Is tasting something you see a form of synesthesia? Synesthesia is often stated as "a confusion of the senses" and some of the more common forms include "seeing sounds" or associating letters or numbers with colors. There is also a very rare form of synesthesia called lexical-gustatory synesthesia where one "tastes words."

One thing I've occasionally experienced is that I'll see something and then involuntarily will taste it in my mouth. It's almost always things that are not pleasant, like carpet or copper (things I've tasted when I was a child, I don't regularly eat these things!), and more often when seeing them in large concentrations (e.g. a particularly shaggy carpet, lots of bare copper). Like tasting food, I seem to become acclimated to it pretty quickly.

The closest thing I've heard from other people is they'll say that food "looks so good I can taste it" or something like that. However, I usually hear this for food that also smells very good and as I understand this tasting is because smell and taste are linked (which is normal, not synesthesia). However, I experience this tasting with things that don't have any noticeable smell.

I'm not looking for a diagnosis, but I'd like to know if tasting something you see as I have experienced is something that could possibly fall under the category of synesthesia (or if there is a more mundane explanation).

After a fair amount of research, I came across Noam Sagiv, PhD, a professor at the Centre for Cognition and Neuroimaging who has done research into synesthesia, including visual-gustatory synesthesia (the proper term for seeing-tasting synesthesia). I contacted him about this and he said the following (reproduced with permission):

  I can understand your frustration with finding information about this.
  As you probably know already from trying to look up information on
  synaesthesia, there is a lot more research on coloured letters and
  numbers than anything else.

  There are a few types of synaesthesia
  where taste is the inducer (e.g., coloured taste) and a few that
  involve taste as the synaesthetic experience: For example, musical
  notes/intervals > taste, or lexical > gustatory that you mentioned
  already.

  In our experience there are also two other variants; there are no
  published papers yet that I am aware of but we recently accepted an
  invitation to write one.

  1) We tentatively
  labelled it mirror-taste synaesthesia - this is where you see someone
  else eating something (with no smell - e.g., on TV) and experience a
  flavour experience that mirrors the other person's - i.e., similar
  principle to "mirror touch" synaesthesia, where you see someone being
  touched, and feel the same experience on your own body. The "social"
  aspect here is critical - it's not enough to see the food, you need to
  see another person eating it. My conference presentations covered this
  one - particularly a brain imaging study we conducted, where we found
  that basically, we all do something similar, even if only a minority
  of individuals actually experience it: What we found is very simple,
  that videos of people eating activate not only the visual cortex
  (which is what everyone expects) but also the gustatory cortex,
  despite the absence of direct stimulation of the sense of taste.

  2) The other type of gustatory-visual synaesthesia we would like to
  start exploring soon, is the more direct type you describe. You see
  something that you've tasted before, and experience the taste
  involuntarily/automatically and vividly. We have a couple of anecdotal
  cases but haven't started the formal survey. I expect this to be more
  common with foods than with non-edible things, but the fact that you
  get this for some early experiences is consistent with findings from
  gustatory lexical synaesthesia (where the synaesthetic taste
  "repertoire" includes things you've eaten as a child, even if you
  haven't had those for 30 years, and doesn't include things you eat
  often now, but haven't tried as a child; these things probably
  consolidate in the first decade of life, probably first half).

  We
  often find we learn new things from synaesthetes and enquiries like
  yours. I'd be grateful if you did participate in our forthcoming
  survey, and/or other studies in the lab if you are in the area (West
  London, UK).

So the short answer from a leading expert in the field is: this area has not been extensively researched, but tasting something you see does indeed seem to be a form of synesthesia, possibly including the situation that I described in the question above.

Dr. Sagiv has also extended the invitation to participate in research on synesthesia to everyone here on CogSci Stack Exchange, so feel free to contact him to discuss any synaesthetic experiences, volunteer to participate in a survey, and/or go to his lab in West London.


What, exactly, is the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy? I am writing a report on the similarities and differences between sociopathy and psychopathy. I have looked up a bit of information on the topic, but I would still like to know some of the opinions of people on this site. I do know that both have to do with a lack of empathy. Also, how do these disorders work? Is there a certain part of the brain that doesn't function correctly, thus not allowing them to feel empathy, or something of that nature?
Thanks in advance to anyone who might come across my question and decide to answer it!

I believe there are some minor differences, for example, WebMD Article states:

A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He's a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.
A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says.
A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior.

Also, I've read somewhere (I believe it was Theodore Millon's book) that psychopathy is more about nature and sociopathy is more about nurture. In other words, psychopaths are born the way they are, while sociopaths acquire severe trauma that makes them the way they are.
This also goes along nicely with psychopaths being more calm and able to manipulate, while sociopaths are more impulsive and irritable.


Which parts of the brain are used when identifying and sorting email messages? When most people view their email inboxes, they'll see several different types of messages; for example, emails which have been auto-generated by services we use, communications with real humans which are time sensitive, communications which aren't time sensitive, etc.

Which parts of the brain are used when viewing, identifying, and categorizing these messages? Does this activity fall into a specific category of mental activity?

The insular cortex seems to play a role in sorting based on salience - how important something is to us (Uddin, 2015). In addition, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), commonly associated with error detection, is relevant. Some parts of the insular cortex have also been linked to a sense of self, so this seems reasonable.

The mental activities involved include: detection (What?), attention (Where?), categorical learning (How?), and planning (Which - when?). There are thousands of studies on visual search, visual attention, stimulus detection, salience processing, and categorical learning. Categorical learning implies that one can improve in the process of categorization, but attention is a prerequisite for learning to occur, so multiple brain areas are involved.

Reference

Uddin, L. Q. (2015). Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16, 55–61. doi:10.1038/nrn3857

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v16/n1/abs/nrn3857.html


Does taking antidepressants, anxiolytics and sleep pills significantly affect a person's intelligence? Do antidepressants, anxiolytics and sleeping pills significantly affect the intelligence of a person, for example as expressed by the general (g) factor? Do these compounds affect the g factor each individually? And what about the combinations of the two or three of them?

To narrow down the scope of the question, if necessary, we can go for commonly encountered drugs like Duloxetine (antidepressant), Xanax (anxiolytic), and Zolpidem (hypnotic/sedative).

I did a Google search, but the results were not that satisfying. I couldn't find a reliable resource which properly treats the topic.

About intelligence: The subject of intelligence is broadly addressed in research in psychology, one of the most supportive theories is Spearman's bifactorial theory of intelligence, in this theory the factor g is a huge stable factor that explains the common variance (in scores) to all the different cognitive tasks that can be put to a person. Although intelligence would approach a series of constructs that explain the abilities in the resolution of cognitive problems, other factors that modulate these intelligence factors, such as motivation (volition or will) and attention (concentration), should always be taken into account. Among others (tiredness, stress, activation, etc). External factors exert their influence in early stages of information processing, can be identified with physical characteristics (light conditions, letter size, presence of the public, the person requires lenses, etc.). In conclusion, what we call intelligence, which we consider to be very stable, does not explain everything at all in cognitive tasks, there are many other causes that can influence, for example, and as mentioned, the level of activation (sleep, fatigue) or motivation and will.

Before considering an adverse drug effect, a period of adaptation should also be considered, based on factors such as: affinity (ability of the drug to match the receptor), intrinsic activity (ability to activate the receptor after its use ) And effective dose which is the amount of drug that produces the desired effect in 50% of users. In summary there is a period in which the person is adapting to the effects of the drug and even if the dose is adequate the person may experience a great change.

Adverse effects of drugs: Adverse effects are defined as an unwanted reaction that can be sometimes harmful and permanent, (not considered adverse effect inappropriate use) a high number of people report adverse effects, it is estimated that around 10 % of people experience effects but for most benefits obtained are greater than undesirable effects.

There are different types of adverse effects (cutaneous, gastrointestinal, respiratory system, cardiovascular system), if a drug produced damage to intelligence, it would be a late cognitive adverse effect, ie it would manifest after a high time consuming drug (sometimes long after withdrawal of the drug).
In relation to adverse effects in the central nervous system, the most common are: tiredness, dizziness, confusion, tremors, headache and seizures. The increase in fatigue occurs in almost all drugs that have a suppressive effect of the central nervous system (analgesics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, hypnotics, sedatives and anticonvulsants)

Depending on the country of residence, there are agencies that freely disclose information regarding the trade names with which the medicines are distributed in the state, these agencies also collect and study information about adverse effects recorded in other countries.

Duloxetine (R) (Duloxetine hydrochloride): Inhibitor of serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake. It weakly inhibits dopamine reuptake without significant affinity for histaminergic, dopaminergic, cholinergic and adrenergic receptors. Adverse effects: Headache, drowsiness, dizziness, lethargy, tremors, paraesthesia; Decreased appetite; Insomnia, agitation, decreased libido, anxiety, abnormal orgasms, abnormal dreams; blurry vision; Tinnitus; Increased blood pressure, flushing; Yawning; Nausea, dry mouth, constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, dyspepsia, flatulence; Increased sweating, rash; Musculoskeletal pain, muscle spasm; Dysuria; Erectile dysfunction, ejaculation disorder, delayed ejaculation; Falls, fatigue; weightloss.

Xanax (R) (Alprazolam): It is believed to exert its effect by binding to the ester-specific receptors located in SCN. It has anxiolytic, hypnotic muscle relaxant and anticonvulsive properties, as well as a specific activity in distress crisis. Adverse effects: Depression, sedation, somnolence, ataxia, memory impairment, dysarthria, dizziness, headache; Constipation, dry mouth; Fatigue, irritability.

Zolpiden (R) (Zolpidem hemitartrate): hypnotic type non benzodiazepine. Group of Imidazopyrines. Specific agonist of central receptors belonging to the GABA-omega macromolecular receptor complex that modulates the opening of the chlorine ion channel. Adverse effects: bitterness and dry mouth, upset stomach, drowsiness, dizziness and paradoxical reaction that usually disappear with a dose adjustment.

In summary, it seems that they are drugs that, in their phase of adjustment or adaptation, may well cause a temporary reduction in cognitive performance, but this effect should be reduced and temporary, that is to say, very brief, in case the Problem persists or in case of doubt can always be accessed to make consultations to pharmacists or general medicine (even for second opinions beyond the professional who has prescribed these drugs).

Sources:

Stephen M. Stahl. (2000). Essential Psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific Basis and Practical Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stephen M. Stahl. (2005). Prescriber's Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.


Difference between voting patterns in men and women I'm looking for recommended reading on difference in voting patterns between men and women - both empirical data and theoretical explanations. In particular, have any significant biases (in terms of political spectrum or specific issues) been confirmed when comparing male and female voting patterns?

I imagine there would be a huge literature on this topic. I found one interesting article by Inglehart and Norris (2000). I recommend reading the article. The article reports empirical findings relating to gender differences in voting patterns across countries and over time. It also discusses some of the proposed reasons for these differences.

The authors note that gender is generally not as important as class, region, or religion in voting patterns and in the formation of political parties.

To quote a few particular passages:

  Studies carried out in many countries in previous decades found that women were more
  conservative than men and less likely to participate in politics....  The article draws on evidence from the World Values Surveys in the early 1980s, and the early and mid-1990s carried out in over sixty countries around the world. This study establishes that gender differences in electoral behavior have been realigning, with women moving toward the left of men throughout advanced industrial societies (though not in postcommunist societies or developing countries) ...

To explain this movement of women tending to vote for left wing candidates, they offer what they call the Developmental Theory of Gender Realignment:

  [They] argue that a developmental theory can be used to explain this
  phenomenon, in which the transformation of sex roles in postindustrial
  societies has influenced the process of value change. As women’s and
  men’s lifestyles and cultural attitudes have been altered by the
  process of societal modernization [the authors] expect this to have a major
  impact on their political preferences.

In short, the article is well worth reading particularly for the way they have summarised various empirical sources of information regarding gender differences.

References

Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2000). The developmental theory of the gender gap: Women’s and men’s voting behavior in global perspective. International Political Science Review, 21(4), 441-463. PDF


Is it better to study multiple subjects simultaneously or focus on one subject intensely at a time? Since I will soon have a bit of free time, I thought I'd use it to enhance my knowledge pool. I chose four subjects that always interested me (but that are not related) and thought I'd dive in a bit more seriously.

However, now I have a question - Assuming I wish to make the most of my time (one month, four hours each day) and learn the most in the small time-frame I have, I can think of two approaches:

One: Study one subject intensely, say four hours a day, for a full week, before completely switching to another subject.

Two: Study all subjects simultaneously, say one hour each per day, for the full month.

My question is: Are there studies which show which of these two paths will lead to greater retention of the material studied in the given time-frame? In other words, which is better if you wish to study diverse subjects: Focus on one at a time or spread out equally?

I think that this is one of those cases where it depends on personal preference and learning style.

The reason I say this is because the ability to shift from one task to another (also known as 'set-shifting') is a type of cognitive flexibility that is linked to one's individual executive functioning ability. In turn, this is usually mandated by one's frontal inhibitory activity.

On the other hand, those who often fall prey to a phenomenon called task perseveration (also known as 'hyperfocus') may have a reduced or impaired ability to switch between tasks. This seems to occur at above-average rates in twice-exceptional children. [1] For those predisposed to task perseveration, switching between several topics a day may be marginally more difficult.

Another thing to consider would be cognitive load, which is the amount of mental effort being used in one's working memory. As cognitive load increases, it becomes difficult to manage and learn new material. It is known that cognitive load increases in the face of difficult material (with 'difficulty' as perceived by the learner). For this reason, one common method of reducing cognitive load in teaching and learning is to divide subjects up into subtopics and teach these subtopics in isolation, and then later integrate them into the subject as a whole. Furthermore, it is known that there are individual differences in cognitive load capacity, particularly among experts and novices. [2] Experts have more knowledge associated with a topic or skill, which reduces the cognitive load necessary to learn more material within that topic. This lends itself to the idea that the more familiar you are with the material, the easier it becomes to learn more of said material. [3]

In short, there is no clear-cut answer; there are simply factors that may go into a contextualized answer. In the case of studying four unrelated subjects, it might be worth asking the following: How well do you know the subjects? Are you studying all four from the ground up? If so, it might be more effective to study one at a time in order to allow the fundamentals to sink in, thus decreasing cognitive load. The other factor to consider would be your overall discipline level. Do you fall prey to task perseveration, or is your ability to shift from one task to another generally uninhibited? These are all factors to consider in determining your own study plan.

Sources used:

[1] Misdiagnosis And Dual Diagnoses Of Gifted Children And Adults p.50-51

[2] Murphy, Gregory L.; Wright, Jack C. (1984). "Changes in conceptual structure with expertise: Differences between real-world experts and novices.". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10 (1): 144–155.

[3]  Voorhies, D. & Scandura, J.M. (1977). "7". Determination of memory load in information processing. Problem Solving, NY: Academic Press. pp. 299–316.


Selective Attention v. Sensory Adaptation I'm currently taking AP Psychology and we recently learned about sensory adaptation and selective attention. I was just wondering if there is any actual difference between the two? They seem pretty similar to me. Any clarification is appreciated.

Thanks!

Sensory adaptation is very low level and completely subconscious.

Selective attention is pretty much as high level you can get before hitting consciousness.

The two mechanisms work on a polar ends of the stick.


If I have ADHD, how can I focus on programming task for hours? Already in 9 years, I was identified as ADHD child. I was quite obviously weird.

I can observe many known symptoms of ADHD even now.

I'm unable to focus on stereotypic tasks which results in many failures in work, where I'm usually supposed to assemble electrical devices.
I often just stop listening what somebody is talking directly to me. This happens so often that I stopped pretending anything what's so ever. I just say "Sorry, I wasn't listening. Could you repeat it?". Friends just repeat it, other people are usually so shocked that they repeat it too.
In school, I always used to draw stuff al over my notebooks instead of paying attention. But I think even totally normal people do this. Maybe just not as much.

Now while this all happens, when I have an interesting programming project I can focus on it for hours. Yes, it's true that I often distract myself with various details instead of doing the main task, but generally I'm still concentrated on some intellectual task without losing train of thoughts.

So where does my problem disappear?

If you don't focus, then your efficiency easily drops to 50% of other people. But if the task is truly engaging you, you work 200% compared to other people and you forget everything else.

This has a name: Hyperfocus!

  Like distractibility, hyperfocus is thought to result from abnormally low levels of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is particularly active in the brain's frontal lobes. This dopamine deficiency makes it hard to "shift gears" to take up boring-but-necessary tasks.

  "Children and adults with ADD have difficulty shifting attention from one thing to another," says Russell Barkley, Ph.D., a research professor of psychiatry at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York. "If they're doing something they enjoy or find psychologically rewarding, they'll tend to persist in this behavior after others would normally move on to other things. The brains of people with ADD are drawn to activities that give instant feedback." http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/612.html

  Hyperfocus is an intense form of mental concentration or visualization that focuses consciousness on a subject, topic, or task. In some individuals, some subjects or topics may also tend toward including daydreams, concepts, fiction, the imagination, and other objects of the mind. Hyperfocus on a certain subject can cause side-tracking away from assigned or important tasks.

  Hyperfocus may bear a relationship to the concept of flow.[1] In some circumstances both flow and hyperfocus can be an aid to achievement, but in other circumstance or situations, the same focus and behavior could be a liability, distracting from the task at hand. However, unlike hyperfocus, "flow" is often described in more glowing terms, suggesting they are not two sides of the same condition under contrasting circumstance or intellect.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocus

On a more personal note:

I've been doing programming since I was about 16 y.o, I was diagnosed with ADHD at about 24, and I have now been working as an in-house hired developer for a year.

I personally experience that when I work on a topic that honestly interests me and engages me, I will be more focused and have more energy than everyone around me. I've been told by friends etc several times "God, how do you have time for all that? How are you able to do all that?"
At the same time I can be incredibly inefficient with my time on less interesting tasks. Often I don't even understand what I've spent all my time on, because I haven't really done anything.


Why can’t my eyes gaze around at a constant rate? I’ve wondered about this for quite a long time, but never thought to ask it anywhere:
I’m assuming most people know what it’s like to watch a bird flying by, you can steadily concentrate as the bird flies by, and it seems your eyes move at a constant smooth rate.
As opposed to watching a bird or any object or thing, I can’t seem to use my eyes to sweep across the scene if nothing is moving.
Why can’t I gaze around at a constant rate when I have nothing to watch?

Short answer
Smooth-pursuit eye movements require something to pursuit. Intentionally attempting to make such an eye movement in the absence of an appropriate moving visual target will
result in a saccade instead.
Background
Your question concerns two types of basic eye movements, namely saccades and smooth-pursuit eye movements.
Saccades are rapid movements of the eyes to change the point of fixation. They occur for instance during reading and while gazing across a room. Saccades can be made voluntarily or involuntary (Purves, 2001).
Smooth pursuit movements are slower eye movements that keep a moving stimulus focused on the retina. One can voluntarily decide whether to follow a moving stimulus or not. However, making a smooth-pursuit movement in the absence of a moving stimulus is next to impossible for most people. Instead, when attempting to do this, a saccade is made instead. Performing a smooth-pursuit movement in the absence of a moving target seems to be possible, but requires a lot of training (Purves, 2001).
Reference
- Purves et al. (eds). Neuroscience, 2nd ed. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates (2001). Types of Eye Movements and Their Functions


Does the Milgram experiment produce different results for people who believe the final voltage is deadly? Link to Wikipedia article on the experiment.
This line in the first paragraph catches my eye:

These fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels that would have been fatal had they been real.

The maximum voltage for the shocks is given later in the article as 450V.
Does the Milgram experiment produce different results if the person believes that an electrical shock at 450V is fatal? Presumably some people already believe this level of voltage is fatal (e.g. via a physics or electrical engineering background). Has it been tested if people who are told, or already know that this is fatal still continue to administer the shocks?

The Milgram experiment is makes people think the voltage is dangerous, due to the labelling and acting by the confederate 'learner', who eventually goes silent signifying unconsciousness in the least, and possibly deadliness. Despite these cues over 50% of participants ('teachers') progress to the highest 'shock' level with simple promoting from an authority figure. We are, of course, see drop-offs as the perceived danger to the 'learner' (confederate) increases, and the benefit of obedience are outweighed by the signalled danger. Of course you would have to measure beliefs about how harmful each level of shock is to see how it ties with drop-off exactly. Unfortunately, it seems beliefs about harm are assumed, and have not been actively researched. As you can see from the drop-offs its clear in some participants believe the shocks increase harm, whether those who continued to press think so.

In general warning labels are enough to create a negative emotional response for people i.e. cigarette packaging, food and drink.
What the obedience experiment indicates to some researchers is that majority of people who will continue to cause, what researchers interpret as, great pain with simple prompting from authority, due to the deferred responsibility and accountability. Of course this is assumed, and not actively measured, it could well be that the participants did not believe it to be so harmful, or could even see through the ruse. Interestingly, some studies in the past showed that putting other 'teachers' (confederates) in the room with the participant, could impact the participants 'shock' progression, if the confederates dissented against the authority by leaving part way through or refusing to continue. However, recent studies show that this dissident social effect has not been replicated. Which leaves question marks over why.

While individuals often believe that in a similar situation to the they would perform better than average in their country, knowledge of the experiment does play a role in how far participants believe they would go.
In summary, we assume the participants believe increasing shocks cause more harm. We do not know if those who went all the way believe the shocks were as harmful as participants who dropped out.


Definitions of the alpha wave in the revised glossary by Clinical Neurophysiology Practice? I am a novice in EEG, and also not a native speaker of English.

I am reading through the article A revised glossary of terms most commonly used by clinical electroencephalographers and updated proposal for the report format of the EEG findings. Revision 2017 in Clinical Neurophysiology Practice. There it distinguishes the alpha rhythm and rhythms of alpha frequency. In the definition of alpha rhythm:

  Rhythm at 8–13 Hz inclusive occurring during wakefulness over the posterior regions of the head, generally with maximum amplitudes over the occipital areas.

Which,  I read,  refers to that alpha wave we also know as the PDR (posterior dominant rhythm). Notably,

  “[others in this frequency band]... should either have specific appellations ... or should be
  referred to as rhythms of alpha frequency or alpha activity.”

Ok. Then, I expected alpha wave to be generic, defined as waves in 8–13 Hz. However it read:

  Alpha wave: Wave with duration of 1/8–1/13 s (77–125 ms).

As I understand, duration of a wave (as in physics) is different from its period. A period is the inverse of frequency, while duration is either the time the wave continues, or the time of single up and down which doesn't cycle. The glossary itself has an entry for duration:

  Duration: (1) The interval from beginning to end of an individual wave or complex. Comment: the duration of the cycle of individual components of a sequence of regularly repeating waves or complexes is referred to as the period of the wave or complex. (2) The time that a sequence of waves or complexes or any other distinguishable feature lasts in an EEG record.

So it seems to me that it's either (1) The glossary is inconsistent in its wording, or (2) alpha wave as defined here is for single complex (similar to spike or sharp wave) that is characterised by its length in time. Either isn't very convincing for me: (1) They took their trouble ommiting the word frequency and using 1/8-1/13 instead of 8-13, would they use confusing wording? (2) From what I have gathered, this definition is used by a distinct minority (if any).

My question is:

Is the glossary inconsistent? Can I understand the alpha wave defined there as Wave with frequency of 8–13  Hz?
If not, can I understand this alpha wave as a name for non-cyclic activity? How widely is this definition used? Any other usuage of alpha wave I encountered simply refers to a continuous oscillation with frequency of 8–13 Hz.

I personally don't see the contradiction. It seems very contrived from your end to establish that there is one. I think it's very clear from the definition of the alpha wave that 'duration' is synonymous with 'period' in that case. In the 4th quote, defining 'duration', it even says this outright, "The duration of the cycle of individual components of a sequence of regularly repeating waves or complexes is referred to as the period of the wave".

Basically, looking at the definition of alpha wave where duration in that specific case equals period, solves everything. It's the most intuitive answer. Would it have been better if they had written 'period' instead? Probably. But to pick up on that definitional ambiguity, not see their definition of duration also includes that of period, and somehow claim that this implies people are defining alpha waves for non-cyclic activity is an enormous stretch.

The glossary's definition is correct and you can understand the definition of an alpha wave as a wave in the 8-13 Hz band / a wave with a period of 1/8 - 1/13 seconds.


How to conduct surveys using facebook? More and more often I read in papers, that an online survey has been conducted through Facebook. What I have yet to understand is how this can best be done.
I understand that Facebook allows the creation of a survey app that allows surveys to be embedded in fan pages or timelines.
Thus, I have many little questions:

How and where do the existing Facebook survey apps (like https://de-de.facebook.com/simple.surveys) store their data? How does this comply with scientific privacy and data security concerns?
Which apps are best, and why?
I would like to run the actual survey on my own website. Is it possible to embed an external website in a Facebook app?
How can I implement a survey that does not need the test subject to allow the app access to profile data?
Since there is no way to advertise a survey on Facebook, except by having someone use it and let his friends know that he uses it, how do you, who have conducted surveys through Facebook, find a large enough and random enough sample? Or: How do you advertise your survey?

My overall question is

Regardless of the little questions above, I'm interested in:

What is an effective way to conduct surveys using Facebook?
Are there any existing tutorials that describe best practice?

This is just a few thoughts.

I agree with @adb that an obvious way to use facebook for conducting surveys is just to provide a link to an external website that runs the survey.

There is an interesting article by Tan and colleagues where they talk about using paid advertisements to get targeted participants on Facebook.  I thought the following statistics were interesting in highlighting the sheer scale required in order to convert an ad into completed surveys:  1.1 million ad impressions resulted in 280 clicks on the advertisement of which 59 responded to the survey of which 39 completed the survey.

References

Tan, H., Forgasz, H., Leder, G., & McLeod, A. SURVEY RECRUITMENT USING FACEBOOK: THREE STUDIES. FULL TEXT


Do people with Asperger syndrome have two left brains? I have heard that people with Asperger syndrome have a problem with the right brain, but it increases the ability of the left brain. In other words, AS people has two left brains; the second left brain replaces the right brain. Is this true?

Most neuroscientists have dropped the right brain-left brain differentiation because cross-over of functions at multiple levels is now so widely recognized. So your understanding of two left brains is not current (if it ever was).


Name for the need to reply “you can’t fire me, I quit” It’s a cliché in movies. The boss fires the employee, and they reply “you can’t fire me, because I quit”. Similarly, when in a romantic relationship, one person may decide to end it and the other answers the news with “well, I have been thinking about ending this for some time” (whether true or not).

Both of these replies should be unwarranted and effectively meaningless: the end result is the same. Yet, people often feel this need to “one-up”1 one another. Does this need have a name? And do we have any formal findings (or ongoing research) as to why we have it?

1 Not exactly “one-upping”, since you’re not outdoing the first person — more like preemptively doing what they’re doing, as if life works like a MTG game, and the last thing any of you do is the first to happen.

I don't know of any term that refers specifically to this sort of counter-offensive reaction to ending a social relationship (be it romantic, professional, or otherwise), but I vaguely recall reading about some theory that distinguished reactions to relational stress as follows:
$$\begin{array}{c|c|c|}&\mathbf{Active}&\mathbf{Passive}\\\hline\mathbf{Constructive}&\rm Actively\ constructive&\rm Passively\ constructive\\\hline\mathbf{Destructive}&\rm Actively\ destructive&\rm Passively\ destructive\\\hline\end{array}$$
The reaction in question is actively destructive. A passive alternative would be less decisive / assertive, and either patient / understanding / cooperative (i.e., constructive) or apathetic / pessimistic / negative (i.e., destructive). Sorry I don't have a reference off the top of my head; I think this came from my social psych textbook as an undergrad, but I'm not sure.

As for plausible explanatory constructs, consider:

Dominant personality
Avoidant or anxious-ambivalent (i.e., insecure) attachment style
Needs for power and autonomy
Behavioral tendencies involving defensiveness and reactance

Certain defense mechanisms may apply depending on whether the person is reacting genuinely or just defensively (and doesn't actually want to end the relationship).


Can humans be reduced to a function? Based on an article by UK Essays, we are nothing more than robots that operate based on our past experience and other factors like amount of neurotransmitters, hormones, and other chemicals, trying to get optimal outcomes for ourselves.

Does this mean that every human mind can be reduced to (a very complex and nonperfect) function?

I think the key concept to tackle this question is to consider the concept of abstraction.

Abstract models are generalized models of some kind "reality" that we are interested in, with the aim to describe some behavior of the system in question reasonably well. Often the abstraction should also be relevant to many instances of the entity that we would like to describe: If you want a abstract model to describe a human, you would probably want it to be useful to describe many humans, and not just a specific human. This might provide less detailed predictive power for individuals, but might be more useful to apply to populations.

When talking about the world or the reality in any kind of descriptive way, we are really always using abstract models to think, rationalize and communicate about it.

Now for your question, of course you can make an abstract model of a human being, but you would have to ask yourself on what level of detail you want. Ignoring the practical difficulties in constructing this, we have to consider that the path to a model that matches "reality" as good as possible is endless. For example, for you to successfully model a brain, you would in the end not only have to describe every atom of the brain, but the quarks and maybe end up all the way in string theory. And in the same time capturing all the emergent behavior down this chain and not only being a reductionist.

Theoretically, I'd say that the answer to your question is definitely yes, it would be theoretically possible to make a abstract model for a human mind that has "good enough" predictive power.

Everything we know about the real world is deterministic (except for some uncertainties if we get down to quantum mechanics, that probably would not have any significant influence on a very high-level system like a brain anyway). There is no scientific support that imaginal non-deterministic things like "free will" either exists or have any practical influence, so there is nothing except the pure complexity of the matter, our knowledge and our scientific processes that sets the limits for how detailed we can describe something.


Is gambling hereditary? I heard that gambling tendencies may be inherited from parents. I am not sure about that so I posted this question. Is that true? Has any researches been done on that?

It could be to some extent, for example, because gambling behaviour is mediated by traits like impulsiveness {1,2} which are heritable {3}.

References

{1} Steel, Z. and A. Blaszczynski (1998). "Impulsivity, personality disorders and pathological gambling severity." Addiction 93(6): 895-905.

{2} Michalczuk, R., et al. (2011). "Impulsivity and cognitive distortions in pathological gamblers attending the UK National Problem Gambling Clinic: a preliminary report." Psychological Medicine 41(12): 2625-2635.

{3} Bezdjian, S., et al. (2011). "Genetic and environmental influences on impulsivity: A meta-analysis of twin, family and adoption studies." Clinical psychology review 31(7): 1209-1223.


Simulate colorblindness in non-colorblind individuals Is there any way by which individuals with normal color vision could "see" the effects of Deuteranopia or any of the common colorblindness types, say by using special lenses or anything?

Color vision deficits can be approximated via filters on images or video, but is there any way, via special lenses/eyeware or lighting that normal color vision participants could be made to actually perceive a scene as if they had a color vision deficiency from a normal colored object or representation?

One possibility would be to apply those image filters to a live video stream.

Aside from that, you could consider infrared goggles. Not an exact simulation of colorblindness, but it does apparently make red and green into the same color. And if anything, it would let people see the world in differently.


Is there any plausible answer for naturally explaining veridical perception in near death experiences? Is there any way to explain veridical perception in near death experiences and out of body experiences, naturally? Or is it strong evidence that the mind is a soul?

There is no evidence that "the mind is a soul". This is what's known as the "hard question of consciousness".

There has been some research conducted on "out-of-body" experiences. The only one I can remember offhand was a couple of years ago where words and numbers were placed on top of cabinets in operating theatres. The logic behind this was that if anyone genuinely had an out-of-body experience while under anaesthesia, they would be able to read, and later recall, these words and numbers. I hope I'm not misquoting the findings (I'm doing this from memory), but I seem to recall that they found no evidence whatsoever for these experiences.

It is far more likely that experiences prior to death are hallucinatory and caused by chemical changes, or degradation, of the brain. In a similar way, out of body experiences in an operating theatre are almost certainly the result of similar hallucinations.


What's the term for people who deny others' achievements? I know a bunch of people that are always in deep denial (at least trying to appear so) of other people achievements. It can be another country or another group or another religion.

For example, when you tell them, "Did you hear about Mike? He just bought a Lamborghini," they have several type of answers ready for this situation, like: "Who cares? Lamborghini was never good, you need to go to gas station every 15 minutes," or like, "But don't you know how terrible his wife is?" or, "He might have stolen someone's money," etc.

They know they are wrong, but they say these types of things to ease their deep internal pain. You would call them some sort of jealous people, but it's not only jealousy. Sometimes when you tell them things like, "Did you see the recent car Germany just built? It just runs on salt water!" They come back with sentences like, "Whatever, I would die rather than living for a second in Germany." Everyone would be like, "WHAT?" But yes, they say these sort of things.

So what do you call these people? What's their problem? Do you have any advice to offer these people?

Regarding "What's their problem?" Question,

Long answer:
Social Psychology recognizes the concept of construals, which are how individuals perceive, comprehend, and interpret the world around them, particularly the behavior or action of others towards themselves.

Two of the basic source/motive of construal in human beings is the need to feel good about ourselves and the need to be accurate. These two needs, however, doesn't always coincide one-another; and when they don't, it builds-up anxiety inside oneself. Leon Festinger further explained those situations as Cognitive Dissonance, an uncomfortable feeling that arose from having two conflicting beliefs/ideas/values at the same time.

As stated in the linked wikipedia article, to reduce dissonance, someone may do one of these 4 things:

  Change behavior/cognition
  Justify behavior/cognition by changing the conflicting cognition
  Justify behavior/cognition by adding new cognition
  Ignore/Deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs

In your case, your information most likely triggered a cognitive dissonance for him.

Caused by either an upward social-comparison process, which has been proved to be able to happen both subliminally and automatically in a study; and may resulted in negative-affect, especially for someone with low self-esteem and negative mood. i.e "That makes Mike better than me" or "That shows how great Germans are, but I'm not German!" An existing contradicting beliefs. i.e "I hate Mike/Germany" or "I'm far richer than Mike/My country is better than Germany." Having done or still doing something which conflicted with the new information. i.e he just bragged about his brand new car, just explained how Germany is not good, just turned down an offer to live in Germany, etc. Or a combination of all three.

Then, to reduce the dissonance, they just changed their cognition to justify themselves (Lamborghini is not that good anyway), create a new cognition (but his wife is terrible), or simply deny (he must have stolen someone's money) or ignore (whatever, not going to live in German anyway) the information. All those strategies would be easier to employ than actually changing their own behavior (buy a better car than Lamborghini, make an even better invention) or cognition (motivate themselves to earn more money or study more)

Short Answer:
You indirectly arouse his anxiety, either by lowering their self-esteem by presenting a concrete and unavoidable better social comparison target; or by presenting an information which conflicts with his beliefs/ideas/values. In order to reduce that anxiety, and so making them feels good about themselves again, people will either change their behavior/cognition, make justifications, or simply ignore/deny the conflicting information/stimuli.

Really Short Answer:
They are most likely trying to reduces the anxiety which was caused by your information


What is the difference between recurrent and feedback synapses? In the paper proposing recurrent convolutional neural networks (RCNN), "Recurrent Convolutional Neural Network for Object Recognition", it is stated that "recurrent synapses typically outnumber feed-forward and top-down (or feedback) synapses".
Up to this point, my understanding was that top-down processing and recurrent connections refer to the same thing... What is the difference between the two?

The different types of connections can be histologically identified and separated on the basis of their connectivity in the cortex.
Recurrent synapses in the cortex can be defined as (Douglas & Martin, 1995):

[...] connections between layer 2 and 3 pyramidal cells, in which a target neuron projects
back to its source neuron in a tight positive feedback loop

Feedforward and feedback neurons can be histologically defined as (Berezovskii et al., 2011):

In general, feedforward (FF) projections originate in the superficial layers of the cortex and terminate in layer 4, while feedback (FB) connections originate in the superficial and deep layers, and their axon terminals tend to avoid layer 4.

The cortical layers and their functions are schematically depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Schematic of the cortex showing recurrent connections (rc) in layer 2/3 and feedforward and feedback connections that avoid layer 4. source: Rolls & Mills (2017)
References
- Berezovskii et al., J Comp Neurol (2011); 519(18): 3672–83
- Rolls & Mills, Neurobiol Learn Mem (2017); 145: 205–21


Devices that detect when someone is falling asleep I'm wondering what types of devices exist that can detect how close someone is to falling asleep. I have heard of several devices that may be able to do this, but I haven't been able to find very solid information.

EEG: I assume these could detect falling asleep quite effectively; though, I'd like to know if there are any other devices that would work as well.
EKG/ECG: I found this paper that claims you can use a Lorenz plot to detect correlation between heartrate and falling asleep.
GSR: A lot of people say a GSR can be used, but I have yet to find any papers/data that describe the correlation between GSR and falling asleep
Pulse Oximeter: someone mentioned to me that these work as well, though I haven't been able to find much information

I've used the Zeo (http://www.myzeo.com/sleep/). It seems to work pretty well. It tracks which stage of sleep you are using a very basic EEG. There are some details on how it operates here: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/how-the-zeo-sleep-device-works.html

As I said, I've used it in the past and from what I can tell, it seems to be pretty accurate, assuming you don't knock the sensor off while you're sleeping.


Psychology of disrespect and being proud of law breaking. How does it work and how to combat it? I'm gonna talk about Russia. :) I'm not interested in foreign policy, relations, for this question... maybe just a tiny bit.

A little preamble.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union (hereinafter S.U.), the people got lost, they didn't know who they were, what they wanted to do and who was going to tell them what to do. S.U. did a really good cleansing (of people's minds)... they were destroying all the traditions and knowledge that people lived by before S.U.: how to organize themselves, how to protect your property and even how to manage your household (if you're living in your own house). Private property, businesses, gold and anything valuable were seized. From the Party's point of view it was better if you live in an apartment rather than your own house. So, after the collapse, it was, loosely translated in English, the wild and evil ’90s. Basically the time of socio-political chaos. All the bad in people surfaced and no one to stop them because bribery was a second nature and it got instilled in the culture and the government.

Now to the point of the question.
Nowadays, when people break laws, even those that just a manifestations of common sense and you point that out, they tend to just show "muscles" and try to scare you away. Examples: driving in places when it's prohibited, littering, bribing the law enforcement, causing disturbances (e.g. playing loud music). Driving dangerously is a particularly big problem.

The reasoning often goes something like this: that's ok, no one's there, and it's really stupid not to take the "opportunity" (for saving little time, money, effort), I will do no harm... And even if you don't take this "opportunity", in some circles there can be social pressure to act like this. Romanticizing and glorifying a criminal life-style is somewhat prevalent... unfortunately teens often don't grow out of it. The civil court is a huge hassle (unless you're some sort of a government worker), police officers often ignore "small" violations and you left with the aggressor alone, imagine a big guy with no morals or a sociopath.

Why people don't see that they live such an a-typical, perhaps anti-social or criminal, life? And is there a way to go about to make those people aware of how they behave?

Any terms in psychology that describe this, any books to read or forums to visit... I'll appreciate any advice.

This question can be unswered from the field of sociology.

  Sociology is the study of social behaviour or society, including its
  origins, development, organisation, networks, and institutions. It is
  a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation
  and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social
  order, disorder, and change.

Specifically what you describe here are the social norms formed by society.

  From a sociological perspective, social norms are informal
  understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society.
  Social psychology recognizes smaller group units, such as a team or an
  office, may also endorse norms separately or in addition to cultural
  or societal expectations. In other words, norms are regarded as
  collective representations of acceptable group conduct as well as
  individual perceptions of particular group conduct. They can be viewed
  as cultural products (including values, customs, and traditions) which
  represent individuals' basic knowledge of what others do and think
  that they should do.

The values and expectations that you experience are formed in the socio-economical environment of the specific nation througout many years of interactions among members of that society.

EDIT:
It is very very difficult to change deep rooted cultural habits and norms, and usually will take many years to do so. But I will give some practical advices that may help :

Lead by example. If a higly regarded individual of the society, consistently demonstrates a different behavior, this may have a long lasting effect on other members of the society and may gradually change their behavior.
Don’t push information, engage in active dialogue to change their goals and beliefs.
Changing the environment. The environment have subtle ways in which they reinforce our habits.
Create activities (like social gatherings, competitions etc) that indirectly falsify the bad sticky idea.

References of the EDIT:

Made to Stick

Smart Change

Switch


Brain capillary density Is there any data available on the density of capillaries in the brain?

Also, I have seen images like this (from Chapter 2 of The Cerebral Circulation, by Cipolla MJ.):

This illustrates to some extent (some?) of the arteries in the brain. But is there an image available which illustrates how the capillaries are distributed in the brain?

Also, I recently had a discussion in which I was told that blood does not enter the brain due to the blood brain barrier. Is such a statement accurate? The previous question is relevant here since if the brain is dense with capillaries then it would sound strange (to a layman like me) that blood does not enter the brain.

Thank you.

PS: Please not that I have no background in neuroscience and the last biology lecture I had was in high school.

Indeed, the brain is absolutely full of vasculature; I thought this image was a nice example...

(figure from Adams et al 2015)

(a) and (d) are sections through cortex, parallel to the surface. All the black/colored dots are indicating vessels (arterioles and venules) that are diving down into the brain. (b) shows the vasculature of the pial surface, where arteries and veins can be distinguished (color coded in c); this is how they get the color coding in (d), by comparing the overlay position. You can see all the veins, in blue, are larger and surrounded by the arteries, in red.

Note the millimeter scale. The authors report 27.4 vessels per square millimeter.

When describing the blood brain barrier people are not referring to an absence of blood vessels in the brain; rather, the blood brain barrier is between the walls lining all of those vessels and the neurons themselves. Therefore, the actual surface area of this blood brain barrier is absolutely massive. Wong et al estimates 15-25 square meters of surface area over 600 kilometers of blood vessels in the brain, whereas the skin is only about 2 square meters.

(figure from Wong et al 2013)

Elsewhere in the body, nutrients just leak out of capillaries by diffusion. The endothelium in the brain (BMEC in the figure above) strictly controls the transport of most substances from the vascular space to the brain space, and the space between the endothelial cells is tightly closed.

Furthermore, the endothelial cells themselves are covered by the processes of glial (non-neuronal) cells called astrocytes, serving as a second layer of regulation.

Adams, D. L., Piserchia, V., Economides, J. R., & Horton, J. C. (2015). Vascular Supply of the Cerebral Cortex is Specialized for Cell Layers but Not Columns. Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 25(10), 3673–3681. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu221

Wong, A. D., Ye, M., Levy, A. F., Rothstein, J. D., Bergles, D. E., & Searson, P. C. (2013). The blood-brain barrier: an engineering perspective. Frontiers in neuroengineering, 6, 7. doi:10.3389/fneng.2013.00007


Why does Asperger's Syndrome seem to overlap with high IQ? A few of my friends have Asperger's Syndrome, and some fit the pattern but have not been formally diagnosed. Many of these friends are also highly intelligent, and  because of the high intelligence and odd social behavior were stereotyped in school as being "odd geniuses".

In my anecdotal experience, there seems to be a lot of correlation between people with Asperger's and people with high IQ. I'm curious if this is just correlation, or if there is some causation here.

Are some traits of Asperger's actually traits of high intelligence, or perhaps the other way around?

Short answer: Some traits of Asperger's are found in those with high intelligence, and vice versa. In the grander scheme of things, however, it appears that correlation does not imply causation.

Longer answer:

  AS was first described in 1944 by Austrian physician Hans Asperger. He considered it to be a personality disorder characterized by pedantic speech content, impairment of two-way interactions, excellent logical abstract thinking, isolated areas of interest, repetitive and stereotyped play, and ignorance of environmental demands. AS individuals were thought to be capable of originality and creativity in selective fields (Tsai, 1992). Asperger (1979) suggested that his syndrome was more likely to be observed in children of high intelligence and special abilities. However, to date, the clinical literature on AS has focused on children with average or low-average intelligence. There has been surprisingly little examination of AS among gifted children (Barber, 1996; Cash, 1999a; 1999b).

There seem to be at least seven characteristics that are common to both gifted children and children with Aspberger's syndrome. Those are: verbal fluency, a fascination for letters or numbers and/or memorizing information, an intensive interest in a specialized topic, hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli, a large range of abilities due to their specialized interest(s), and uneven social or affective development.

Due to this overlap (and not necessarily in spite of it), Asperger's syndrome is often mistaken for giftedness in children.

There are differences between gifted children without AS and non-gifted children with AS. Unlike gifted children, children with AS often demonstrate motor clumsiness, low tolerance for change or agitation, inability to understand social humor and proper affect, and appear to lack a "theory of mind" (in other words, they may act abnormally and not have any clue that others perceive them to be abnormal).

  Perhaps the most pronounced feature to distinguish a gifted AS student is his or her remarkable lack of insight and awareness regarding the feelings, needs, and interests of other people. An AS child will talk interminably in a monotonous or pedantic tone about a favorite topic, unaware that the listener might not be interested, needs to leave, is bored, or wants to say something. AS children will also interrupt private conversations and enter or leave abruptly without concern for the wishes or needs of others. They seem oblivious to the simplest rules of social conduct, and repeated efforts to instruct them or remind them do not change these behaviors. A pronounced lack of social awareness is not a common characteristic of ordinary gifted children.

Based on this, it does not seem that AS foreshadows high IQ. It seems likely that AS is often misdiagnosed as giftedness/high intelligence, or vice versa, considering the overlap in external behaviors among both groups. In addition, if 100% of your mental energy was spent on one or two very specific interests, and if you set about in such a way that you /only/ talked about those interests whenever possible, you would indeed seem very intelligent and competent. :)


Would a teacher benefit from reading psychology journals? I am currently volunteering as a teacher to low income families.

I have had no training on teaching. I am working for a B.S. in chemistry and mathematics. Furthermore, I am quite new at this. I would like to improve how I teach, and somewhat believe that understanding how someone learns would help me become a better teacher.

I am currently taking a year off. Since I am no longer enrolled, I no longer have access to a library, journals, etc. Nevertheless, I would like to continue teaching and I am wondering what your opinion is on enrolling on a membership on a psychology journal, getting books, etc. So far I have narrowed my options down to the journal of applied psychology and the journal of learning, memory, and cognition.

What would you suggest?

If you don't have a decent amount of education in psychology already, I wouldn't recommend diving straight into journals...but I wouldn't recommend you don't either. If you want to check them out, I'd say the only harm is the cost and the chance of getting discouraged, so first of all, I'd recommend this: don't get discouraged! You're on the right track. The best teachers are those who still spend plenty of time learning (if only to keep up with their fields), IMO. Educational psychology ("ed psych") is a deep subject—as deep or deeper than many, if not most. In my limited experience as a higher ed educator, I'd say I've learned more about teaching through experience than through what meager training I've been offered, and colleagues of mine who have sought more training haven't had good things to say about their programs...so I'd say you're not necessarily missing much for lack of training, relative to most of us, if you've got a good head on your shoulders, good communication skills, a professional attitude, plenty of respect and tolerance for the circumstances and shortcomings of others, and have paid attention to the teaching styles you admire in your own time as a student. To some extent, training programs mostly teach the basics of these qualities, and can't teach much more. However, I also have a colleague in an ed psych program, and judging from what I've heard from her (I admit I don't have any other real exposure to ed psych on which to base my opinion), I think we've all got plenty more to learn that they won't teach you in the average teacher training program anyway. Therefore I applaud your ambition for self-education, and certainly don't want to steer you away from going straight to the source. I hope I've already disillusioned you somewhat regarding the training you're lacking; it's important for maintaining minimal standards, but in my experience, it hasn't offered much guidance for growth beyond that. If you don't have any particular shortcomings that need ironing out—if you're already a halfway decent teacher—you're probably better off skipping the watered-down, "common-sense" sort of educational psychology you'd get from people who specialize in other things, and who are only teaching how to teach because it's a job they could get.

I would, however, recommend testing the waters of those journals you're thinking of diving into before shelling out the subscription fees. Some journals can be quite dense and advanced reading without a proper introduction (especially cognitive psychology articles, in my experience). This isn't to say you can't hack it, but you may find a lot of articles referring to concepts that are introduced in other articles (or worse, books!) that you can't access for free except through your university, which might also require inter-library loaning (you might not be able to do that without being enrolled, but you should at least be able to get access to some journals by visiting an on-campus library). This becomes quite a lot of legwork, so don't dive in unless you're ready to swim the equivalent of the English Channel. Try looking for free articles from these journals you're interested in (e.g., the links on the right that you can access through a Google Scholar search for "Journal of Applied Psychology"), see how comfortable you are with reading them, and see how far you can follow the reference lists whenever you come across an interesting idea that you'd like to know more about. If you can make a go of it and be happy with what you get out of it, if you're not happy with what you can already access for free by means like Google Scholar or your university, and if you're willing to pay the price of subscription, I don't see any further reason to dissuade you!

Regardless (or especially if these journals don't work out for you), I'd also recommend checking out more introductory literature on ed psych. The thing about journal articles (in case you don't already know this; forgive me if I'm getting pedantic) is that their authors often write to a fairly advanced research audience, so it's not exactly like learning to swim in the shallow end, where most inexperienced students would probably be better off starting. Some books are like this too of course, but it seems to me that most books in psychology are less afraid to belabor their points and more keen on appealing to a more general audience. Especially when setting the average book aside and looking directly to introductory books and textbooks, you can expect to find the process of learning the foundational theories of most domains a lot easier, and probably more efficient; again, I haven't tried doing this with ed psych texts myself, but I'd assume the same is true of this domain as it is of others. In general, the advantage of intro text/books is not just that they're directed at more general audiences; they'll also usually take a much broader overview of the field as a whole. You might have to do a LOT more reading to get the same breadth out of journal articles as you could out of an intro text/book.  You'd probably get a much deeper exposure through journals, but if your time is short enough as is, you're probably more concerned with covering all the fundamentals than with sharpening your knowledge on any specific subject, let alone all of them, by yourself!

If you're sold on the idea of checking out intro text/books, you don't actually have to buy anything necessarily. For instance, check out this list of free e-books on ed psych that I just found. To make sure I wasn't tossing you a red herring, I went ahead and downloaded Seifert and Sutton's (2009) Educational Psychology for myself, for free; it looks fairly solid to me at first glance. In any case, it's not your only free option on this list alone, and with a little extra effort or a trip to the library, I'm sure you could find plenty more options for free. If that won't cut it, or if you see recommendations for a particular text/book, consider ordering it used. You ought to be able to get plenty of them for much less than the price of a subscription to the journals you mentioned, which look like they'd run you $\$455$ apiece. I'm a fan of Half.com for used book buying myself. I see some options here for less than $40!

Good luck; I hope you learn a lot of good stuff, and come back to share some of your insights with us here! We could all stand to know more about these topics...Except maybe those who really know these topics, whom I hope will give you some answers of their own too!


Where can I find recent research on the role of context effect in perception of similarity? BACKGROUND. I’m writing a paper on the role of similarity in the theories of concept empiricism developed by the British Empiricists Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, and how the idea of context effect from modern cognitive psychology could be used to better understand these theories. The basic idea I’d like to develop in my paper is that similarity is contextual, relative to a frame of reference, and this can explain how a general abstract idea (on Locke’s theory of abstraction) or a set of similar ideas held together in the mind that are called up by awareness of an exemplar (on Berkeley and Hume’s theory of general ideas) can be formed from particular instances none of which are identical: while not identical, they are similar to each other in a certain context, relative to a certain frame of reference, and thus can be classified together by the mind (e.g. scarlet and crimson are not identical but are similar to each other, in context, relative to aquamarine; or mammals are all different from each other but similar to each other relative to birds; or birds and mammals are different but relative to plants are similar. Etc.)

QUESTION. I am unfamiliar with cognitive psychology and the literature on context effect. Where can I find recent papers on context effect? What is the best way to go about finding references, especially with experimental data, on context effect? I am aware of a paper which discusses context effect very well (Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological review, 84, 327-352 doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327). However, I’d appreciate any help I could get on finding more recent work on this phenomenon, preferably (but not necessarily) which further develops or supports Tversky.

A classic reference in this space is Goodman (1972) "Problems and projects", which develops exactly this idea that similarity is poorly defined unless you specify in what respect. From your description, you might also enjoy Barsalou's (1983) "Ad-hoc categories", which emphasizes how much coherent groupings depend on context. These are not exactly recent, but you should turn up some relevant stuff by looking for recent papers that cite these.

There are a few different lines of work building on Tversky's results. The most prominent problem with that account is the combinatorial explosion you get out of conjunctive features. The relations between features are also important to people, but considering relations as just another kind of feature explodes the number of features you have to consider in an utterly horrifying way.

Probably the most direct solution is to consider structured representations that assign roles to features and judge similarity by the goodness-of-fit of a mapping between these structured representations. If you had to pick one entry-point to this literature, it'd probably be Gentner & Markman (1997). "Structure mapping in analogy and similarity", but again, if you look for work citing this you'll get stuff up to this year, it's an ongoing project. Goldstone has also done a bunch of work in this area, check out Goldstone & Son (2005). "Similarity" in the Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning for a nice review.

That's probably the most popular/well known approach, but these folks are not the only game in town. There's a more or less independent angle of attack from people interested in Bayesian property induction. Try Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). "Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference." This is a BBS paper, so you'll see commentary from all kinds of positions there. Again, search-citing-articles is your friend for the most recent work in this line.

Getting more out into the fringes (where the really fun stuff happens) you could also consider things like transformational similarity (Hahn, U., Chater, N., & Richardson, L. B. (2003). "Similarity as transformation") or the quantum cognition account (Pothos, E. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2013). "A quantum geometric model of similarity"). Don't be turned off by the word 'quantum', the math is quantum but these folks have their feet firmly on the ground. I think you'll enjoy the intro section to this paper, it's the most recent and engages most directly with the idea of context and frames of reference.

Hope this is the kind of thing you were after!

Full refs:

Goodman, N. (1972). Problems and projects.

Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & cognition, 11(3), 211-227.

Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist, 52(1), 45.

Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). Similarity. In The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning.

Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and brain sciences, 24(4), 629-640.

Hahn, U., Chater, N., & Richardson, L. B. (2003). Similarity as transformation. Cognition, 87(1), 1-32.

Pothos, E. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2013). A quantum geometric model of similarity. Psychological Review, 120(3), 679.


Why do people laugh in serious situations? I've seen people (including myself) that laugh for no apparent reason in really serious situations, such as in an argument or when receiving bad news. Although the other party is clearly very upset, it seems they have the worst possible reaction: they start laughing. It's probably not because they find it funny, so what does trigger it?

This could be what the Psychology Today article "Why We Laugh", (Lickerman, 2011) refers to as 'nervous laughter', suggesting that this response is both for reassurance (as suggested by Tyler Langan's comment) and also a means to build resilience in the face of potential trauma, specifically (from the article):

  This may explain why some psychologists classify humor as one of the "mature" defense mechanisms we invoke to guard ourselves against overwhelming anxiety (as compared to the "psychotic," "immature," and "neurotic" defense mechanisms). Being able to laugh at traumatic events in our own lives doesn't cause us to ignore them, but instead seems to prepare us to endure them.

Further, it is suggested here, that the nervous laughter is a means to protect our dignity and sense of control.


Hobbies / interests correlated with Big 5 scores? Are there any established treatments (I'm going to leave the exact terms a little bit vague because my understanding is vague) of which hobbies and interests are most likely to be attractive to someone with XYZ score on an  OCEAN / Big 5 test?

TIA,

Yes. One example is that people high in Openness to New Experiences are interested in aesthetic experiences including museums and being in nature, and novel experiences as you'd expect from the name. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-08808-031

Treatment is a bit misleading here to mean 'study', because in psychology it usually means 'intervention'.


Do psychology deals with what others could call spiritualy? Does any branch of psychology study scientifically what traditionally, outside a scientific perspective has been called spiritually? In the same way people of ancient times considered voices in the head to be demons and we today consider that a mental issue related to schizophrenia.
Could the spirituality of other be the positive thinking, empathy, or any other aspect - empirically studied - of the mind?

Maybe what you are looking for is the field cognitive science of religion:

Cognitive science of religion is the study of religious thought and behavior from the perspective of the cognitive and evolutionary sciences. The field employs methods and theories from a very broad range of disciplines, including: cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, cognitive anthropology, artificial intelligence, neurotheology, developmental psychology, and archaeology. Scholars in this field seek to explain how human minds acquire, generate, and transmit religious thoughts, practices, and schemas by means of ordinary cognitive capacities.

Follow up resources:

International Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion (IACSR)
Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion


What is the scientific term for the erroneous inversion of cause and effect? What is the correct scientific term for the - erroneous - inversion of cause and effect?

According to a dictionary of psychology this is simply called "reverse causality"

In attempting to understand the relationship between cause and effect, a tendency to attribute what is actually the cause to the effect. For example, does the ingestion of lead paint cause a lower intelligence quotient (IQ) or is it that children with lower IQs tend to eat lead paint?


Different levels of consciousness The answer provided by @user287279 to  When does a human baby develop a consciousness? is a great answer in my mind which scrapes the surface of what consciousness consists of.
When you look at consciousness and how there are different levels to it, I couldn't initially think of any lower level of consciousness other than described in the answer:

the ability to sense the world around you in an independent way

But there is the preconscious, where information is available for cognitive processing, but lies outside conscious awareness.
Dehaene, et al. (2006) provides a good rundown on the difference between conscious, preconscious and subliminal processing, along with possible reasons why some knowledge remains permanently inaccessible; however, it doesn't indicate when preconscious processing begins.
I wonder if there is any scientific argument where it is considered that preconsciousness could have started earlier than consciousness?
References
Dehaene, S., Changeux, J. P., Naccache, L., Sackur, J., & Sergent, C. (2006). Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(5), 204-211. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.007Free PDF available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claire_Sergent/publication/7177242_Conscious_preconscious_and_subliminal_processing_A_testable_taxonomy/links/5a09ad5a458515afc7b0e2b3/Conscious-preconscious-and-subliminal-processing-A-testable-taxonomy.pdf

Preconciousness is associated with intense activation, yet confined to sensori-motor processors ;
 Occipito-temporal loops and local synchrony ;
 Priming at multiple levels ;
 No reportability while attention is occupied elsewhere ;

quora could also provide some answers : https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-core-of-human-consciousness/answer/Daisi-Lui ;

preconsciousness could have started earlier than consciousness ;

Freud, S., Strachey, J., In Freud, A., In Rothgeb, C. L., Richards, A., & Scientific Literature Corporation. (1953). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud.


Does correcting responses after feedback lead to better learning? In a typical supervised learning experiment, one might present visual stimuli, e.g. faces, one after another and ask participants to classify each one into one of two categories, e.g. A and B. Usually participants are not required to DO anything after getting feedback - they just wait, and eventually the next trial appears. Does learning improve if, when the response is incorrect, participants are required to change their response to the correct one before proceeding?
To provide some context - unlike the "typical" experiment described above, I am using educationally relevant materials - mathematics story problems. They are still binary forced choice, but responses are given using radio buttons instead of the usual "press P or Q", so to correct an incorrect response, participants would have to go change the radio button response.
More specifically, since details were requested, all of the problems are story problems involving the concept of "sampling with replacement". Before doing the problems, participants read an instructional passage explaining the general formula for sampling with replacement problems. This passage explains that each problem involves two numbers, a and b, where a indicates the number of sampling events and b indicates the size of the sampled set. The problems ask for the number of different possible outcomes, which is given by the formula a^b. Thus, to solve the problems, it is only necessary to figure out which number is the number of sampling events and which the size of the sampled set. Here is a sample problem:

A group of friends is eating at a restaurant. Each person chooses a meal from the menu. (It is possible for multiple people to choose the same meal.) In how many different ways can the friends choose their meals, if there are 4 friends and 5 meals?
Answers:
4^5
5^4

I can think of at least two reasons why they MIGHT learn better from doing this. First, it might improve motivation - they know it's a pain in the neck when they answer wrong, so they're more motivated to answer right. Second, it might have a cognitive benefit, in that they would encode the correct and incorrect answers more strongly because they have to actually respond in some way.
On the other hand, there could be a negative effect in that it interrupts the flow of the trials. Doing a large number of trials quickly, pop pop pop, could increase learners' fluency, and such benefits could be decreased by the proposed requirement.
On the third hand, it might be even more beneficial to use an even more extreme version of the proposed requirement, e.g. present several questions at once and only tell them that SOME are wrong, not WHICH ones, so they have to think about it even more. Of course this could encourage them to figure out ways to play the system and could be even worse with respect to the possible negative effect I mentioned.
Anyone have any evidence or speculations about this?

Several different, well-received theories of education would say yes. However, it depends on the quality of 'correct' information that is received after the answer is deemed 'incorrect'.

In Jean Piaget's constructivist theory of education, it is theorized that individuals construct new knowledge through methods of assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation requires taking new information and modifying it to fit into an existing framework (without changing the framework itself), and accommodation requires taking new information and updating an existing framework in line with the newly-learned information. Self-correcting responses allow the individual to consciously accommodate new information in accordance with the cognitive dissonance that may result from conflicting perspectives on information.

In the theory of cognitive apprenticeship, it is speculated that there are six teaching methods that are integral to advancing a student's knowledge in a domain. Among those are reflection, which allows students to "compare their own problem-solving processes with those of an expert, another student, and ultimately, an internal cognitive model of expertise." In more complex tasks, correcting ones' mistakes in accordance with the techniques and heuristics used by a knowledgable other would be considered a method of reflection. However, it is not clear that this would further apply to a multiple-choice test, as ones' methods for reaching a conclusion are less observable for tests of that nature.

In fact, there is evidence to show that, while multiple-choice tests may be good predictors of academic performance, multiple-choice questions aren't accurate assessments of actual knowledge. For example:

  Multiple choice tests are best adapted for testing well-defined or lower-order skills. Problem-solving and higher-order reasoning skills are better assessed through short-answer and essay tests. Another disadvantage of multiple choice tests is possible ambiguity in the examinee's interpretation of the item. Failing to interpret information as the test maker intended can result in an "incorrect" response, even if the taker's response is potentially valid. The term "multiple guess" has been used to describe this scenario because test-takers may attempt to guess rather than determine the correct answer. A free response test allows the test taker to make an argument for their viewpoint and potentially receive credit.

Therefore, it may be the case that self-correcting in the instance of an incorrect answer (accommodated by an explanation for the 'correct' answer) can actually improve knowledge, and aid in the accommodation of new knowledge.

For this reason (and for accommodation to effectively occur), in the instance of a multiple-choice test, it may be better practice to consciously reason through the answer in the face of feedback, instead of simply selecting the correct answer.


How is the biological error signal in predictive coding computed? I am quite inspired by the results obtained by PredNet, which implements a predictive coding model using artificial neural networks. They compute the prediction error as a simple subtraction, and then split the positive and negative into two different feature maps.

Within the predictive coding framework it is believed that biological brains also uses the prediction error to communicate between different areas. How is this error signal computed in biological brains?.

Update

I am especially interested in the mechanical aspects, such as how doe does the brain compare a prediction with the true signal?. Synthetic approaches generally just use a pixel-wise error, and I am wondering if the brain does something analogously.

I provided an answer to a similar question here that limitedly deals with the role of biological prediction errors.
Here's an excerpt of that answer:

...to answer this properly, we must first make it clear that there are potentially dozens, hundreds, or an arbitrarily high number of other "prediction error types" in use by the brain. Here are just a few major ways, hypothetically:

Lots of different neurotransmitters (e.g. dopamine)
The opening/closing of various ion channel species that regulate the membrane potential
Synaptic vescicles/receptors
Neuronal firing rates (as in bursting, a rapid succession of action potentials)
Temporal coding (relative firing times to the firing of other neurons)
And I can think of 10 other more-subtle and harder to explain possibilities, but that are just as important, off the top of my head

Keep in mind that each neuron also seems to have its own differentiated mechanisms for, both, interpreting and signaling prediction error. This complicates things further. For instance, one neurotransmitter may communicate prediction error to one particular neuron, but has no effect (or a different effect) on a different neuron. It may even be that neurotransmitter X must be present while temporal code Y happens for the event to be interpreted as a prediction error.

The study of biological mechanisms for prediction error is a very complicated thing that has no simple interpretation, as opposed to what you find in artificial approaches (presumably, like your PredNet example). While we have not yet uncovered how the brain computes or uses these mechanisms to encode and communicate prediction errors across neurons, what is obvious is that the brain has to be doing some kind of prediction error coding. However, if we try to oversimplify what the brain is doing, we are likely to not have a very intelligent model. The fragility of predictions, susceptibility to error from data complications, and limited nature of current artificial intelligence implementations lends to the idea that there is a lack of good ideas about how to implement and fully utilize prediction error.
The work I do is of a theoretical nature so your question is right up my alley. I have some unique ideas on how various biological prediction errors may work, but it requires a lot of background to understand. Unfortunately, I also have not published my ideas so they are definitely not peer reviewed. That makes me somewhat reluctant to mention my personal ideas as an answer.
It's possible that a kind of prediction error is used in all the listed mechanisms to fine tune the respective properties. Each mechanism likely has a unique role that is central to intelligence- from not only prediction errors encountered in the environment, but even to intrinsic behaviors and being able to predict the outcome of its own actions.


How does robot-assisted autism therapy compare to traditional autism therapy? There have been many applications of robots for treatment of autism, for example ASK Aldeberan therapy. However, how do the results from these therapies compare to traditional therapies such as Floortime DIR and Hanen - More Than Words?

Robot-assisted therapy doesn't automatically mean that it is separate kind of therapy. You may for example teach an imitation by ABA principles with the robot. In other words, you are following traditional therapies but also using a robot.

Kids may benefit from robot-assisted therapy primarily because robots are usually reinforcement for them, i.e. kids are motivated to interact with them and of course they will learn more. For kids who prefer rules and restrictive environment and behavior, robots are "friendly" because they don't change a lot- they always follow the same program in a same way.

On the other side, it is complicate to do a program for every child individually. Therapist should know how to handle with a robot and a child in a same time and it may be hard. And most important, robot isn't a human so child will probably have more issues with generalization of the skill than (s)he would have with just a human therapist.

Shortly it is hard to give you one answer on this matter because we have different robot-assisted therapies, we have different skills to teach, different children (e.g low/ high functioning autism, or to use proper terminology- different disorders in Autism Spectrum Disorders), etc. If we want to compare benefits of robots then, for example, we should have experimental and control groups, teaching the same skills in the same way with the only difference- presence and absence of a robot.

Update

Some of references:

1) doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509327
2) DOI: 10.1075/pc.12.1.03dau
3) doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150036
4) Pop, C., Petrule, A., Pintea. S., Peca, A., Simut, R., Vanderborght, B., & David, D. (2013). Imitation and social behaviors of children with ASD in interaction  with Robonova. A series of single case experiments, Transylvanian Journal of  Psychology, 14(1), 71–91.

5) DOI: 10.1007/s10803-012-1645-2
6) doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006


Father hunger syndrome I found the father-hunger syndrome. Does anyone knows if there is another, maybe more official term for that?

Any sources that someone could use for the particular syndrome?

This is a large subject area, but I will outline a strong starting point for you to do more research where needed.

James M. Herzog's (1980) term Father Hunger, sometimes referred to as a syndrome, and sometimes referred to as the Father Complex may have its roots in many theories developed over the years.

Those who subscribe to Psychodynamic theories, the roots of Father Hunger could be from Freud and his Oedipus Complex, or Carl Jung and his Electra Complex.  Both of these are in Freud's Psychosexual Theory of Development during the Phalic Stage of development, (around the age of 3 to 6 years), which also equates to Erik Erikson's Psychosocial Theory of Development stage of Initiative vs. Guilt (Sigelman & Rider, 2012: p38).

The Father Complex Wikipedia article, which has plenty of source links, states that

  The father complex also stood at the conceptual core of Totem and Taboo (1912-3). Even after the break with Jung, when "complex" became a term to be handled with care among Freudians, the father complex remained important in Freud's theorizing in the twenties; — for example, it appeared prominently in The Future of an Illusion (1927). Others in Freud's circle wrote freely of the complex's ambivalent nature. However, by 1946, and Otto Fenichel's compendious summary of the first psychoanalytic half-century, [in The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (1946)] the father complex tended to be subsumed under the broader scope of the Oedipus complex as a whole.

Alongside the shift from a Freudian emphasis on the role of the father to Melanie Klein's beliefs surrounding object relations theory stressing upon the mother, what psychoanalysis tended to single out was the search for the father, and the negative effects of the switched-off father.  In postmodernism, the father complex surrounds the loss of paternal authority — the absence of the father.  The father could be absent due to death, marriage separation, divorce or simple withdrawal by the father.

  Father hunger is the result of receiving too little quality fathering as a child or young adult. Some argue that even grown men and women need fathers or father surrogates and that the absence of such role modeling and support is associated with less fulfillment in life. In general, father hunger results from too little intimacy between child and father. (Schaller, 1995)

There is a mixture of psychosexual development theory and postmodernist theory within an article stating that

  The tween years find daughters writhing into a sea of hormones as puberty overtakes their bodies. They become extremely emotional. Girls edging into womanhood want to know how to act. They question “Am I attractive?” “Am I loveable?”

  Fathers are looked to for answers to these developmental questions. Young adolescent girls bring an intensity to dads as they want to talk about these things. Girls long to understand the opposite sex and how they rate. And girls do all this in a style that is over the top – from giggling to screeching, from restless to rebellious. Uncomfortable with emotions to begin with, fathers resist daughters who feel overwhelming to them.

  Add burgeoning sexuality to the mix. As girls physically morph into curvaceous women, fathers often withdraw because the change makes them uncomfortable, unsure if those old hugs or kisses are inappropriate somehow. (Sagarese, 2014)

References

Herzog, J. M. (1980). Sleep disturbance and father hunger in 18-to-28-month-old boys: The Erlkönig Syndrome. In: Solnit, et al., eds. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 35(1): pp 223-230PMID: 7433580 DOI: 10.1080/00797308.1980.11823111URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00797308.1980.11823111

Sagarese, M., (2014) Dads, Daughters and Food [Online]Available at: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-05-16/features/sfp-dads-daughters-food_1_father-and-daughter-dads-yo-yo-dieting

Schaller, J. L., (1995). The Search for Lost Fathering: Rebuilding Your Father RelationshipGrand Rapids, MI: Fleming H Revell Co. ISBN-13: 978-0800755522Chapters 1, 3 & 8 free to read on the author's website

Sigelman, C. K. & Rider, E. A., (2012). Life-Span Human Development. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.


What is the psychology behind male pornographic actors having larger than average penises? There is a question What does scientific research say about the relationship between penis size and attractiveness?

This  answer and this link give the statistics of penis size. Given these statistics, the average man performing in porn, would likely be in the top 2.5% of the population of penis size.

  Porn stars are statistical outliers, not the norm; men are more likely to be over 6’3” than to have a penis longer than 7.5 inches.

It also "appears" that men may be inclined to having poor self-perception, regarding their penis size.

  Males self-perception
  Males may quite easily underestimate the size of their own penis relative to that of others, because of the foreshortening obtained from looking down, due to repeated observation of atypical penises in pornography, or because of the accumulation of fat at the base of the penis.[34] A survey by sexologists showed that many men who believed that their penis was of inadequate size had average-sized penises.[35]

Given that men are the main consumers of pornography, why does pornography feature so many men, out of the norm for penis size?
Would it be more appealing to men, if the men starring in porn, had average sized penis?    what is the psychology behind using men with such, abnormally, large penis?

Besides the simple mechanics of it being easier to position actors and film the details of intercourse there is probably a supernormal stimulus effect. The term, coined by Tinbergen (1948) when he observed birds laying artificial eggs of ridiculous size, is used to describe the effect of a stimulus which elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which it evolved. Very large breasts, buttocks, penises, tall heights, etc. are not necessarily particularly useful but because we evolved to prefer larger values of these for fitness reasons we suffer from a supernormal stimulus effect when they are exaggerated. Imagine the rarity of such things for millenia of our evolution during which food and leisure time were relatively scarce. There was little reason to evolve a preference against extreme proportions.