/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5845223

That certain brain regions show different patterns of activity when unconscious. That there are neuroanatomic differences between species that have different levels of self-recognition and/or awareness abilities.
Although I admit that these are merely indicators.

>>5835821

How the fuck do you quantify happiness like that? What's your source?

Heteronormative?

>>5797132
That would be a bias of the audience. The movie actually showed how Nash got completely screwed because of his schizophrenia. His accomplishment in the end was not due to, but in spite of his disorder.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276617/?ref_=sr_2

This movie portrays schizophrenia in a pretty realistic way. Don't know if it was released in other languages, though.

>>5741369

>psychology of women

seriously? seeing that most samples in psychological studies contain only women, "psychology of men" would be branch with much more of a justification.

>>5662367

The human brain does not work that way. You will never have control over your visual cortex in a way that would allow you to arbitrarly choose what you see and what you don't see.

Your story is made up, stupid and attention-whoring.

As others have pointed out in previous posts, this does not belong on a science board.


If you're a troll though, 3/10 for making me respond and feel irritated.

>>5617058

Heritability is usually cited as percentage. Writing "0.7" in that context should be sufficient to anyone who has even a little expertise in the field.

>>5617072

I did not get it from any blog... unlike everyone else in this thread I have an actual degree in psychology. I got it from my text book on differential and personality psychology.

I do know that these studies "only" looked for genetic markers in "mixed" people.

But hey, keep on fighting for the white supremacy!

ITT: People believe online assessments of intelligence because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Just go with probability, you stupid fucks. You do not seem to comprehend how unlikely any score more than 2, let alone 3 standard deviations from the mean is.

None of you has any expertise on IQ-tests.

>>5558664

This. Not only ITT but on /sci/ as a whole.

>>5500502

Where exactly do I say that neuroscience = medicine?

I was arguing that even though psychology contains therapeutical and biologic/neuroscientific fields, it is outperformed by other sciences in almost everything it tries to accomplish.
Medicine is better for therapy, neuroscience is better for research.

The only thing that psychology has as a "stand alone" topic is "behavior". And quite frankly, it is boring as hell.

>>5441482

But induction is a lie!

>>5396509

Evolution has no "goal". It's a passive process. Without "selective pressure" (environmental circumstances that weed out the unadapted) there is no change. Evolution functions because the "unfit" go extinct. If everyone survives, regardless of genetic material, then there is no evolutionary "progress".

>>5372920

I hop that's not what you really believe. Psychodynamic therapy has yet to prove that it helps at all. Therapeutic effects are not significantly above spontanous remission rate. (probably because psychodynamic therapy often takes 2-3 years)
There is not a single mental disorder for which psychodynamic therapy would be the best option. CBT is way better in pretty much every aspect.

>>5345349

>implying IQ tests can adequatly measure anything above 140

>>5321070

Actually you are going to a psychotherapist. Mind the difference.

>>5303357
>>5303358

You two, and everyone else in this thread have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
The question has already been answer.

>>5298670

Interesting indeed. I would really like to see a more recent one. (Not demanding that you search for it though.)
Needless to say, it would be much more representative.

>>5283298

I don't have one myself. I'm researching these links based upon the citations in my book.

Maybe you can find a decent book on differential and personality psychology somewhere online? My book is german, though. Otherwise I would have recommended that.

I'll take a look into the other sources regarding genetics and personality. Maybe I'll find some which are "open source".

>>5241313

The only way of seeing memory recall as an I/O operation is adding consciousness. A word I try to avoid on this board, since it causes shitstorms beyond imagination.
However, this is NOT perception.

>>5241314
There is a difference between "not thinking outside of the box" and using your knowledge to dismiss ideas that are baseless piles of bullshit. I also didn't claim I had won. I said this discussion would lead to nothing, because our difference in expertise is too big.

>>5241315
I told you where you're wrong but I have the feeling that you're not looking for truth but instead for something to prove your "theory".
Btw, NOW you use the word "experience". That's something I can agree on. If something influenced, in what ever way, how your "memory works", then you would probably be able to experience that in some way.

>>5207493

>discover picture on internet making extraordinary claims that are based on absolutely nothing
>oh cool, it even tells us the exact year of discovery (again based on absolutely nothing)
>but if I want it to be true, it MUST be true, so even though I lack expertise or even basic level knowledge on everything the image is talking about I will go on defending whatever is written there like a delusional dirty hippy voodoo priest tulpa faggot...

>>5195626

I just wanted to know where you got that number from. Seems somehow arbitrary and I can't think of an experiment to actually test it.

>>5195629

I might just have to take your advice.

>>5172828

Merely of historical/anecdotal value. He influenced a lot of later work. However, his own theories are quite outdated..

>>5164148

They are treated as mental disorders.
Disorders of thought AND depression are examples of mental disorders.
You can't treat depression as a disorder of thought, just like you can't treat a broken arm as a heart attack.

Semantics aside, I assume that you were asking wether mental disorders should be regarded as a malfunction of the brain or a malfunction of thought.
Implying that those two are seperate things.
I call troll.

>>5122138

Not everyone, but most of them.

>>5122143

It is trolling because there does exist a concept of emotions. People do actual research about it. It is in fact YOUR definition of "sadness" that is flawed. Sadness, as I would define it, is a physiological reaction to a perceived loss of something valued. It has an onset and an offset. It is correlated with certain patterns of physiological measurements.
All this can be tested. Sadness even appears in animals ffs. It's why Paul Ekman called it a "basic emotion". But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? No, instead you just come here and shitpost your uneducated opinion.
And that is what we commonly call "trolling".
Quod erad demonstrandum.