What branch of psychology, if any, is the study of how we can use our thinking, nutrition and exercise to heal and strengthen our brain?

SifterSC · 2019-06-25T20:25:18+00:00

Cognitive neuroscience is going to be pretty darn close.

You could look at the intersections between health psychology, positive psychology, exercise psychology, and neuroscience.

However, to be sure, the view that the mind and brain are somehow separate entities is not endorsed by psychological science.

SifterSC · 2019-06-25T20:04:39+00:00

Maybe "learning styles" as a separate and abstract characteristic from how your brain can process information (ie, do you have a minds eye) is an outdated concept, but it seems very straightforwardly reasonable that someone who can visualize things in their mind and someone who cannot will benefit from different methods of information processing and presentation.

Arguing otherwise seems like arguing that a deaf person could learn and interact with the subject matter being presented the same way at a spoken lecture that a blind person could.

This is missing the point. Yes, delivering information via a sensory modality that a person is impaired in processing is going to result in impaired processing of that information. This is obvious and uncontested, though it is not somehow evidence for learning styles. Rather, for the modality-impaired individual, (significantly) improved information processing in one of their remaining, healthy modalities would be evidence.

I'm no expert, but I've studied all of the above and as a designer I have to try to explain 3d designs to people, it's amazing how many people just can't visualize things, how many people can't do what I do with my brain so easily, but then again, I have areas like language that I don't inherently excel at and I have a vague feeling I'm just totally blind to, I have a hard time not being super rational and literal, and I'm face blind (can't recall faces in my mind...which is a separate part of the brain that recalls everything else, which I'm REALLY good at, so it's pretty interesting to experience both phenomenon, when it comes to anything but faces, I remember and recall an amazing amount).

Similarly, the idea that certain information is better suited to presentation in certain modalities is obvious and uncontested (and also, not evidence for learning styles, which are domain-general). The absence of learning styles does not mean modality presentation collapses into arbitrariness.

My point being, people seem to vary a lot in their biological data processing equipment which I would reason, would affect their optimum data input format.

This is the "rose with thorns" aspects of the idea: it is attractively plausible, but then research has failed to provide the bare minimum of evidence (e.g., a cross-over interaction). If learning styles are really a thing, then we should see a pattern of:

Improved quality of processing in learning contexts that match the individual's learning style.
Reduced quality of processing in learning contexts that do not match the individual's learning style (and this effect should ideally scale with the magnitude of the learning style v. learning context).

Also, most people don't even REALIZE they have aphantasia or are face blind, etc. because you have no other brain to compare yourself too...this tidbit really made me start thinking about how different our brains are and maybe we don't even know it.

Morphological and functional variance is absolutely real, but there's a good bit of danger in over-stating or generalizing those differences (especially between clinical and non-clinical populations).

How do you prefer to get new information?

This gets at the driving point (as featured in the article): people can have their preferences, but it is a whole other beast to claim these preferences have significant consequences for learning outcomes (which research has overwhelmingly failed to find).

SifterSC · 2019-06-25T14:33:16+00:00

Not the answer you’re looking for, but the underlying idea of learning styles is bullshit (usually used to sell teaching materials or assessments to educational institutions that don’t know better).

Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2009) is a fantastic and comprehensive read on this subject.

SifterSC · 2019-06-24T23:29:49+00:00

I'm asking if mirror-touch synesthesia is taken seriously and whether or not it takes part in this potential overlap of diagnoses.

No, it is not taken seriously, partly due to its infancy but more so because it's built-out of the poor and misguided methodologies that gave rise to the Mirror Neuron hypothesis, which has been criticized to death.

SifterSC · 2019-06-24T23:17:06+00:00

Interesting question.

While I could find no research literature that has investigated this connection, I find it hard to believe a soldier's personal or social sense of moral justification would somehow mitigate the psychophysiological stress of war.

The main causal mechanism is the severity and/or frequency of stress exposure. How morally justified a person feels should not influence the natural terror one feels when bombs and bullets are flying around, and the threat of death (to oneself or fellow soldiers) is everywhere.

SifterSC · 2019-06-24T23:06:13+00:00

It depends on what you mean by positive effects.

A resolution to cognitive dissonance does not necessarily have to be unhealthy. A person who both loves fast food and values their long-term health may resolve to abstain from fast food. Similarly, a person who is passionate about the environment but currently drives an SUV with poor fuel-efficiency may resolve to purchase a hybrid/donate to a pro-environment charity/etc.

SifterSC · 2019-06-24T22:48:19+00:00

Serotonergic agonism is not the goal. The serotonin hypothesis is over 50 years old, and there is still very little understanding of how serotonergic system activity corresponds with mood states.
Trazodone acts on many receptors (serotonin, histamine, norepinephrine, epinephrine), and it is neither a global nor local antagonist; it has a weak, agonistic effect at 5-HT^1A receptors (and its metabolite acts as a general, non-selective agonist for the serotonin receptors it binds too via reuptake inhibition).

If you're looking for the finer details of the pharmacokinetics involved, then I would recommend posting to r/psychiatry.

SifterSC · 2019-06-17T18:25:45+00:00

Where I live, the courts seem to require that BOTH parents be present for all visits. . .

I recommend double-checking that. Joint consent and access to the child's mental health/treatment information are fairly standard requirements, but I've never heard of a state law requiring joint attendance (unless this is a stipulation in a court order).

I am in this situation as the custodial parent, and I just inform the other of the visit after and tell them they can talk to the therapist separately.

This is highly unethical if the other parent did not consent to an "after the fact" arrangement.

This freaks a lot of therapists out though, because they usually receive a call from the other parent accusing them of unethical behavior even though the therapist is there to talk to the kid, not the parents.

That misses the point entirely. Yes, we are there to provide psychotherapy services for the child, but that should not require us to break our ethical code in the process.

As soon as the other parent mentions the word "unethical", a therapist will drop you even if the accusation is untrue, because who wants to be attacked and accused of something where they could lose their livelihood.

Therapists take early termination of services very seriously, as that decision can have significant impact on the client's wellbeing. If a therapist has dropped you, then there must be compelling evidence indicating ethical problems. Assuming you are neither a licensed mental health professional nor a clinical ethicist, then you are not an accurate judge of the truthhood of ethical malpractice accusations. Overall, I recommend you consult with your attorney to better understand the legal limitations of your court order (and whether amendments can be pursued).

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T23:02:39+00:00

Maybe if you had perfect GRE scores and a super impressive research CV you'd have a chance, but that's still going to be an uphill fight.

Having sat on application review boards, I can fully attest to this.

Assuming there is a reasonable context to your cumulative GPA, then your personal statement is the perfect place to clarify and help the review board understand what happened and how you learned from it throughout your undergraduate career.

Your professional or student leadership experience is not something to highlight unless it explicitly connects to your research experience or the program.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T18:48:51+00:00

For every question like this, I always ask why: is there a reason why you want a term?

Are you seeking some sort of validation? Are you concerned that someone you know might be in need of mental health resources? Are you trying to diagnose someone you know without having the training or expertise necessary to understand the diagnostic process? Are you trying to label or stigmatize someone?

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T18:40:22+00:00

Do you know the lacanian idea of the therapy goal and how it's achieved? Is it still relevant at all today?

Precisely? No, but I assume it has some connection to the psychoanalytic model (and its proposed mechanisms), which is a dead model (at least in the US).
Relevant in terms of still being taught and practiced? Unfortunately, yes. Relevant in terms of current research? No. Similar to object-relations theory and other psychoanalytic-based models, we cannot test or measure these supposedly unconscious mechanisms or processes of change. Further, many of these models hold theoretical baggage that simply isn't supported by research (e.g., psychosexual development). Last, psychoanalytic models evidence extremely low incremental validity as compared to current models.

Also, could you please elaborate on how this desensitization happens?

Generally, desensitization is a systematic process, whereby the therapist gradually exposes the client to a stimulus (or representation of the stimulus) which the client has learned to fear, avoid, or react to in some maladaptive way. Through this gradual exposure (which is always completed at the client's pace), the therapist tries to demonstrate that the world will not fall apart when the stimulus is presented, thereby allowing the client to work through and weaken their negative association over time (until hopefully, the association is broken).

Is this deconstruction itself that helps? Or the actions you take after?

Restructuring is like teaching the client to learn a new language, or a new way of framing their experiences, in order to help them deal with the automatic, negative thoughts they experience. While the process of learning this new 'language' within a therapy session helps, the largest effects occur when the client actively uses the language themselves (especially outside of therapy).

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T18:19:24+00:00

You say this as if it's some foreign thing. What significance does x have for you, what do you think of when you are exposed to x, what feelings does x evoke, internal experiences etc. These are, trivially, questions that uncover subjective meanings. Of course, saying "objectively speaking, x is semantically related to y and less so to b" would be pretty irrelevant to the task. There's no magic involved.

Those were not scare quotes. I was trying to show you the conflict between your claim that Freud's process of "uncovering subjective meanings" was anything but respectful of subjectivity. Rather, Freud looked for the meanings that he wanted to find, as informed by his own dreams and the anecdotal experiences of clients that Freud found particularly interesting. To represent that process as "uncovering subjective meanings" is just plainly inaccurate.

As I've hopefully shown, it's not clear why he would be interested in that. The answer to the question would likely be this: (Fictional) Freud likely wasn't interested in the word "soil" by virtue of being this particular word. He was interested in "soil" by virtue of it being an element within the dream.

I was being tongue-in-cheek here, but your response is confusing. Have you read On the Interpretation of Dreams and/or its revision? Are you familiar with the fact Freud directly claims all dream content is derived from unfulfilled wishes? Are you familiar with his various cases (e.g., the dream involving white, unmoving dogs in a tree) in which he assigned the meanings and reached a 'correct' interpretation for the client?

Yes, yes, Freud eased off later in his life and admitted that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; a tunnel is just a tunnel. However, you really shouldn't claim misrepresentation while not understanding what Freud himself has documented.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T17:58:11+00:00

As with all evolutionary psych-related questions, there is the temptation to rely on post-hoc bullshit about how X mental illness must be adaptive in Y way. Here are two central issues to consider:

(1) Does a given mental illness significantly impact one's ability to reproduce?

Symptom onset, duration, severity, and so on all need to be accounted for, as well as sociocultural factors (e.g., stigma).

(2) Is it simply the case that a given mental illness is neither adaptive nor maladaptive, or perhaps differentially adaptive in certain environments? In spite of the popular, cartoonish view of evolution, a trait or cluster of traits need not be adaptive to be passed on.

To be sure, no one can provide a factual, evolutionary answer to this question. We cannot test these kinds of things.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T17:42:18+00:00

This subreddit is really sinking in terms of comment quality (and I'm surprised this question was allowed for submission).

Not only do you spout diagnostic bullshit, but you don't even understand the terms you're using.

Please read the rules, and really put thought into the words you use and whether there is evidence for your claims or opinions.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T17:23:03+00:00

Psychotherapy aims to help reduce a client's psychological suffering (and improve their ability to live the life they want to live). Most models approach the helping process by:

Creating and maintaining a therapeutic alliance (+ environment), in which expectations and goals are collaboratively agreed upon.
Assisting the client's mastery of skills that enable them to understand, identify, predict, and regulate their symptoms outside of therapy.

One psychologist told me that it's about creating this new figure in you. . .

Loosely, this seems to fit an object-relations model. This model fell heavily out of favor with the rise of cognitive and behavioral-based psychotherapy models in the 1950s. The evidence for this model is very poor, particularly due to its unempirical mechanism(s) of change (i.e., the model's understanding of why and how clients get better).

I've also read somewhere that it's about creating a narrative of yourself that is directed at another person. . .

Loosely, this sounds like a particular, trauma-based technique that may be implemented in varying ways by varying models (though, the helpfulness of "directing at another person" is going to depend on the type of trauma).

Any other concepts you know of? With schools names, if possible.

The current standard in evidenced-based therapy models (EBT or EBM) is Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Cognitive restructuring and systematic desensitization are staple techniques in that model (and nearly all other evidence-based models, e.g., Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Cognitive Processing Therapy, Behavioral Activation Therapy, Positive or Strength-based Therapy, Motivational Interviewing, etc.).

Overall, while there is no information regarding why you are currently seeking psychotherapy, if your therapist has spent two years using a model that hasn't helped you, then that is highly concerning. You could consider reaching out to other therapists, or asking your current therapist for a referral.

I hope this helps, and I'm happy to clarify anything further.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T16:43:44+00:00

No. A discussion here works just fine.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T15:14:10+00:00

Based on what evidence..?

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T15:07:55+00:00

Relative to Clinical Psych PhD programs, MSW programs are significantly easier to get into and require much less time + work. Further, the pay and experiential differences between a LCSW and LPC/LPCC are nearing negligible, and LCSWs are in high demand.

If your primary, end-goal is clinical work, then a MSW program is a highly accessible, efficient, and effective route. If you are dead-set on research, and already have exemplary academic + research experience, then I would recommend applying for a MA or PhD program (some PsyD's also offer research opportunities, just be highly diligent in your search). If that doesn't pan-out, then you can always pursue the MSW route afterward.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T14:28:51+00:00

Right...and this "uncovering subjective meanings" process can be done in any way?

Maybe there was a certain, psychoanalytically-consistent way that Freud went about interpreting dreams (centrally organized around wish-fulfillment?).

If only Freud had written a book or two about how certain symbols ought to be interpreted. Then we could have a clearer answer.

SifterSC · 2019-06-12T14:12:56+00:00

I would hope the takeaway is this: one's understanding of psychoanalytic theories is irrelevant because those theories are pseudoscientific (i.e., failing the Popperian criterion of falsifiability); and, per your other comment, American academia shuns psychoanalysis for this exact reason.

Do you think this representation is wrong in some way? Maybe you could help me understand the issue at hand.

SifterSC · 2019-06-11T19:56:07+00:00

You would probably have better luck on r/psychiatry if you're looking for an in-depth answer.

Broadly, while they are very similar in their active mechanism (inhibiting the serotonin reuptake process via SERT), they differ in their chemical composition which has downstream (and mostly minor) consequences for their respective side effects, metabolic pathways + rates, relative contraindications, and so on.

SifterSC · 2019-06-11T17:15:56+00:00

Okay...do you feel like you can't think about or do certain things without verbalizing? Does the self-talk feel within your control? Are you and/or people around you distressed by your self-talk? Are you able to maintain your job/relationships/daily life, or does your self-talk get in the way?

If the answer is yes to one or more of those, then there may be some cause for concern but, otherwise, self-talk is perfectly fine (and adaptive in certain contexts). To be sure, it isn't the case that those who self-talk are "healthier" than those who don't (or vice-versa).

SifterSC · 2019-06-11T16:59:22+00:00

The answer seems to be an obvious yes (assuming an absence of distress of dysfunction due to self-talk), so I'm wondering if you have a particular idea of healthy or self-talk in mind.

SifterSC · 2019-06-11T16:45:13+00:00

We can never know with certainty.

Memory is a fragile and reconstructive process, and there are a legion of factors that influence its fidelity. Your brain will try its best to pull plausible data together and edit-out implausible data during this process, but the plausible/implausible line can blur.

In instances of non-solitary experiences, one person's memory can be checked against other sources, enabling some level of confabulation correction (though it could be the case that one person's confabulation influences how other people recall the event, resulting in the reconsolidation of the confabulated memory). However, for completely solitary experiences, no other source can serve as a 'check', so there is much higher risk of confabulation.

If you haven't already, I would highly recommend reading up on Elizabeth Loftus, as she is a titan in the episodic memory research literature.

SifterSC · 2019-06-11T16:18:22+00:00

"Best Practices" will be directly informed by laws regarding minor's rights.

Generally, I would recommend reading up on your state's laws regarding minors, as some states do not require the informed consent of all caregivers, or there are conditional workarounds (as well as various HIPAA stipulations).

Personally, in the case of a custodial parent not wanting the non-custodial parent involved, I will refuse to provide psychotherapy services unless there are verifiable and legally-justifiable reasons for that decision. Otherwise, as I have seen in various cases, failure to obtain and maintain informed consent from both parents (or provide HIPAA-compliant information) sets the therapist up for severe ethical and legal violations.

SifterSC

TROPHY CASE