The Psychology Thread

... There's a "brain-body divide" thing? And you think it's bogus? I'm confused. The nervous system is clearly a separate collection of tissues from the rest of the body, at least as much as any other organ system (compare the muscular system, which is definitely separate from the skeletal system enclosed within it and the integumentary system enclosing it).

edited 9th Jan '18 5:54:27 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Nope. The lymph system is the intermediary. Not to mention that neurons need nutrients, too, and many are directly hooked up to the usual supply route that is the vascular system. Which means hormones. Which is another word for "neurotransmitters".

Your kidneys can tell parts of your brain what to do. Heck, your gut biome converses with many parts of the nervous system!

edited 9th Jan '18 6:07:17 PM by Euodiachloris

This conversation is going to get very complicated very quickly. Let's try to take it in order:

@Marq (1724 from the previous page): "Has anyone considered that perhaps the cerebellum and/or spinal column, the other parts of the central nervous system, may have a role in that, since both halves of the brain have to connect to them even when completely separated from each other? Because otherwise, the only logical explanation IMO is that consciousness doesn't arise from the brain itself..."

There is a third possibility. First, no, the information that each hemisphere processes isn't being passed back down the spinal cord and leaking over that way—if it were, the visual vs. verbal impairments that severing the CC wouldn't occur. However, the consciousness, in all likelyhood, doesnt arise from a specific area of the brain. I have my own theory about what the consciousness is. What follows is speculative, but consistent with the facts as I know them.

What almost has to be happening is that what we experience as a unitary sense of self-awareness actually isnt unitary at all—there are distinct components of the experienced self that are being processed in different areas. For example, it's almost for certain that the area of the brain responsible for percieving parts of your body as, well, parts of your body is not the same area that houses the semantic long term memory (another essential part of the experienced self). But self-awareness is unitary because what we consciously experience jumps around inside our head. What aspect of our thinking we are consciously aware of must become activated (for want of a better term) by some sort of critical mass of cognitive complexity—I'm going to oversimplify a bit here—it's as if whichever part of the brain is "most active" (in quotes because it's more complicated than that) is what we experience consciously. To clarify—this "conscousness point" doesn't travel, it can jump from one part to another as different areas are activated. This can even include more than one part simultaneously. Thus, when the brain is severed in half, this phenomenon isn't interrupted at all—whichever process is "most activated" will still be experienced consciously, regardless of which side of the brain it is on.

I know that this will be confusing. I'm claiming that what you experience as yourself inside your head moves around the brain in discontinuous fashion—it's a side-effect of whichever cognitive process happens to be activated in the most complex fashion at any one point. Of course there are times when no part of our brain is activated with sufficient complexity to act as a seat of consciousness—we call that state... wait for it... being unconscious.

Weird and difficult to understand, I know, but I honestly can't think of any other theory that explains how we observe the consciousness to act. It certain isn't located at a specific place in the brain. And if it were simply distributed across the entire surface of the cortex, as I've seen proposed, then severing the Corpus Callosum should produce two people in the same head simultaneously, which it doesn't.

Of course, everyone is free to come up with their own theory.

"Yet unlike your average Split Personality example, both are genuinely the same person, just shifting between very drastically different states of personality. There's no loss of memory in any shift, no conflict and no mutual awareness because they're a single entity in the first place."

This is a quote from the Wikipedia article: "...DID is among the most controversial of the dissociative disorders and among the most controversial disorders found in the DSM-IV-TR.[10] The primary dispute is between those who believe DID is caused by traumatic stresses forcing the mind to split into multiple identities, each with a separate set of memories,[64][11] and the belief that the symptoms of DID are produced artificially by certain psychotherapeutic practices or patients playing a role they believe appropriate for a person with DID."

So it sounds like there is no expert consensus around this, and what you are describing is simply the explanation of the disorder by the skeptics. They don't believe that there is memory loss, and so what must be happening is two personality styles that are both being produced by the same original personality.

As for the brain-body divide, it is true that the cognitive functioning in the brain is so deeply interconnected to physical processes in the rest of the body (and vice-versa, of course) that many researchers are beginning to abandon the idea. Google "Gut Brain Axis" for one example of how this works.

edited 9th Jan '18 8:19:05 PM by DeMarquis

The retina and the optic nerve are not just "technically" part of the brain, they are actually an extension of the brain.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Yes, I am aware. I went through a class on brain anatomy, I absolutely need you to tell me the differences.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

Then why use the word "stem"?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

There is question I have about telling someone about their flaws and why they are not fit for a certain position. Let us say you were aiming for position that you wanted so badly only to learn that your teacher/employer told you cannot have that position due to a character flaw. What do you do then? How are you supposed to handle this?

"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."

Nod your head politely and thank them.

If there is an appeal process available, use it. If not, and you believe you are being treated unfairly, then give in gracefully, while looking for a better posituon somewhere else.

Dont get accusatory or confrontational. It will only make things worse.

I see.

Can how you sleep effects emotional state and/or even your thoughts? Are feelings and emotions tied to sleep?

"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."

Of course they are. There are all sorts of research and variables that interact in complex ways, but the takeaway is pretty simple: get plenty of rest at night, and dont over-rely on medication if you can help it.

So sleep is important but how long do you need to sleep in order to keep yourself focused and sane? What about for us night owls who work at night?

"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."

It’s going to vary from person to person but I think 8 hours a night is what’s generally considered healthy. As for night owls, I believe working during the ‘wrong’ time doe shave an impact on us, but as long as we’re still getting the right amount of sleep the impact should be minimal.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Actually, while eight hours of sleep is not harmful, from a purely biological perspective, you only need somewhere between six and six and a half hours in order to not suffer any adverse effects. The reason people generally experience adverse effects if they sleep that long is because we've conditioned ourselves to sleep eight hours, but that requirement is a result of labor activism (8 hours of work, 8 hours of free time, 8 hours of rest), not scientific consensus.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

According tothese guys (The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and Sleep Research Society) its 7 hours average. But it varies so much from person to person, that you really have to determine it for yourself. Rule: if you are tired during the day, go to sleep half an hour earlier the next night.

And just in case anyone's wondering: Yes, there are indeed people who have the seemingly superhuman power of not needing more than 2-3 hours of sleep per day. They're anomalies, though.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

There was an article by a sleep researcher here, talking about the quality and quantity issue and noted that there are (technically) quite a lot of people who can go with a few hours of sleep and be fine. It's just that common wisdom has overtaken that and notes that many force themselves to sleep far longer than necessary.

edited 27th Feb '18 10:31:00 AM by TerminusEst

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

On a different note, if anyone is interested in a very comprehensive critical social psychological critique of psychology as a scientific discipline, I would highly recommend Ian Parker's Revolution In Psychology.

Extremely well-written, very engaging, is worth a looksie even if I'm almost 100% sure you'll disagree with many of Parker's assertions - I certainly do.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

Courtesy Link

A politically radical take on the profession of psychology: "Psychology as ideology". Reasoned and well-informed criticism is always welcome and useful, even if not everyone is going to agree with the author's conclusions.

Is there anything in Psychology to support the claim that people just like to complain?

Archaeology has your back on that one. Early writing = early complaints about the writers' various bosses, spouses and the weather. <shrugs>

When it comes to documented behaviour... complaining has a long history of existing. The simple reason for it is that being an individual in a big world = problems. And, rituals of social bonding include complaining about e.g. the weather or the food.

Heck, I'd put money that baby birds complaining at either mum or dad about not getting the biggest worm fast enough goes back to the first feathered archosaur.

edited 26th Mar '18 5:42:33 AM by Euodiachloris

What do you call the phenomena where you realize that you possess the same negative attitude that you criticize others for? Let's say if you found someone out to be a jerk because of his attitude but you get called out on that very same behavior trait that you criticized that person for having, what is that called?

"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."

That's just good old hypocrisy.

Disgusted, but not surprised

More specifically, I believe it's projection.

I guess you are right but I was looking for something where someone who observes your actions calls out you out on the same behavior dsiplaying that you previously condemned.

"Eratoeir is a Gangsta."

Maaaaaan. It's been almost two years since I opened up any kind of psychology-related texts. Now I can't really remember anything on that subject aside from PSY 101 and PTSD related materials. XP

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.