background preloader

Psychology

Facebook Twitter

Depression stems from miscommunication between brain cells, study shows. A new study from the University of Maryland School of Medicine suggests that depression results from a disturbance in the ability of brain cells to communicate with each other. The study indicates a major shift in our understanding of how depression is caused and how it should be treated. Instead of focusing on the levels of hormone-like chemicals in the brain, such as serotonin, the scientists found that the transmission of excitatory signals between cells becomes abnormal in depression. The research, by senior author Scott M. Thompson, Ph.D., Professor and Interim Chair of the Department of Physiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, was published online in the March 17 issue of Nature Neuroscience.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2005 and 2008, approximately one in 10 Americans were treated for depression, with women more than twice as likely as men to become depressed. "Dr. David Anderson: Your brain is more than a bag of chemicals. Humans Can't Be Empathetic And Logical At The Same Time. Logic and emotion tend to be considered as polar opposites. Think about the analytic CEO—his actions make sense in the science of profit, but when it means using cheap human labor or firing a couple hundred employees, there's an apparent lack of concern for the human consequences of his actions. Many choices are a struggle to compromise the two systems--and that may have to do with how our brains are wired.

A new study published in NeuroImage found that separate neural pathways are used alternately for empathetic and analytic problem solving. The study compares it to a see-saw. When you're busy empathizing, the neural network for analysis is repressed, and this switches according to the task at hand. Anthony Jack, an assistant professor in cognitive science at Case Western Reserve University and lead author of the study, relates the idea to an optical illusion. Molly Crockett: Beware neuro-bunk.

Communication

Psychopathology. Creativity. Transtheoretical model. The transtheoretical model of behavior change assesses an individual's readiness to act on a new healthier behavior, and provides strategies, or processes of change to guide the individual through the stages of change to Action and Maintenance. The transtheoretical model is also known by the abbreviation "TTM"[1] and by the term "stages of change. "[2][3] A popular book, Changing for Good,[4] and articles in the news media[5][6][7][8][9] have discussed the model. It is "arguably the dominant model of health behaviour change, having received unprecedented research attention, yet it has simultaneously attracted criticism History and Core Constructs of the model[edit] James O.

Prochaska and colleagues refined the model on the basis of research that they published in peer-reviewed journals and books.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] The model consists of four "core constructs": "stages of change," "processes of change," "decisional balance," and "self-efficacy 1980s 1990s.

Skepticism

Jill Bolte Taylor's stroke of insight. Social Justice of Mental Illness. Developmental. Sleep. Lying. Happiness/ Positive Psychology. Drugs. The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon | Damn Interesting. You may have heard about Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon before. In fact, you probably learned about it for the first time very recently. If not, then you just might hear about it again very soon. Baader-Meinhof is the phenomenon where one happens upon some obscure piece of information—often an unfamiliar word or name—and soon afterwards encounters the same subject again, often repeatedly.

Anytime the phrase “That’s so weird, I just heard about that the other day” would be appropriate, the utterer is hip-deep in Baader-Meinhof. Most people seem to have experienced the phenomenon at least a few times in their lives, and many people encounter it with such regularity that they anticipate it upon the introduction of new information. But what is the underlying cause? Is there some hidden meaning behind Baader-Meinhof events? Despite science’s cries that a world as complex as ours invites frequent coincidences, observation tells us that such an explanation is inadequate.