mteb/BrightProPsychologyRetrieval huggingface dataset:
Can our beliefs change without reassessment or new evidence?

I think the strength of our beliefs can change, say from 90-95% as the day wore on. But do people, people with or without psychosis, start and stop believing things without reasons?

Suppose when I stop and think I always know something is impossible. Does that mean, even in the throes of some irrational behaviour (I sleep with my cheating wife again), I know it is, at least without encountering new evidence to the contrary?
Why can't MEG distinguish EPSPs and IPSPs?

I see this fact stated in many places that discuss the basis of the MEG signal but it's never been made completely clear why MEG can't distinguish IPSPs and EPSPs. Please could someone elaborate?

Thanks
Why do fNIRS devices commonly use two different frequencies?

One of the most common techniques used for functional neuroimaging nowadays is functional near infra-red spectroscopy (fun fact: IIRC Natalie Portman worked on a research paper involving fNIRS as the modality), which shines near infrared light into the brain from a source to a detector (both called optodes) in a "banana" shape.

It's not uncommon to read that most of these devices, be they continuous wave (CW) or one of the two kinds that involve fast modulation, frequency domain (FD) or time domain (TD), require two separate frequencies to be emitted. For instance, NIRx explains it as follows on their website:

"For neuro-imaging applications it is by far most common to illuminate with two discrete wavelength, which is the minimum requirement to assess relative variations of both oxygenation states of the hemoglobin molecule independently."

Why is that the case?

I haven't delved into the intricacies of it, but no reason immediately jumps out at me. For instance, in the case of CW, the relative difference in intensity is all that matters, so why do we need two frequencies?
What are the biological reasons for hearing loss?

I recently stumbled upon an interesting online hearing test on YouTube, and it got me thinking about the root causes of hearing loss. I'm curious about the main contributing factors behind the loss of our hearing range as we age.

Is this degradation primarily linked to the loss of gray or white matter in our brains, indicating a neurological issue, or is it predominantly associated with the wear and tear of some other biological input mechanisms within our auditory system?
What is the term for the inability to see past one's own current emotional state?

I'm looking for a specific latin or greek word that describes something like the inability to empathize with emotions that are not in line with one's current affective state. It could probably be described as a temporary or permanent deficit in affective perspective-taking that occurs when a person feels that their current emotional state is the only possible state, and that it is permanent.

For example, when someone is experiencing negative affect for some reason and then proceeds to act as if their day, or even life, is ruined, and that this negative affective state is the new norm. Or when someone is experiencing positive affect for some reason and then naively believes that "it will always be like this," perhaps getting very distraught when the positive feelings eventually go away but at the same time not being able to see this pattern from the outside or take long-term steps to prevent this type of roller coaster dynamic from continuing to manifest.

I have consulted various psychology resources and literature online but have not been able to, again, find the term which accurately captures this concept. I've found the following terms, "emotional myopia", "emotional reasoning", "anosognosia", "presentism", "presentist bias", and "egocentrism", which I feel are fairly close. But, apart from "emotional myopia" and perhaps "affective presentism", I feel the concepts I have found are either too general (egocentrism, emotional reasoning) or incorrect (alexithymia, affective agnosia).

The specific term I have previously seen is a single greek or latin word and is very specific, like the term "anosognosia". As a caveat, it might be worth saying that the description and example of the phenomena above might be slightly, but not vastly, out of sync with the term I am looking for.
Are social anxiety disorder and selective mutism classified as communication disorders?

I've been trying to figure this out for a long time, but I don't understand much about classification of disorders and I feel uncertain after looking at the definitions. Based on what I've read, I think these don't qualify as communication disorders, but are instead anxiety disorders.

I've looked at this: https://www.asha.org/policy/rp1993-00208/ and this https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/communication-disorders

If I look at the the second one, it first gives this:

Communication disorders affect a person’s ability to detect, receive, process, and comprehend the concepts or symbols necessary for communication. It can affect hearing, language, and speech. Causes include neurological damage due to a stroke.

But then it gives this definition:

Communication disorders are a group of conditions involving problems with receiving, processing, sending, and comprehending various forms of information and communication.

On the surface, selective mutism and social anxiety disorder would seem to meet the criteria for involving "sending" information, even if they don't meet the other conditions.

And it would seem to me that articulation disorders also do not meet every criteria either, but are included.

An articulation disorder is the atypical production of speech sounds characterized by substitutions, omissions, additions or distortions that may interfere with intelligibility.

If I look at the ASHA definition, I can almost understand that social anxiety disorder would be excluded.

A communication disorder is an impairment in the ability to receive, send, process, and comprehend concepts or verbal, nonverbal and graphic symbol systems. A communication disorder may be evident in the processes of hearing, language, and/or speech. A communication disorder may range in severity from mild to profound. It may be developmental or acquired. Individuals may demonstrate one or any combination of communication disorders. A communication disorder may result in a primary disability or it may be secondary to other disabilities.

I can sort of understand why it would be useful to separate anxiety disorders from these, but I'm not very knowledgeable in psychology, so I was hoping someone could verify what the answer is.
Where exactly do Emotions and Feelings arise in the human body?

Traditionally, the heart region was always associated with emotions and feelings in humans. But in one recent philosophy lecture I watched on Youtube, the orator said that the right brain is, in fact, the origin of emotions and the heart is just for pumping the blood.

In Yoga and many other traditional Eastern disciplines, the Chakra Theory is quite prevalent and the Anahata or the Heart chakra/meridian is quite strongly associated with emotions.

What is the stance of modern medical science on this? Can the source of all emotions be explained completely in the right hemisphere of the brain through neuroscience? Or is there any scientific backing for the linkage of Heart to emotions? Or such a discovery might be possible in future?
What is the mechanism that makes people more likely to act when provided with proof of non-new (and often trivial) information?

Is there a name for the psychological mechanism according to which a person is more likely to act when provided with proof of information they are already convinced about? Information which is often also trivial: e.g., smoking causes cancer. In fact, some studies find that graphical warning labels in cigarette packages affect implicit smoking attitudes (especially among the new smokers). Although comparatively smaller, text labels (compared to no labels) are also shown to have a similar effect.
Is it unethical for a psychiatrist to invite a patient and her husband to a social function?

Suppose Emma is a patient of psychiatrist Dr. Jones, in New York State. In the course of their visits, Emma mentions that part of the stress and anxiety she feels is because of the pressure her husband puts on her and his intense personality.

Dr. Jones wishes to explore this more so he invites Emma to bring her husband to a local art gallery exhibit opening where Dr. Jones plans to attend as well, so he could meet them and observe Emma's husband and his interactions with her.

Are there any clear ethical issues with Dr. Jones invitation?
Term for how one's self-image improves when something they associate with, like a sports team or politician, does well?

I'm trying to understand the phenomenon of how one's self-image, self-confidence, or personal regard goes up because something they affiliate themselves with "does well." For example, someone whose confidence and self-regard goes up when their team wins, or a character they relate to in a movie succeeds, or a politician they like says something clever.

What is this called?
Is it a cognitive bias: "if you guess what I think you do, then what I think of you is true"

"If you've guessed what I am thinking (that you do / you have done / you will do / you are), then what I'm thinking of you is True"
Is this considered a cognitive-bias ? And if not what is it ?

Without enough knowledge in Psychology, I tend to think it is close to something like "dementia" / "paranoia" / "psychosis"

Any pointers ?
Is there a standardised test for focus?

Not affiliated with psychology in any way, so my knowledge is essentially zero. I am looking for a way to measure change in my ability to focus during a fast. This is simply for a personal experiment. I had a look online and could not find a standardised tests used in research.

Any help in finding one is appreciated. Thanks

EDIT: edited to clarify that I am not looking for life advice. I am looking for a standardized test used in psychology research to measure my ability to focus (concentration a task?).
Is there a special name for rejection of extremes in the list of cognitive biases?

Is there a special name for the cognitive bias that causes a person choose a compromise solution even the extreme solutions are better or causes person prefer a middle value even the extreme values are more suitable?
How can someone enjoy something without dopamine?

Andrew Huberman says people and even animals with depleted dopamine levels can still enjoy stuff.

How does one enjoy without dopamine? Isn't it the pleasure chemical?

Can serotonin, oxytocin etc. contribute to pleasure experience like dopamine?
What disorder might be considered opposite of the Histrionic Personality Disorder?

If a person might be considered the opposite of Narcissistic or having a Histrionic Personality disorder, what might it be called?

For example, a person who feels a need to be unnoticed.

Of course, I mean "disorder" in the sense that these qualities are "disruptive" to a healthy lifestyle...

Maybe some sort of insecurity disorder? Can anti-social disorders somehow fit? What about situations perhaps stemming from PTSD?

Don't be a target!" -Every military branch, (except maybe the Army).
What does it mean if a neuron is "expressing" something?

Sorry for the simple question, not a neuroscientist just trying to understand a paper for school. In a study with mice, there was 2-photon calcium imaging done, and part of it read:

We used single- and multi-plane imaging approaches to record the activity of populations of excitatory neurons and two inhibitory classes, Somatostatin (Sst) and Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide (Vip) expressing interneurons, across multiple cortical depths and two visual areas (VSIp and VISl)

First I thought this meant that SST & VIP were inhibitory neurons. But when I Google it says they're hormones.

So is this saying they recorded activity from inhibitory interneurons that were ... releasing? producing? ... SST & VIP ? What does "expressing" mean in this sense.
What part of brain learns/controls finger motion?

I am learning instruments and am sometimes amazed at how hard a seemingly simple thing like raising two different sets of fingers after one another can be.

I wonder how the brain learns this? Is it the cerebellum and the motor cortex where the "cortical homonculus" is or is it a cooperation between even more brain regions?
Seminal Books of fMRI

I would like to know what books about fMRI do people consider as key or seminal. I am very familiar with a great amonut of MRI techniques, but I am sort of looking for a book in fMRI that really considers the root of the technique (as for teaching material). As a guideline, I consider the book of Diffusion MRI by Derek Jones as being the gold standard: mathematical, physics, biological and clinical considerations. So I guess that the question is what would you consider the fMRI equivalent to Derek's exhaustive book. Maybe even some reviews that you consider important and you yourselfs are (co-) authors.

Best and thanks!
What work has been done studying methodological reforms in psychology after the replication crisis?

Can anyone point me to academic work that systematically studies how standards and methods have changed in psychology as a response to the replication crisis? Thanks.
What causes this motion illusion?

There are some questions here about various optical illusions. I stumbled upon this one and would like to find out where does it belong. Wikipedia has a page about illusory motion that mentions several types; peripheral drift seems to be closest, but I am not sure about it.
What term can describe the feeling that a job just does itself?

Is there a term that can describe that a job, however exhausting it might be, just does itself? Meaning, for example, that all doubt concerning how you're doing a job, whether or not you should do the job instead of something else, or any doubt of the value you're creating is just not there?

As an example, I saw an interview where an author was asked how much effort it took to write a particular book. The answer was "No effort at all, the book wrote itself", which is of course not literally true, because it takes reasearch, time, dedication and long hard hours in front of a PC to write a book. Still, I understand what they mean by this, when looking back to certain efforts I've made myself. But I don't know if this can be described in full by a certain term.

I'm surprised how hard it was to find anything about this just googling, so any suggestions would be great!
Human/social behavior when one emphasizes their own superior achievements over others'

I'm looking for a name/category/definition of (personality?) disorder(s) that can be described with the following traits in one's (imaginary person) social/human behavior:

this person brings up and emphasizes his own, (according to him) superior achievements whenever another person around him mentions their own success/results/etc. (relevant fact: this person's statements about his own achievements are usually true, so there is no or little exaggeration);
still, this person does this in a way that likely hurts other's feelings or self-esteem (this person does this regardless of who's the other half, like friends/partner/family), maybe even permanently;
when this person has to do something with the achievements of others, he also emphasizes his own role behind the success of the other half (may even claim that the other person would not have been able to achieve their results without his assistance/inspiration);
finally, though this may be a bit further from the previous points, this person may also inspire other people to start doing the same things that he's already started earlier (through which he may have an edge in terms of performance, quicker results, etc.) - e.g., a hobby or a sport.
I'd be also interested in the origin of such a situation/traits (like how one would develop such a behavior, e.g. through childhood events or parental issues).

My research so far: tried to look for an answer online by summarizing the main points and got to "Narcissistic personality disorder" which (according to this site) is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration.

However, I'm not 100% sure that the above traits completely match this definition since they emphasize one's superior results/role in other's success and usually are combined with mean/humiliating remarks. Also, this person rarely steers a conversation etc. in a way so that he'll have the attention/focus.
Are there results on the null hypothesis of the "surgeon operating on my son" question?

There is a common question used to demonstrate the power of implicit assumptions about gender roles in our society.

Including it here for reference: A man and his son had a terrible car accident and were rushed to the hospital. The man died on the way, but the son was still barely alive. When they arrived, a surgeon was called in to operate. Upon seeing the young boy, the surgeon said, “I can’t operate – this is my son.”

Most people have difficulty thinking of the possibility that the surgeon is the son's Mother.

This riddle strikes me as having elements of the priming experiments whereby subjects primed with certain words perform better/worse in word-stem completion tests, intermixed with the social expectations of our culture. Here the "priming" would be using the male "father", "boy", and "son" throughout the question but asking for a female "mother" as the answer.

I was trying to find results on some sort of "control group" experiment to try and isolate the societal expectations element. Something like subjects being asked the same riddle but with a mother and daughter in a crash and the father a surgeon, or where it's the father and daughter in a car crash.

The only alternative I've seen is about "mother and daughter in crash, father is nurse" which is again combining the two effects.

N.b. I'm expect the priming effect is probably small, I just wanted to know by how much.
What is the inverse of anthropomorphism?

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. However, one often can observe the inverse happening as well. Namely the attribution of non-human entities’ traits, emotions, or intentions to human entities. For example the biography book about Winston Churchill is called “The Last Lion” or professional boxers being nicknamed “Pitbull”, “Tiger”,”The Hammer”, etc.

Or would this be just an extension of anthropomorphism in which humans attribute human traits, emotions, or intentions onto non-human entities and then relate them back to humans again? Because, in order to attribute non-human entities’ traits, emotions, or intentions onto humans, one would first need to attribute human traits, emotions, or intentions onto non-human entities?
On talking people out of delusions

One psychatrist I know recently wrote, offhand: "I remember when I was a student I tried so hard to convince someone that they weren't royalty, hours of passionate debate, and it just did nothing."

This got me thinking - are there published descriptions of what it feels like to try and convince a person with a grandiose delusion that it's wrong? When this fails, what are their responses to arguments, etc.? I feel like I've read fictional descriptions of this scenario plenty of times in various fiction books, but maybe in reality it looks different and now like I'd imagine?
Whether "group polarization" and "social segregation" is the same?

In a paper of (Murase, 2019) use both terms "group polarization" and "social segregation".

The "group polarization" is explained here, and the author also documents about the "social segregation" as

The relationship between homophily and segregation has been recognized long ago.(...)In another approach to social segregation, opinion dynamics is used so that similar people can influence each other

I am wondering whether these two terms "group polarization" and "social segregation" are the same?
Why a "weak homophilic relationships" can be amplified by "cumulative advantage"

Murase, 2019 has a sentence that

Thus even a relatively weak preference for homophilic relationships would tend to be amplified over time, via a cumulative advantage

Basically, they mean that weak homophilic relationship (relationship between people having no common acquaintance) can be amplified over time due to cumulative advantage. However, they did not explain why it happen, could you please help me to explain it?

I did a search about "cumulative advantage" but I still cannot not link the concept to this situation

Cumulative Advantage states that once a social agent gains a small advantage over other agents, that advantage will compound over time into an increasingly larger advantage. The effect is well known and is embodied in "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
What is the name of this bias or phenomenon?

He lied.

You changed your mind.

I reconsidered my decision.

What is the name for this type of cognitive bias where you are easier on yourself when you describe your behavior, but harder on the second person and hardest on others? It's similar to the justification of your actions in certain situations e.g., when someone cuts you off in traffic, he's a jerk. But if you cut someone off it's because you are really in a hurry and it's justified.

But what I'm specifically looking for is the name of the phenomenon where the same behavior/quality of the first, second and third person are described by decreasing levels of charitability.
Using multilevel modeling to assess gender differences in intervention effects of an RCT, and how to look at mechanisms of change

I'm looking for some help here - so I'm a grad student and stats newbie (but trying to move on from newbie status!) and attempting to figure out how to conduct the analyses I'm interested in but I'm feeling very lost.

I'm looking to do MLM with a large RCT (N=434) with the active treatment vs. services as usual (i.e., 2 treatment conditions), and I have four total timepoints - baseline, posttreatment, 6 months follow-up, and 12 months follow-up. The main purpose of the study is to look at gender as a moderator of treatment outcomes, and a secondary goal is to look at whether there are differences in mechanisms/mediators of treatment effects by gender as well. I spoke with a professor in the quant psychology department about my project and he mentioned that the strength of my project is that I have follow-up data with such a large sample (and high retention rates) with a marginalized, hard-to-reach population - so he suggested using MLM. Typically, when I've used MLM in the past, I've done it with looking at clusters or within/between individual change across multiple timepoints. But is there a way to use MLM to address my research questions - 1) to look at gender as a moderator of intervention outcomes in this large-scale RCT, and 2) to look at whether hypothesized, female-specific mediators of change are indeed more predictive of improved treatment outcomes for females relative to males? I'm feeling a little lost as to what would be my level 1 vs level 2 variables here.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!! Thank you so much!!
What is verbal memory useful for?

A friend of mine did the Verbal Memory Test at http://humanbenchmark.com/ and got an extremely high score (almost 300 words). English is not his first language and he knew the meaning of only about two thirds of the words (if that's something to take into account).

About the test

This test measures how many words you can keep in short term memory at once.

The number of words you need to remember grows continually, until you can't keep them in your head anymore.

Go as long as you can. You have 3 strikes until game over.

Your score is how many turns you lasted.

Does this have any practical use or influence in other areas of cognition?