#psychology

[sugar-petals]

hot take in a roundabout way i think that's also why so many of us opt out of becoming parents ourselves

[lizardho]

I remember one time I was doing an ADHD evaluation with a kid who had asked to go to the bathroom like 3 times during the 30-ish minute part of the interview where we asked his mom questions, so I knew that was his go-to excuse when bored. We get started on the WISC-V after the interview and within 30 seconds of vocab starting he asks if he can go to the bathroom, and I say:

“No.”

And this kid rolls his eyes because DUH and he says “Why not?” all cranky-styles, so I said

“Because you don’t need to go to the bathroom, you’re bored and you need to move. If you need to move, tell me and I’ll let you know if we’re at a part of the test where we can pause. Like, for example, we can pause right now if you wanna race me around the building.”

And this kids face fucken LIT up. We did three laps around the outside of the building and came back in and he finished like 3 subtests and asked if he could move so we got up and tried to see how high we could jump for 3 minutes and the finished the rest of the assessment with one bathroom break. And that was all it took tbh, this kid was SO capable he just needed to move and hadn’t been allowed to do so before. I also like making people mad by pointing out that I know what they’re up to, then just giving them permission to do the thing they were sneakily trying to do in the first place. It’s like being affectionately annoying and it’s part of how I connect to others.

[scoriarose]

Theory on why Tofu hates Markiplier

If you are unfamiliar with Tofu, please read this post or watch this playlist about the snake who hates Markiplier.

tl;dr- under the Markiplier gif.

From the videos you can see she tries to figure out what is upsetting Tofu, and found that it's not just streamers, or just his voice, or the stream. This specific snake very much does not like Markiplier, and appears to recognize him visually and from his voice.

He does not like Markiplier specifically which is demonstrated by him squaring up with Mark, striking, and tail buzzing at him. He recognizes Mark specifically as a scary threat.

Animals have been shown to recognize human faces, and Tofu's reaction to Markiplier's face (and only his face as shown by the printout) is strong evidence that he recognizes Mark's face and differentiates him from other faces. With crows, they've been shown to hold grudges and have that grudge extend to other crows.

So Tofu has a negative association with Mark, and specifically Mark. The question is why? My theory is: perceived threat after a perceived dangerous situation. Some have theorized Tofu was mistreated by someone who looked like Mark- if they were while in his keeper's care she'd know. If it was his breeder, he'd more likely be afraid of all humans and need to first get over this negative perception (basing this on how Sakura reacted with massive trauma that took years for her to overcome, and to this day she's still jumpy. A breeder doesn't socialize their snakes so they'd only know humans to be abusive before being adopted, and his current keeper would very much notice that terrified trauma behavior to herself.)

One thing important to know about snakes is they are not only capable of learning from each other, but are protective of each other. I've seen this with my girls interacting with each other (yes snakes have friends and remember their family), learning from watching the other and copying her actions, as well as behavior I've observed on the Rattlecam with wild snakes. Adult snakes teach younger snakes, as well as are protective of them- even if they aren't their own babies. A female was shown on the rattlecam watching over a group of slitherlings that were obviously not her offspring as she was heavily pregnant. IIRC that same female ushered babies to safety after a hawk attack before worrying about her own safety. I've seen it in person as well with my girls, who have shielded each other from perceived danger, and scoria also squared up to something scary in the hall as though she were protecting me. And when it left she immediately went back to being relaxed and cuddly and happy. Snakes have friends that are snakes. It's an outdated belief snakes cannot bond with their keepers, as many do and seek them out for attention. These observations of snake behavior are part of what play into my theory basis.

So what could Mark himself have done? If you watch streamers you'll know Markiplier is known for playing jumpscare games with his FNAF let's plays being some of his most well known. Tofu's owner knows Markiplier, and is actively watching Markiplier with Tofu. More than likely she regularly watches Mark, has watched jumpscare videos, and had Tofu around while doing this.

It's a reasonable assumption. And if Tofu's keeper reacts to Mark's jump scare videos by flinching, looking frightened, or making frightened sounds, it's quite likely Tofu's sees Markiplier is involved every time... and blames Mark. Seeing his keeper get startled, Tofu doesn't understand it's a fun video or that humans enjoy being jumpscared (honestly I don't think I could explain it to him either) so he's learning from his human that Markiplier is a scary threat.

And from Tofu's point of view? He's right! Markiplier is a regular threat that not only (probably) scared his human, but regularly appears to stare him down and even went after him in his own home! And when his keeper scolds him? It's likely the same misunderstanding that dogs have when their owners yell at them to be quiet- they think the human has joined in! Clearly his keeper is joining him in being upset at Mark!

So in Tofu's mind? Mark is a diabolical threat to his family's safety that he must defend them against, and they are united with their keeper in their efforts to drive away that scary scary guy. You are very brave Tofu, and we are all very proud of you.

[neverbreakheart]

[maimonideznuts]

The fact that geese manage to actually scare so many people is such an interesting example of the predator instinct to avoid a confident animal.

Because we are predators, and Geese are prey animals with hollow bones, no teeth, and no claws. What they do have are wings to make them look bigger and a fuck off attitude. That attitude works on most people apparently.

Just "I'm gonna getcha" and as a species we fall for it almost every time.

-

Edit: this post is not telling you to fight or otherwise bother Geese. It's an observation of Geese deterring a perceived threat and how humans instinctively respond to it.

Also, Geese and Swans can't break your arm. But you can break it falling over because of a Goose or Swan.

Edit #2: *big sigh* geese don't have teeth 🦷. They do have "Lamellae", the ridges or serrations in the bill. These help with collecting water plants, and catching aquatic arthropods... But they are very not teeth.

[grub-muncher]

This comic only mentions different hallucinations based on sensory modality (which sense it impacts) but there are other ways to categorise hallucinations such as the theme of the hallucination or the severity of the hallucination

Hallucinations don’t only affect schizospec people and can happen to people without a psychotic disorder or any mental illness/condition

[directactionforhope]

Reasons for hope:

Arguably the most massive and influential study ever proving the supposed inherent cruelty of humanity was proven a few years ago to be literally fraudulent

The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud.

The most famous psychological studies are often wrong, fraudulent, or outdated. Textbooks need to catch up.

"The Stanford Prison Experiment, one of the most famous and compelling psychological studies of all time, told us a tantalizingly simple story about human nature.

The study took paid participants and assigned them to be “inmates” or “guards” in a mock prison at Stanford University. Soon after the experiment began, the “guards” began mistreating the “prisoners,” implying evil is brought out by circumstance. The authors, in their conclusions, suggested innocent people, thrown into a situation where they have power over others, will begin to abuse that power. And people who are put into a situation where they are powerless will be driven to submission, even madness.

The Stanford Prison Experiment has been included in many, many introductory psychology textbooks and is often cited uncritically. It’s the subject of movies, documentaries, books, television shows, and congressional testimony.

But its findings were wrong. Very wrong. And not just due to its questionable ethics or lack of concrete data — but because of deceit.

A new exposé based on previously unpublished recordings of Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who ran the study, and interviews with his participants, offers convincing evidence that the guards in the experiment were coached to be cruel. It also shows that the experiment’s most memorable moment — of a prisoner descending into a screaming fit, proclaiming, “I’m burning up inside!” — was the result of the prisoner acting. “I took it as a kind of an improv exercise,” one of the guards told reporter Ben Blum. “I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do.”

The findings have long been subject to scrutiny — many think of them as more of a dramatic demonstration, a sort-of academic reality show, than a serious bit of science. But these new revelations incited an immediate response. “We must stop celebrating this work,” personality psychologist Simine Vazire tweeted, in response to the article. “It’s anti-scientific. Get it out of textbooks.” Many other psychologists have expressed similar sentiments."

"Many of the classic show-stopping experiments have lately turned out to be wrong, fraudulent, or outdated. Yet many introductory psychological textbooks have yet to be updated. And it’s high time that we teach the next generation of students to understand them this way."

-via The Internet Archive, via Vox, June 13, 2018. Paywall free. Extensive citations and links to primary sources in article. Emphasis mine.

One of the rare situations where science turning out to be fraudulent and/or wrong is actually very GOOD news!

Seriously recommend reading through the article if you have any interest at all in human nature or psychology. The article is absolutely full of primary sources and incredibly damning for the validity of one of the most important and influential psychology experiments literally ever.