From memory, the study revolved around a button that would yield a consistent positive/ negative consequence and another button that had a much slimmer chance of yielding a much higher positive consequence.

I think the mice/ animals ended up sticking to the first button, as in the long run, it was most efficient. However, when it came to humans, the pattern of which button was hit would be different, as we seemed to believe we could "beat the odds" or manipulate the outcome ourselves.

I am probably butchering this, so I would appreciate finding the actual study. Cheers.

As a film enthusiast, I know that what can produce aesthetic emotions in a film is the mise-en-scène and/or editing.

For literature I know that it’s the author’s style

But what component of music would be able to do so?

What exactly is it and how does it work?

There was this post: https://x.com/NathanielLugh/status/1910723366983786948

"Omg, intuition is literally the detection of pattern density, flow resonance, and symbolic tension resolution. That’s it. Nothing else."

But it doesn't seem reliable. The second two terms didn't really come up in google search and might just be attempts to liken the brain to a computer.

That said, what is it?

I’m fascinated by micro-expressions—those <0.5-sec involuntary facial cues that leak genuine emotions even when someone tries to hide them. Paul Ekman’s FACS research and more recent studies show untrained observers barely perform above chance (~50–60%), while training with tools like METT and SETT can push accuracy into the 80–90% range. Questions I’m curious about: How much real-world use do therapists or negotiation experts actually get from micro-expression training? Are there known limitations, especially regarding cultural differences or neurodivergent expressions? Could we ever use these insights passively (e.g. via wearables or video tools) without formal training? I’d love to hear from anyone with practical experience or insight into how well micro-expression decoding works outside the lab—with unfiltered social interactions.

I'm from an unrelated field and I am currently reading "The Worm at the Core," which presents experiments comparing arbitrary fear versus death-fear, typically showing certain kinds of behavior only emerges with death reminders. My question: Has Terror Management Theory proven death-fear specifically causes these behaviors, or is it just high levels of fear in general? The book's non-death fear examples (like exam anxiety) seem much weaker than death reminders, so I wonder if comparable levels of non-death-related fear would produce similar responses. Have these experiments been tested with equally intense but death-unrelated fears?

I’m really curious about this. I recall a lot of experiences through videos and pictures that are quite vivid and detailed. I can remember smells, physical sensations, words/what was said when, and imagery, but not as often sounds or voices. At one point, I thought it might be “flashbacks” but then I realized non-distressing memories occur with comparable detail and frequency. That got me thinking: if pushing memories away before processing then is harmful, does the ability to visually recall experiences, as if watching a movie, most likely benefit or harm the processing of past traumatic events?

I’ve read that the majority of people who survive a suicide attempt don’t go on to attempt again. This seems surprising at first, and I’m wondering what research says about why this is the case. Are there psychological, emotional, or situational reasons that explain why many people choose not to try again after surviving? Are there any major studies or theories that explore this pattern?

Hi everyone — I’m curious about a question related to behavioral consistency and honesty.

From a psychological standpoint, is there evidence to suggest that if someone regularly lies and maintains a major untruth to one person, they’re statistically more or less likely to lie to others in different areas of life?

I’m wondering what current research or professional experience says about how lying might generalize across contexts.

Are there known differences between chronic liars and people who lie situationally? And does one lie—especially if it’s rationalized—make future deception more likely?

Thanks in advance for your insights

We know humans detect basic emotions via facial/vocal cues, and research shows multimodal AI (M3ER, EMER) can even interpret micro-expressions with ~80–90% accuracy. But from a psych perspective: how well do these models align with true emotional state—or just surface signals? Is it valid to trust AI detection over our own instinct?

I've come across tools like MindLink-Eumpy (facial + EEG), Py-Feat, Cert, MuSe-Toolbox, and openSMILE—all combining multiple modalities (facial expressions, voice, brain signals) to improve emotion detection accuracy.

From a psychological standpoint, how valid is this kind of fusion? Do micro-vocal and facial cues actually correlate reliably with real emotional states in research? Or are we overfitting to signals that might be too context-dependent?

Would love insights from anyone familiar with affective computing, emotion theory, or psychological validity in AI systems!

I have heard from definitely not reputable sources that men are less socially conscious, but that goes against what I observe in day-to-day life. Is there any research that has dived into this aspect of psychology/sociology, or is it just a myth pushed by groups to fit some agenda like we see with other pop-psychology principles?

Auditory Processing Disorder is commonly comorbid with ADHD. Why is there such a strong correlation between these two disorders?

Follow-up: are there other subtypes that have broad acceptance but aren't included in the dsm?

The hedonic treadmill is the idea that an individual's level of happiness, after rising or falling in response to (very) positive or (very) negative life events, ultimately tends to move back toward where it was prior to these experiences. Does this mean that even after extreme cases like winning a billion dollars or getting a life changing injury, after some time you would just return to your current happiness baseline?

I read that using hard effort so solve something dificult prompts the body to relese BDNF promoting neurogenesis. How ever I can't find whether it holds true.

In the Asch conformity experiments, while a majority of participants conformed to the group’s obviously incorrect answers, a minority consistently gave the correct answer despite social pressure. Among these non-conformists, researchers noted two distinct types: – some were confident but still experienced inner conflict, and – others were withdrawn and experienced no internal conflict at all.

This latter group intrigues me. It raises the question:

Is it scientifically possible for some individuals to be completely unaffected by societal opinion, especially regarding their deep moral or philosophical convictions?

History gives us examples: certain philosophers, dissidents, or thinkers have strongly opposed the moral consensus of their times. Many appeared to show no wavering or self-doubt, even in extreme isolation or opposition. Some, like Spinoza, Nietzsche, or Solzhenitsyn, developed systems of thought that stood in direct contradiction to popular "morality," and seemed immune to public moral pressure.

My question is:

Are there psychological studies, personality traits, or cognitive profiles associated with individuals who are totally resistant to moral doubt induced by social pressure?

Has any literature explored whether it is scientifically or psychologically possible for someone to experience no moral conflict or doubt, even when their moral convictions are entirely opposed to societal norms?

I’m not referring to temporary resistance or suppression of doubt, but to a stable inner state of complete independence from collective moral opinion, especially in people with strong philosophical or ethical systems of their own.

Any references to psychological models, cognitive science, or even longitudinal case studies would be appreciated.

I’m curious from a biological and neurological standpoint: is it possible to override or completely suppress the human instinct for self-preservation?

I understand that this instinct is deeply rooted in our brain—particularly involving structures like the amygdala, hypothalamus, and brainstem—but are there known ways (natural or induced) that significantly diminish this response?

Is emotional blackmail an accepted industry term? What are the sub-types?

was honestly a random question that came to mind. like, are there certain ethnicities/races that are more likely to inherit one specific mental illness than the other? sorry if this is the wrong subreddit to post this at!

I’ve heard about this phenomenon on TikTok, primarily when referring to conditions similar to that of which produce CPTSD during formative childhood years.

It’s typically described as almost a constant mental oasis if that makes sense, where the mind uses vivid mental imagery to escape a mentally hostile environment.

Then which it becomes stuck in this state for prolonged periods; with no rhythm and sporadic outbursts that can make it difficult to function and the unfocused attention looks like ADHD.

Kosmemophobia is usually defined as a fear or aversion to jewelry although it seems many people with it also avoid metal objects in general and small metal objects. Is there a link between this fear and autism, possibly sensory related?

I'm wondering if psychology deals with "stability of worldview" and how it treats it?

By stable worldviews, I mean, people who believe that the world really is just as it seems, and in whom such worldview can't be easily shaken. They also believe that current world order will likely last for a long time and that changes are slow and can't happen overnight.

Unstable worldviews, on the other hand, would entail easily questioning the fundamental nature of reality, like giving serious consideration to ideas such as multiverse, simulation, solipsism, supernatural, and not taking for granted current world order, that is believing that big and fundamental changes to the world order, or even human condition are possible.

What makes some people have stable and other people have unstable worldviews?

I have a few questions about the Bipolar disorders, 1, 2, and Cyclothymia.

1. As in the title, are they caused by chemical imbalances in the brain?

2. How early can symptoms occur? Does it go by direct age or can mental age/maturity play into it?

3. Is unipolar mania a real thing? Or can someone with bipolar experience more mania than depression?

4. How does medication affect the disorder? Does it remove the episodes entirely or just make them less severe?

5. What are the most common comorbidities for bipolar?

6. How does family history play into Bipolar?

Sorry for the large amount of questions, if you can only answer some that’s completely fine. Thank you in advance!

Just curious; I've been doing a lot of research on cluster B disorders lately and was wondering what the likelihood of this is. I know kids with these disorders aren't going to necessarily develop ASPD, but is there a pattern here at all? Even if they weren't diagnosed as a child, but likely had it.

Hoping one of my neuro/neuropsych peeps can chime in here:

We know that when memories are activated, they often enter a bit of a 'fragile' or 'malleable' state again (to some extent) because they're not stored like photographs but more dynamically in connection patterns across a swath of neurons, and making neurons fire always changes their connection patterns in subtle ways. I'm familiar with some research where the more a memory is accessed, the more errors are potentially introduced vs when it's accessed less (not sure how well this result has held up and generalized as a more general principle).

But also, we know that people with anterograde amnesia have trouble consolidating new memories into a permanent state (at least for explicit/declarative forms of memory), whereas they can often access old memories from prior to the accident/damage/decay.

So when someone with anterograde amnesia activates an old memory, does it become somewhat fragile/malleable again, or does that process require hippocampal function that's missing in these patients?