6. August 2009 by John Schinnerer.

‘If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn’t’.

Emerson Pugh

Posted in The human brain | Print | No Comments »

6. August 2009 by John Schinnerer.

If several of these symptoms appear, you may be happy and healthy, visits to the doctor may be greatly reduced.

1. Regular flare-ups of a supportive network of friends and family.
2. Chronic positive expectations.
3. Repeated episodes of gratitude & generosity.
4. Increased appetite for physical activity.
5. Marked tendency to identify and express feelings.
6. Compulsion to contribute to society.
7. Lingering sensitivity to the feelings of others.
8. Habitual behavior related to seeking new challenges.
9. Craving for peak experiences.
10. Tendency to adapt to changing conditions.
11. Feelings of spiritual involvement.
12. Persistent sense of humor.

Whole Earth Review magazine

Have a wonderful Thursday!

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Posted in Mindfulness, Altruism, Resiliency, Managing Sadness, Hope, Gratitude, Danville CA, National speakers, Science of love, Curiosity, Managing Anxiety, Emotional mind, Dr. John Schinnerer, Managing stress, Realistic optimism, Forgiveness, Creativity, Guide to Self, Morals and values, Happiness, Staying calm, Emotional IQ, Positive Psychology | Print | No Comments »

6. August 2009 by John Schinnerer.

What if ‘cognitive dissonance’ is actually related to subconscious emotional processes? Emotions may be behind the wishful thinking that the researchers relate to cognitive dissonance. Are we getting closer to a quantum theory of consciousness (emotion & cognition)?

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

April 14th, 2009 By Lisa Zyga

‘ (PhysOrg.com) — Humans don’t always make the most rational decisions. As studies have shown, even when logic and reasoning point in one direction, sometimes we chose the opposite route, motivated by personal bias or simply “wishful thinking.” This paradoxical human behavior has resisted explanation by classical decision theory for over a decade. But now, scientists have shown that a quantum probability model can provide a simple explanation for human decision-making - and may eventually help explain the success of human cognition overall.

If you were asked to gamble in a game in which you had a 50/50 chance to win $200 or lose $100, would you play? In one study, participants were told that they had just played this game, and then were asked to choose whether to try the same gamble again. One-third of the participants were told that they had won the first game, one-third were told they had lost the first game, and the remaining one-third did not know the outcome of their first game. Most of the participants in the first two scenarios chose to play again (69% and 59%, respectively), while most of the participants in the third scenario chose not to (only 36% played again). These results violate the “sure thing principle,” which says that if you prefer choice A in two complementary known states (e.g., known winning and known losing), then you should also prefer choice A when the state is unknown. So why do people choose differently when confronted with an unknown state?

In a recent study, psychologists Emmanuel M. Pothos of Swansea University in the UK and Jerome R. Busemeyer of Indiana University in the US have presented an alternative framework for modeling decision-making of this kind, based on quantum probability. As they note, the original motivation for developing quantum mechanics in physics was to explain findings that seemed paradoxical from a classical point of view. Possibly, quantum theory can better explain paradoxical findings in psychology, as well. In recent years, a growing number of researchers have investigated using quantum formalism in cognitive situations, such as in modeling human judgment and perception. Pothos and Busemeyer’s results are published in a recent issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

“A few decades ago, Tversky and Kahneman (1974) challenged ubiquitous assumptions regarding what is the most suitable framework for modeling human cognition,” Busemeyer told PhysOrg.com. “Until then, most psychologists sought to understand cognition using classic probability theory. In our paper we raise the question, which mathematical framework is most appropriate for cognitive modeling? In this article, for the first time, we present a fundamentally different, and more powerful, approach to probabilistic models of cognition, based on quantum principles. Employing minimal assumptions, we derive a Hamiltonian directly from the parameters of the problem (e.g., the payoffs associated with different actions) and known general principles of cognition (e.g., a well known phenomenon of cognitive dissonance); every step in our model is psychologically interpreted and rigorously justified.”

Defecting Dilemma

In their study, the scientists compared two models, one based on Markovian classical probability theory and the other based on quantum probability theory. They modeled a game based on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which is similar to the gambling game. Here, participants were asked if they wanted to cooperate with or defect from an imaginary partner. Overall, each partner would receive larger pay-outs if they defected, making defecting the rational choice. However, if both partners cooperated, they would each receive a higher pay-out than if both defected. Similar to the results from the gambling games, studies have shown that participants who were told that their partner had defected or cooperated on the first round usually chose to defect on the second round (84% and 66%, respectively). But participants who did not know their partner’s previous decision were more likely to cooperate than the others (only 55% defected). It seems as if these individuals were trying to give their partners the benefit of the doubt, at the expense of making the rational choice.

As the scientists showed, both classical and quantum probability models accurately predict an individual’s decisions when the opponent’s choice is known. However, when the opponent’s action is unknown, both models predict that the probability of defection is the average of the two known cases, which fails to explain empirical human behavior. The problem is that the models are purely rational, meaning they try to maximize utility.

To address this problem, the scientists added another component to both models, which they call cognitive dissonance, and can also be thought of as wishful thinking. The idea is that people tend to believe that their opponent will make the same choice that they do; if an individual chooses to cooperate, they tend to think that their opponent will cooperate, as well. If both partners cooperate, both will receive a higher pay-out than if both defected. (And if an individual thought that his opponent would cooperate and so decided to defect to maximize his own pay-out, he would then be compelled to assume that the opponent would also defect, according to cognitive dissonance.) In other words, an individual views his opponent as a mirror of himself.

The difference between the classical and quantum models lies in how the rational component and the cognitive dissonance component are combined. Even after adding the second component, the classical model predicts that the probability in the unknown scenario must equal the average of the probability for the two known cases. As such, the classical model continues to obey the law of total probability, and fails to explain the violations of the sure thing principle.

In the quantum model, on the other hand, the addition of the cognitive dissonance component produces interference effects that cause the unknown probability to deviate from the average of the known probabilities. While in the classical model an individual is committed to exactly one preference at any given time, in the quantum model an individual experiences a superposition of these preferences. Mathematically, the probability (or amplitude) of defecting in the unknown scenario is obtained from the superposition of probabilities (amplitudes) for the two known cases. These interference effects enable the probability of unknown events to be lower than the probability of either event individually, which is observed in the empirical studies.

“Cognitive dissonance can arise in other decision making situations and is not limited to games with an intelligent opponent,” Busemeyer said. “In the gambling game, you play against nature. In this case, however, your belief that you will win the game becomes coordinated with your intentions to play the game. Cognitive dissonance effects are not even limited to adult humans but have also been found with young children and even with nonhuman primates.” (See Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R. & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18, 978- 983.)’

Full article here

http://www.physorg.com/news158928941.html

All the best,

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Guide To Self, Inc.

Posted in Altruism, Awareness, Emotion & learning, Negotiation and emotion, Consciousness, Guide to Self, Rational mind, Emotional mind, Dr. John Schinnerer | Print | No Comments »

6. August 2009 by John Schinnerer.

August 4th, 2009

Professor Declan Murphy and colleagues Dr Michael Craig and Dr Marco Catani from the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London have found differences in the brain which may provide a biological explanation for psychopathy. The results of their study are outlined in the paper ‘Altered connections on the road to psychopathy’, published in Molecular Psychiatry.

The research investigated the brain biology of psychopaths with convictions that included attempted murder, manslaughter, multiple rape with strangulation and false imprisonment. Using a powerful imaging technique (DT-MRI) the researchers have highlighted biological differences in the brain which may underpin these types of behaviour and provide a more comprehensive understanding of criminal psychopathy.

Dr Michael Craig said: ‘If replicated by larger studies the significance of these findings cannot be underestimated. The suggestion of a clear structural deficit in the brains of psychopaths has profound implications for clinicians, research scientists and the criminal justice system.’

While psychopathy is strongly associated with serious criminal behaviour (eg rape and murder) and repeat offending, the biological basis of psychopathy remains poorly understood. Also some investigators stress mainly social reasons to explain antisocial behaviours. To date, nobody has investigated the ‘connectivity’ between the specific brain regions implicated in psychopathy.

Full article here http://www.physorg.com/news168610123.html

 Cheers,

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Guide To Self, Inc.

Positive Psychology Coaching

Posted in National speakers, The human brain, Emotional mind, Dr. John Schinnerer | Print | No Comments »

6. August 2009 by John Schinnerer.

August 6th, 2009

‘The more time college students spend on Facebook, the more likely they are to feel jealous toward their romantic partners, leading to more time on Facebook searching for additional information that will further fuel their jealousy, in an escalating cycle that may become addictive, according to a study reported in CyberPsychology & Behavior.

Amy Muise, MSc, Emily Christofides, MSc, and Serge Desmarais, PhD, from the University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada), surveyed young adults involved in romantic relationships and found that those who spent time on social networking sites such as Facebook may be exposed to information about their partners that makes them jealous, leading them to spend more time involved in online surveillance and to uncover even more jealousy-provoking information.’

For me, the take home message of this study is to be aware of fueling the downward spiral of jealous thoughts and feelings with activities such as hunting for material that leads to more suspicion. You find what that for which you look.  If you look for material that corroborates jealousy, you will find it. If you look for information that supports a loving, trusting relationship, you will find that as well.  Allow for common sense and intuition, while staying aware to the fact that your thoughts and feelings can mislead you down unproductive paths.

Full article here

http://www.physorg.com/news168773965.html

All the best,

John Schinnerer, Ph.D.

Posted in Emotion & learning, Science of love, Awareness, Emotional mind, Dr. John Schinnerer | Print | No Comments »