I’ve studied Psychology, Neuroscience and Human Behavior for 10+ Years. AMA.

[lowtek]

Sorry I missed this one. Yes, I have taken psychedelics.

We use the term ‘altered consciousness’ in English, but I don’t know if I would call it that. I’d say it’s ‘altered perception.’ 'Altered consciousness’ is an expression, but one can argue that it’s the perception being altered rather than the consciousness itself.

There are essentially two schools go thought on this.

The first is a mechanistic view of the brain, where the brain is a machine and the starting point. The second view is that the brain is not the starting point, but second down the line.

In other words who is driving this vehicle.

It really boils down to questions of free will and the reason I shied away from the question initially is because these conversations get kinda heated sometimes, and even if it doesn't it’s the type of topic that derails threads (like it kind of did here,) and I wanted to keep this topic focused mainly on Psychology as it relates to business and entrepreneurship, but since this thread has already gone to sh*t, I’ll bite.

The scientific perspective is that it’s electrical activity in the brain. If you want to get technical NO it’s not actually electricity in the way a light bulb is, As Mr Scott so kindly pointed out but neurons communicating. The strictly scientific view is that consciousness is brain activity. Do most scientists strictly believe that? In my experience, I find that most think that there’s more to life than random chemical reactions in the brain. Even strict Atheists (Sam Harris being one) are kinda like “wellllllll.” I don’t know that consciousness is ‘outside the brain’, but I also don’t know that it’s just random chemical reactions. But there are many philosophical views on this. Essentially the question boils down to “is the brain running the show, or something behind that.” Without being crude it’s essentially the idea of ‘spirit,’ ‘soul’ etc. Is there a driver of this car or is this car driving itself? I mean it’s highly philosophical.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a fairly open and shut case.

1) The fact that mind altering substances can result in personality shifts and altered states of consciousness demonstrates that the brain is central to the phenomenological experience of consciousness
2) If there is some sort of driver other than the brain, the fact that behavior, memory, and perception can be so strongly altered through physical or chemical means indicates that the driver and the brain are so linked that they are practically the same.
3) Free will is purely an illusion, I would argue. We believe we have it because our when faced with a choice, we can imagine making any one of the seeming choices. However, simply imagining something does not make it real. I can imagine flying purple elephants, but they do not exist. What reason, other than my own imagination, do I have to believe that I could choose any differently than I have?

Also, the "random chemical reactions" thing is a straw man. Chemistry obeys the laws of physics, which is quite ordered. Startlingly complex phenomenon can arise as the consequence of only a few very simple laws.

For instance, Magnetism in magnetic materials, occurs as a consequence of a very simple rule: individual electrons will tend to align their spins in the direction of their nearest neighbors. This gives some materials (iron, for example) a net magnetic moment. It also means that those same materials can magnetize strongly in the presence of an external magnetic field. A rule governing the behavior of individual electrons results in bulk behavior in a macroscopic material.

Even cooler, if you subject some materials, under the right conditions, to time varying magnetic fields, the spins form a wave that propagates through the material (spin waves). All this rich and complex behavior comes from that one simple rule.

IMHO, and obviously this is not a settled matter, consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of systems that can process information at some critical threshold. There is a gradient in that processing capability, which is why we see evidence of phenomenological consciousness and higher intelligence, to some degree, in certain animals (elephants, dolphins, chimps, squids, in particular). It's also why when we ingest compounds that interfere with perception (i.e. interfere with our ability to process information) that we get altered states of consciousness.

 

[AFMKelvin]

Personally I think we need to get rid of these labels.
Labels Are for Food, Not People | John Shaw | TEDxLafayetteCollege
Don't put people in Boxes.
Don't Put People in Boxes

Oh yeah take the label away from the doctor so anyone can claim to be a doctor.

Labels will never go away. The only thing you can change is how you judge the labels.

And those TEDx talks are getting ridiculous. Just because they have good recording equipment, fancy camera and lighting angles does not make their opinion anymore important than a hobo living under a bridge.

 

[lowtek]

with respect to experts abusing their expertise:

As far as psych majors abusing their knowledge, that's highly doubtful. Most of the psych majors are morons, barely a step above the gender/cultural studies types. I'm being generous here. Those that are intelligent enough to leverage their knowledge are probably mostly good people and have no interest in manipulation. Those that are interested in manipulation probably started doing this early in life, and don't need the theoretical knowledge from what is essentially a quack pseudoscience, these days.

As far as my knowledge of physics, nope. It doesn't carry over to real life, for the most part. Driving may be a small exception, but I certainly can't play billiards. And that's because theoretical knowledge doesn't transfer over into the hand and eye coordination required to leverage the knowledge.

Where knowledge of physics DOES come in handy, is when I see new age woo type quackery that references "quantum mechanics". Anything that says you can manifest your reality because "an observer changes the observed" is grossly misinformed or deliberately lying. Certainly you can influence your reality and change the outcome of your life, but that has nothing to do with QM. It actually has more to do with psychology, in fact.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Hi Chris, thanks for taking the time to do this.

Question: What is the difference between the unconscious and the subconscious?

Nothing. Subconscious and Unconscious are used interchangeably.

But there’s no real definition of what the subconscious or unconscious mind even is, so it would really depend on who you ask. They’re vague terms not recognized by science.

To understand, i’ll point out the difference between the brain and the mind. The mind is basically what the brain does. The mind is software, the brain is hardware.

But I would define the subconscious as the part of the brain that doesn’t use language. if we’re using language, it’s conscious. if we’re using emotion, it’s subconscious. so if you have a “subconscious thought” it’s simply a feeling that pops up. Same with the unconscious.

you could argue that th unconscious is even deeper than the subconscious, but again, depends on who you ask since they’re not exactly defined terms.

If you want something more scientific the Triune brain model is helpful.

You have the very old limbic system, and the very new neocortex. The limbic system is what we share in common with lizards. it feels pain, fear, hunger, etc. Neocortex does math, poetry, statistics.

but to answer your question: they’re the same things usually, but sometimes “unconscious” refers to even more primal, animalistic survival needs, that are very low on Maslow hierarchy

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dubidu]

I'd ask the same for the masculine soul "what does a man want?"

I'd also ask how do idiots and truly sociopathic people (when the sociopathy is patently obvious to everyone) get ahead in the corporate world? I can provide a whole collection of samples around me for study!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[daivey]

And there is none, I was screwing around a while ago and I think when I made this account it just synced with my Facebook so that’s the pic it pulled from my Facebook profile picture at the time. Just haven’t gotten around to changing it.

well it's fitting I guess. I see a crazy person in a picture, and here we have a crazy person talking about psychopaths, sociopaths.

lol

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The Abundant Man]

Last week i read about neuromarketing. That was a very interesting topic because i notíced many marketers are taking neuroscience study and test in order to understand how peoples behavior and mind works when they are submitted to any action (product or service) that could generate a response.
So, do you think the gurus take this useful tool to improve their " (sh't) product/service that give value to people"?
Another question: do you have material or know books about neuromarketing or about the importance of emotions in people's decisions when they choose what to buy?

Spent by Dr. Geoffrey Miller(Professor of Evolutionary Psychology) is a fantastic book about how our sexual evolution and mating choices affect modern day consumerism.

 

[Ayanle Farah]

Psychologists tend to be passive people in the sense they like to sit back and observe the world and people around them but never get their butt in gear.

They'd rather have an audience to share their opinions with who tell them how great they are.

You remind me of Jordan Petersson.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

I think psychology is the cornerstone of selling. And I figured since there are a ton of marketers and curious individuals this might be a good place if anyone has any general questions about psychology neuroscience or human behavior. I’ve studied it formally and informally, in classes and on my own. So anyway... if any of you guys have any questions, whether it be personal or marketing related: post them up here.

I’ll post citations/evidence to the best of my ability as well.

Feel free to take these in any direction. I'm asking from a place of ignorance, so the wording may not be accurate.

Self

1. What's the biggest force that changes people? or maybe, how do the following impact change in personality, mannerisms, etc.:
   1. being around people different than you
   2. being in a static environment
   3. aging
   4. External stimuli like commercials and news
   5. Microdosing / Psychedelics
   6. ???
2. Is a change in personality possible, or do we have a narrow corridor we can wiggle around, based on our genes?
3. What causes relapses in new habit formations?

Marketing

1. If we actually do, why does do Pain Points impact us at 2x the rate of Pleasure Points?
2. Do people really want different things, or is there an underlying mechanism for all decisions? (I understand the wanting to mate, survive, and pass on genes. Let's go 1 level above that.)

Other

1. What's a lesser know, yet highly important fact about human nature that you know?
2. ... about marketing psychology?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CROJosh]

I’ve studied it formally and informally, in classes and on my own.

But what have you done professionally to prove any of your theories correct?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[loop101]

I think psychology is the cornerstone of selling. And I figured since there are a ton of marketers and curious individuals this might be a good place if anyone has any general questions about psychology neuroscience or human behavior. I’ve studied it formally and informally, in classes and on my own. So anyway... if any of you guys have any questions, whether it be personal or marketing related: post them up here.

I’ll post citations/evidence to the best of my ability as well.

What produces consciousness?

 

[Ayanle Farah]

Jordan Peterson is 100x more successful than you will ever ever ever be. So thank you.

Anyway, if you don’t have a question, please go to another thread. Thank you.

Jordan Peterson has a net worth of $1.5M as of 2018. I'll be 100x more successful than him.

Anyway, I see you've been around for a while since 2015, so my question is: What have you done related to entrepreneurship?

 

[ChrisV]

1. If we actually do, why does do Pain Points impact us at 2x the rate of Pleasure Points?

People are wired to pay more attention to negative information than positive. Historically in hunter/gather times if a caveman came in contact with a lion it was more disastrous than him missing a reward, say an apple patch.



The rest of your question I’ll get to in a minute.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Okay, I’m not sure how to answer that. I feel like there’s something behind that… like there’s another question behind those.

Not sure how to reword that. Feel free to interpret it as you see fit.

1. What causes relapses in new habit formations?

Elaborate if you can

Things like triggers that cause you to go back to the old way, and waning motivation/drive.

This is GOLD

Skinner was able to get animals to perform all kinds of complex behaviors by stringing together rewards. He was able to get pigs to put money in a piggy bank. He was able to teach Pigeons to play ping pong.

Everything humans do is because we perceive that action will help us gain pleasure/reward or avoid punishment/pain.

Read that again. Notice it says “we perceive that action will help us gain pleasure.” We do not react to the event or stimulus itself, but of our perception of it. It is our thoughts about a event that creates the response, not the event itself.

The lesson here is: If we can change our perceptions of what’s pleasurable and painful, we can change our actions.

Our brains weigh the pros and cons of any given action, and whichever side has more weight on it will be the side that wins, and in a case like this gentleman we would want to weaken, unlink and minimize the fear of rejection while strengthening the perception of reward in meeting nice women with whom he may be compatable. This gentleman can be taught to easily speak with women by decreasing the perception of pain [fear] and increasing perception of pleasure [meeting a nice woman,] and can actually be taught to enjoy it.

 

[ChrisV]

Electrical signals and chemical reactions in your brain

Didn’t wanna go there, lol.

Looking at it purely scientifically: yes.

But then you have to ask yourself if you believe that’s all there is to life. This is a complex topic and scientifically we’re just starting to understand consciousness. I mean three are a number of reasons I shied away from getting into all this.

 

[lludwig]

I don't know there's a short time to conceive. Women have babies at every age from teen age to even during menopause. I would say that's a long span of the opportunity to conceive. People used to have huge families. Today we just control it with birth control and choose not to get pregnant.

Technology has helped but compared to males which can have children from teen to dead it is much different. Even with technology, it becomes increasingly more difficult as a woman gets past 35 to get pregnant, plus complications for the woman and the baby.

 

[lludwig]

I touched upon this in the simulation thread. Do we have freewill. I'm cautiously saying we don't.

As individuals, it may be debatable.

As a group? Patterns easily emerge:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~neill/papers/mlss2012.pdf

Patterns yes, outright simuations and no freewill no.

If this were the case then economics would be an outright science and would always be right.

 

[ChrisV]

Long story short, there's a not-well-understood brain structure called the "claustrum" that is buried deep within the brain, but terminates neurons that reach many other parts of the cerebral cortex. A lot of researchers (including Francis Crick -- one of the guys who received the Nobel Prize for discovering the DNA double helix) think that the claustrum may be the gatekeeper for consciousness.

Okay, I need to clarify... It really depends on what we mean by ‘consciousness.’ There’s a lot of research into what areas of the brain cause the perception of consciousness, etc

But okay... let’s say it’s 2099. We build a robot that literally has every ability a human has. It can process information, hold conversations.. in fact, if you spoke to one you wouldn’t even know you were talking to a robot.

That robot would have movement. But it would not be ‘life.’

Look arounds you. Look at your computer or Smartphone. You have a first person point of view.

But who is in there?

Who is it that is driving that body?

In the robot, there is nobody actually in there. You can punch it in the face and it will feel no pain. Becasdue there’s no one in there to feel pain. There’s no driver to that car.

I mean I’m sure we’ll find the part of the brain that allows us to perceive life, but does it really answer “who is in there?” Is it really just electrical impulses between neurons? I don’t think Science is qualified to answer that. I just don’t think it’s an answer you can answer with Science.

 

[Niptuck MD]

great thread really thought provoking questions here. a whole topic can be done on scandinavian women, by far the hardest to understand.

 

[loop101]

I have studied consciousness for a long time. It is a topic that is quickly reduced to the fundamental questions about the "self", "reality", "truth", "life", "death", "free will", "determinism", etc. People have struggled with these questions since there have been people, and yet it is possible to resolve these questions.

The people who have figured this stuff out are generally referred to as "enlightened", in the Eastern sense. I don't usually talk about it, because I'm not one of them, despite being on the path for a long time.

All the questions in this thread can be reduced to "Who are you?". For example, you ask "Do I have Free Will?". Well, who are you? The idea of "Free Will" implies an actor, an action, and something acted upon. How are these separate things? If you are not separate from Reality, why do you say you are doing something rather than say "everything is doing something"? Why don't you see your "self" as Reality tricking itself? If you say, "Because, I experience Reality!" , that is a rephrasing of Descartes "I think therefore I am". Descartes knows that he exists, though he is unsure about the rest of reality. Everything else could be the "little devil" in his head.

In the East, their culture took the opposite view. They are certain Reality exists, but not so sure about their "self". They will ask questions like "Who were you before your parents were born?", and have notions about the body being a collection of sense organs that as a group can create the false sense of a "self". the Western and Eastern philosophers both assume the "Self" is separate from the "other".

How do you know what is true? If I tell you the stove is hot, is it? You have to experience it to know it is true. If you dream the stove is hot, is it? There is one sensation that people sleeping never experience, it is assumed the brain is incapable of it. Do you know what it is? It is pain. Pain is the only way we can tell what is real or not. When Zen students get to a point where they question if Reality exists, the teacher reigns them in with an appropriately named "Zen stick".

I use to think "enlightenment" was only an Eastern thing. It turns out there are tons of people who have made this trip, there are unfortunately about 100x more that claim to have. If you had no sense of "Self", and experienced life as a kind of inward-gazing eyeball-of-reality, how would your life be? Would you worry about dying? Your legacy? Your anything? If you were 100% certain that YOU ARE REALITY, would you fear anything, want to gain anything? What the F*ck would you want to gain? A new Lambo?

The Zen monasteries in Japan are built on the best land, because the Samurai gave it to them. Why? Because the Zen Masters were not afraid of dying, and many died proving that. The Samurai respected the Zen masters, and some became their students, leading to the "-dos", like "ken-do", "karate-do", "aki-do", etc. Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is all around you, you just have to see it. The Taoists says the Tao is like water, and the seekers are like the fish in the water. It is all the same thing. All these religions and philosophies (at their best), are paths to resolve the fundamental deception of the "self". As the Korean master Seung Sahn once said, "There are always a lot of problems, but you won't have any when there is no You".

IMHO, TMFL is about finding an optimized and monetized way of helping the most people possible, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not even incompatible with "spiritual enlightenment". It *is* incompatible with goals of optimizing the "self". "Self-improvement", "self-enrichment", "self-control" - all are walking the razors edge between being useful and condemning you to the fear of loss-of-self.

I know ChrisV means well, and I hope people don't start bashing him if he fumbles on the questions I described above. No one has the answer to those questions. You have to be the answer, to know the answer. I'm sure he has a ton of knowledge about the brain and how it functions, and it is always good to know a good mechanic for when things go wrong.

Water is a universal solvent. Given enough time, it can wear down mountains or dig the Grand Canyon. It basically always works, if not slowly. Stillness of body and mind always works in dissolving the "self". There might be better ways for you, there are as many paths to "spiritual enlightenment" as there are people. The zen masters I have known usually had mediated for 10-30 years before losing their sense of "self". On the other hand, the Australian spiritual teacher (and sex addict), Barry Long, once said, "If it takes you 30 years of sitting to reach Enlightenment, MAYBE YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" The Buddha took 9 years, and Maura O'Halloran took 3 (before she was killed).

If you really Really REALLY want to know the answers to the "big" questions, I would not discourage anyone from looking. Spiritual "growth" and serving others *should* be synergistic, but often are antagonistic. For example, if you are projecting an image of a "successful you" to other business people during the day, and trying to peel away the "you" at night, it would probably feel like you were pursuing two extremely difficult and mutually exclusive goals. Most businesses fail, but entrepreneurs simply keep creating new ones, and they only need one success to make it worthwhile - spiritual seeking is exactly the same.

 

[ChrisV]

Have you ever taken psychedelics? If consciousness were outside the brain, then it doesn't make sense that you could eat a mushroom and so severely alter your consciousness.

Sorry I missed this one. Yes, I have taken psychedelics.

We use the term ‘altered consciousness’ in English, but I don’t know if I would call it that. I’d say it’s ‘altered perception.’ 'Altered consciousness’ is an expression, but one can argue that it’s the perception being altered rather than the consciousness itself.

There are essentially two schools go thought on this.

The first is a mechanistic view of the brain, where the brain is a machine and the starting point. The second view is that the brain is not the starting point, but second down the line.

In other words who is driving this vehicle.

It really boils down to questions of free will and the reason I shied away from the question initially is because these conversations get kinda heated sometimes, and even if it doesn't it’s the type of topic that derails threads (like it kind of did here,) and I wanted to keep this topic focused mainly on Psychology as it relates to business and entrepreneurship, but since this thread has already gone to shit, I’ll bite.

The scientific perspective is that it’s electrical activity in the brain. If you want to get technical NO it’s not actually electricity in the way a light bulb is, As Mr Scott so kindly pointed out but neurons communicating. The strictly scientific view is that consciousness is brain activity. Do most scientists strictly believe that? In my experience, I find that most think that there’s more to life than random chemical reactions in the brain. Even strict Atheists (Sam Harris being one) are kinda like “wellllllll.” I don’t know that consciousness is ‘outside the brain’, but I also don’t know that it’s just random chemical reactions. But there are many philosophical views on this. Essentially the question boils down to “is the brain running the show, or something behind that.” Without being crude it’s essentially the idea of ‘spirit,’ ‘soul’ etc. Is there a driver of this car or is this car driving itself? I mean it’s highly philosophical.

 

[ChrisV]

@lowtek

I mean I’m on the fence on the matter.

Yes, as a human who evolved, I’ve come preprogrammed. I like pretty women. I like food. I’m designed to seek wealth and status. These are all things that evolution decided were good for the survival of my genes. I don’t really have the free will to like these things or not. I’m just born with them.

And no, the reactions aren’t strictly random. I say that as a little bit of hyperbole. The question being: Is life just molecules colliding with each other and bonding and breaking apart, or is that just the means to an end that life uses to be life. I used to be strictly on the side of “Free will is illusory,” bot now a days I take somewhat more of an agnostic view.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

Is it true that psychologists and student psychologists make use of their knowledge of psychology, to completely and absolutely manipulate/leverage the people around them to give themselves maximum results in life?

(e.g: when you talk to a psychology friend, he/she will observe and analyse every single word you speak, then come up with ways to make use of you to benefit themselves, in every single interaction etc.)

Ummmmm, I certainly use my knowledge of psychology to my advantage. Definitely not to manipulate people though. Knowledge of psychology doesn’t remove your morality or change your motives. Example: I use a lot of Cialdini's research on influence in my everyday behavior, as I’m sure many people on this forum can relate to.

But I think it’s like any topic that you know about. Let’s say you were a physicist. I feel like your knowledge of physics would subtly affect your behavior. For example if you were playing football you could use your knowledge of trajectory and wind resistance to make a better throw. Or if you were driving and it was raining out, I feel like your knowledge of velocity would change the way you hit the brakes a round a corner. Playing pool. That’s actually an interesting question.

What do you think @lowtek - would you say that’s accurate in your experience?

There have been a number of notable cases where Mathematicians or Statisticians have figured out an angle, went to Vegas, and made a killing. And even aside from drastic examples like that i think knowledge of probability would alter your behavior in the casino floor (most likely you would never go lol.)

But if Psychology students use their knowledge to manipulate people? I don’t find that to be true. The annoying ones use their knowledge to psychoanalyze people, then when you get into an argument with them they’ll say some dumb shit about your ‘real’ motives. My mom has a Masters in Psychology and she does that. It’s absurdly annoying. But it depends on the person. I find that most don’t even do that though.

But to answer your question... that type of behavior is sociopathic and predatory. So would a psychology student/graduate do that? Only if they’re sociopathic and predatory people.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ApparentHorizon]

Why do you think it’s anecdotal? It’s from the same research I linked to in the other thread.

On the other hand, “slackers” who are less willing to work hard for a reward had high dopamine levels in another brain area that plays a role in emotion and risk perception, the anterior insula.
I dumbed down the wording a little as to not get too in depth, but that’s the gist.

No, my example was anecdotal. Sorry it was late at night lol. That was a terrible sentence on my part.

Is it true that psychologists and student psychologists make use of their knowledge of psychology, to completely and absolutely manipulate/leverage the people around them to give themselves maximum results in life?
(e.g: when you talk to a psychology friend, he/she will observe and analyse every single word you speak, then come up with ways to make use of you to benefit themselves, in every single interaction etc.)

As Chris mentioned, it's the sociopaths that will implement these tricks, whether they've taken a class or not.

Though, I have met a disproportionate amount of Psych graduates that are just plain assholes. Problem is, when they try to use those tricks on someone who also has the same knowledge, it works against them. Plus they seem to overestimate their own abilities.

What I'm guessing is, these classes attract those types of people.

 

[amxr]

Sexually? A man with strong genes so her child is well adapted physically.

Long term? A man who is good at providing resources so her child has the nourishment and resources it needs.

Women want a man that’s going to give them children with the best chances of surviving, and thriving.

Studies show that women, when looking for short term flings look for more “Alpha” males, but when they’re looking for a long term relationship look for a man who’s a more nurturing provider. The ideal situation for them is to find a man who’s naturally “Alpha” and she’s able to ‘tame’ him and make him more nurturing. And if you look at many romance novels, that’s a recurring theme in them. Woman meets an unpredictable “Bad Boy” type and gradually gets him to sink in, settle down and fall for her. Now that crazy bad boy is her husband.

Furthermore, when a woman is at her most fertile in her cycle (ie most likely to get pregnant) and estrogen is high she is mostly interested in “Bad Boy Alpha Males” who she desperately wants to f***. But during the rest of her cycle (when estrogen is low, and progesterone is high) she looks for a more nurturing type provider males. It’s the Lover/Provider dynamic.

When Fertile, Women Want Manly Men

What do women want? It depends on the time of the month

I know that the question was asked in a half joking manner, but that’s the answer.

If anyone is interested in those topics he can read "Evolution of Desire" by David Buss - pretty good stuff, answers many mating questions

 

[amxr]

1. What's a lesser know, yet highly important fact about human nature that you know?
2. ... about marketing psychology?

Every decision you think you consciously take is in reality taken by your unconscious 2 - 12 seconds prior to your thought. Even the simple act of moving your hand. And then your logically invent a silly excuse for doing it.
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[The Abundant Man]

If anyone is interested in those topics he can read "Evolution of Desire" by David Buss - pretty good stuff, answers many mating questions

Anything by Dr. David M Buss and Dr. Geoffrey Miller

The Evolution of Desire by Buss
Why Women Have Sex by Buss
Dangerous Passion by Buss
THe Murderer Next Door by Buss
The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller
Spent by Geoffrey Miller
Mate: Become the Man Women Want by Tucker Max(Author of Assholes Finish First) and Dr. Geoffrey Miller
Sex At Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha
A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Dr. Ogi Ogas

 

[ChrisV]

What is your view on meditation

Absolutely essential.

and do you think one should do it regularly?

Yes. No qualifiers.

This is something I have printed out and put on my wall. I have it there because these are literally the most beneficial things you can do.



You might notice Video Games on there, and since I’m sure there will be comments on that, I’ll reply. Recent studies are finding that video games are amazing for Executive Function. They can actually increase intelligence.

Science Direct: The influence of video games on executive functions in college students - ScienceDirect

Science Alert: Action games expand the brain's cognitive abilities, study suggests

Psychology Today: Cognitive Benefits of Playing Video Games

Science Direct: Playing Action Video Games a Key to Cognitive Enhancement - ScienceDirect

Science Alert: 6 Scientific Benefits of Playing Videogames

Penn State University: Video Games and Their Positive Effects | SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy

Medical News Today: How video games affect the brain

But back on topic. Science is allllllll over meditation. It’s like a veritable goldmine for evidence-based medicine. New findings are coming out literally daily. We’re is finding meditation to be one of the most beneficial things you can do for yourself. Stress relief. Happiness. Cognitive Skill. Memory. Empathy. Focus. CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH. Aside from the other fields of medicine, all of Psychology is restructuring itself around the idea of Mindfulness. ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) is almost completely based around mindfulness and eastern philosophy. I mean the benefits of Meditation are too numerous to list, but it’s almost as if you’re dumb not to do it.

If you want to get started on the benefits:

12 Science-Based Benefits of Meditation

20 Scientific Reasons to Start Meditating Today

14 Benefits of Meditation that Rewire Your Brain for Happiness & Success

But yea, do it. Daily.

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Hi Chris, thanks for taking the time to do this.

Question: What is the difference between the unconscious and the subconscious?

Ali's subconscious made his body move to knock Liston unconscious.



im sorry i couldn't resist


Subconscious is the part that makes you act without thinking. Like breathing, and sending signals to individual muscles to move. We don't actually know too much about what goes on there, but it's a power which can be molded into an awesome tool.

Like forming habits, and radiating positive "vibes" to those around you. Success by osmosis works in much the same way.

Conscious is what you actively think of and do. I'll pick up this cup. I've picked up this cup.

 

[ChrisV]

Okay I see, thank you very much.

Question: To what extent are Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) theories and techniques valid? Is NLP a "scam" based on the placebo effect? These questions came up after I saw that Wikipedia has it listed as pseudoscience List of topics characterized as pseudoscience - Wikipedia

NLP is considered to have no scientific validity, but I think it depends. You really have to break things down by their individual claims. You can’t say everything a field says is bullshit, you have o go by individual claims. Some of their claims are reasonable enough and are actually exactly what you learn in mainstream psychology. But then there’s other bullshit saying NLP can cure cancer or make you a millionaire. The problem is that there’s no “one” NLP. Bandler created the “field” and a million other people took off with it, making insane claims. Like it will NOT cure physical disease and i don’t even know how you can scientifically measure claims like some of the other ones.

Richard Bander comes off as a creep, a charlatan and a swindling snake oil salesman. Let’s put it this way, if I had a daughter she would NOT be allowed near him.

I don’t know who told him that leather button-up, red tie and (super bowl ring? idk) was okay... but it’s not.

That being said, Bandlers version of NLP is reasonable enough and actually pretty innovative though. I read his book and I know a lot of legitimate psychological methods, and it’s like he takes those and puts a “spin” on them. So his books were pretty good. If you can tolerate his slimy personality that even drips through the pages he writes.

Reading Bandler gives me a headache. He’s like a Carnival Barker with no grasp on reality sometimes, but other times he comes up with really innovative stuff. Honestly, I wouldn’t recommend him to anyone who doesn’t have a knowledge of more formal psychology. Why? Because that knowledge will allow you to sift through the dog shit to find the diamonds. But if you don’t know the difference you’ll probably come back with a pocket full of dog shit not knowing the difference

Question: Which psychotherapy systems are the most effective and the most scientifically proven? Here is a list of the majority of the psychotherapy systems List of psychotherapies - Wikipedia

Jeez that’s quite a list. It depends on what you want to do.


CBT is the gold standard for like... Everything. The science behind it is unshakable.

I looooooveeee REBT. REBT is like a DIY version of CBT. If you’re looking for something to apply on yourself REBT it where it’s at. I’m a huge huge fan of REBT. It’s so beautiful and elegant and simple and useful.

EMDR for trauma / Fear

Neurofeedback I want to do for performance enhancement

DBT is popular

Not a therapy but Skinners behaviorism is a fundamental theory.

Hope that helps.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.