Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 97 of 97

Thread: Post Interesting Psychology Articles

  1. #81
    The Ubiquitous Mr Lovegrove Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    15,654
    Mentioned
    276 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default



    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...53811918303434

    NeuroImage
    Volume 176, 1 August 2018, Pages 22-28
    , "Widespread associations between trait conscientiousness and thickness of brain cortical regions"

  2. #82
    The Ubiquitous Mr Lovegrove Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    15,654
    Mentioned
    276 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default



    No idea which study this comes from, but it is supposed to show how people's Big Five scores change as they age.

  3. #83
    Guillaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    IEE 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    395
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spermatozoa View Post
    I think this is a particularly important point:

    By making everything everyone else’s fault you are actually making yourself powerless. Think about it – if everything is someone else’s fault, then that means you don’t have the power to change anything, as they have the reins.
    100%. responsibility=power. The truly wicked and truly amazing people in this world know this and use it to their advantage. For everyone else it will not be very popular because it takes a lot more work, emotional work and discomfort to take responsibility for your own actions and emotions.

  4. #84
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    this assumes power is more important than ethics... which is to say being powerless is not the worst thing in the world. its not a proof that making oneself powerless is self evidently the wrong choice. obviously if one takes off all limits one could devise all sorts of schemes to get one's way. the question is such an approach in anyone's ultimate best interest and the answer is likely no. taking absolute responsibility for oneself sounds good, but it directly relates to the nobility of one's aims. lots of people stop at nothing to achieve what they want but what they want is bad. if they instead chose to be "powerless" in the matter, it would be a step up. its kind of anti social to simply choose power for its own sake, even though it invokes "responsibility" its actually responsibility toward no one, the self, or a limited tribe. its illusory responsibility because it frames responsibility itself in terms of a narrow range of people who deserve consideration. once ethics encompasses a broad enough group power has to give way, so you can't have perfect responsibility and perfect power. nested in this notion of "responsibility" is an ethical sleight of hand that presupposes a narrow range of persons accountable to combined with being willing to stop at nothing is the perfect blend, when that is essentially just a restatement of me and mine > everyone else. is that really perfect responsibility? at the end of the day I can't respect someone who is all powerful and only answerable to a few, even if that authority is me, because that person is essentially anti social, and the truth is, if we want to be anti social achieving any goal is much easier, so they're not really as powerful as they seem either. if we don't refrain from any baseness suddenly most tasks become much easier, but that doesn't mean one is either empowered or responsible, they're just sort of clueless. these same people would invoke notions of power and responsibility and they're entirely lead around by the nose by unintended consequences from not acknowledging these other forces that control them. as if saying because they take "responsibility" it means nothing controls them, when that is nothing but pure psychological denial. it just makes them slightly comic as they run to and fro, saying there are no higher powers, all the while driven by them constantly
    Last edited by Bertrand; 08-31-2018 at 03:20 PM.

  5. #85
    black mamba BOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Real Life
    TIM
    ISTp 0-D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,208
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default THE EMPTY SELF AND THE “AS-IF PERSONALITY”

     

    THE EMPTY SELF AND THE “AS-IF PERSONALITY”

    March 28, 2018

    A long time ago there existed another diagnosis crudely named the “As-If Personality.” The “As-if” Personality, now folded into the diagnosis of “Borderline Personality Disorder” (BPD), was described by psychoanalyst Helene Deutsch in 1942. She was led to create the diagnosis after seeing people who, lacking a sense of their interior “self,” compensated by forms of mimicry, becoming chameleons who acted “as if” they are something else.

    According to psychoanalytic theory, early trauma and/or neglect could teach an individual that people are unreliable, leading them to have within themselves a sense of being empty. In the wake of this developmental trauma a person experiences “Object Hunger,” an unconscious and pathological need to fill the internal emptiness with people, places, and things. This is much more than normal social conformity - this is serious psychological problems existing in the core of the self, such that a person habitually takes on the identities and values they see around them.

    In a way that no other term does, the diagnosis explicitly posits the centrality of our abstracted “self.” By doing so, it asks deeply psychological and perhaps spiritual questions. What is a self, and how is it that a self can be empty? What fills a self? When we think about our self, are we just telling our self a story? Is the self just a collection of habits? Are we the same self in different places, with different people, or do we change in different contexts? Do different emotions create a different self?

    The above questions are often discussed - directly or indirectly - in therapy. My own feeling is that the answer depends on how the question is asked. As Claude Levi-Stress said, “The wise man doesn't give the right answers, he poses the right questions.” An approach that emphasizes issues of consciousness, and thoughts will understand the “self” in terms of ideas, stories, narratives, and identity. An approach emphasizing direct experience, the body, and development will understand the self in terms of habits, relationships, developmental contexts, emotions, and nervous systems.

    The psychologist William James was the first to address issues of the self, suggesting the self was comprised of both a “me” and an “I.” The “me” is the more objective aspect engaging in behavior and being seen by others, while the "I" is the self we know and feel we are internally, via introspection. The concepts can be demonstrated in the statement; "I know it was me who ate the cookie.” If a person is raised in a family using the attitude “children should be seen and not heard,” then those children might develop a “me,” but lack a sense of an interior “I.” It might also be true that in this culture, attractive young females are vulnerable to having a strong “me” (seen by others) but a weak “I” (knowing themselves) which might explain why females are more likely to be diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.

    The “As If Personality” diagnosis is a good reminder that the core symptoms of BPD are not the external behaviors of self-harming and suicidality, but the internal emptiness and existential despair the person suffers with. The self-harm is just an escape, or regulation strategy. Healing requires both awareness and validation of reality, of others, and of our feelings. Healing also requires a reduction in the tendency to be judgmental, because judgements are a way we escape from emotional experiencing. All easier said than done.

    (Note 1: it’s obvious that Woody Allen was guided by the “As If Personality” when he wrote the movie “Zelig,” about a man who magically changes his identity to match whoever he’s around).

    X






    Self creation and the limitless void of dissociation: the 'as if' personality.

    Review article
    McFarland Solomon H. J Anal Psychol. 2004.

    The concept of the 'as if' personality has been used variously in analytic literature without having formed part of a clinically based theoretical development over time. The author discusses the bases of her notion of the 'as if' personality, as observed across a number of patients and supervised patients in intensive, long term analytic treatment. In this composite clinical picture, a grouping of elements that form a particular kind of defence of the self is identified in certain patients with an exceptional capacity for creative engagement in the world, surpassing expectations given their background. The picture includes the presence of physical breakdown and illness, as psychic suffering arising from early narcissistic wounding and from a physical, emotional and/or sexual abusive familial environment, was held for too long in bodily memory but not in mind. A distinction is made between the 'as if' personality, the persona and the false self. The 'as if' personality concerns the action of defensive dissociation deriving from very early experiences of internalizing the presence of an absent object, creating the sense of an internal void at the core of the self. At the same time, the self is capable of acts of self creation through a succession of identifications and internalizations with other sources of environmental nourishment, which substitute for, and are constructed around, the original sense of internal emptiness. Thus are restored, but only up to a point, the resources of the originally diminished self. Until these resources have been used up, the self is often able to excel in activities to an exceptional degree. The countertransference is shown to be the means of both useful but often perilously obtained clinical experience and information, supporting the work along the hazardous analytic journey.
    Last edited by BOT; 09-05-2018 at 03:07 PM.

  6. #86
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,375
    Mentioned
    706 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Use of filler phrases such as "like," "you know," etc. correlated with younger people, females, and: higher conscientiousness.

    https://www.thecut.com/2014/06/i-mea...-you-know.html

  7. #87
    spiritual aggressor/volcel Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-H/D 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,447
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...y-new-findings

    PC1 scores were positively related to performance on the mental rotation task, suggesting trade-offs between social skills and visual-spatial ability—or what the diametric model would describe as trade-offs between mentalistic versus mechanistic cognition. Indeed, only the diametric model can explain this finding, thanks to its implicit assumption that more cognitive resources devoted to mentalism mean less available for mechanistic cognition, and vice versa.
    So Schizotypy is (partially) flawed mentalism in social context whereas autism is lack of mentalism and treating world as full of 3D objects?

    My mental rotational ability is par to none. I tend to mentalize people very logically but also irrationally leaving feelings aside although I can see how they react which gets better with test runs and large database of qualities. I'm excellent at problem solving when I need to "mentalize" how something works however I suck at when I see objects in front of me.
    You can suggest an alternative type based on video found in HERE

    extrospection > introspection



  8. #88
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think its zero sum but they're usually not equal either, I think thats the idea to typology with respect to functions. like you can F>T but your T might still be "stronger" in an objective sense compared to another T type, for example a 5 year old. in other words, stack describes relative preference within the individual but not objective capacity compared vs others. the "dimensions" of a person's psyche is how it relates to itself, whereas an objective capacity for logical reasoning or any kind of reasoning is probably best described by IQ x time x training. In essence these factors inflate the original "shape" to an extent where even a small aspect of person Y's total personality may nevertheless be greater than another persons' even if that aspect predominates for that latter person. of course this is speculative because its hard to measure how deep some people's real abilities penetrate because there is no overall God's eye view. in the end this may be nothing but an error in perspective and all people are truly equal some are just more appreciated than others.. this is the sort of thing only God knows for sure and something that may be very enlightening should we reach heaven. it also seems to be the basis for the idea of "do unto the least of these" because it seems to respect a kind of unknowable and transcendent equality of all humans. in essence a lot of inequality is itself a product of an interaction effect we would all, in theory, like to do away with, but in practice tend to only make worse by trying

  9. #89
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,700
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So what does being a "logical" type actually prove? Pretty much nothing, because all that says is that people change over time, which is true. But what a "type" is, is to say that people will ALWAYS stay the same throughout time (that's how we can "predict" people and relationships, apparently, because you can only predict things if they stay the same). But they don't though, because people change over time. What happens if you become "more logical" over time? Then you could say that the person "changed" type. But if a type changes, then the entire concept of type becomes meaningless, because a "type" is something that's supposed to stay the same the whole time (if not, then the prediction becomes impossible).

    Either way, the entire concept is incoherent and fatally flawed.

  10. #90
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    calm down singu we all know your position. the appropriate action in light of integrity would be to fuck off from the forums forever at this point

    in keeping with that
    Last edited by Bertrand; 09-22-2018 at 11:18 PM.

  11. #91
    Singu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,700
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    calm down singu we all know your position. the appropriate action in light of integrity would be to fuck off from the forums forever at this point

    in keeping with that
    y u so mad tho

  12. #92
    Guillaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    TIM
    IEE 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    395
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    this assumes power is more important than ethics... which is to say being powerless is not the worst thing in the world. its not a proof that making oneself powerless is self evidently the wrong choice. obviously if one takes off all limits one could devise all sorts of schemes to get one's way. the question is such an approach in anyone's ultimate best interest and the answer is likely no. taking absolute responsibility for oneself sounds good, but it directly relates to the nobility of one's aims. lots of people stop at nothing to achieve what they want but what they want is bad. if they instead chose to be "powerless" in the matter, it would be a step up. its kind of anti social to simply choose power for its own sake, even though it invokes "responsibility" its actually responsibility toward no one, the self, or a limited tribe. its illusory responsibility because it frames responsibility itself in terms of a narrow range of people who deserve consideration. once ethics encompasses a broad enough group power has to give way, so you can't have perfect responsibility and perfect power. nested in this notion of "responsibility" is an ethical sleight of hand that presupposes a narrow range of persons accountable to combined with being willing to stop at nothing is the perfect blend, when that is essentially just a restatement of me and mine > everyone else. is that really perfect responsibility? at the end of the day I can't respect someone who is all powerful and only answerable to a few, even if that authority is me, because that person is essentially anti social, and the truth is, if we want to be anti social achieving any goal is much easier, so they're not really as powerful as they seem either. if we don't refrain from any baseness suddenly most tasks become much easier, but that doesn't mean one is either empowered or responsible, they're just sort of clueless. these same people would invoke notions of power and responsibility and they're entirely lead around by the nose by unintended consequences from not acknowledging these other forces that control them. as if saying because they take "responsibility" it means nothing controls them, when that is nothing but pure psychological denial. it just makes them slightly comic as they run to and fro, saying there are no higher powers, all the while driven by them constantly
    I haven't read everything you've written here but my idea of power begins with powerlessness which must remain, they are the same thing in my mind, what I mean is my idea of having power is not the traditional one of having power over external outcomes in life but only by being constantly in touch with the realization of powerlessness in the external can you simultaneously embrace your only real opportunity to excercise power, that is the power to choose thoughts, words and actions and nothing else.

  13. #93
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,941
    Mentioned
    481 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    you mean the power to control yourself not necessarily others.. I think its sort of an illusory distinction though since you can't not control yourself into doing something that doesn't effect others in some way, or by trying to control others (or shall we say having an "external locus of control") also factors into how one decides to comport themselves.. the main thing is power must always serve something higher or forever be subject to forces it never fully comprehends. people who are into power, over themselves or others, are so easily conditioned by their environment its ridiculous, to say the only opportunity is to control oneself becomes a self fulfilling prophecy because they never really aspired to more in the first place. they turned their own inaction into confirmation of the assumption about what sort of genuine opportunities are available to them, namely: self preservation. its not very insightful into the real state of affairs for others, because its terminally self centered. the entire premise relies on a lack of awareness of how everything effects everyone else, like when strat says gaben is surprised to hear he is considered selfish. its like they don't see how living an extravagant lifestyle is only one way to miss the mark, and one they only choose to focus on because it suits them, which is not a moral existence ("I don't do this bad thing I'm disinclined to do anyway"--does not make you good). in self defense they simply zero out all moral claims, without realizing that doesn't make those claims more or less true it only makes the person solipsistic, a kind of spiritual vacuum... the body carries on but it doesn't matter what it does or what it tells itself, its just sort of there, like some human version of the dark ages. they're like filler in space and time until the real humans show up. a symptom of a generation or culture that has exhausted itself and needs a breather. quite literally, all genuine ethical opportunities lie beyond their horizon, and they view this as being some kind of cosmic truth and not just their particular lot in life, because they've collapsed the two into some kind of black hole
    Last edited by Bertrand; 09-29-2018 at 06:52 AM.

  14. #94

  15. #95
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 6 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,375
    Mentioned
    706 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014...their-thoughts

    To conduct the study, Timothy Wilson, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and colleagues recruited hundreds of undergraduate student volunteers and community members to take part in “thinking periods.” Individuals were placed in sparsely furnished rooms and asked to put away their belongings, such as cellphones and pens...

    Even though all participants had previously stated that they would pay money to avoid being shocked with electricity, 67% of men and 25% of women chose to inflict it on themselves rather than just sit there quietly and think, the team reports online today in Science.

  16. #96
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    207 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  17. #97
    black mamba BOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Real Life
    TIM
    ISTp 0-D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,208
    Mentioned
    274 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

     



    In our work on emotional intelligence we’ve found there are three emotions that many people don’t like to admit to feeling – envy, jealousy and resentment. This is understandable. Owning our human experience of these emotions can feel vulnerable, even a little embarrasing.

    “Envy, says author Bruna Martinuzzi, the “unmentionable” emotion, is perhaps one of the most pervasive and powerful of all the disruptive emotions that affect our corporate environments.”

    Often used synonymously, envy and jealousy have different meanings.

    Envy, starts with the desire for something that someone else has. Unchecked it can escalate to harboring ill will or acting out against the object of our envy. Envy says – I want what you have. When we envy, we are acting on a belief that having this thing we want will provide us with greater stature or happiness – and that not having this thing diminishes us in some way. The thing can be anything: looks, money, position, relationship, even time.

    Jealousy, envy’s cousin, usually carries more suspicion. We believe in some way that the thing we want and do not have rightly belongs to us. Typically, jealousy is associated with another person.

    Resentment is usually a companion emotion to envy and jealousy. Why don’t we have this thing – and why do they? Resentment gnaws away at us and can be a springboard to anger, hatred and even depression.

    All three have one important factor in common – they are fueled by making comparisons. From the time we are young children, we begin to measure ourselves by what others do – and what they have. It’s a natural human impulse that can only be tempered by what we as adults learn and implement in our thinking management.

    There’s a direct line between what we think, how we feel and how we behave – and when we compare we trigger a feeling.

    Where Does Envy, Jealousy and Resentment Come From?

    We all arrive in adulthood with a load of emotional baggage. Our nature which takes the form of our personality, style and psychological makeup plays a major role. So does nurture – how we are raised and conditioned shapes our inherent state. But culture is a huge factor in how we define and measure our self-worth, self-image and self-esteem. The early messages we introjected about success, achievement, accomplishment, competition, status, power, fairness and justice all laid the foundation for the values and beliefs that fuel our feelings of envy, jealousy and resentment.

    Understanding how we are neurally hard-wired for these emotions can also give us important insights into how they function.

    Our judging mind is a critical enabler in generating envy, jealousy and resentment. One part of our brain, the neo-cortex (the so-called rational mind) brilliantly sifts through information, draws on information and past experiences and makes assessments. The other part of our brain (the ancient Reptilian brain) is also busy scanning the environment and making judgments. But this part of our brain doesn’t mitigate information with reason. Its job is survival. Its unconscious reactivity plays a key role in the fight or flight response. Will it eat me or will I eat it is the still the primary domain of the so-called Lizard Brain.

    In recent years, research has found that the same area of the brain that controls envy and jealousy is the same part that detects physical pain.

    The Workplace is an Emotional Cauldron

    It is easy to see why envy, jealousy and resentment are routinely triggered in most workplaces. Position, power arrangements, lack of trust and transparency, miscommunication, time pressures and real or perceived scarcity of resources can pit people against colleagues and the “competition.”

    In fact, unbalanced competitiveness can set the stage for envy, jealousy, resentment and greed. Because competition is the primary ethos that drives Western business, competing with others is an expected and even desirable function of the business model. Often the language of competition is filled with war and sports metaphors, further increasing the chance that emotions like envy and jealousy will become triggered, even habituated responses.

    In his Harvard Business Review article, The Comparing Trap, Thomas DeLong points out, “No matter how successful we are and how many goals we achieve, this trap causes us to recalibrate our accomplishments and reset the bar for how we define success. What we’ve done in the past doesn’t matter; real success or achievement requires something more – a title we’ve never held, a task we’ve never done, a company we’ve never worked for. The process of comparing requires us to keep making our target more difficult to hit. And if we manage to hit this difficult target, we simply create an even more difficult one at which to aim.”

    The Drivers for Envy, Jealousy and Resentment

    At the core of our motivations are needs. We’re not talking about “business” needs here, but about our fundamental universal core needs – for physical well-being, connection to others, peace of mind and meaning in our lives. Most of us aren’t well-versed in identifying what needs are driving us (they underlie every value and belief we have) but everything we do is in satisfaction of a need.

    From a needs perspective, being in a state of envy, jealousy and resentment is the polar opposite of feeling safety, tranquility and equanimity. These emotions enable a state of expansiveness. On the other hand, when we are experiencing envy, jealousy and resentment, we feel a state of contraction – physically, emotionally and mentally. When we experience these emotions, our needs are not being met. Even when we are aware of our needs deficit, we rationalize our state as temporary – on our way to satisfaction. Too many people stay in this “stuck state,” trying to function from this unsatisfying place, chasing the next goal.

    Are there any positives to experiencing the emotions of envy, jealousy and resentment? Yes – every emotion holds potentially valuable information about our needs – albeit sometimes challenging. Your emotions provide you with a continuous barometer of whether you are meeting your needs – or not. Feeling calm or confident or enthusiastic – needs met. Feeling envious, jealous or resentful – good chance your needs aren’t met.
    X

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •