That one looks a bit familiar to me!

Short, simple answer

(extracted from the longer answer below...)

Measures of functional connectivity are just correlations (correlation here referring broadly to statistical relationships, not a specific statistic): they do not say anything about the causes of those correlations including whether they are direct or indirect. The "connectivity" is functional in that it is measured only by the function at the measured nodes.

Functional connectivity

Functional connectivity refers to temporal correlations in some measure of nervous system activity. Both positive and negative functional connectivity is possible. The canonical example is correlation in the BOLD fMRI signal, which is often defined as the Pearson correlation in the resting state BOLD signal time series between remote voxels, or across blocks during some task.

For EEG, functional connectivity measures include coherence, amplitude correlations (such as the Pearson correlation of the signal envelope, typically band-pass filtered into named bands like delta/theta/alpha/beta/gamma), and measures of phase relationships such as the phase lag index and weighted phase lag index.

What these measures share in common is that they record some statistical non-independence in the activity measured in different areas of the brain. However, they differ greatly in temporal and spatial scale depending on the modality and subsequent signal processing.

Importantly, measures of functional connectivity are just correlations (correlation here referring broadly to statistical relationships, not a specific statistic): they do not say anything about the causes of those correlations including whether they are direct or indirect. The "connectivity" is functional in that it is measured only by the function at the measured nodes.

For example, consider a weighted directed graph of nodes A, B, and C. Even if there is no edge connecting A and B, if C drives both A and B then there will be functional connectivity between A and B.

You would even expect to observe functional connectivity between the brains of different people if they were, for example, watching the same video (as an aside...I think someone actually did this experiment, leading to some bogus claims about universal consciousness or something like that...the real explanation is more like "when two people listen to the same audio track, in which sometimes there is speech and sometimes there is no speech, they both have more activity in their auditory cortex during speech" which is considerably less profound...).

A synaptic connection between nodes P and Q almost certainly implies there will be functional connectivity between P and Q (though it may not be measurable depending on the strength of that connection and the structure of the rest of the network), but the inverse is not true: functional connectivity is insufficient to claim a real synaptic connectivity.

Personally, I wish another term was used besides connectivity but this is the field standard terminology.

Functional connectivity can be distinguished from two other types of connectivity: effective and structural.

Effective connectivity

Effective connectivity refers to model-based measures of causal influence of some brain area on another. Examples include the use of dynamic causal modeling (see for example Friston 2009, which is also highly relevant to the rest of this answer) and multivariable autoregressive modeling (see for example Cheung et al 2010).

Structural connectivity

Structural connectivity refers to the physical axonal connections between brain areas. In neuroimaging, it is often measured using diffusion tensor imaging which takes advantage of the fact that water more freely diffuses along axon tracts rather than perpendicular to them. Structural connectivity can also be measured more directly using neuronal tracers (dyes).

The term structural connectivity is used both in the context of connection strengths between certain areas relative to other areas, as well as to overall white matter integrity which can be disrupted in disease.

Note that while structural connectivity is often expected to correlate with functional connectivity, it doesn't need to.

Synaptic connectivity

These other terms are mostly used in the broad areas of neuroimaging and EEG/MEG. Using these modalities, even effective and structural connectivity only loosely imply synaptic connectivity. Detecting true synaptic connectivity requires more invasive electrophysiological techniques such as paired patch clamp recordings, or via anatomical reconstructions using tracers or electron microscopy. Synaptic connectivity can also be observed in real time using live-cell imaging of dendritic spines after injection or genetic expression of a fluorescent marker.

Cheung, B. L. P., Riedner, B. A., Tononi, G., & Van Veen, B. D. (2010). Estimation of cortical connectivity from EEG using state-space models. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical engineering, 57(9), 2122-2134.

Friston, K. J. (1994). Functional and effective connectivity in neuroimaging: a synthesis. Human brain mapping, 2(1‐2), 56-78.

Friston, K. (2009). Causal modelling and brain connectivity in functional magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS biology, 7(2), e1000033.

Jones, D. K., Simmons, A., Williams, S. C., & Horsfield, M. A. (1999). Non‐invasive assessment of axonal fiber connectivity in the human brain via diffusion tensor MRI. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 42(1), 37-41.

Nägerl, U. V., Willig, K. I., Hein, B., Hell, S. W., & Bonhoeffer, T. (2008). Live-cell imaging of dendritic spines by STED microscopy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(48), 18982-18987.

Vinck, M., Oostenveld, R., Van Wingerden, M., Battaglia, F., & Pennartz, C. M. (2011). An improved index of phase-synchronization for electrophysiological data in the presence of volume-conduction, noise and sample-size bias. Neuroimage, 55(4), 1548-1565.


I don't know how it is when it goes about hormones but for sure dreams can be remembered and this remembering of dreams can be improved.

One of the most popular methods is trying to think about somebody's dreams just after waking up. It is also important to tell it loudly, record it or write it down.
After some time (even few days) of writing down your dreams a person is able to remember not one, but two, three or more dreams from one night.

The case of getting access to your previous dreams lately is connected with lucid dreaming - if you are able to have lucid dreams whenever you want, you also can initiate these situations which you like. But it is much less scientifically described case.


What is the connection between cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias?

Related studies you might find interesting.

Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information.

  The authors provide evidence that the increase in confirmation bias under sequential presentation is caused by heightened commitment due to the participants' increased focusing on their decision

Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.

  Confirmation bias, as the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand.

Google Scholar has many more too, but you'll probably have to filter a bit.


What is the term for when too many choices results in inability to decide?

It is "paradox of choice". See these resources:

The paradox of choice: why more is less By Barry Schwartz (Google Books)
Excerpts from the above book by Barry Schwartz (.doc format)
Positive Psychology in Practice chapter 6 Doing Better but Feeling Worse:
The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz and Andrew Ward (.pdf format)

I actually haven't been able to find anything in my search just now, but I remember some claims about a year ago that recent experiments had suggested that the original results were somewhat over-blown.


At what point do multiple personas for social context cross into multiple personalities disorder?

I think the difference comes down to awareness and control. A person who "wears many hats" and can step into different archetypes is a sort of personality chameleon, whereas a person with dissociative identity disorder has little or no control over changing personalities, and certain personalities within that person may be only partially or completely unaware of other personalities.


Can you give an example of automatic appraisal process?

We make automatic "appraisals" in more or less every waking moment.  We are constantly predicting the potential allostatic consequences of external input and behaving accordingly (e.g., here). Importantly, most appraisals are non-conscious and aren't at all specific to emotions.

Moreover, the automaticity of your appraisals relies on the extent and precision of your prior experience (see here).  If you are used to seeing snakes attack humans, then your appraisal about the danger of snakes will likely be quite fast.

Thus, there are virtually infinite examples of an automatic appraisal.  Automaticity depends on your prior experience and the precision of incoming sensory input.


What is the relation between fun and motivation? Are they the same?

As a temporary answer, and based on the comments, I will say that:

Motivation is related to the long term cost and revenue (in the broadest sense) for an activity, i.e. more extrinsic. If the long term revenue is higher than the cost, you might be motivated to undertake the activity.

Fun is related to the short term cost/revenue for an activity, i.e. intrinsic. If the short term revenue is high enough than a certain treshold you will say the activity is fun.

Improvements welcome :-)


I would argue that a positive emotional experience is something that evolved for conscious organisms in order for consciousness to function in a way that supports survival and reproduction (thus, sex and eating are pleasurable experiences).

Once having this system, an organism can then find other ways to trigger it that may not lead to better survival or reproduction, but still don't compromise survival and reproduction.  Often, this may be through human invention.  For example, our love of sugar evolved in a world where sugar indicated health (high energy foods that help you survive).  Now, we're able to produce the sugar by itself with technology; it no longer occurs only in the context of nutritional food.

Thus, humans are able to exploit their reward systems and "fun" need not pertain to healthy activities, but may have roots in the evolutionary purpose of pleasure.


Is it possible to increase/train your intelligence?

Here is the first article that popped up on a Google search of your first question. It poses your questions to 5 "experts" (psychology professors).

The subtlety in their responses comes from the fact that an IQ measurement is an imperfect number meant to capture some sort of underlying construct (and that this underlying construct can constantly be under debate). So, when one raises one's score: did you get smarter, or just become a better test taker? I won't answer one way or the other, but I will quote one of the experts (discussing IQ training with children):

  ... what I would say, is we didn't make the children smarter, but we taught them how to use what they have more efficiently, and better.

So yes, you can raise your IQ score. Now what does that imply? That depends on whom you ask...


Technical term for the displaying of 'bad' traits to seem more likeable

This may not fit exactly the scenario described, but some form of strategic affect display or 'appraisal theory', these relate to social theories of (& displays of) emotion, as oppose personality traits as such, but may be relevant nonetheless.

So for example, you might want to come across as being more aggressive & assertive, or alternately more compassionate & caring, in any given scenario, because you feel that is the appropriate thing to do, or you may gain some advantage from that - even though you may feel otherwise indifferent about whatever it is.

Having said that, the way the question is phrased - whether something is 'productive' or 'unproductive' in a social sense, as oppose to a personal level, is open to interpretation, i.e. if it makes you more 'likeable' then it is socially productive (at least in the short term), regardless of whether it it something that is generally regarded as being a negative trait.

Hope that's relevant.


As far as I recall, the "magic" of the number seven is that George Miller had to give a 1h-presentation while not having enough research on one particular topic to talk about this long. So he tried to connect unrelated lines of research, with the only connection between them being that they show cognitive limitations of similar magnitude ("7+/-2 items"). However, the comparison was not very serious and mostly rhetorical.
So I guess the short answer is: No it is not valid, and it has never really been.
Here is an short article that answers your question in more detail:

Cowan, N., Morey, C.C., & Chen, Z. (2007). The legend of the magical number seven. In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Tall tales about the mind & brain: Separating fact from fiction (pp. 45-59). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

And here is Millers original article, it's actually fun to read:

Miller, G. A. (1956). "The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information". Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97.


Signal detection theory: How to calculate c' when d' is 0?

As you mention Macmillan and Creelman, they talk about 3 types of bias: c, c', and beta. As I said in this answer it normally does not matter which one you use since they are pretty easy to switch between. When d' is zero, then c' and beta are no longer as informative as c. I would suggest reporting c, possibly along with c', in this case. Alternatively, you could report hit and false alarm rates. If you only report c' and d', you will not be telling the whole story.


Why do I always screw up when people are watching?

There are quite a few studies on this, but a nice recent one is this:
Lee, Taraz G., et al. "Limiting motor skill knowledge via incidental training protects against choking under pressure." Psychonomic bulletin & review 26.1 (2019): 279-290.

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-018-1486-x)

They consider a few possible mechanisms, but end up leaning towards a 'high incentives are distracting' story. (Another candidate that can't be ruled out is 'high incentives encourage top-down control processes, and those are just not very good at driving motor sequences'). The main evidence hinges on differences between implicit and explicit learning of a key-sequence task: only the people who got explicit instruction show choking under pressure, even though both groups are doing the same task. If you just want the final take-home, it's "our results lead us to conclude that a training regime that seeks to restrict awareness of movement strategies and structure could lead to more stable performance under pressure, potentially via reduced performance deficits in the face of distraction." but underneath that claim there's a bunch of cool structure in the patterns of performance across the two groups that they dig into in some detail.


The Art of Teaching: What are the most effective & proven methods for successfully imparting a concept/idea to another

Your question is extremely broad so all I can do is give you an extremely broad answer. More specifically, I'll provide you a study done by John Hattie (2008), who meta-analyzed 800(!!) meta-analyses on effective teaching methods, used in primary education among others.

The linked document shows a "brief" overview of the different methods rated and sorted by their effect sizes. Some of the intervention may be more relevant to you compared to others. Providing feedback, for instance, is more difficult in indirect communications such as video's.

Hattie has also written much about providing feedback and how that affects students' learning ability (e.g. Hattie, 2007)

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.


Does practicing Ravens Progressive Matrices tests inflate your IQ score?

Yes, practice even as simple retest improves scores in matrices-like tests:

  Raven’s APM scores increase significantly on repeated testing without any targeted training (e.g., Bors & Vigneau, 2003; Bors & Forrin, 1995; Denney & Heidrich, 1990).

  Bors DA, Vigneau F. The effect of practice on Raven’s advanced progressive matrices. Learning and Individual Differences. 2003;13(4):291–312.
  Bors DA, Forrin B. Age, speed of information processing, recall, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence. 1995;20(3):229–248.
  Denney NW, Heidrich SM, Training effects on Raven's progressive matrices in young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Psychol Aging. 1990 Mar; 5(1):144-5.

I'm not surprised by this finding because the number of conceptually different problems in such matrices tests is limited. They questions are all basically variations on a few base patterns. The latter part is claim from memory, but I've read it somewhere besides my own observation; let me find where. (Also, I should try to quantify the improvement retest gives.)

I couldn't find the original place where I've read about the structure of Raven's, but I found newer research that found improvement in restest in particular problem types:

The (small) sample here was of 13-year olds... so this should be pretty relevant to your age. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much the finding extends (quantitatively) to adults.

Some researchers went as far as explaining the Flynn effect by this kind of better rule-based inference underlying retest improvement in Raven's:

  We present a new model of the Flynn effect. It is proposed that Flynn effect gains are partly a function of the
  degree to which a test is dependent on rules or heuristics. This means that testees can become better at solving
  ‘rule-dependent’ problems over time in response to changing environments, which lead to the improvement
  of lower-order cognitive processes (such as implicit learning and aspects of working memory). These in
  turn lead to apparent IQ gains that are partially independent of general intelligence. We argue that the Flynn effect
  is directly analogous to IQ gains via retesting, noting that Raven's Progressive Matrices is particularly sensitive
  to both the effects of retesting and the Flynn effect.

And a bit more from the paper itself:

  The biggest Flynn effect gains have been recorded on tests of fluid intelligence,
  in particular the Raven's Progressive Matrices (five-seven
  points per decade; Flynn, 1987, 2007, 2009). The smallest gains typically
  occur on measures of crystallized knowledge (Jensen, 1998a). It must
  be noted that not all measures of IQ show long-term gains. For example,
  purely psychophysical elementary cognitive tasks (ECTs), such as inspection
  and reaction times, show no Flynn effect (Nettlebeck &
  Wilson, 2004; Silverman, 2010). [...]

  Studies by Verguts et al. (1999) and Verguts and De Boeck (2002)
  [...] have found
  that in experiments, participants do repeatedly reapply a small number
  of rules when attempting to solve RPM-type items. The rule induction
  process seems to be characterized by the sequential sampling of rules,
  each of which have a certain probably of being resampled (Verguts
  et al., 1999). Furthermore, the speed with which individuals are able
  to sample and induce rules is strongly related to prior task exposure
  (Verguts & De Boeck, 2002).
  These studies indicate that narrower abilities matter in solving
  RPM items, and that furthermore, reliance upon these narrow abilities
  increases with increasing test experience. This is consistent
  with the phenomenology of both retesting and Flynn effects [...]

  Verguts, T., De Boeck, P, & Maris, E. (1999). Generation speed in Raven's Progressive Matrices
  Test. Intelligence, 27, 329–345.
  Verguts, T., & De Boeck, P. (2002). The induction of solution rules in Raven's Progressive
  Matrices Test. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 521–547.

I'm guessing I've read one the Verguts' papers, or at least something else citing their results (in the past).


There are lots of commonly observed biases in surveys, and a whole field of survey methodology and statistics which investigates them. To get an idea of this, take a look at the table of contents of these journals:
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/current
http://jssam.oxfordjournals.org/content/current

Many people in this field are dealing with large data-sets (e.g., national censuses with many thousands of respondents), and they concentrate on things like estimating non-responses statistically (to take into account that some people with some opinions are less likely to complete the survey in the first place). Other widely investigated biases include "social desirability", which is the issue that people often respond with what is most social acceptable, even if it is not necessarily accurate.

However, your question suggests you are looking on a smaller scale. Although it is a bit old, this is a nice review of cross-overs between psychology and survey statistics. Not sure if the full article is stuck behind a paywall. This covers some similar ground.

RE: Your first identified issue, I assume that by "average" rating, you mean that people tend to choose the middle scale point if they are unsure (obviously they don't normally know the true average/mean response from their peers). There is evidence of this (see the Schwarz article above). From the abstract of Schwarz et al., 1985:

  These results indicate that subjects inferred the average amount of
  television watching from the response alternatives provided them and
  used it as a standard of comparison in evaluating their behavior and
  its implications.

What this means is that you should be a bit careful about choosing your scale (people will use the end points to evaluate what the average rating is). However, normally you are interested in relative deviations from this (which seats are rated higher or lower than average relative to other seats), so this is an issue only if you are seeking a "real number" answer (such as the number of hours people watch TV). One way to counteract the "centering" bias is to use a 4 or 6-point scale rather than an odd number (so that there is no exact centre option) A related issue is that people are often reluctant to choose the most extreme options ("endpoint bias"). The wiki on Likert scales has some information about this, assuming you are using such a scale.

RE: Your second issue, yes, question order matters. People often spend less time and respond differently on later questions (e.g., this paper). The specific issues of anchoring responses are discussed here. However, In your case this should be easy to control for by randomising the order in which they sit in the vehicles.


Cognitive Techniques to train Working Memory?

There are a few commercial packages that provide training for verbal and visuo-spaital working memory. The most well-known is CogMed (http://www.cogmed.com). Another popular one is Jungle Memory (http://junglememory.com). Both of these packages have been used in research studies (comment about these results below) There is also a myriad of online working memory games that promise to improve working memory, e.g. some games in Luminosity (http://www.lumosity.com). The content of these games is very similar, but there are fewer independent scientific studies of them as far as I'm aware.

As a caveat, the scientific evidence about the benefit of WM training is mixed at best. Training on WM tasks improves performance on them. This improvement also transfers to similar tasks (near transfer). However, there is currently little evidence for transfer to other tasks or improvements in everyday function (far transfer). For example, have a look at this report from a randomised control trial of working memory training in children: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.12068/full


Does NMDA-receptor activation depend on neighboring AMPA-receptor activity?

Yes, there most certainly is "local membrane potential".  There are two major levels of compartmentalization in dendritic processing.  For one, most excitatory synapses occur onto "spines", which have a somewhat segregated environment from the rest of the dendrite.  The spine neck has been estimated to have a resistance of up to 1GOhm, although measurements are very difficult, so discussion spans orders of magnitude.  The other level of compartmentalization is that different dendritic branches can function somewhat independently.

It is actually extremely important that there be "local membrane potential" and that AMPA receptors only activate neighboring NMDA receptors.  That is because Ca2+ coming through NMDA receptors leads (through many steps) to LTP (long-term potentiation) at that synapse.  We want LTP to be synapse-specific (only the activated synapse should be strengthened).  This requires that NMDA currents be specific to the synapse that had the AMPA current.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendritic_spine.  See especially "Modeling spine calcium transients" for discussion of the extent to which NMDA mediated Ca2+ transients are local.


How will the pet therapy aid the child with autism?

There is some evidence that pet therapy are effective for individuals with autism. The studies did not differentiate between children and adult though it is likely that the studies are focused on children.

This 2012 systematic review by O'Haire found increased social interaction and communication as well as a decrease in problem behaviors, autistic severity, and stress. There is a strong suspicion of publication bias and also a lack of control arms for comparison. O'Haire found 14 studies ranging from 1989 to 2012 that had outcome data for her review.

Another interesting 2012 French study by Grandgeorge et al) looked at the prosocial impact of having a pet in 260 families with children. What I thought was interesting was that having a pet since birth had minimal impact on the child which were the same rate as children without pets. However, if the family got a new pet after the age of 5, there was evidence of an increase in prosocial behavior.

References:

Grandgeorge, M., Tordjman, S., Lazartigues, A., Lemonnier, E., Deleau, M., & Hausberger, M. (2012). Does Pet Arrival Trigger Prosocial Behaviors in Individuals with Autism? PLOS ONE, 7(8), e41739.

O’Haire, M. (2012). Animal-Assisted Intervention for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Vol 43, pg 1606–1622.


Plutchik's model is certainly visually appealing; however, the two dimensions of the model have no neurological or biological basis.

The Atlas of Personality, Emotion and Behaviour (Mobbs, 2020) is an alternative with an established neurobiological basis.  The atlas catalogues over 3,000 emotions which include vigilance.  Alternative emotions would include: alertness, caution, diligence, attentiveness, observance, and watchfulness.

A visualisation of the atlas is shown below.

Mobbs AED (2020) An atlas of personality, emotion and behaviour. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0227877. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227877

Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. R. (1997). Circumplex Models of Personality and Emotions. American Psychological Association.


What causes lack of energy? The relative importance of testosterone versus emotional, genetic, and environmental factors

This question hits home for me quite a bit.  But, I'd have to say about half or more of the population has energy problems otherwise people wouldn't be chugging coffee.

I'll simply cite my own anecdotal experience with this as I've tried so, so many things to increase my energy levels - one of them being testosterone.

I tested relatively low (not that low though - I believe 300-500 mg/dl if that's the measurement) for testosterone from a blood test which I had done out of curiosity.  So I went to an open minded (later realized VERY open minded) endocrinologist in the area and after some discussion he prescribed me testosterone propionate, which hits you in about 3-4 days time.  It was a very strong dose and worked very quickly. It's pretty much the quickest way to artificially get testosterone into your body via intramuscular injection - I believe.  I guess we came to the agreement that we may as well see if it helps or not as quick as possible - won't hurt anything....

So I took it.  For about 4 weeks.  I actually didn't feel any different energy wise, "masculine" wise, feel any angrier, feel any increase in libido, or actually feel anything from it whatsoever.   The only things that happened were:

1)  I gained a ton of water weight - which went away when I stopped.  It was about 30 pounds worth.  Probably a mixture of muscle and water actually.
2)  I had a puffy face for a few months.
3)  My bench went up by about 30 pounds in 2 weeks which was pretty cool.  This obviously went away  afterwards though.  (I wasn't really trying that hard to get ripped...just do an experiment).
4)  That's about it.

Now, you may question if you had the real stuff just as I did.  Well, my bench obviously went up and I was gaining water weight....but here's the stranger part:

As my finances were horrible at that time I couldn't see the endocrinologist again - and really he had given me the most powerful testosterone treatment possible.  I'm not sure how he got away with it.  I managed to snag one of those at home saliva tests that you freeze and Fedex next day to a lab though.  Just cause I wanted to see what my results would be.

The lab must have made a mistake or something - but the lab literally came back with a report that my testosterone levels were ~"50,000 mg/dl." This would be about a 100 fold increase in my testosterone levels.  The funniest part was at the bottom of the report it just had a generic line saying to "seek the advice of an endocrinologist."  I think that's like the lethal dose of testosterone, lol.

Regardless, you'd have to admit I did have alot of testosterone in my body, even if it wasn't that much.  After that though, if I was presumably "HE MAN" and I didn't have more energy or feel much different I didn't see a point.

I didn't really follow up with it much after that.  Nor did I have the money to see that endocrinologist again.

Also there's ALOT more factors than the ones you listed like motivation, nutrition, length of sleep, depth of sleep, dopamine as well as several other chemicals in your brain, etc...

In this example though, keep in mind the n=1, and someone else may respond completely differently.

I think someone wanted studies.  I found some interesting ones....

  Beyond masculinity: Testosterone, gender/sex, and human social behavior in a comparative context. van Anders SM. Source Departments
  of Psychology & Women's Studies, Programs in Neuroscience,
  Reproductive Sciences, and Science, Technology, & Society, University
  of Michigan, USA. Electronic address: smva@umich.edu. Front
  Neuroendocrinol. 2013 Aug;34(3):198-210. doi:
  10.1016/j.yfrne.2013.07.001. Epub 2013 Jul 16.
   Abstract  Largely based on pre-theory that ties high testosterone (T) to
  masculinity, and low T to femininity, high T is mainly studied in
  relation to aggression, mating, sexuality, and challenge, and low T
  with parenting. Evidence, however, fails to support this, and the
  social variability in T is better accounted for by a
  competition-nurturance trade-off as per the Steroid/Peptide Theory of
  Social Bonds (van Anders et al., 2011). Four key domains are
  discussed: adult-infant interactions, sexual desire, sexual behavior,
  and partnering. Empirical engagements with gender/sex are shown to
  lead to important insights over assumptions about
  masculinity-femininity. Humans are discussed within a comparative
  framework that attends to cross-species principles informed by human
  insights alongside human-specific particularities like social
  constructions, which are critical to evolutionary understandings of
  the social role of T. This paper thus integrates seemingly orthogonal
  perspectives to allow for transformative approaches to an
  empirically-supported social phenomenology of T.

Now in this one they are trying to make clear that the levels of testosterone are not the REAL dependent variable, but actually the interaction of it with something they call "competition-nurturance trade-off as per the Steroid/Peptide Theory of Social Bonds".  T and this variable could be correlated.  I'm not sure yet...so lets go find out what this theory is.

I did find many other studies that just simply relate aggression (and yes I know your question is more about energy), but the problem with them is they tend to admit they're able to flip the x's and the y's.  They don't know which influences the other.  Does an angry type of person usually take steroids more often?  There's alot of questions like those.  I can discuss them if you guys want me to, but this is way cooler:

.....and BOOOOOOM.....if you ever wanted to know anything about Testosterone I'd ask van Anders here.

  The Steroid/Peptide Theory of Social Bonds: integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts.
  van Anders SM, Goldey KL, Kuo PX. Source Department of Psychology,
  University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
  smva@umich.edu

  Hormones, and hormone responses to social contexts, are the proximate
  mechanisms of evolutionary pathways to pair bonds and other social
  bonds. Testosterone (T) is implicated in tradeoffs relevant to pair
  bonding, and oxytocin (OT) and arginine vasopressin (AVP) are
  positively tied to social bonding in a variety of species. Here, we
  present the Steroid/Peptide Theory of Social Bonds (S/P Theory), which
  integrates T and peptides to provide a model, set of predictions, and
  classification system for social behavioral contexts related to social
  bonds. The S/P Theory also resolves several paradoxes apparent in the
  literature on social bonds and hormones: the Offspring Defense
  Paradox, Aggression Paradox, and Intimacy Paradox. In the S/P Theory,
  we partition aggression into antagonistic and protective aggression,
  which both increase T but exert distinct effects on AVP and thus
  social bonds. Similarly, we partition intimacy into sexual and
  nurturant intimacy, both of which increase OT and facilitate social
  bonds, but exert distinct effects on T. We describe the utility of the
  S/P Theory for classifying 'tricky' behavioral contexts on the basis
  of their hormonal responses using partner cuddling, a behavior which
  is assumed to be nurturant but increases T, as a test case of the S/P
  Theory. The S/P Theory provides a comparative basis for
  conceptualizing and testing evolved hormonal pathways to pair bonds
  with attention to species, context, and gender/sex specificities and
  convergences.

So it looks like this guy may have even made a formula or algorithm for determining the social outcome - he also mentions several paradoxes that occur with T - ones you'd see in the literature.  He also granularly separates things - for instance we he "partitions antagonistic and protective aggression" and also notes the hormonal responses to each situation.  Unlike many others, I enjoy how he factors in the other obvious dependent variables instead of just drawing a line that represents, linearly, testosterone = angry.  Or, y(whatever it may be) = testosterone*x

If you go along with this theory then you'd realize that it's not just the testosterone that would make someone angry or even irritable (in fact it may only be an indirect cause) - it's the relationship between testosterone and other things that cause that or someone to feel a certain way.

Now I know you are more interested in energy, and that could be applied here, but it also fits right into your question because it essentially says that it is the relationship between those variables that may account for it.

Sometimes in statistics your "independent" variables don't mean much of anything (if say you're trying to find the best model for a regression) until you realize that the relationship between them (if you can figure it out) has a huge affect on the Y.

Let me get straight to your question:

  What is the relative importance of testosterone versus environmental, genetic, and emotional problems in causing lack of energy?

-So I obviously have an anecdotal opinion in that it didn't do much for me.

-But, as I stated earlier in the post, I think you are missing a ton of other variables like nutrition, workout habits, relationships, willpower (interesting question - do you choose your own willpower?), how much you like your job, etc. - unless you are lumping those together in environmental, which I feel would cause one's view of their influence to be quite skewed.

-Even though T obviously plays a role in advanced physiological processes in your body just like van Anders talks about, I believe and the research seems to suggest (as well as just general fact) it's importance increases as the amount you have below the mean for your age/gender/genetics decreases.  Here's a case study for instance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11675582

In essence, probably what happened to me was I didn't actually have low T and that's why I didn't feel much different.  Even bodybuilders who take that stuff say it's only 10% of the process.  I'd imagine the curve to look generally logarithmic in as far as I suppose it making you feel different - and everyone's initial y intercept (if we say there is one) is going to be at a different place.  If someone genuinely thinks they're really low, they might be.  If so, I recommend asking one's doctor about a "Taal Test." It could do nothing for that person or they could feel alot different - see the link I provided.

It's the same thing with almost any disorder or disease though...the doctors usually just make their best guess and try out a bunch of stuff on you until something sticks.  Except, unfortunately, they don't do much research first and are either

  a) persuaded by the patient that is persuaded by big pharma b)
  persuaded directly by big pharma  c) won't listen to you until you
  do crazy stuff like bring in research papers like I do sometimes.
  d) have huge egos e) even then, when do they have time to do any
  real updated research?

Finding a good doctor, in my opinion, is about learning how to heal yourself first.


Game-theory strategies to overcome holdout problem?

The hold-out problem is much studied and has even been associated with IP disputes (especially relevant in an age where a complex device like a mobile phone can involve license agreements between hundreds of companies).

Some of the consequences being identified as a result of the hold-out problem include urban sprawl (easier to develop green-fields sites), urban decay (hold-outs prevent urban renewal), and even disruption of the innovation and investment cycle (hold-outs over-value their IP contribution and innovators then refuse to invest).

In Imminently Eminent: A Game Theoretic Analysis of Takings Since Kelo v. City of New London, Alex Hornaday proposes the following game:

Game participants include a Developer and an Owner;
Developer values Owner's property at $x$;
Owner values property in a range $p_1$ to $p_2$ such that $p_1 < x < p_2$;
Basic play:

Developer offers price $x_1$;
Owner either accepts or rejects $x_1$;
if Owner rejects $x_1$, Developer may quit bargaining or offer price $x_2$;
if Developer offers price $x_2$, Owner either accepts or rejects $p_2$;
if Owner rejects $x_2$ and the Developer has the power of eminent domain, Developer may then choose either to do nothing or to condemn;

Hornaday also includes a penalty which the Owner would incur during round 2.  He acknowledges that much of this is Pareto-inefficient as either (or both) parties are forced into a loss following an unsatisfactory conclusion.

The oversimplification here is that hold-outs tend to occur when multiple parties need to negotiate.  In that case the last part to negotiate a deal is able to exert a monopoly pricing power over the other parties.

Eminent domain certainly offers the eventuality of a result (from the Developer's perspective) but can be distortionary (since either party may have insufficient negotiating power to secure an ideal result).

My answer, at this point, becomes speculative and I offer this untested as a potential model for achieving a "better" response amongst multiple parties.  It is based on the concept of optimal reservation prices in auctions.

Supplementing Hornaday's game as follows:

Developer makes a sealed reserve offer, $r_1$, for all properties from all Owners;
All Owners make a sealed pooled reserve request, $r_2$, for all properties;
Negotiator establishes whether $r_1$ and $r_2$ are aligned;
If not, then an assessment (legal and social) must take place (at Developer's expense) if the Developer wishes to continue to assess whether eminent domain is even possible (not a decision, however, so pertaining to a negotiation only);
If negotiation is possible, or if eminent domain is a viable solution to negotiation, then price negotiation can continue with all parties knowing where they stand.

We can now continue with the original game.  I believe that there need to be sufficient inducements and penalties for the Owners (inducements for early settlement, penalties for holding out) to balance the Developer's costs in the process.

Obviously, if the reserve prices make a settlement unlikely and eminent domain would not be possible, then the Developer must walk away and pocket the costs of the process to that point.


How are the brains of mathematicians different from typical people?

Psychology

The first major source I would go to is the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY). It is a major longitudinal study following several cohorts of mathematically talented individuals. There are many publications regarding their interests, talents, life paths, achievements, et cetera. The study is headed by Camilla Benbow and David Lubinski.

If you could only read one article describing their psychology, I would refer to Lubinski's review article of 100 years of findings.

Lubinski (2016). From Terman to Today: A Century of Findings on Intellectual Precocity

However, there are many interesting publications from the study, and if you're interested I recommend further looking at their publications.

Neuroscience

Historically, neuroscience as a field has suffered a lot from small sample size studies (Button, Ioannidis, et al (2013)), and only in recent years do we get really large scale studies. I personally don't know of any findings that compare mathematicians with non-mathematicians that have sufficient power.

The closest thing I know of to what you're asking, is Richard Haier's book "The Neuroscience of Intelligence" which summarizes what we know and don't know about "intelligent" brains. He emphasizes that no single study is definitive, and that no story about the brain is simple. I recognize that just "intelligence" is not precisely what you asked, but I still think you would find it relevant to what you're curious about.


How are ocular dominance columns monocular despite binocular complex cells?

Ocular dominance columns are not purely monocular, nor are simple cells purely monocular.

Simple and complex cells both exhibit a range of ocular preference, from preferring one to the other. See this figure from Hubel and Wiesel, 1962:

Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. The Journal of physiology, 160(1), 106-154.


Is it generally accepted idea that a memory associated with strong olfactory stimuli will be kept longer?

In general, the answer is no - smell does not enhance memory.
But you are onto something with the proximity of the olfactory cortex to the limbic system: You are not the first to have noticed the special connection that smell might have with emotion and memory.  This idea is called the Proust Effect:

The best known example of the power of smell to evoke memories and
emotions is the “Proust effect,” ... The suddenness of the memory, and
the strong emotions attached to it, have become symbolic, in both the
realm of literary criticism and in sensory physiology, for the power
of human taste and smell. ... The olfactory pathway has privileged
direct access to [the prefrontal cortex and limbic system]; hence the
combination of intense emotion and intense cognitive effort
experienced ...

To understand this effect, let's first consider context-dependent memory:

In psychology, context-dependent memory is the improved recall of
specific episodes or information when the context present at encoding
and retrieval are the same.

This is a well-known and highly robust effect: If you see and smell flowers, then exposure to the same smell (cue) can significantly improve recall of the flowers (target) later.  However, smell does not have a privileged position in context-dependent memory - that is, any context information (such as the sounds, location, even the mood you were in) can be equally effective at cueing recall later (Herz, 1998; Herz & Cupchik, 1995).
Most of the research looking at the effect of smell on memory is about the context-dependent memory effect.  In these studies, a no-odor control condition is sometimes used where some subjects are exposed to an odor during encoding (memorizing) but no odor is used at recall (remembering).  These studies consistently find that odor during encoding has no effect on memory unless the same odor is also present at recall (eg, Parker, Ngu, & Cassaday, 2001).

In the above image from Herz (1997) for example, scent must be present in both encoding (study) and recall (test) to have an effect; in other conditions, memory is no better than if no odor is present.
According to the Proust Effect however, when emotion is involved, then odor can potentially enhance memory.  For example, if you see and smell flowers just as a car accident happens in front of you, AND you happen to come across the same smell later, then it can serve as a powerful recall cue of the event (Toffolo , Smeets, & van den Hout, 2011; Herz, 1997; Wiemers, Sauvage, & Wolf, 2014).
In reality, the smell of flowers is pleasant, and thus you might linger around longer, resulting in improved recall not from the smell, but from paying more attention to your surroundings (Morrin & Ratneshwar, 2003; Krishna, Lwin, & Morrin, 2009; Lwin & Morrin, 2012; Tortell et al, 2007).


What physical process governs which details are retained in memory?

I think this question is not getting answered because it suggests a misunderstanding or lack of understanding about all the forces leading up to your specific question about long term memory. For instance, you imply that we see images in detail to begin with—or that we are able to 'store' a detailed image in short term memory... and that detail simply does not get transferred to long-term memory.

Obviously, humans are still far off from fully understanding how memory functions. We can make some statements about your question now, though. To begin, when we see images, we are not seeing everything—we are only seeing precisely what we are looking at (or focusing on), then our brain is filling in the rest of the information. We think that we see the world pretty clearly; however, this is a combination of our brains ability to fill in missing information with what it expects, and our eyes' ability to rapidly scan its environment—quickly changing focus in order to paint your world (see: saccadic eye movements).

These images, that are intimately connected with the other senses and emotions which are firing at the same time in the brain, are dull from the start. The vividity with which we can recall these images can be considered a function of how impactful the event was on our lives. Like all functions in our bodies, long-term memory is a product of evolution. This implies a likelihood the moments which are most important to remember for our survival and procreation are the ones we can recall most vividly. Did you almost die? Was it your first kiss? Additionally, especially novel moments are remembered well. Were you at the beach for the first time, never having smelled the salt air before?

Moving beyond the question of the vividness of long term memory, we may consider the notion that are long-term memories are actually mutable. Each moment of recall is a moment of re-storing that memory; it is like copying a copy.


How does the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument relate to the Big Five?

There are a few studies that have correlated Big 5 with conflict styles. There are various terminology and measures but many use a similar set of five styles to the TKI.

Antonioni (1998) is highly cited. Here are the correlations.

In short:

The five conflict styles are correlated in ways that partially reflect the underlying two-dimensions of interested in self and interested in others.
Agreeableness correlates positively with interested in others and avoiding conflict. Agreeableness is also the strongest correlate of conflict styles.
Extraversion and openness are both related to integrating and negatively related to avoiding conflict.
Conscientiousness is related to integrating.
Neuroticism is related to avoiding conflict.

Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles. International journal of conflict management, 9(4), 336-355.


What kind of cognitive psych journals are receptive to clinicians without any publications?

(note: quotes are from useful comments on the question)

  "I think clinical psychology journals would be her best option either way. Without new data, comments from others about reviewing existing models and data are even more critical. Unfairly, scientists often don't like new theories or models being proposed by people without a scientific track record, so I would recommend a journal with double-blind review, so her ideas can be evaluated on their merits and not on her name recognition." -- DanM

With regard to a paper on ADHD in particular,

  "One can generally advance a new model based on a review of the literature. In her manuscript, she might (1) review the relevant ADHD literature, (2) review relevant ADHD models, and (3) propose a new model that is based on (1) and overcomes limitations of the models in (2). She can also suggest how the model might be employed in clinical practice, and use anecdotal evidence mixed with scientific evidence from the literature to back this up. Without some kind of clinical trial(s) (as an evidence base), it's difficult to talk about the efficacy/effectiveness of her therapy." -- mrt

If she writes the kind of article requiring evidence, then her evidence should be something along the lines of this:

  "Regarding evidence base: a key issue is whether she will be reporting the results of systematic data collection or anectodal observations. If she has consistent clinical notes, she could do a systematic retroactive data analysis (as in systematic chart reviews in medical research). More generally, clinical psychology journals (esp. those focusing on pediatric or developmental psychopathology or neuropsychology) will probably be more receptive to this kind of work than cognitive psychology journals." -- DanM


Why is it that only humans commit suicide?

Such behavior does exist in the wider animal world, not just in humans.

See the Wikipedia page on Animal Suicide, particularly the section titled "Suicidal behavior".
(if you have done any preliminary research on this, be aware that your question doesn't reflect it).

There are a number of linked studies in that section, some of which may give you good or relevant information.

What it comes down to is twofold:

We can't reasonably say that animals are pursuing suicidal behavior for similar reasons that humans do, as we don't have a good enough view into the cognitions of other animals, and
We still don't fully understand the etiology of suicide (much less depression!) in humans, either, which confounds the entire issue.


When is it best to use PsycINFO versus Google Scholar?

Benefits of PsychInfo

PsychInfo has more accurate metadata.
PsychInfo permits more controlled search terms over that metadata.
PsycInfo makes it easy to download a set of references. Without using third party tools Google Scholar only exports one reference at a time (as far as I am aware).
PsycInfo contains abstracts for quick browsing. Google scholar requires you to follow a link to the publisher to get the abstract.
PsycInfo lists references and cited-by whereas Google Scholar only has cited-by.
The version of PsycInfo that I use through ProQuest has an option to export formatted references in a range of bibliographic styles.
Both support full text integration. I've often found more one-click access to PDFs in PsycInfo. However, Google Scholar will let you know if a PDF is freely available on the Internet.

Benefits of Google Scholar

Google Scholar is free to use. So naturally if you don't have access to PsychInfo, then it is there.
Google scholar includes more content from more disciplines. But PsycInfo has great coverage of psychology.
Google Scholar does not require a password to access.
Google Scholar is quicker to start. For example, at my university, you need to go to find and go to the library site, find the page that allows you to search for databases, search for 'psycinfo', log-in. This can typically take  10 to 20 seconds. Bookmarks and saved passwords speed up the process considerably. Nonetheless, with Google Scholar I can get started with a search in 2 seconds. And the search flows naturally from a regular Google search. If all I want to do is get a single article or get a quick sense of what research has been done on a topic, that speed is important. Of course, for longer sessions, this time is no big deal.
Google Scholar has efficient BibTeX citation export.
Google Scholar has "related articles" that generates interesting suggestions.
Google Scholar sessions don't time out. PsycInfo sessions do time out. Thus, if you are moving between searching, reading, and other activities, this time-out on PsycInfo is a nuisance.
Google Scholar makes it easy to obtain an APA formatted citation for a given reference.


What is an effective way of working with core beliefs/schemas?

I'm lucky enough to know a counselor-in-training whose preferred modality is CBT; here's what she suggested.

Identifying those core beliefs is indeed the important part. Useful tools include the CBT Thought Record worksheet, which pretty well explains itself, and the downward arrow technique illustrated in this figure:

(Trader, 2011).

One less-than-self-evident trick in applying these methods is refusing to take "I don't know" for an answer – it's a cop-out, my counselor connection says! Assuming this works well enough, and that you can get to the core belief more or less, you can then check a list like Grohol's (2009) for help in identifying the particular cognitive distortion at hand. He also lists Beck (1976) and Burns (1980) as references on these theories. The work of Aaron T. Beck covers very many angles of CBT, and so would be good to study for further details. As Wikipedia says, "He is regarded as the father of cognitive therapy," so you probably can't go wrong with anything he's written.

Bringing these core beliefs to the conscious "surface" is a very good start. ANTs have a lot more power when they're preconscious (not "subconscious", BTW; see https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/992/4086), because at this level, they have plenty of emotional impact but receive little or no rational scrutiny. When a person actually states a core belief aloud, that belief might not sound so reasonable, because the believer has to process the belief more deeply and consciously, which engages the error-checking cognitive mechanisms that an unconscious belief does not.

Sometimes hearing oneself speak the belief aloud is enough to realize that it doesn't make sense, and to start catching oneself in the act of reacting emotionally to unreasonable ANTs. Further therapy is necessary sometimes, and often more can help. For instance, the first question a therapist might ask in response to the core belief in the above figure could be, "I hear you expressing a very broad belief about yourself: you don't seem to think you have ever succeeded at anything. Am I understanding you correctly?" That's a very gentle response style based on reflective listening; do you see how it does more than simply repeat the client's words back to him/her? If someone can say, "I am a failure at everything!" with a straight face, hopefully he/she at least can't say, "Yes, it's correct that I've never succeeded at anything." I don't think that's true of anyone.

If the client still can't see this, the therapist may have to up the ante a bit. One generally has to stop short of calling one's client a deluded fool, but various modalities take differing perspectives on confrontationality in talk therapy. Other usual precautions in counseling apply, but within the boundaries of accepted practice, whether differences in therapeutic style produce different outcomes is an open, empirical question, and will depend largely on the character of the client in question. Further detail is probably beyond the scope of this answer.

References
- Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapies and emotional disorders. New York: New American Library.
- Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. New York: New American Library.
- Grohol, J. (2009). 15 common cognitive distortions. Psych Central. Retrieved on March 7, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-cognitive-distortions/0002153.
- Trader, A. (2011). A meeting of minds. Cultivating the garden of the heart: Patristic counsel and cognitive techniques for schema reconstruction (1st ed., chapter 9, pp. 217–250). Peter Lang Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oodegr.com/english/psyxotherap/cognitive_therapy.htm.
P.S. Thanks Andréa!


Which statistical tests to use when analyzing NASA TLX?

In Stevens' levels of measurement framework, the NASA-TLX is an ordinal scale, not an interval scale, because there is no way to know a priori how much "workload" each point corresponds to. In other words, we can only know how much workload a point corresponds to after observing the data from our sample. Indeed, Hart's own review of the NASA-TLX suggests that workload is "ill-defined" (Hart, 2006).

While levels of measurement often seems to be taught in behavioral and social science as accepted fact, however, the levels of measurement framework is quite controversial among methodologists. It is a useful enough heuristic taxonomy for didactic purposes, but it is not known to be inferentially meaningful. Analytic relatives of the t-test (i.e., least-squares/maximum likelihood regression) exist for all four types, so the type of scale should not necessarily concern you too much here. I have not encountered it outside the behavioral sciences.

Statistical inference is essentially a mathematical pathfinder that formally relates a specific question to a specific answer by way of the evidence. It is therefore impossible to say what a suitable test would be without knowing the specific question(s)―different analyses test different questions. For the same data set, one analysis may be meaningful (i.e., discriminates between conceivable answers) for one question, but not another; for another analysis, this may be reversed. The consequence of using a wrong test is that you effectively answer a question you did not ask, while not answering the question you did ask.

References

Hart SG. NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. Paper presented at the HFES; San Francisco, CA. 2006.


What is the neurological basis of maintaining self discipline?

Studies have shown that some people can mentally isolate stressors so that they do not affect performance in other areas. This is sometimes referred to as isolating or repressing the memory of the stressor so that it does not influence secondary reactions. The recollection of the memory is just as painful as it would be for anyone else, but the memory itself remains isolated, and thus there is no opportunity for the memory to form associative links with other memories, where it could thereby affect self-esteem, sense of achievement, or productivity. [1][2]

There have been numerous studies that support this idea of isolation. First is the notion that this effect is not observed in those who demonstrate high neuroticism, or difficulty controlling affective discipline. Studies have shown that people suffering from depression will respond to damaging thoughts by thinking about other negative thoughts, thus reinforcing the depression. [3] In contrast, those who demonstrate low neuroticism and high defensiveness were more likely to process negative feedback in a minimal fashion [4], thus "isolating" the negative feedback from the self. In addition, they were more likely to minimize relative impact by spontaneously generating positive thoughts afterwards.

This is an important notion, as the role of emotional regulation and achievement is readily apparent. Studies have shown that emotional regulation in school children can predict teacher-student relationships, academic achievement, and productivity [5]. Furthermore, positive emotions, moreso than negative emotions, appear to be associated with heightened attention and thought-action repertoires. [6]

Thus, it may be the case that with increased self-discipline comes an increased ability to inhibit (or 'isolate') negative emotions and stressors. This can be mediated by executive functioning tactics such as inhibition, or by shifting cognitive focus (particularly onto the task at hand). [7] Executive functioning abilities are largely mediated by the frontal lobes and by the prefrontal cortex. However, the ability to 'isolate' stressors in order to maximize productivity and motivation may be more closely related to neuroticism, which is in turn related to reduced connectivity between the left amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex, as well as reduced cardiovascular activity. [8]

Sources used:

[1] Hansen, R. D.; Hansen, C. H. (1988). "Repression of emotionally tagged memories: The architecture of less complex emotions.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 811–818.

[2] Schul, Y; Schiff, M. (1995). "On the costs and benefits of ignorance: How performance satisfaction is affected by knowing the standard prior to performance". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 491–501.

[3] Edwards, J. A.; Weary, G. (1993). "Depression and the impression-forming continuum: Piecemeal processing despite the availability of category information.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 636–645.

[4] Bonanno, G. A.; Davis, P. J.; Singer, J. L.; Schwartz, G. E. (1991). "The repressor personality and avoidant information processing: A dichotic listening study.". Journal of Research in Personality 62: 386–401.

[5] Graziano, P. A., Reavis, R. D., Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2007). The role of emotion regulation in children's early academic success. Journal of school psychology, 45(1), 3-19.

[6] Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition & emotion, 19(3), 313-332.

[7] Wegner, Daniel M.; Schneider, David J.; Carter, Samuel R. & White, Teri L. (1987). "Paradoxical effects of thought suppression". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (1): 5–13.

[8] J. Ormel, A. Bastiaansen, H. Riese, E.H. Bos, M. Servaas, M. Ellenbogen, J.G. Rosmalen, A. Aleman. (2013) The biological and psychological basis of neuroticism: Current status and future directions. Neurosci. Biobehav. pp. 59–72


What is the difference between noise reduction and noise cancellation?

Let's start with the terminologies in your question:

Loudness: The level (amplitude) of the sound. The higher the sound level, the louder it is perceived. Loudness is measured on a dB scale, e.g. dBA (corrected for the human sensitivity across frequencies), dB HL (used in the clinic relative to normal-hearing level) or dB SPL (a more physical approach to sound level). In Figure 1 below an impression is given in dBA (A-weighted sound levels). Don't worry about dB scalings too much. Generally spoken, normal speech is around 65 dB, background noise around 30 dB and the pain threshold around 130 dB (source: OSHA).

Fig. 1. Sound level chart. source: IQ

Frequency: A perfect sine wave has a single frequency. This corresponds to a pure tone. Most normally occurring sounds have multiple frequencies. Frequency determines pitch.

Pitch: Basically determined by the frequency of the sound. The audible frequency range of humans ranges from approximately 20 Hz to 20 kHz (source: LSU). The subjective perception of frequency is called pitch.

Timber: no, no, timber has something to do with wood - it's timbre. Timbre represents 'those subjective qualities of [sounds] not determined by [their] pitch our loudness. It is determined by the frequency spectrum and envelope (envelope is the slow, low-frequency part of the sound that envelopes it) (source: wiki). In terms of sound attenuation/masking/cancellation, it is of not much interest. Likely the timbre can influence the nuisance factor of a sound, but not more.

Direction: acoustically generally defined as azimuth (degrees in horizontal plane) and elevation (degrees in the vertical plane). Also here, in terms of sound attenuation/masking/cancellation, it is of not much interest

White noise: A random signal with a constant power spectral density. It is a discrete signal whose samples are regarded as a sequence of serially uncorrelated random variables with zero mean and finite variance. One may also require that the samples be independent and have the same probability distribution. If each sample has a normal distribution with zero mean, the signal is said to be Gaussian white noise (source: wiki). Subjectively, white noise has a sharp, rather unpleasant hissing quality to it. Check it out at Online Tone Generator.

Pink noise: Pink noise or 1⁄f noise is a signal or process with a frequency spectrum such that the power spectral density [...] is inversely proportional to the frequency of the signal. [E]ach octave [...] carries an equal amount of noise energy. The name arises from the pink appearance of visible light with this power spectrum (source: wiki). Pink noise has much higher low-frequency contribution than white noise, and is therefore more pleasant to the ear. It approaches the sound of rainfall, or that of a waterfall. Pink noise is a better choice when you wish to go to sleep, as it is often experienced as relaxing. Check it out at Online Tone Generator

Brown noise doesn't exist, as far as I know. Brownian noise is what you are after. Brownian noise, or red noise, is the kind of signal noise produced by Brownian motion, hence its alternative name of random walk noise. The term "Brownian noise" comes not from the color, but after Robert Brown, the discoverer of Brownian motion. The term "red noise" comes from the "white noise"/"white light" analogy; red noise is strong in longer wavelengths, similar to the red end of the visible spectrum (source: wiki). It is a much less commonly encountered noise. Check it out at Online Tone Generator

On to your question:

There's basically three things you can do to get rid of pesky sounds:

Attenuation. This is a typically a passive way of noise reduction, which can be accomplished by blocking the noise with ear plugs, ear muffs, sound-proof walls etc. Ear plugs come in a huge variety, ranging from a couple of foam ear plugs for a few cents per pair to sophisticated ear plugs of hundreds of bucks, to the hand-made, individually tailored plugs available from medical professionals. The latter, obviously, are the best. They are used by professional musicians for example and are made by professionals by making a cast of your outer ear and molding a perfectly fitting shape into it. All these plugs do, however, is dampen the sounds, i.e., lower the sound level. The better ones attenuate sounds with a good many dBs (say 30 to 40 dB) with a 'flat frequency characteristic', meaning they attenuate all audible frequencies in roughly the same way. The cheaper ones attenuate poorly, and worse, often their frequency characteristics show a peak at the higher frequencies and low performance at the low frequencies. This causes bass noises to come straight through (snoring, musical drums etc.). However, even with a rockstar plug of -40dB, you will reduce a siren passing close by with only 40 dB, leaving about 70 dB (depending on the distance from the siren of course).
Masking. This is an active approach, where you don't attenuate the background noise, but you mask it with a more pleasant sound. White noise is ideal, as it encompasses all audible frequencies. This means that whatever the noise source is, it will be effectively masked by the white noise. The pink noise may, however, be a better candidate, because it is more pleasant to the ear than white noise, as said. At the higher frequencies, pink noise will perform less well than white noise, however, so the ambulance wail will come through relatively loud. Low-frequency noises like snoring are masked well. In fact, pink noise is often used for babies and adults to sleep, because it is a rather pleasant sound. However, to mask a sound with a certain frequency spectrum of 70 dB, you need an equal 'amount' of pink noise in the same frequency band to mask it completely. Since low frequencies are well represented in pink noise, low-frequency sounds of relatively low sound level are masked pretty well, such as snoring, or the pesky bass of the neighbors TV. To block out a siren, or the noise of a full blown house party, you should turn up the pink noise so loud that it simply wouldn't do you any good.
Cancellation. This is intelligent active sound masking, also called active noise. Here, a device records the surrounding noise with a microphone and a built-in speaker generates sounds reversed in phase with the same amplitude. Theoretically, this perfectly cancels out the noise, whatever the frequency, whatever the level. Protection of a "1-dimension zone" is relatively straightforward and requires only one or two microphones and speakers to be effective. Several commercial applications have been successful, especially the noise-cancelling headphones. The term "1-dimension" refers to a simple pistonic relationship between the noise and the active speaker (mechanical noise reduction) or between the active speaker and the listener (headphones). Cancellation of sounds in a 3D environment becomes challenging (source: wiki).


Criteria for evaluating cognitive systems

Hofstadter provides a detailed set of criteria in Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies.  Some of his criteria that I do not see mentioned above concern the flow of information-processing:  whether or not the model evaluated flows through possibility space in a psychologically plausible way, and how to measure that.

For instance...  Suppose the following: "A bat and a ball cost usd110. The bat costs usd100 more than the ball. How much is the ball?"

Now, cognitive psychology has shown that people are primed to say "the ball costs usd10." Which is wrong! A good cognitive model should also "think" usd10, before considering usd5. Otherwise, it doesn't respect information-processing flow.

He also mentions, metaphorically, the idea of including "lesions" in the model, such that, if some component of the model is "lesioned", the expected outcome from that component should drastically change.


Does the Rubik's Cube increase mental ability?

Don't know of any research on the Rubik's Cube specifically. I did find this (https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00750) but it looks like it was a presentation given by a mathematician at a mathematics conference, and it doesn't look like any actual experiment was performed to test the things that are being claimed. So I wouldn't take it seriously.

However, I would be surprised if practicing Rubick's Cubes actually did improve general cognitive function. Improving at specific tasks like brain-training apps usually doesn't improve general cognitive function (although evidence is still somewhat mixed), it makes you better at those tasks. Arguably, the mixed results can be explained by the fact that participants' performance will look look like an improvement in general cognitive function if you measure it in a task similar to the one that was practiced.

So in short, my expectation would be that it would generalize to very similar tasks, if anything at all. However, no one's actually done it, so if you try it and get results it'd be publishable, and if you want to form your own opinion the literature to look at would be cognitive training.


What is the mechanism behind time perception?

There are several mechanisms for time perception that depend on the task performed (counting, judging prospectively, retrospectively) as well as on the duration of the interval to be judged (duration perception for 1s intervals works differently from 1minute or 1 year). Overall the idea you advance of multiple mechanisms is well accepted. This is just a link to an article just published on the matter.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=your-brain-has-two-clocks&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciam%2Fpsychology+%28Topic%3A+Psychology%29

Perhaps if you could be more precise in your question and restrict your domain it will be much easier to answer about the neural foundations you are looking for


Brain Right hemisphere is random and left hemisphere is linear? really?

You shouldn't.  It is one of those stubbornly persistent myths.  It is almost entirely false.  It is true that in some tasks one half of the brain is more prominent (although even in supposed classic cases like speech both halves are actually involved, just one half more than the other).
But the idea that one half of the brain is logical and the other intuitive or emotional is simply false.  At most, one half the brain is slightly more prominent in processing some tasks that may be perceived by us as more logical or more intuitive, but that is really as far as it goes.


Resources about relaxation training as used in CBT

As I mentioned previously in the comments, there are a wide range of relaxation techniques which can be used within CBT.  Having not read the book mentioned, I looked it up and found how the relaxation technique was described in the book.

From this I can tell you that the technique you have been taught is called Progressive Muscle Relaxation [PMR] (McCallie, Blum, & Hood, 2006).

PMR involves the process of feeling the muscles in your body relax starting from one end of the body to the other, noticing the difference in sensation whilst also listening to your slow deep breathing.

You can obtain plenty of free or paid for PMR scripts (also known as screeds) through searching on Google.

References

McCallie, M. S., Blum, C. M., & Hood, C. J. (2006). Progressive muscle relaxation. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 13(3), 51-66.DOI: 10.1300/J137v13n03_04


What is the neurological mechanism responsible for losing one's temper?

I have addressed your three points in three parts.

The calm before the storm.

I would dispute the calm before the storm. I would suggest this would depend on the trigger. Sometimes people can experience a feeling of shock at what they are processing, before they become angry.

The storm.

The sympathetic nervous system is the part of the autonomic nervous system that is responsible for our fight and flight response.
What causes people to get angry?

You might have many things to feel threatened about — from financial
crises and peer pressure to drug addiction and war — and some people
respond in a negative way. Still, most people don't walk around
feeling mad all the time. When someone explodes with anger, there's
usually a triggering event — such as a disagreement at work or being
stuck in traffic — that brings a mix of simmering emotions to the
boiling point.

What happens when we get angry?

When we get angry, the heart rate, arterial tension and
testosterone production increases, cortisol (the stress hormone)
decreases, and the left hemisphere of the brain becomes more
stimulated.

Increased heart rate and arterial tension primes the body for fight or flight.
Testosterone is linked with aggression.

Cortisol is released in response to stress, sparing available glucose
for the brain, generating new energy from stored reserves, and
diverting energy from low-priority activities (such as the immune
system) in order to survive immediate threats or prepare for the
exertion of rising to a new day.

The left side of the brain is responsible for;

Dopamine [II] is the neurotransmitter that is not only responsible for
modulating a lot of our physical movement, but also sex, aggression,
motivational drive, and, counter-intuitively, long-term planning and
restraint or impulse control. In nearly all right-handed and most
left-handed humans who are left-brain dominant, dopamine rules the
left side of the brain.

Calm after the storm

The parasympathetic nervous system is the part of the autonomic nervous system  responsible for the more restful activities and will restore the autonomic nervous system's  balance.

The body takes about 20 minutes to return to normal after a full
fight/flight response. ..//...
...//...  Angry people will not completely comprehend any explanations,
solutions, or problem solving options until their body returns to
normal again.  [III]

What happens when we get angry? Hormonal, cardiovascular and asymmetrical brain responses
Neus Herrero, Marien Gadea, Gabriel Rodríguez-Alarcón, Raúl Espert, Alicia Salvador.    Hormones and Behavior, 2010; 57 (3): 276 DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.12.008
How dopamine may influence gender differences in psychiatric disorders [II]
Published on May 17, 2011 by Emily Deans, M.D. in Evolutionary Psychiatry
Controlling Angry People  [III}
What would you do if you came face-to-face with an angry person?
Published on January 5, 2011
Jack Schafer, Ph.D.
Let Their Words Do the Talking


What is the difference between an Atlas and a Parcellation?

[This is an older post, but...]  A brain atlas is going to, typically, be a set of images or volume that is labeled anatomically or functionally.  Typically one would take a single volume of data and register or align it to the atlas (or vice-versa).

Parcellation is a way of segmenting sub-regions of a particular region of the brain. (What a "region" is or "sub-region" might be a bit up for debate).

One could do image registration / alignment of an MRI data volume to an atlas (that is parcellated or segmented) and then the parcellation can be applied to the MRI data volume.


Pygmalion effect and negative expectations

Overall one can't deny the influence of expectations.
After reading more about the matter, I'd say that Pygmalion effect (or Rosenthal effect) only speaks of positive expectations others might have on us, so it doesn't apply to

negative expectations.
expectations we have for ourselves.

For the negative expectations there's the Golem effect and according to Wikipedia it is

a psychological phenomenon in which lower expectations placed upon individuals either by supervisors or the individual themselves lead to poorer performance by the individual.

In this case it's irrelevant who has the expectations (if they come from outside or from ourselves). Also, from Babad, E. Y.; Inbar, J.; Rosenthal, R. (1982), "Pygmalion, Galatea, and the Golem: Investigations of biased and unbiased teachers", the effect

represents the concerns of social scientists and educators, which are focused on the negative effects of self-fulfilling prophecies

Notice that the German-born American psychologist Robert Rosenthal is behind both of these effects.
Then, and according to Psychologinie, there's the Galatea effect which is

a phenomenon where people's own opinions about their ability and self-worth influence their performance.

The following image (also from the same website) pretty much describes the difference between Galatea and Pygmalion effects


Has there been any research on the visual uniqueness (in terms of brain activity) of numerals from 0 to 9?

Not sure, but I think you'd find it interesting that there are some humans out there who do not have an intuitive sense of any number past two. For example, people who are part of hunter gatherer tribes who, for example, only need to know that they have a lot of berries, not that they have exactly 7 or exactly 65; for their lifestyle, there is no need for counting. Their numbers are "1", "2", and "more than 2", and their language lacks the capability to express any other numerical idea.

Presumably this has an effect on the physiology of their brain. I'm pointing this out because maybe it suggests that something as specific as the numerical digits 0-9, which are represented with different symbols even across cultures that have all 10 digits, are too specific to elicit any sort of measurable difference in brain activity while reading one compared to the other. And that's the reason no studies have been done on them. Am totally unsure of this.


To what extent does culture affect emotion perception?

Long story short: at least in facial affect perception/expression, there is not a definitive answer to this.  The field is only just beginning to get a handle on the fact that what have been long thought of as "universal" expressions of emotion don't seem to be, so there is considerably less work on how exactly culture affects these expressions.  However, current consensus is that between-group affective judgments have lower agreement rates than within-group affective judgments.

There is longstanding work from Paul Ekman suggesting that perception of six basic emotions in faces is universal (he wrote an argument for this point of view here and, more recently, here).  This was based on quite a lot of work showing that participants agreed at very high rates on the emotion displayed in a set of pictures of emotionally expressive faces.  However, there are methodological weaknesses in this work (there is fulltext of an excellent review on it available here).  Basically, these can be summed up as a preference for forced-choice (making participants choose from a limited list of answers about the emotion on display), within-subject designs, and stimuli from Ekman's original set; when different experimental design choices are made, the agreement largely disappears.

This opens the field for suggestions that most or all affective expression is in fact culturally influenced; a more recent study here found less agreement between groups than within groups, and more agreement between groups that had more exposure to eachother than groups that had less exposure to eachother.  This paper is a highly detailed answer to your question, at least as currently understood.

References:

1) Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. Ekman, Paul. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol 19, 1971, 207-283.

2) An argument for basic emotions. Ekman , Paul. Cognition & Emotion : Vol. 6, Iss. 3-4, 1992.

3) Is There Universal Recognition of Emotion From Facial Expression? A Review of the Cross-Cultural Studies. Psychological Bulletin 1994, Vol. 115, No. 1, 102-141.

4) On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis.
Elfenbein, Hillary Anger; Ambady, Nalini. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 128(2), Mar 2002, 203-235.


Is there a term for the desire to maintain a level of anxiety?

With "normal" risk taking related to "thrill seekers" what you could be talking about can be

Sensation Seeking (Zuckerman, 2007)

  Risky behavior can be an expression of a normal, genetically influenced personality trait, sensation seeking. Its expression in risky behaviors such as extreme and risky sports, vocations, substance abuse, unsafe sex, and crime, among others, is the topic of this fascinating and accessible book.

or

Disinhibition (Wikipedia), which is a lack of restraint manifested in disregard for social conventions, impulsivity, and poor risk assessment.

In the case of PTSD (or other mental health problems) causing the behaviour, it is Negative Urgency (Cyders & Smith, 2008), which is the tendency to engage in rash action in response to extreme negative affects (experiences of negative emotions, poor self-esteem and/or poor self-concept)

Cyders & Smith (2008) believe there is

  striking circumstantial evidence that positive and negative urgency play an important role in adolescence. It seems likely that the normative adolescent experience involves a developmentally limited increase in levels of urgency, and also that there are important individual differences in the urgency traits during these years.

A study conducted by James, Strom & Leskela (2014) looked at the risk-taking behaviours and impulsivity among veterans with and without PTSD.  They also compared the results with those who not only suffered PTSD, but also mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI).

  [A] 42-item scale developed for the study permitted the assessment of a wide range of behaviors that are not captured in existing risk-taking measures but tend to be common and problematic among veterans (e.g., risky driving practices). Items were derived from a review of relevant literature.  Participants reported how frequently they engaged in each of the behaviors using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Total scores range from 0 to 63. In addition to the total score, scores on four subscales (substance abuse, aggression, risky sexual practices, and thrill seeking) were also evaluated [...]

  As expected, the co-occurring PTSD + mTBI group endorsed significantly more risk-taking behaviors and Negative Urgency than the control group and significantly more risky substance use, aggressive behavior, and Negative Urgency than the mTBI group. An identical pattern was found for the PTSD group compared to the control group and the mTBI group. Counter to expectations, the co-occurring PTSD + mTBI group did not endorse significantly more impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors than the PTSD group. That is, individuals with PTSD, regardless of TBI status (i.e., PTSD; PTSD + mTBI), tended to engage in more risky behaviors and more impulsive behaviors in the context of negative affective states than controls and those with mTBI only. The control group and mTBI group did not significantly differ from each other. Across all four groups, thrill-seeking behaviors were the most frequently reported risk-taking behaviors. There were no group differences in Sensation Seeking.

Not surprising, considering the nature of PTSD and its effects, the study also found other highly problematic behaviours

  Notably, both theoretical and empirical works also link disinhibition, or the highly related construct of impulsivity, to suicide-related behaviors. In the present study, the PTSD groups (i.e., PTSD, PTSD + mTBI) were not only characterized by greater levels of the Negative Urgency facet of impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors than the mTBI and control groups but were also more likely than the control group to have thought about suicide and purposely driven a vehicle into another object. Thus, premorbid disinhibition may place people on a track toward later involvement in risky or other highly problematic behaviors that ultimately result in psychopathological and self-destructive outcomes.

(See also, Cyders & Smith (2008) about urgency and psychopathology)

Due to risks involved with Negative Urgency, therapy needs to be sought with regard to this too.

Therapy Available

When receiving psychological help for PTSD, it is best to highlight the fact that you have a desire to maintain a level of anxiety and stress closer to what you are now used to compared to the past.  That way, the best form of help can be ascertained via your therapy provider.

Your therapist may be able to incorporate therapy for this using the same techniques they use for your PTSD, or they may tweak the sessions to incorporate other techniques such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) or Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT; see Linehan, 1993 or Lynch, et al., 2007)

  One main focus of DBT is teaching individuals to respond adaptively to the experience of extreme emotional states, referred to in this treatment as Distress Tolerance Skills.

References

Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008). Emotion-based Dispositions to Rash Action: Positive and Negative Urgency. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 807–828. PMCID: PMC2705930 DOI: 10.1037/a0013341

James, L. M., Strom, T. Q., & Leskela, J. (2014). Risk-taking behaviors and impulsivity among veterans with and without PTSD and mild TBI. Military medicine, 179(4), 357-363. DOI: 10.7205/MILMED-D-13-00241

Linehan, M. (1987). Dialectical-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder: Theory and Method. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 51(3), 261—276Free ResearchGate PDF: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/19580590_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder_Theory_and_Method/links/553076c80cf20ea0a06f7fb8/Dialectical-Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder-Theory-and-Method.pdf

Lynch, T. R., Trost, W. T., Salsman, N., & Linehan, M. M. (2007). Dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 181-205. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095229Free ResearchGate PDF: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marsha_Linehan/publication/6124095_Dialectical_Behavior_Therapy_for_Borderline_Personality_Disorder/links/599ce0290f7e9b892bb003d9/Dialectical-Behavior-Therapy-for-Borderline-Personality-Disorder.pdf


What is the rationale for the normal distribution of intelligence?

Short answer
IQ scores are distributed normally, because they follow the  central limit theorem.

Background
When we measure IQ scores in sufficiently large populations, they will be normally distributed. This holds for healthy controls, as well as groups of people with ADHD or reading disabilities (Kaplan et al., 2000), and also in people with mild to moderate mental retardation (Bellugi et al. (2003).

Many biological variables follow a normal distribution quite well. This is a result of the central limit theorem, which says that when you take a large number of random numbers, the means of those numbers are approximately normally distributed (McDonald, 2012). When for example the weight distribution is sampled in a population, it will vary with age, nutrition, disease status etc. The addition of these independent random variables result in the variable (in this case weight) to become normally distributed ("bell shaped"), even if the original variables themselves are not normally distributed (source: wikipedia).

Hence, your statement Do we as a society have the right attitude to variation in human intelligence? Because it seems to me we are either over-nurturing the extremes, or should not represent it as a normal distribution doesn't really apply here, as IQ score distributions have nothing to do with 'us as a society having the right to do something'.

References
- Bellugi et al., Enfance (2003); 3(55): 237-49
- Kaplan et al., J Learning Disabilities (2000); 33(5): 425-32
- McDonald, Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd ed. (2012). Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland


How can psychopaths with no sympathy for their victims, exploit empathy to ensnare or torture them?

The theory, apparently backed up by some experiments, is that psychopaths can make use of empathy at will, which is what allows them to employ emotional manipulation. As related in a popsci account:

For example, consider one particularly fascinating experiment by Dr. Christian Keysers, Professor of Social Neuroscience at the University of Amsterdam.
In one study, Keysers and his team analyzed the brain activity of 21 convicted violent psychopathic offenders, comparing the results with 26 men of similar age and IQ. The participants were shown movies of people hurting each other while brain activity was measured. Later, a doctoral student would slap the patients on their hands to localize brain regions connected with feeling touch and pain. The goal was to see if patients' brains activated a feeling of pain in their own brain when viewing the pain of others.
"The vicarious activation of motor, somatosensory and emotional brain regions was much lower in the patients with psychopathy than in the normal subjects," writes Keysers. "The theory seemed right: their empathy was reduced, and this could explain why they committed such terrible crimes without feeling guilt."
But one question still plagued Keysers.
How could these same individuals prove to be so charming at times?
"I remember chatting with one of the patients...a particularly severe psychopath (he had scored the full 40 points on the psychopathy checklist)," writes Keysers. "Surrounded by the guards, he seemed a most pleasant person. He was smiling, engaging, and seemed to feel exactly what we wanted from him."
So Keysers and his partner decided to let the patients watch the movies again, this time asking them to try and empathize with the victims in the movies.
"What we found was that this simple instruction sufficed to boost the empathic activation in their brain to a level that was hard to distinguish from that of the healthy controls," writes Keysers. "Suddenly, the psychopaths seemed as empathic as the next guy. Their empathy was switched on."
Keysers' conclusion:

"Psychopathic individuals do not simply lack empathy. Instead, it seems as though for most of us, empathy is the default mode. If we see a victim, we share her pain. For the psychopathic criminals of our study, empathy seemed to be a voluntary activity. If they want to, they can empathize, and that explains how they can be so charming, and maybe so manipulative. Once they have seduced you into doing what serves their purpose, the effortful empathy would probably disappear again."

I'm not sure how well accepted this is... The BBC also ran a story on this with some additional more sketpical comments

Essi Viding from University College London, who was not involved with the study, said it was an extremely interesting finding, but that it remained unclear whether the psychopathic criminals' experience of empathy felt the same as that of the controls.
"It's dangerous to look at brain activation and say that it means they're empathising. They are able to generate a typical neural response, but that doesn't mean they have the same empathetic experience," Prof Viding told BBC News.
"We know they can generate the same response but they do that in an active and effortful way. Under free-viewing conditions they don't seem to. [...]"

There's also a newer study that seems to confirm the "empathy switch" in a larger class of "dark triad" personalities. (Also posci story on that.)


Is there an easy way to tell whether I woke up during REM or non-REM sleep?

I tagged dreams here too because I think that's a prominent characteristic of REM sleep that might help you judge this. If I'm wrong, please remove the tag...but I don't think people remember dreams as often when they wake during non-REM sleep. That might be one cue, though I'm not certain of this.

Another idea off the top of my head would be recording yourself. Since REM = "rapid eye movement", you could probably tell whether you were in that stage before awakening if you trained a digital video recorder on your face (e.g., over your head, attached to a bedpost or headboard, aimed down at your face), and happen to sleep facing up sometimes. Rapid eye movements are noticeable through eyelids (kinda looks like a cat moving around underneath bedsheets—the raised hemispherical shape shifts around a lot), so given a decently high-resolution video recording of yourself, you could probably check this upon waking, or whenever afterward. If you don't see much eye movement, you might guess that you're not in REM sleep, though I'm not 100% sure you could make this judgment without error by yourself.

A relatively foolproof third option would be to sign up for a sleep study! I believe they routinely monitor brain waves that are more definitional, physiological markers of sleep stages. That might cost you, though.