Psychology Articles

Why do some people succeed at this and some not? What is the trick which makes some people good at learning pretty well anything and everything? Particularly when we find we can try and fail so easily! Isn’t that an annoying feature of Life for the rest of us? Aren’t there some tricks or rules which can help solve this human predicament? Would you believe it if I told you that I think there are?!

Perhaps I should make a confession first. For love nor money, once I couldn’t have drawn or painted you a decent picture. Now I can. Most definitely I couldn’t do respectable portraits. Now I can.

I couldn’t possibly have written a book and got it published. Annoyingly – purely in the context of this article – I have proved myself wrong again! My first novel was published this summer in my 71st year!

I can’t read music or play any instrument, l certainly couldn’t write a song, for Goodness Sake. Yet now I have written lyrics to existing music and had vocalists record them.

Do I tell you this to annoy you? Definitely not! I do so for three reasons; partly because I have mentored people to achieve what they believed they could not accomplish as a challenge. Partly because I told myself some while ago that if I was teaching and vindicating this approach, then perhaps I should prove it would work for me also.

The third reason was the challenge to try to establish why some people succeeded and some didn’t. In other words, learn the way myself.

I have concluded there are at least ten key tips to acquiring a new skill. Given the constraints of time and space in an article like this, let me headline the tricks involved. I believe them to apply no matter what skill you want to acquire.

Tip 1: Ask yourself this simple question: Do I really, really want to have the skill I have in mind? Because one thing is for sure, if you don’t really, then accept you will never be much good at it and you might as well quit before you start.

Tip 2: Is never forget how much you want to have the skill, because that enthusiasm and commitment will drive you through the set backs – and there will be some!

Tip 3: You need to develop the love of learning new tricks, rather than just relying on the ones you have. So! Discard the “I can’t” mentality and adopt the mantra, “I Can. It’s Just Right Now I Do Not Know How, But I will!”

Tip 4: Visualise yourself vividly as having the new skill already, feeling great about that and in no way surprised you have accomplished it.

Tip 5: Remind yourself that you already do some things well. You do them seemingly naturally and don’t even have to think about them! I have in mind such basic functions as, walking, running, jumping, riding a bicycle, talking, and singing, driving. Never forget you did not get any of them right first time!

Tip 6: Is to keep in mind any skill you have previously acquired and tick off the Tricks you applied regarding them to evidence for you how it works!

Tip 7: Remember this: most new skills improve the longer you do them. Enjoy the journey as you improve and keep a record of how far you have come since you started. You will only ever be the best at it you can!

Tip 8: Be Patient with yourself. Drop the attitude if you have it of “God Give Me Patience, But Give It To Me Now!” Certainly don’t give yourself a hard time.

Tip 9: Which you may find the most disappointing! Accept that if the skill is worth having, there is no easy way or short cut. Get good instructional DVDs and books, attend a good tutorials (always taking the first 8 tricks with you in your mind) Develop a thirst for hints and tips. And most of all, be persistent and never stop practising!

Tip 10: Always – and only – listen to that part of you that wants to do it and believes you can, and never to that part which says you can’t.

I have no doubt that the very first person likely to stand in the way of accomplishment is oneself.

I wish you well in every thing you take on. I firmly believe that each and every one of us has the capacity to excel at things we really want to do.

Sir Gerry Neale is an author of a cognitive novel called ‘Squaring Circles, a mentor, a lyricist and an artist.

He can be reached on http://www.squaringcircles.co.uk and http://psychologysimplified.blogspot.com

One may ask, why don’t self-improvement systems always work for me? Aren’t they most often well- reviewed books or courses and don’t they clearly work well for many people? Then why doesn’t a particular one I have bought work for me, when I really, really want it to work? Is the invisible killer lurking in that book or course? No! I would wager it is lurking within yourself.

Does it mean my wish to adopt the new skill or process is lacking?

Most often, no, because clearly you do want to change.

Could there be some obvious reason guaranteeing my failure which only I have not recognised?

Again, most often, No! It is likely that no-one else has spotted the real reason either.

Then, you might ask, is it simply because the key to achieve the change does not lie in the book or the course? Doesn’t it lie in my head and my heart? And what has been lacking previously is the full hearted and total intellectual commitment to it. Without that, isn’t that why I have not succeeded in past attempts?

Yes that is closer to the hidden truth!

But before you rush back to the self-improvement material with not only a new-found zeal but with your will energised to make it happen this time, there is a formal caution. Please do not think applying all the will you can muster will do the trick. It may briefly, but as soon as you relax the will, your particular normal behaviour will return and the possibility to sustain change will slip through your fingers. So, personally, I would not recommend that approach!

So let’s look at where that leaves you? I suspect that you believe you have acquired the detailed tutorial system as to how to solve a current emotional or financial issue. More to the point you believe you have satisfied yourself that that system involved is effective and workable. And now you really want to solve your issue in order to rid yourself of the inhibitions your current situation causes you. So, you might go back to square one and say that all I need to do now is read it diligently and then apply it

But haven’t you tried to do just that before and it didn’t work?

The surprise is that the invisible killer to self-improvement techniques most often resides within us; it has been harboured by us very often for years and relates to one or more cognitive issues of self-image, self-worth, self-esteem, or even believe it not spirituarity.

So how can one best address this?

As acknowledged, intellectually, we can see our current problem perfectly clearly. Equally we can see how, if adopted by us, the self-improvement technique would work and provide us with a solution. But emotionally or spiritually it is different. Deep inside, we could have a different problem which is handicapping us.

It is this. To acquire the self-improvement technique could put us so far out of a largely sub-conscious comfort zone. We were barely aware of its existence until the current situation unearthed it. No matter what, and no matter how hard we read or study, we are somehow neutered by this.

Consider this! Suppose the new technique is a wealth creation system. Maybe our family was never wealthy, in fact it eschewed wealth creation and counselled a frugal life. So, maybe consciously as a young person we wanted to change all that, but sub-consciously we did not. Why? Because we did not want to be seen to be disloyal to that long-standing family culture.

Maybe the self-improvement technique we have obtained is in itself a self-improvement technique which can be made available to others. Nevertheless we have this sub-conscious doubt that if we cannot learn it then nor will they. So as we study, we are actually always doubting and questioning.

Maybe it is admitted by the creators of the technique that it is very profitable largely because so many people buy it although very few actually apply it. While for some that is no issue, ( they say: it is not for me to make a judgement about whether the purchasers adopt it or not’) for you it may be different. Maybe you are not comfortable about that. So your actual buy-in and commitment to the technique is muted and fails.

Of course it could be more simple still. It could be that you want to change, but you have a nagging doubt and lack of any sense of self-worth to pull it off.

I would suggest that you reflect quietly and honestly at the outset. Imagine you have completed the self-improvement. Visualise it completely and in your mind and your heart assess how you feel about that. Notice how little emotional indicators will pop as feelings you can identify. They could be intense or minor.

My advice is that you feel those feelings and decide on one of two outcomes.

First, if the feelings are not all-enveloping or traumatic, then take a deep breath and get cracking on the new technique, silencing yourself when the negative feelings reappear.

Or second, accept the feelings amount to a real emotional block. On that basis, it is best to investigate the origin. So take the preliminary step of seeking out advice or a book on that block before embarking on your main solution.

One amazing feature of our age is that there is not one single narrow aspect of Life that there isn’t at least one book written on it. So obtain it and first enjoy the sense of self-discovery as well as the later and more likely acquisition of your new skill or solution.

Good luck with it.

Sir Gerry Neale has mentored and conducted counselling and life coaching programmes with groups and individuals in person and on-line. He is the author of a novel called “Squaring Circles” recently published in paperback. ISBN 9780956868824 This is a story of self-discovery with echoes likely for most readers in terms of their own lives.

He can be reached on http://www.squaringcircles.co.uk or on his blog at http://squaringcirclesbygerryneale.blogspot.com

The philosopher David Chalmers has drawn a distinction between “easy problems” of consciousness, and the “hard problem” of consciousness. According to Chalmers, the easy problems – directing attention, concentrating, etc. – can be solved by finding a cognitive mechanism by which they could occur.

In contrast, the hard problem is: “why do we experience anything?”. In other words, how does a skull full of firing neurons give rise to the rich tapestry of external and internal experiences that we respectively refer to as the world and the mind?

Chalmers believes that this problem cannot be solved by talking about cognitive mechanisms or brain activity. However, I suggest that the hard problem is essentially one of sensation; it is the problem of explaining why we possess an immediate sensory awareness.

If this can be explained, then all the other functions of consciousness – abstraction, reflection, self awareness, etc. – can be explained as further levels of feedback on top of sensation (for more on this see my book, Being and Perceiving).

The Hard Problem of Sensation

The hard problem of consciousness can be reframed as the hard problem of sensation. Consider the visual system: when I see an object, light reflected by that object is detected by my eye, turned into electrical impulses, and converted into a neural representation in the form of a pattern of neurons firing.

That pattern of firing neurons in some way corresponds to the image of the object projected onto my retina. But in addition to the neural representation, I also experience a visual image; I see the object. Why is it that that a neural representation creates a psychological, sensory representation (the percept)?

Why is it that this process gives rise to the subjective experience of sight? Explaining this gap between neural representation and psychological representation is crucial to understanding the relationship between neuroscience and psychology – between the brain and the mind.

Decoding Sensory Constructs

There are two possibilities: either any representation which encodes information gives rise to a phenomenological space, or phenomenology arises from functional interactions within representational systems. The former seems implausible, lending itself not only to dualism but also to panpsychism. The firing of neurons in a specific pattern may give rise to vision, but there is no evidence to suggest that a series of light bulbs flashing in that same pattern would also produce vision.

Furthermore, if phenomenology were to directly arise from the very existence of a physical representation, why should any arrangement of physical matter changing in a pattern not give rise to a sensation or perception which is subjective to that physical arrangement?

The words “subjective to” indicate that a physical representation is not sufficient to generate a phenomenological space – awareness of that representation is a necessary component of subjectivity; of phenomenology itself. I suggest that sensory awareness is not just dependent on the ability to encode information, but also on the ability to decode that information. It is a mistake to think that a percept is somehow created through neural representation – the phenomenological world is created by interpreting representations as percepts.

Deriving Qualia

The phenomenological world is made up of qualia, which are units of sensation (greenness, hardness, loudness, etc.). Phenomena are conglomerations of qualia (e.g., an apple may be a combination of roundness, greenness, firmness, smoothness, etc.). Objects do not exist independently of their qualities. It should also be noted that I am not ascribing objective existence to qualia – softness does not exist independently of soft objects, for example. Qualia are the phenomenological units from which our sensations are composed, and as such they are entirely psychological.

I suggest that the process of decoding neural representations consists of deriving qualia from sensory input, and is thus the process by which the phenomenological world is constructed from brain activity. The biologist Gerald Edelman hypothesizes that the brain decodes sensory input by comparing it to categories of perception which are built up from memories of past experience. However, I suggest that sensory input is in fact matched to the archetypal matrix.

Imagine a computer program which can scan visual input (e.g., from a camera) and identify faces in that input. In order to perform this function, it must possess a template of a face which the input can be matched against; this is the archetype of a face. The computer thus has both a limited perceptivity (the ability to scan its visual field) and the ability to see faces in the data. Together, these two things constitute a limited level of sensory awareness; the computer must be able to literally see faces.

If the ability to scan were increased to take in the whole visual field at once, and the computer was also endowed with the ability to identify geometry and perspective (and thus objects and their position in space), motion (direction, speed, etc.), light and dark, and so on, it would be endowed with the ability to derive qualia from visual input, and would thus possess awareness of a phenomenological space. It would be able to interpret visual input as a phenomenological world, and would thus be able to see.

The same goes for all of the other senses. In contrast, to be unable to distinguish between shapes, sizes, distances, etc., would be blindness. The existence of archetypes is crucial for this process: without an archetypal matrix it would be impossible to interpret sensory input as a phenomenological world. The phenomenological world thus arises directly from the mechanics of the mind as described in the previous sections.

Edelman’s theory that categories of perception are built up from memory has the implication that newborn babies do not perceive a sensory world. By explaining phenomenology through a recourse to archetypes, which are innate, I have provided a mechanism which explains how babies and animals appear able to sense immediately upon birth, and most likely even whilst in the womb.

Edelman also suggests that only higher mammals and possibly some birds possess the ability to actually perceive the world. In contrast, I assert that the fact that any organism with a nervous system more complex than that of a jellyfish can generate specific motor output to specific sensory input suggests that most organisms can discriminate between sensory phenomena, and thus possess an awareness of a phenomenological world.

Sprigge’s Bat

The philosopher Timothy Sprigge attempted to refute the idea that the physical processes of the brain could produce psychological phenomena by arguing that a complete description of a bat’s brain – down to the last neurons and even the interactions of its constituent particles – is insufficient to provide the experience of “seeing” with sonar; in other words, a total description of the bat’s brain still does not give us the experience of being the bat.

Sprigge believed that this demonstrated that there was still something missing from the complete physical description, and that therefore physical processes alone could not give rise to psychological experiences. The question “what is it like to be a bat?” was later used by the philosopher Thomas Nagel to demonstrate that a purely scientific understanding of the brain was insufficient to understand consciousness, which necessarily involves a subjective component.

In fact, Sprigge’s thought experiment has no significance, since it deals with the limits of language, not the limits of physical processes. It is absurd to suppose that a complete description of some thing should give us the experience of that thing. The problem is that the thought experiment has been framed in terms of “information” and “knowledge”, rather than language. In truth, we can only ever possess a linguistic or conceptual model of physical processes; this is the only sense in which “knowledge” or “information” has any meaning.

Science thus provides us with descriptions, not experiences. Knowledge and information consist of descriptions, not experience. “Physical processes do not produce phenomenological experiences” does not follow from “descriptions of physical processes do not produce phenomenological experiences”.

Mary’s Room

A similar thought experiment, known as Mary’s Room, was proposed by the philosopher Frank Jackson, and runs as follows: Mary is raised in a black and white room, in which there are no colours. However, while in the room, she learns from books everything there is to know about light, the human brain and its visual system. She learns everything about the physical process of how different wavelengths of light produce the experience of colour. After gaining this knowledge, Mary leaves the room and sees coloured objects for the first time; does she experience something new?

The obvious answer is that she does – she experiences what it is like to see red, green, etc., for the first time. However, this does not imply that physical processes are insufficient to give rise to psychological phenomena; as with the bat example above, it only demonstrates that descriptions of a physical process do not give rise to the same phenomena that the process itself gives rise to.

However, although Sprigge and Nagel’s bat and Jackson’s room do not demonstrate that physical processes are incapable of giving rise to psychological phenomena, they do demonstrate that (1) a scientific description of physical reality tells us nothing about the phenomenological world, and (2) there are certain kinds of knowledge which can only be gained through experience, and not communicated with language.

It is possible to say, therefore, that a complete description of the physical processes of the brain and its interactions with the physical world is not a full description of consciousness or phenomenal experience, because a subjective description of what it is like to be a conscious being experiencing a phenomenal world would be missing, and in fact impossible to formulate. However, this is not an argument against physicalism – it deals entirely with the inability of language to convey subjective experience and the fact that descriptions of physical reality are not reality itself.

Copyright © Dan Haycock 2011. For similar articles and information about Dan’s forthcoming book, Being and Perceiving, visit http://www.DanHaycock.co.uk/writing.html

For many of us, our true emotional selves can lay trapped within us like a time-warp. Certain emotions can seem highly available to us but totally unmanageable. In many cases, they represent the embodiment of our child within. Yet when that childhood becomes eclipsed by our adulthood, they seem completely inappropriate as feelings. So what do we do? One way or the other, we simply screen them out.

And the emotional price we pay for this as grown-ups is extortionate. We remain disconsolate when we should be happy. We are unfeeling when we should tender and loving. We over-intellectualise rather than temper it with emotion. In fact we perform rather than feel. Worse we behave like human doings rather than human beings.

The greatest tragedy is that we can become ever-ready to eschew fun. Youthful exuberance and joy is banished. Gone with it too is any sense of grace and peace, as we wrestle with ourselves to justify our having fun. We seem all too often stressed, tense, and unable to break free of work.

What exactly has happened and more particularly, when did it happen to us? How does it still have such a profound effect on us? What can we do about it?

Being willing to re-visit our childhood years is a pre-requisite. Being prepared to relate back to the fun and joy we had as well as the traumas and even horrors we endured is vital to see how we patterned ourselves to live with the contrasting feelings we had. And I don’t just mean Ha! Ha! Fun. I mean spiritual enjoyment as well.

We can with patience and care, go back and rediscover how these patterns were spawned in us. By re-playing in our minds the ways those who looked after us often triggered these situations, we can see how they then sought to feed us with instructions on how to behave and how to react, is fundamentally important.

Our development as people will have been conditioned heavily by these parental or teachers’ instructions. Philosophically, psychologically, spiritually as well as of course emotionally – and physically, we will have been stunted by the way we were encouraged to behave.

If we are ever to free ourselves now of any of the emotional patterns of behaviour which undermine our peace and happiness as adults, we need to have the courage to probe our young years.

We need to identify the way those, who acted almost always as well-meaning parents and teachers, effectively indoctrinated us with their own opinions, attitudes and habits. We need to see through what we experienced, to see how we came to pattern or protect ourselves. We need also to remind ourselves how we reacted and responded to others as children and admit that we carried those patterns into adulthood when need for them no longer existed.

The truth is, that until many of us adopt this approach and learn how to divorce ourselves from our childhood behaviours, then we will not allow ourselves to form attitudes and behaviours more happily and aptly fitted to our life as adults.

Mercifully there are effective processes available to us to achieve this. Good books exist now. Counsellors are much more aware of these features within us and how they can guide us to change the ways we come at things.

However in the final analysis, it comes down to one simple but fundamental fact if beneficial change is to occur. Do we really want to overcome and change some particular behaviour? If we do, then it is a racing certainty that we will. If we don’t, then surely we won’t.

Sir Gerry Neale has mentored and conducted counselling and life coaching programmes with individuals in person and on-line. He is the Author of a recently published cognitive novel in paperback called “Squaring Circles”

He can be reached on http://psychologysimplified.blogspot.com and http://www.squaringcircles.co.uk.

A team from Lund University in Sweden using EEG brain scans to study the brain have produced some interesting provisional findings. Their claim is that it is possible for a person to have a selective memory. With that would come the ability to screen out memories for a sufficient period of time for them then to be forgotten completely.

I Am Sceptical! But I Believe The Research Is Worth Following

The thrust of their claim is that tests on volunteers who took part allowed the team to detect the moment a memory was apparently forgotten, and that it was possible that by burying the memory for long enough it could be permanently erased from the brain.

The author of the study, Gerd Waldhauser, admitted however that aiding the forgetting of a traumatic event would be a more complex task. He does believe though that if memories have been buried long enough they could be very difficult to retrieve and the more often that a particular memory is suppressed, the more irrecoverable it may become.

For anyone with traumatic emotional memories wanting to take this information literally, I would urge them to exercise caution. It still seems to me that the brain’s ability to respond immediately when faced with a dramatic event unfolding in front of us remains unchallenged. What happens is that our brain instinctively conducts its own memory scan, trawling for any relevant memory which could help us in any way to decide what to do in the face of the current challenge.

I would rate the chance very high that it would not matter how much we have tried to suppress an unpleasant memory and even seemingly forgotten it – or whether we had seemingly screened it out successfully to achieve the same apparent effect. Faced with a sudden threat or event, our automatic brain scan could still unearth it from the deepest parts of our sub-conscious, given its relevance to our current predicament.

So I would also say that if this scientific study is to help those who have undergone traumatic experiences, then counsel them first to deactivate and defuse the most toxic parts of their memories. Only then with the memories re-framed help them to bury those images, so if ever the brain still succeeds and instinctive recall of the past event does take place, its impact on them is likely to much reduced.

Failure to do that would leave them vulnerable to suffering from the hideous mental and emotional recall of their original trauma on any coincidental re-occurrence..

Also, if all manner of behavioural strategies were adopted naively after the first experience in order to protect future feelings, they will remain in the brain to act as a continuing inhibitor even if the actual event causing them has been forgotten. Only by personal or professional review could these be neutralized.

Let’s keep an eye out for the further research, but not behave as if we can be spared the hurt of our worst memories, certainly for the time being.

Sir Gerry Neale has mentored and conducted counselling and life coaching programmes with individuals in person and on-line. He is the author of a cognitive novel about Self-Discovery

He can be reached on http://www.squaringcircles.co.uk or on his blog http://squaringcirclesbygerryneale.blogspot.com

Surprise! Surprise! Dogs suffer emotionally if left alone while their owner is out all day working. A report on research appears in the UK Sunday Times Today (03 07 11) under the title “Feeling Wuff With Home Alone Syndrome.” and this needs further airing.

This follows details of the new documentary “Buck” about the Horse Whisperer and horses reactions to human emotion.

In the research on dogs, a sample of situations were filmed to watch their behaviour once the owner had left for work for the day. What transpired surprised the researchers and the owners was that the pets did not settle into a quiet, compliant and patient frame of mind waiting for their owner to return. Nor did they merely occupy themselves with needless activities. They fretted, whined and displayed signs of being disturbed and distressed by the inexplicable solitude.

Personally this no longer surprises me. Time was when I would have thought otherwise. Now however I see too many signs that pets of varying kinds which appear capable of expressing affection towards us and pleasure at our company, are disturbed when it is not reciprocated. In consequence it is of little wonder to me that they get upset.

What I fear too, is that our children can only suffer similarly if we treat them in the same way. Surprising it may be, but loneliness can even affect them when we are in the same house at the same time. It can occur when we are engrossed in our own activities for long periods of time, expecting them to make themselves scarce.

As time progresses research on human relationships will undoubtedly intensify. I believe it will turn a number of conventional parenting activities on their head. Also I suspect strongly that one of the most difficult cultural and behavioural adjustments we will have to make is accepting that we all have to be so much more aware at how unwittingly we can create emotional and behavioural disturbance in our children by how we handle their down time when as parents we are otherwise engaged.

We can no longer assume that children have the innate ability to resolve emotional upset unaided. They do not. And nor can we assume that whatever naive pattern or strategy they adopt themselves to deal with an emotional issue will have a short shelf life.

It becomes increasingly clear that children’s ill-informed reactions and ineffective attitudes can remain with them long into their adulthood and then for as long as they lack the will to correct them.

Just as a dog can be trained to withstand hours of loneliness so could a child. But such compliance comes at a price – probably for the family in the short-term, but almost definitely, for the child in the long-term.

Sir Gerry Neale has lectured and trained under-graduates and post graduates in cognitive thinking. He has conducted counselling and life coaching programmes with individuals in person and on-line. He is the author of a recently published “Self-Discovery” novel called ‘Squaring Circles’ http://www.squaringcircles.co.uk The relevant blog is http://squaringcirclesbygerryneale.blogspot.com

Plasticity in the nervous system support cognitions, and is affected by age.Plasticity in the nervous system support cognitions, and is affected by age. Brain cognitive functions decline with age. Naturally, then, several neural mechanisms in the same brain areas also shift with age. This article presents significant advances in understanding age-related changes in the medial temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex. These changes in functional plasticity contribute to behavioral impairments in the absence of major pathology.

All animals experience cognitive decline with age. It is now known that age does not equal to significant cell loss. In the hippocampus and the PFC, however, there is a significant increase in Ca2+ conductance, which likely contributes to age-related changes in plasticity or long-term potentiation or LTP and long-term depression or LTD. The maintenance of long-term memory and plasticity requires gene expression; therefore, aged animals also show alterations in these processes.

Gene Arc shows differences in expression patterns between young and old animals. Age-associated changes in the dynamics of neuronal ensembles contribute to cognitive impairment. The hippocampus and the PFC are vulnerable to age. In many species, there is a decline in associative learning and spatial memory. Also, older animals show working memory and executive function deficits. Much needs to be learned, despite the fact that the average lifespan is increasing worldwide.

In other words, age is correlated with a decline in cognitive function that is in part caused by changes in neural plasticity. These changes are subtle compared to age-associated disorders. Age-related changes in cognition may affect pathological disease states.

Functional alterations occur during age in the medial temporal lobe and the PFC. These age-associated changes might contribute to the selective cognitive impairments during aging. The subtle changes in neuronal morphology, cell to cell interactions and gene expression might alter plasticity in aged animals. These changes disrupt the network dynamics of aged neuronal ensembles that cause selective behavioral impairments.

In summary and conclusion, during aging, animals experience cognitive decline. Now it is known that the changes occurring during ageing are quite subtle and selective. Most age-associated behavioral impairments result from region-specific changes in factors that affect plasticity and alter the network dynamics of neural ensembles that support cognition.

The morphology of neurons in the PFC is more susceptible to age-related change. There is also a small decline in cell number in an area of other animals that is correlated with working memory impairments. There are therapeutic approaches that might modify hippocampal neurobiology and slow age-related cognitive decrease or partially restore plasticity.

What is the most interesting about this article is that there is still so much unknown in the area of cognition and memory. This study reflects the needs for Psychology and Medicine to collaborate closely. All realms, besides the physical or medical and the psychological and emotional, must be explored to gather new data about cognition and aging. Other realms that could affect cognition and aging are: spiritual, intellectual, and social. I am personally interested in finding out more about all these other realms as well and their relation to cognition and the lifespan.

This information/research knowledge can be used in clinical practice in a way that supports exercising the brain muscle/s, in a way that supports the client’s continuous learning, and continuous researching. Also, this information could prompt the therapist to assess the client’s environment, nutrition and wellness, life purpose and any drug usage, to verify whether these important life areas affect cognition and age. Based on my experience and the experience of my clients, I believe these areas do affect age and cognition.

Thank you.

Elena Pezzini, M.S., C.P.C.
You Have Got The Power, Inc.
You Got The Power, non profit organization
Turnaround Coaching Psychology & Hypnosis
Office (702) 518-6649 Fax (251) 217-0082
http://www.YouHaveGotThePower.com
Please follow us:
http://twitter.com/HaveGotThePower

I will be forever grateful to the extraordinary German behaviorist and biologist Konrad Lorenz. After Carl Jung, who taught me the meaning of dreams and saved me from neurosis and a prominent schizophrenia, Konrad Lorenz is my second savior and big hero.

His detailed research, his conclusions and discoveries, and the valuable knowledge he provided to the world, saved me from the dangerous darkness of ignorance. Only because I studied his books with the same attention I studied Carl Jung’s books, could I trust the unconscious mind as much as I did.

Lorenz received a Nobel Prize in 1974. However, until today the world didn’t recognize the importance of his discoveries. This is why until today many people believe that Charles Darwin’s conclusions about the evolution of the species was correct. Konrad Lorenz and his group of biologists have scientifically proven to the world that Darwin was wrong for believing that the evolutionary process of the animal species depended on their environment.

All animals are previously prepared in order to be able to survive in a dangerous environment before living. They find on Earth many enemies, and many difficult situations for their survival. If they were not previously prepared in order to be able to survive in these dangerous conditions, they would die before being able to learn how to survive. This means that their evolutionary process was already programmed as well. The animals’ evolution doesn’t depend on the environment they find because everything in their formation is already programmed.

All animal reactions are previously prepared in their cognitive mechanism. Their reactions follow chains, which form various behavioral patterns. The cognitive mechanism of all animals is already prepared to help them automatically act in their environment, independently of a learning process. The same happens with us, human beings.

Darwin was correct for discovering that we are primates. Of course his work is valuable, and it enlightened us in many ways. However, many scientific discoveries that happened after his death, like Konrad Lorenz’s discoveries, proved that the evolution of all species was a result of a very well organized plan. As a matter of fact, the entire nature of our planet is very well organized. All this organization cannot be a product of chance.

Lorenz concluded that practically all our reactions are previously prepared in our cognitive mechanism. These reactions start automatically working whenever we receive a specific stimulus from our environment. The same truth is observed in all animals. Their reactions are previously prepared and well organized, so that each animal will follow a precise sequence of movements from the beginning to the end, depending on the stimuli of their environment. This sequence of movements and reactions forms a programmed behavioral chain, which creates a behavioral pattern.

For example, all wild animals know how to kill their prey, and they are able to beat their prey in their first attempts, even before seeing any other animal of the same species doing so. Even animals kept in isolation, far from other animals of their species, were able to do the right movements, in the right sequence, and successfully kill their preys in their first attempts.

This fact proves that everything in the animal nature is previously prepared to follow a determined sequence of movements. Lorenz and his group of biologists give us many more explanations about this matter. I’m only giving you an idea about their research and discoveries.

Lorenz concluded that since all our reactions are programmed and we act without thinking most of the time, we cannot talk about ‘human freedom’. The human being is an animal already programmed to behave in a certain way, the same way that all animals are. In other words, we don’t really ‘decide’ anything.

His conclusions were very unpleasant for those who prefer to consider the human being as a ’superior creature’ who knows what he is doing. This is why until today Lorenz’s work is not taught everywhere. Cognitive therapy, where humans are shown to be able to think rather than just act on animal instincts has replaced behaviorism, even though Konrad’s discoveries were true. Many other scientific discoveries prove that Konrad’s statements were real because our capacity to think logically is too limited. However, these discoveries go against the interests of the world leaders, who would have to admit that human beings cannot be considered responsible for their actions in most circumstances.

There is a part of our brain that can learn, and we can control our behavior and make our own decisions. However, this part will work only if we won’t be automatically induced to behave according to the animal behavioral patterns that predetermine our behavior.

Konrad Lorenz helped me believe that the wise unconscious mind that produces our dreams and regulates the functioning of our body, really has a divine origin. I concluded that all the behavioral programs already prepared in our cognitive mechanism had to be prepared by a wise brain. The entire nature of our planet functions in a very well organized manner because it was organized by a superior brain. The same superior brain that created all behavioral programs (unconscious mind), sends us wise messages in dreams in order to save our mental stability.

I also noticed that the unconscious mind has saintly characteristics, which prove God’s existence. The unconscious words are like the words of a priest, or better saying, like the words of a wise philosopher. When we translate the meaning of dreams according to Jung’s method of dream interpretation we are able to understand the unconscious messages, which really have a divine origin. These messages cure our psyche with their wisdom.

I simplified Jung’s complicated method of dream interpretation, and today everyone can finally understand the precious unconscious guidance contained in the meaning of their dreams. Jung’s method is too complex and time consuming. I transformed it into a fast translation from images into words.

We are absurd and under-developed primates. We must develop our intelligence if we want to become superior creatures, and stop being pre-conditioned animals who merely follow their wild nature. In other words, we must surpass the behavioral programs we inherit in our cognitive mechanism.

The biggest part of our brain remains in a primitive condition because it belongs to the anti-conscience, our wild conscience, which didn’t evolve like our human conscience. This part refuses to evolve. It doesn’t accept changing its behavior or transforming its personality. It is our wild and evil conscience, which leads us to terror, craziness, and despair.

We have to learn many things, and transform our behavior through learning. We should not be accommodated animals who merely follow their behavioral patterns. We must acquire more knowledge and more consciousness, so that we may transform the anti-conscience into a positive component of our human conscience. This is how we’ll become true human beings instead of being wild animals. This is also how we’ll find sound mental health, peace, happiness, and real freedom.

Christina Sponias continued Carl Jung’s research into the human psyche, discovering the cure for all mental illnesses, and simplifying the scientific method of dream interpretation that teaches you how to exactly translate the meaning of your dreams, so that you can find health, wisdom and happiness.
Learn more at: http://www.scientificdreaminterpretation.com

Click Here to download a Free Sample of the eBook Dream Interpretation as a Science (86 pages!).

Trichotillomania (compulsive hair pulling) affects millions of men, women and children who are convinced they are the only ones who do something so “weird” or that they must be “crazy.” Sufferers range in all ages, but many are children who experience shame, embarrassment, hopelessness and depression. Some sufferers have worn wigs, bandanas, and false eyelashes for as long as they can remember. They have never ridden a roller coaster for fear their hair will fly off. Pool parties that are fun for everyone else are a nightmare for “trichsters.” If your child pulls out his or her hair, it is not necessarily trichotillomania (trich). It may be a nervous habit. True trich has unique characteristics:

Trich sufferers do something with the pulled hair. They will
Gaze at it
Run it across their cheeks or lips
Put it in their mouth (some eat it)
Examine the root
Bite the root

Only after doing something with it will they throw it away.

Another clue to trich is the shame factor.
Kids with trich try to hide the hair they pull
Kids with trich may become angry and refuse to say anything when you try to talk to them about it.
Kids with trich often deny or minimize the pulling.

Trich usually makes its appearance in late childhood or early adolescence and may start with a stressful event. A stressful event may be negative as in:

Loss as from a divorce or a death
Loss of friends

It can be an event that seems positive such as:

Positive comments and attention to “your beautiful hair”
A major part in a play or taking part in a contest

Trich may begin after getting head lice or having an infection. It can begin for “no reason at all” like pulling a hair to look at it under a microscope or pulling an eyelash to get a wish.

Most “trichsters” can’t tell you one incident that started them pulling. When distinguishing trich from a nervous habit, it helps to try to remember when it started.

Fortunately naming the condition isn’t as critical to treatment as it is to understanding. It is important to identify pulling or picking as trich in order to

Help yourself and others understand why it is so difficult to stop
Avoid saying things that are counter-productive to your child
“Just STOP IT!”
“If you wanted to stop, you would!”

It is not so important to identify the behavior as trich when you formulate a treatment plan. The best researched successful plans are

Habit Reversal Therapy (HRT)
If it’s a habit this will work and it will work for trich, too
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
If it’s anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Behavior (OCD) or trich, this will work

Pulling hair or picking skin (no matter what lies beneath) IS a problem when it causes:

Shame and embarrassment
Fighting and arguing in the family
Medical problems
Social Problems
Academic Problems
It consumes a great deal of time

If you or your child suffers – YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Individual and group therapy is available and effective.

http://www.travisps.com

Dr. Mary Travis practices positive psychology in Winter Park, Florida. She evaluates for giftedness, learning disabilities, attention deficit, depression, anxiety, Asperger’s disorder and emotional intelligence. Her practice niches are trichotillomania (compulsive hair pulling), trichadrem (skin picking) and victims of female bullies. She coaches and counsels individuals and groups for anxiety, depression, social skills, female bullying and body focused repetitive disorders.

An essay that includes a definition, in own words, and history of social psychology, at least six major theorists, the types of issues this field considers, the five major variables of interest to social psychologists, and major contemporary research trends in the field.

This is a science that aims to accurately, objectively, open-mindedly and continuously research why and how people are in social settings (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2005). Some theorists that contributed to advancement of social psychology are French gentleman Gabriel Tarde, with the imitation concept, Gustave LeBon and Emile Durkheim with the theory on society’s influence on the individual. In 1874, Herbert Spencer extended Darwin’s concepts from biology into sociology. He coined the term “survival of the fittest.”

Spencer influenced many early 20th century American psychologists, such as William James, and sociologists, such as Edward Ross, Lester F. Ward and William G. Sumner, who introduced social psychology. J. Mark Baldwin, in 1897, used social psychology in a thesis on children. William McDougall published “Social Psychology” in 1908.

In 1897, Norman Triplett made the first experiment of this science, on how groups competed and set the pace for individual performance. In the mid-1920s social psychology took a firm hold in psychology. In 1924 Floyd Allport wrote “Social Psychology,” a scholarly book used in academia to this date.

In the 1930s, Gardner Murphy, Lois Barclay Murphy and Theodore Newcomb wrote “Experimental Social Psychology” and Carl Murchison “Handbook of Social Psychology”. They defined social psychology as experimental, instead of as naturalistic observations. Sociologists started studying the individual in society.

During the Depression and World War II, Thurstone and Likert researched changes in attitudes. Kurt Lewin and Gestalt psychology studied political groups, frustration and aggression in children. Lewin worked on group dynamics and conflict resolution from the 1940s through the 1970s.

Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif researched small group dynamics in summer camps in the 1940s and 50s. After World War II, the field searched for problems. John Dollard and Neal Miller worked on “Social Learning and Imitation” with learning and rats, in 1941.

In 1950, their “Personality and Psychotherapy” explained psychoanalysis as social learning. In 1946, Fritz Heider preceded Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory, claiming that there is an imbalance when perceptions of a relationship do not match reality, which causes a change in either perceptions or reality to regain balance. In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience set up subjects to believe they were shocking a stranger for incorrect responses. That deception raised ethical concerns. Self-identity, self-esteem and self-image have been researched towards the end of the last century. Social psychology is part of the psychological mainstream.

This science recognizes the connection between social thought and social behavior. Social neuroscience studies social and social behavior in relation to the brain and biology. Modern social psychology focuses on the unconscious and multicultural parts of social thought and behavior.

In naturalistic observations, versus systematic observations, behaviors occur naturally.

There are several methods used in social psychology. One is the survey method. Another one is the correlational method that investigates the possible correlations, not causes, on studied variables.

In this science’s experiments, there is the systematic alteration of independent variables, to study their effects on dependent ones. Successful experiments randomly assign participants to experimental conditions and hold everything else constant to avoid confounding variables.

To determine validity, social psychologists use inferential statistics. They use meta-analysis to determine the effects of independent variables across studies. They also rely on theories to advance their work.

Deception, or withholding information from participants about the scope of an experiment, is often used in social psychology. Social psychology safeguards experiments by using informed consent and meticulous debriefing. To conclude,this science is cutting edge and its five major areas and variables of interest are: attitudes, group processes, social learning and cognition and self-perception (APA, 1999).

References
Baron, R. A., Byrne, D. R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005) Social Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
APA (Dec 1999) Social psychology: Once overlooked, now a staple. APA Monitor Online Author 30 (11).

Thank you.

Elena Pezzini, M.S., C.P.C.
You Have Got The Power, Inc.
Turnaround Coaching Psychology & Hypnosis
Office (702) 518-6649 Fax (251) 217-0082
http://www.YouHaveGotThePower.com