lists for Japan?  This one one refers just to a handful of Japanese WW2 top brass.
I can think of only: Field Marshals Hajime Sugiyama,  Hideki Tojo (who missed his heart when he shot himself, but  was executed), General Shizuichi Tanaka,  Admiral Chūichi Nagumo.

Suicide is not a psychiatric disorder. Suicidal ideation or attempts are considered a symptom of certain psychiatric disorders (e.g. depression), and these disorders are treated by psychiatrists, but in and of itself suicide can be a rational choice and is in some legislations even legally facilitated by physicians (e.g. for the terminally ill).

Within their professional capacity, psychiatrists have nothing to say about people killing themselves to avoid shame or punishment or as a sacrifice for their country.


Subliminal Persuasion: best chances of success A lot of people are skeptic about the impact of subliminal messages. Good research and experiments on this topic are hard to find.

Therefore, I want to execute an experiment on this topic. To do this right, I'm curious what the best ways are to influence someone's decision making via subliminal messages / priming.

Does anyone have experience or helpful research that will increase the chance of successfully persuading people subliminally in my experiment?

For the sake of "Hail Mary" answers: there's a recent (2016) paper by Ruch et al. claiming unprecedented results:

  Subliminal influence did not significantly decay if probed after 25 versus 15 min. This is unprecedented evidence of the longevity and impact of subliminal messages on conscious, rational decision-making.

You could try to replicate their experiment(s).

To my mind, a good way for your interesting idea is to verify advices how to keep attention of the interlocutor. Do you mean this? Such as "show non-verbal signs of listening, look in pupils", "observe and react to changes of speaker's behavior and body language", etc. So, in one part of observation listeners follow the advices, and in another part listeners just do not follow it.

As for me, results of that experiment are obvious. Since I keep using these advices I always have fruitful talking with people. It really can change your repertoire for the better.


Can hypnosis stop cigarette smoking? Alas, advertisements or commercials for "hypnotherapy" to stop any number of bad habits from smoking to weight gain are almost unavoidable now days.

Are there any actual unbiased studies or hard statistics on whether or not hypnosis is effective at curing an addiction to nicotine, or breaking the habit of cigarette smoking?

Green and Lynn (2000) conducted a meta analysis of 59 experiments investigating the efficacy of hypnosis on smoking cessation. Their conclusions were:

There is mixed, inconclusive evidence for whether hypnosis is any better than placebos.
Hypnosis treatments were generally confounded with educational interventions and cognitive/behavioral interventions, making it impossible to isolate hypnosis as the causal source of positive results.

In short, their conclusion is:

  Hypnosis cannot, as yet, be regarded as a well-established treatment for smoking cessation

Barnes et al. (2010) ran a meta analysis ten years later, and came to the same general conclusion. There is no evidence that hypnotherapy for smoking cessation works better than no treatment at all. They found that claims of success in the literature are generally uncontrolled studies, and that:

  The effects of hypnotherapy on smoking cessation claimed by uncontrolled studies were not confirmed by analysis of randomized controlled trials.

References

Barnes, J., Dong, C. Y., McRobbie, H., Walter, N., Mehta, M., & Stead, L. F. (2010). Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001008.pub2

Green, J., & Lynn, S. J. (2000). Hypnosis and suggestion-based approaches to smoking cessation: An examination of the evidence. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 48(2), 195-224.

Hypnosis is a state of human consciousness involving focused attention and reduced peripheral awareness characterized by an enhanced capacity for response to suggestion. It is however a non-permanent state so even if when you are hypnotised you don't have the impulse to smoke, once the hypnosis is over you'll be back to normal life. Freud was the first who studied this by studying a woman who could not move her arm in any way and when she was hypnotised she could, when the effect was over, she couldn't move it again. So, theoretically it's possible, but you should be in a permanent state of hypnosis, which obviously isn't the best think a person could experience.


How to answer questions that don't seem to be possible to be answered on a Strongly disagree - Strongly agree scale and what's their point? I'm continuously being perplexed by psychological tests that display a lot of questions that don't seem to be able to be answered in a simplistic ways, but nevertheless simplistic answers are demanded.

I was subjected to such tests a few times in my life already. Each time the questions were a major challenge for me... until, out of necessity, I was stopping caring about the accuracy of the answers. Instead, I was giving rough estimations, feeling these estimations are almost meaningless.

As an example, I was once subjected to a test whether I was aggressive, submissive, assertive, or manipulative. The test contained questions like "do I think cunning is an effective way to get what one wants"? Do I think so? Yes, I think it is an effective way insofar people were able to trick me a few times in my life. Do I do this? I try not to and I don't even think I'm any good at it. Nonetheless, such questions clearly contribute to showing that I'm manipulative.

For an other example, let's take the Dark Factor test. We have here questions like:

Most people deserve respect.

My problem with this questions is that, as far as I'm aware, there are many definitions of "respect". How am I supposed to answer this question without knowing what definition of respect we're talking about?

The innate respect that, according to many moral theories, is an indefeasible privilege of every human being?
The respect that is defined as a person's trustworthiness or ability to perform their duty?
The respect that stems from fearing other person?

All 3 definitions entail radically different answers on my part, including an "I don't know, I'm not strong enough in philosophy to be able to answer this" in the first case.

Or another question. "It is sometimes worth a little suffering on my part to help others in need." Is it? I believe yes. Can I? Sadly, rarely. Which of these two answers should I give?

Another category are questions like these two: "It’s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later." and "I feel sorry if things I do upset people." Here, however, my problems with these questions border critiquing the test itself, so I wonder if I'm not falling to the trap of arrogance. Namely, I have a feeling (maybe very wrong) that this test here treats what is not necessarily immoral as if it was. Is it wise to keep track of information that can be used against people later? In most circumstances likely no. But there are situations when this course of action is both necessary and perfectly ethical, I suppose: to protect oneself from these people anticipated unwarranted attacks. Do I feel sorry if I do things that upset other people? This depends on circumstances even more. If I win a sport match I'm likely to upset my opponents: does my attempts to win a fair game make my personality have dark traits? Escaping one's mother's overprotectiveness is likely to make her even more upset: but as far as I can tell, the psychologists' theories were that it is most healthy and necessary to do this. Nonetheless, I have a feeling that a positive answer to such a question would make one's personality darker in the results.

Could someone explain to me what's the point of such questions and how to answer them?

Really good question - I've had this exact conversation with a student.

It's important to understand that mature scales are validated:

  In the fields of psychological testing and educational testing,
  "validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support
  the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of
  tests".

An interesting example is predictive validity:

  ... the extent to which a score on a scale or test predicts scores on
  some criterion measure. ... predictive validity provides somewhat more
  useful data about test validity because it has greater fidelity to the
  real situation in which the test will be used. After all, most tests
  are administered to find out something about future behavior.

From the point of view of the developer of a psychometric test, what a subject might think of a question, how they interpret (or misinterpret) it, or what ambiguity it contains, is not as important as whether or not answers to the question contribute to the validity (especially predictive validity) of the test.  A question that seems meaningless to you, might actually be highly predictive (at least in general) of the criterion measure.

It is not always necessary for the developer to know why a question is predictive, only that it is predictive (provided other validation criteria are also met).  Scales in general are developed using the scientific method - a survey you take that contains say, 20 questions, might originally have contained over 100 questions.  After testing the scale on an experimental group, researchers may discover that 20 of those questions provide 80-90% of the predictive power of the full test, and decide to shorten it.  Researchers cannot really know in advance which questions work best - that's what testing is for!

Another interesting factor in psychometric testing is demand characteristics:

  In research—particularly psychology—demand characteristics refers to
  an experimental artifact where participants form an interpretation of
  the experiment's purpose and unconsciously change their behavior to
  fit that interpretation. ... A possible reason for demand
  characteristics is the participant's expectation that he or she will
  somehow be evaluated and thus figures out a way to 'beat' the
  experiment to attain good scores in the alleged evaluation.

In other words, if you feel like your test score forms some evaluation of your character, then you might try to provide answers that you think will form a desirable evaluation, rather than an accurate one.

However, it is difficult to ascertain the value or purpose of a question in a test - some scales contain questions added for testing internal validity, specifically for detecting demand characteristics and other biases that may affect results.  For example, a test may contain 2 identical questions worded differently.  Different responses to these questions could indicate dishonesty, misinterpretation, inconsistency, or inattentiveness.  Bottom line: I wouldn't worry about what the point of a question is - don't over-think it.

I can understand why you are perplexed. I really does seem like these sort of questions make it so that these tests can't be accurate.

If the tests have a lot of ambiguous questions, it is either going to inaccurate, or it doesn't matter how you answer. How can it not matter what you will answer? It's because they use a technique that palm readers use in Cold Reading. It's called a Rainbow Ruse. This is when a statement both reinforces a trait as well as the opposite of it. When personality tests aren't based on research, they typically use a modified version of a rainbow ruse.


Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again? In one of Karl Lashley's 1950 papers, it is pointed out that information is not stored locally in certain area of the brain. Instead, it's stored distributively over the structure of the brain. I'm curious about how, in detail, is it stored in "structure."

So what's the process when neurons try to encode information "distributively"? How do the brain retrieve these distributed information?

Long-term potentiation (LTP) is thought to be a major mechanism of long-term learning, in which neurons throughout the brain undergo permanent physiological changes (e.g., migration of AMPA receptors to neuronal terminal buttons) that allow maintenance of the memory trace. A simpler version of this would be the famous aphorism (and oversimplication) regarding Hebbian learning -- "cells that fire together wire together."