In the theory of planned behaviour, what is the general term that captures attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control?

McFarland and Ryan (2006) have an article applying the theory of planned behaviour to job applicant faking behaviour.

They use phrases:

"components of beliefs that influence intention"
"attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC"; i.e., they abbreviate perceived behavioural control (PBC) to make the phrase shorter
"the TPB predicts the intention to fake"; i.e., they use the "theory of planned behaviour" as a proxy for "attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC". Technically, the TPB is a theory that describes relationships between a set of variables. So this may work, but it is not using TPB as a proxy for attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC.
"beliefs": as in "relationship between beliefs and the intention to fake". This is a slightly simplification of the TPB. Attitudes are not just beliefs, but when presented in context, this seems clear.
"antecedents of intention": as in "relationship between antecedents of intentions and intention to fake". Presumably this works in contexts where the only predictors of intentions are attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC, but doesn't work if you have other types of antecedents.

Courneya et al (1999) have an article on personality, theory of planned behaviour and exercise behaviour. They refer to the TPB variables as:

"social-cognitive constructs"

References

Courneya, K. S., Bobick, T. M., & Schinke, R. J. (1999). Does the theory of planned behavior mediate the relation between personality and exercise behavior?. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(4), 317-324.


Why is Wernike's area of the brain called Wernike's area?

As often the case, named after the person who first described it.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

  Wernicke area, region of the brain that contains motor neurons involved in the
  comprehension of speech.
  This area was first described in 1874 by German neurologist Carl
  Wernicke.


What is the name of the effect whereby socialising in a group reinforces group beliefs?

There is also the related phenomenon of 'Group Polarisation' (see Myers and Lamm, 1976; Isenberg, 1986), where groups are found to make more extreme decisions and hold more extreme opinions than its constituent members. Not sure if that's specifically related to what you're looking for but I think it's important to keep in mind.

References

Isenberg, D.J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141. PDF
Myers, D.G. & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon.. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602.


Theoretical limit to the use of mental faculty of the brain

Intensive stimuli may trigger epileptic shocks in some individuals. At least prolonged epileptic shocks may damage neurons, I'm not sure about short epileptic shocks. So the answer is yes, using your brain eg. your extended visual system to process excessively intensive visual stimuli may cause epileptic shocks and thus be detrimental to the brain.

However, as far as I know, visual stimuli are not able to cause epileptic shocks to everyone (susceptibility to epilepsy is a requirement), so I'm not sure if there is any proven way how by you could cause brain damage only by brain function (without aid of any voluntary motoric movements) in any individual.

As intensive visual and auditory stimuli are a part of our natural environment - whereas lack of stimuli (sensory deprivation) is an unnatural state - I think triggering epileptic shocks by intensive stimuli can not be considered only as a self-caused way of damaging the brain.


Can adhd and ocd coexist? Is it in the same way mania and depression can coexist (in bipolar disorder)?

Yes, they can coexist. No, they aren't opposites. How could they be? Both ADHD and OCD affect a variety of different brain regions, and its effects are not consistent in every person. Maybe if OCD and all its symptoms were always caused by an excess of dopamine in one specific pathway in the reward system, whereas ADHD and all its symptoms was always caused by an decrease of dopamine in that same system, then they wouldn't be compatible. But this isn't the case, and it could never be the case, because the brain is more complex than that.

If mental disorders were diagnosed strictly on oppositional behaviors, then we could easily make the assertion that the opposite of being inattentive would be being hyperfocused. Therefore, nobody who has an attention deficit disorder could achieve hyperfocus, right? But we know to attribute both of these behaviors to ADHD. How can this be?

It is important to remember that mental disorders are not behaviors. OCD is marked by obsessions and compulsions, and any behaviors that may arise do so in the context of mental symptoms. It certainly follows that someone with OCD who has an obsessional focus on staying clean and organized will stay clean and organized -- in general, it is hard to not act on things that you are constantly thinking about and uncomfortable by. This is different from the child with ADHD, who may or may not have trouble staying clean and organized, because to someone who doesn't have some sort of incentive (or 'motivation'), staying clean and organized is really hard to force yourself to do on your own terms. And with ADHD, it can be all the more difficult to achieve that motivation, given the lack of dopamine and/or norepinephrine activity in certain parts of the brain.

That being said, ADHD is not a 'messiness' disorder. The behavior of an ADHD sufferer arises from a complex set of symptoms, usually related to executive dysfunction. As the name may reveal, executive functioning is an abstract yet measurable concept that encompasses a variety of higher-level processes, including regulation of focus, self-management (including keeping oneself organized), and one's capacity for paying attention to detail. Any messiness that arises from this is just an effect from the cause-and-effect relationship that is ADHD.

Likewise, OCD is not a 'neatness' disorder. OCD is marked by obsessions and compulsions. A child with ADHD may have OCD and never feel any compulsion to clean a messy room. There are many different ways that obsessions and compulsions can be demonstrated. A person with OCD may perform rituals, engage in lengthy routines, avoid certain foods, or pick at their skin. They may fear or avoid strange things for no reason at all. Many people with OCD have phobias, and these phobias may interfere with normal life, such as a fear of blood leading someone to never step foot in a doctor's office. Perfectionism and OCD are not the same thing, though perfectionism can be a quality in both.


Why do we always wake up at the climax of our dreams, even when it is an alarm that wakes us?

There are two possibilities. One is that we do tend to wake up more at the climax of dreams, and that somehow our dreams can sync up with external input like an alarm clock so that the climax of the dream occurs at the same time as the alarm going off. The second is that this doesn't actually happen; the alarm is just as likely to go off at the climax of the dream as it is at any other point.

If the second situation is true, then why do you end up feeling like you always wake up at the climax of the dream? One explanation is confirmation bias. This is an established bias of human memory, in which we selectively remember events that confirm our ideas, and neglect the events that disconfirm them. In this situation, you have the idea that you always wake up at the climax of dreams, so your memory is biased towards times where you actually did wake up at the climax of dreams. However, there are likely many times where you woke up not during the climax of the dream, but these are less memorable because they don't fit your expected pattern.


What do the super-large brains of whales and elephants map to?

With whales in particular, they don't even have arms or legs, so I wouldn't expect them to have large regions of the brain devoted to, say, fine-motor skills.

Ah, but they also have a complete three dimensions to move in, unlike us humans who only have about 2.5 dimensions to move in.  Also, they have a number of different "limbs": tail, multiple fins, etc.

  Yet, it is apparent (to many people) that whales and elephants don't have drastically higher intelligence than humans. So their extra brain regions have to go somewhere. Where do they go to?

Why not?  How do you accurately measure an intelligence that is structurally different from yours?  You have to know how that intelligence works, and for that to happen you need to overcome the language barrier (which is still an issue with cetaceans, since many people think they're just dumb animals!  Maybe some cetaceans are like primate apes.  Maybe others are like primate humans!).

Here is a pdf overview of Cetacean brains.
I hope this answers your question:

A few parts pulled from the article:

Cetaceans have very large brains, yes, but humans hold the top of the proportion scale: our brains are larger in comparison to our body size than most other species.

Cetacean brains are, for the most part, like other brains.  That is, they are there for the processing of cognition (among other things).  A large part of this processing power goes to echolocation.

Regarding similarities between primate and cetacean brains:

  the expansion of the insular and cingulate cortices in cetaceans is
  consistent with high-level cognitive functions—such as attention,
  judgment, intuition, and social awareness—known to be associated with
  these regions in primates.

  This view is further supported by the
  observation that the anterior insular
  and anterior cingulate cortex in
  cetacean species having the largest
  brains exhibit a large number of large
  layer V spindle neurons, similar to those originally reported
  to be unique to humans and great apes. These particular neurons are
  considered to be responsible for neural networks subserving aspects of social
  cognition.

Furthermore, though specifically regarding dolphins:

  Laboratory studies of bottlenose
  dolphins have documented
  various dimensions of their
  intellectual abilities. These include
  an understanding of ... (declarative knowledge); an
  understanding of ... (procedural
  knowledge); an understanding of ... (social knowledge); and
  an understanding of ... (self
  knowledge). All these
  capabilities rest on a strong foundation
  of memory; investigations have
  demonstrated that bottlenose dolphin
  auditory, visual, and spatial memory are
  accurate and robust.

Lastly:

  Field studies have documented
  impressive cultural learning of dialects,
  foraging sites, and foraging and
  feeding strategies in cetaceans.

So, to recap, the cetacean brain lends itself to, among inumerable other things, advanced auditory (sensory), personal (self), and interpersonal processing (social).  Also, dolphins, and maybe other species as well, have advanced memory and language processing capabilities.


Introductory material on psychophysics with a focus on visual stimuli

I never read any English textbooks on psychophysics, so I cannot help you there. If I wanted to find a good one, I would look at the curricula at some universities and see which books they use or recommend. Such information is often available online.

Beyond a textbook, like user1406647 (+1), I find it enlightening to read classic experiments by the inventors of psychophysics. Their texts are easy to understand without much previous knowledge, and the experiments are simple and foundational for the understanding of the principles of psychophysics. Also, I believe that textbooks only ever give a vague and superficial idea of a field, while confrontation with original texts provides a deeper insight. This is especially true for the presentation of theories: in textbooks they are always abbreviated beyond recognition. Textbooks are good in that they provide a possible structure (e.g. they group authors and theories), delineate historical development, and summarize critique. They are like maps: you'll have to do the walking yourself, but you know where you might find the most spectacular sights.

That said, I want to give some few examples that I found especially basic. Any one of these or similar articles will give you an understanding of what psychophysics is about. A good textbook should give you some references to more such experiments.

Charpentier on the Size-Weight-Illusion:
Charpentier, M. A. (1891). Analyse expérimentale de quelques éléments de la sensation de
poids. Archives de Physiologie Normale et Pathologique. Cinquième Série, 3, 122-135. Available online at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4327622/f125.image
An English translation by David J. Murray and Robert R. Ellis has fortunately been archived at http://www.oocities.org/robertellis600/charp.htm
Background information on Charpentier's article is provided in:
Murray, D. J., Ellis, R. R, Bandomir, C. A., & Ross, H. E. (1999). Charpentier (1891) on the size-weight illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1681-1685. doi:10.3758/BF03213127
Plateau on Averaging of Achromatic Colors:
Plateau, J. (1872). Sur la mesure des sensations physiques, et sur la loi qui lie l'intensité de ces sensations à l'intensité de la cause excitante. Bulletins de L'Academie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 2me Sér., 33, 376-388.
An English translation by Janet and Donald Laming has been published as:
Laming, J., & Laming, D. (1996). J. Plateau: On the measurement of physical sensations and on the law which links the intensity of these sensations to the intensity of the source. Psychological Research, 59, 134-144. doi:10.1007/BF01792434
The experiment has been replicated and discussed in:
Heller, J. (2001). Mittenbildung bei achromatischen Farben: Das klassische Experiment von Plateau. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 259-271. doi:10.1026//0949-3946.48.4.259
I'll update this answer with more examples when I have the time.


Why do we sometimes forget the retrospective component of a particular task?

I must begin by stressing that while this is an interesting question, it is also very complex (much like memory itself). Similar to other areas of Cognitive Psychology, depending on which expert you ask, you might get different explanations. My background is in prospective memory and cognitive psychology, and this is how I would address this question. I believe this framing is crucial to contextualize my answer.
On a high level, we can classify memory into retrospective memory and prospective memory. Retrospective memory is where to be remembered item occured in the past (people, events, tacit skills). Prospective memory (PM) concerns how we remember to do things in the future (i.e., "remembering to remember"), or remember to perform an intended action at the correct time/situation. A classic example of PM is having to remember to pick up milk on the way home from work. Your ability to do this may be directed by active maintenance (e.g., reiterating to yourself for hours), self-generated cues/offloading (e.g., a phone reminder), or environmental cues (e.g., driving past the shop).
In prospective memory, it is common for individuals to remember to complete the prospective (e.g., go to the shop), but forget the retrospective component of the task (e.g., what to buy at the shop). This is the experience you are talking about. There is a wide literature of laboratory based experiments that attempt to explain the processes underlying why individuals sometimes forget to perform a PM task (see Smith et al.; or Brandimonte et al.; or Scullin et al.), or forget to perform the retrospective component (for review, see Mcbridge & Workman).
Without getting deep into the neurological or exact cognitive level for why you would forget the retrospective component of a task, consider some factors that may decrease/increase probability of forgetting:

Task interruptions 'disrupting' your memory trace
A long duration between encoding an intention and having to retrieve the specific item from memory.
Pre-existing clinical disorder or ageing related disorder. Intoxication related brain function inhibition.
The to-be remembered retrospective component was unfamiliar, indistinct. You failed to encode the item properly in the first place.
Having a strong memory trace through implementation intentions can support memory for the retrospective component.
There's evidence that cue valence/salience (i.e., being positive/negative or distinct) or important improves  memory for the retrospective portion of PM.

That is but a small subset of possibilities. On a cognitive level, an activation based explanation would be that the "to-be remembered retrospective memory item" dropped below some critical threshold of neural activation, and was forgot. Interference based approaches would argue that some event during the retention interval disrupted the stored model or memory item, thus leading to forgetting. Neuropsychology based approaches would be able to map more specifically regions of the brain to forms of forgetting in laboratory based tasks.
In summary, we don't really know exactly why people forget things in any arbitrary context. However, psychologists can identify and classify the kind of forgetting that occurred, and provide suggestions of the likely factors that would have contributed to that forgetting. Neuropsychology approaches would assist in grounding these explanation in terms of neurological processes.
Further Reading:
Brandimonte, M. A., Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Prospective memory: Theory and applications. Psychology Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02930-000
Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., & Murray, A. E. (2017). Prospective memory in context: Moving through a familiar space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 43(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000303
Burgess, P. W., Gonen-Yaacovi, G., & Volle, E. (2011). Functional neuroimaging studies of prospective memory: What have we learnt so far? Neuropsychologia, 49(8), 2246–2257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.014
Schaper, P., & Grundgeiger, T. (2018). The effect of different distractions on remembering delayed intentions. Memory, 26(2), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1339090
Anderson, F. T., & McDaniel, M. A. (2019). Retrieval in prospective memory: Multiple processes or just delay? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(9), 2197–2207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819845622
Ball, B. H., Brewer, G. A., Loft, S., & Bowden, V. (2015). Uncovering continuous and transient monitoring profiles in event-based prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0700-8
Dismukes, R. K. (n.d.). Prospective Memory in Aviation and Everyday Settings. 22.
Heathcote, A., Loft, S., & Remington, R. W. (2015). Slow down and remember to remember! A delay theory of prospective memory costs. Psychological Review, 122(2), 376–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038952
Kuhlmann, B. G., & Rummel, J. (2014). Context-specific prospective-memory processing: Evidence for flexible attention allocation adjustments after intention encoding. Memory & Cognition, 42(6), 943–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0405-2
McBride, D. M., & Workman, R. A. (2017). Chapter Seven - Is Prospective Memory Unique? A Comparison of Prospective and Retrospective Memory. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 67, pp. 213–238). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2017.03.007
Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Shelton, J. T. (2013). The Dynamic Multiprocess Framework: Evidence from Prospective Memory with Contextual Variability. Cognitive Psychology, 67(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.07.001


People love nature because truth, nature/natural experience, and reality go hand in hand. Nature provides serenity, beauty, and calm. Our world of experience is what gives us, and provides for, life. Ultimately and fundamentally, the integrated extensiveness (and sensibility) of being and experience go hand in hand, as the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. In fact, we always begin with typical/ordinary and common experience in establishing physical fundamentals/truths. Experience is the best teacher, and the creations of our thought that replace nature/natural experience, such as TV and mirrors, maximally reduce the integrated extensiveness of space/our experience. A true, extensive, integrated, and natural balance of being and experience is best. Balance and completeness go hand in hand. If we walk away from reality, reality walks away from us.


Where would a cognitively separated person get their brain signals excited from?

Seems that you are asking:

  I am really interested just in the way the brain creates new
  electrical potentials, "just on his own."

and

  whether [sic] the brain would 'stop working', implying that there no longer is any neural activity due to the lack of external impulses.

If you were to theoretically disconnect the brain from all sensory input, there could be several sources of activity. For example:

Random noise. Neurons are messy objects, there are many small and large molecules floating inside and outside the cells. Furthermore, the membranes themselves are relatively dynamic, and are studded with receptors, ion channels, and other proteins, some of which migrate regularly (see Lipid rafts). The ion channels (e.g. sodium and potassium) that contribute to the electric currents that generate action potentials, can be affected by thermal fluctuations, and thus change their open-closed states in a stochastic manner. Notice the fluxuations in Figure 1 of Horn and Vandenberg (1984) obtained from a single sodium channel.
Some cells fire without any external stimulation. Central pattern generator circuits is one example, and pacemaker neurons is another. Take a look at Figure 1 of Alving (1968) where an isolated neuron exhibits regular spiking without any external input. One can imagine that one such spiking cell could be connected to other neurons and could cause them to spike as well.
Gain control mechanisms might amplify noise. In your scenario, if the brain is not receiving sensory input, the natural gain control mechanisms, attempting to maintain a certain activity range, might increase amplification to such an extent that the thermal noise fluctuations become consciously perceived. For example, sensory deprivation can result in hallucinations, which might be explained by noise amplification by gain control mechanisms. Similar mechanism can also be seen in the Ganzfeld effect

Overall, any one or a combination of the mechanisms described above could cause spontaneous brain activity without external stimulation.


Open data for behavioral psychology experiment?

There are some example data sets associated with these tutorials https://osf.io/pbwx8/

See 'get_all_data.R' in the tutorial subdirectory.

You might also be interested in some of the surrounding discussion, which is all about  the process of comparing new models with the existing ones.

Hope this helps!


What is psychological basis of the great love parents have for their children?

Attachment theory in adults is concerned with care giving ability toward ones  friends, family, lover and child. Oxytocin is the bonding hormone. If you have enough of it in theory you will be a monogamous, child loving adult. If you want to con someone by a grift you would secretly give them Oxytocin because it induces general trust.

However it is a misnomer to believe that the relationships formed between parent and child are always lifelong and strong. To examine the psychology as apposed to biology of what makes the feelings between a mother loving for a child lets look at what makes feelings for a child loving toward their mother.

To join this wonderful planet earth as a human being we have to spend around 9 months in the uterus of a woman. During this time she feeds us and her neurochemicals train our brain unconsciously. If she is stress there is a higher chance the we will be deformations. Our predominant auditory stimuli is her voice and the choice of company she keeps. After we survive maturation in the womb her breast sustain us through Colostrum and breast milk. They provide hormones like oxytocin which make us like her, advanced antibodies which keep us alive while our immune system develops and water, protein, sugar and fat which nurtures us and quenches our thirst. This is our first positive association.

Not all mothers want their children. The first psychological indicator of your abilities to easily form a loving relationship with your children is how your mother treated you the first three years. If your mother did not properly form an attachment to you then you will be at a high risk for an attachment disorder. A state where its very difficult to have social experience and behavior matching social norms. Therapies for attachment issues are controversial and in many cases flat out bad. However not all adults with attachment disorders are bad parents, being abused doesn't force you to be abusive. It does mean you may lack skills learned in childhood which others can inversely apply.

Even high functioning very ill nonviolent (or controlled violent) sociopaths (ASPD) can make fine parents if they work hard enough at it.


How do humans optimize noisy multi-variable functions in experimental settings?

This is a bit of a tangential answer, but hopefully still useful.
When we give humans noisy data, we can basically think of them as some sort of Bayesian inference machines that try to figure out what the function that data came from looks like. The important thing we then need to know, is how strong of a bias (prior) humans have towards expecting certain relationships.
Unfortunately, it seems that humans are extremely biased towards positive linear relationships. I think this will make it very hard for them to optimize data presented as in your question, because they will constantly assume it comes from a straight line. This is really well captured by the following figure from Kalish et al. (2007):

The experiment that generated the above picture is rather different from the one you describe, but we can think of it is a very particular type of noise. A person at stage $n$ is given 25 $(x,y)$ pairs from the function at stage $n - 1$. The person is then tested by being given an x value and asked for a y, 25 times. The results of this are passed on to the person at trial $n + 1$ as the training data. Thus, we could think of the errors of person at stage n as noise/errors (although systematic errors) for the person at stage $n + 1$. As you can see, it doesn't take much of this noise to lose all structure of the function you started with and revert to the natural bias of a positive linear relationship. In fact, in condition 1 participants are already completely confused about the U-shaped function after strage $n = 1$ (so the first participant, with no error already has a hard time understanding the function from $(x,y)$ pairs).
References
Kalish, M. L., Griffiths, T. L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2007). Iterated learning: Intergenerational knowledge transmission reveals inductive biases. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(M), 288-294. [pdf]


Is it possible for someone to have anorexia without body image issues?

It is possible for someone to have an eating disorder without weight and body esteem issues (Sarkar, et al. 2013), but not Anorexia.
Fear of becoming fat or gaining weight and having a distorted view of themselves and of their condition are criteria required in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual which is used for diagnosing mental health problems. Therefore, Anorexia would not be diagnosed without these criteria being present.
An eating disorder without body image issues would be diagnosed as EDNOS (Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified) under the 4th Edition, but as the 5th edition merged the former categories of Eating Disorders and Feeding Disorder in Infancy or Early Childhood and formed the new category, Feeding and Eating Disorders, the diagnosis under the 5th edition would be OSFED (Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder).

OSFED is every bit as serious as anorexia, bulimia, or binge eating disorder, and people suffering from OSFED are every bit as deserving and in need of treatment – their eating disorder is just presenting in a different way. It is common for symptoms to not fit with the exact diagnostic criteria for anorexia, bulimia, or binge eating disorder – OSFED accounts for a large percentage of eating disorders (Beat Eating Disorders, 2017).

References
Beat Eating Disorders (2017). Other Specified Feeding or Eating Disorder (OSFED). Retrieved from: https://www.beateatingdisorders.org.uk/types/osfed
Sarkar, S., Padhy, S. K., Rao, P., & Gupta, S. (2013). Transient eating problems in an adolescent without body image disturbances: a diagnostic quandary. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 35(4), 410. doi: 10.4103/0253-7176.122244 PubMed Central: PMC3868099


What happens in the brain that allows access to a previous unavailable memory?

These kinds of research questions are interesting, but notoriously hard to investigate empirically, because:

You need human subjects that are able to provide complex feedback, i.e., you can't use invasive, long-term recordings in animals;
You need subjects to undergo long-term experiments, as your example indicates in the order of weeks, for one single measurement;
You need subjects that experience this regularly and frequently;
You need a way of faithfully time-stamping the exact moment of recall and somehow establish a procedure to grasp what's happening inside the brain against a variable, uncontrolled background.

In essence, it's next to impossible to find out.

There is, however, a large body of literature around memory recall in general, including detailed imaging studies, e.g., Heckers et al. (1999), Hall et al. (2001), Liu et al. (2012) and I'm sure there will be much overlap between spontaneous and deliberate memory recall.

References
- Heckers et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry (1999); 56(12): 1117-23)
- Hall et al. J Neurosci (2001); 21(6): 2186-93
- Liu et al. Nature (2012); 484: 381–5


From the BBC article, there's a prediction about that:

Perhaps, when we’re very young, the hippocampus simply isn’t developed enough to build a rich memory of an event. Baby rats, monkeys and humans all continue to add new neurons to the hippocampus for the first few years of life and we all are all unable to form lasting memories as infants – and it seems that the moment we stop creating new neurons, we‘re suddenly able to form long-term memories. “For young babies and infants the hippocampus is very undeveloped,” says Fagen.
But is the under-formed hippocampus losing our long-term memories, or are they never formed in the first place? Since childhood events can continue to affect our behaviour long after we’ve forgotten them, some psychologists think they must be lingering somewhere. “The memories are probably stored someplace that’s inaccessible now, but it’s very difficult to demonstrate that empirically,” says Fagen.
We should be very wary about what we do recall from that time, though – our childhood is probably full of false memories for events that never occurred.
Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, has devoted her career to the phenomenon. “People can pick up suggestions and begin to visualise them – they become like memories,” she says.


Different neural structures for quick vs. methodical decision making

I would disagree with @Krysta: the distinction between system 1 and system 2 processes goes far beyond that of cognition with/without emotion: it's a complex debates that's been going on since the 70s (in it's current form, it's echoed in a wider debate going back centuries). For the sake of brevity, let me resort to bullet points.

For psychologists, Evans (2008) is the go to reference on this matter. Obviously, Kahneman is the grandfather of this topic, and his book is a great introduction for the layman, you'll find a much more rigorous discussion here.
There's a lot of variation in terminology here - while "dual process theory" is the commonly accepted generic term for this idea, you'll also see it as "type, or system 1/2 processes", "intuition/logic", "associative/controlled processes", etc. Again, see Evans (2008).
A nice simplification of the distinction would be to say there's two kinds of processes, System 2 processes, which requires Working Memory (i.e. maintaining, updating, and manipulating a representation of information over a period of time), and System 1 processes, which don't. System 1, when taken this way, isn't a single "subsystem", its a diverse set of processes (this idea is nicely laid out in Stanovich, 2009,
who uses the term "The Set of Autonomous Systems (TASS")),
amongst other sources) including evolved, domain specific modules for solving specific problems (i.e. recognising faces), the emotion subsystem, and rules and associations which have become automatic through experience, and implicit learning (stereotypes, for example).

To finally get to your question, yes, this does translate into specific neural systems.

Working Memory (and thus system 2 processes) is pretty clearly localised to the prefrontal cortex (see Braver et al, 1997, for example).
System 1, not being a single "system", obviously can't be localized to a single brain region. However, many of it's component processes can be: emotion to the limbic system, face recognition to the fusiform face area, etc. (I don't know much about localization of implicit learning, but I would guess the hippocampus is involved).

  I've just realised I haven't answered your second question, about cognitive models. I'll come back to this at a later date.
  EDIT I've just noticed you're working with Chris Eliasmith. I can think of few people better qualified to answer your second question than he is.

Reading

Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 255-278.

Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory. In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, 55-88.


The most common theory to date is that behavioural inhibition is developed from negative reinforcement.

Gray's biopsychological theory of personality

  the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) and the Behavioural Activation
  System (BAS)  ../..  The BIS is thought to be related to sensitivity
  to punishment as well as avoidance motivation, while the BAS is
  thought to be related to sensitivity to reward as well as approach
  motivation.

There is some research that suggests that the BIS scale is better correlated with neuroticism and negative affectivity, rather than anxiety.

  The BIS scale was less correlated with anxiety and depression symptoms
  than are neuroticism and negative affectivity scales, probably because
  it is designed to measure predisposition to anxiety rather than the
  experience of anxiety. BIS scores were higher in females,...1

Brain Functions: Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Flexibility, and Cognitive Control

Discusses how we modify our behaviour and suggests that some behaviour is inhibited in an "auto-pilot" manner by the prefrontal cortex to free up our brain for more complex thought processes.

  We can inhibit our actions and behaviors while they are in progress,
  and we can also inhibit our emotions and memories. Different parts of
  the prefrontal cortex, at the very front of the brain, are used to
  interrupt these various types of behaviors or thoughts. Some theories
  even suggest that the role of the prefrontal cortex is to stop all
  ill-suited actions or thoughts, to leave room for more appropriate
  actions.

Overall, there are numerous studies showing a  link between anxiety and  experience of a fear based reward system  with behavioural inhibition.2

1 Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation: Factor structure, validity and norms in a large community sample
A.F JormCorresponding author contact information, H Christensen, A.S Henderson, P.A Jacomb, A.E Korten, B Rodgers
NHMRC Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Centre, The Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00143-3

2 J Child Fam Stud. 2011 April; 20(2): 157–170.
Published online 2010 March 17. doi:  10.1007/s10826-010-9365-8
PMCID: PMC3048305
Behavioral Inhibition as a Risk Factor for the Development of Childhood Anxiety Disorders: A Longitudinal Study
Peter Muris,corresponding author1 Anna M. L. van Brakel,2 Arnoud Arntz,2 and Erik Schouten2


About Psychoanalysis:

From the American Psychoanalytic Association:

  About Psychoanalysis

  Psychoanalysis is a method of treatment that helps people understand themselves, their relationships, and how they behave in the world. Psychoanalytic treatment is based on the idea that we are frequently motivated to act by impulses that we don’t recognize because they originate in our unconscious. These unconscious conflicts can create negative feelings – emotions such as unhappiness, anxiety, or depression – which can be expressed in many ways, including self-destructive behavior, or difficulties with personal relationships or work.

  Psychoanalysis is sometimes called the “talking cure” because during treatment the patient is encouraged to talk about everything that comes to mind: their childhood, the present, fears, thoughts and dreams. Nothing is off limits. Talking like this, with a psychoanalyst helping to identify patterns and recurring themes, helps people learn how they came to be who they are and why they do and feel the things they do. It is this understanding of oneself that paves the way toward the emotional freedom necessary to make substantive, lasting changes.

  The key to psychoanalytic treatment is in the relationship the patient develops with the analyst. Typically, psychoanalysis involves the patient coming several times a week, lying on a couch, and communicating as openly and freely as possible.

  The frequency of psychoanalytic sessions is something that can be worked out between patient and analyst, but the APsaA standard is four to five sessions per week. This frequency deepens and intensifies treatment and is one of the hallmarks of psychoanalysis.

  The couch has become so intertwined with psychoanalysis in the mind of the public that it is often used as shorthand to convey the idea of therapy. Stereotype or not, psychoanalysts still recommend its use.  Patients recline on the couch and the analyst sits right behind them, just out of view. This arrangement, which may seem unusual at first, promotes “free association,” an essential element to psychoanalysis in which patients allow their thoughts to wander freely and talk about whatever comes to mind. Being on the couch, facing away from the analyst, can also make it easier to talk about embarrassing or difficult topics.

  Psychoanalysis is a collaboration in which the patient and analyst work together to explore unconscious feelings, thoughts and conflicts through talk.

  About Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

  Sometimes also called psychodynamic psychotherapy, this treatment method is based on the theory and technique of psychoanalysis. The primary difference is that the patient and analyst meet less frequently, sometimes only once a week. As with psychoanalysis, the frequency of sessions can be customized to the needs of the patient. Another difference is that the patient usually sits upright and opposite the therapist, rather than reclining on a couch with the therapist out of view.

  Other than these differences, psychoanalytic psychotherapy is very much like analysis in its use of free association, the importance placed on the unconscious, and the centrality of the patient-therapist relationship.

  About Applied Psychoanalysis

  Applied psychoanalysis describes the practice of using psychoanalytic theories and methods to explain social, cultural and political phenomena and has been going on since psychoanalysis first began.

  Applied psychoanalysis takes the search for meaning and motivations outside of the doctor’s office, using psychoanalytic principles to make sense of the world.

  Psychoanalysts have been known to work as consultants in community settings, such as schools, businesses and corporations.
  American Psychoanalytic Association

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiLtQATY_1s

From About.com Education:

  What Is Psychoanalysis?
  The Psychoanalytic Approach to Psychology

  By Kendra Cherry
  Psychology Expert

  Sigmund Freud was the founder of psychoanalysis and the psychodynamic approach to psychology. This school of thought emphasized the influence of the unconscious mind on behavior. Freud believed that the human mind was composed of three elements: the id, the ego, and the superego.

  Freud's theories of psychosexual stages, the unconscious, and dream symbolism remain a popular topic among both psychologists and laypersons, despite the fact that his work is viewed with skepticism by many today.

  Many of Freud's observations and theories were based on clinical cases and case studies, making his findings difficult to generalize to a larger population. Regardless, Freud's theories changed how we think about the human mind and behavior and left a lasting mark on psychology and culture.

  Another theorist associated with psychoanalysis is Erik Erikson. Erikson expanded upon Freud's theories and stressed the importance of growth throughout the lifespan. Erikson's psychosocial stage theory of personality remains influential today in our understanding of human development.

  Major Thinkers Associated With Psychoanalysis

  Sigmund Freud
  Anna Freud
  Erik Erikson
  Erich Fromm
  Carl Jung
  Karl Abraham
  Otto Rank
  Sabina Spielrein

  Key Psychoanalysis Terms

  Case Study - An in-depth study of one person. Much of Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes for behavior. The hope is that learning gained from studying one case can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective and it is difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

  Conscious - In Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality, the conscious mind includes everything that is inside of our awareness.  This is the aspect of our mental processing that we can think and talk about in a rational way.

  Defense Mechanism - A tactic developed by the ego to protect against anxiety. Defense mechanisms are thought to safeguard the mind against feelings and thoughts that are too difficult for the conscious mind to cope with. In some instances, defense mechanisms are thought to keep inappropriate or unwanted thoughts and impulses from entering the conscious mind.

  Ego - The ego is the part of personality that mediates the demands of the id, the superego and reality. The ego prevents us from acting on our basic urges (created by the id), but also works to achieve a balance with our moral and idealistic standards (created by the superego).

  Id - The personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs and desires.

  Superego - The component of personality composed of our internalized ideals that we have acquired from our parents and from society. The superego works to suppress the urges of the id and tries to make the ego behave morally rather than realistically.

  Unconscious - A reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges and memories that outside of our conscious awareness. Most of the contents of the unconscious are unacceptable or unpleasant, such as feelings of pain, anxiety or conflict. According to Freud, the unconscious continues to influence our behavior and experiences even though we are unaware of these underlying influences.

  Criticisms of Psychoanalysis

  Freud's theories overemphasized the unconscious mind, sex, aggression and childhood experiences.
  Many of the concepts proposed by psychoanalytic theorists are difficult to measure and quantify.
  Most of Freud's ideas were based on case studies and clinical observations rather than empirical, scientific research.

  Strengths of Psychoanalysis

  While most psychodynamic theories did not rely on experimental research, the methods and theories of psychoanalytic thinking contributed to experimental psychology.
  Many of the theories of personality developed by psychodynamic thinkers are still influential today, including Erikson's theory of psychosocial stages and Freud's psychosexual stage theory..
  Psychoanalysis opened up a new view on mental illness, suggesting that talking about problems with a professional could help relieve symptoms of psychological distress.
  Source

From Psychology Today:

  What Is Psychoanalysis?

  It began, of course, with Freud. Psychoanalysis refers both to a theory of how the mind works and a treatment modality. In recent years, both have yielded to more mainstream, research-driven approaches, but psychoanalysis is still a thriving field.

  Belief in the primacy of the unconscious fantasy, sexual desires (libido, penis envy, Oedipal complex), and dreams has wavered. But Freud also identified such basic mental maneuvers as transference, projection, and defensiveness, and demonstrated how they distort our functioning. As a treatment based on extended self-exploration, psychoanalysis has evolved beyond the silent-shrink stereotype.

  Neuropsychoanalysis is an up-and-coming subfield that aims to wed the insights of Freudian psychology and its emphasis on subjective experience with neuroscientific findings about brain processes.
  Source

Further Reading:

Contemporary Psychoanalysis:  William Alanson White Institute

Introduction to Psychoanalysis:  Purdue University

Institute of Psychoanalysis:  British Psychoanalytical Society

Psychoanalysis:  Wikipedia

Great Ideas in Personality:  Psychoanalysis

International Journal of Psychoanalysis:  Wiley Online Library

Psychoanalysis:  University College London

Frontiers in Psychology:  Psychoanalysis and Neuropsychoanalysis

About Psychoanalysis:  International Psychoanalytical Association

Psychoanalysis Articles From Psychology Today:

  Resistance and Resilience on the Couch
  The path through anger to need in a client-therapist relationship
  By Kristi Pikiewicz PhD
  Freud: Fraud or Folk-psychologist?
  Research reveals Freudian folk-psychology before Freud.
  By Christopher Badcock Ph.D.
  Just Do It!
  The freedom to act as a goal of psychoanalysis
  By Jennifer Kunst Ph.D.
  The Idea That Wouldn't Die
  Forget penis envy.
  By Molly Knight Raskin
  Therapy Watch: Total Treatment
  The benefits of psychoanalysis endure.
  By Avigail Gordon
  Are People Getting More Primitive, or Is Psychoanalysis?
  Speculations from the sociology of knowledge
  By Michael Bader D.M.H.
  Will Psychoanalysis Survive?
  A dialogue on the future of Freud's science
  By Molly S. Castelloe Ph.D.
  Pink Freud
  What does psychoanalysis have to say to someone queer or trans?
  By Molly S. Castelloe Ph.D.
  Source


Is the Flynn effect in conflict with other studies of intelligence heritablity?

There are several ways in which this apparent paradox can be resolved.

As a starting point, it is important to consider how heritability is defined and assessed (also see this earlier answer). As you point out, heritability estimates originate from comparisons between people who differ in their genetic similarity (e.g., monozygotic vs. dizygotic twins). The high heritability for IQ means that genetic similarities correspond to a high similarity in IQ. It's crucial to note, however, that heritability only describes the extent to which differences in the phenotype (in this case IQ) overlap with differences in the genotype in a given population. In other words, heritability describes how much of the variance in a trait statistically corresponds to genetic variance (see e.g., Griffith et al. 2000). Heritability does not describe the extent to which genes actually cause IQ differences, only the correspondence of genetic similarity and IQ similarity. In this vein, high heritability does not exclude the possibility of environmental influences on IQ:

For example, one reason for the rise in IQ may be better nutrition. If everybody in a society gains access to better nutrition to the same extent, this may increase IQ for all. Nevertheless, heritability does not necessarily change as the genetic differences between people still translate into IQ differences between people.
Environmental changes may actually increase heritability estimates. For example, consider a country in which people in one geographical region have access to good education (another potential reason for the Flynn effect), and people in another region don't. If missing opportunities for education depresses IQ points, the population's variation in IQ should be affected by this environmental difference. Once good education becomes available for everybody, genetic differences should matter more, leading to a higher heritability estimate.

A detailed model of how high heritability estimates and large environmental influences on IQ can coexist has been proposed by Dickens and Flynn (2001). In their analysis they focus on the possibility that environmental influences can be underestimated because genes and environment shape IQ interactively, in a way that is not captured by heritability estimates.

They assume that small genetic advantages can translate into strongly favorable environments. For example, if a child is somewhat smarter than others, she will have a higher chance to end up in a better school, where she can thrive, and then go to a better college and so on (an individiual multiplier). Nevertheless, this environmental influence would be ascribed to genes, because of the way heritability is defined.
There may also be a social multiplier effect caused by the social environment one lives in. If average IQ in the society is rising for some external reason, everybody should profit from this rise. For example, if more people go to college because this now offers lucrative jobs, this may set examples, encourage others to do the same, make college education itself more widely available, and thus create a social dynamic that leads to IQ gains for all.

Another possibility to resolve the paradox may be to investigate whether the Flynn-effect is actually due to genetic causes. Mingroni (2007) posits that higher social mobility has reduced inbreeding of people who live in high social isolation, which is detrimental to IQ. However, reviewing empirical evidence, Nisbett et al. (2012) conclude that this hypothesis seems implausible, for example, because the Flynn effect is also observed in societies which have been characterized by high social mobility for a long time.

In conclusion, even though there is no consensus on the exact reasons for the Flynn effect (Nisbett et al., 2012), there are several ways in which high heritability estimates for IQ and the large gains in IQ (due to environmental reasons) can be reconciled.

References

Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108, 346–369.

Griffiths, A. J., et al. (2000). An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (7th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21766/

Mingroni, M. A. (2007). Resolving the IQ paradox: Heterosis as a cause of the Flynn effect and other trends. Psychological Review, 114, 806–829. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.806

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–159. doi:10.1037/a0026699


Any study related to intimacy with nature and link with how it affects hormones or other chemical equations of brain?

The positive impact of natural scenery on individuals well being has been well studied. I found a few studies looking at the physiological effects of viewing natural scenes.

Electroencephalography (EEG) has been used to access the electrical activity of the localized brain cortex associated with natural and urban environments (Ulrich, 1981; Nakamura, 1992). Ulrich reported that subjects shown urban and scenes produced more alpha (relaxation) activity when viewing nature scenes. High alpha amplitudes are associated with lower levels of physiological
arousal as well as feelings of wakeful relaxation.

More recently Kim at al (2010) conducted a functional magnetic imaging (fMRI) study exposing participants to either rural (natural) or urban scenery, they found that different areas of the brain were active when viewing the different scenes:

  Activation of the anterior cingulate gyrus, globus pallidus, putamen
  and head of the caudate nucleus was dominant during rural scenery
  viewing, whereas activation of the hippocampus, parahippocamus and
  amygdala was dominant during urban scenery viewing (p < 0.01). These
  findings allow better characterization of neural activation,
  suggesting an inherent preference towards nature-friendly living.

In terms of hormones, cortisol, amylase and adrenaline would be the ones changed by exposure to natural scenes as these are the hormones most associated with stress (Rashkova et al, 2012; Takahashi, 2005; Takai, 2004).

Park et al (2007) got two groups of participants to spend time in either a forest or a city for a day and then swap and spend a day in the opposite environment they found that:

The concentration of salivary cortisol in the forest area first group was significantly lower than that of the group that went to the city area first even after being in both landscapes.

It's worth noting however that a meta-analysis by Bowler et al (2010) found that research looking at hormones and natural environments was not consistent:

  Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations
  found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments
  across studies.

  Other hormones, or measures of hormone activation, apart from
  cortisol, have also been investigated such as adrenaline and
  noradrenalin and salivary amylase.  Across these different studies and
  outcomes, their results provide mixed findings, with no clear,
  consistent difference emerging in the effect of different
  environments.

References:

Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC public health, 10(1), 456.

Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kasetani, T., Hirano, H., Kagawa, T., Sato, M., & Miyazaki, Y. (2007). Physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the atmosphere of the forest)-using salivary cortisol and cerebral activity as indicators. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 26(2), 123-128.

Takai, N., Yamaguchi, M., Aragaki, T., Eto, K., Uchihashi, K., & Nishikawa, Y. (2004). Effect of psychological stress on the salivary cortisol and amylase levels in healthy young adults. Archives of oral biology, 49(12), 963-968.

Takahashi, T., Ikeda, K., Ishikawa, M., Kitamura, N., Tsukasaki, T., Nakama, D., & Kameda, T. (2005). Anxiety, reactivity, and social stress-induced cortisol elevation in humans. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 26(4), 351-354.

Rashkova, M. R., Ribagin, L. S., & Toneva, N. G. (2012). Correlation between salivary α-amylase and stress-related anxiety. Folia medica, 54(2), 46-51.

Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes some psychophysiological effects. Environment and behavior, 13(5), 523-556.

Nakamura, R., & Fujii, E. (1992). A comparative study of the characteristics of the electroencephalogram when observing a hedge and a concrete block fence. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architects, 55(5), 139-144.

Kim, G. W., Jeong, G. W., Kim, T. H., Baek, H. S., Oh, S. K., Kang, H. K., ... & Song, J. K. (2010). Functional neuroanatomy associated with natural and urban scenic views in the human brain: 3.0 T functional MR imaging. Korean Journal of Radiology, 11(5), 507-513.

Kim, T. H., Jeong, G. W., Baek, H. S., Kim, G. W., Sundaram, T., Kang, H. K., ... & Song, J. K. (2010). Human brain activation in response to visual stimulation with rural and urban scenery pictures: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Science of the total environment, 408(12), 2600-2607.


Difference between brain disease and brain disorder

There are many who will tell you authoritatively that a disease is acquired (e.g. infection, cancer, etc.) whereas disorder is something curable or genetic. These are imprecise and untrue. Basically a disturbance in normal functioning can be either a disorder or a disease, regardless of it's curability or method of acquisition.

From your link, the second entry (for acid lipase disease) contains this information:

  Two rare lipid storage diseases are caused by the deficiency of the enzyme lysosomal acid lipase: Wolman’s disease... is an autosomal recessive disorder... Infants with the disorder appear normal at birth... Cholesteryl ester storage disease (CESD) is an extremely rare disorder...

and

  Alexander disease is one of a group of neurological conditions known as the leukodystrophies, disorders that are the result of abnormalities in myelin... Alexander disease is a progressive and often fatal disease.

This might lead you to deduce that the disease is the manifestation, whereas disorder is the source. Though I would say that this is as close to a real distinction you'll find, even that doesn't consistently hold up. We talk about infectious diseases though we know the etiology and pathology, and inherited diseases and disorders. Mental diseases are mostly disorders regardless of their genetics.

The truth is that nomenclature is subjective. It has something to do with history (if the person who discovers or elucidates the disorder an illness names it a disease, a disease it will tend to remain, e.g. Huntington's disease/Crohn's disease), precedent, and advances in understanding. I think there is a tendency to name things disorders today, as disease carries certain connotations. It is all very subjective.

Edited to add: no disease or disorder occurs without some change in underlying structure. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (closely related to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy - also known as Mad Cow Disease) occurs in an inherited form, a sporadic form, and a transmitted form. In all cases, the etiologic agent is thought to be a self-replicating tiny bit of protein called a prion. Prions occur normally, and are replicated and broken down. When the abnormal prion (same chemical structure but a different spatial structure) is introduced, this new prion, because of it's different shape, cannot be broken down, accumulating in the brain, eventually to the extent that normal brain cells are destroyed by the stores of prion within the brain. The same can be said of any illness: something of normal order is disturbed (e.g. smokers and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.)


Long term effects of a high self monitor who voluntarily chooses a contradictory self-presentation

So basically the question eventually became about the influences of on-line activities on changing (improving in this case) one's behavior if not downright one's personality in real life.

There is a body of evidence that this is not uncommon, especially with children, adolescents and young adults. It's not an incredibly well research topic, so I'll mention a few papers and their findings:

"The influence of anonymous peers on prosocial behavior":

  Prosocial behavior of anonymous peers (confederates) exerts a profound influence on college students’ participation in a signature campaign and money donation, whereas the reading of a prosocial paragraph has no effect. Furthermore, no participants reported peer influence as a reason for engaging in prosocial behavior.

"The Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Prosocial Behaviors: International Evidence from Correlational, Longitudinal, and Experimental Studies"

  The experimental study using U.S. university undergraduates demonstrated a short-term causal impact of playing prosocial games on helpful behavior (and of playing violent games on hurtful behavior). Short-term experiments like this are especially important for at least two reasons: (a) they provide a strong case for causality; (b) they reveal underlying processes likely to influence long-term effects. The correlational study using Singaporean junior high schoolers demonstrated the predicted associations among video game habits and “real world” prosocial and antisocial behaviors and traits. Such correlational studies are important because: (a) they provide an opportunity for a theoretical model to fail; (b) they allow tests of the predicted association with long-term consequential behavioral patterns and traits; and (c) they allow tests of some plausible alternative explanations. The longitudinal study using Japanese children and adolescents demonstrated effects of earlier prosocial game play habits on later prosocial behavior. Such studies allow strong causal inferences, primarily by ruling out many alternative explanations that rely on individual differences in trait aggressiveness and in interests that exist at the first assessment time period; they also allow testing of the theoretical model with consequential real-world outcome measures. The bi-directionality of the present longitudinal results also demonstrates that the often-asked chicken and egg question is overly simplistic. These data suggest that playing prosocial games tends to increase prosocial behavior tendencies, and that prosocial tendencies tend to lead to selection of prosocial games. This clearly has implications for the parallel argument about violent media and aggression.

A bit of an aside here, but their conclusions about violence are a bit simplistic. From a later study:

  Research on video games has yielded consistent findings that violent video games increase aggression and decrease prosocial behavior. However, these studies typically examined single-player games. Of interest is the effect of cooperative play in a violent video game on subsequent cooperative or competitive behavior. Participants played Halo II (a first-person shooter game) cooperatively or competitively and then completed a modified prisoner's dilemma task to assess competitive and cooperative behavior. Compared with the competitive play conditions, players in the cooperative condition engaged in more tit-for-tat behaviors-a pattern of behavior that typically precedes cooperative behavior. The social context of game play influenced subsequent behavior more than the content of the game that was played.

I haven't found the exact study this refers to, but the Guardian says

  Joseph Kahne, a professor of education at Mills College in California, studied 400 teenagers over three years. Kahne found that teens who participated in fan or hobby sites were more likely than other kids to do real-world volunteering. Interestingly, this wasn't true of being on Facebook.

The findings about Facebook are fairly consistent with another paper though, i.e. it has a weak impact on "real life" behavior.

There might be more research on which (other) kinds of online communities facilitate "real life" pro-social behavior, I'm not terribly familiar with this area.


What causes introverts to lose "energy" in social settings and require recovery afterwards?

My sister and I are both introverts, and have been talking about this before.
We have agreed about the following:

When being social, we feel like we are obliged\expected to do\say certain things and avoid doing\saying others. We are supposed to ...

go where the others go.
be nice and agree rather than say what we think
do the same activity as everyone else
do it at the same time as everyone else
listen to the same music
eat the same or at the same place
etc etc etc...

Our will to do\say what we like\want is challenged whenever we are social. We feel restrained, and We feel that we are unable to relax because we are restrained from doing what we feel like doing. Sometimes being social feels like being at work with colleagues all day - it feels like it's more obligations than our will.
We happen to love some activities that happens to not be a good party activity. Like reading, programming, painting, etc. We need to choose either these activities or being social, and we prefer to have some of both, but we are forced to choose.
When I was a kid I had this dilemma that I wanted to play computer games, but my friends didn't want to. So at my computer I missed my friends, and with my friends I missed my computer. See the problem?
Introverts are just not that interested in talking just for the sake of talking. In my case, I go into different modes: In social mode I will chitchat and spend all my attention to people. In private mode(most of the time) I really don't care to talk unless there's something specific I need to talk about, and then I just space out of every discussion around me. I've never used to be interested in talk that has no clear purpose. It's like why talk if you don't have a point?
When we don't feel like being social this is often partly because our thoughts are focused on completely different things - not on the people around us. My experience (from me, my sister and friends) is that introverts are more interested in inanimate stuff and topics than extroverts are. This might be false, and it might not.
While being social I am mostly unable to really think through anything. When I don't filter out what people are saying, all my thoughts are interrupted and I have a hard time thinking anything logic. I'm not comfortable with this, it makes me feel unsure of my decisions, and I hardly trust my own decisions in this situation.
When I later get back to my private sphere I will spend time thinking through everything again. Make up my mind again for anything I've been talking about, figure out my decisions again for anything I had to decide, and so on.


What is the scientific term or concept for inner thought control?

Your question touches on a number of different active research areas in cognitive science and cognitive neuroscience.

The motoric component to not "following and running after every thought" is commonly understood to reflect a capacity for response inhibition - that is, the ability to override or cancel ongoing or prepotent motor commands.  This process is thought by some to be similar to that involved in reducing perceptual or cognitive interference, for example in attending to a particular type of information despite salient or prepotent sources of distraction (e.g., as studied in the Stroop and Flanker tasks), or in reducing interference from recently abandoned information/goals (e.g., variously studied in terms of negative priming and lag-2 repetition cost respectively).

However, there are other perspectives.  One is that the ability to maintain an overall task set - perhaps a more stable one, that has a hierarchical influence over other more transient thoughts/perceptions - might be responsible for keeping these kinds of more extraneous exogenous and endogenous distractions at bay, through a process known as competitive lateral inhibition.  Keywords for this kind of work include biased competition, goal maintenance, context maintenance, and active maintenance.

Finally, there is a third line of work relevant to your question, in which cognitive processes are selectively granted control over behavior.  This has so far been studied primarily in the domain of visual search, although computational models suggest that it may have rather domain-general applications.  In the visual search literature relevant keywords are "accessory items in working memory". In the modeling literature, this is known as an "output gate."


How can I incentivize users to perform creative tasks?

I think the methods you describe (i.e. those employed by Stack Exchange) work for creative tasks as well.

Asking good questions, and providing helpful answers can be considered creative. It's entirely possible that a user can put a lot of effort into an answer only for it to not solve the problem at all.

Whilst it can be disheartening when content isn't as good as you imagined, the feedback given (through upvotes and comments) allows you to improve upon what you've already produced, with the hope that it can be salvaged into something useful. This is essentially the benefit of gamification for sites like SE, by rewarding good content it encourages users themselves to improve and expand their knowledge - it's a learning experience.

So if a user is put off from submitting a recipe because they fear the community will react negatively to it, then maybe it was never very good to begin with.


Is it easier for people to remember longer words than words mixed with symbols?

One basic explanation would be a chunking one -- that it's easier to combine several words into a single memory unit than letters and numbers. In 2000, Alan Baddeley proposed the episodic buffer as an important component of the working memory (WM) system. According to Baddeley, the episodic buffer imbues WM with the ability to join information together, even when that information is of different modalities (e.g., sight and sound). Even though "$tr@wb3rr!" may be as memorable as the word "strawberry," with enough practice "strawberryhouse" can be just as facile (and a stronger password to boot).

Another concern is that while you'll likely always remember "strawberryhouse," only remembering the gist of the alphanumeric password ("I remember it sounds like 'strawberry'") can lead to verbatim errors of recall ("Was it '$tr@wb3rr!,' '$tr@wb3rri,' or "$tr@wb3rry?'"). I can find some empirical support on this track if it's useful, too.

  Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working
  memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417-423.


What are the benefits of using all 30 personality facets in multiple regressions compared to just including hypothesised facets?

I wrote a paper that focuses on this question (Anglim & Grant, 2014; pre-print is https://osf.io/g8kbj/download).

In short, if you're interested in estimating how well facets predict an outcome, then you should include all facets as predictors. Likewise, if you want to estimate the incremental prediction of facets over domains (e.g., 30 facets over the Big 5), then you should include all domains in the domain regression model and all facets in the facet regression model.

If you're doing research, then presumably, you don't know which facets predict the outcome. Therefore, it's an empirical question which do predict.

An important point is that you use an estimator that corrects for biases when including many predictors. A reasonable approach is to use adjusted r-squared, although when you have 30 facets, large samples help a lot.

I also have more recent primer that is designed to be fairly accessible (Anglim & O'Connor, 2018, see preprint https://psyarxiv.com/a78g2/download )

If you want more detail, post further questions in the comments.

References

Anglim, J., & Grant, S. L. (2014). Incremental criterion prediction of personality facets over factors: Obtaining unbiased estimates and confidence intervals. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 148-157. https://osf.io/g8kbj/download
Anglim, J., & O'Connor, P. (2018). Measurement and Research Using the Big Five, HEXACO, and Narrow Traits: A Primer for Researchers and Practitioners. Australian Journal of Psychology. https://psyarxiv.com/a78g2/download


What it is called when a mother has sexual desires towards her son?

Jocasta complex syndrome is what you are referring to.

  In psychoanalytic analysis, the Jocasta complex is the incestuous
  sexual desire of a mother towards her son. SOURCE


When rating, is it better to set the expected goal in the middle with hard to reach upper bounds or higher with desired outcomes at the upper bounds?

You might want to read about goal setting theory (see the review by Lock & Latham, 2002).
This literature talks about setting challenging but attainable goals that are specific and measurable.

You might also like to think about performance management systems. In particular a lot of organisations use management by objectives. In this case, goals are negotiated between the supervisor and the employee.

References

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation On November 9th, 2011· In Business Models, Business Theories. American psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. PDF


How much additional sleep is required to recover from a given number of hours of sleep deprivation?

It is funny that you ask this question. The answer is you can't. When you dont get enough sleep and you feel tired and your brain activity is lower (for example, trouble remembering what you were doing or where you left your keys) you cant catch up to it. You might take a powernap (not longer than 90 minutes) to give you a sensation of feeling awake, but the brain doesnt become more active. I dont know exactly why you cant catch up to lost hours of sleep, but you just cant. That also the reason, besides a messed up biogical clock according to light, why people working night shift experience more mental and health issues.


What are the benefits of giving feedback to subjects during a discrimination task?

Short answer
Giving subjects feedback may affect their performance over time because of learning effects. The choice of giving feedback may be far less trivial than subjects getting bored yes or no. And quite frankly, subjects will get bored after a 100 trials, let alone 500, feedback or no feedback...

Background
You have to be aware that subjects can show learning effects in speech tests (De Jong et al, in press). I am unaware of the specific task you give them, but perhaps below answer will help you make a rational decision on this.

Procedural learning affects the way people perform because they may get better in the task, simply because they have to learn how the task works ('Oh wait, the trial starts already!' 'Oh wait, where was that answer button again?' 'Oh wait, what was the green button for again?'). If subjects show procedural learning effects, they will get better over time. This is oftentimes regardless of whether you give any feedback; subjects simply need to 'get the hang of it'.
Conceptual learning will affect the performance too. This type of learning is strongly affected by whether you give them feedback. For example, if your subjects are unfamiliar with the languages and you are not providing them feedback then they will never learn them. On the other hand, when for example they hear words from a closed set and each word is repeatedly presented, and the experimenter provides the correct answer ('This trial you heard senorita and that is Spanish and means female' or whatever) and the subjects repeatedly hears this word then for sure at a certain point they will learn from feedback that it is Spanish. However, without any feedback they will never learn it.

Even feedback after 5 minutes may affect their performance ('Oh I'm doing great, I can probably relax a bit'). In my opinion, subjects should never be given feedback, not until, perhaps, after the entire experiment is over.

Reference
- De Jong et al., Ear & Hearing, in press


Morita therapy - does it have a western counterpart?

Reminds me a bit of existential therapy and humanistic psychology in general. Unconditional positive regard and motivational interviewing both insist on approaching undesirable feelings from the client's perspective without imposing fixes or changes on the person through pressure or blunt confrontationality. Existential theory even presumes major, inevitable negativity in life experience for which no individual could be blamed. There are plenty of terrible realities for every individual to face and accept in the process of adjustment and maturation. The individual must do this freely, idiosyncratically, and earnestly for oneself, or so the theory goes. Focus is not on eliminating negativity but on finding meaning amidst it. I hope these Wikipedia pages give you plenty to read for starters, but I can try to find more if you like.


Is it recommendable to put participants in different conditions across trials?

It depends on what you care to investigate.

Do you care what happens when one person gets two hard questions as compared to someone who gets two easy ones? If so, record it for analysis. If not, control for it by ensuring that each participant receives the same number of easy and difficult problems.

Do you care if there are ordering effects? If so, record that data for analysis. If not, then control for it by ensuring that each participant gets a set of questions classified in the same order. E.g., standardize on EASY-HARD-EASY, and randomly assign problems of each classification.


Meier et al (2006). FULL TEXT has some discussion of aggression primes.

Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the Other Cheek Agreeableness and the Regulation of Aggression-Related Primes. Psychological Science, 17(2), 136-142. FULL TEXT


Difference between meditating and watching a movie

You are comparing two totaly different things.

While watching a movie/show, you let allday grind behind you and consume the input you get.
This can have several effects on your consciousness, both temporal and permanent, just like meditation.
But these two points are everything what meditation and watching a movie/show are having in common.

Everyone knows what watching a movie/show is due everyone has expirience in it, so I will not go further to this point.
But I assume that you do not anderstand the point of meditation.
It's not only about watching your breath and prevent your thoughs of wandering around.
Für meditation-beginners this might be true, due they first have to lern to focus.

But meditation is a lot more. Depending on what a person wants to archive by meditation.
Essentially one focus his mind on either the body, the mind itself(like in a mirror) or both at the same time.

One can write a lot of books about what you can archive due meditation, so I avoid to write a long text.

Most people do not explore their mind. They see it as a kind of invisible organ which is just there and has a function.
But as many people do sport to train their body, other people meditate to train their mind.
Not only to focus their thoughs on one spot, but also to conditionate their thoughts, overcome traumatic memory or just to archive highest cognitive capacity without using drugs.

Due meditation, one discovers his own mind. This will take years and the exploration will never ends, due the mind changes his state with the years.
By meditation one watches the mind changing, finds his own  weakpoints, learns on wich kind of input it reacts in wich way and to avoid "bad" input and search "good" input.

Typical results of years of meditations can be:
- Acceptance to things that stressed the mind in the past.
- Or exactly the opposite: rais of the courage to change something one suffered for a while.
- More happyness due the "I really controll myself" state, like a athlete.

In the end I tell you:
If you want to know what meditation is about, you have to try it out.
If you are willing to do, I recommend you to start the "focus on breath" technique to learn the focus, but keep in mind that this is just a small step. The aim is to focus the mind.

If you want more information, sent me a message.


How does an animal learn what a predator is?

To answer your question, you really have to specify what animal your talking about, some animals simply won't live long enough for learning to be an effective mechanism.

If there are few predators, evolution will favour animals who are less vigilant about checking for potential predators generally, since this costs time (Google search vigilance behavioral ecology).

Do address JeromeJ theory in that comment, teaching is fairly rare in the animal kingdom, even amongst Apes. I don't know any examples of teaching about predator detection, although it is believed that Meerkats teach their young how to kill poisonous scorpions and ants teach each other the location of new sources of food (see http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Social_learning_in_animals)

Rather than explicit teaching, it might be likely that birds socially learn infomation about predators simply from observation, although i'm not sure how often this occurs. A nice little example shows that wild crows learnt to avoid and "mob" specific humans using facial identification http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/06/20/rspb.2011.0957

I don't know enough to give a more detailed response though!


Do dissolving myelinated connections explain learning?

Myelin is a greatly extended and modified plasma membrane wrapped around the nerve axon in a spiral fashion (Morell & Quarles, 1999). It typically forms on long axons to increase conduction speed and efficiency.

Learning predominantly takes place in cortical areas and it is believed that it mainly depends on synaptic changes, such as long-term potentiation (LTP) of synapses. Forgetting things is believed to be mediated through long-term depression (LTD).

Both LTP and LTD are synaptic processes and do not involve myelin, as that substance is found around axons. Although there is a lot more to learning than I can cover here, I dare say it doesn't involve myelination, and forgetting things doesn't involve demyelination, or vice versa.

Demyelination typically results in disease. The most common one being multiple sclerosis, characterized by blurred or double vision,
thinking problems, lack of coordination, loss of balance, numbness, tingling
and weakness in an arm or leg.

References
- Morell & Quarles. The Myelin Sheath. In: Siegel GJ et al., (eds). Basic Neurochemistry. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven (1999)
- Purves et al., (eds). Neuroscience. 2nd edition. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates; 2001


Are neurons the wrong shape to model neural networks?

A: Not all neurons have many short dendrites and a single long axon. In fact, the majority of them do not have this shape. Cerebellar granule cells, which are the most numerous neurons in the brain (estimates of their total number average around 50 billion, which means that they constitute about 3/4 of the brain's neurons)[Ref 1,2,3], do not have this shape. They have an axon that branches out into long parallel fibers as shown in the diagram below (modified from the figure in Ref 2).

The shapes of neurons vary greatly. This is because neurons have evolved their structures to suit their functions:

  We can learn a lot about what a neuron does by looking at it’s morphology (i.e. shape). For example a neuron with large branching dendrites is likely integrating information from a large number of inputs, whereas a neuron that has dendrites that branch close to the soma, but don’t extend very far, is probably only integrating information from it near neighbors. Same thing with axons, projection neurons have long axons that allow them to communicate with neurons in distant brain regions, while a local interneuron will a short axon that will only branch locally, allowing it to talk to nearby cells. Some cells in the peripheral nervous system have the axons coming directly out of the dendrites, allowing them to efficiently convey information from one to the other. [Ref 4] (The figure below is also from Ref 4)

So, neurons have evolved their various shapes to do their functions. I think whether the one shape of these, as questioned in this thread, or many or all of these shapes are right or wrong for us to use to model neural networks is not answerable now. But I think we should try to study and learn from them because it is the best model we have. Remember, these neurons with their various shapes and connections are successful in creating one of the most wonderful phenomena in this universe: our conscious mind.

References.

Richard H. Masland. Neuronal cell type. Current Biology. 2004; Vol 14 No 3: R497-R500.
Erik De Schutter. Glomeruli of Cerebellar Cortex: Computation by Extrasynaptic Inhibition?
Wikipedia. Cerebellar Granule Cell.
Masland RH. Looking at Neurons Brown University. Neuroscience in Action: Understanding Our Brains and Nervous System.


Why do we require social interaction/engagement?

I think you phrased this well, but you are correct that it is a hard question which could be answered in many different ways which, perhaps, may not satisfy you. It is a "why" question so let me give some speculative answers:

-an evolutionary psychologist might say that we have evolved to seek social interactions because humans in groups are more successful (e.g., they can mate, raise offspring together, defend each other from predators etc). It is hard to refute this kind of explanation, and indeed many/most species show a desire to interact, although some niches may have encouraged more solitary behaviour.

-a behavioural neuroscientist might say that we seek social interactions because they are rewarding on a biological level, for example because they release oxytocin which has a range of positive effects on physiology.

-a social or developmental psychologist might focus more on the way that social interactions change self-reported well-being, or on the qualities of the interaction which are most important (perhaps in line with your bolded question). While it is true that particular types of (positive) interaction are best, even minimal contact increases a feeling of belonging. The developmental literature on social enrichment might be a good place to look if you want to find out how to make satisfying interactions.

So, like most "why" questions, it depends what level of analysis you are interested in, but all of these are probably true to some extent.


How to test effectiveness of a children's museum in improving cognitive function?

General literature on training and educational program evaluation

In general, you would want to read up about program evaluation in general, and educational program evaluation, and training evaluation in particular.
With regards to the educational context I found this article online.
With regards to training evaluation, you could check out Kraiger et al (1993) or Sackett and Mullen (1993) or any number of other textbook treatments of training evaluation.

Specific comments on evaluating a "children's museum"

What design will you use?: is it going to be a pre-post design where you compare knowledge before and after exposure to the program? Are you going to have a control group who does not experience the program or experiences an alternative program? How will you allocate participants to conditions? random allocation is better.
Decide on the constructs of interest?: What is the program meant to improve? You speak about quite general learning goals, but training programs are much more likely to have more specific effects. E.g., if you have a program that teaching addition, then students are likely to get better at addition, but their general intelligence is likely to be unchanged. You may also want to think about the time frame that benefits are meant to persist after exposure to the program. You can also look at Kirkpatrick's framework of training evaluation which talks about different kinds of outcome variables.
What will measure your constructs of interest?: Are you going to use existing measures or develop your own measures? If the content is highly specific to your program, then you will probably need to develop your own test items.
Determine your sample: How are you going to recruit your sample? How many participants will you need to ensure reasonable statistical power?
When and how will measures be administered? I think you would want to do this in a controlled setting. A kiosk would probably be problematic from a measurement perspective.

Rough starting point

Of course there are a whole range of issues related to program evaluation, and dealing with children introduces many additional issues.
The following might provide a rough starting point:

two groups: control and intervention; about 100 participants per group
three time points: before intervention, immediately after intervention, a few months after intervention
Use some general measures of ability related to the program as well as some highly specific measures that tie in closely to program content.
Also measure other factors like child and perhaps parent reactions to the program including both quantitative and qualitative evaluations.
Perhaps link in with some surrounding schools or day care facilities to recruit participants or use some form of waiting list system for admission to the program. Administer tests in a controlled environment (e.g., in a supervised room).

References

Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K. & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation.. Journal of applied Psychology, 78, 311. PDF
Sackett, P.R. & Mullen, E.J. (1993). Beyond formal experimental design: Towards an expanded view of the training evaluation process. Personnel Psychology, 46, 613-627. PDF


Are there any journal articles in psychology that have promoted and discussed reproducible data analysis?

It's not a journal article, but it's a project, called Reproducibility Project.
They are re-doing psychological studies to estimate the reproducibility of a sample of studies. They try to stay as close as possible on the original study (they e-mail the author(s) for the exact stimuli etc.).
Here's the main site and here's the link to their spreadsheet.

This is a short article promoting the sharing of data in psychology. Another related study (by the same author) is also mentioned.


Does Stroop test performance correlate with any personal characteristics or abilities?

N.B.: There are many varieties of "Stroop-like" tasks, which as a class are often called implicit association tests or IATs.  Since those are likely to test attributes related to their specific construction, I have excluded them from this answer.

There have been a variety of papers studying correlations of Stroop performance with other characteristics.

Ward et al. (2001) examined the correlation between Stroop effects and executive control, finding that Stroop costs and other measures of executive control were not well correlated.

Brewer et al. (2008) found sizable correlations between neural activation in Stroop testing and treatment outcomes among cocaine-dependent patients; they interpret this to suggest executive control differences are determinative in treatment outcome, but this interpretation is contradicted by Ward et al. above.

Less recently, Golden (1975) found the Stroop test to correlate with measures of creativity; I have found no more recent discussion of this so cannot speak to its currency.

References
Ward, G., Roberts, M., & Phillips, L. (2001). Task-switching costs, Stroop-costs, and executive control: A correlational study. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology Volume 54, Issue 2, pages 491-511. DOI:10.1080/713755967

Brewer, J., et al. (2008). Pretreatment Brain Activation During Stroop Task Is Associated with Outcomes in Cocaine-Dependent Patients. Biological Psychiatry Volume 64, Issue 11, 1 December 2008, Pages 998–1004. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.05.024

Golden, C. (1975). The Measurement of Creativity by the Stroop Color and Word Test. Journal of Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment Volume 39, Issue 5, 1975 pages 502-506. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa3905_9


Why do soldiers seldom "fight to the death" even if they are going to be killed anyway?

Why does prey, when caught in the jaws of an animal whose bite and build is powerful enough to carry them, cease to struggle? I remember an old quote from psychology, recounting first-hand, a lion attack. I cannot find it now. The narrator said that once the lion had him in its mouth, it shook him (physically) and thus disoriented him. He said that he felt no pain, and he said that it must have been because of adrenaline. I forget how, I think a local intervened, but he survived to describe the experience.
Why does a fish, when laid on ground, cease to struggle? Yet waggle when touched and escape when released? Morale?
Why do bucks, when vying for supremacy by engaging in contests of strength, not aim to kill their opponent? This case is slightly different, because the foe is conspecific. While humans understand the concept of mutually-assured destruction, animals seem to understand this too, and that it's evolutionarily folly when fighting one's own species.

Sorry for an incomprehensive answer, but I hope my insight spurs the ultimate answer.


Why do people have different personalities when speaking different languages?

This is a typical example of the misrepresentation of scientific reseach in popular media.

The orignal study concludes that "language effects on cognition are context-bound and transient, revealing unprecedented levels of malleability in human cognition". The word "personality" does not appear in the original paper. Nevertheless the Daily Mail comes to the conclusion that "[s]peaking two languages really could give you a split personality, researchers have found". No, they haven't.

To understand what is going on here, I recommend the following video to you:

https://www.facebook.com/LastWeekTonight/videos/896755337120143/

So what does the study find? It finds that the different grammatical structures of different languages can influence how people perceive the world and process information. (Please note the word "can" here! It does not always happen, and only to a small extent.) This is an old hat and called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

As for how this changes the "personality" of multilingual speakers: It doesn't. It changes the information that the speakers use to assess the situation and plan their behavior.


Does reading a book out loud make you better in social situations?

Based on general principles of skill transfer:

Reading a book aloud should improve your skills in reading books aloud, and in particular it should improve your skill in reading the particular passages that you are reading. So if you are going to be reading a particular text in a public setting, it makes sense to practice reading that passage of text.
Likewise, if you are preparing to give a lecture, then practicing giving the lecture should improve your performance giving that talk.
Reading a book aloud is unlikely to help you in social situations because the dynamics of reading are quite different to the dynamics of social situations. Communication in social situations is interactive with its own specific set of conventions that need to be learnt. In contrast, reading a book aloud is not interactive. The rules that govern reading a book aloud are very different to those that govern social situations.

Based on the same principles, if you want to be a better communicator in social situations, your time would probably be better spent (a) studying social interactions, and (b) engaging and reflecting on social interactions.

Update: @ofri makes a good point. If a bottle neck on your social skills is actually articulating words clearly, then practicing that skill, such as would occur when reading, should be effective. Ofri uses a good example of a second language learner. The case I'm thinking of above is where the person is fully competent in articulating words verbally, and where problems with social skills relate more to knowing what to say when.