jtotheizzoe:

“Yeah, but good luck getting it peer reviewed.”
(via The New Yorker)

jtotheizzoe:

“Yeah, but good luck getting it peer reviewed.”

(via The New Yorker)

(via approachingsignificance)

legrandcirque:

Boy hurling clay at his sketch of his brother, whom he reserts, to help ease his feelings, while a staff worker takes notes in a psychological clinic. Photograph by Ed Clark. USA, January 1957.

legrandcirque:

Boy hurling clay at his sketch of his brother, whom he reserts, to help ease his feelings, while a staff worker takes notes in a psychological clinic. Photograph by Ed Clark. USA, January 1957.

(via approachingsignificance)

approachingsignificance:

Study discovers the ordinary psycho


There’s more to psychopaths than being murderous. They aren’t all as smart as Hannibal Lecter, or evil, and they can change, say researchers.
Victoria University Associate Professor Devon Polaschek says psychopaths of the popular imagination give the personality disorder a bad name.
Dr Polaschek’s research found that psychopathy was poorly understood. A broader definition of the personality disorder has been suggested, in which people are considered psychopaths if they are a bit too much of at least two of the following: bold, impulsive, mean.
“People with boldness and impulsiveness might be a problem for their co-workers and managers, but they aren’t necessarily going to be involved in any crime. They will tend to mess things up because they don’t think things through. Maybe they drink too much, but they’re not out to hurt people,” she said.
“It’s not Hannibal Lecter or any favourite super-criminal at all. It’s a personality that isn’t socially attractive, but not malevolent, evil or criminal either.”
Dr Polaschek said there were signs that psychopathic behaviour could be modified. Adolescent psychopaths, in particular, could end up being tolerable - if not saintly - adults.
Psychopaths have been thought to be at least as common as one in 100 people, though the estimate is unreliable because of the focus of the previous research.
Dr Polaschek said it was a complex disorder - there was no clear line dividing a common and commendable display of boldness from full-blown psychopathy.
“But there probably isn’t such a thing as a harmless psychopath. People who live for themselves and for the day will tend to blunder around, causing harm to people - because that’s not how society works.”
(via)



I gather with a bad theory of mind they’re probably hurting their own feelings as they probably cannot nicely differentiate between trait-based and situation-based behavior.

approachingsignificance:

Study discovers the ordinary psycho

There’s more to psychopaths than being murderous. They aren’t all as smart as Hannibal Lecter, or evil, and they can change, say researchers.

Victoria University Associate Professor Devon Polaschek says psychopaths of the popular imagination give the personality disorder a bad name.

Dr Polaschek’s research found that psychopathy was poorly understood. A broader definition of the personality disorder has been suggested, in which people are considered psychopaths if they are a bit too much of at least two of the following: bold, impulsive, mean.

“People with boldness and impulsiveness might be a problem for their co-workers and managers, but they aren’t necessarily going to be involved in any crime. They will tend to mess things up because they don’t think things through. Maybe they drink too much, but they’re not out to hurt people,” she said.

“It’s not Hannibal Lecter or any favourite super-criminal at all. It’s a personality that isn’t socially attractive, but not malevolent, evil or criminal either.”

Dr Polaschek said there were signs that psychopathic behaviour could be modified. Adolescent psychopaths, in particular, could end up being tolerable - if not saintly - adults.

Psychopaths have been thought to be at least as common as one in 100 people, though the estimate is unreliable because of the focus of the previous research.

Dr Polaschek said it was a complex disorder - there was no clear line dividing a common and commendable display of boldness from full-blown psychopathy.

“But there probably isn’t such a thing as a harmless psychopath. People who live for themselves and for the day will tend to blunder around, causing harm to people - because that’s not how society works.”

(via)

I gather with a bad theory of mind they’re probably hurting their own feelings as they probably cannot nicely differentiate between trait-based and situation-based behavior.

Nonverbal Signals

  • (Aronoff, 2006) In general, if a new acquaintance’s face or gestures remind us of someone else that we know and like, we transfer our positive feelings about the old acquaintance to the new one.
  • On the other hand, we tend to transfer our negative feelings about a disliked person onto a new acquaintance who reminds us of a disliked person (Anderson & Berk, 1998)
  • Those who stand erect or walk youthfully make a more favorable impressio  than those who slouch. Also, people who point , glare, and interrupt a lot make a more negative impression than those who are attentive to what we say.
  • We are favorably impressed with people who smile and look us in the eye. PEople who make eye contact with us are apt to be seen as more trustworthy and likable unless they gaze for an uncomfortably long time.
  • In addition, those whose faces appear angular seem to us to be threatening or angry while those whose faces appear more rounded are perceived as happy and likable (Aronoff, 1006; Bar & Neta, 2006).”

Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.
Video: U Remind Me, by Usher

randomps:

The Truth Is Out There

Similarity
"Some scientists have even positied genetic and evolutionary reasons for this notion (Rushton & Bons, 2005). Even if people are not really similar to us, we often assume they are. Research has shown there’s a strong correlation between liking and similarity (Morry & Gaines, 2005).
[As people] cannot help noticing each other’s age, sex, height and other physical features, they begin to disclose attitudes and values to one another. However, the proportion of similar attitudes, not the raw number of similar attitudes, is most important. 
According to one view, people with similar needs and personalities are attracted to each other; the other view is that people who are complementary (opposite in needs but compatible) in their needs and traits are attracted. 
Actually, the theory of complementarity tends to apply most specifically to traits rather than to the meshing of two personalities… Even among married couples, the weight of evidence seems to favor similarity as most influences liking [someone] (Meyers, 1998).”
Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.Image: The X-Files

randomps:

The Truth Is Out There

Similarity

  • "Some scientists have even positied genetic and evolutionary reasons for this notion (Rushton & Bons, 2005). Even if people are not really similar to us, we often assume they are. Research has shown there’s a strong correlation between liking and similarity (Morry & Gaines, 2005).
  • [As people] cannot help noticing each other’s age, sex, height and other physical features, they begin to disclose attitudes and values to one another. However, the proportion of similar attitudes, not the raw number of similar attitudes, is most important.
  • According to one view, people with similar needs and personalities are attracted to each other; the other view is that people who are complementary (opposite in needs but compatible) in their needs and traits are attracted.
  • Actually, the theory of complementarity tends to apply most specifically to traits rather than to the meshing of two personalities… Even among married couples, the weight of evidence seems to favor similarity as most influences liking [someone] (Meyers, 1998).”

Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.
Image: The X-Files

Physical Attractiveness
"Being pretty or handsome makes a strong first impression on others. Height, weight, sex, facial features and dress all affect our senses and feelings… physical appearance may be one of the most powerful determinants of our impressions of others. 
The more physically attractive someone is the more positively we judge that person. Attractive people are judged to be more interesting, intelligent, compassionate, sociable, and better adjusted than less attractive people (Langlois et al., 2000; Olson & Marshuetz, 2005). They are regarded as more successful in their careers and happier in their personal lives
Physical attractiveness is also associated with such diverse accomplishments as earning higher grades, landing better jobs, obtaining faster promotions, and having less serious psychological disorders (Jackson, Hunter & Hodge, 1995; Judge, Hurst & Simon, 2009)
People in our [u.s.a.] society are considered attractive if they have symmetrical faces (Rhodes, Yoshikawa, Clark, Lee, McKay & Akamatsu, 2001), a waist circumference that is about 70 to 80 percent of their hip circumference (George, Swami, Cornelissen & Tovee, 2008) and are fairly thin (Derenne & Beresin, 2006)
As it turns out, having attractive friends might also influence your own level of perceived attractiveness. Recent research indicates that on Facebook, profile owners with pictures of attractive friends posted on their ‘walls’ are rated as more attractive than profile owners with less attractive friends (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman & Tong, 2008).
Americans, Brazilians and Russians prefer large eyes, small noses, and full lips (Jones, 1995). [However individuals tend] to find members of their own [ethnic] group more attractive than members of other groups (Schooler, Ward, Merriether & Caruthers, 2004)
When it comes to choosing a date or romantic partner we usually settle for someone like ourselves, at least in regard to attractiveness. This tendency has been labeled the matching hypothesis. For example, Little, Bert, and Perrett (2006) asked independent raters to rate faces on attractiveness and other factors; the rated individuals were married (unbeknownst to the raters). Results showed that raters perceived similar levels of attractiveness for pairs of married couples.”
Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.Image: Gone with the Wind

Physical Attractiveness

  • "Being pretty or handsome makes a strong first impression on others. Height, weight, sex, facial features and dress all affect our senses and feelings… physical appearance may be one of the most powerful determinants of our impressions of others.
  • The more physically attractive someone is the more positively we judge that person. Attractive people are judged to be more interesting, intelligent, compassionate, sociable, and better adjusted than less attractive people (Langlois et al., 2000; Olson & Marshuetz, 2005). They are regarded as more successful in their careers and happier in their personal lives
  • Physical attractiveness is also associated with such diverse accomplishments as earning higher grades, landing better jobs, obtaining faster promotions, and having less serious psychological disorders (Jackson, Hunter & Hodge, 1995; Judge, Hurst & Simon, 2009)
  • People in our [u.s.a.] society are considered attractive if they have symmetrical faces (Rhodes, Yoshikawa, Clark, Lee, McKay & Akamatsu, 2001), a waist circumference that is about 70 to 80 percent of their hip circumference (George, Swami, Cornelissen & Tovee, 2008) and are fairly thin (Derenne & Beresin, 2006)
  • As it turns out, having attractive friends might also influence your own level of perceived attractiveness. Recent research indicates that on Facebook, profile owners with pictures of attractive friends posted on their ‘walls’ are rated as more attractive than profile owners with less attractive friends (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman & Tong, 2008).
  • Americans, Brazilians and Russians prefer large eyes, small noses, and full lips (Jones, 1995). [However individuals tend] to find members of their own [ethnic] group more attractive than members of other groups (Schooler, Ward, Merriether & Caruthers, 2004)
  • When it comes to choosing a date or romantic partner we usually settle for someone like ourselves, at least in regard to attractiveness. This tendency has been labeled the matching hypothesis. For example, Little, Bert, and Perrett (2006) asked independent raters to rate faces on attractiveness and other factors; the rated individuals were married (unbeknownst to the raters). Results showed that raters perceived similar levels of attractiveness for pairs of married couples.”

Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.
Image: Gone with the Wind

'Sexual arousal also depends greatly on psychological changes in the central nervous system, such as thoughts and feelings about a specific partner or the sexual act (Toates, 2009.)
Erotic fantasy serves a variety of functions, ranging from the reduction of anxiety to the the focusing of our thoughts and feelings (Kahr, 2008; Meana & Nunnik, 2006) 
There are some gender differences in fantasies (Canli & Gabrieli, 2004) men fantasize about women’s bodies, physical appearance, and sexual activity, whereas women fantasize about their own attractiveness to men.
Men are likely to fantasize about being dominant and women fantasize about the emotional or romantic context of the sexual activity. 
Men and women, though, seem equally likely to fantasize (Zurbriggen &  Yost, 2004) 
Interestingly, research on the fantasies of gay men and lesbians has found similar gender effects except that the fantasized partner is usually of the same sex (Chivers, Reiger, Latty & Bailey, 2004)
(As revealed, men and women are often aroused by different stimuli, thereby setting the stage for misunderstanding between the sexes.)
 At the same time, individual differences tend to outweigh gender differences, so that each person needs to be appreciated in terms of his or her own preferences.’
Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.

'Sexual arousal also depends greatly on psychological changes in the central nervous system, such as thoughts and feelings about a specific partner or the sexual act (Toates, 2009.)

  • Erotic fantasy serves a variety of functions, ranging from the reduction of anxiety to the the focusing of our thoughts and feelings (Kahr, 2008; Meana & Nunnik, 2006)
  • There are some gender differences in fantasies (Canli & Gabrieli, 2004) men fantasize about women’s bodies, physical appearance, and sexual activity, whereas women fantasize about their own attractiveness to men.
  • Men are likely to fantasize about being dominant and women fantasize about the emotional or romantic context of the sexual activity.
  • Men and women, though, seem equally likely to fantasize (Zurbriggen &  Yost, 2004)
  • Interestingly, research on the fantasies of gay men and lesbians has found similar gender effects except that the fantasized partner is usually of the same sex (Chivers, Reiger, Latty & Bailey, 2004)
  • (As revealed, men and women are often aroused by different stimuli, thereby setting the stage for misunderstanding between the sexes.)
  •  At the same time, individual differences tend to outweigh gender differences, so that each person needs to be appreciated in terms of his or her own preferences.’

Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.

(via dormindonaescola)

itswalky:

Anyway, enough porn.  Back to GENDER ISSUES.

itswalky:

Anyway, enough porn.  Back to GENDER ISSUES.

(via itswalky)

"Although frequently mentioning the importance of ‘safe sex,’ the media tend to characterize sex as a casual, fun, natural and overall positive activity (Epstein & Ward, 2008)"
"Whereas for women [in media], sexuality is shown to be controlled, discrete, restricted, and responsible, for men, an active sex life is viewed as acceptable and even encouraged (Ward, 2003)" (I don’t think that’s proper grammar)
Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.Image from Gossip Girl advertising campaign. I think someone added those things by their mouths but whateverr
  • "Although frequently mentioning the importance of ‘safe sex,’ the media tend to characterize sex as a casual, fun, natural and overall positive activity (Epstein & Ward, 2008)"
  • "Whereas for women [in media], sexuality is shown to be controlled, discrete, restricted, and responsible, for men, an active sex life is viewed as acceptable and even encouraged (Ward, 2003)" (I don’t think that’s proper grammar)

Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.
Image from Gossip Girl advertising campaign. I think someone added those things by their mouths but whateverr

Hyperlinks in the below will lead to examples. Some links nsfw, will be marked with an asterisk. "In fact, many adolescents consume media to help them understand the new sexual landscape before them (Kim et al., 2006). Here are just a few examples of the sexual media that youth under the age of 18 are exposed to:
sex and romance are the most frequently written about topic in magazines read by teenage girls; with nearly one-fifth of headlines focused on issues of sexuality (Davalos, Davalos, & Layton, 2007)
men’s magazines and magazines directed at teens* present women as sex objects more so than any other type of non-pornographic magazine (Stankiewicz and Rosselli, 2008)
between 44* and 81 percent** of music videos show men and women in revealing clothing, depict scenes involving sexual innuendo, and provide indications that sexual behavior has or is about to take place (Zurbriggen et al., 2007)
nearly 70 percent of the top 20 shows* popular with adolescents average nearly seven scenes of sexual content per hour (Eyal, Kunkel, Biely, & Finnerty 2007)
38 percent of 16-17-year olds reported successfully seeking out online sexually explicit content* (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finklehor, 2007)”
Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.Image from Becky Cloonan; clicking on the image takes you to her deviant art page :3

Hyperlinks in the below will lead to examples. Some links nsfw, will be marked with an asterisk.

"In fact, many adolescents consume media to help them understand the new sexual landscape before them (Kim et al., 2006). Here are just a few examples of the sexual media that youth under the age of 18 are exposed to:

  1. sex and romance are the most frequently written about topic in magazines read by teenage girls; with nearly one-fifth of headlines focused on issues of sexuality (Davalos, Davalos, & Layton, 2007)
  2. men’s magazines and magazines directed at teens* present women as sex objects more so than any other type of non-pornographic magazine (Stankiewicz and Rosselli, 2008)
  3. between 44* and 81 percent** of music videos show men and women in revealing clothing, depict scenes involving sexual innuendo, and provide indications that sexual behavior has or is about to take place (Zurbriggen et al., 2007)
  4. nearly 70 percent of the top 20 shows* popular with adolescents average nearly seven scenes of sexual content per hour (Eyal, Kunkel, Biely, & Finnerty 2007)
  5. 38 percent of 16-17-year olds reported successfully seeking out online sexually explicit content* (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finklehor, 2007)”

Source: Psychology For Living, tenth edition, Karen Grover Duffy, etc.
Image from Becky Cloonan; clicking on the image takes you to her deviant art page :3

Re: Invigoration

Hey, so, my previous estimations of being able to write blog posts while on codine after getting my tonsils out turned out to be surprisingly off-center. Oops!
Sorry for the lack of posts, I’ve just been really sick and things have been very hectic lately. Haha, that’s not true, I just thought I’d try on the excuse that happens whenever a webcomic goes on hiatus. Oh, and my computer/scanner/everything broke. Ahh, just kidding, sorry I’m being an asshole.

Anyway! I’ve just completed the process of transferring college and things have cooled off a bit. If you can bare with me, I will try to update whenever I’m studying psych and maybe sometimes when I’m studying tribal/spatially-definitive cultures. Thing is I like to put references to whatever I write about, but that makes each post take about an hour and a half. Speaking of which, does anyone know if I can link directly yo pdfs or is that shady business?

Also, I’m thinking of scanning notes straight from class because they look cool. Would you guys be down with that?

This is very interesting video; its informative and Gottman is a pretty funny guy.

FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE
  

35 years of relationship research by JOHN GOTTMAN

Major Points

  • His terms: Masters = stay together (happy). Disasters = divorce/stay together (unhappy); Conflict discussion = sometimes interchangeable with ‘argument’
  • Conflict discussion - 96% accuracy for any prediction of divorce/happiness in relationships based on the conflict discussion styles of each partner (Source; Gottman & Levenson, 04)
  • Allison Shapiro - Child temperament and neurological development with up to 50% certainty based on parental conflict discussion styles (agreements) in the last trimester of pregnancy (Source; this is revisited - I recommend looking up Ghosts in the Nursery - very interesting stuff!; similar study on external/internalization behaviors in children by Gottman)
  • Conflict discussion is ‘gentler’ in masters; concepts (ie topics, “I think the money may not be handled efficiently, what do you think?”) more often brought up instead of personal, fundamental arguments (eg, “You buy too many purses”) (Source; Gottman et al., 89)
  • Masters are more responsive vs. defensive. In defensiveness the immediate concept that generated the argument is not responded to but rather the partner is attacked. 
  • Ability to repair interaction - every relationship experiences conflict and periods of alienation but the difference between the masters and disasters is the ability to repair. Repair can only occur with a willing recipient; a relationship with a mutual friendship in its core allows for conflict resolution in that each party will be able to reach each other (ie in responsiveness and apologizing)
 (Source; Gottman et al., 89; Source, Gottman, 93)

The ‘Horsemen’

  • Criticism - pointing out partner’s personality defects during arguments. Personal attacks that one/both partners offer as the flaw in the relationship as opposed to the immediate cause of the argument. (Source; Gottman’s book)
  • Defensiveness - any way of warding off a perceived attack. A reaction to the partner instead of the immediate cause of the argument that could usually takes the form of a personal attack (that escalates and shifts the conversation) or whining (seeing the self as an innocent victim). (Source; Gottman’s book; or Source; Gottman, 93)
  • Contempt - any statement made to a partner from a superior place (“speaking down”). Takes the form of ridicule, name calling, etc. This differs from criticism in that it is more direct/malicious; pointing out a flaw vs. just an attack (Source: chapter on marriage conflict by Gottman - first link) Down regulator of immune functioning, recipients get more sickness statistically (Source); biggest indicator of relationship demise.
  • Stonewalling - Listener withdrawal accompanied by the lack of listener cues from one partner in the conflict discussion. An attempt to calm down and not make the interaction worse. Faster natural heartbeat predicts stonewalling (Source; Gottman, Levenson, 04) Occurs in both masters and disasters, but more successful (reach goal of self-soothing) in masters (Source; Gottman, 88)

Some of these links go to pdfs, which is great! I recommend you guys to personal searches into Gottman’s work. There’s a lot out there! The childhood temperament studies are especially interesting to me.