What is the difference between hypnosis and meditation? It seems that many people say that hypnosis and meditation are very similar. But what are their key differences (both in a soft and hard way)?

I believe this question is impossible to "answer" because the inherent premises in the question are based on the assumption that there are two discrete dichotomous phenomena, "hypnotism," and "meditation," which can somehow be meaningfully "defined," and, then, "compared."

Both "hypnosis" and "meditation" are figuratively vast conceptual collages of imprecise multiple-meanings, observations of what appear to be "special" states of human awareness, and consciousness, admixtures from what in "western science" is termed "psychology" with an equally vast mix of practices, lumped-together as "spiritual," from the world's religions, etc.

From the viewpoint of epiphenomenal philosophy ... wikipedia entry ..., and from some modern, western, theorists of human consciousness as grounded in our biological, neurological, reality, both hypnosis and meditation can be regarded as secondary phenomena: in the sense that they are culturally defined and shaped modes of thought, behavior, and experience, in a "continuum of consciousness," which, over time, are conserved, institutionalized, even valorised into being perceived as "sacred."

In Vipassana meditation, in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition (Sanskrit "sthaviravada," "teachings of the elders") one way the "anti-goal" of meditation could be defined is: it is a practice meant as a vehicle for the de-hypnosis of the "illusory personal, small, self," leading to a direct experience of the "real, undifferentiated, trans-personal Self."

But, in that tradition, in its "purest" form, meditation is not a "goal in itself," and meditation is not a "means to an end" of achieving "altered states of consciousness."

But, there are countless other types, schools, philosophies, of "meditation," with very different conceptual underpinnings, some "secular," some "formally religious," and a wide range of behavioral practices associated with them.

On the "grossest" level, you might say we observe, when we see what appears to be hypnosis of one person by another, a loss of conscious, and subconscious, control of self from the person hypnotized to the hypnotist. But, then: there's stage hypnosis, self-hypnosis, so-called therapeutic hypnosis for behavior modification (such as giving up smoking, etc.).

While we typically associate meditation with acts of what we define, in western psychological terms, as individual "self-control," and "discipline," there are traditions in which group practices (rituals) leading to mass ecstasy are considered meditation (Sufi Zhikr ?).

From one perspective, "cultural identity," itself, can be considered a cohesive set of internalized hypnotic states of mind: continually reinforced from within, and without, the self, and modified in biological development throughout the life-cycle ... I am not referring, here, to the movie-series, "The Matrix" :) !

Suggested readings:

Hypnotism and psychotherapy: Milton Erickson ... Amazon page ....
Psychology and consciousness: books by Robert Ornstein ... Ornstein's website ...; books by Andrew Weill ... Weill's Amazon page ..., books by Steven Pinker, particularly, "The Language Instinct" ... Pinker's website ....
Meditation and Buddhism:

a. Donald Lopez ... "The Story of Buddhism: A Concise Guide to Its History & Teachings" ...: excellent overview of how original Buddhism became "modified:" incorporated a mixture of Vedic/Hindu classic ideas (influence of Advaita Vedanta, and Yogacara schools, for example); incorporated Sivaite Tantra as developed in what is now Bengal; and, later, became "deistic," with an elaborate hierarchic pantheon, in India, Tibet, China, Japan (into what can be loosely lumped together under the rubric "Mahayana Buddhism"). Depending on your biases, you might say, rather than "modified:" "evolved," or "corrupted.."

b. Theravadan Buddhist tradition (Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia), and Vipassana meditation (aka "mindfulness", or "insight" meditation): Walpole Rahula ... "What the Buddha Taught: Revised and Expanded Edition" ...; Thich Nhat Hanh ... Amazon page ...; books by Joseph Goldstein ... recommended: "Insight Meditation: The Practice of Freedom" ...; books by Bernard Kornfeld ... Amazon page ....

There is a clear answer in terms of the biblical model of psychology: they are exact opposites. There is body, soul, and spirit. Picture the soul as a garden, where experiences, thoughts and habits are planted and cultivated. The spirit is the gardener.
In hypnotism, the spirit or gardener is put to sleep so someone else can temporarily come into the garden and plant seeds, dig up plants, etc. In meditation, the soul is put to sleep so the spirit can do some gardening.
Most people are in a hypnotic state most of the time though, meaning their gardener is asleep on the job, so meditation serves to wake up the gardener.
So it comes to the give a man a fish/teach him to fish metaphor. Hypnotism is getting a fish (or maybe a snake) and meditation is learning to fish.
Also for closure in the garden metaphor, the body and external circumstances are the harvest from your garden.


Can short-term hunger influence anger? We know that hunger, whether short-lived or prolonged, causes physiological changes in our bodies. These may have psychological effects too as brain functions are slowed down and can have an impact on psychological processes. In fact, long-term memory formation can be enhanced by mild food-deprivation (Hirano et al, 2013). If hunger influences brain function, then it may have an effect on our emotional states.

Questions

Therefore, if one is hungry (mild food deprivation), is one more likely to exhibit anger generally more so than if one did not experience the hunger?
Are there any studies demonstrating angry responses positive influenced by hunger in people compared to responses by people who were not hungry?

References

Hirano, Y., Masuda, T., Naganos, S., Matsuno, M., Ueno, K., Miyashita, J.H. & Saitoe, M. (2013). Fasting launches CRTC to facilitate long-term memory formation in drosophila. Science, 339(6118), 443-446

yes, hunger increase philogeneticaly older brain activity and supress prefrontal cortex...
so it could be anger or some other negative affect.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763402000076

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/14/5304.short

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/126/6/890/


Can anyone provide a modern source for the average college student IQ of 115? I've read in various places that the average college student IQ is about 115, and the various estimations of IQ by college major reached by converting SAT to IQ all use 115 as the starting point for college students. However, the most recent source for this number is The Bell Curve, which was in the early 1990s. It is also just about the only source of the last 40+ years. Can anyone provide a more recent documentation of the average IQ of college students? (that isn't just a reference to an older study)

Ok I finally found the official demographic norming data from the WAIS-IV on page 104 of this book:

"WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives"

You can see a preview of this book at http://tinyurl.com/z3vr44e.

The answer to my question is: Some college:      102.28
                                College graduates: 110.77

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232514979_The_IQ_of_the_average_college_student

I found this article that seems to answer your question in the abstract. I didn't bother to sign up and read the whole thing though.


Is serotonin conclusively linked to depression? Some highlights from the article "The Depressing News about Anti-Depressants":

ever since a seminal study in 1998, whose findings were reinforced by landmark research in The Journal of the American Medical Association last month, that evidence has come with a big asterisk. Yes, the drugs are effective, in that they lift depression in most patients. But that benefit is hardly more than what patients get when they, unknowingly and as part of a study, take a dummy pill—a placebo. As more and more scientists who study depression and the drugs that treat it are concluding, that suggests that antidepressants are basically expensive Tic Tacs.
One team of researchers wondered if antidepressants were "a triumph of marketing over science." Even defenders of antidepressants agreed that the drugs have "relatively small" effects. "Many have long been unimpressed by the magnitude of the differences observed between treatments and controls," psychology researcher Steven Hollon of Vanderbilt University and colleagues wrote—"what some of our colleagues refer to as 'the dirty little secret.' "In Britain, the agency that assesses which treatments are effective enough for the government to pay for stopped recommending antidepressants as a first-line treatment, especially for mild or moderate depression.
But if experts know that antidepressants are hardly better than placebos, few patients or doctors do. Some doctors have changed their prescribing habits, says Kirsch, but more "reacted with anger and incredulity."
Doctors see with their own eyes, and feel with their hearts, that the drugs lift the black cloud from many of their depressed patients. But since doctors are not exactly in the habit of prescribing dummy pills, they have no experience comparing how their patients do on them, and therefore never see that a placebo would be almost as effective as a $4 pill. "When they prescribe a treatment and it works," says Kirsch, "their natural tendency is to attribute the cure to the treatment." Hence the widespread "antidepressants work" refrain that persists to this day.
Right about here, people scowl and ask how anti-depressants—especially those that raise the brain's levels of serotonin—can possibly have no direct chemical effect on the brain. Surely raising serotonin levels should right the synapses' "chemical imbalance" and lift depression. Unfortunately, the serotonin-deficit theory of depression is built on a foundation of tissue paper. How that came to be is a story in itself, but the basics are that in the 1950s scientists discovered, serendipitously, that a drug called iproniazid seemed to help some people with depression. Iproniazid increases brain levels of serotonin and norepinephrine. Ergo, low levels of those neurotransmitters must cause depression. More than 50 years on, the presumed effectiveness of antidepressants that act this way remains the chief support for the chemical-imbalance theory of depression. Absent that effectiveness, the theory hasn't a leg to stand on. Direct evidence doesn't exist. Lowering people's serotonin levels does not change their mood. And a new drug, tianeptine, which is sold in France and some other countries (but not the U.S.), turns out to be as effective as Prozac-like antidepressants that keep the synapses well supplied with serotonin. The mechanism of the new drug? It lowers brain levels of serotonin. "If depression can be equally affected by drugs that increase serotonin and by drugs that decrease it," says Kirsch, "it's hard to imagine how the benefits can be due to their chemical activity."

Is this article true?  What evidence is there that serotonin is linked to depression?

It's all about the receptors, really.  There are 7 families of serotonin receptors that perform different functions within the brain, and according to Wikipedia 14 different subtypes have been discovered.

The article assumes that a blanket level of serotonin would be sufficient to "perk" up the brain, wherein it is much more complicated.  Serotonin serves to modulate the level of excitation or inhibition depending on the circumstances.  Most of the "effect" from today's antidepressants is related to modulating projections from the dorsal raphe in the brainstem to dopaminergic neurons in the frontal cortex, but some of the serotonergic neurons in the basal ganglia can be hyperactive in situations where there is mild psychosis.  So, depending on the etiology of the depression, suppressing those neurons local to that portion of the anatomy can actually be helpful.

So, it's less to do with the transmitter that is being discussed, and everything to do with which subtypes of receptors are being agonized or antagonized.  While we have learned a tremendous amount about the relationships between neurotransmitters at different nuclei, we still have a lifetime or more of research to go.

Now I didn't read the whole discussion beforehand, just skimmed through it.
Maps.org /Yale Uni is doing quite a bit interesting research on the topic, having better results than any existing antidepressants could dream of. Psilocybin/ LSD/ DMT/ MDMA could be far out to read up on, but psychedelics/ empathogens may be the future answer to a part of the question.

If you check out the Cochrane library on LSD, they also show a significant effect on the global brain communication after intake, which may be beneficial to reset the "loops" that the depressed/ dysfunctional/ addictive brain is in.

I also like the "Deep Rest" (ref: Jim Carrey?) interpretation of depression. It comes to tell your body to take some time off, de-stress, process known or unknown traumas and to find who you are and your purpose here on earth -whatever that may be. Most people don't have time to get to know themselves today, so they rather work long hours to fit into the majority of well adjusted misfits.

For me, I get energy from learning new things at my own pace, finding new subjects of digging into, sharing and discussing knowledge and philosophy, helping people where I can ++. Many places pay people who doesn't even truly care, or care for the wrong reasons, to do these things. But now we're over to worldbuilding.

Follow the money, and you are on the right path to the wrong solution.


Memorizing sets of items It is often useful to memorize a set of items. Many times ordering is not important and we need to memorize a lot of sets. I already know a method for
memorizing lists where we memorize an item for each number and then create crazy associations between the new items and our memorized list of items. This method is not so good when we want to memorize e.g.

DivisionA = { John, Robert, Alex, Arnold, Sarah }
DivisionB = { another 5 names }
DivisionC = { another 5 names }
...
DivisionX = { another 5 names }

This is only a possible example. The sets can change during time, so the memory technique should be flexible. There are a lot of real life examples where is it useful to memorize a set, e.g. a doctor could learn a set of side effects of certain drug. A historian could learn family members of certain king. A movie-expert would like to remember filmography of certain director. There are a lot of such examples when people desire to remember higher number of sets.

Another technique that I don't find much smart is suggested here as converting the set to the list and then memorizing the successors of individual items with spaced repetition. Though, converting to some kind of ordering or association with something else seems to be unavoidable. The bad part is actually the pure memorization.

The disadvantage of the method of loci is that we have to memorize many locations (prepare them in advance) before we can store items to discrete places in that locations. Maybe this technique could be improved in some way.

Which memory techniques are appropriate for this task?
It should have long time retention, good recall, be dynamic (sets can change a little during time).

The literature generally provides strong support for the use of self-testing in cases like this, particularly via the use of flash cards (Karpicke and Roediger, 2008). The efficacy of self-testing for facilitating learning of arbitrary or complex sets of items has been suggested to be driven largely by the combination of two effects: the generation effect (Slamecka and Graf, 1978) captures the tendency for active retrieval of memory (e.g. fill-in-the-blank) information to increase the probability of successful future recall, as well as the spacing effect (Donovan and Radosevich, 1999), which captures the tendency for learning at a moderate intensity over time to outperform learning all at once.
References

Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don't. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795-805.
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968. doi:10.1126/science.1152408
Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, 4(6), 592-604.

Look up Memory Palaces. I taught my girlfriend all the a-typical antipsychotic drugs in about an hour (there were 10 or something. I don't remember.) It was her first time doing it and she still remembers the whole list, in order, 6 months later. Using that "palace," she can add all the drug side effects to each medication by filling the room she placed her item in.

The memory palace technique is perfect for people in science and medicine. For memorizing poetry word for word, I chunk a few words together and memorize the most significant word. It's much easier than filling a memory palace with a ton of words. You can also use this to receit speeches.

If you want a fun, quick read on this, dive into Moonwalking with Einstein.

It's a skill that takes practice and serious effort. And yes, memorizing a few Shakespeare poems has come in handy. Being asked unexpectedly if I brought a poem to a poetry reading, hands empty, was probably the smoothest moment of my life. It's like in Anchorman when Ron plays the jazz flute, except you can bring your jazz flute anywhere.

You'll always be entertained, too, if you memorize some good stuff. Just remember it again and you can experience it anywhere. When you're climbing uphill after a long bike ride, it's like you can turn on the TV.

Edit: Also good to learn memory techniques so you can remember all your map directions and not have to keep checking your phone to go somewhere new.

Double edit: Don't be discouraged by the hour figure. Any normal guy can remember a deck of cards in order after having 10 minutes to memorize it. It just takes practice and a diary to monitor your skill and become an expert.

Daniel Temmet, the math savant, went from normal to incredible by practicing memorization.

And if you memorize by route, just reading and re-reading until you get it in your head long enough to pass a test, you're doing it wrong.


What happens inside the brain when we concentrate? What happens inside the brain when we concentrate (meditate), and why does a person find it difficult to continuously concentrate for a long time? That is, why does one need a break after working or studying for a given time, or why do we lose our concentration after a certain time?

The Neurons become refractory which means that they can't fire again until time has passed. Look up Action Potential and the limits of firing rating.
There is also a competition for different circuits to become conscious so when one becomes tried the other takes over. This is why it is hard to continue to think about one thing, without soon considering something else.


How do personality tests work that require you to choose one of two statement that applies most to you? There are different kinds of psychometric tests, I think the numerical and verbal ones are fair enough, I can see their usefulness. However, I cannot understand how the 'soft' psychometric tests work and how they apply to a particular career.

I just finished one which consisted of 90 'questions', except they were not questions, they were all "pick one of the two following sentences" 90 times. Some made sense, such as

  Do you like to lead a group.
  Do you like to fit in with a group.

But others I could not answer because I could not choose either option for example:

  You are slow at planning.
  You are slow at making decisions.

I have to answer one. In this case, I'd say that I am not slow in either.

How exactly (detail) do these types of psychometric tests work? A link to an open one would be what I am looking for. How do they create the answers? How do they pair them? Do they change based on your previous answers?

There is a large general literature evaluating the degree to which personality tests predict job performance. In particular see for example the review by Barrick et al (2001). In general such reviews find that personality measures provide a small but meaningful prediction of job performance.

Ipsative testing

So in general, you are asking about how personality tests work. But more specifically, you are asking about ipsative personality tests:

  Ipsative is a descriptor used in psychology to indicate a specific
  type of measure in which respondents compare two or more desirable
  options and pick the one that is most preferred (sometimes called a
  "forced choice" scale).

Regarding your statement that you could not answer one of the questions, presumably the instructions asked you to indicate which statement applied most. Thus, it would be hoped that even if there were two statements that both applied to you a lot, or both applied a little, you would be able to indicate which applied more.

For general scientific use where you can rely on people to answer honestly, researchers typically do not use ipsative testing. Ipsative testing generally distorts the correlations between subscales.However, ipsative tests is popular in applied settings such as in selection and recruitment. The argument is that ipsative testing reduces faking.

Relevant references include:

Heggestad et al (2006) interpreted their results to indicate that ipsative testing was not a viable method for controlling for faking:

  Recent research suggests multidimensional forced-choice (MFC) response
  formats may provide resistance to purposeful response distortion on
  personality assessments. It remains unclear, however, whether these
  formats provide normative trait information required for selection
  contexts. The current research evaluated score correspondences between
  an MFC format measure and 2 Likert-type measures in honest and
  instructed-faking conditions. In honest response conditions, scores
  from the MFC measure appeared valid indicators of normative trait
  standing. Under faking conditions, the MFC measure showed less score
  inflation than the Likert measure at the group level of analysis. In
  the individual-level analyses, however, the MFC measure was as
  affected by faking as was the Likert measure. Results suggest the MFC
  format is not a viable method to control faking.

However, Bowen et al reached a more positive conclusion about ipsative testing and the degree to which it is faking-resistant:

  The current study extends previous research by comparing empirical
  data on ipsative and normative versions of the 30-scale Occupational
  Personality Questionnaire (OPQ). Participants were randomly assigned
  to “honest” or “faking” groups. Results support the proposition that
  when the number of scales is large, the measurement dependency problem
  associated with the ipsative format is negligible. There was
  satisfactory convergent validity between ipsative and normative forms
  in both groups. On both forms, the distance between an ideal profile
  and participants' ratings were narrower in the faking group than in
  the honest group. The results suggest that though ipsative measures
  were not completely free from faking, they were relatively more
  effective in guarding against faking than more commonly used normative
  measures.

Meade (2004) discuss ipsative measurement more generally.

  Data are described as ipsative if a given set of responses always sum
  to the same total. However, there are many properties of data
  collection that can give rise to different types of ipsative data. In
  this study, the most common type of ipsative data used in employee
  selection (forced-choice ipsative data; FCID) is discussed as a
  special case of other types of ipsative data. Although all ipsative
  data contains constraints on covariance matrices (covariance-level
  interdependence), FCID contains additional item-level
  interdependencies as well. The psychological processes that give rise
  to FCID and the resultant psychometric properties are discussed. In
  addition, data from which both normative and ipsative responses were
  provided by job applicants illustrate very different patterns of
  correlations as well as very different selection decisions between
  normative, FCID and ipsatized measures.

References

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1‐2), 9-30. PDF
Bowen, C. C., Martin, B. A., & Hunt, S. T. (2002). A comparison of ipsative and normative approaches for ability to control faking in
personality questionnaires. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 10(3), 240-259.
Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L., & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection:
Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 9.
Meade, A. W. (2004). Psychometric problems and issues involved with creating and using ipsative measures for selection. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 531-551.

You have seen that one answer is to the question what do they measure (personality traits). The second answer to the question why (because empirical research repeatedly demonstrates that various personality traits can predict various types of job behaviors: mainly performance, deviance, helping, and innovativeness).

But the burning question...how can I fake out these questions to get the job?
A: it is unlikely that you can. Some people may tell you to try and guess the correct answer and then to maximize that response (in a forced-choice just guess the right answer). In some old school selection models, this actually makes sense. However, this assumes you know what personality-type the employer is looking for.

The challenge is that modern assessment vendors have a variety of response pattern detectors that are triggered when it looks like someone is trying to guess correctly and max out.  These may be actual items that only fakers will pick, like "Everyone likes me" (these are what Christian was talking about), or other more sophisticated detection methods; I work for companies like this, so can't disclose the cooler detection methods.

The hardest thing for the faker is that ultimately you need to know which personality traits are most important and at which level (high,med,low). There is a movement called "evidence-based management" that relies heavily on data and statistical inference in order to justify certain business practices. One such practice is how to weight the personality traits in your assessment battery for employee selection. These weightings are based on statistical models that are proprietary (both the data sources and modeling techniques), may or may not be sample-dependent, and are guaranteed to need revision over the course of a couple of years. This is because employment tests have at best a couple of years of predictive shelf-life. Trying to guess this is like trying to guess the elements of your credit score; well, probably harder.


Does high IQ correlate with good social skills? Are people with a high IQ more likely to have good social abilities? Are they more likely to be popular?

Wikipedia lists that IQ helps with school performance, job performance and income. It's possible to be good at those things without interacting much with other people.

Social skills being the ability to achieve goals such as winning friends, doing well in negotiations, being successful at romance and being good at networking.

The question is more complicated than it seems.

Even though it is easy to agree to that some people are more competent in their social behavior than others, it has proven to be very difficult to define what we mean when we talk about social skills (or "social intelligence", "social competence"). Is it the ability to manage social relationships, does it contain empathy, is it the knowledge about how social relationships work, the number of friends, or being good in negotiations, as you define it? Over the years, researchers have used partly overlapping and partly distinct definitions. For the difficulties associated with conceptualizing social intelligence refer to this review by Kihlstrom and Cantor (2000).

Consequently, this difficulty is also reflected in the difficulty of  measuring social skills. A wide variety of measures have been developed. Based on the multitude of conceptual approaches it is clear that the results of these measures will often diverge. For example, Riggio et al. (1989) conducted a study in which participants completed a large number of standardized measures of social intelligence. The measures included tests that measured the ability to perceive the feelings and intentions of others, the ability to assess interpersonal relationships, various measures aimed at testing the ability to predict social behavior of others and the ability to perceive feelings of others. The correlations of these measures "ranged from  -0.20 to 0.44, with a mean r of 0.20". Thus, they had some overlap among each other, but this overlap was pretty low. Riggio et al. also measured academic intelligence (with a variety of measures) and found that "the measures of academic and social intelligence ranged from -0.10 to 0.52, with a mean r of 0.15". Some have used results like these to question the usefulness of social intelligence as a construct. Others have questioned whether it is possible to distinguish social from other forms of intelligence at all. The methodological problem becomes even clearer if you keep in mind that most social intelligence tests are based on paper-and-pencil (self-report) questionnaires that do not necessarily overlap with peer reports or actual tests of social skills (in an assessment center, for example). In light of these difficulties, it may not be surprising that a prominent review of the literature regards the search for "social skills" as a concept as "long, frustrating, and fruitless" (Landy, 2005).

Even though the field does not seem to have found consensus in the mean time, more recent research shares the idea that it is necessary to take the multidimensionality of social intelligence into account when conceptualizing and measuring them. From this perspective, there will be elements of social intelligence that have a stronger overlap with "pure reasoning" measures of IQ than others. For example, Jones and Day (1997) found in research with sample of high school students that indicators of "crystallized social knowledge" (declarative and  procedural knowledge about social events) were highly correlated (r=.79) with academic problem solving (which is closely to related to what is measured with classic IQ tests). However they were not so strongly related (r=.29) to "social-cognitive flexibility" (the ability to apply social knowledge flexibly to solve novel problems). A strong point of this research is that the researchers combined self-ratings and tests with teacher ratings to assess all of these constructs. These findings suggest that some parts of social intelligence (social knowledge) are virtually indistinguishable from general intelligence. However, other elements of social intelligence (applying social knowledge) are somewhat positively related to intelligence (more intelligent = somewhat better in social problem solving on average).

References

Jones, K., & Day, J. D. (1997). Discrimination of two aspects of cognitive-social intelligence from academic intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 486–497. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.486

Kihlstrom, J.F, & Cantor, N. (2000). in R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence, 2nd ed. (pp. 359-379). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Landy, F. J. (2005) The Long, Frustrating, and Fruitless Search for Social Intelligence. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.) The Emotional Intelligence Bandwagon: The Struggle Between Science and Marketing for the Soul of EI. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 2005

Riggio, R. E., Messamer, J., & Throckmorton, B. (1991). Social and academic intelligence: Conceptually distinct but overlapping constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 695–702. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90225-Z

No. There is no correlation between IQ and social skills.

This means that some people have a high IQ and have 'good' social skills while other people have a high IQ but 'bad' social skills.

Likewise, some people have a low IQ and have 'good' social skills while others have a low IQ and 'bad' social skills.

IQ, or intelligence quotient, is calculated by completing a number of tasks (in areas such as mathematics, language, etc.) in a test-like situation and comparing the results with results obtained by 'everyone else.'

Social skills are usually measured by asking questions about the individual. "Does the person cooperate or conflict with others?" "Does the person tend to offend or please others?" "Does the person have many or few friends?" etc.

You can measure a person's 'emotional intelligence' but this is not covered in a standard IQ test.

These measurements, IQ and social skills, are not the same, and the information that psychometrists have collected over the years show that there is no link between IQ scores and social skills.

Also, try not to see an IQ score and actual intelligence as the same thing. Many psychologists and psychiatrists believe that an IQ score is not an accurate portrayal of person's actual intelligence, for a large number of reasons.

For more information and research about these topics, search for the following names:

Howard Gardener - first man to propose the inaccuracy of IQ scores
Robert Sternberg - a prominent researcher in intelligence
David Wechsler - developed the most wisely-used IQ tests

(I have a bachelor's degree in psychology, and I also passed this information by my supervisor, who has a Master's Degree in Educational Psychology. We perform psychological assessments every day.)


Does rTMS therapy require medical licensing? In my research project, besides sound and light therapies, I would like to experiment with rTMS (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation) on volunteers. I wonder if this requires medical licensing?

It depends on the country, but, for most of them (incl. USA and EU), you don't need a medical license to perform biomedical research, including human experiments with TMS. However, you will need legal approval, such as certified research environment, ethics/IRB permission, etc. Also, one should delineate research and clinical trials, which are governed by a special set of rules and, most often, require medical environment.


Can lucid dreaming detract from the recuperative effect of REM sleep? Imagine you mastered lucid dreaming, so you have a lucid dream every night.
You might want to use this phase to do creative work or problem solving.

Would this have a negative influence on the recuperative effect of sleep?

Lucid dreaming is a half-way state between normal REM sleep and wakefulness. Lucid dreaming probably has less of a recuperative effect than normal REM sleep. On the other hand, there is usually less sleep inertia when waking from a lucid dream than when waking from a non-lucid dream.

The function of REM sleep is still a mystery, so very little is known about how lucid dreaming affects sleep quality.

However, going in the other direction, it is known that sleep quality affects the likelihood of lucid dreaming. More specifically, REM rebound following sleep deprivation, going back to sleep after a morning awakening and being sufficiently sleep deprived to take naps before noon are all common triggers for lucid dreams.

In my experience, I have never had a lucid dream after eight hours of unbroken sleep but if I wake up early in the morning and go back to sleep or if I take a daytime nap then I will quite often get a lucid dream, especially if I have consumed caffeine prior to falling asleep.

  Smith, B. V., & Blagrove, M. (2015). Lucid dreaming frequency and
  alarm clock snooze button use. Dreaming, 25(4), 291-299.
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/drm0000012

  Dresler, Martin et al. “Neural correlates of dream lucidity obtained
  from contrasting lucid versus non-lucid REM sleep: a combined EEG/fMRI
  case study.” Sleep vol. 35,7 1017-20. 1 Jul. 2012,
  https://dx.doi.org/10.5665%2Fsleep.1974

Having experienced this, here is the outcome :

When having back to back Lucid dreams, one begins to create a new world in which, you begin to have real problems when dreaming or when awake, and essentially comes to make a choice as to which one YOU would like to live in, or to determine which is the real world.  This occurs when one has evolved to the point where your Lucid dream would continue from being Awake in the exact same manner that life continues while you are asleep.  I am not sure how this happens, but the effects can be quite confusing.

When doing this, I had no problems with obtaining REM, and in fact found that it was much easier to obtain that state within a few minutes.

Mastering lucid dreaming is beneficial, however you will begin to notice that the world you created are bound by laws as well -- albeit a completely different set of rules.  For example, one common pretext for dreaming is the wish to fly.  When adopted into your world, you may find that you CAN fly, or do pretty much anything, but it requires and existential resource which may or may not be limited in quantity.  You are also able to sense that Death in a Lucid dream will definitely kill you, but you start to lose touch with the vice-vera.

To use the state for higher-learning, happens at entry level lucid dreaming where you are in control, but everything may still be a bit "fuzzy". Your dream may carry you through whatever it is that you wish to learn.   When mastering Lucid dreams, it works a bit different, in that the whole environment now has it's own life that continues while you are awake.  A good (simple) example of this would be if you were to consider the following :

Real Life

You are a passenger in a car and you fall asleep.

Before falling asleep, you notice that

 * The driver is smoking
 * You are nearing the exit of the city you are leaving
 * It's raining
 * A certain song is playing on the radio
 * Your cushion is chilly
 * Your little brother is playing with his phone
 * Your little sister is sleeping

When you wake up,

  * The driver is no longer smoking
  * You are just entering the driveway of your destination
  * It is bright and sunny
  * "News" is playing on the radio
  * Your cushion is now too warm
  * Your little brother is asleep
  * Your little sister is now awake and playing video games on her portable game device.

Now picture all of that happening, but replace 'Real Life' with Lucid dream, and your sleeping with 'wake up' and your wake up' with sleeping.  You can begin to understand how mastering Lucid dreaming can then become a real problem the longer this process continues.

My advice, is instead of mastering Lucid dreaming, would be to utilize the benefits of entry level lucid dream states for higher learning.

To this day, I still have no idea whether I am awake or asleep, and that is not a philosophical reason for it, but from my experiences of Lucid dreaming.  Is this 'real' or is it 'real' when I am in my dream world.

I hope this helps.

For those seeking citations from other experiences that are similar to my own and relay the same concept that reality and dream differentiation can become very blurred, here are two references :

Zhuangzi’s Butterfly Dream

  Zhuangzi stated "Once I dreamed I was a butterfly, and when I woke, I wasn't sure if I was a butterfly dreaming I was a man, or a man who dreamed of being a butterfly"

This shows that reality comes into question which is the "real" one. My experience is this happens after a lot of "practice", and you keep going further without caring which is which, until you need to make a choice for yourself which one you want to believe and accept as real.

There is also this handy bit on Psychology Today Dream and Reality

While I can not find any studies, I am not surprised as how would one go about studying that which you only have someones word for it.  I suspect if you are looking for irrefutable and empirical data, you will find the only real "test" you can do, is to achieve the same level of lucid state for yourself, which is something hinted at, in the works of 3rd parties (and cited in papers since) who are all long since dead so you can not question them any further.

If you wish to know the truth, explore for yourself, and I hope you achieve both the capability to reach the same heights, and the wisdom when it comes time to decide which fate you choose as your reality. Barring that, perhaps accept (or reject) the experiences of those who have tangible results (higher "IQ", more knowledge about things,  patience, and wisdom all come with the package).

At the end of the day, it is up to you to decide, and research (beyond any possible included citations), what data you wish to accept.

I have since tracked my sleep using a FitBit Versa for whatever it's worth, which shows that I have much longer REM states than "normal" (and this is decades after the experience i described above), and that my other cycles of sleep are typically very short, and restless - although when I awake, I appear to have not moved (same position, blankets/etc still taut, and so on).


Is there any theory supporting the idea that writing with your non-dominant hand is beneficial? E.g. Could writing with your left hand increase creativity? Especially if the left hand is the non-dominant one. Could placebo effect also play a significant role?

Yes. It is beneficial. There is physical evidence. And it also can play a role in terms of plasticity.


Can scary movies trigger fight or flight and why can a person enjoy this while another does not? Essentially, I understand the release of adrenaline can be addictive and that scary movies and events are a safe way of experiencing the drama without all the actual mess. but

However, if we are triggering our fight or flight response, then isn't suppressing it a separate chemical reaction, or at least an alternate one?

Is the release experienced more pleasurable for some people then others? Or is it a simple matter that staying in one's comfort zone is more enjoyable then the potential joy of a release?

I imagine individual differences in enjoyment derived from horror films would be multifaceted as with most preferences regarding consumption of different media. Some of the research mentions how males, teenagers/young adults, sensation seekers, and those who have a history of exposure to horror films (although this may be both cause and effect) tend to like horror films more.

Sensation seeking: You might want to look into the personality trait sensation seeking. To quote Wikipedia quoting the originator of the concept, Marvin Zuckerman.

  Sensation seeking is a personality trait defined by the search for
  experiences and feelings, that are "varied, novel, complex and
  intense", and by the readiness to "take physical, social, legal, and
  financial risks for the sake of such experiences." (Zuckerman, 2009). Risk is not an
  essential part of the trait, as many activities associated with it are
  not risky.

Zuckerman discusses the psychology of horror films in this video (see transcript here). He frames sensation seeking in terms of habituation. Thus, the more horror films that a person has seen, the more intense the horror would need to be in order to induce the same rewarding level of arousal.

Exploring the concept of sensation seeking may also move you more towards a more primary concept of why people seek such arousal inducing experiences. You could for instance read Roberti's (2004) literature review of the biological and behavioural correlates of sensation seeking. In particular, see section 4 on biological characteristics related to sensation seeking:

  Zuckerman (1994, 1996) has proposed a multi-level approach in which
  sensation is a product of interactions between neurotransmitter
  systems (Zuckerman, 1996). Agonistic and antagonistic interactions of
  biological correlates are related to sensation seeking. Biochemical
  mechanisms provide major support for the relation of sensation seeking
  and associated biological systems (Balada et al., 1993; Ballenger et
  al., 1983; Daitzman & Zuckerman, 1980; Dellu et al., 1996; Gerra et
  al., 1999; Netter et al., 1996; Piazza et al., 1993; Ruegg et al.,
  1997; Zuckerman, 1984, 1991a; Zuckerman et al., 1980).

Tamborini and Stiff (1987) studied the appeal of horror movies:

  A survey was conducted to determine the antecedents of the exposure to
  and appeal of horror films. Audience members leaving the theater after
  viewing Halloween II were interviewed using a questionnaire that
  contained measures of specific reasons for liking horror films as well
  as measures of several individual-difference variables. A model
  emerged from structural equation analysis indicating that three
  important factors in the appeal of horror films are (a) the audience's
  desire to experience the satisfying resolutions usually provided in
  these films, (b) the audience's desire to see the destruction often
  found in these films, and (c) the sensation-seeking personality traits
  of audience members for these films. In addition, age and gender were
  important predictors. Horror films were enjoyed more by males and by
  younger viewers.

Tamborini, Stiff and Zillman (2006) summarise existing research linking sensation seeking with horror film preference:

  Several studies  have  attempted to  investigate  the  relationship
  between the attraction to horror films and sensation seeking. The
  first  attempt to  look at  this  issue was reported by  Sparks
  (1984), who  correlated his own 20-item scale measuring Enjoyment of
  Frightening  Films (EFF) with the Sensation-Seeking Scale, and found
  an overall  positive correlation between the two for both males (r=
  .22,p= .01) and  females (r = .28, p = .01). A second study (Tamborini
  & Stiff, 1984) also  found an association between the liking of horror
  films and a measure of  sensation seeking computed from  the
  combination of  disinhibition,  experience seeking, and thrill and
  adventure seeking scores (r= .14,p=  .05).  Finally, Edwards (1984)
  found a strong correlation between the  entire Sensation-Seeking Scale
  and interest in horror movies (r = 51, p  < .001). Unfortunately, the
  articles by Sparks (1984) and Tamborini and  Stiff  (1984) do  not
  report the  correlations between  the  individual  subdimensions of
  the Sensation-Seeking Scale and their measures of  attraction to
  horror films. This information is of particular interest to us  if  we
  want  to understand the  appeal found  in  horror  since  these
  subdimensions are thought to be unique. The study by Edwards (1984)
  does  provide  information  in  this  regard,  however.  According  to
  Edwards, each of  the subdimensions is correlated to interest in
  horror  films with disinhibition having the strongest relationship (r
  = .54, p <  .001), followed by boredom susceptibility (r = .41,p < .001), experience  seeking (r= .39,p < .001), and thrill and adventure
  seeking (r= .24, P <   .01).

References

Balada, F., Torrubia, R., & Maria Arque, J. (1993). Gonadal hormone correlates of sensation seeking and
anxiety in healthy human females. Neuropsychobiology, 27, 91–96.
Ballenger, J. C., Post, R. M., Jimerson, D. C., Lake, C. R., Murphy, D., Zuckerman, M., & Cronin, C.
(1983). Biochemical correlates of personality traits in normals: An exploratory study. Personality and
Individual Diﬀerences, 4, 615–625.
Daitzman, R. J., & Zuckerman, M. (1980). Disinhibitory sensation seeking and gonadal hormones.
Dellu, F., Piazza, P. V., Mayo, W., Le Moal, M., & Simon, H. (1996). Novelty-seeking in rats:
Biobehavioral characteristics and possible relationship with the sensation seeking trait in man.
Neuropsychobiology, 34, 136–145.
Personality and Individual Diﬀerences, 1, 103–110.
Gerra, G., Avanzini, P., Zaimovic, A., Sartori, R., Bocchi, C., Timpano, M., Zambelli, U., Delsignore, R.,
Gardini, F., Talarico, E., & Brambilla, F. (1999). Neurotransmitters, neuroendocrine correlates of
sensation-seeking temperament in normal humans. Neuropsychobiology, 39, 207–213.
Netter, P., Hennig, J., & Roed, I. S. (1996). Serotonin and dopamine as mediators of sensation seeking
behavior. Neuropsychobiology, 34, 155–165.
Piazza, P. V., Deroche, V., Deminiere, J. M., Maccari, S., Le Moal, M., & Simon, H. (1993).
Corticosterone in the range of stress-induced levels possesses reinforcing properties: Implications for
sensation seeking behaviors. National Academy of Science, 90, 11738–11742.
Roberti, J.W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of research in personality, 38, 256-279. PDF
Ruegg, R. G., Gilmore, J., Ekstrom, R. D., Corrigan, M., Knight, B., Tancer, M., Leatherman, M. E.,
Carson, S. W., & Golden, R. N. (1997). Clomipramine challenge responses covary with tridimensional
personality questionnaire scores in healthy subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 1123–1129.
Tamborini, R. & Stiff, J. (1987). Predictors of Horror Film Attendance and Appeal An Analysis of the Audience for Frightening Films. Communication Research, 14, 415-436.
Tamborini, R., Stiff, J. & ZILLMAN, D. (2006). Preference for graphic horror featuring male versus female victimization. Human Communication Research, 13, 529-552.
Zuckerman, M. (1984). Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 7, 413–471.
Zuckerman (2009). "Chapter 31. Sensation seeking". In Leary, Mark R. & Hoyle, Rick H.. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social behavior. New York/London: The Guildford Press. pp. 455–465.
Zuckerman, M. (1991a). Psychobiology of personality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York:
Cambridge Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1996). The psychobiological model for impulsive unsocialized sensation seeking: A
comparative approach. Neuropsychobiology, 34, 125–129.
Zuckerman, M., & Neeb, M. (1980). Demographic inﬂuences in sensation seeking and expressions of
sensation seeking in religion, smoking and driving habits. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences, 1,
197–206.

I would speculate that the answer lies within mirror neurons.  By watching the film, our mirror neurons are firing, so we have that empathatic connection to the film.

When you see a person throwing darts, at the same time, your mirror neurons are firing, and the part of your brain that would control your hand movements (ie, thorwing a dart) are activated, although the signal doesn't actually go to the muscles in your hands to start moving....

When we watch a horror film, and we see a person in the movie feeling tremendous fear, our mirror neurons fire up, and we feel that same emotion, to an extent.

Not to mention that often times, when watching a movie, we enter a hypnotic state, which in of itself is a "flight" mechanism.

So, when we watch the horror films, we are subconsciously experiencing the emotions portrayed, and depending on how deeply engrossed we are in the movie (you can read that as "depeding on how deeply hypnotized we are while watching the movie") it can trigger a fight/flight response.

The second part of your question, why can one person enjoy this and another person does not...  That is a more complex question, as there are too many variables.   What, specifically, do they like?

For example, let's take coconuts.  Some people love coconuts.  Why do they love coconuts, but others cannot stand them?    What memories are triggered by the scent, taste, feel of the coconut?    For me, I cannot stand the texture, and the taste is not exciting, so in general I do not like coconuts, and I avoid food that has coconut.   But my friend absolutely LOVES coconuts.   Why does he like coconuts?


Inability to associate a face with a name I know there is a medical condition called "Prosopagnosia" that is described as:

  a cognitive disorder of face perception in which the ability to recognize familiar faces, including one's own face (self-recognition), is impaired.

Knowing this, I was wondering if there was also a word/medical condition that would describe:

  a cognitive disorder in which the ability to associate a name with a face is impaired.

In this scenario, when the person sees someone, they remember every fact about them (what do they for a living, if they have a significant other, if they have children, etc...) but are incapable of remembering the person name.

The person having this could be described as having "a bad memory for names".

So, does such a medical condition exist? Is there a word for it?

recognize familiar faces

The distinction between familiar and unfamiliar faces with the prosopagnosia seems to be more a wiki thing than in clinical or common usage. The defintion does not seem fixed. NINDs defines it as "characterized by the inability to recognize faces" rather than only just familiar faces. So sufferers "use other ways to identify people, such as relying on voice, clothing, or unique physical attributes".

The Merck manual provides a different naunce "inability to identify well-known faces, including those of close
   friends, or to otherwise distinguish individual objects among a class
   of objects, despite the ability to identify generic facial features
   and objects."

This phenomenon is distinct from anomic aphasia (also known as amnestic aphasia and nominal aphasia) where there is an impairment of word recall especially nouns and verbs.

Just remember humans and brains are not compartmentalized like computers or objects. Phenomenons that occur due to how the neurons or the lobe is organized. Brain damage are not random too, so common patterns form strokes and injuries result in well known and well described phenomenons. The distinction between naming familiar faces and naming strangers/unknown people would not be a useful clinical distinction. If you think about it, name association exercises of strangers seems too difficult to be used clinically.

Face-name recognition is a form of paired associates, episodic memory. This type of memory is fairly difficult, even for cognitively normal people (and the ability often declines substantially with age), and thus a poor performance on a face-name task is not typically considered pathologic. Therefore, it doesn't have a specific neurologic term to describe it, which is why you can't find one. Words like aphasia, agnosia, alexia, apraxia (etc.) all denote conditions that should not exist in neurotypical people. HTH.


If ADHD is caused by brain structure, why isn't analysis of brain structure used to diagnose it? My understanding is that people with ADHD have different brain structure to people without.

If this is the case, why isn't the difference of brain structure used to diagnose ADHD, rather than a series of questions relating to behavioral symptoms?

ADHD is not 'caused' by a brain structure. However, there are observable differences in the brains of ADHD sufferers compared to non-ADHD sufferers.

For example, ADHD sufferers have a disproportionately greater decrease in volume in the left side of the prefrontal cortex, as well as the posterior parietal cortex.

In addition, there is typically a reduction in the number of dopamine receptors, as well as a sensitivity to neurotransmitter activity. Thus, stimulants and cognitive enhancements are often used to treat ADHD.

This paper does a good, in-depth job of mapping networks and brain connectivity to ADHD. If you were to read it, you might notice a problem -- it isn't the case that there is one 'brain structure' that ADHD sufferers have that non-sufferers do not have, nor is it just one brain structure that is affected. The way that ADHD seems to 'work' in the brain is very complex, and there is still much to be learned about the brain before we can go about diagnosing people based on MRI data.

Furthermore, the line between ADHD and other mental disorders is not clearly drawn. Inattentiveness could stem from depression, trauma, or insomnia, for example. Mania and/or hyperactivity could stem from bipolar disorder or histrionic personality disorder. We are so far from figuring the brain out that we can only rely on context at this point in time.

The latest research in ADHD scan studies show a lack on activity in the left side of the pre-frontal cortex. As far as your question goes not everyone can afford these scans to come up with an accurate diagnosis. Also a SPECT scan could show two different patterns in activity if the scan was done more than once. It would have to take numerous scans over time to come up with an accurate diagnosis. That is why it is much easier to be honest about symptoms with a psychiatrist you trust.

David Lopez Blass


What is the difference between Symbolism and Abstract thinking in Piaget's Theory? I'm having trouble understanding the difference between symbols and abstract thinking in Piaget's Cognitive Development Theory. Piaget says that in the preoperational stage, children 2-7 years old can think of things in terms of symbols, and that abstract thinking forms in the formal operational stage. I thought symbols are a part of abstract thinking, perhaps because symbols, to me, seem abstract. So, what does the theory mean when it refers to "abstract thinking?" Can someone give me a concrete example delineating the difference between the abstract thinking and symbolism parts in their respective stages? Much thanks!

Symbolism uses a symbol to represent an existing object, while abstract thinking can be thought of as considering things that don't actually exist.

For a rough example of each, consider representation as symbolism (this paper is the plane I'm on) and consider generalization as abstraction (what it means to be "on" something). For another, consider something (this blue line on a paper) that represents something else (this river), contrasted with considering the concepts of "blue" or "line".

In plain English.

Piaget uses symbolism to mean the use of symbols as in words, objects, images, behaviors, mannerisms...things that tend to be concrete or can conjure concrete images in ones mind.

For example, think of the image of a gif of a man scratching his nose. That image is full of symbols. If you were to create a movie scene based on that info, I'd be easy to visualize it.

Piaget uses abstract thinking to describe the type of thinking that involves the manipulation of ideas, engages the imagination and makes creative thinking possible.

For example, if you're asked to start a discussion about constructing a theory on globalization or discuss the meaning of democracy or that of human rights... you'd engage in abstract thinking. These are ideas. Abstractions. At this stage a person can weave in and out of abstract ideas.


Improving Speed of Thinking What are some ways one can improve his/her speed of thinking and reasoning ? I am looking for some easy to follow strategies that can be systematically applied. (I am presuming it can be learnt/ taught ).

I think you need to think about what you mean by "speed of thinking".
Your language implies that you are looking for a generalised way to be more intelligent. I have not seen any simple interventions for increasing general intelligence.

You may find it more productive to focus on particular domains of your life that you want to improve. Practice and instruction improve performance in a given domain. There are a wide variety of mechanisms by which this occurs, some of which could be characterised as speed of thinking.

In particular, practice often leads to automaticity. Take for example, learning your times tables. When you first encounter a given question (e.g., 8 * 8 = 64), you may have to use a longer algorithm to solve the problem, but with practice, the equation itself may directly trigger recall. Alternatively, take many computer based tasks. The first time you try to perform a task (e.g., sorting your email by date), you may have to think more about how this task can be performed. With practice, you just recall how to do it.
A similar process of automaticity also applies to the perceptual and motor domains as you learn to assign visual attention effectively or learn to smooth out motor responses (for a review see Rosenbaum et al 2001).

This process of acquiring automaticity in a given domain is not exactly speed of thinking, but it has the same consequences. Automated actions reduce the demands on limited attentional resources, and can be executed quickly and efficiently.

For specific suggestions on what makes a great practice schedule you may want to read up on the literature on deliberate practice (e.g., Ericsson, et al 1993).

References

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological review, 100(3), 363. PDF
Rosenbaum, D. A., Carlson, R. A., & Gilmore, R. O. (2001). Acquisition of intellectual and perceptual-motor skills. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 453-470. PDF

I am expecting a downvote here.  Only one of these can be systematically taught and learned.

Amphetamines.   If you just want pure speed - but you'll realize speed needs clarity.
Meditation.   Provides clarity.

They are very effective though.  Despite downsides of #1.


What is different between children and adults that cause children to forgive so quickly? Today I observed three children at a birthday party become involved in an extremely serious altercation including the use of (toy) weapons.

Tears were dropping, threats issued, punches and kicks thrown and yet in the space of a few minutes the children had formed a new bond of friendship and were playing contendedly.

It made me consider the wider social impact; what is it that causes teenage/adult human beings to hold personal grievances and grudges for longer periods of time when children seem so willing to forget past transgressions?

I am sure there must be a biological mechanism at work from both the child and adult perspective so if any sociologists, child psychologists or behavioural researchers read this forum it would be great to get a detailed answer.

I suspect similar patterns of behaviour exist in other cub/child/young mammals in social groupings.

The short answer, kids live in the now.  They tend to forget everything quickly.  A child can be crying about their milk being spilled one moment, and playing the next.  They don't think as much about past or future, just what is happening now, and NOW is a big deal.  This can cause problems in some ways, but the plus side is they are quickly side tracked from whatever was bothering them before.

They don't hold grudges for the same reason you can make them forget how fun banging on the trashcan or drawing on the wall was.  The moment something is out of sight it's quickly forgotten.  The offense of 30 seconds ago don't matter, because that was back an eternity ago, and is not NOW.

That 'eternity ago' thing was only half a joke also.  It's been argued that children actually experience time different, because of their length of life and perspective.  A 2 year old has been alive for a tiny fraction as long as it's parent's have, it has less then a tenth the life experience.  However, since they measure time relative to the length of time they have been alive that means that 30 minutes feels like it's 10 times longer to them, because that 30 minutes actually makes up more then 10 times the amount of their life that it does for an adult.  If this is true it explains why a 15 minute wait is an eternity to a young child.  However, it also means that something that happened a day ago feels like it was weeks ago to a young child.  It's easier to forget pass offenses if it feels like they happened in some distant past of time.

Children have short memories. They can't remember that their "friend" of this moment was someone who hit them a few minutes ago.

They also have limited understanding of cause and effect. Most adults will "attack" each other (verbally or otherwise) for a reason. Young children don't understand that, and even if and when they hit each other, there's usually no reason or motivating force behind it.

This has a biological basis in children and adolescence, the underdevelopment of the pre-frontal cortex specifically, and an imblance in the development of thinking processes, generally.


What is the fastest language to think in? If you think in any language you're never misstaken on what word you mean even if there are many words that are spelled/pronounced the same. This causes a language with only one word meaning every possible word there is to work, in theory, if used only while thinking. I don't think I'd be able to think clearly in such a language, though. The fastest language seems, for me, to be no language. It is however hard to not think in a language.

What is the fastest language to think in?

With your question you are limiting thinking to conscious and rational thought. But human information processing has so many more aspects, some of them faster and more efficient than cogitation.

If, for example, you sit in front of the computer and have forgotten that you have put water on the stove, and suddenly you hear the noodles cooking over, you'll jump up and run to the kitchen quicker than you can form the sentences that describe what is happening and what you need to do. It is not a reflex (like flinching away from being hit), but clearly a conscious understanding, a consideration, and a decision, only not verbal. For me, parts of that process are visual (I see what I need to clean away, when I hear the water hit the hot plate), others include a body-memory projection of me moving to the kitchen, a muscular plan of action that is forming while I jump up, see what is on my path, and "pre-feel" how I will navigate it at maximum speed.

Another example is what I have often experienced when I "sleep over" a decision; what has been exemplified in Einstein dreaming of relativity theory; and what I have read about again a few days ago in a book summarizing current research on intuition: that conscious rational thought is only able to make decisions in situations with a limited complexity (the level of complexity was the focus of some research), and that highly complex decisions, involving too many aspects to "juggle" in your (conscious) mind, are made on an unconscious level, with "you" (that is consciousness) only receiving the outcome (that is intuition) of that information processing.

Language is a very recent development in evolution, and consciousness is not much older, and it is my opinion that we are misled by our self-identification with the constant chatter in our minds to believe that we are this speech, while in truth language and consciousness are just tools that are as peripheral to our core selves as our arms are to our bodies. There is this famous experiment, conducted a few years ago, that showed that the muscular impulse for a movement happens before the conscious decision for that movement is made. It shows that what we perceive as decisions happens after a behaviour has already begun. The ego, as Freud said, is not master in its own house.

Sign language I would imagine would be a great language to think with since it is physical and involves body language.  Considering too that we all think different I know sign language, Spanish, and English and find my thoughts bouncing from language to language.  Also what could be considered fast? How do you rate the speed of thoughts and inner conversations in your mind?