Psychology Articles

Back in the 1950s, Professor Jensen – a leading authority on intelligence – concluded that nothing could be done to improve our IQ level – that it was fixed from early childhood. This was the scientific consensus. Numerous studies investigating the effect of different types of cognitive training over the past 40 years have not done much to change this view – that is, until 2008 when a team of cognitive psychologists from Bern, Switzerland and Michigan, United States, demonstrated that a very specific type of cognitive training can improve IQ dramatically.

Why has it taken 40 years to discover how to improve IQ?

It is only thanks to recent insights from cognitive psychology about the nature of short term memory and its importance in cognitive functioning have at last enabled a training exercise to be engineered that improves IQ. As cognitive psychologists, we have now uncovered many underlying information processing systems of intelligence. It is this understanding that has enabled us to design the task to be effective to improve intelligence, regardless of starting IQ level. We will now look at how these mechanisms work.

We can improve IQ, but how does it work?

Our short term memory is a big part of the story. We use our short term memory all the time for any storage of information that is short term – perhaps over a matter of 10 or 20 seconds – for example, while remembering directions have have just heard while driving.

The Magical Number 7

The amount of information most people can hold in short term memory (numbers, food items, directions) is limited to around 7 items – plus or minus 2. This short term memory capacity or ‘memory span’ has been called the ‘magical number seven’ in one of the most famous papers in cognitive psychology, by George Miller at Princeton University.

Working memory

But more important than just remembering information by rote is being able to do mental operations on that information – to solve a problem, to figure something out, or reason through something to find an answer. For instance, while figuring out a 15% tip, or how much currency is worth while you are in another country. The ability to hold information in mind for brief periods, and manipulate it mentally is a type of short term memory called working memory. You have to do mental work on the information, not just store it. That is why it is called ‘working memory’.

The capacity of working memory

Most people have a working memory capacity of about 2 or 3 – much less than the memory span of the ‘magical number 7′ for just storing information without doing any cognitive operations on it.

The working memory-IQ link

People vary widely in their working memory capacity. Ä°t is now known that these differences predict IQ level. General intelligence – measured by standardized IQ tests – depends on working memory because working memory affects a wide range of complex cognitive tasks besides figuring out a tip, involving reasoning problem solving, and making sense of things. We use working memory every single time we reason, plan and problem solve. Even comprehending long sentences (like the ones in this article) requires working memory!

Working memory and the intelligence behind our IQ level both share the same brain circuitry – part of the frontal cortex of the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. (‘Dorsal’ means up, and ‘lateral’ means to the side – hence ‘dorsolateral’). This is one of the most recently evolved parts of the brain.

How to improve IQ – the logic

The logic is simple: If you can improve your working memory capacity by training it directly, you can therefore improve your intelligence level. There is, in technical terms, a ‘transfer effect’ from working memory training to gains in intelligence and IQ.

Intelligence can now be improved by 40% – as a side effect.

In 2008 cognitive psychologists at the University of Bern in Switzerland and the University of Michigan in the States, demonstrated that by training on a specifically designed working memory exercise you can increase working memory capacity by over 65% over just 19 days of training.

This improvement in this type of short term memory capacity had a remarkable side effect: a 40% gain in intelligence – as measured by a version of the time limited Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices IQ test – one of the most valid and highly regarded IQ tests for culture fair intelligence.

The author, Dr. Mark Ashton Smith, is a cognitive neuroscientist. Between 2000 and 2003 he was a Lecturer in the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Cambridge. His most recent position has been as Assistant Professor at Bilkent University, Turkey. His current research is in fluid intelligence and how it can be trained.

To find out more of what is known about intelligence and how to increase IQ, visit his website: http://www.highiqpro.com/about/how-to-improve-iq-working-memory

From two Greek words: psyche, which means the mind or the soul and logos, which means study, the science of Psychology has been studied and defined by many people throughout the ages. Hilgard, Morgan, Silverman, and Schlesinger are just a few. A careful analysis of their foregoing definitions of psychology reveals common points: Psychology is the scientific study of the behaviors of living organisms; the term behavior must not be solely attributed to man’s physical reactions and observable behavior; and thoughts, feelings, and attitudes are also connected to the term behavior.

The primary goals of Psychology are mainly to describe, identify, understand and explain behavior, to know its factors, and to control or change behavior. Psychologists often apply their knowledge and understanding of human behavior to solve issues and help in our society. Different areas of specialization in Psychology are studied to provide better understandings of this science.

Among these are the traditional fields consisting mainly of: Clinical Psychology which deals with the diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation of psychological problems. It also relates to Psychiatry which pertains to more serious problems; Counseling Psychology which deals with administering, storing, and interpreting psychological exams; Educational or School Psychology which deals with students’ learning and adjustment; Community Psychology which deals with problems of the aged, prisoners, and other problems in the community.

It also focuses on providing accessible care for these people; Social Psychology which deals with the behavior of man individually and in groups; Industrial or Organizational Psychology which deals with issues of people in the workplace; Personality Psychology which is concerned with the uniqueness of a person; Developmental Psychology which deals with factors affecting human groups; Experimental Psychology which focuses with the basis of scientific research; Physiological Psychology which is concerned with the functions of the brain; and Comparative Psychology which targets the differences of the species.

Aside from these, several branches of Psychology were discovered during the 70’s. Forensic Psychology deals with legal, judicial, and correctional systems. Environmental Psychology is primarily concerned about issues relating to the environment. Computer Science, on the other hand, uses computer programming for behavioral analysis. There is also Engineering Psychology which seeks to make the relationship between man and machines; and Psychopharmacology which deals with the relationship of behavior and drugs.

Furthermore, the latest fields of Psychology that were recently developed consist of: Health Psychology which focuses on multidimensional approaches that emphasize lifestyle and health care systems; Sports Psychology which applies psychological principles to improve performance and enjoy participation; Cross-culture Psychology which examines the role of culture in understanding behavior, thoughts, and emotions; and Women Psychology which emphasizes the importance of promoting research and study of women.

Allan enjoys writing up on a variety of subjects. Other than the above topic, he also likes to set up sites on different topics. Do check out his new site which covers useful information on spinal decompression.

When people talk about a person’s ‘intelligence’ it is not generally clear what underlying ability or abilities this term refers to. This article is intended to clarify in layman’s terms what psychologists and brain scientists can mean by intelligence. Basically, there are two good theories–and scientists are divided on which is the best theory–and one bad one which all scientists I know of reject. A good theory is one that is supported by the evidence; a bad theory is one that is not.

Official IQ tests such as the WAIS-IV claim to measure individual differences in an underlying ‘ level of cognitive ability given by a single number–your IQ or intelligence quotient. But is it true that there is a single underlying mental ability that we differ in and that explains what makes us different in our cognitive abilities? If someone is good at maths, are they also likely to be good at language comprehension, reasoning, thinking analogically, learning languages and general knowledge, due to their underlying ‘intelligence level’, as this theory implies?

Or are there ‘multiple intelligences’ underlying out abilities–perhaps dozens or even hundreds of them–each independent from each other, and measured by different types of test. If you have an ability in mathematics, is this ability completely unrelated to your ability in learning languages or play general knowledge games like trivial pursuit? If this is the case, is the idea of having a single IQ score quite meaningless? Or alternatively, are there a small number of underlying cognitive abilities (perhaps two or three) that we differ in, which are relatively independent from each other–and which together explain most the differences in our cognitive abilities?

1. The theory of general intelligence (g)–a good theory

A long standing an influential theory for our cognitive abilities states that underlying all our cognitive abilities (math, language comprehension, general knowledge) is a single factor–called general intelligence (also known as unitary intelligence, general cognitive ability, or simply ‘g’ ) that individuals differ on and which explains those differences.

Spearman (1923) proposed that underlying all cognitive abilities a ‘general ability’ factor (g) that all the abilities draw on. Individuals differ in g according to a bell curve distribution on this theory. g can be thought of in terms of information processing power. Some people –those with higher g–can process more information, more efficiently than others. Using a computer analogy, they have more RAM. The more RAM a computer has, the more complex and information-intensive the programs that can be run on it. If you have an IQ of 160 like Quentin Tarantino has, you have lots of RAM, large ‘bandwidth’ for processing information. If you have an IQ of 78 like Muhammad Ali as a young man (whose IQ was measured by the army), then you have less RAM. Muhammad Ali had many talents, but according to the unitary intelligence theory, intelligence wasn’t one of them.

The evidence for this theory is the same evidence that allows us to reject the theory of multiple intelligences. All standardized tests of cognitive ability (and there are dozens of them, measuring a wide range of different abilities) are positively correlated–not perfectly, but to a large degree. This means that if someone scores higher than average on one of those tests, they are likely to score higher than average on all the other tests–even ones that appear totally unrelated. Scoring higher in an arithmetic test means you will probably also score higher in a vocabulary test. This remains true, even when you take other factors like educational background, or family socioeconomic status into account. This is compelling evidence that there is a single underlying level of cognitive ability that is applied to each of the tests and that performance on one test is not independent from performance on another as the multiple intelligence theory claims.

Spearman (1904)–the psychologist who first proposed the g theory–argued that the variance (the person to person variation) of performance between individuals on ANY cognitive task can be attributed to just two underlying factors: g (general intelligence) and s –the skill unique to that particular task. A person could invest relatively more time into developing a specific skill such as arithmetic, and this will raise their score on an arithmetic test relative to another test such as vocabulary that they didn’t train or practice on, but their general intelligence g will still account for most of their performance on the arithmetic test. G is still the most important factor in explaining levels of performance, whatever the test.

2. The theory of multiple intelligences-a bad theory Spearman’s ‘g’ theory is the opposite of the theory of multiple intelligences. The theory of multiple intelligence is an appealing one because it gives some room for everyone to have their own unique strengths in ‘intelligence’. But as we have seen it turns out that our cognitive strengths and weaknesses are best explained by how much time and effort is we have invested into particular skills or types of knowledge. If I take up a technical trade and become good at it, and find that I am struggling with reading fiction, this doesn’t necessarily mean that I have a special ‘intelligence’ for technical thinking and have no ability for reading or language. The fact I struggle with fiction is better explained by the fact that I have invested my intelligence into building up this particular type of expertise and thus see more of a return on that investment in technical modes of cognition. If I had spent as much time reading fiction as I have applying myself to technical problems, chances are I’d be good at that.

3. The theory of fluid intelligence (gF) and crystallized intelligence (gC)–another good theory

This theory builds on the general intelligence theory, and was originally proposed by the psychologist Raymond Cattell back in 1943. It holds that g is meaningful–that we each have a different general intelligence level– but contributing to g are two different types of intelligence: fluid intelligence (gF) and crystallized intelligence (gC ). Fluid g is the ability to reason and problem solve with novel tasks or in unfamiliar contexts (measured reasoning tasks), while crystallized g is defined as acquired knowledge and is measured using tests of general knowledge, mathematics, and vocabulary. This dual way of understanding intelligence allows for knowledge that you have built up in particular areas to compensate for limitations in overall reasoning and problem solving ability– our ‘raw intelligence’. You may succeed due to knowledge about a task or domain (crystallized g), or due to sheer mental ‘horsepower’ (fluid g).

Where the idea of ‘multiple intelligences’ makes sense: as crystallized intelligence that we invest in

Our crystallized intelligence allows for ‘multiple intelligences’. You could have a high level of crystallized intelligence in graphic design, for example, while having only an average level of fluid intelligence. But you will only be able to use your crystallized intelligence for graphic design in situations in which you are familiar and have built up expertise. Unless you have a high level of fluid intelligence when you are confronted with an unfamiliar problem in graphic design–something ‘out of context’, requiring some difficult figuring out-then you are likely to have difficulties. On the flip side, if you have a high level of fluid intelligence, it will take you less time to pick up graphic design (or whatever) skills as you learn your basic skill set. Your learning will be more efficient, and you will find it easier. In general, the more fluid intelligence you have the more you will be able to ‘invest’ it into crystallized intelligence skills and knowledge–the more ‘multiple intelligences’ you will be able to develop if you so wish. In the context of work, the more gF you have the more quickly and efficiently you can be trained. One study showed that it took people in the 110 to 130 IQ range about 1 to 2 years to catch up with the super-charged performance of those with IQs of 130+ who had only 3 months’ experience on the job.

Summary

Looking at all the evidence, both the general intelligence (g) theory, and the fluid intelligence (gF) and crystallized intelligence (gC) are well supported and useful in explaining how we differ in our cognitive abilities. In my view, the fluid and crystallized theory is the more insightful and useful. It helps me understand intelligence-and how we can improve it-better. For instance, research shows that you can do a specific type of ‘working memory’ brain training to increase your fluid intelligence level substantially–but this training does not directly affect your crystallized intelligence.

The author, Dr Mark A. Smith, is a cognitive neuroscientist, author and entrepreneur. Between 2000 and 2003 he was a Lecturer in the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Cambridge. His most recent position has been as Assistant Professor at Bilkent University, Turkey. His current research is in fluid intelligence and its evolution in human cognition. He has recently set up a cognitive interventions laboratory for experimental research into brain training tools and brain nutrition.

To find out more of what is known about intelligence and how to increase IQ, visit his website: http://www.iqlift.com/.

Why should we bother with dreams?
Aren’t dreams just nonsense…just neurons randomly firing?

Evolution has selected for dreaming.
Sleep researchers tell us that all humans and many animals dream several times every night. Dream sleep is so important that experimental subjects prevented from experiencing REM sleep, the part the sleep in which dreams occur, begin to hallucinate after just a couple of nights of deprivation. They effectively begin to dream when they are awake. It is that important to dream. The ability to dream has been evolutionarily selected for because it serves a vital function in human life.

Human beings in all times and places have examined dreams with interest and attention. Mythical and religious characters are portrayed as valuing and being influenced or changed by dreams. The ancient Greeks dedicated temples and trained priests and priestesses to interpret dreams. Sigmund Freud, the originator of psychoanalysis, out of which developed most other modern therapies, called dreams “The royal road to the unconscious” and Moses Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher is famous for saying that “A dream unexamined is like a letter unopened”

Psychoanalyst Paul Lipmann (2008) offers us the following list of what he feels that dreams offer:
They state and solve problems.
They express emotion… subtle and loud.
They can express in images and stories those feelings and experiences that are most difficult to think or talk about when awake.
They can express hidden feelings about one’s relationship to powerful and less powerful others.
They can both dissociate and bind together aspects of traumatic or any experience.
They can help cover pain and shame or can rip apart a scab of defense.
They portray our current problems, past dilemmas, and future possibilities.
They gratify wishes.
They can give expression to the life not lived.

Dreams are unconscious products.
Cognitive psychologists tell us that we can hold approximately seven (plus or minus two if your memory is exceptionally good or bad) “chunks” of information in our minds at once.

That is seven digits in a phone number, seven items of a grocery list. That is not very many and yet we have access to a vast reservoir of memories, concepts and emotional experiences which are called up effortlessly and seamlessly into that famous set of seven chunks. And just as seamlessly those concepts not in immediate use slip out and are put away. It’s a truly amazing system when you think about it… effortless and taken for granted. But what is the mechanism that reaches down and pulls up the information that is needed? Most of the time it is not “conscious intention.”

Unconscious processing is a natural and necessary part of thinking
Unconscious processing always underpins and facilitates conscious thinking. It is the system which receives, organizes and makes accessible all of the concepts and experiences that we own. It is simply impossible to be consciously aware of everything we know or to consciously make all the associations between facts that we must in order to make sense of our experience.

Importantly related facts, ideas and feelings may have been accumulated over a lifetime, arriving at different times and out of different life experiences. Consciousness, which is busy figuring out what to make for supper, rarely takes time to sniff around and explore all the potential associations… even to pressing life problems.

Fortunately we have an alternative system to do this work… psychoanalysts call this the personal unconscious . Cognitive researchers call it “automatic processing”,” implicit thought systems” or even “deep psychological processes”. No one tries to pretend that consciousness is big enough or strong to do all the work alone.

When we are concerned about some aspect of our lives or relationships, the unconscious continues to work on the problem while consciousness is busy doing other things. Anyone who has ever had an “Aha!” moment has had the experience of things being brought together unconsciously and presented as a now obvious fact or solution.

Sleep on it!!

The unconscious attempts to offer us larger access to what we know.
One of the main ways that the unconscious is positively integrated in our lives is through dreams. Dreams contain attempts by the unconscious to bring us information and make the arguments that elaborate or counterbalance the conscious attitude.

Typically, our feelings about situations and persons are more complicated and nuanced than what positive thinking, common sense or good manners will endorse.
We have mixed feeling about most experiences.
The birth of a child brings joy but also a curtailment of freedom.
We love and admire our best friend but her success makes us jealous.
We think we want to study to be a lawyer but is it really our father’s dream for us?

Understanding our dreams helps us understand ourselves more fully.
When the conscious attitude agrees pretty well with the unconscious one, dreams will underline, endorse or strengthen belief and resolve… they support a feeling of confidence or “rightness”.
When consciousness overvalues a person or situation dreams may shrink it down to size by portraying it in an unpleasant or inferior way.
When consciousness does not sufficiently value a person, situation or goal the unconscious may elevate the idea, by symbolically representing it as appropriately precious.
Dreams can add new knowledge to consciousness, raise questions or suggest goals or things to be avoided.

A picture is worth a thousand words.
A huge amount of the information that we take in about the world is visual. Almost every important experience has a visual memory of people, places and things attached to it. Since most life knowledge and ideas are tied up in some way with visual images, it is not really surprising that images should be the material that the unconscious uses to represent its ideas.

Dream images may seem strange at first glance, but they are often proven on examination to be extremely accurate visual metaphors of a situation which concerns the dreamer.

A very personal point of view
There is no “one size fits all” in dream interpretation. The images in dreams are often often mysterious and bizarre, they may make reference to other times and places or show the dreamer as someone entirely other that what they are in reality.
Dream dictionaries should be used sparingly and treated mostly as sources of inspiration.
The dreamer is the only person who can say whether an interpretation “works”.

Dreams in Psychotherapy
A psychologist who works with dreams in therapy draws on her knowledge of the client’s life situation and life history as well as her training in typical patterns of human response. She works with her clients to understand the dream images in relation to what the client is struggling with or has experienced in life. Together they try to understand what particular relevance and associations that these images have for this particular individual.
Dream work in therapy contributes to the process of deepening self knowledge.
Understanding of the full range of their desires and responses permits the client to invent new possibilities for action and decision… to change their life in ways that make their desires and their actions more congruent.
Dream work deepens therapeutic intimacy and creates a collaborative atmosphere between therapist and client.

Brief therapy centered on dreams
Psychotherapeutic work with dreams may be part of an on-going therapy or may be helpful as a short term process which focuses on understanding a particular situation, for example:
In periods of normal transition such as life passages,
In periods of crisis,
When difficult decisions are being considered
When radically new life experiences must be assimilated.
Sometimes a particularly striking dream or dream series will evoke a desire to question or understand a current or past situation or experience. At these moments it may be helpful to consider working with a psychologist or therapist who will provide guidance and emotional support and help steady you as you explore the questions
that dream examination raises.

Dreams are part of our system of unconscious re-organization and creative problem solving. They pull the essence of a problematic situation out of the clutter of daily experience so we can see it more clearly. They remind us of what we have nearly forgotten, or of what we have tried to forget and bring together ideas that we knew separately but which click” and create new understanding when brought together. They help us see what we really desire and they point the way to future possibilities that grow out of past experiences.

Susan Meindl, MA, is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Montreal Canada. She has a special interest in Jungian ideas and practices a Jungian approach to psychodynamic psychotherapy

http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/59983

Why should we bother with dreams?
Aren’t dreams just nonsense…just neurons randomly firing?

Evolution has selected for dreaming.
Sleep researchers tell us that all humans and many animals dream several times every night. Dream sleep is so important that experimental subjects prevented from experiencing REM sleep, the part the sleep in which dreams occur, begin to hallucinate after just a couple of nights of deprivation. They effectively begin to dream when they are awake. It is that important to dream. The ability to dream has been evolutionarily selected for because it serves a vital function in human life.

Human beings in all times and places have examined dreams with interest and attention. Mythical and religious characters are portrayed as valuing and being influenced or changed by dreams. The ancient Greeks dedicated temples and trained priests and priestesses to interpret dreams. Sigmund Freud, the originator of psychoanalysis, out of which developed most other modern therapies, called dreams “The royal road to the unconscious” and Moses Maimonides, the famous Jewish philosopher is famous for saying that “A dream unexamined is like a letter unopened”

Psychoanalyst Paul Lipmann (2008) offers us the following list of what he feels that dreams offer:
They state and solve problems.
They express emotion subtle and loud.
They can express in images and stories those feelings and experiences those experiences that are most difficult to think or talk about when awake.
They can express hidden feelings about one’s relationship to powerful and less powerful others.
They can both dissociate and bind together aspects of traumatic or any experience.
They can help cover pain and shame or can rip apart a scab of defense.
They portray our current problems, past dilemmas, and future possibilities.
They gratify wishes.
They can give expression to the life not lived.

Dreams are unconscious products.
Cognitive psychologists tell us that we can hold approximately seven (plus or minus two if your memory is exceptionally good or bad) “chunks” of information in our minds at once.
That is seven digits in a phone number, seven items of a grocery list. That is not very many and yet we have access to a vast reservoir of memories, concepts and emotional experiences which are called up effortlessly and seamlessly into that famous set of seven chunks. And just as seamlessly those concepts not in immediate use slip out and are put. An amazing system when you think about it… effortless and taken for granted. But what is the system that reaches down and pulls up the information that is needed? Most of the time it is not “conscious intention.”

The unconscious is the system which receives, organizes and makes accessible all of the concepts and experiences that we own. It is simply impossible to be consciously aware of everything we know or to consciously make all the associations between facts that we must in order to make sense of our experience.

Importantly related facts, ideas and feelings may have been accumulated over a lifetime, arriving at different times and out of different life experiences. Consciousness, which is busy figuring out what to make for supper, rarely takes time to sniff around and explore all the potential associations… even to pressing life problems.

Fortunately we have an alternative system to do this work… psychoanalysts call this the personal unconscious . Cognitive researchers call it “automatic processing”,” implicit thought systems” or even “deep psychological processes”. No one tries to pretend that consciousness is big enough or strong to do all the work alone.

When we are concerned about some aspect of our lives or relationships, the unconscious continues to work on the problem while consciousness is busy doing other things. Anyone who has ever had an “Aha!” moment has had the experience of things being brought together unconsciously and presented as a now obvious fact or solution.

Sleep on it!!

The unconscious attempts to offer us larger access to what we know.
One of the main ways that the unconscious is positively integrated in our lives is through dreams. Dreams contain attempts by the unconscious to bring us information and make the arguments that elaborate or counterbalance the conscious attitude.

Typically, our feelings about situations and persons are more complicated and nuanced than what positive thinking, common sense or good manners will endorse.
We have mixed feeling about most experiences.
The birth of a child brings joy but also a curtailment of freedom.
We love and admire our best friend but her success makes us jealous.
We think we want to study to be a lawyer but is it really our father’s dream for us?

Understanding our dreams helps us understand ourselves more fully.
When the conscious attitude agrees pretty well with the unconscious one, dreams will underline, endorse or strengthen belief and resolve.
When consciousness overvalues a person or situation dreams may shrink it down to size by portraying it in an unpleasant way.
When consciousness does not sufficiently value a person, situation or goal the unconscious may elevate the idea, by symbolically representing it as appropriately precious.
Dreams can add new knowledge to consciousness, raise questions or suggest goals or things to be avoided.

A picture is worth a thousand words.
A huge amount of the information that we take in about the world is visual. Almost every important experience has a visual memory of people, places and things attached to it. Since most life knowledge and ideas are tied up in some way with visual images, it is not really surprising that images should be the material that the unconscious uses to represent its ideas.

Dream images may seem strange at first glance. but they are often proven on examination to be extremely accurate visual metaphors of a situation which concerns the dreamer.

A very personal point of view
There is no “one size fits all in dream interpretation. The images in dreams are often often mysterious and bizarre, they may make reference to other times and places or show the dreamer as someone entirely other that what they are in reality.
Dream dictionaries should be used sparingly and treated mostly as sources of inspiration.
The dreamer is the only person who can say whether an interpretation “works”.

Dreams in Psychotherapy
A psychologist who works with dreams in therapy draws on their knowledge of the client’s life situation and life history as well as their training in typical patterns of human response. They work with their clients to understand the dream images in relation to what the client is struggling with or has experienced in life. Together they try to understand what particular relevance and associations that these images have for this particular individual.
Dream work in therapy contributes to the process of deepening self knowledge.
Understanding of the full range of their desires and responses permits the client to invent new possibilities for action and decision… to change their life in ways that make their desires and their actions more congruent.
Dream work deepens therapeutic intimacy and creates a collaborative atmosphere between therapist and client.

Brief therapy centered on dreams
Psychotherapeutic work with dreams may be part of an on-going therapy or may be helpful as a short term process which focuses on understanding a particular situation, for example:
In periods of normal transition such as life passages,
In periods of crisis,
When difficult decisions are being considered
When radically new life experiences must be assimilated.
Sometimes a particularly striking dream or dream series will evoke a desire to question or understand a current or past situation or experience.
At these moments it may be helpful to consider working with a psychologist or therapist who will provide guidance and emotional support and help steady you as you explore the questions
that dream examination raises.

Dreams are part of our system of unconscious re-organization and creative problem solving. They pull the essence of a problematic situation out of the clutter of daily experience so we can see it more clearly. They remind us of what we have nearly forgotten, or of what we have tried to forget and bring together ideas that we knew separately but which click” and create new understanding when brought together. They help us see what we really desire and they point the way to future possibilities that grow out of past experiences.

Susan Meindl, MA, is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Montreal Canada. She has a special interest in Jungian ideas and practices a Jungian approach to psychodynamic psychotherapy

http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/59983

In 1972, Thomas Nagel first introduced what is now known as the “epistemic gap” amongst contemporary philosophers. It was described in his paper “What Is It Like To Be A Bat?” and the gist of the argument was this: one cannot fully understand the mind unless one is experiencing that mind.

Nagel took the example of a bat because bats are so fascinatingly different than humans; they hang upside down most of the time, use echolocation, they are nocturnal, and most eat nothing but insects. Could a human ever convincingly claim that he knew what it was like to be a bat? Nagel didn’t believe this was possible – I agree.

Can the same be true amongst humans? Can another human fully understand the mind of another, or, does one have to be in the first-person to understand the mind more clearly?

Philosopher Frank Jackson wrote a paper in 1982 titled “Epiphenomenal Qualia” where he introduced the famous thought experiment known as Mary’s room. It goes like this:

“Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. (…) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete.”

These arguments by Frank Jackson and Thomas Nagel are two of the most famous papers in support of the idea of qualia – a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. It is an idea often associated with the mind/body dualism (the belief that the mind is in some-part nonphysical, and therefore a separate entity from our physical bodies).

The epistemic gap does not prove any such thing however, and it is perfectly compatible with a materialist view of the mind. The real questions that the epistemic gap provokes is within the field of psychology and the scientific method itself.

Science is science – we believe – because of its objective, empirical, and third-person approach to knowledge. Science has often given men the ability to step outside of the happenings of natural phenomena, study them, test them, replicate their findings, and come to conclusions.

There is no doubting the breakthroughs and advancements science has come to offer man throughout the centuries. It would be foolish to deny these achievements.

Even in Western psychology (which is quite a young field relative to the natural sciences), researchers have made incredibly discoveries of the mind and how it works. We have devised useful models for how the mind perceives sensations (Psychophysics), how it processes information, stores memories, and solves problems (Cognitive Psychology), how the mind changes throughout the human lifespan (Developmental Psychology), how the mind builds associations and how these associations affect our behaviors (Learning or Experimental Psychology), how the brain or the “physical anatomy of the mind” works (Neuropsychology), and we’ve been given the chance to take all of this information and apply it to a variety of other fields: Clinical Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Sport Psychology, and even Forensic Psychology.

There is no denying the leaps psychology has made, all in the name of proper science. This is knowledge we would likely have not gotten any other way if it were not for the extraordinary and rigorous scientific method.

However, there is good reason to believe that Nagel and Jackson are right and that we cannot fully explain or understand a mind from an outside view. This is the belief that once science carries out its full course of discoveries that there will be something left unsaid about the mind (our understanding of the mind could never be as complete as our understanding of the physics on our planet). Unless – we redefine science.

But I believe we already have the techniques used to fully understand a mind – or at the very least, our own mind.

To understand this technique properly, we need to first drift away from the Western logical positivist philosophy of “if you can’t measure it, then it isn’t real,” which I believe has plagued much of modern day intellectual thought. Instead, I turn to the philosophies of the East – who have been studying the mind far, far longer and far more thoroughly than the West.

In particular I am fond of Buddhism which – like Western Science – takes pride in an objective approach to the study of phenomena. But there is a important property of the mind that Buddhists acknowledge and scientists go out of their way to ignore: the mind is – before all else – something that must be experienced first-person, or it wouldn’t be a mind at all.

This brings me to the practice of meditation – or more generally – a mindfulness of our inner worlds. There is a world in all of us that is subjective, personal, and completely our own. We cannot let anyone in it no matter how colorful our language or how much experience we share with another human being – it is ours and ours alone – and there are aspects to it that can only be dealt with by our self; no therapist, psychologist, family member, friend, scientist or spouse can ever figure it out for you.

Neither Buddhism or Science can rightfully claim to know how to bridge the gap between the subjective and objective. Both try their best to be objective at different vantage points: Science takes a third-person empirical approach while Buddhism takes a first-person empirical approach. Why can’t the study of the mind include both?

There is a fast growing interest in the West in meditative practices, yoga, tai chi, and other mind/body, holistic and alternative medicines for physical and mental health. This suggests there might be a vacancy in the West’s psyche, perhaps due to a combination of an incomplete scientific view of the mind along with an overwhelming nihilistic and atheistic attitude toward what would be deemed the spiritual or “mystic” aspects of man.

Many of these so called mystical practices are lumped into the demeaning pop psychology term “New Age.” Followers of so called New Age practices are said to be gullible and weak-minded – and perhaps some of them are. But it is also my belief that introspection and reflection on one’s mind can be the most rewarding and therapeutic practice for better mental health, the sharpening of one’s mental skill set, and a complete understanding of how the mind truly works (in the context of how it operates in the head of the individual and not by inference of a third-person observer).

Because of this I am very welcoming of these alternative and non-scientific studies of the mind. I in no way mean to deter scientific practices (I believe their should always be a science of the mind and a scientific study of human psychology), but I will stand up for the little guy on this one – science is not the giant be-all end-all of knowledge. It has its limitations, and we must be open to alternative studies of the mind. Sometimes we should turn our senses inward — and we may find there is some gold of truth to be discovered.

http://www.theemotionmachine.com

In 1972, Thomas Nagel first introduced what is now known as the “epistemic gap” amongst contemporary philosophers. It was described in his paper “What Is It Like To Be A Bat?” and the gist of the argument was this: one cannot fully understand the mind unless one is experiencing that mind.

Nagel took the example of a bat because bats are so fascinatingly different than humans; they hang upside down most of the time, use echolocation, they are nocturnal, and most eat nothing but insects. Could a human ever convincingly claim that he knew what it was like to be a bat? Nagel didn’t believe this was possible – I agree.

Can the same be true amongst humans? Can another human fully understand the mind of another, or, does one have to be in the first-person to understand the mind more clearly?

Philosopher Frank Jackson wrote a paper in 1982 titled “Epiphenomenal Qualia” where he introduced the famous thought experiment known as Mary’s room. It goes like this:

“Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. (…) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete.”

These arguments by Frank Jackson and Thomas Nagel are two of the most famous papers in support of the idea of qualia – a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. It is an idea often associated with the mind/body dualism (the belief that the mind is in some-part nonphysical, and therefore a separate entity from our physical bodies).

The epistemic gap does not prove any such thing however, and it is perfectly compatible with a materialist view of the mind. The real questions that the epistemic gap provokes is within the field of psychology and the scientific method itself.

Science is science – we believe – because of its objective, empirical, and third-person approach to knowledge. Science has often given men the ability to step outside of the happenings of natural phenomena, study them, test them, replicate their findings, and come to conclusions.

There is no doubting the breakthroughs and advancements science has come to offer man throughout the centuries. It would be foolish to deny these achievements.

Even in Western psychology (which is quite a young field relative to the natural sciences), researchers have made incredibly discoveries of the mind and how it works. We have devised useful models for how the mind perceives sensations (Psychophysics), how it processes information, stores memories, and solves problems (Cognitive Psychology), how the mind changes throughout the human lifespan (Developmental Psychology), how the mind builds associations and how these associations affect our behaviors (Learning or Experimental Psychology), how the brain or the “physical anatomy of the mind” works (Neuropsychology), and we’ve been given the chance to take all of this information and apply it to a variety of other fields: Clinical Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Sport Psychology, and even Forensic Psychology.

There is no denying the leaps psychology has made, all in the name of proper science. This is knowledge we would likely have not gotten any other way if it were not for the extraordinary and rigorous scientific method.

However, there is good reason to believe that Nagel and Jackson are right and that we cannot fully explain or understand a mind from an outside view. This is the belief that once science carries out its full course of discoveries that there will be something left unsaid about the mind (our understanding of the mind could never be as complete as our understanding of the physics on our planet). Unless – we redefine science.

But I believe we already have the techniques used to fully understand a mind – or at the very least, our own mind.

To understand this technique properly, we need to first drift away from the Western logical positivist philosophy of “if you can’t measure it, then it isn’t real,” which I believe has plagued much of modern day intellectual thought. Instead, I turn to the philosophies of the East – who have been studying the mind far, far longer and far more thoroughly than the West.

In particular I am fond of Buddhism which – like Western Science – takes pride in an objective approach to the study of phenomena. But there is a important property of the mind that Buddhists acknowledge and scientists go out of their way to ignore: the mind is – before all else – something that must be experienced first-person, or it wouldn’t be a mind at all.

This brings me to the practice of meditation – or more generally – a mindfulness of our inner worlds. There is a world in all of us that is subjective, personal, and completely our own. We cannot let anyone in it no matter how colorful our language or how much experience we share with another human being – it is ours and ours alone – and there are aspects to it that can only be dealt with by our self; no therapist, psychologist, family member, friend, scientist or spouse can ever figure it out for you.

Neither Buddhism or Science can rightfully claim to know how to bridge the gap between the subjective and objective. Both try their best to be objective at different vantage points: Science takes a third-person empirical approach while Buddhism takes a first-person empirical approach. Why can’t the study of the mind include both?

There is a fast growing interest in the West in meditative practices, yoga, tai chi, and other mind/body, holistic and alternative medicines for physical and mental health. This suggests there might be a vacancy in the West’s psyche, perhaps due to a combination of an incomplete scientific view of the mind along with an overwhelming nihilistic and atheistic attitude toward what would be deemed the spiritual or “mystic” aspects of man.

Many of these so called mystical practices are lumped into the demeaning pop psychology term “New Age.” Followers of so called New Age practices are said to be gullible and weak-minded – and perhaps some of them are. But it is also my belief that introspection and reflection on one’s mind can be the most rewarding and therapeutic practice for better mental health, the sharpening of one’s mental skill set, and a complete understanding of how the mind truly works (in the context of how it operates in the head of the individual and not by inference of a third-person observer).

Because of this I am very welcoming of these alternative and non-scientific studies of the mind. I in no way mean to deter scientific practices (I believe their should always be a science of the mind and a scientific study of human psychology), but I will stand up for the little guy on this one – science is not the giant be-all end-all of knowledge. It has its limitations, and we must be open to alternative studies of the mind. Sometimes we should turn our senses inward — and we may find there is some gold of truth to be discovered.

http://www.theemotionmachine.com

“Behaviour is ultimately the product of the brain, the most mysterious organ of them all.” Ian Tattersall (from Becoming Human.Evolution and Human Uniqueness, 1998)

The question of why we are motivated to certain behaviours is perhaps one of the most fundamental in Psychology. Since Pavlov described conditioning in dogs in his famous 1927 paper, scientists have pondered the origins of motivations that drive us to action. For most of the early twentieth century, behaviourists like Watson & Skinner sought to explain behaviour in terms of external physical stimuli, suggesting that learned responses, hedonic reward and reinforcement were motives to elicit a particular behaviour. However, this does not tell the whole story. In the last few decades, the school of cognitive psychology has focused on additional mechanisms of motivation: our desires according to social and cultural factors having an influence on behaviour. Furthermore, recent advances in neuroimaging technology have allowed scientists an insight into the vast complexities and modular nature of specific brain regions. This research has shown that behaviours necessary for survival also have an inherent biological basis.

The biological trigger for inherent behaviours such as eating, drinking and temperature control can be traced to the hypothalamus, an area of the diencephalon. This article will explore the hypothalamic role in such motivated behaviours. It is important to note that a motivated behaviour resulting from internal hypothalamic stimuli is only one aspect of what is a complex and integrated response.

The hypothalamus links the autonomic nervous system to the endocrine system and serves many vital functions. It is the homeostatic ‘control centre’ of the body, maintaining a balanced internal environment by having specific regulatory areas for body temperature, body weight, osmotic balance and blood pressure. It can be categorised as having three main outputs: the autonomic nervous system, the endocrine system and motivated behavioural response. The central role of the hypothalamus in motivated behaviour was proposed as early as 1954 by Eliot Stellar who suggested that “the amount of motivated behaviour is a direct function of the amount of activity in certain excitatory centres of the hypothalamus” (p6). This postulation has inspired a wealth of subsequent research.

Much of this research has been in the field of thermoregulation. The body’s ability to maintain a steady internal environment is of critical importance for survivalas many crucialbiochemical reactions will only function within a narrow temperature range. In 1961, Nakayama et al discovered thermosensitive neurons in the medial preoptic area of the hypothalamus. Subsequent research showed that stimulation of the hypothalamic region initiated humoral and visceromotor responses such as panting, shivering, sweating, vasodilation and vasoconstriction. However, somatic motor responses are also initiated by the lateral hypothalamus. It is much more effective to move around, rub your hands together or put on extra clothes if you are feeling cold. Similarly, if you are too warm you might remove some clothing or fan yourself to cool down. These motivated behaviours demonstrate that in contrast to a fixed stimulus response, motivated behaviour stimulated by the hypothalamus has a variable relationship between input and output. This interaction with our external environment may be a ‘choice’, however it is clear that the motivation to make these choices has a biological basis.

The mechanics of thermoregulation can be explained by what is sometimes referred to as ‘drive states’. This is essentially a feedback loop that is initiated by an internal stimulus which requires an external response. Kendal (2000) defines drive states as “characterised by tension and discomfort due to a physiological need followed by relief when the need is satisfied”. The process begins with the input. Temperature changes are picked up from peripheral surroundings by thermoreceptive neurons throughout body which sense both warmth and cold separately. An electrical signal (the input) is then sent to the brain. Any divergence from what is known as the ’set point’ – in this case a temperature of approx 37° – will then be identified as an ‘error signal’ by interoceptive neurons in the periventricular region of the hypothalamus. Armed with these measurements and temperature signals being relayed from the blood, the hypothalamus then launches an appropriate error response. This includes motivating behaviour to make a physical adjustment, e.g. to move around or remove surplus clothing in an attempt to control your temperature.

This type of feedback system in the body is common. Other systems necessary for survival such as regulation of blood salt and water levels are regulated in a similar way. However, the processes that motivate us to eat is much more complex.

Humans have evolved an intricate physiological system to regulate food intake which encompasses a myriad of organs, hormones and bodily systems. Furthermore, a wealth of experimental research supports the idea that the hypothalamus plays a key role in this energy homeostasis by triggering feeding behaviours. Controlling energy balance is of crucial importance and eating is primarily to maintain fat stores in the event of food shortage. If fat cell reserves in the body are low, they release a hormone called leptin which is detected as an error signal by the periventricular region of the hypothalamus. This then stimulates the lateral hypothalamus to initiate the error response. In this case, we start to feel hungry which in turns initates the somatic motor response by motivating us to eat .

Since the hypothalamus also controls metabolic rate by monitoring blood sugar levels, in theory we seem to have a similar feedback loop to temperature control. However in practice this is not a reality. The main difficulty in maintaining energy homeostasis is that motivation does not rise solely from internal biological influences. Cultural and social factors also play an important part in motivation about when, what and how often to eat. In western culture, social pressures to be thin can override the need to eat and in extreme cases like anorexia the drive state becomes reversed. The motivation is no longer to eat because they are hungry but is instead not to eat so they do feel hungry. This corruption of the reward system is well documented and is associated with delusions of body image, a concept which is also linked to the hypothalamus and the parietal lobe. Problems can also occur if an individual receives over stimulation to eat. The prevalence of obesity in today’s society is testament to this fact.

Author: Kellieanne McMillan (Glasgow University, BSc Neuroscience)