2061

Reddit reviews: The best psychology books

We found 72 Reddit comments discussing the best psychology books. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 35 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top Reddit comments about Physiological Aspects in Psychology:

u/AnomalousVisions · 1 pointr/philosophy

Thanks for the links. I haven't had time to read them front to back, but from reading the first page or so of each, they look to me like reductionists.

The Crick and Koch paper says early on that "Our own view is that it is a plausible working assumption that some activity of the brain is all that is necessary to produce consciousness, and that this is the best line to follow unless and until there is clear decisive evidence to the contrary (as opposed to arguments from ignorance)." They are saying that conscious awareness is a brain process or the result of a brain process (depending on how they would parse the semantics).

Ramachandran and Hirstein say that "all our thoughts, feelings, emotions, even what we regard as our intimate self—arises exclusively from the activity of little wisps of protoplasm in the brain." Later they say that "Our theory should be seen as complementing rather than replacing a host of other recent biological approaches to the problem..." and they go on to list a number of authors, some of whom I know to be taking reductionist viewpoints (Churchland, Llinas, Damasio). They also say that qualia might be transferable between brains - an exciting idea, but one that sounds pretty reductionist to me.

Is there something these authors say later in their papers that suggests a non-reductionist viewpoint?

>I am of course an amateur in matters of neuroscience as well, but I don't think you can claim much knowledge of whatever consensus exists, if you didn't know that both Crick and Ramachandran took subjectivity as being real.

Wait, hang on. You seem to be attacking a straw-man here. Reductionists do take subjectivity as being 'real'. They just think it will be explained by underlying neurological mechanisms. To illustrate with a couple historical parallels, when the phenomenon of light was reduced to the theory of electromagnetism, we didn't stop believing in light; we just understood it better. When heat was reduced to mean molecular energy, we didn't become heat-skeptics. A successful reduction actually vindicates the higher level phenomenon, showing that it's a "real thing" after all, by explaining it as a case of the application of more general principles. Those who think subjectivity is not real would be eliminativists, though I can't think of many serious philosophers or scientists dealing with this subject who take this position (possible exception: Susan Blackmore?). It is commonly thought that Paul and Pat Churchland are eliminativists with respect to conscious awareness, but this is dead wrong - they are eliminativists with respect to the propositional attitudes but reductionists when it comes to consciousness. Paul has done quite a bit of work on the neural mechanisms of qualia.

With respect to the neuroscientific consensus, I'll quote from a fairly standard textbook, Brain and Behavior by Bob Garrett. "Most, thought not all, neuroscientists believe that we should think of the mind...[as] simply the collection of things that the brain does, such as thinking, sensing, planning, and feeling. But when we think, sense, plan, and feel, we get the compelling impression that there is a mind behind it all, guiding what we do. Most neuroscientists say this is just an illusion, that the sense of mind is nothing more than the awareness of what our brain is doing." This viewpoint does not eliminate awareness, but seeks to reductively explain it as a brain process.

>I think that you are mistaking the search for the neurological correlates of consciousness with reductionism.

These tend to go hand in hand. If one thinks that qualia are brain processes, one wants to know how these processes work in the brain.

>To find such correlates is not to reduce and is perfectly compatible, even complementary, with a whole host of positions including dualism, pansychism, and even idealism.

Logically compatible? Sure. They're also logically compatible with the possibility that the mind is operated by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the sense among reductionists and the neuroscientific community is that positions such as dualism and idealism are explanatorily unhelpful. To take another historical example, people used to believe that the planets were pushed through the sky by invisible angels (seriously). This is no longer believed because we now have laws of planetary motion that account for what we observe. What do you say to the philosopher who says that the laws of planetary motion are perfectly compatible with the angel theory? Probably just that we have no need for the angelic hypothesis. It is arguably non-falsifiable, and clearly gratuitous. Once you figure out how things work, magical theories just become uninteresting.

u/BlueHatScience · 11 pointsr/philosophy

Meme theory, while it has gained considerable attention in recent years, may not be the best way to describe what goes on with communicable cognitive content and our minds. There are more rigiorous, specific and detailed theories out there dealing with these issues, but it is possible to 'reconstruct' memetic theory in a more rigorous way (as an extension of more realistic models of social learning).

The research-programs that go into specific detail with the required rigor are: Social learning (example article), cultural niche-construction (example article) and gene-culture coevolution theory (example article) [EDIT: MORE TOPICAL EXAMPLE PAPER:Cultural Transmission and the Evolution of Cooperative Behavior].

Meme-theory on its own has always remained rather superficial, and is plagued by the same conceptual problems as the "gene-centric" view of inheritance and evolution, which characteristically neglects the magnitude of t of the contribution by inheritance/'sharing of phenotypically generative information' through multiple channels, having different long-term effects, different rates of dispersion, mechanisms of reproduction, retention rates, noise- & degradation-levels and biases, interacting in complex ways to give rise to evolutionary change of mental contents and characteristics in human populations.

The gene-centric / gene-reductionist view is characterized by some potentially misleading / unrealistic analogies (replicator vs vehicle, gene-meme). There is value in the comparison of cognitive sharing of information to genetic inheritance, but it needs to be carefully extracted from the web of possible misconceptions surrounding it.

Boyd and Richerson (Culture and the Evolutionary Process, The Origin and Evolution of Cultures, Not by Genes Alone - How Culture Transformed Human Evolution and Mathematical Models of Social Evolution: A Guide for the Perplexed) have published extensively on mathematical models of social learning, biased transmission, evolutionary change through social and cultural inheritance - that's where you should look for a solid theoretical foundation of information-sharing in social learning and its role in human evolution.

Laland, Feldman and Odling-Smee have modeled the phenomenon of "
Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution
" providing he seminal work on the topic. It is based around the insight that environments are not static, immunable backgrounds to the actions of organisms as individuals and as populations. The conditions in an environment of indiviudals that allow a population to exist and interact with it just the way it does are not always, not even usually just a "given".

First - organisms locate to where conditions are best for them (within their range of migration), thus selecting the environemental conditions they face and interact with. Second, and more importantly, organisms change their environments in various ways - adaptively, neutrally and maladaptively - through many different channels, 'deliberately' as well as unknowingly.

Many plants change the chemical composition of soil in a way that is favorable to them (releasing poison, attracting microorganisms with beneficial effects etc..). That's a low-level example of niche-construction.

Beaver-dams are a more high-level example. Some capucin monkeys socially learn how to let nuts dry for a few days and then crack them open with stones on larger stones (hammer-anvil principle). This effectively changes the Umwelt of the population, qualitatively changing may aspects of their lives, interactions, and the conditions under which they can survive in the environment.

In humans, uniquely, there is cumulative cultural niche-construction.. (mostly through language), we can study the explicit and formalized theories, inventions and technologies of people in the past, model them in our minds, discuss them, discard or improve upon them - (EDIT:) and most importantly, culture, society and personal caretakers determine the developmental environment and resources our children face, having them grow up learning how to interact with a world that has the accumulated knowledge, theories, techniques and technologies of millenia of people improving on what they grew up with. Growing up we (ideally) become socialized and encultured, learning (some of) what ~2.500 years of rational, methodical investigation of the world has shown us and taught us.

Not only do we build cities that evolve with us and increasingly eliminate previous selection pressures (while creating new ones), but we continuously build cognitive captial, experience and power to predict and interact with the environment... that's why the human population has exploded the way it did, why our lives are quite far removed from 'nature - red in tooth and claw' as it exists everywhere else, and why we are here discussing this.

Finally, Kim Sterelny has provided a rather brilliant synoptic view on the evolution of human mentality - incorporating the insights of the gene's-eye-view, social learning, gene-culture co-evolution, multi-level inheritance and niche-construction theory. I thoroughly recommend his books, e.g. Thought in a Hostile World - The Evolution of Human Cognition and The Evolved Apprentice.

TL;DR: Here's Kim Sterelny's article 'Memes revisited', which clarifies how the central insight of memetics can be explicated in more rigours and diverse frameworks to better explain the workings of human mentality and their evolution

(EDITED for clarity - also: New example article for niche-construction->more topical)

u/illogician · 1 pointr/philosophy

I actually quite enjoyed the trippy squishy brains and drainpipe reverb [6]. I also like that he went into as much detail as he did spelling out his logic. I found his arguments generally clear and that made it easy to spot where exactly I disagreed with him, which happened early and often.

We would have peace in the Middle East before I could write a rebuttal to all of his points, but...

>There is only pure darkness within the skull. The redness is nowhere to be found.

Like every party to this debate, the materialist must distinguish between the first-person perspective (I'm seeing red) and the third-person perspective (Joe is seeing red). I can't see Joe's red, I can only see Joe's brain. We find ourselves in very different causal relationships with his experience, as any sane materialist would expect. This doesn't speak to the question of whether materialism can explain qualia (short answer: not entirely yet, but neither can any non-materialist alternative).

>The mind transcends the brain.

He really likes the word "transcends" but I never know quite what sense he means that in. The seemingly innocent assumption that we can speak intelligibly of something called "the mind" merits questioning, for reasons mentioned by Bob Garrett in Brain and Behavior.

>At the risk of sounding provocative, I will say that there is no such thing as mind. It exists only in the sense that, say, weather exists; weather is a concept we use to include rain, wind, humidity, and related phenomena. We talk as if there is a weather when we say things like "the weather is interfering with my travel plans." But we don't really think there is a weather. Most, though not all neuroscientists believe that we should think of the mind in the same way; it is simply the collection of things that the brain does, such as thinking, sensing, planning, and feeling. But when we think, sense, plan, and feel, we get the compelling impression that there is a mind behind it all, guiding what we do. Most neuroscientists say this is just an illusion, that the sense of mind is nothing more than an awareness of what our brain is doing. Mind, like weather, is also just a concept; it is not a something; it does not do anything.[<-typed that shit out of a book!]

u/Thorrbjorn · -1 pointsr/asatru

I'm a very rational person myself, so this should be a fruitful conversation. While culture plays an important in the development of many characteristics, it lacks the ancestral ties that determine who we are and how we react to such a culture. I'm sure you're familiar with nature vs. nurture debates and the heritability of traits such as intelligence for instance.

Scientific studies show that siblings adopted at birth, raised in the same environment, have no more similarity in IQ than that of strangers. It's genetic. Personality traits are very easily studied in identical twins switched at birth, even though each of the twins are raised in very different environments they maintain an astonishing similarity. If we have studies that scientifically prove the relationship of intelligence, personality, creative ability etc.. to genetics, how do you find the disposition to a certain spirituality not genetically linked?

There are many well-written psychology books out there that discuss behavioral genetics, you can buy this one shipped to your door for under 15 bucks.

u/lukeprog · 294 pointsr/Futurology

I'll interpret your first question as: "Suppose you created superhuman AI: What would you use it for?"

It's very risky to program superhuman AI to do something you think you want. Human values are extremely complex and fragile. Also, I bet my values would change if I had more time to think through them and resolve inconsistencies and accidents and weird things that result from running on an evolutionarily produced spaghetti-code kluge of a brain. Moreover, there are some serious difficulties to the problem of aggregating preferences from multiple people — see for example the impossibility results from the field of population ethics.

> if it is super intelligent, it will have its own purpose.

Well, it depends. "Intelligence" is a word that causes us to anthropomorphize machines that will be running entirely different mind architectures than we are, and we shouldn't assume anything about AIs on the basis of what we're used to humans doing. To know what an AI will do, you have to actually look at the math.

An AI is math: it does exactly what the math says it will do, though that math can have lots of flexibility for planning and knowledge gathering and so on. Right now it looks like there are some kinds of AIs you could build whose behavior would be unpredictable (e.g. a massive soup of machine learning algorithms, expert systems, brain-inspired processes, etc.), and some kinds of AIs you could build whose behavior would be somewhat more predictable (transparent Bayesian AIs that optimize a utility function, like AIXI except computationally tractable and with utility over world-states rather than a hijackable reward signal). An AI of the sort may be highly motivated to preserve its original goals (its utility function), for reasons explained in The Superintelligent Will.

Basically, the Singularity Institute wants to avoid the situation in which superhuman AIs' purposes are incompatible with our needs, because eventually humans will no longer be able to compete with beings whose "neurons" can communicate at light speed and whose brains can be as big as warehouses. Apes just aren't built to compete with that.

> Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson mentioned that if we found an intelligence that was 2% different from us in the direction that we are 2% different [genetically] from the Chimpansees, it would be so intelligent that we would look like beings with a very low intelligence.

Yes, exactly.

> How does your group see something of that nature evolving and how will we avoid going to war with it?

We'd like to avoid a war with superhuman machines, because humans would lose — and we'd lose more quickly than is depicted in, say, The Terminator. A movie like that is boring if there's no human resistance with an actual chance of winning, so they don't make movies where all humans die suddenly with no chance to resist because a worldwide AI did its own science and engineered an airborn, human-targeted supervirus with a near-perfect fatality rate.

The solution is to make sure that the first superhuman AIs are programmed with our goals, and for that we need to solve a particular set of math problems (outlined here), including both the math of safety-capable AI and the math of aggregating and extrapolating human preferences.

Obviously, lots more detail on our research page and in a forthcoming scholarly monograph on machine superintelligence from Nick Bostrom at Oxford University. Also see the singularity paper by leading philosopher of mind David Chalmers.

u/JasonMacker · 9 pointsr/changemyview

First of all, webmd or whatever blogs you're using as sources are worthless.

> we actually have direct proof of immense differences in male and female brain anatomy.

It's not "immense". The average differences within each sex are larger than the average differences between sexes.

What's different is that male brains are about 10 to 15% larger than women's brains on average... even when corrected for body size (Allen, et al. 2004). However, this does not confer or imply greater intelligence (Solms and Turnbull, 2002; LeVay, 1997; Pool, 1994)

Male brains have about four billion more neurons in the cerebral cortex, however female brains have more synapses (Pakkenberg and Gundersen, 1997).

Female sensory processing is much more acute than male sensory processing. Hearing is better, sight is better, smell and taste are better. Touch shows the most disparity, with the least sensitive woman being more sensitive than the most sensitive man.

> In fact, it has been shown that males have 6.5 times as much grey matter as females while females have 9.5 times as much white matter as males.

And actually this is factually incorrect:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12725764

For all structures, male volumes were greater than female, but the gray/white (G/W) ratio was consistently higher across structures in women than men.

So actually, according to this study, female brains have more gray matter than white matter.

>Now, the research is still young, but neuroscience is currently correlating grey matter with both IQ and STEM-type problem solving and white matter/frontal lobe organization with language.

lol... so according to YOU, women should have higher IQs and more STEM-type problem solving ability then?

> It's inconceivable that given such different structures, we wouldn't see a measurable difference in both average interests and performance. Here's an interesting collection of graphs with male vs female degrees in stem fields -- note how women are least frequent in the sciences closest to physics.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that this has anything to do with the ratio of brain structures or really anything to do with neurology. And you probably know this too which is why you didn't present any.

Let's be honest here, there are cultural factors at play here, which is why we don't see a consistent percentage of gender distribution across cultures when it comes to fields of study. And we also see the gender distributions changing over time...

>Yet, this is despite the fact that because of societal affirmative action, women earn 57% of all bachelor's degrees.

Women earn more bachelor's degrees because more women go to secondary education in the first place. And the reason behind this is because women have less opportunities for higher-paying jobs right out of college, especially since a lot of those career paths have severe penalties for women due to high rates of sexual harassment (such as the armed forces).

>We also know that IQ is 75% heritable, so from the very start we can tell the issue is largely a genetic one.

You might want to read the article you linked:

>>"We should note, however, that low-income and non-white families are poorly represented in existing adoption studies as well as in most twin samples. Thus it is not yet clear whether these studies apply to the population as a whole. It remains possible that, across the full range of income and ethnicity, between-family differences have more lasting consequences for psychometric intelligence."[7]

And in fact, due to the feminization of poverty, this difference in IQ between sexes can be accounted for using this factor alone.

>Testosterone is linked to risk taking. I believe this is what's usually referred to as "aggression."

Risk taking =/= aggression. Besides, it's not enough to show that testosterone increases aggression. You have to show that the testosterone difference is significant enough to cause aggression that cannot be attributed to social or cultural factors that encourage male violence and aggression.

>There's also evidence that transgender people have different brain makeup than their original sex.

??? This statement doesn't make any sense. People who are transgender do not have an "original sex", any more than cisgender people have one. Transgender people are the same sex throughout their whole lives.

>transgenderism is a physical condition and not a mental one,

Transgenderism is a social movement for acceptance and equal rights for people who are transgender.

>and 2, that male and female brains are different enough that you can tell one from the other.

If you're a trained neuroscientist with special equipment that can detect the minor differences, yes. But you can't tell with the naked eye, because the differences aren't that much. Again, there is more variation within sexes than between sexes.

>I'm adding my example here after. The case was for David Reimer. He was, at 8 months, given a sexual reassignment surgery after a circumcision accident. His parents were told to treat him as a girl. Despite this, he always identified as male, wanted to act like a boy, and ultimately committed suicide due to this. Biology has a role, as if society molded a person, David would have identified as female.

That was one person, it doesn't mean you can conclude that therefore nobody's sexual orientation or identity is influenced by their environment. There is a reason why biological twins only have about a 50% chance of both being homosexual if at least one is homosexual... it's because there are environmental factors that contribute to sexual orientation and identity.

There are other things to consider such as the fact that our understandings of the hormones and social treatments necessary for a successful transition were incomplete at the time and the doctor there did some very bizarre and unethical things such as forcing the brothers to interact with one another and perform simulated sex acts on each other.

**

Initial parts are from [
Brain, Mind, and Behavior* by Alfred Ernest Jones](http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Mind-Behavior-Introduction-Biopsychology/dp/0536352054).

u/cartak · 1 pointr/WTF

It very much is still a debate, just not in the classical sense. For the most part, the home(parental) environment has not shown a signifcant effect on life course behavioral outcomes. But, genetic makeup as well as the environment as a whole do shape people throughout their lives. The story about these twins is from a study examining identical (Monozygotic, genetically identical) twins that grew up separately. The researcher behind OPs picture discovered several more stories like this, with this one being the most prominent.
And an ongoing field of research, biosocial criminology continues to examine the genetic and behavioral contributions to behavior in an anti-social context. Both in a behavior genetic context ( which is the point of the research mentioned) and in a gene/environment interplay context examining the effect of genes at large and the effect of specific genes on lifecourse behavioral outcomes.

Any good psych teacher wouldn't wholesale write off something that is still relevant and worth discussing.

Also, this book does an excellent job at discussing this form of research as well as many more twin designs and behavior genetics in general. http://www.amazon.com/Genes-Behavior-Nature-Nurture-Interplay-Explained/dp/1405110619

u/TychoCelchuuu · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

There's a massive amount of relevant philosophy. If your professors are talking about Foucault and existentialism then I guess there are some trends in psychology that I am not very familiar with - I thought most of psychology was making undergraduates fill out forms and then generalizing from that to all of humanity. In any case, I can't help you much down the Sartre/Camus track because that's not my bailiwick.

I can point out a few areas of inquiry, though. The two most obvious are philosophy of mind and philosophy of psychology.

Phil mind is fucking huuuuuuuuge. Interestingly enough the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't have an entry for it, so I'll link to a random relevant article from which you can follow footnotes/related pages at the bottom/etc. and also the IEP's Mind & CogSci category whicih you can browse through. You could also take that course you're thinking of taking or pick up an intro book - the second, third, fifth, and sixth books on Amazon.com when I search "philosophy of mind" seem pretty good, although I've only read one of them.

Philosophy of psychology is big too. It also overlaps with phil mind. In any case, although I haven't read them, these two books from José Luis Bermudez seem pretty good:

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Psychology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0415275954
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Psychology-Contemporary-Readings-Routledge/dp/0415368626/

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/pics

Generally the negative associated side effects are masculinization. This includes a deepening of the voice(they sound like lifelong HARD smokers), and enlargement of the clitoris. These don't reverse. I'm sure there are more. Anabolics also tend to increase levels of LDL cholesterol since cholesterol itself is a steroid, and if you examine its chemical structure it resembles testosterone/estrogen. Uh, geez, here is a good book if you are interested in hormones, although this doesn't deal specifically with anabolic use, once you figure out how the endocrine system works, you can pretty easily understand anabolics.
Really the essential feature of anabolics is they increase nitrogen retention, which of course mean more nitrogen source to increase lean muscle mass. blah blah blah. i'm a chemist and hormones are a nice pet subject for me. I sometimes wish i could become an endocrinologist.

u/MonkeyG0d · 1 pointr/chemistry

Although not chemistry per se right hand, left hand (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Right-Hand-Left-Chris-McManus/dp/0753813556) was recommended to us by our organic chemistry lecturer (Clayden, the guy who wrote co-authored http://www.amazon.co.uk/Organic-Chemistry-Jonathan-Clayden/dp/0198503466/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370533504&sr=1-1&keywords=clayden+organic+chemistry)

Edit: Also there is a chemistry section within Bill Brysons short history of nearly everything, and tbh if you have any general interest in science then you should read this book anyway as it covers loads of topics throughout the history of science really well and its very accessable

u/arcturnus · 2 pointsr/longevity

The book you mention, Handbook of the Biology of Aging is probably the best I've run across for what you are looking for. It is very much like review articles. They cover the major research up to publication date (in 2015), and dive into specifics going over experimental design and methodologies.

A simpler, shorter, and more accessible intro for those who don't have your credentials is Biology of Aging. But if you wanted a very general sweep that is still focused on those with a biology education to supplement the deeper dive, this would be a good choice. (For example the Handbook of the Biology of Aging focuses on animal and human aging whereas the Biology of Aging has a section on plant senescence as well).

Laura Deming also has a good Longevity FAQ that covers the aging research landscape but more importantly for your needs contains links to papers and clinical trials at the bottom.

u/eihort · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Ooh, ooh, ooh! I wrote a big chunk of my thesis on exactly this question. However, I'm with /u/TychoCelchuuu on not just giving away all the answers.

Here's a hint: it doesn't really vindicate it at all, but it isn't supposed to. Fodor's RTM presupposes propositional attitude psychology is an accurate characterisation of cognition. RTM is an analysis of how propositional attitude psychology could function at the level of brain/mind processes.

You should definitely read Jose Bermudez's book Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction chapters 2-4. It's the best work on this issue, as far as I am aware.

u/riemannzetajones · 3 pointsr/pics

Actually the opposite is true, according to research documented in this book.

One study showed lefties were more prone to raising their right hand in surprised defensive posture, whereas right handed folks raised their left. In a driving emergency, this would mean that the right handed majority would have a greater tendency to veer onto the shoulder / ditch in right-hand driving countries, as opposed to oncoming traffic. The study's author predicted one would see higher traffic-related mortality rates in countries like England that drive on the left, and indeed that was the case at the time they posed the question.

u/oneiroplanes · 1 pointr/occult

Read anthropology, if that hasn't been part of your reading already. It's much more useful than a lot of the new age shit out there. Here are three great books about it.

u/theallnightchemist · 1 pointr/askscience

If OP or anyone else is interest in further reading on the subject of handedness, particularly left handedness, I would recommend a book called The Left-Handed Syndrome by Stanley Coren, a psychologist and neuropsychological researcher. It's an excellent read.

u/Austion66 · 2 pointsr/neuro

Check this book out:

Biological Psychology (Critical Thinking in Psychology Series) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0857256939/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_EZsbzbDNPK6RW

It's a really quick and easy read, covers most areas of neuroscience and will let you know if you're interested in this as a possible career or not. If you'd like to talk sometime, feel free to PM me! I'm a grad student in cognitive neuroscience right now

u/Ninja47 · 1 pointr/books

Principles of Behavior- Malott. It's just a text book about behavior analysis, but it changed my entire world view.

Science and Human Behavior- Skinner

Verbal Behavior

Walden Two- Skinner

A few more Skinner books that just added to my love for behavior analysis.

u/jmdegler · 1 pointr/askscience

There is a great book out there on this topic: Kluge (The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind). It provides reasonable and thought-provoking answers to these questions, and I really had a good time reading the book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002ECETZY/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0618879641&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1MM7WAT5F150EQ31AZWJ

u/iLEZ · 1 pointr/AskReddit

Read this book!

Right Hand Left Hand by Chris McManus.

u/CumulativeDrek2 · 1 pointr/musicproduction

The Audio engineering sub has a very good ‘fundamentals’ page here.

Some of the following books are about specific aspects of sound design, some focus on acoustics, some on the technical aspects of engineering and some on psychoacoustics. They are all really good references.

Designing Sound. Andy Farnell

Master Handbook of Acoustics. F.Alton Everest

Audio-Vision Sound on Screen. Michel Chion

The Sound Studio - Alec Nisbett

Spectromorphology - Explaining Sound Shapes. Dennis Smalley

An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. Brian Moore

Sound System Engineering. Davis/Patronis.Jr/Brown

Master Handbook of Acoustics. F.Alton Everest

u/alwayspsyched · 3 pointsr/psychotherapy

I have access to most of my resources at my practicum, but here are a few:

https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-based-Practice-Biofeedback-Neurofeedback-3rd/dp/0984297960
https://www.amazon.com/Biofeedback-Fourth-Practitioners-Mark-Schwartz/dp/1462531946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526672020&sr=8-1&keywords=Biofeedback%3A+A+Practitioner%27s+Guide

I also use some of the scripts from the Mayo Clinic. Autogenics is evidence based and the recommended approach for migraines, relaxation training and CBT-CP are both the recommended approaches for other types of pain.

Here is APA's policy:

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/biofeedback.pdf

Additional resource:

https://www.aapb.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3678

u/amindwandering · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

>handedness isn't uniquely human

Why does that pose a problem to the theory u/cannibalismo references? That theory doesn't purported to explain the origin of handedness in humans, only the origin of the proportional bias specifically favoring right-handedness.

"Handedness" (or "footedness") is prevalent in other animals, yes, but the sources I've encountered (here's one, for example) suggest that, at the species level, there usually isn't a clear statistical bias favoring one side of the body or the other—i.e. the proportion of 'righties' vs. 'lefties' tends to be even mixed across the population as a whole.

u/Ish71189 · 2 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

Two things, (1) I'm going to recommend mostly books and not textbooks, since you're going to read plenty of those in the future. And (2) I'm going to only focus on the area of cognitive psychology & neuroscience. With that being said:

Beginner:

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat: And Other Clinical Tales By Oliver Sacks

Brain Bugs: How the Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives By Dean Buonomano

Kludge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Mind By Gary Marcus

The Trouble with Testosterone: And Other Essays on the Biology of the Human Predicament By Robert M. Sapolsky

The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers By Daniel L. Schacter

Intermediate: (I'm going to throw this in here, because reading the beginner texts will not allow you to really follow the advanced texts.)

Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind By Michael S. Gazzaniga, Richard B. Ivry & George R. Mangun

Advanced:

The Prefrontal Cortex By Joaquin Fuster

The Dream Drugstore: Chemically Altered States of Consciousness By J. Allan Hobson

The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning By Keith J. Holyoak & Robert G. Morrison

u/jssumm · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

There is a growing literature on the topic, so you could start by looking at journals (Philosophical Psychology, Mind and Language, and Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology are three you might want to look at). There's also [this collection] (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Psychology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0415275954). I also like this book, which is a fairly accessible intro text but not a textbook.

u/PocketMatt · 8 pointsr/longevity

The good news is that there are actually multiple, up-to-date textbooks on the biology of aging:

u/icantfindadangsn · 7 pointsr/AskScienceDiscussion

I like this question.

Beginner:

u/theduder3210 · -1 pointsr/EARONS

Well, some have pushed for a “left-hander’s syndrome” condition to explain away things over the last few decades.

As relating to this particular case, if the “homework” that was found in Danville is in fact J. J.’s, then he claims that the rage in his heart first began because his sixth grade teacher forced him to write lines over and over as a form of punishment—something particularly painful for left-handers to do due to the way that they write. In short, being raised in a harsh right-hander’s world oppressed him so much that he eventually was driven to murder.