Brianna lost 80 pounds

Transformation of the Day: Brianna lost 80 pounds in 4 1/2 months. For years, she endured comments about her weight gain from family. She could feel herself slipping into depression and she was listed as morbidly obese by her doctor. It was time to take action. She joined a local training program that also stresses […]

No related posts.

via Black Weight Loss Success http://ift.tt/2jhFsGf

Tribute to Jose Delgado, Legendary and Slightly Scary Pioneer of Mind Control

“The Forgotten Era of Brain Chips,” published in Scientific American in October 2005, has provoked as much interest as anything I’ve ever written. It focuses on Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, a pioneer in brain-stimulation research. I keep hearing from journalists and others wanting more information on Delgado, whom I interviewed in 2005 and who died in 2011. Delgado fascinates conspiracy theorists, too. An article on Infowars.com describes him as a “madman” who believed that “no human being has an inherent right to his own personality.” Given widespread interest in and misinformation about Delgado, whose work prefigures current research on brain implants (see “Further Reading”), I’m posting an edited version of my 2005 article. --John Horgan

Once among the world’s most acclaimed scientists, Jose Manuel Rodriguez Delgado has become an urban legend, whose career is shrouded in misinformation. Delgado pioneered that most unnerving of technologies, the brain chip, which manipulates the mind by electrically stimulating neural tissue with implanted electrodes. Long a McGuffin of science fictions, from The Terminal Man to The Matrix, brain chips are now being tested as treatments for epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, paralysis, depression, and other disorders.

In part because it was relatively unencumbered by ethical regulations, Delgado’s research rivaled and even surpassed much of what is being done today. In 1965, The New York Times reported on its front page that he had stopped a charging bull in its tracks by sending a radio signal to a device implanted in its brain. He also implanted radio-equipped electrode arrays, which he called “stimoceivers,” in dogs, cats, monkeys, chimpanzees, gibbons, and humans. With the push of a button, he could evoke smiles, snarls, bliss, terror, hunger, garrulousness, lust, and other responses.

Delgado described his results in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and in a widely reviewed 1969 book, but these are rarely if ever cited by modern researchers. One reason may be that in 1974 he left Yale, his base for more than two decades, to return to Spain, his birthplace. He was at the peak of his career. A cover story in The New York Times Magazine had just hailed him as the “impassioned prophet of a new ‘psychocivilized society’ whose members would influence and alter their own mental functions.”

In Madrid, Delgado switched his focus to non-invasive brain-stimulation methods, anticipating current exploration of techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. Because he published primarily in Spanish journals, his work fell into obscurity. Brain-implant studies back in the U.S. became engulfed in ethical controversies. Grants dried up, researchers drifted to other fields, and little work was done until the recent revival. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists began depicting Delgado as a fascist who sought to enslave people by means of neurotechnology.

In 2004, Delgado and his wife Caroline--a Yale administrator’s daughter whom he married in 1956, when she was 22 and he was 41--moved to San Diego, California, to be closer to their son and daughter. Delgado recently allowed me to visit him at his elegant, one-story home. Over the course of two days, Delgado, who at 89 is charming, courtly, and keen of mind, told me his life story and vigorously defended his legacy. He describes himself as a libertarian and pacifist, whose goal as a scientist was to liberate us from our biology, and especially from mental illnesses and violent aggression.

Delgado understands why many people are offended by research into the physiological processes that underpin thoughts and behavior. They think, “How is it possible that I am mainly the result of chemicals in the brain! This is very distasteful, I don’t like this at all!” But if the research leads to better treatments for brain disorders, he says, “this is wonderful.”

Born in Ronda, Spain, in 1915, Delgado has been dogged by rumors that he supported the fascist regime of Francisco Franco. Someone at a scientific conference threw a pie in Delgado’s face for this alleged offense. But when Franco led a military coup against the Republican government of Spain in 1936, Delgado, then a medical student, enlisted in the Republican army and served as an officer in the medical corp. After Franco’s fascist troops crushed the Republicans, Delgado spent five months in prison before being released to resume his medical studies.

Delgado originally intended to become an eye doctor, like his father. But a stint in a physiology laboratory--plus exposure to the writings of the great Spanish neuroscientist Ramon y Cajal--left him entranced by “the many mysteries of the brain. How little was known then. How little is known now!” Delgado was fascinated by experiments by Swiss physiologist Walter Rudolph Hess. Beginning in the 1920s, Hess had demonstrated that he could elicit behavioral responses such as rage, hunger, and sleepiness in cats by electrically stimulating specific regions of their brains with wires.

After earning an M.D. and doctorate in physiology from the University of Madrid, Delgado joined its physiology laboratory, where he carried out brain-stimulation experiments on cats, dogs, and primates. In 1946, he won a fellowship at Yale, and in 1950 he accepted a permanent position in its department of physiology.

The department was headed by John Fulton, who played a crucial role in the history of psychiatry. In a 1935 lecture in London, Fulton reported that destroying the prefrontal lobes of a violent, “neurotic” chimpanzee made her calm and compliant. In the audience was Portuguese psychiatrist Edgar Moniz, who started performing lobotomies on psychotic patients and claimed excellent results. After Moniz won a Nobel Prize in 1949, lobotomies became an increasingly popular treatment for mental illness.

Initially shocked that his method of pacifying a chimpanzee had been applied to humans, Fulton later became a proponent of psychosurgery. Delgado never shared his mentor’s enthusiasm. “I thought Fulton and Moniz’s idea of destroying the brain was absolutely horrendous,” Delgado recalls. He felt it would be “far more conservative” to treat mental illness by applying electrical-stimulation methods pioneered by Hess, who shared the 1949 Nobel Prize with Moniz. “My idea was to avoid lobotomy,” Delgado says, “with the help of electrodes implanted in the brain.”

One key to Delgado’s scientific success was his talent as an inventor. A Yale colleague called him a “technological wizard.” In his early experiments, wires ran from the implanted electrodes through the skull and skin to bulky electronic devices that recorded data and delivered electrical pulses. This set-up restricted subjects’ movements and left them prone to infections. Delgado thus designed radio-equipped stimoceivers as small as quarters, which could be fully implanted in subjects. A battery pack strapped to the head or worn around the neck supplied the power transdermally. Delgado also invented implantable “chemotrodes” that could release precise amounts of drugs directly into the brain.

In 1952, Delgado co-authored what he claims is the first peer-reviewed paper describing deep brain stimulation of humans. Over the next two decades, he implanted electrodes in some 25 subjects. Most were schizophrenics and epileptics at the now-defunct State Hospital for Mental Diseases in Howard, Rhode Island, where Delgado’s occasional collaborator Hannibal Hamlin was a staff psychiatrist.

One striking reaction to stimulation was pleasure and sexual arousal. A 36-year-old female epileptic, whose behavior was normally “quite proper,” responded to stimulation by “giggling and making funny comments” and flirting with researchers. A sullen 11-year-old epileptic boy became chatty and friendly when stimulated. “Hey! You can keep me here longer when you give me these,” he exclaimed. He also announced, “I’d like to be a girl.”

The therapeutic benefits were mixed, however, and Delgado turned away more patients than he treated. One was a young woman whose parents had committed her to a mental hospital because she was so violent and promiscuous. Both the parents and the daughter herself pleaded with Delgado to operate on her, but he refused, saying that electrical stimulation was too unreliable. He achieved his best results treating people afflicted with chronic pain, including a man injured in an automobile accident. His pain had resisted drug treatment, but the stimoceiver relieved both his pain and the depression it had caused, so much so that he could return to work.  

Delgado seems reticent discussing his experiments on humans. He is more enthusiastic recalling research on monkeys, chimpanzees, and gibbons, which he kept both at Yale and in open-air compounds in the Bahamas and New Mexico. He explored the effects of stimulation not only on individuals but also on groups, and he did not shy away from anthropomorphic interpretations.

In one demonstration, he implanted a stimoceiver in a macaque who terrorized his cage-mates. Delgado installed a lever in the cage that, when pressed, would activate the stimoceiver in the bully and pacify him. A female in the cage soon figured out the lever’s significance and yanked it often and with gusto. “The old dream of an individual overpowering the strength of a dictator by remote control has been fulfilled, at least in our monkey colonies,” Delgado wrote.

Credit: Yale Events and Activities Photographs (RU 690). Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library

Delgado’s fascination with violent behavior led him to conceive his famous bull experiment. “I thought: Which is the animal which is characterized by his aggressive behavior? The fighting bull!” A Spanish university supplied the funds for the experiment, and a bull-breeder in Cordoba supplied four bulls and a bullring. Working with his wife and several assistants over three days in 1963, Delgado tranquilized the bulls, fitted stereotactic frames over their skulls, and inserted stimoceivers into their brains. Delgado then stood in a bullring with the bulls and stimulated their brains by pressing buttons on a hand-held radio.

Asked if he took bull-fighting lessons for these sessions, Delgado responds in mock outrage, “What do you mean! I know how to fight a bull!” He grew up, after all, in Ronda, a bastion of bullfighting. He admitted that he was “frightened” when one bull charged him and stopped in response to his frantic button-pushing just a few feet away from him. As word spread in Cordoba about the strange activities at the ranch, a Spanish television crew and hundreds of others gathered to watch Delgado carry out tests with different bulls.

The episode received its most significant media coverage two years later, after Delgado showed slides from the bull experiment during a lecture at the Museum of Natural History in New York City. Afterwards, a New York Times reporter approached him. “He said, ‘That was very interesting. Can I borrow your pictures?’ I said, ‘Sure, no problem.’”

The next day the Times published a front-page story, illustrated with a photograph of a bull just a few feet away from Delgado, about “the most spectacular demonstration ever performed of the deliberate modification of animal behavior through external control of the brain.” Delgado was swamped with media inquiries about how he had created a real-life version of “Ferdinand,” the gentle bull in a popular children’s story.

Not everyone was impressed. Elliot Valenstein, a neurophysiologist at the University of Michigan, contended that stimulation had not inhibited the bulls’ aggressive instinct, as Delgado had claimed, but had merely prevented it from charging straight ahead. In other words, the effect was strictly muscular. Valenstein offered a similar critique of an experiment in which Delgado claimed to have suppressed the “maternal instinct” of female monkeys. Asked now about Valenstein’s objections, Delgado shrugs. His experiment, he says, “naturally could be interpreted in one way or the other,” but he stands by his initial claims.

In terms of scientific significance, Delgado believes his experiment on a female chimpanzee named Paddy deserved more attention. Delgado programmed Paddy’s stimoceiver to detect distinctive signals, called spindles, emitted by her amygdala. Whenever the stimoceiver detected a spindle, it stimulated another part of Paddy’s brain, producing an “aversive reaction”--that is, a painful or unpleasant sensation. After two hours of this negative feedback, Paddy’s amygdala produced 50 percent fewer spindles; the frequency dropped by 99 percent within six days. Delgado speculated that this “automatic learning” technique could be used to quell epileptic seizures, panic attacks, or other brain disorders.

In 1969, Delgado described brain-stimulation research and discussed its implications in Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. Ashley Montagu, a leading psychologist, called the book “an invaluable and authoritative analysis of the nature of human nature.” Scientific American’s Phillip Morrison called it “a thoughtful, up-to-date account” of electrical-stimulation experiments but added that the research was “somewhat ominous.” Indeed, many readers found Delgado’s book—illustrated with photographs of monkeys, cats, and two young women with stimoceivers affixed to their skulls—horrifying.

Some of Delgado’s rhetoric had an alarmingly apocalyptic tone. He declared that humanity was on the verge of “conquering the mind,” and should shift its mission from the ancient dictum “Know Thyself” to “Construct Thyself.” Used wisely, neurotechnology could help create “a less cruel, happier, and better man.” His attempts to extol brain electrodes could be almost comically clumsy. He noted that female patients “have shown their feminine adaptability to circumstance by wearing attractive hats or wigs to conceal their electrical headgear.”

The sponsorship of his experiments by the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force Aeromedical Research Laboratory (as well as several civilian agencies) raised eyebrows as well. Critics speculated that the military wanted to create cyborg soldiers that could kill on command, like the brainwashed assassin in The Manchurian Candidate. Delgado says his military sponsors never expressed interest in such applications. “At that time, the technology was very crude. The only thing we could do was to increase or decrease aggressive behavior, but not to direct aggressive behavior to any specific target. Maybe they expected that. I don’t know.”

The 1970 book Violence and the Brain, which explored potential applications of neurotechnologies, also attracted unwanted attention. The book was by Frank Ervin and Vernon Mark, brain-implant researchers at Harvard with whom Delgado briefly collaborated. (One of Ervin’s students was Michael Crichton, whose first bestseller, The Terminal Man, about a bionic experiment gone awry, was inspired by the research of Ervin, Mark, and Delgado.)

Ervin and Mark suggested that neurotechnologies might quell the violent tendencies of African-Americans who rioted in inner cities. Brain-implant experiments of Robert Heath, a psychiatrist at Tulane University, provoked still more controversy. In 1972 Heath claimed that he had changed the sexual orientation of a male homosexual by stimulating his brain’s septal region while he had intercourse with a female prostitute.

The fiercest critic of brain implants was psychiatrist Peter Breggin (who later focused on the dangers of psychiatric drugs). In testimony submitted into the Congressional Record in 1972, Breggin lumped Delgado, Ervin, Mark, and Heath together with proponents of lobotomies and accused them of seeking “a society in which everyone who deviates from the norm” will be “surgically mutilated.” Quoting liberally from Physical Control, Breggin singled out Delgado as “the great apologist for Technological Totalitarianism.” (Breggin’s testimony is apparently the source of erroneous Internet claims that Delgado once testified before Congress.)

As Delgado’s notoriety grew, strangers started accusing him of having implanted “stimoceivers” in their brains. One woman who made this claim sued Delgado and Yale University for $1 million, although he had never met her. In the midst of this brouhaha, the Spanish minister of health asked Delgado to help organize a new medical school in Madrid, and Delgado accepted. He and his family moved to Spain in 1974. Delgado insists he was not fleeing the controversy triggered by his research. The Spanish minister just gave him an offer too good to refuse. “I said, ‘Could I have the facilities I have at Yale?’ And he said, ‘Oh no, much better!’”  

In Spain Delgado shifted his focus to noninvasive neurostimulation methods--”because implanting electrodes, this is brutal,” he says in a mock-growly voice. He invented a halo-like device and a helmet that could deliver electromagnetic pulses to specific neural regions. Testing the gadgets on animals and human volunteers, including himself and his daughter, Delgado discovered that he could induce drowsiness, alertness, and other states. He and his colleagues also had success treating tremors of Parkinson’s.

This research, too, attracted controversy. The 1984 BBC documentary Opening Pandora’s Box cited Delgado’s work as evidence that the U.S. and Russia were developing methods for remotely modifying peoples’ thoughts. Noting that the power and precision of electromagnetic pulses falls off dramatically with distance, Delgado doubts whether remote mind-control is possible. “This was science fiction, probably.”

Delgado is not upset that modern scientists seldom mention his work. “Always there are antecedents in a field,” he says. He doubts that modern brain-stimulation researchers avoid citing him because he is so controversial. Simple ignorance, he says, is a more likely explanation. After all, most modern databases do not include publications from his heyday in the 1950s and 60s.

Looking back over his career, Delgado acknowledges “a great defect: I have been able to do many important things, but I have not been able to follow in depth in any of these fields.” He is thus thrilled that a new generation of scientists--equipped with increasingly sophisticated computers, electrodes, and brain-scanning technologies--is exploring paths that he trail-blazed. “In the near future,” he says, “I think we will be able to help many human beings, especially with the non-invasive methods. Maybe invasive also.”

Delgado has constructive criticism for his scientific descendants. He believes some neuroscientists are too obsessed with linking specific cognitive mechanisms to specific neural regions. Just because you can stimulate a spot in the motor cortex and get a finger to flex does not mean that region alone is responsible for moving the finger.

“People are trying to investigate: Where is the area of the brain essential to consciousness? That’s a silly question,” because consciousness and cognition in general almost certainly stem from the workings of the entire brain. “The whole brain is involved in everything!”

Delgado’s appreciation of the brain’s complexities leads him to doubt whether neurotechnologies will ever advance as far as some of us fear, or hope. “We know far more than 20 years ago, but there are so many things we don’t know.” He points out that neuroscientists have no idea how complex information is encoded in the firing of neurons. Moreover, brain stimulation can only modify skills and capacities that we already possess. It cannot make us instant experts in, say, quantum physics or French, as some critics have feared.

“Learning a language means slowly changing connections which are already there,” Delgado explained. “I don’t think you can do that suddenly.” Delgado is even more doubtful that we will soon transcend our biology entirely, as the artificial-intelligence researcher Ray Kurzweil and others have prophesied. “In 300,000 years maybe,” he says.

But Delgado looks askance at the suggestion of the White House Council of Bioethics and others that some scientific goals should not be pursued, particularly if they threaten to alter human nature. To be sure, technology “has two sides, for good and for bad,” and we should do what we can to “avoid the adverse consequences.” We should try to prevent potentially destructive technologies from being abused by authoritarian governments to gain more power, or by terrorists to wreak destruction.

But human nature, Delgado asserts, echoing one of the exhilarating and slightly scary themes of Physical Control, is not static but “dynamic,” constantly changing as a result of our compulsive self-exploration. “Can you avoid knowledge?” Delgado asks. “You cannot! Can you avoid technology? You cannot! Things are going to go ahead in spite of ethics, in spite of your personal beliefs, in spite of everything.”

Further Reading:

The Singularity and the Neural Code

Return of Electro-Cures Exposes Psychiatry's Weakness.

Much-Hyped Brain-Implant Treatment for Depression Suffers Setback.

Much-touted Deep-Brain-Stimulation Treatment for Depression Fails Another Trial

Patient in Failed Depression-Implant Trial Tells His Painful Story.

Why “Optogenetic” Methods for Manipulating Brains Don’t Light Me Up

Why Optogenetics Doesn’t Light Me Up: The Sequel

Do Big New Brain Projects Make Sense When We Don't Even Know the "Neural Code"?

Why You Should Care about Pentagon Funding of Obama's BRAIN Initiative.

Two More Reasons Why Big Brain Projects Are Premature.

Artificial brains are imminent… not!

What’s the Biggest Science News? We’re Still Human, for Ill or Good.

What Are Science's Ugliest Experiments?

All Hypnosis Feeds

via Scientific American: Mind & Brain http://ift.tt/n8vNiX

Brain Stimulation Shows Promise As Aid To Recovery from TBI

Low-impulse electrical brain stimulation may help improve neural function in patients who have mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) with persistent post-concussion symptoms, according to a new pilot study by researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS).

TBI is a leading cause of sustained physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioral problems in both the civilian population (primarily due to motor vehicle accidents, sports, falls and assaults) and among military personnel (blast injuries). In most of these cases, injury is deemed mild (75 percent of civilians, 89 percent of military) and typically resolves in days.

However, in a strong minority of cases, mild TBI and related post-concussive symptoms persist for months, even years, resulting in chronic, long-term cognitive and/or behavioral impairment.

There is still much to learn regarding the pathology of mild TBI, which the researchers say has confounded efforts to develop optimal treatments. However, the use of passive neurofeedback, which involves applying low-intensity pulses to the brain through transcranial electrical stimulation (LIP-tES) is showing promise for patients with these persistent cases.

The study involved six participants who had suffered mild TBI and persistent post-concussion symptoms. The researchers used a version of LIP-tES called IASIS, combined with concurrent electroencephalography monitoring (EEG).

The effects of IASIS were evaluated before and after treatment using magnetoencephalography (MEG), a form of non-invasive functional imaging that directly measures brain neuronal electromagnetic activity.

“Our previous publications have shown that MEG detection of abnormal brain slow-waves is one of the most sensitive biomarkers for mild traumatic brain injury (concussions), with about 85 percent sensitivity in detecting concussions and, essentially, no false-positives in normal patients,” said senior author Roland Lee, M.D., professor of radiology and director of Neuroradiology, MRI and MEG at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and VASDHS.

“This makes it an ideal technique to monitor the effects of concussion treatments such as LIP-tES.”

The findings show that the brains of all six participants displayed abnormal slow-waves in initial, baseline MEG scans. Following treatment, the researchers found a decrease in these slow-waves. The participants also reported a significant reduction in post-concussion scores.

“For the first time, we’ve been able to document with neuroimaging the effects of LIP-tES treatment on brain functioning in mild TBI,” said first author Ming-Xiong Huang, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Radiology at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and a research scientist at VASDHS.

“It’s a small study, which certainly must be expanded, but it suggests new potential for effectively speeding the healing process in mild traumatic brain injuries.”

The findings are published online in the current issue of the journal Brain Injury.

Source: University of California, San Diego

 

All Hypnosis Feeds

via Psych Central News http://ift.tt/2iUcuqu

Gamers Outperform Non-Gamers in Some Learning Tasks

In a new German study which pitted video gamers against non-gamers in a learning test, gamers performed significantly better and exhibited increased activity in brain regions associated with learning.

Specifically, the gamers were better at analyzing a situation quickly in order to generate new knowledge and categorize facts, particularly in situations with high uncertainties.

Neuropsychologists at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum studied 17 volunteers who had reported that they played action-based games on the computer or a console for more than 15 hours a week. The control group involved 17 participants who reported that they did not play video games on a regular basis.

Both groups completed the so-called weather prediction task, a well-established test designed to investigate the learning of probabilities. As the participants played the games, the researchers simultaneously recorded their brain activity via magnetic resonance imaging.

The volunteers were shown a combination of three cue cards with different symbols. They were then asked to estimate whether the card combination predicted sun or rain; they were given immediate feedback on whether or not their choice was correct.

Thus, the participants gradually learned on the basis of the feedback which card combination stands for which weather prediction. The combinations were thereby associated with higher or lower probabilities for sun and rain.

After completing the task, the volunteers completed a questionnaire to measure their acquired knowledge about the cue card combinations.

The findings show that the gamers were notably better in combining the cue cards with the weather predictions than the control group. They performed even better with cue card combinations that had a high uncertainty such as a combination that predicted 60 percent rain and 40 percent sunshine.

In addition, the analysis of the questionnaire showed that the gamers had acquired more knowledge about the meaning of the card combinations than did the control group.

“Our study shows that gamers are better in analyzing a situation quickly, to generate new knowledge and to categorize facts, especially in situations with high uncertainties,” said first author Sabrina Schenk.

This particular type of learning is associated with increased activity in the hippocampus, a brain region that plays a key role in learning and memory. “We think that playing video games trains certain brain regions like the hippocampus,” said Schenk.

“That is not only important for young people, but also for older people — this is because changes in the hippocampus can lead to a decrease in memory performance. Maybe we can treat that with video games in the future.”

The new findings are published in the journal Behavioural Brain Research.

Source: Ruhr-Universität Bochum

All Hypnosis Feeds

via Psych Central News http://ift.tt/2iUcuqu

For Boys at Risk of Psychopathy, Laughter Isn’t Contagious

For most people, laughter is highly contagious. It’s nearly impossible to hear or see someone laughing and not feel the urge to join in.

But a new study provides new evidence that shows that boys at risk of developing psychopathy when they become adults don’t have that same urge.

Individuals at risk of psychopathy show persistent disruptive behaviors alongside callous, unemotional traits. When asked in the study, boys fitting that description reported that they didn’t want to join in with laughter as much as their peers.

Images of their brains also showed reduced response to the sound of laughter.

Those differences were seen in brain areas that promote joining in with others and resonating with other people’s emotions, not in auditory brain areas.

“Most studies have focused on how individuals with psychopathic traits process negative emotions and how their lack of response to them might explain their ability to aggress against other people,” said senior author Essi Viding of University College London.

“This prior work is important, but it has not fully addressed why these individuals fail to bond with others. We wanted to investigate how boys at risk of developing psychopathy process emotions that promote social affiliation, such as laughter.”

The researchers recruited 62 boys aged 11 to 16 with disruptive behaviors and 30 normally behaved, matched boys. The groups were matched on ability, socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and handedness.

“It is not appropriate to label children psychopaths,” Viding said. “Psychopathy is an adult personality disorder. However, we do know from longitudinal research that there are certain children who are at a higher risk for developing psychopathy, and we screened for those features that indicate that risk.”

The researchers captured the children’s brain activity using functional MRI while they listened to genuine laughter mixed with posed laughter and crying sounds. The boys who took part were asked, on a scale of one to seven, “How much does hearing the sound make you feel like joining in and/or feeling the emotion?” and “How much does the sound reflect a genuinely felt emotion?”

Boys who showed disruptive behavior coupled with high levels of callous-unemotional traits reported less desire to join in with laughter than did normally behaved children or those who were disruptive without showing callous-unemotional traits.

All the boys showed brain activity to genuine laughter in many parts of the brain, including the auditory cortex, where sounds are processed, according to the study’s findings.

However, some interesting differences also emerged, and these were particularly pronounced in boys whose disruptive behavior was coupled with callous-unemotional traits. They showed reduced brain activity in the anterior insula and supplementary motor area, brain regions that are thought to facilitate resonating with other people’s emotions and joining in with their laughter. Boys who were disruptive but had low levels of callous-unemotional traits showed some differences too, but not as pronounced as the group with high levels of callous-unemotional traits.

Viding notes it’s hard to know whether the reduced response to laughter is a cause or a consequence of the boys’ disruptive behaviors. But the findings should motivate further study into how signals of social affiliation are processed in children at risk of developing psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder.

She and her colleagues hope to explore related questions, including whether these children also respond differently to dynamically smiling faces, words of encouragement, or displays of love. They also want to learn at what age those differences arise.

The findings show that kids who are vulnerable to developing psychopathy don’t experience the world quite like the rest of us, according to Viding.

“Those social cues that automatically give us pleasure or alert us to someone’s distress do not register in the same way for these children,” she says.

“That does not mean that these children are destined to become antisocial or dangerous; rather, these findings shed new light on why they often make different choices from their peers. We are only now beginning to develop an understanding of how the processes underlying prosocial behavior might differ in these children. Such understanding is essential if we are to improve current approaches to treatment for affected children and their families who need our help and support.”

The study was published in Current Biology.

Source: Cell Press

All Hypnosis Feeds

via Psych Central News http://ift.tt/2iUcuqu

Necessity is Indeed the Mother of Invention in Resource-Poor Areas

People who live in extremely resource-poor environments are likely to be highly creative problem solvers for the benefit of themselves and their communities, according to a new University of Notre Dame study conducted in rural India.

The new findings counter those of studies in the West which have suggested that a lack of resources stifles innovation and that individuals who live in resource-scarce environments are less likely to be inventive and make an impact.

So while Western theories on creativity emphasize the importance of access to resources and state that consistent innovation is a strong source of competitive advantage for firms, the new study suggests that it’s a completely different case in the resource-poor environments of the East. Here, entrepreneurs rely on “jugaad,” a Hindi word that roughly translates to “hack.”

Jugaad essentially means finding a low-cost, intelligent solution to a problem by thinking constructively and differently. And while the solution may not offer a competitive advantage for a firm, as is typical in Western practices, it does benefit the person, the community and industry as a whole.

The study titled “The Surprising Duality of Jugaad: Low Firm Growth and High Inclusive Growth” is published in the Journal of Management Studies.

The research was conducted by Dean Shepherd, the Siegfried Professor of Entrepreneurship in Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business, along with Vinit Parida and Joakim Wincent of Lulea University of Technology in Sweden.

The study involved the evaluation of 12 problem solvers in the highly resource-poor environment of rural India. The researchers examined the impact of jugaad, which relies on assertive defiance (unwillingness to accept constraints), and how this trait resulted in frugal, quick-fix solutions.

“Dismissing this form of innovation because it does not benefit the single organization is to miss its larger impact, which is called inclusive growth,” Shepherd says, “because it looks more broadly at who benefits — the benefit generation is more inclusive. It’s a process of innovation that people in resource-poor environments can use to impact their lives and the lives of those in their community.”

“They can be innovative by combining and recombining available resources into unique bundles,” he says. “For example, by using machinery parts for purposes for which they were not originally designed and a process of trial and error until a problem is satisfactorily solved.”

For example, one innovator created a natural water cooler, which channels water through copper coils covered in cotton cloth continually moistened by a dripper. Evaporation of water from the cloth on the coils cools the water inside, making it suitable for use in schools, hospitals, and elsewhere.

Another entrepreneur created an economical gas-based water pump that uses a mo-ped engine to lift water and rigged a lamp to a gas stove for use during power failures.

“These types of innovation are possible in any place or situation where people find themselves without resources,” Shepherd says. “This could include the developing world, but also poor regions in the developed world. During disasters that strip away resources, it is likely those who are accustomed to being innovative with little available are the ones that already have the skills and mindset best suited for the innovations necessary to survive in the aftermath of a disaster. They have become resilient.”

As an example, Shepherd refers to the innovation that took place in the aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake — a focus of his previous research.

“People came together to create ventures that performed a range of tasks to help the community, including organizing locals for searching for food, water, and shelter; for search and rescue, providing medical treatment and burying the dead,” Shepherd says. “They also created tent cities or other forms of temporary housing and provided both security and law enforcement.”

“In the longer term, some of these ventures turned their attention to lobbying the government for resources, transitioned people back into their homes or more permanent housing structures, created employment agencies to help people find paid work and offered psychological services. The initial focus of the ventures was on keeping people alive or burying the dead, and later some evolved to help the families transition to a more sustainable and self-fulfilling life.”

Source: University of Notre Dame

All Hypnosis Feeds

via Psych Central News http://ift.tt/2iUcuqu

5 Ways to Deepen Your Relationship with Yourself

Our relationship with ourselves is the most important relationship. It is the beginning. It is the foundation. Everything starts and sprouts from here. Which is why focusing on this relationship, prioritizing it, is vital. It is essential.

“Your relationship with yourself affects every other relationship in your life,” said Lea Seigen Shinraku, MFT, a therapist in private practice in San Francisco. For instance, if you’re regularly berating yourself, you might assume that others are berating you, too. Which can lead you to feel defensive or inferior, she said.

Self-criticism also activates our body’s stress-response system — fight/flight/freeze — making it harder to think clearly and respond to what’s actually happening in the moment, she said.

Plus, “if you don’t know how to relate to the various aspects of yourself or you’re afraid to be alone, you will look to others to take care of you.” Of course, relying on others is not inherently problematic. It becomes problematic when our perspective is that we are inherently wrong or broken or damaged. And it can “cause us to stay in relationships that aren’t serving us,” Shinraku added.

“We have to live with ourselves every day; why wouldn’t we want to deepen a profound connection with ourselves?” said Kelly Hendricks, MA, a couple and family therapist in San Diego specializing in helping couples intimately bond and supporting women to find their Mr. Right and empower themselves with confidence.

What does a profound connection with ourselves look like? It is everything from knowing who we are to nourishing our needs. Below, Shinraku and Hendricks shared five specific ways you can do just that — and more.

Explore what makes you you. Hendricks suggested writing down your traits and strengths and asking questions such as: “What sets you apart from others? What makes you similar to others?  What do you know to be true about yourself that others don’t see?  What do you wish others knew about you?” 

Focus on self-compassion. Shinraku, founder of The San Francisco Center for Self-Compassion, stressed the importance of cultivating a self-compassionate relationship. She teaches a Mindful Self-Compassion course created by Kristin Neff and Christopher Germer. It includes a journaling exercise called “How would I treat a friend?” which helps individuals understand what a compassionate relationship with themselves can look, feel and sound like.

According to Shinraku, to start, think about a time a loved one was struggling. Write about how you related to them, including your tone of voice, the words you used and your body language. Next, think about a time when you were struggling, and explore how you related to yourself. Then, examine the differences between how you treated your loved one and how you treated yourself. Most of us treat others much, much better than we treat ourselves. What would happen if you treated yourself with the same kindness, love and patience?

Ask yourself the big questions. A deeper relationship with ourselves includes exploring important questions and fully listening to the answers. Hendricks suggested pondering these questions: “What do you want for yourself mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually? What do you want out of life? What kind of relationships do you want with friends or romantic partners? What are the things you just won’t stand for? What do you want to accomplish before the end of your life? What is most important to you? What do you value?”

Pen your own story. Think of your life as a story you’re writing, as filling the blank pages of a book. In your story, what do you say, think, do or not do? Hendricks said. Who are the supporting characters? What are the settings, scenes, adventures and daily tasks? she said. What else do you want to include in your life story?

For instance, Hendricks’s clients have included these elements in their stories: “I will speak up for myself with friends, even when it’s difficult, because I’d rather stand up for myself than suffer in silence,” and “I won’t let fear hold me back from doing the things I really want to do in my life, such as getting a college degree and being more vulnerable in my romantic relationships.”

When you identify your own elements, the specifics in your own story, “make your best effort to live [them] out every day.”

Look for yeses. As you go about your day, notice what you say “yes!” to, Shinraku said. These are activities and needs that will deeply nourish you. Then listen to yourself, and act on these yeses. Shinraku shared these examples: “Yes, I’m going to go out with friends rather than work late (like I do most nights); yes, I want to take that class that is interesting to me that I think I don’t have time for; yes, I want to take care of my finances so I’m going to call my student loan servicer; yes, I want to be more mindful in my relationships so I’m going to reflect on what I want to say in response to a challenging email.”

Cultivating a sincere, self-compassionate relationship with ourselves is critical. It determines our decisions. It determines whether and how we pursue our dreams and tend to our needs. It determines the quality of our other relationships. And, thankfully, it’s something we can start right now.

All Hypnosis Feeds

via World of Psychology http://ift.tt/2jgn2Ba