Does anxiety produce adrenaline or does adrenaline make the person anxious? Its obvious that both are related(adrenaline and anxiety) but which causes which?
What (I think) I know:

Anxiety accelerates the hearth rhythm due to the feeling of fear. It makes the body believe that there is a need to spend an enormous amount of energy getting away(someway) so it cuts the blood flow in the cognitive parts of the brain and sends more blood to the other muscles, it also releases adrenaline in the blood due to the increasing need of energy(even if there is no real need).
Adrenaline, (when released) makes the hearth rhythm increase and gives some "extra" power to the muscles by cutting the blood flow in the brain and giving it to the muscles. With the lost of blood flow in the brain the person loses a considerable part of the cognitive capacity (among other things), causing the person to have some feelings (like anxiety) and unreal thoughts.

Resuming my question: Anxiety results in a release of adrenaline, but adrenaline also makes the brain malfunction causing some feelings like anxiety. It makes sense but it is an infinite cycle. What is the false (and why), or if both are true then how does it ends?

Sorry for the delay getting to an answer - the holidays have been super busy for me this year.

If you feel up to it, definitely check out the link @ChuckSherrington posted in the comments.  That has more information than you'll need for a while.

Getting down to business:  The answer to your question is both!

Since your question assumes that both are related and affect each other, I won't go into how they do that.

However, to clear up some misconceptions:

It's not a 1-to-1 cycle.

That is, the "amount" of anxiety reduced by reducing adrenaline is not the same as the amount of adrenaline reduced by reducing anxiety.  Similarly, the amount of anxiety created by inducing adrenaline is small compared to the amount of adrenaline created by inducing anxiety.

There are other factors at work

This is where the "parasympathetic" thing comes in.  The human nervous system is actually two systems (broken up into the Central Nervous System (CNS) and the Peripheral Nervous System (PNS), though the PNS is often broken down further).

One of the component parts of the PNS is the Autonomic Nervous System.  This carries out the largely unconscious functions of daily life: breathing, heartbeat, digestion, etc.  It is further split into two components: the Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) and the Parasympathetic Nervous System (pSNS).

A very rough and reductionist analogy would be to say that these two, together, are like two springs one either side of a ball (or something) - they keep each other regulated and in balance.

The SNS is responsible for very fast, excitatory activity.  Fight or flight, for example.  The adrenal response is part of the sympathetic nervous system.

The pSNS is a lot slower.  One of it's primary functions is to return the body to a relaxed state after it was provoked in an excited state.

From the wiki-books article @ChuckSherrington posted:

  While an oversimplification, it is said that the parasympathetic system acts in a reciprocal manner to the effects of the sympathetic nervous system; in fact, in some tissues innervated by both systems, the effects are synergistic.

So as you hopefully have seen, as normal-functioning humans (which, to live, you must have both a SNS and a pSNS; it's not a question), you have a modulation response which keeps the adrenal response (the base response to a threatening stimulus that prepares the body for fast action) from getting out of hand.

Now, lastly, a disclaimer of sorts:

The link between neural activity and thoughts is tenuous at best!  Many people are involved in many flame wars over the link between neural activity and phenomenology (experienced reality).  The most direct view, and a very common one (from what I can tell) is the view that neural activity is reality itself.  That is, our existence, our lives, our individual personalized reality, is neural activity itself.

But you will have to decide that question for yourself, because this is not a philosophy question/answer.

What's important is that the link between having thoughts and having feelings is not well understood.  So adrenaline may make you nervous, but it may give Susie Randomgirl a panic attack (believe it or not, I know someone who can work themselves into a panic attack, every time - and they still don't get that they do it to themselves).


What to expect from a seriously mentally ill individual when a poor prognosis is revealed through improper channels? I recently learned about a friend who is suffering from some serious mental illness from someone who has yet to reveal this illness to the individual.  Apparently the individual in question suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD; and perhaps some other serious issues) and has very, very little chance for improvement through treatment as the prognosis is very poor according to the professionals. This is compounded by a likelihood that this individual is going to lose their children due to the circumstances of the situation.

My question is, statistically or experientially, what kind of a reaction can one normally expect from such an individual?

This person also, in the past, had an obsession with death and "murder scene" magazines. They also have lost someone very close through a family murder / suicide wherein a parent killed their entire family (spouse and children). This left an absolutely indelible impression upon this individual. This person also has a very reactionary and violent personality that tends to escalate issues that should be minimal. They frequently will become angered or even rage instead of having a normal weepy reaction to such stimuli that might cause a regular person sadness.

The reason I ask is that this person has children and I am extremely concerned about the manner that this news will be revealed to the individual.  I would like to understand what kind of risk the children and their spouse (with whom they do not have a good relationship) are in.

Unfortunately I don't have any real power over the situation but to perhaps offer some suggestions and try to keep close (but safe) in order to keep the children out of harm's way. This has me very uncomfortable and worried as I don't have much power over the situation, but I would like to know potentially what to expect.

There is an answer to a similar question regarding narcistic behaviour and negative feedback reaction:

How can a narcissist be given negative feedback without triggering aggressive behavior?

It is a more general answer. The case you described has surely a lot more facets and details to consider.
I would have just commented it, but I don't have enough reputation.


Difference in frequencies of mistakes between use of left-right vs. up-down I have no hard data, but from my personal experience in people specifying right or left directions (similarly east or west) and up or down (north or south, top or bottom), people frequently make mistakes with specifying left or right much more often.

1) Is there some hard data on such a difference in frequencies?

2) If so, does cognitive-neuroscience address this difference?

(Certainly, there are physical properties of our world that enforce the distinction between up and down (gravity) but not between left and right although people do generally have a right-hand motor bias.)

There is data on this question generated by research on the embodiment of spatial cognition. The idea here is that we mentally represent and construct space in relation to our bodies. From this perspective, the differences that you describe (left vs. right more complicated than up vs down) stem from the properties of how we perceive the world in our bodies:

Tversky (2008) describing research of Franklin and Tversky (1990):

  We proposed that people keep track of the relative positions of the objects around them as they move by constructing a spatial-mental framework out of the three axes of the body and appending objects to it, updating it as the situation changes. We reasoned that accessibility of objects should reflect characteristics of the body axes and the world  relevant to perception and action. The head-feet axis has salient asymmetries both perceptually and behaviorally; moreover, for the canonically upright observer, it correlates with the only asymmetric axis in the world, the up-down axis of gravity. The  front-back axis separates the world that can be easily perceived and acted on from the world that cannot be easily perceived or acted on, but the left-right axis has few salient perceptual or behavioral asymmetries. This analysis predicts that, for the upright observer, things located along the head-feet axis should be fastest to retrieve, followed by things located on the front-back axis, followed by things located on the left-right axis.

Their data supports this reasoning. Furthermore in their experiments they also disentangled gravity from body orientation by having some participants recline:

  For the reclining observer, no body axis correlates with gravity, so accessibility depends entirely on the body axes. In this case, things located along the front-back axis should be fastest because of the forward bias of perception and action.

This was the case as well.

Note that accessibility was operationalized as the speed in which participants could name the position of an object. Participants made very few errors in this task. So strictly speaking it does not answer your question about left-right errors. On the whole, this has nevertheless much overlap with your question. They could have increased the number of errors by imposing a short reaction time window, for example. In this case they would have expected these effects on the error rate.

References

Franklin, N., & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 63–76. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.119.1.63

Tversky, B. (2008). Spatial cognition: Situated and embodied. In P. Robbins and M. Aydede (Eds). Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


How much information on the "Identical Strangers" experiment was actually released? I am in the process of researching the Nature vs. Nurture debate.

While I was searching for articles on it, I discovered something known as the "Identical Strangers" experiment (that probably was not it's real name, but it is the name of the book that the twins wrote about it). It was an experiment done in the 1960s where 2 identical twins were separated at birth and raised in different homes. The study looked at how they developed.

I noticed when looking it up that there was something that said that details about the full experiment were locked away until 2066. My question is:

Is there any part of the experiment that has been documented (it can even be from the adopted parents, it doesn't necessarily have to be from the study itself) that is publicly available, or is all of it locked away at Yale University for the next 54 years?

To learn about other twins reared apart, investigate the earlier Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart and the ongoing Minnesota Twin Family Study.

To pique your curiosity:

Jim Lewis and Jim Springer stand out in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart because some of their two histories were strikingly identical; several notable examples:

1st wife: "Linda"
2nd wife: "Betty"
Dog: "Toy"
Cigarette: Salem
Job: Sherrif's deputy
built a circular white bench around a tree in the yard

References

  Bouchard Jr, T.J., Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Segal, N.L. & Tellegen, A. (1990) Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science 250:223-228. [pdf]
  Holden, C. (1980) Identical Twins Reared Apart. Science, 207:1323-1325. [extract]


What is a belief, and how does it differ from an opinion? While many theories in cognitive science rely on the concept of a "belief" I do not see much on the definition of a belief or how it compares to other mental states. What is a belief, and how does it compare to things like opinions?

Edit: This article from the Guardian reviews research into what forms and influences belief, gives some make up of what a belief is, but I could not find a, and separate, scientific defintion.
A opinion is a judgement based on facts while a belief is a conviction based on personal values.

 An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. (For example, we know that millions of people go without proper medical care, and so you form the opinion that the country should institute national health insurance even though it would cost billions of dollars.) An opinion is potentially changeable--depending on how the evidence is interpreted. By themselves, opinions have little power to convince. You must always let your reader know what your evidence is and how it led you to arrive at your opinion.
Unlike an opinion, a belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values. Statements such as "Capital punishment is legalized murder" are often called "opinions" because they express viewpoints, but they are not based on facts or other evidence. They cannot be disproved or even contested in a rational or logical manner. Since beliefs are inarguable, they cannot serve as the thesis of a formal argument.

Colorado State University


What is depersonalization and derealization disorder from a neurological point of view? Lately, there is a lot of information on the psychological, experiential and behavioral aspects of DP/DR.

(I find it most interesting as many have described it as having one foot in the spiritual realm and the other in this.)

When is it defined as an experience and what is the criteria that makes it a disorder?

As a disorder how is DP/DR described from a scientific neurological point of view?

Is some part of the brain damaged?

How is it physically similar to other disorders or issues (stroke, epilepsy)?

What methods directly or indirectly reverse the changes caused by it?

Why is this considered a relatively "new disorder" as I am sure it has been experienced in past decades?

Is it possible many have it and don't know it, as it appears there is a lot of subjectivity in defining it?

Any information is greatly appreciated.

You ask for a very in detail analysis of depersonalization (DP) and derealization (DR) disorder. I'll try to meet your expectation.

Lets start with some definitions. Depersonalization and derealization happen after people have experienced great amounts of psychological stress or brain injury. The likes of which their coping measures fail to handle. The brain in an effort to contain the pain cuts off some contact with reality or self identity. DP/DR can be a sign of the onset of psychosis in bipolar or schizo type individuals; however it is not correlary to psychosis.  "it was like a dream" is how someone speaks of derealization and "did that happen to me or did I hear about it happening to someone else" is depresonalization.

DP/DR (not the disorder) is very common among those who have been in any way traumatized (especially head trauma) happening about half the time. (Hunter 2004) Basically when you hear on TV "He's going into schock". They mean the patient is experiencing an acute stress reaction one of which features is DP/DR.

Because DP/DR is oft encompassed by shock let me describe the physiological symptoms and treatment of shock before we discuss the psychological and neurological signs.

Appear as a living zombie.
Cool, clammy skin which may be pale or gray. Ie the blood drained out of their face.
Abnormally weak or rapid pules and breathing.
Low blood pressure.
Absent staring eyes with occasional pupil dilation.
Sometimes overly excited or catatonic

In response to shock always get professional medical help by dialing the emergency number of your town/nation like 911. Make the person as comfortable and still as possible with reassurances until professional help arrives. Do not give them any food or water as the body is unprepared to handle any additional input.

Shock happens before DP/DR disorder. When the specific features of DP/DR continue or reemerge longstanding after trauma it becomes a disorder. (Simeon 2006)  As a disorder it is the third most frequent. (Simeon 2004) A self administered intake survey or an hour long psychological interview following DSM guidelines allows a doctor to make the diagnosis.

The general guidelines provided by the DSM-IV-TR:

  Longstanding or recurring feelings of being detached from one's mental processes or body, as if one is observing them from the outside or in a dream.

  Reality testing is unimpaired during depersonalization
  Depersonalization causes significant difficulties or distress at work, or social and other important areas of life functioning.

  Depersonalization does not only occur while the individual is experiencing another mental disorder, and is not associated with substance use or a medical illness.

  The DSM-IV-TR specifically recognizes three possible additional features of depersonalization disorder:

  Derealization, experiencing the external world as strange or unreal.
  Macropsia or micropsia, an alteration in the perception of object size or shape.

  A sense that other people seem unfamiliar or mechanical.

-Wikipedia Depersonalization Disorder

Your first assertion that DP/DR is associated with spirituality is correct. As when psychotic hallucinations happen they typically have a DP/DR feature to them. It is common for something obviously psychotic like seeing an angel or devil to be associated with an out of body experience or vision type trance. Common is it for someone to experience a trip to the spirit world to see a loved one. Such events are to a limited extent drug induceable. (I do not like many other students of psychology believe that all spirituality is aberrant however much is caused by illness.) Psychologist typically teach a patient what is a hallucination and psychosis and allow the individual to label their experience as either spiritual or psychotic.

Now the neurological basis is diverse as it is not necessarily an organic originating condition but a response disease. I was able to find two main theories first a functional difference and the second based on lesions in the brain.

  On the basis of this, a new model is proposed according to which the state of increased alertness observed in depersonalization results from an activation of prefrontal attentional systems (right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and reciprocal inhibition of the anterior cingulate, leading to experiences of “mind emptiness” and “indifference to pain” often seen in depersonalization. On the other hand, a left-sided prefrontal mechanism would inhibit the amygdala resulting in dampened autonomic output, hypoemotionality, and lack of emotional coloring that would, in turn, be reported as feelings of “unreality or detachment.”

-Depersonalization: neurobiological perspectives

  Although DP/DR can occur as a primary condition, it often accompanies other psychiatric  or neurological diseases.

  Most of the neurological conditions associated with DP/DR, such as epilepsy, migraine, and mild head trauma etc have poor localisation value. However, DP/DR have also been described accompanying localised lesions. This raises the question if the study of such cases (the lesion method) might be a valuable approach to study the neurobiology of DP/DR.

-Separating depersonalisation and derealisation: the relevance of the “lesion method”

  Depersonalization appears to be associated with functional abnormalities along sequential hierarchical areas, secondary and cross-modal, of the sensory cortex (visual, auditory, and somatosensory), as well as areas responsible for an integrated body schema. These findings are in good agreement with the phenomenological conceptualization of depersonalization as a dissociation of perceptions as well as with the subjective symptoms of depersonalization disorder.

-Feeling Unreal: A PET Study of Depersonalization Disorder

To answer another one of your questions as the above papers show it may or may not be caused by organic brain damage. It is co-morbid to epilepsy but is its own distinct diseases. That is to say epilepsy is caused by overloads in neural pathways like a neural thunderstorm. DR/DP is what is left over after the storm starts destroying pathways. Likewise with oxygen deprivation and a stroke.

There are no drugs to treat all the symptoms of DR/DP instead antidepressants like Prozac and anti-anxiety like Klonopin are known to help sometimes.

Freud created a very basic and useful treatment for DP/DR called Reality testing which is a main component in CBT. In it you logically examine and reflect on your emotional responses and see how you correctly or incorrectly responded. The you make adjustments to become more rational. Rather than fixing the underlying problem it allows the sufferer to adapt to the disease.

DR/DP is not always associated with a delusion. So sometimes people can self identify the onset of an episode.

All things psychological are new but DP/DR is not very new. It was introduced in DSM-II in 1968. Yes DP/DR diagnostic is controversial in the psychological science. This is because it is used in criminal law. As it is a major question if someone who commits a crime in a DP/DR state should be held equally accountable. (Saks 2000)

References

Hunter EC, Sierra M, David AS (2004). "The epidemiology of depersonalization and derealisation. A systematic review". Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology 39 (1): 9–18. doi:10.1007/s00127-004-0701-4. PMID 15022041

Simeon, D., & Abugel, J. (2006). Feeling Unreal: Depersonalization Disorder and the Loss of the Self. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Simeon D (2004). "Depersonalisation Disorder: A Contemporary Overview". CNS Drugs 18 (6): 343–54. doi:10.2165/00023210-200418060-00002. PMID 15089102.

Sierra, M., & Berrios, G. E. (1998). Depersonalization: neurobiological perspectives. Biological Psychiatry, 44(9), 898-908.

Sierra, M., Lopera, F., Lambert, M. V., Phillips, M. L., & David, A. S. (2002). Separating depersonalisation and derealisation: the relevance of the “lesion method”. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 72(4), 530-532.

Simeon, D., Guralnik, O., Hazlett, E. A., Spiegel-Cohen, J., Hollander, E., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (2000). Feeling unreal: a PET study of depersonalization disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(11), 1782-1788.

Saks, E. R., & Behnke, S. H. (2000). Jekyll on trial: Multiple personality disorder and criminal law. NYU Press.


How is memory structured (from a modeling perspective)? My understanding is that memory is neither purely associationist (fully connected graph with weights) nor purely hierarchical (tree). What structure does biological evidence point towards? I'm interested in the mathematical representation.

The structure of memory depends on what you're trying to model. Since there are many types of memory, this question is almost too broad. So instead of giving you a systematic review, I'll give a quick tour of some models I know which should give you a starting point.

List memorization appears to be modeled by a combination of neuron weight updates and integrators saving symbols modeled as vectors. See "An Integrated Model of Context, Short-Term, and Long-Term Memory" by Jan Gosmann.

Task/procedural memory has been modeled as a stack-like data-structure while still representing the symbols as vectors. See "A scaleable spiking neural model of action planning" by Blouw et al.

Spatial memory is weirder and seems to be best modeled as a function space. See "Vector-based navigation using grid-like representations in artificial agents" by Banino et al.

Visual memory has some nice models too, but I don't know them that well.


Where in the brain is meaning extracted from visual information? I am looking into several systems for improving learning speeds and ran into a question I seem unable to answer on my own:

When we read a word, it somehow gets converted into it's abstract meaning.
To be clear in my further descriptions, I will encapsulate written information into " and abstract information into +

For example, a person fluent in English and Japanese (or Chinese for this particular example) could look at the letters

"Tree"

and

"木"

and in both cases convert this information into the internal representation of +tree+.

My questions are

Is my understanding of the reading process accurate?
If yes, what zone(s) of the brain would handle this conversion?
Where in the brain on the 10-20 System would these zones be located?

The short answer is we don't know for sure. Look up "alexia" and "agraphia"; pinpointing the regions of the brain that, if damaged, interfere with reading might give some indication of the cortical regions involved.

Visual cortex (back of the brain) is obviously necessary for the general population, but it's clearly possible for blind people to learn to read without vision. I'm not aware if blind people require an intact visual cortex or not.

There is a nice study showing that semantic information is present in a very compact form in the hippocampus: Invariant visual representation by single-neurons in the human brain.
Quian Quiroga R, Reddy L, Kreiman G, Koch C and Fried I
Nature, 435: 1102-1107; 2005. PDF


Is the concept of neuroplasticity applicable to visual cortex and how does it affect visual perception? I've been searching about this but all I found was this presentation, which is a bit too technical for me to understand, e.g: Visual Cortical Plasticity

In what way does neuroplasticity affect the visual cortex?

For example, a person that wears glasses, if he/she stopped using them completely or from time to time, will the visual perception and interpretation of blurred data get better by just training? Will that blur also be reduced with training?

Yes, the visual cortex is plastic, even in adults:

  We measured adaptation in the responses of populations of cat V1
  neurons to stimulus ensembles with markedly different statistics of
  stimulus orientation. We found that adaptation served two homeostatic
  goals. First, it maintained equality in the time-averaged responses
  across the population. Second, it maintained independence in
  selectivity across the population.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v16/n6/full/nn.3382.html

  Plasticity is invoked for encoding information during perceptual learning, by internally representing the regularities of the visual environment, which is useful for facilitating intermediate-level vision--contour integration and surface segmentation. The same mechanisms have adaptive value for functional recovery after CNS damage, such as that associated with stroke or neurodegenerative disease. A common feature to plasticity in primary visual cortex (V1) is an association field that links contour elements across the visual field. The circuitry underlying the association field includes a plexus of long-range horizontal connections formed by cortical pyramidal cells. These connections undergo rapid and exuberant sprouting and pruning in response to removal of sensory input, which can account for the topographic reorganization following retinal lesions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22841310


Why do pupils dilate in response to emotional state? I just came across an article on the internet stating that,

  Pupils dilate when we find someone or something attractive.

So, as far as I know, this kind of dilation doesn't seem to have any effect on attractiveness of subject, does it?

For example:

Suppose if a one person A in love with person B, and pupils of A tend to dilate when seeing B, What effect does it have on B? Any psychological effect perhaps?

P.S. I'm not sure if this should be on Cog.Sci

The dilation of the pupil is under control of the sympathetic nervous system. The main role of the sympathetic nervous system is to get the body ready for fast response. The typical example is the 'fight-or-flight' response, but that can also occur in the presence of a potential sexual partner. Therefore, dilated pupils can be a sign of sexual arousal.
Now, that's the response of the person showing the dilated pupils, but your question related to the effect on the other person. People with more dilated pupils are rated as more attractive by observers unaware of this manipulation Tombs & Silverman, 2004 - at least for males looking at females. As an aside, people in ancient Egypt are said to have used atropine, which is a poison extracted from the belladonna plant, as a cosmetic to artificially dilate their pupils.


Why is storytelling an effective way to transmit information between people? Parables, fables, myths, whatever you might call them, stories have always been part of human consciousness. Within recent decades, storytelling is recognized as a big component of advertising and marketing. Stories can capture our attention, motivate us, and make us feel.

Is there any scientific research which provides an explanation as to why humans are so cognitively responsive to stories?

Narrative psychology is probably the go-to domain of research and theory for questions about the power and popularity of stories. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia page (with added emphasis):

Narrative psychology is...concerned with the "storied nature of human conduct" [(Sarbin, 1986)] or...how human[s]...deal with experience by constructing stories and listening to the stories of others. Operating under the assumption that human activity and experience are filled with "meaning" and stories, rather than logical arguments or lawful formulations...[this] dichotomy...[appears (Bruner, 1990)] as a distinction between "paradigmatic" and "narrative" forms of thought, in his understanding they are both fundamental but irreducible one to the another.
According to Sarbin (1986) "narrative" is a root metaphor for psychology that should replace the mechanistic and organic metaphors which shaped so much theory and research in the discipline over the past century. The indisputable physical events of a personal occurrence are different from a story that results from the storied cause and effect relationships. (McKinnon) [citation unavailable]
...Independent of any fiction in the actual physical matter told, are physical events that are as unequivocal as quantum mechanics and human chemistry.

I'm unfamiliar with examples of narrative psychological research of the sort you're looking for specifically, but the above seems to argue from psychological theory at least that narratives gain appeal and influence from their apparent factuality. Narratives may not claim to apply their principles generally, let alone acknowledge any limits to their generality, but maybe people naturally infer generality anyway, and are less likely to recognize limits on their own when they aren't mentioned...This is just speculation though.
One other idea that's at least equally worth mentioning (which may not be saying much) is that narratives are particularly influential in the study of identity. Tying negative events in one's life into a redemptive life narrative relates to well-being, though causality isn't clear in this relationship (McAdams & McLean, 2013). Maybe a similar principle applies from an observer's perspective: maybe consumers of stories "create meaning" vicariously by putting both good and bad events in the shared context of others' lives. Maybe advertisers' messages are more subtly appealing (and less overbearing) when embedded in the narratives of relatable, likable characters that seem to have more to say than just what their favorite shampoo is. Again, this is speculation; I'm no advertiser. I mostly hope I've given you some ideas to follow up on in study of the areas of psychological research with which I am somewhat familiar: narrative identity, and narrative psychology in general.

References
· Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
· McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233–238.
· Sarbin, T. R. (1986). Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. Praeger Publishers / Greenwood Publishing Group.


Plutchik's emotions from negative to positive I'm trying to order Plutchik's emotions model from the most negative to the most positive.

These are the emotions in alphabetical order:

anger, anticipation, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, surprise, trust

I didn't find anything online regarding this. Can someone help me?

Negative to positive suggests a linear scale between negative and positive.  The literature does not seem to support such a one dimensional scale.

There is a two-dimensional taxonomy that has the personality descriptor 'negative' in cell (-2,-2) and positive in (2,2), which suggests a diagonal line on the two-dimensional plane that best represents negative to positive (Mobbs, 2020).

The words are scored and sorted in accordance with the atlas as follows.

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


Knowledge in what fields is necessary to develop an EEG brain-computer interface? I am a computer science student, and as part of my project, I would like to develop a system that changes the TV channel, increases its volume, etc. by just the thought of it. My primary investigation paved the way to EEG BCI.

Which fields should I research in order to develop such a system, and what equipment in general is necessary? As far as I know we need an EEG device attached to head, a transmitter to send the signal to the TV, a receiver at the TV side, and proper processing of signals and feeding to the TV. I mostly need more explanation of the EEG side.

Beyond what you've already listed, you'll need advanced signal processing skills, as so far, nobody has figured out how to get much more meaningful information out of the EEG than broad attentional state (alpha blocking and the P300, and the evoked potentials), and maybe some correlates of motor imagery, though none of these have realistically proved themselves yet.

You will need to clean the signal using techniques such as independent component analysis/ICA and wavelet denoising, and identify some weak correlate of mental activity in the strong irrelevant "background" activity. Approaches regarding the latter fall into two camps, as I've noted above: either try to identify some well-known neuropsychological component, such as the P300, on a single-trial basis; and/or use machine learning to agnostically identify a signal, with Support Vector Machines being en vogue right now as far as I know. I assume the latter part you're already informed about.

Check out MOBILab for some of the leading figures with regards to EEG signal processing, but be aware that the EEG is an extremely noisy measure.


The clock stop when switching focus I have notice that when I switch my focus from existing task to a clock (both digital, which shows numbers, and mechanical, which shows arms), the time on the clock seem to stop ticking for a brief moment.

So, my question is that does this phenomena has a term? Is there any explanation why this will happen? Is this common or is this a problem only few person would ever experience?

Since I am new to this field, I would also like to know how to tag this kind of question. Thank you very much.

Yes, there is a term for this phenomenon. It is called stopped-clock illusion. It’s a type of chronostasis or a kind of temporal illusion, that the time interval is perceived to be longer than it really is.

Though I’m not totally convinced myself, the current explanation is like this:

This phenomenon happens because the brain fills in the perception gap that occurs (while changing visual targets) with the end visual target. This is because, when we change visual targets by moving our eyes, the overall visual scene will become blurred during that time and the brain avoids this confusing visual input by suppressing it, which results in a perception gap during that period of time. When the gaze changing ends, the brain fills this gap with the static image of the end visual target instead. As a result, the end visual target will be perceived to exist longer than it is actually seen. This suppressing of the blurred image also explains why we never experience blurry images while we move our eyes to see things around us.

References:

Wikipedia. Chronostasis
BBC Future. The mystery of the stopped clock illusion

More in-depth, academic references:

Eagleman DM. Human time perception and its illusions. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2008 April;18(2):131–136.
van Wassenhove V, Wittmann M, Craig AD, Paulus MP. Psychological and neural mechanisms of subjective time dilation. Front Neurosci.2011;5:56.


How to deal with a friend who cuts I am asking here since I have no idea where else I could of asked. I have a friend who is having difficulties with depression. I don't how long this has been ongoing, but he is often down. I presume it might of have been because he got rejected by the girl he liked. My friend often jokes about being in depression or suicide.

Today, we were walking outside and talking and my friend suddenly pulls up his sleeve and we (we were 3 other friends with him at that time) saw lots of cuts, around 15 of them, and one huge one in the middle (a very deep wound). He seemed proud of showing off his cuts, and bragged about the scar his big one would leave. We were quite shocked and did not know how to react. My other friend then confessed that he had seen the scars on a picture my friend sent him, but he thought it was a joke.

My friend has been seeing the school therapist for a while, but these scars were (presumably) from yesterday. I wonder if he is telling everything to this professional. I am a bit worried about my friend; that was a very deep wound.

I would like to have some tips on how to deal with a situation like this. He is seeing professional help, but I don't know if it is helping.

Although popular culture and public opinion may lead people to believe that self injury is either a phase or people seeking attention. The truth is that this behavior becomes an unhealthy coping mechanism for any number of unpleasant scenarios.

The idea of distractionary coping mechanisms by themselves are not harmful, but self injury is specifically more dangerous because causing injury in the first place opens ones self up to infection, permanent physical damage, even accidental suicide.

Self injury often co-occurs with another mental illness, both disorders need to be diagnosed and treated by a decent psychiatric team which may include medications, but most definitely therapy. This is much more than a school therapist can provide. There is more information here: Mayo Clinic on Self Injury

If your friend is not receiving the level of help that he needs or he cannot commit to safety, it would be best to take some type of action.

Possibly:

Call a help line
Inform the school therapist
If your friend has any supportive family members, maybe informing them would help
In any immediate emergency call 911


Where does instinctual knowledge come from? From Wikipedia:

  Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living
  organism towards a particular complex behavior.

The example that I find is the easiest to touch upon is the spider and how it knows how to spin it's web. What are the current theories about the origin of this knowledge without learning in the traditional sense? I understand that all knowledge is encoded somehow within neurons in the brain, but where does this encoding come from?

In my mind there are two main explanations of this kind of instinct behaviours.

The first one is rooted in evolution. There are many examples of human innate behaviours which we can't explain e.g. when we see a lace or tape on the street we automatically jump and feel scared. Although we live in big city our brain associates the lace with a snake. It is an effect of our "prememories", memories of our ancestors.

-> Buss D., Evolutionary Psychology: the New science of the Mind (1999)

The second explanation is more connected with your question as it refers to animals' innate instincts such as birds' travels (how do they know where to fly?) etc. Some interesting experiments were conducted on a phenomenon called epigenetic inheritance. An example is teaching animals some reactions after specific stimulus (e.g.fear after specific smell etc.). Then we observe the learned behaviours in the descendants of these animals. Offspring of trained animals show the same reaction , although nobody trained them to do that. There is an abstract of such experiment with mice:

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n1/full/nn.3594.html

And there you can read more about it in another article:

http://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272#/b1

-> Griffiths, Gelbart, Miller. Modern Genetic Analysis.(1999)


How does the brain process generalizations? What is the current thinking on how the brain processes generalizations? For example, the abstract idea of a right angled triangle vs specific instances of right angled triangles? Or the general idea of a cat vs specific instance of cats?

How does a generalization live in the brain? What's the current thinking on how it is encoded?

Medieval philosophers point to such abstractions (that are not material timeless "things") to argue that something itself not material and timeless must exist to "sense" them i.e. a soul. Which is hogwash. But how does one state the nature of such things in terms of human cognition? What is going on when we consider such abstractions?

The thing that comes to mind first are the Gestalt principles. Up front -  the Gestalt theory of perception has been criticized as being a descriptive theory, and not providing much insight into the processes that lead to perception.

However, the principles do address your question, as the Gestalt theory dictates that humans visually and psychologically attempt to make order out of chaos, to create harmony or structure from seemingly disconnected bits of information. Much of the principles deal with figure/ground separation, but an important other aspect is similarity, and specifically

  Gestalt theory states that things which share visual characteristics
  such as shape, size, color, texture, or value will be seen as
  belonging together in the viewer’s mind.

The principle of grouping (Quinn et al., 2002) is indeed fundamental here:

  The similarity principle claims that elements tend to be integrated into groups if they are similar to each other.

Reference
- Quinn et al, Psych Sci (2002); 13(4)


Are there any rules about masking? I am currently programming an experiment where participants have to do a divided visual field task. In a paper about the correct methodology about these tasks, it is said that you should use a backward mask (a mask after the target) in order to avoid after-images.

I have no objection of inserting backward masks in my experiment, but I just can't find any rules about how to implement these correctly.

Does it matter if I use a random black/white pixel rectangle where the target was or some symbols (e.g., ### is often used in psycholinguistic experiments) on that location? Or should I put random black/white pixels over the whole screen?

(Location of the target/mask is not important for the participants, so a target-located or a full-screen mask does not change to the goal of my research.)

Your question was a loooooong time ago, but I just ran across a couple of good references explaining what backward masking does and how to choose one.  This(1) is a great paper examining the neural mechanisms and timing of visual backward masking; according to this (2) 2000 review of masking theory, there are four subtypes of backward masking.

Backward masking can be achieved by

light, when the target is masked by a larger and spatially overlapping uniform flash of light.
metacontrast, when the mask does not overlap the mask spatially.
structure, when the mask overlaps the target as well as shares many structural features of the target.
noise, when the mask consists of random-dot noise over the target.

(There are some papers from the 1960s & 1970s talking about the transient vs sustained activation theory of backward masking function, but they are hard to find online because of their age so I have not included them.)

It's probably a good idea to go and read the 2000 review paper--the full paper is publicly available at that URL--because what kind of backward mask you choose depends on the hypothesis of the experiment.

References
(1) Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, May 1999, Vol. 11, No. 3, Pages 300-311. doi: 10.1162/089892999563409
(2) Perception & Psychophysics, December 2000, Volume 62, Issue 8, pp 1572-1595.


Is intelligence (or mental ability) genetically transferred (inherited characteristic) from the parent to the offspring or is it an acquired trait? The question is simple- whether our mental ability i.e. ability to acquire and store knowledge and comprehend and analyse the stored bits, an inherited trait (i.e. genetically transmitted from the parent to the offspring) or is it an acquired trait (depends on environmental, social factors)?

P.S. - Please attach the link of any reference/research (if any) with your answer.

You could start by reading "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". This is a consensus article based on many of the world's leading researchers on intelligence.

Empirical research suggests that variations in intelligence is largely hereditary.
Specifically estimates of heritability of intelligence at adulthood based on monozygotic twin samples who were reared appart suggests correlations of around .68 to .78 (see p.85 of the above article).

Of course, these estimates are typically based on samples growing up in the same country at a similar point in time. These estimates would be smaller if for example, monozygotic twins could be separated so that one twin grew up in a stone age society and another grew up in developed society with good education and health care.

Intelligence is something that develops over time. We can contrast acquired knowledge and skills (often called crystallised intelligence) with more abstract capacities (often called fluid intelligence). In particular, crystallised intelligence is predicted to improve more with schooling and general exposure to cultural learning experiences.

A lot more could be said about all this, but I recommend you just read the article, see below. It discusses these issue in accessible language and much greater depth:

https://www.mensa.ch/sites/default/files/Intelligence_Neisser1996.pdf
http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/life/Readings2007/Nisbett%20reading.pdf


What is the correlation between self-monitoring and the Big 5 factors of personality? Self-monitoring as a trait refers to a tendency "to closely monitor an audience in order to ensure appropriate or desired public appearances". It is commonly measured using the Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (e.g., Snyder and Gangestad, 1986)

Questions

What is the correlation between self-monitoring and the Big 5 factors of personality?
To what extent is there overlap?
Which Big 5 factor is most related to self-monitoring?

References

Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(1), 125.

I did a quick search and found the following:

Barrick et al (2005) (see Table 1). In a sample with a little over a hundred MBA students they obtained the following correlations with self-monitoring:

Conscientiousness r = -.24
Extraversion r = .31
Agreeableness r = -.08
Emotional Stability  r = -.10
Openness r = .23

Kring, Smith, and Neale (1994) (see Table 3): Correlations with self-monitoring were (I think in a sample of 300+ undergraduates):

Surgency (somewhat similar to extraversion): .51
Agreeableness: r = .06
Conscientiousness: r = -.15
Emotional Stability: r = .37

This would suggest that self-monitoring has only a weak relationship with the Big 5.

The positive relationship with extraversion makes sense given that self-monitoring is related to an aptitude and an interest in adaptive social interactions.

References

Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Self‐monitoring as a moderator of the relationships between personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 745-767.
Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994). Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(5), 934.


Are spaced flashcards effective for learning? Several apps and sites offer flashcard-based learning that repeat the cards you do poorly on over a period of time (the more inaccurate the answer the closer to each other the repetitions are). One example of this is Super Memo.

Is there rigorous empirical support for these types of flashcard systems working?
Do they exploit a known function of memory?

There's lots of research out there on flash cards and they are a proven, effective study aid.

Flash Cards work because of the "Forgetting Curve"; rehearsal and retrieval before you forget an item strengthens the memory before it decays allowing one to optimize encoding into LTM.

The paper Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming is a good summary of why Spacing helps retention, highlighting why it's effective in education and should be emphasized over cramming, which current educational models (finals, tests) currently promote.

Spacing is effective for Long Term Memory as opposed to cramming/massing which is only effective (but it IS effective) in the short term as shown by the above forgetting function.


How to begin neural network Programming I am a Computer Science Student and recently studied neural networks, but theory only. How can this be implemented in real time programming language. What should I search for or what content should I read so that I can do programs using neural network.

A google search for neural network library will return many relevant pages, with neural network libraries written in several programming languages.

You could also look for tutorials on programming perceptrons which are among the most basic neural networks. This would teach you how to actually program the network from scratch, instead of using a pre-made library.

This walkthrough covers the development of a more complex neural network library if you are looking to jump right into building multilayer networks.


Where can I find experimental data supportive of the Hick-Hyman law? The Hick-Hyman law states that in a reaction-time experiment, the average reaction time of a human subject is a linear function of the average information $\sum -p \log p$, i.e. the entropy, contained in the stimulus. [Hyman 1953]

Where can I get data supporting this? Data from Hyman’s paper would be great!

EDIT: more precisely, I'm looking for a complete, trial-by-trial dataset; not just averages.

In Hyman (1953) the following data is shown (Fig.1). The bits of information were the number of choices in an AFC task, where 1 to 8 alternatives corresponded to 0, 1, 1.58, 2.00, 2.32, 2.58, 2.81, and 3 bits of information (the 2log of the N alternatives).

Fig. 1. RT as a function of bits of info. source: Hyman (1953)

Reference
- Hyman, J Exp Psychol (1953); 45(3): 188-96


Dopamine deficiency more frequent in the addiction prone? I found this clip about dopamine deficiency.

  ...[P]eople with low dopamine activity may be more prone to addiction.

Is the reverse also true? Does susceptibility to addiction (genetic, etc.) have an effect on the likelihood that one may have a dopamine deficit?

It seems that genetic plays significant roles in dopamine addiction:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22350797

And also a study of "born-addicts":
http://www.addictscience.com/genetics-d2/

But also it is connected to ADHD studies. It is well known that people with ADHD are vulnerable to addiction. They think it is because reward deficiency system:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626918/

When ADHD patients get medicine based on dopamine or amphetamine their attention improves.


How do inside jokes work? I've been discussing about humour and how things become funny for people with a friend, and we got stuck at this point. What is the process behind laughing at inside jokes? They don't necessarily break expectation, use sarcasm/irony nor are surreal.

We have no experience in psychology, but this seemed like the best place to ask.

Check out the two articles below:

Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory.

Two of the functions unite communicators through identification and clarification of norms, while two other functions divide communicators through differentiation of unacceptable behaviors and enforcement of norms. "Inside jokes" unite communicators.

Flamson, T., & Barrett, H. C. (2008). The encryption theory of humor: A knowledge-based mechanism of honest signaling. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6 (4), 261–281.

They posited that humor acts as a high-accuracy signal of shared but tacit background knowledge, including social norms. To “get” a joke requires understanding tacit knowledge assumed by the joker, and “getting” a joke virtually guarantees shared tacit knowledge. "Inside jokes" signal you're on the inside.


What is the effect called whereby people don't offer help when in a crowd because they assume someone else will help? If you are in a crowd and you hear someone call for help you assume that someone else will deal with it. If you are alone and you hear someone call for help you go and help them. What is that effect called?

It's called the bystander effect:

  The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological
  phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any
  means of help to a victim when other people are present. The
  probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders.
  In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely
  it is that any one of them will help.

It was highlighted by the Murder of Kitty Genovese, which is part of the negative image of New Yorkers as apathetic, and is therefore sometimes also called "Genovese syndrome".

The bystander effect is a sub-type of Diffusion of responsibility.


About Tracking the psychological defense mechanism I am searching to find about the method of understanding the reason of being unconsciousness of the psychological defense mechanism, as described here:

In psychoanalytic theory, a defence mechanism (American English:
defense mechanism), is an unconscious psychological mechanism that
reduces anxiety arising from unacceptable or potentially harmful
stimuli.

So  I have one question :
What would happen, if using the psychological defense mechanisms of the third level:
Such as Intellectualization
In finding the path of changes in the psychological defense mechanism, what effect will it have on our psychological defense system?
Will this improve our understanding of the mental defense system?
Or it will strengthen that mechanisms (Intellectualization) in the mental defense system and return to the second level mechanisms such as (Schizoid fantasy or passive aggression) and further transfer to the first level reactions (denial, Distortion).
Thanks.

The conscious and unconscious aspects of Sigmund Freud's ego-defence mechanisms refer to the awareness of the thought patterns and actions; and how they are affecting the person and those around them.
As an example, someone going through an intense traumatic experience can completely dissociate from the acts in play. There are examples of this in many areas of trauma. One example was discussed in my answer to the question “Can calmness happen during the fight-flight response?”
Having said that, here are differing levels of conscious awareness within the different defence mechanisms. Take a look at my answer to another question concerning dissociation as an example.
With this in mind, it doesn't make things so clear cut when talking about (un)conscious thought patterns and actions when referring to the defence mechanisms.
When dissociation is at play in the first linked example, after the traumatic event, the person who has been traumatised can find themselves unable to remember everything that happened during the event. Some combat veterans have said that they cannot remember how they got out of some situations when others around them got killed.
They didn't consciously make the decision to dissociate from the trauma, but:

Dissociation is a psychological defence mechanism (Cardeña, 1994) which helps the person to get through the situation with as little harm as possible.

With regard to your example of ego-defence mechanisms (Intellectualisation), in order to intellectualise the incident in question, you need to consciously think about alternative thought patterns.
Another way of describing intellectualisation is by saying that it is creating some form of “justification” for the highly emotional and/or traumatic event (real or semi-real).

Related to rationalization, intellectualization involves removing the emotion from emotional experiences, and discussing painful events in detached, uncaring, sterile ways. Someone who intellectualizes becomes very distant from their feelings, and when asked to describe their feelings may find it difficult. They may understand all the words that describe feelings, but have no idea what they really feel (Niolon, 2004).

I would add to that by saying that if you have no idea what you really feel, you will have no complete idea why you feel that way.
Glen O. Gabbard M.D. spoke about defence mechanisms, including intellectualisation, in pages 31 and 32 of his book (Gabbard, 2004). He basically talked about the relevant defence mechanisms with regard to “the patient's level of personality organisation”.
Emphasis mine

The psychodynamic clinician uses a combination of defense mechanisms,internal object relations, ego strengths or weaknesses, and an assessment of reflective function to determine the patient’s level of personality organization (Table 2–2). This assessment differs from one based on DSM-IV-TR categories (American Psychiatric Association 2000). It involves diagnostic understanding of the person, rather than a diagnostic label. Its value is primarily in the way it informs the psychotherapy.
[...]
Table 2-2 Level of organization

Neurotic level
Borderline level

Superego well integrated but punitive
Superego integration minimal; capacity for concern and guilt fluctuating considerably

High-level defenses, including repression, reaction formation, intellectualization, doing and undoing, and displacement
Primitive defenses, including splitting, projective identification, idealization, and devaluation

Identity reasonably stable, and internal object relations characterized by ambivalently regarded whole objects and triangular conflict
Identity diffusion and object relations of a “partial” rather than “whole” nature—split into “all good” and “all bad” aspects

Notable ego strengths, including good impulse control, intact  judgment, consistent reality testing, and capacity for sustained work
Nonspecific ego weaknesses, including impulsivity, impaired judgment, brief compromises in reality testing, and difficulty sustaining work

Conflict-based pathology
Significant deficits existing alongside conflicts

Intact reflective function
Impaired reflective function

[...]
People who are neurotically organized experience a great deal of intrapsychic conflict, and they have intact reflective function so they can recognize that their representation of a person or event is not necessarily the same as the actual reality of the person or event. They also can understand that their behaviors are motivated by internal beliefs or feeling states. By contrast, people with a borderline level of organization often have substantial deficits in the self-structure alongside their conflicts and have poorly developed reflective function. They often experience things as just happening to them, rather than being motivated by internal states.

Further reading

For more on dissociation: Term for Trance During Violent Episodes

For other forms of defence mechanisms:My answer to When are dreams created? covers repression and suppression
Can the act of studying more be a defense mechanism?
(Loosely) Due to Gestalt Psychology, is the face an illusion?

References
Cardeña, E. (1994) The domain of dissociation. In: Dissociation: Clinical and theoretical aspects, Edited by: Lynn, S. J. and Rhue, J. W. 5–31. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Kernberg, O. F. (1976). Technical considerations in the treatment of borderline personality organization. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 24(4), 795-829. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306517602400403
Gabbard, G. O. (2004). Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy: A basic text. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. Available from https://www.academia.edu/31570203/Glen_O_Gabbard_Long_Term_Psychodynamic_Psychotherapy_A_Basic_Text_Core_Competencies_in_Psychotherapy_2004_
Niolon, R. (2004) Defences. PsychPage http://www.psychpage.com/learning/defenses.html


What techniques are being used here to influence the subject to pick a certain outcome? The question is about this video.

Summary of the Video: (can skip if you watched it)

The only audio is "elevator music." There is a man who communicates only with written orange signs. He asks the viewers to quickly perform some easy arithmetic calculations, and he shows the answer to each one after a few seconds:

$5+3 \ \ = 8$

$9+2 \  \ =11$

$10-6=4$

Then, he asks the viewer to quickly pick a number between $5$ and $12$. At this point, I suddenly felt a sense of urgency, and rapidly picked $7$; it was the only number I could think of in that second. Of course at the end of the video, the man guessed that the subject picked $7$.

Question:

How does this video influence the viewer to pick $7$? More generally, what techniques do these types of videos employ to try to manipulate the subject into chosing a certain outcome?

I tried to look for certain patterns in the calculations and I found a diagonal symmetry, but I'm not sure if it's relevant:

$\color {red}{\text{odd}}  \ \ + \color {red}{\text{odd}}$

$\color {red}{\text{odd}}  \  \ +  \color {blue}{\text{even}}$

$\color {blue}{\text{even}} \  +    \color {blue}{\text{even}}$

I've also noticed that the average of the $3$ results is $\dfrac {8+11+4}{3} = 7. \overline {6}$

Priming is a phenomenon where an exposure to a stimulus affect/influences response to another stimulus. It is however, a broad definition which may or may not fully explains what actually happened in the video.

For what's it worth, I notice that number 7 was the only number (between 0-9) that didn't appear at all in any of the arithmetic calculations, answers or questions. But I can't say that I understand how this could influence subject's choice.


Is Orwellian Double-think Psychologically Possible? In George Orwell's 1984, a great deal of space is devoted to explaining "Double-think," part of The Party's method of "reality control." Here's a particularly clear passage:

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the  very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty...

Another really good passage describes the practice of doublethink. O'Brien, a member of the inner party, produces a photograph of some people who are supposed to have never existed. But then he destroys it.

"It exists!" he [Winston, the protagonist] cried!

"No," said O'Brien... "Ashes," he said. "Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed."

"But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it."

"I do not remember it," said O'Brien.

It's interesting (and terrifying), but I suspect it isn't possible.
As I understand, in Freudian theory, repression is an unconscious process that happens to traumatic or unacceptable memories. That's clearly different from doublethink, even if it were possible (and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it is.)
Is doublethink actually possible? Are there any documented examples of it? Is there anything similar to it, possible or otherwise?

When double-think is explained to mean

the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

It can be seen to be the same as repression in a sense, whereby one version of events is known, but repressed in favour of an alternative version of events, but it isn't repression in the true sense of the word when referring to the Freudian theory of ego-defence mechanisms.
When you look at my other answer today regarding the defence mechanisms, I pointed out that they can involve both unconscious and conscious thought processes and actions.
As for repression, it is a powerful ego defence mechanism whereby it can prevent a thought or memory which can be psychologically damaging from reaching the conscious.
When mentioning the interaction between O'Brien and Winston in your question, where O'Brien was trying to instil in Winton that some people didn't really exist when they did, I can see where the confusion lies when linking that to repression. The knowledge of these people's existence is trying to be altered by O'Brien and Winston was wanting to have nothing to do with it.
The key to the whole idea of repression is that it is a completely unconscious defence mechanism. When we deliberately and consciously try to push away thoughts, this is suppression.
Although some claim that suppression is a psychoanalytical myth with no scientific support, fMRI data suggest otherwise. For more on that, you can read Defense Mechanisms: Neuroscience Meets Psychoanalysis in Scientific American
Also:
Anderson, M. C., Ochsner, K. N., Kuhl, B., Cooper, J., Robertson, E., Gabrieli, S. W., ... & Gabrieli, J. D. (2004). Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories. Science, 303(5655), 232-235. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089504
and
Bailey R, Pico J. (2020) Defense Mechanisms. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing. Available free from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559106/


Difference between drowsiness/sedation and sleepiness I have been trying to understand the difference between drowsiness/sedation and sleepiness. The only article I was able to find that partly answers my question is "The difference between sedation and sleep" on ipnos.com.

I have experienced both, and they feel distinctly different. Sleepiness feels like a drive, but drowsiness/sedation feels like a state. My personal experience has been that sleeping when drowsy/sedated does not relieve the drowsiness/sedation, but sleeping when sleepy resolves the sleepiness.

Back to the question: what is the neurological/neurobiological/psychopharmacological difference between sleepiness and drowsiness/sedation, and why does sleep resolve the one but not the other?

Sedation

This is a forced state of drowsiness or sleep and as indicated in your Ipnos link, it will not necessarily help with drowsiness or sleepiness brought about due to problems with your circadian rhythm

Sedation is

  the reduction of irritability or agitation by administration of sedative drugs, generally to facilitate a medical procedure or diagnostic procedure.

Drowsiness and Sleepiness

The terms drowsiness, sleepiness and hypnagogic period are often used to describe the same thing in the general domain, but but in the scientific domain there are important neurophysiological and psychophysiological differences.

Hypnagogic period

This is the neurophysiological and psychophysiological transition period from the wake to sleep state.

Drowsiness

This is the state of the transition period from the wake to sleep state that can be objectively measured, for example, by EEG (please see Hori et al., 1994)

Typical tests that describe the quality and quantity of the drowsyness are Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) (Doghramji et al., 1997).

Sleepiness

This is the subjective state of the subject/patient. It can also be qualified and quantified, but only by rating scales such as the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS), the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) (See also Johns, (1991)), the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (Åkerstedt & Gillberg, 1990), etc.

References

Åkerstedt, T., & Gillberg, M. (1990).  Subjective and objective sleepiness in the active individual, The International Journal of Neuroscience, 52(1-2): pp. 29–37)
DOI: 10.3109/0020745900899424 PMID: 2265922

Doghramji, K., Mitler, M. M., Sangal, R. B., Shapiro, C., Taylor, S., Walsleben, J., Belisle, C. Erman, M. K., Hayduk, R., Hosn, R., O’Malley, E. B., Sangal, J. M., Schutte, S. L., & Youakima, J. M. (1997). A normative study of the maintenance of wakefulness test (MWT), Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology 103(5): pp. 554–562.
DOI: 10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00010-2 PMCID: PMC2424234

Hori, T., Hayashi, M., & Morikawa, T. (1994). Topographical EEG changes and the hypnagogic experience. In R. D. Ogilvie & J. R. Harsh (Eds.), Sleep onset: Normal and abnormal processes (pp. 237-253).
DOI: 10.1037/10166-014

Johns, M. W. (1991). A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: the Epworth sleepiness scale, Sleep 14(6): pp. 540-545
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/14.6.540 PMID: 1798888


Are new memories stored in new neurons generated in the hippocampus? I heard recently from Demis Hassabis that if the hippocampus is damaged that new memories cannot be formed.
I also heard recently that it has been discovered that new neurons continue to be produced in the brains of adults in the hippocampus region.
Does this mean that new memories are stored in the new neurons generated in the hippocampus?

Memories are generally understood to be encoded within networks of neurons, and not within neurons themselves. New neurons are certainly useful, but they are not necessary to store new memories.

Indeed, the hippocampus is extremely plastic, meaning that the connection strength between different neurons can change rapidly, and sometimes, new connections are also formed via the growth of new synapses (this is different than the addition of new neurons). However, "new" memories are often stored using different, overlapping subsets of neurons, which is commonly referred to as global remapping in the hippocampus.

Remapping comes from the notion that many pyramidal cells in the hippocampus show place-selectivity (so-called place cells) and many of the same neurons that encode one particular environment (e.g., your bedroom), would be recruited to encode an entirely different environment (e.g, your kitchen) with no apparent relationship between the two. That is, the subset of neurons recruited to encode a particular environment seems to be random, and the topology is not preserved: neurons that encoded adjacent regions in your bedroom might encode very distant regions in your kitchen, or no regions at all.

Short answer

Now to answer your question more clearly: the hippocampus is indeed critical for new memory formation; however, memories are not stored within individual neurons, but rather within collections of neurons (which could include both new and old neurons) and in the connection strengths of those neurons in particular. The same (new or old) neuron can be used and re-used in many memories, without disrupting the other memories that it forms part of.

Further information

A relatively accessible read (if you're so inclined) is Diekelmann, S., & Born, J. (2010). The memory function of sleep. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(2), 114–26. doi:10.1038/nrn2762, but it requires a paid subscription or institutional access. Alternatively, Scholarpedia has many good articles, including this one on the hippocampus, which goes a little further to explain part of our current understanding of how new memories are transferred (consolidated) to long-term storage in the neocortex.


How can I find out why a person gets dementia? In this answer user287279 wrote that dementia may have different causes.

How can I find out what causes dementia of someone? For example, what tests (like blood or urine tests) can they take to confirm or refute hypotheses why they are getting dementia?

As there are several diseases and conditions that can mimic dementia and as there are many possible causes of dementia, in order to avoid unnecessary investigations, the diagnosis of dementia and of the cause have to be done methodologically. The best way is to meet a neurologist to do this.

First to diagnose whether someone has dementia, a clinical history of his/her symptoms, especially those related to memory, speech, cognitive functions, behavior, and functional performances, and a mental state exam, such as MMSE and MMSE in elderly perople, have to be taken. This step will tell whether or not the person has dementia or whether the person has other conditions such as benign forgetfulness, mild cognitive impairment, or depression.

Next, if the person has dementia, the cause of dementia can be diagnosed by the following steps.

Clinical history and physical examination. In some overt cases, this step alone can diagnose the cause of dementia, such as clinical pictures of brain tumor, chronic meningitis, and CJD.
Imaging, such as CT scan, MRI scan, and PET scan. This can diagnose some diseases right away, such as brain tumor, normal pressure hydrocephalus, and Alzheimers's disease.
Laboratory tests, such as thyroid function tests, blood calcium level, and vitamin B12 level. These tests can diagnose metabolic causes of dementia.
Other tests, such as lumbar puncture to examine the cerebrospinal fluid, Electroencephalography, and brain biopsy. This may have to be done in some cases. They can diagnose some difficult diseases such as neurosyphilis, CNS lymphoma, cerebral vasculitis, and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis.

Which investigations in 2.- 4. are to be done first depend on the clinical picture in 1. and subsequent investigations may be needed later.


Could the knowledge of the construct of self-efficacy affect the student's aptitude to a certain task? I am a tutor for children with learning disabilities and i have read that they have lower levels of perceived self-efficacy than students without this learning disabilities. I decided to deepen the construct of self-efficacy reading something of Bandura and i found that the perception of our efficacy can influence our behaviour and performance outcomes (Bandura, 1977).

So i asked to myself: if people - with or without learning disabilities - knew that they have thoughts (sometimes latent) about their abilities, it would affect their attitude to a certain task? In another way: Could, just the knowledge of self-efficacy, have some influence?

Bandura and Cervone (1983) posit: "Those who have a low sense of self-efficacy may be easily discouraged by failure, whereas those who are assured of their capabilities for goal attainment intensify their efforts when their performances fall short and persist until they succeed" (p. 1018). The same paper also provides empirical evidence for this claim.

Accordingly, the answer to your question is yes. However, it seems more appropriate to speak of "sense" instead of "knowledge" when referring to the self-efficacy.

References

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017


Transmission of beliefs through networks I recall seeing references to studies about the spreading of true/false beliefs through social networks. I think this research tends to be grounded in game theory or evolutionary theory (like gene transmission), but I could be wrong.

Can anyone direct me to the research on this or point to seminal papers? I took a quick look at Google Scholar, but it's not clear where to start.  I'm interested in theory papers, but I'm especially interested in empirical work.  Any help would be great. Thanks.

Check out Networks, Crowds, and Markets (David Easley and Jon Kleinberg, 2010), esp. chapters 16 and 19.


What are higher-level and lower-level brain functions? The human brain can be described as a "Russian nesting doll" in the sense that the most ancient areas of the brain responsible for lower functions are located at its centre while newer sections associated with higher-level functions are located on its outskirts.
How exactly do we define "higher level" and "lower-level" functions? Moreover, is there a middle-ground where certain functions cannot be described to be higher-level or lower-level?

Tranel et al. (20003 gives a succinct definition of higher level brain functions in their chapter abstract:

Higher brain functions are the operations of the brain that stand at
the pinnacle of evolution and are largely unique to humans. Verbal
communication, the ability to “think in the future,” and the capacity
to hold multiple tracks of complex information “on-line” at the same
time, are examples of higher mental functions [...]. The higher-order capacities of the
human brain can be captured under the terms “cognition” and
“behavior.” Cognition is composed of intellectual function, memory,
speech and language, complex perception, orientation, attention,
judgment, planning, and decision-making. Behavior is the manifestation
of these cognitive functions. Behavior is guided by another facet of
higher brain function—namely, personality, which describes the
psychological make-up, traits, and response styles that typify a
person’s behaviors across a range of situations and circumstances.

Lower level functions, on the other hand are not that well defined, and I guess it's pretty much anything else than the above :) A look at the visual system can help illustrate the difference (Fig. 1). The purple areas in the figure reflect areas mediating lower-level functions, namely retina (sensation of light), optic nerve (secondary visual neurons that send signal to brain), superior colliculus (low-level localization functions and saccade initiation), and V1 (processing of simple shapes). The higher-level areas, namely 'What' (dorsal stream), 'Where' (ventral stream), 'How' reflect higher level functions that reflect human consciousness, namely the interpretation of the identification of objects, and whether they are stationary, or whether they are moving. These are what Tranel calls 'complex perception'.
However, in contrast to Tranel's definition, these are not solely human capacities, because some animals are well-versed in discriminating different species (a mouse will respond differently to a fellow species and a cat :-) and where a target object is going (the same mouse will generally walk in a different direction than the cat is going). This is probably the answer to your question whether there is a gray area between high and low-level functions in the brain - yes, there is. The two terms are umbrella terms and not that well defined. In fact, I couldn't find a strict definition of 'lower-level' brain functions after a Google search.

Fig. 1. Visual system. Source: The Vision Help blog
Reference
- WebVision -- The Organization of the Retina and Visual System
- Ranel et al., Higher Brain Functions. In: Conn (ed) Neuroscience in Medicine. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ


Is it possible to increase/train your intelligence? Is it possible to raise your IQ (best correlate for g I know of)? Does brain training help?

I have never taken a psychologist administered IQ test before, but I did take a reputable online IQ test and experienced a shift of 20+ IQ points over a two/three year period.
I didn't do the tests incessantly, did it once, then revisited the test a few years later, and I was testing 20+ points higher than my previous score.

Here is the first article that popped up on a Google search of your first question. It poses your questions to 5 "experts" (psychology professors).

The subtlety in their responses comes from the fact that an IQ measurement is an imperfect number meant to capture some sort of underlying construct (and that this underlying construct can constantly be under debate). So, when one raises one's score: did you get smarter, or just become a better test taker? I won't answer one way or the other, but I will quote one of the experts (discussing IQ training with children):

  ... what I would say, is we didn't make the children smarter, but we taught them how to use what they have more efficiently, and better.

So yes, you can raise your IQ score. Now what does that imply? That depends on whom you ask...


Possible applications of the big five personality traits testing in human resource departments I am a multimedia artist who is interning in a human resources department of a casino resort. In the department we have daily meetings to discuss updates to both the orientation and the performance of the casino's employees.

During the discussion I had an idea on maybe using psychometric ( big 5 ) testing for either helping in filtering out unfit candidates for certain positions or/and allocation of time or resources to certain to certain people or group's of people to help them in certain ways or identify problems as to improve the effectiveness of the staff.

My questions are;

1: Can it be used in this way, or what other ways can HR use it?

2: How to go about using it?

3: Will it be effective?

4: Does there exists other companies that use psychometric testing or big 5 for there employees?

Personality testing of (potential) employees is big business, according to the BBC:

  A 2014 survey of global HR professionals by CEB, one of the largest providers of online talent tests, indicated that 62% of respondents used some sort of personality test pre-hire. Thirty percent indicated that personality assessments would be used to identify high potential talent in the future. By contrast, a 2001 survey of managers from the American Management Association found that 29% of employers used a psychological measurement or assessment.

Supposedly up to 10 years ago, personality testing was mostly used to improve employee retention, rather than predict performance:

  The most prevalent reason given for using personality testing was their contribution to improving employee
  fit and reducing turnover by rates as much as 20% (Geller, 2004), 30% (Berta, 2005), 40% (Daniel, 2005), and even
  70% (Wagner, 2000). It is of considerable interest that evidence for the validity of personality tests for predicting job
  performance is rarely cited (see Hoel (2004) for a notable exception) by human resource professionals or recruiters.

The BBC cites some anecdotal evidence that personality testing is increasingly being used to predict performance as well.

And it does have some scientific basis. Restricting discussion to Big 5 main factors, from a 2017 review:

  Conscientiousness is the best personality predictor of job performance and
  counterproductive behaviors, and it has shown validity generalization across samples,
  occupations, and countries. Operational validity of conscientiousness was found to be .39
  when a quasi-ipsative forced-choice format was used (Salgado, Anderson, & Tauriz, 2015;
  Salgado & Tauriz, 2014);
  Emotional stability [the opposite of neuroticism] was the second most relevant personality
  predictor of job performance and counterproductive work behaviors,
  Conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness are the most valid predictors
  of overall counterproductive behaviors, interpersonally oriented counterproductive
  behaviors, and organizationally oriented counterproductive behaviors (Berry et al.,
  2007);
  Conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness showed incremental
  validity over GCA [general cognitive ability = IQ] for predicting overall job performance (Salgado & De Fruyt, 2006);
  The format of the personality inventory is an important moderator of the criterion-related
  validity of the Big Five dimensions, so that the validity increases dramatically when quasi-ipsative
  forced-choice formats are used (Salgado, Anderson, & Tauriz, 2015; Salgado &
  Tauriz, 2014);

  [...]

But sure there are plenty of management/HR fads out there as well in field of personality testing. A widely cited review of Hunter and Schmidt from two decades ago put the validity of personality testing (without much discrimination how it was done) to 0.22, in the context of hiring practices as predictors for job performance.


What is the psychology behind the mass crying of the crowds at superstar music concerts? Watch the youtube below. Look at the superhuman powers of Michael Jackson to make his audience cry. These audience are strangers to Michael Jackson. There is no close relationship between them other than they paid for his ticket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeWVoRUJhdY

I have watched Michael Jackson several times on Youtube and I have never shed a tear.

What is the psychology behind the powers of superstars like Michael Jackson and Beatles to induce crowd crying? There is no sob stories being told.

From a study conducted by Salimpoor, Benovoy, et al.:

Music, an abstract stimulus, can arouse feelings of euphoria and craving, similar to tangible rewards that involve the striatal dopaminergic system.
(...)
These results indicate that intense pleasure in response to music can lead to dopamine release in the striatal system. Notably, the anticipation of an abstract reward can result in dopamine release in an anatomical pathway distinct from that associated with the peak pleasure itself.

This helps explain the basis for people crying when they're listening to music. As for why this tends to occur in a concert environment - this could be partly related to Salimpoor et al.'s suggestion that

composers and performers ... manipulate emotional arousal by violating expectations in certain ways or by delaying the predicted outcome (for example, by inserting unexpected notes or slowing tempo) before the resolution to heighten the motivation for completion.

One could argue that live performances tend to have more unexpected sequences like these (if you've been to a concert or listened to a live track, you notice that the live show might have a different, unexpected musical arrangement).
Additionally, a plausible explanation would be that when you have many people packed into the same space experiencing the music (as opposed to listening to it alone or in a small group), the emotional reactions discussed above could be amplified. There doesn't appear to be much research backing this up specifically, however.
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 257-262. doi:10.1038/nn.2726


William James "Principles of Psychology" and Brain Plasticity I am reading William James' "Principles of Psychology".  It is clear in his research that he was acutely aware of brain plasticity and the limited capacity for a precise "schema" (ie. static brain map) to represent brain function.  Seeing that this text is well over 100 years old and cites much research even older, how is it that I see so much information (primarily in the press and lay neurology texts) that brain plasticity is a new perspective recently discovered by academics and researchers?  Without question the earliest modern neuroscientists knew about brain plasticity.  It was an undeniable characteristic of their research.  (As a side note, it is interesting that creatures with less intelligence have greater plasticity, with the level of intelligence being inversely proportional to plasticity.  A fact I've never seen discussed.)

I feel I should mention that I am not a psychologist or neuro-scientist.  I have a doctorate in Statistics. I did search academic papers and there are many papers that credit William James with describing plasticity under the heading "habit".  So to my original question, why is it that plasticity is just being "discovered?"

An academic paper that clearly sites William James with being the first to introduce plasticity - https://fastertomaster.com/the-brain-that-changes-itself-norman-doidge/

A recent book that erroneously claims plasticity is a new concept - https://fastertomaster.com/the-brain-that-changes-itself-norman-doidge/

Short answer
Neural plasticity is a broad term. While it has long been recognized, the fact that the adult brain is plastic even at the gross structural level has taken a long time to become widely accepted.

Background
There are a few things that play a role here.

First and foremost, neural plasticity is a term encompassing many different processes. Neuroplasticity can be observed from microscopic (molecular) changes in individual neurons, to large-scale structural changes, such as cortical remapping in response to injury.
Secondly, the small scale changes have long been recognized, the gross structural changes were only discovered much later.
Thirdly, neuroplasticity has indeed been long recognized, but it has long been thought that there were critical periods in life (Sylva et al., 1997) where after plasticity was no longer present. In a way, that idea is still recognized, and is the reason why, e.g., congenitally deaf children are receiving cochlear implants in the first months of their lives to allow the plastic brain to develop hearing and speech development during this "critical period" where these developments are accompanied by gross changes in the brain not possible later in life (Snik et al., 1997). Untreated prelingual deafness therefore results in impaired speech understanding and the typical 'deaf speech' when they receive an implant after this critical period. Paul Bach-y-Rita and Michael Merzenich are often credited for their ideas on the plastic adult brain. For instance, Bach-y-Rita recognized that his dad, by then an aged man, was still capable to re-learn many tasks after serious brain injury. He recognized that hence, the adult brain is plastic too (plastic, in terms of gross changes that allow re-allocation of healthy brain tissue to take over the tasks from damaged regions). The idea of the adult brain being able for gross plastic changes has taken a while to become accepted.

References
- Snik et al., Int J Ped Otorhinolayngol (1997); 41(2):121-31
- Sylva et al., Br Med Bull (1997); 53(1): 185-19


Is there an open-source / free official Myers-Briggs assessment I can adopt? Background

I've got an idea for a web site that uses one's Myers-Briggs type as part of the value.

I've seen various web sites offer "quick quizzes" to assess one's MBTI, but I'm not sure how legitimate / effective / ethical it would be to utilize one of these "knock-off" assessment techniques. I haven't decided any of the business angles yet; for now it's just a cool idea, so I can't speak to whether it would be commercial, non-profit, etc.

Questions

Is there an official "test of record" or set of questions that I can use in my application that is reasonably open or inexpensive? I'd like to get results that are as accurate as possible but I'm just one guy on a shoestring budget.
Could I run into legal trouble from the Myers-Briggs institute over this? How open are they with the methodology for this assessment? While I'm strapped for cash, I also have no desire to be a jerk; I'm admittedly ignorant on how this realm of science/industry views these matters.
Is there any need for an official MBTI interpreter (other than privacy ethics, etc. which of course I would be respecting as the founder of said web site)?
How much accuracy does one lose in using a quiz that isn't "personally reviewed"? That seems to be the main purpose of a "licensed MBTI interpreter" as far as I've been able to see with some quick research.

The IPIP may provide what you are looking for.

  This IPIP Website is intended to provide rapid access to measures of
  individual differences, all in the public domain, to be developed
  conjointly among scientists worldwide.

In general, the scientific literature tends to focus more on a dimensional approach based on the Big 5 model of personality than the type approach. There are strong correlations between MBTI and Big 5 measures.

The IPIP website provides measures of the Big 5. The following table from Furnham (1996) summarises some correlations across a few studies between the NEO Big 5 and the MBTI.

You can find a listing of some of the multi-construct measures including Big 5 measures on the ipip website.

References

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 303-307.


Is there explanation of persistent laziness? As we say when we feel happy there are some biological explanation of some feelings like happiness and sadness as they explain here.

So I say whatever we feel can be explained in biological way, so what about when one feel lazy? In the way that he/she is having no motivation (not due to lack of energy). Is there any biological explanation of someone being lazy like no motivation to do anything and that remain for long time say months.

PS: this website describes the kind of laziness I am too talking about, and I quote from this website:

  I am really tired [...] my entire life. Every morning when I wake up my first thought is “I wonder when I can take a nap”. Even while I’m thinking it I realize the futility in this thought; I haven’t actually taken a “nap” in
  months.

Low motivation can stem from a variety of different things. A lot of it boils down to low neurotransmitter activity in areas traditionally associated with motivation. The neurotransmitter 'dopamine' plays a significant role in the regulation of pleasure, reward, and motivation. The neurotransmitter 'serotonin' is thought to regulate emotional well-being and happiness. 'Norepinephrine' is considered to be responsible for vigilance in concentration, and the locus coeruleus (the principal site for norepinephrine synthesis) is said to receive input from the orbitofrontal cortex, which is an area of the brain also involved with reward, motivation, and impulse control.

With low neurotransmitter activity comes certain behaviors and mental states that are commonly associated with specific mental disorders. Low levels of serotonin (and, henceforth, dopamine and norepinephrine, insofar as they are mediated by serotonin) can result in clinical depression. Low levels of dopamine and norepinephrine are thought to be associated with disordered attention, executive functioning, and motivation disorders, such as attention deficit disorder and sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT).

Persistent laziness can also be a learned trait. Norepinephrine also seems to be closely involved with the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which plays a role in the control of certain autonomic functions such as heart rate. Norepinephrine also seems to be somewhat involved with urgency (fight-or-flight), and is thought to be activated in times of physiological stress. From a social standpoint, if there is no social pressure to work, then the activation of norepinephrine needn't happen. It is also worth noting that stimulation of the ACC is thought to provide relief for those suffering from major depression.

Long-term laziness implies that any some combination of the above has been occurring for a long period of time. The best way to counteract long-term laziness would be to find a happy medium between behavioral adjustment and (in more extreme cases) medical treatment.


Rated model of driving-related processes and objects The Salience, Effort, Effort and Value (SEEV) model for predicting the distribution of visual attention contains a parameter called 'value' which represents the importance of a certain area of the field of view concerning a given task context.

Does anyone know a project or study that actually did a 'value model' for the traffic context?

A 2006 study by Horrey, Wickens and Consalus implemented a computational SEEV (Salience, Effort, Effort, Value) model for driving behavior that predicted scanning behavior, which I surmise is what was meant. The authors conclude:

  The most important practical implication of the current results is
  that a simple expected value version of the SEEV model provides
  a plausible and effective predictive model of scanning in driving.

This seems to fit your request.

References

Horrey, W. J., Wickens, C. D., & Consalus, K. P. (2006). Modeling drivers' visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(2), 67.