Best products from r/psychology

We found 67 comments on r/psychology discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 440 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/psychology:

u/MCozens · 125 pointsr/psychology

My $0.02 from personal experience. Prior to going into psychology, my previous line of work brought me to work with quite a few narcissists and a couple psychopaths. So the following is based on years of real world experience + my academic understanding of the topic. To answer your question, I'll compare some subtle differences in behavior.

 

Psychopaths: Their focus is "outward target focused" and getting what they want at all cost, even to the detriment of looking good even initially. Their behavior is more predatory, even from the very first impression. The name of the game is to find out as much information about you as possible to quickly assess if you're a good target and if so what your vulnerabilities are so they can manipulate you and proceed with their goals. They seek out a vulnerable target who is emotionally "weak" or lacking something in their life, do "recon" and get as much information as possible to find their angle, use flattery and slights to keep their target off-balance so they can control them and get what they want. In their initial assessment of you if they see that you're not giving them the information they need or that you're onto their game, you'll be too difficult and they will move on to an easier target. They won't waste their time.

What that looks like in real life:
First impressions with a psychopath: you feel a "bit off." You can't put your finger on why, but you feel a little weird and uncomfortable: it could be an initial awkward silence in them waiting for you to reveal things about yourself (recon), it could be the one-sided self-disclosure (them asking lot of questions about your life without them reciprocating on things like circle of friends, agreeableness, emotional state, your likes and dislikes), it could be the overt flattery playing to your ego and them trying too hard to be just like you, it may even be the very initial awkard non-verbal behavior (eye-contact / fake smile) as they are searching for visual cues on how to physically act / stand /or mimic your behavior to earn your trust. --> All this might make you feel like you can't trust them.
To add to this, though, quickly after, you'll observe them saying an odd phrase here or there that doesn't add up, a compliment followed by a slight directed at you or at someone else ( "Did they really said that??")... all meant to keep their target off balance and under their control. This inconsistent, flattery / insult behavior makes you feel uncomfortable and questioning yourself and also if they're a "good person." Since their main goal is not to look good but to manipulate their target, they don't care as much if they come across as likable if they can manipulate the power dynamic back into their favor.
TLDR: They don't care as much how they're being perceived, likeable or not, just as long as they get what they want, so appearing charming isn't a top goal, just part of the process.

 

Narcissists: Narcissists, in contrast, have a "self-centered focus," first and foremost, and manipulate people to get what they want second to that. They manipulate people by making themselves look good, keeping the focus on their successes, and by appealing to your sense of wanting to be in with the "cool kids." "I'm going to show you how awesome I am, and you're going to want to be just like me and work for / be friends with me and do what I say because I'm so cool." They're not going to manipulate you because they've studied you and assessed your weaknesses and are preying on your vulnerabilities, like the psychopath (=more calculated behavior). That would be taking away from the focus on them. They're going to manipulate you through showing you how great they are. And because narcissists are focused on themselves, they expect you will, too, (and you most likely will to avoid confrontation, initially) so this keeps them happy and... charming... longer. Narcissists will only lash out or exhibit ugly behavior if their ego is threatened, if the focus isn't on them, if they don't get their way, or if you get in their way.


What this looks like in real life, and why they might appear more charming longer: "Me, me, me!": Narcissists biggest focus is to look good and to keep the focus on them. As such, they know creating a good first likable impression is important so they will focus on dressing well, being well groomed, smiling, appearing pleasant, acting charming, inflating their accomplishments and their connections, and building a fabulous picture of who they are. This all makes them look charming and appeals to your sense of wanting to be in with the top dogs. Unlike psychopaths, they will talk a lot about themselves, both personally and professionally, and won't ask you hardly anything about you unless it relates to their goals. Unlike psychopaths, their focus is not trying to get information on you and figure out their angle. Their focus is on maintaining the appearance of their huge persona. To cultivate a larger than life image, they must form and maintain an entourage of beautiful and powerful people, and this requires that they act charming as much as possible.

Initially what might make you feel uncomfortable is how much they talk about themselves or how little they ask about you, and this throws your spidey sense off guard (makes you not trust them), but because you're not hearing them say horrible things to another person outright, they might seem charming longer.

TLDR: They care very much how they're being perceived. They want to be liked because that's how they create and maintain a grandiose sense of self, and being charming is an important part of this process. They won't get ugly until they absolutely have to. For all these reasons, they might appear charming longer.


 

Also, assessing what's going on in initial interactions with psychopaths or narcissists is based on awareness (or lack therof) and experience in dealing with them. For example, because I had worked with a bunch of both, I was much more attuned to the behavior and games each would play. Fellow younger grad student friends had knowledge from textbooks, but they lacked real world experience and what their behavior actually looked like in real life, so it was hard for them to see what type of manipulation was going on.




 

EDIT:
ARTICLES for those of you who asked me:

This Is How To Deal With Psychopaths And Toxic People: 5 Proven Secrets
(includes quotes by Martha Stout)


I like works by American psychologist, Martha Stout: served on clinical faculty at Harvard Med. School for 25 years and is the author of The Sociopath Nextdoor. I like her wording.


20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You

7 Stages of Gaslighting in a Relationship

I have a lot more resources on workplace bullying, etc. PM for more. :)

u/mrsamsa · 1 pointr/psychology

>I'm guessing you're trained in a relatively enlightened form of psychology or social work or another field, rather than psychiatry. Psychiatrists consider theselves in the mental health field, and they go to medical school, so they also consider themselves doctors.

Psychology is my field, I don't think I had a particularly enlightened education or career though. And I've known a few psychiatrists but none of them seem to fit the description you have of them.

And yeah they do consider themselves doctors because they are.

>It's my understanding that in the olden days, people with behavioral symptoms related to things like viral encephalitis which were clearly biological in origin were considered schizophrenics.

I can't say for sure as I don't know enough about that specific issue but there's a difference between something being a biological cause of a mental disorder and something being a brain disease.

> (have you read Robert Whitaker by the way? You could probably pick apart his arguments if you want, but definitely worth a read.

I might check it out if I can stomach it but I generally steer clear of Whittaker as he's well known for misrepresenting the field..

>Anyway, there's definitely biological causes for undesired emotional/behavioral experiences. Interestingly, as soon as one is discovered, those patients are no longer under psychiatric purview - they go to neurologists or infectious disease docs or whatever. I think this reinforces your point that mental health practitioners have a corresponding opportunity to work outside models of biological causality, and are missing the point (or lying) if they're claiming neurotransmitters are the primary cause of mental illness. I think this is also why I get so frustrated and angry when they are so quick to prescribe SSRI's and implying that they are a disease treatment, rather than offering them up as neuroactive compounds that a person may find helpful (as in managing symptoms, not curing disease).

As I say above, I think there is a difference between a brain disease and a biological cause. If someone gets syphilis then it's not a mental disorder, but if someone is born with a particular brain makeup that leads to the development of some disorder, then that's a mental disorder.

>>1) I don't think the DSM encourages any particular treatment option over the other,

>Either way, in practice psychiatrists encourage drugs. Their hammer makes your problem look like a nail.

They do as they are medical doctors but that's not their only treatment option and they usually work in unison with psychologists to provide all relevant treatment options.

>Now here is a fruitful topic of discussion. Key word is "can be" the best option. For some. We need to be honest about the fact that they may also not be for others. I drink coffee routinely to treat my sleepiness and/or lack of motivation, and for now, it works for me. I wouldn't try and strongly suggest that you do the same under the guise of science.

Absolutely but this is a well recognised fact. That's why psychiatrists will continually monitor the effectiveness of the drugs and it's dosage, and provide psychotherapies where applicable.

To be clear, I'm talking about good practice here and not suggesting this occurs in every case.

>Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that these meds (though often effective in a positive way over short time scales) are causing severe side effects over the long-term. Symptoms like akethesia, diabetes, tardive dyskinesia, just to name a few.

Definitely! But two points here: 1) all medications have this issue, and 2) not medicating someone has worse consequences than the side effects.

>And we are still using electroshock in this country, which is really saddening to me.

ECT is an effective treatment option which can be a life saver for many people.

>Disagree on all fronts. My brother was diagnosed with ADHD when we were kids, and that altered his identity. To this day his self-confidence in himself is very weak. He never was able to develop tools to focus, or the confidence that he could be a self-sufficient person.

What makes you think that was the drugs and not the ADHD?

>Adderall most definitely produces results that parents, teachers, and psychiatrists are going to like. I wouldn't conclude that this is the 'best'.

The primary measure of success is usually how the patient feels and an effective treatment is one that generally increases their autonomy and ability to function.

>And what's 'best'? By what metric of success? I advocate a flexible model of treatment. If a patient wants to try pills, then go for it; if they want to try CBT or ACT, or meditation and exercise, by all means! When a therapist accompanies a patient through his/her own journey and allows them to grow in self-determination, I almost think THAT's what heals most, and the specific techniques matter much less.

Sort of agreed. Patients should be allowed to choose their path but the professional must ensure that the patient is being given the best information and they recommend treatments that evidence shows will be most effective for the individual.

u/PavlovianRude · 1 pointr/psychology

It sounds like you're in great shape so far. In terms of breaking into the research arena, taking a behavioral research class is an excellent start. Like I said in my previous post, do well in the class, express your interest to the instructor, and get to know him/her. This will open up doors for you. They are not teaching that class for no reason. They will have, at the very least, some connection to the research world. Once you show the instructor you can do well and are interested, approach them about any research opportunities he/she knows and you will hopefully get some leads.

Unfortunately, instructors at community college usually don't do their own research (I don't know where you live, but that's generally how it is where I am in the US). So you may not get a lot of opportunities out of that course (though you'll probably learn some great stuff).

However, once you transfer to a university, those opportunities will be far more plentiful as professors at big schools focus on research. Their jobs depend on it. So again, once you transfer, get to know all of your professors, express your interest, and approach them about participating as a research assistant. This will open doors for you.

Another good practice, once you're at university, is to look up the faculty members in the psychology department. Even if you haven't taken a class with them, you can email them and ask if they need help in their lab.

As for hospitals, there are definitely research opportunities there. However, at least where I'm from, most of those positions in hospitals are paid and require some previous experience. So those may be out of reach for you right now. Most everyone I know cut their research teeth at a university volunteering for professors.

Another thing that's very helpful is to figure out what you're actually interested in doing both clinically and research wise. That is, having a specific focus will help you immensely. The earlier you know this, the more of an advantage you have.

In my case, I knew I wanted to do drug and alcohol research. So I targeted professors at my university who did research along those lines. By gaining pre graduate research experience in that sub discipline of psychology, my application for grad school was stronger because it showed the schools I was applying to that I had a long standing interest in the topic and had actual lab experience to back up my interest (it's easy to say that you are super interested in a topic, but to be able to actually say "Hey, I've done work in this area!" is invaluable. I would argue that this will get you into a program more than your grades or GRE scores (though those are certainly important).

I would also recommend that you get this book. It really breaks down what you need to do to get admitted to solid programs.

u/Kamuai · 1 pointr/psychology

Now, I am not studying this in a university/college, nor am licensed in any way in the psychology field. I merely studying psychology [especially that of the Axis II Cluster B area] because it interests me greatly. So please do not quote me as a professional; I am merely giving my thoughts and opinions here...

Understanding the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths can be hard. It seems that the information on both of them is always changing in some way. Especially when it comes to the term 'sociopath'. I have read numerous books/texts on psychopaths and sociopaths. Both hold many, many similarities, but I have also noticed a big difference between them. To me they are on opposite ends of the spectrum; one holds no empathy, while the other can at times be ruled by it. And I say "at times" due to the fact that generally psychopaths do not comprehend emotions as "normal" people of society do.

Whenever you say the word psychopath around others, they always think of Ted Bundy or Ed Gein; psychopaths that committed horrible acts of murder. And I believe that is due to the media and lack of proper education surrounding such beings. Not all psychopaths are violent individuals, many just manipulate others for personal gain and/or satisfaction. Hmm...sounds much like a sociopath, yes? That is because they both use manipulation. Relying on charisma, lies, and the use of personal information [of others] to bend and break those around them. Destroying others just so they are able to spend more time in the limelight. But then why did I state that one holds no empathy, while the other is ruled by it? Did I not just say, in a way, that sociopaths and psychopaths are unable to feel such things as remorse? Yes, but no...

Sociopaths will manipulate and break those around them for personal gain. Psychopaths will do it for the same reason, but they will also do it because it brings them joy, satisfaction, excitement, and just about any other term synonymous with those. A recent study has brought to light that psychopaths are able to experience empathy. Meaning they can put themselves in another person's shoes and relate to them on an emotional level. [link to article] Sociopaths, I believe, are unable to do such things. The mind of a sociopath is extremely logical; meaning they view the world as though they were overlooking various equations. Whenever an emotional moment is presented to them, they do not react on an emotional level. Instead they observe the situation, note the individual at hand, register their words and their appearance upon speaking them, then they bring to mind various "appropriate" responses, and then respond with what they believe to be the best one. Now to say they are completely "emotionless" is untrue. They can feel the most basic/primal of emotions, but nearly all other emotions are out of their reach.

Many will argue that what I have come to understand/believe about psychopaths and sociopaths is outrageous and completely untrue. Perhaps that is so, but I have read numerous books on these individuals and I feel this is the best understanding I have reached in regards to them. On one end you have a sociopath; calm, cold, calculating, intelligent, manipulative, logical, lacks empathy, performs various actions for personal gain, and uncaring of what their actions will do to others. And then on the other end you have a psychopath: manipulative, disconnected from society, intelligent [at times], capable of feeling empathy toward others, and though they are uncaring of what their actions will do to others, they have been known to "suffer emotional breakdowns/overloads" when something they do affects a person that they "care" for, or if something does not go they way they wanted it too. One day I would very much like to take courses on these individuals, as well as speak with the professionals that have studied them. But till that time, I will continue to read the materials that I find and take my own notes in regards to these beings.

If you would like some more help with understanding them more, I suggest looking for psychology books/texts that pertain solely to them. I will recommend a very good book on sociopaths, it is called: The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout [link to book on amazon]. It is very informative and breaks down the minds/actions of sociopaths very well. It was a book that I was able to understand very well. [some books can get a bit too technical] I hope I was able to help, though I do have a tendency to ramble sometimes. But that is what happens when one talks about a subject that brings them great interest. Amazon has a great selection of books you can choose from that are about psychopaths and sociopaths. So I would greatly suggest turning your search there for more material.

u/sirrescom · 1 pointr/psychology

>I can't speak for medical doctors but it's not widespread in the mental health field which, as I say above, is more focused on the biopsychosocial model.

I'm guessing you're trained in a relatively enlightened form of psychology or social work or another field, rather than psychiatry. Psychiatrists consider theselves in the mental health field, and they go to medical school, so they also consider themselves doctors.

>That isn't to say that it's never right to focus on biological causes of disorders. I'm skeptical of some attempts to support such claims (like saying that since there are brain differences then it must be biological) but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong.
With schizophrenia in particular I was under the impression that there is some good evidence for biological causes. With the exception of people like Mosher and Bentall, I can't think of many researchers that oppose it. Their book 'Models of Madness' was quite good but I think they make similar mistakes in the opposite direction, of presenting bad evidence in support of environmental causes.

It's my understanding that in the olden days, people with behavioral symptoms related to things like viral encephalitis which were clearly biological in origin were considered schizophrenics. (have you read Robert Whitaker by the way? You could probably pick apart his arguments if you want, but definitely worth a read. Anyway, there's definitely biological causes for undesired emotional/behavioral experiences. Interestingly, as soon as one is discovered, those patients are no longer under psychiatric purview - they go to neurologists or infectious disease docs or whatever. I think this reinforces your point that mental health practitioners have a corresponding opportunity to work outside models of biological causality, and are missing the point (or lying) if they're claiming neurotransmitters are the primary cause of mental illness. I think this is also why I get so frustrated and angry when they are so quick to prescribe SSRI's and implying that they are a disease treatment, rather than offering them up as neuroactive compounds that a person may find helpful (as in managing symptoms, not curing disease).

>1) I don't think the DSM encourages any particular treatment option over the other,

Either way, in practice psychiatrists encourage drugs. Their hammer makes your problem look like a nail.

2) even if disorders aren't biological, it doesn't mean biological treatments aren't the best option. Behaviors and thoughts still need to go through the brain and so manipulating the brain directly can be the best treatment option - and not just to "relieve symptoms".

Now here is a fruitful topic of discussion. Key word is "can be" the best option. For some. We need to be honest about the fact that they may also not be for others. I drink coffee routinely to treat my sleepiness and/or lack of motivation, and for now, it works for me. I wouldn't try and strongly suggest that you do the same under the guise of science. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that these meds (though often effective in a positive way over short time scales) are causing severe side effects over the long-term. Symptoms like akethesia, diabetes, tardive dyskinesia, just to name a few. And we are still using electroshock in this country, which is really saddening to me.

>For example even if ADHD wasn't biologically caused, we still know that medication is the best treatment. Conversely, just because a disorder is biologically caused it doesn't mean non-biological treatments aren't the best option (e.g autism with behavioral therapy).

Disagree on all fronts. My brother was diagnosed with ADHD when we were kids, and that altered his identity. To this day his self-confidence in himself is very weak. He never was able to develop tools to focus, or the confidence that he could be a self-sufficient person. Adderall most definitely produces results that parents, teachers, and psychiatrists are going to like. I wouldn't conclude that this is the 'best'. And what's 'best'? By what metric of success? I advocate a flexible model of treatment. If a patient wants to try pills, then go for it; if they want to try CBT or ACT, or meditation and exercise, by all means! When a therapist accompanies a patient through his/her own journey and allows them to grow in self-determination, I almost think THAT's what heals most, and the specific techniques matter much less.

I'm going to bed; this was a good discussion - would be fun to talk more sometime.









u/Lightfiend · 18 pointsr/psychology

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics. (probably most interesting from a Freudian perspective, deals with many of our unconscious instincts)

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces The Shape Our Decisions - Unconscious decision-making, behavioral economics, consumer psychology. Fun read.

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion - Most popular book on the psychology of persuasion, covers all the main principles. Very popular among business crowds.

Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships - Social neuroscience, mirror neurons, empathy, practical stuff mixed with easy to understand brain science.

Authentic Happiness - Positive Psychology, happiness, increasing life satisfaction.

Feeling Good - A good primer on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Also widely considered one of the best self-help books by mental health practitioners.

The Brain That Changes Itself - Neuroplasticity, how experience shapes our brains. Some really remarkable case studies that get you wondering how powerful our brains really are.

The Buddhist Brain - The practical neuroscience of happiness, love, and wisdom from a Buddhist perspective.

That should give you more than enough to chew on.



u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/psychology

Dang, I don't know anyone in NYC (I'm out west). Some general recommendations:

  1. As I mentioned, many therapists will work on either a sliding scale, or have reduced fees for a select number of clients. As I said, these spaces can be difficult to get into (sometimes a therapist that sees 30 clients weekly will have only 2-3 spots for pro bono work).

  2. If you have no insurance and have limited finances, you may be able to qualify for MedicAid or other public services. I don't know NY's laws at all, but there are sometimes public programs. A department of Workforce Services can sometimes help with determining your eligibility.

  3. There are a number of good resources that you can use on your own while you look. One such workbook is called Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life. I use this as an adjunct to much of the therapy I do with run-of-the-mill anxiety, depression, or similar concerns. Disclaimer: I do the therapy that Hayes (the author) developed. I don't have a financial stake or anything, but like folks to know there are other options such as this one.

  4. There may be a community clinic near you that provides mental health services. These are fine options for lower income individuals that are looking for support. A quick google search returned this place. Not sure if it's near you, but appears to offer MH services. This place may also be a good bet, they have a sliding scale and accept many payment types.

  5. The best way to tell if a therapist is good is to just talk with them about how they work. Any decent therapist can have a genuine conversation about their approach to therapy and will be transparent about it. See if their philosophy fits with you and your life. If what you want is problem solving and the person only works from a Freudian perspective, it may not work with you two regardless of how competent the therapist is and how committed you are to therapy.

    Hope that helps.
u/aimbonics · 2 pointsr/psychology

The Art of Living: The Classic Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and Effectiveness

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Living-Classic-Happiness-Effectiveness/dp/0062513222

Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible." The Stoic philosopher Epictetus was born on the eastern edges of the Roman Empire in A.D. 55, but The Art of Living is still perfectly suited for any contemporary self-help or recovery program. To prove the point, this modern interpretation by Sharon Lebell casts the teachings in up-to-date language, with phrases like "power broker" and "casual sex" popping up intermittently. But the core is still the same: Epictetus keeps the focus on progress over perfection, on accomplishing what can be accomplished and abandoning unproductive worry over what cannot.

u/ehaaland · 10 pointsr/psychology

It depends on what types of things you're interested in!

Over time, you'll come to know certain people who research in different areas and you can go to their personal webpages and access their Curriculum Vitae. Through that, you can find all the work they've done and many times they link to PDF copies of their papers.

But psychology is a very broad field. Here are some suggestions I can come up with:

For dealings with moral political psychology (the psychology of how people on the right and people on the left feel about moral decisions - includes religions and other aspects to our deeply-rooted conceptions of 'self'), see Jonathan Haidt - He just wrote a new book called The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

For dealings with the extent and limits of human rationality, I'd suggest Daniel Kahneman. He also just wrote a new book called Thinking Fast and Slow.

Stuffisnice suggested William James. James' Principles of Psychology is remarkable and very fun to read. It's quite dated both in science and in language, but his writing is impeccable.


In fact, James didn't just do psychology. He did philosophy as well. His later philosophy was at odds with the picture provided by most mainstream psychology that takes the brain as the source of our mental experience. These philosophical aspects have recently been brought into the empirical realm in the branch of Ecological psychology. This is my personal preference for psychology reading as I feel it is much more willing to ask harder questions than traditional psychology; it is willing to do away with assumptions and premises that are generally taken for granted.

This ecological framework deals more with perception and the role of the animal's action in perception. Instead of the traditional way of looking at perception (cells react to stimuli in the environment, feed this encoded stimuli into the brain, the brain processes things and makes sense of them, recreating a picture of the world through its activity, and finally sending out directions to the body to move), the ecological perspective focuses more on how the animal perceives the world directly and does not require internal processing to make sense of the world. It's much cleaner and much simpler. The brain is still crucial for the lived experience, but it is not the whole story.

For readings in ecological psychology, I would recommend Ed Reed's Encountering the World and Eleanor Gibson's An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development.

After you get your bearings, then you can get into some really deep stuff that tries to synthesize biology, psychology, and the essence of human/animal experience (phenomenology). For that, Evan Thompson is my go to guy. His work is heavily philosophical and is sometimes overly dense, but you may find it interesting.

PM me if you have any questions!

u/Zeitgenosse · 2 pointsr/psychology

By generalizations I meant the Bayesian driver model can handel certain novel situations that are not too different from the scenario used to have the actual subjects drive in. But what they also did was taking it apart and using only the motor components to have another, rule based driver model take over.

"Model" is a loaded word, that's for sure. In cognitive science we mean this: It is a theory, or could be even a hypothesis. We'd absolutely count statistical models as models: A mean is an abstraction of a set of data. It is a simplification to describe something more difficult. That's the idea of models: Simplifying, abstracting, getting at what's important. You don't want your model to be so complex that you'd need another model to understand it.

There are several conceptions of models, the one I like most currently stems from "Computational Modeling in Cognition": It can be purely data descriptive without any psychological content, it can characterize a psychological process, or even explain it. What that means exactly takes a bit to understand. If you are interested I recommend reading that book. It contains a lot of programming examples, teaching you the necessary tools to model. If you want to know why psychology, after all, is essential to the understanding of the human mind, David Marr's 3 level hypothesis gives you and idea.

But again, models are theories of something, and they are done in order to do something with them. They are only means to understand cognition better, but they are, in my mind, the best means we have. Predictions in that sense mean that you have equations or computer models that tell you what in a certain situation will happen, what kind of output both the model and humans will generate. That can be anything: A certain decision, a certain reaction to a psychophysical stimulus, in the long run it could be the reaction to a clincial treatment. Our personae are not "immune" to modelling, neither are emotions. But that being not my area of expertise, I don't know about the state of the art.

u/not-a-jerk · 5 pointsr/psychology

Obviously everyone has their favourites. My primary areas of research are cognitive bias and relational psychology, so I'd recommend starting with:

Cognitive Bias

  • Stumbling on Happiness (book)
  • Predictably Irrational (book)

    Relational Psychology

  • Close Encounters (book)
  • Science of Relationships (website)
  • Not A Jerk (blog, not exclusively psych)

    Rationality

  • Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (free ebook)
  • Less Wrong (website)

    For maximum enjoyment, I'd suggest Stumbling on Happiness or Methods of Rationality, they're both very well written and entertaining reads.

    Finally, if you start looking up references and papers (and if you're interested in this, you will), then grab a copy of zotero. A good citation manager is an absolute joy.

    Disclosure: I'm a member of the International Association for Relationship Research, which is responsible for the Science of Relationships. I'm the primary author for Not A Jerk. Links to Amazon include my affiliate ID.
u/Sland · 5 pointsr/psychology

TLDR: Say "Alexa, enable emotion pal" and learn to better understand your emotions.

We recently launched the first Alexa app designed by a clinical psychologist.

Because you can talk with Alexa anytime, it's is a great guide to talk you to a better understanding of your emotions when you're feeling them.

Emotion Pal validates your emotion (over 200 are recognized), educates you about the different components of what you're feeling, and provides them with concrete strategies for evaluating whether or not it is helpful to act on the emotion based on clinical DBT tools (this part is US and UK only).

If you're curious, we made a video explaining it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q71tM-51_v8

You can enable Emotion Pal by saying "Alexa, enable emotion pal" or going to: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B081QJX5PK/

We really want this to be as useful as possible, so please let me know if you have any feedback!

u/OmicronNine · 3 pointsr/psychology

I just finished this up and found it to be profoundly and fundamentally applicable to my life: Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength

The most important thing you get out of it is how much your decision making is affected by your current mental state, rather then reason, and how important will power and self-discipline is to a successful and happy life. It's extremely easy to read and approachable as well.

u/HenSica · 3 pointsr/psychology

What Every Body is Saying - Joe Navarro

It's not really psychology focused, but I found it to be a very fun and interesting read. It's also highly relative to my everyday life (at 18 years old) and it's pretty fun manipulating these forms of body language to influence others, as well as interpreting other peoples' tells. It also explores into why people typically display that body language based on what their emotions are and the limbic system.

u/dustgirl · 1 pointr/psychology

I'd recommend perusing the following books for inspiration on how applying social psych can be interesting:

Stumbling on Happiness

Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)

*Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

Like others have said, it's pretty hard to make social psych boring! (And I think it's awesome you get to teach it to high school students!)


u/baddspellar · 8 pointsr/psychology

People adapt to both positive and negative events, and their happiness levels are not affected as much by circumstances as one would expect. This was famously shown in "Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative?" . This is known as "Hedonic Adaptation". The popular psychology book Stumbling on Happiness by Dan Gilbert goes into this and many other surprising findings in happiness research.

u/jaroto · 11 pointsr/psychology

personally, this book was incredibly helpful to me. they put out a new edition every year -- i would imagine they have similar books for different disciplines (can anyone verify?).

for the clinical/counseling book, each program rates themselves on:

(1) clinical/research orientation (to assist prospective applicants in determining fit)

(2) acceptance rates (i think # applied, # accepted, maybe # interviewed)

(3) average GPA & GRE of students getting into the program

(4) research areas in that program

and i'm sure many other details i'm forgetting.

ideally, they would get with the times and put this in electronic form. i spent a lot of time sifting through programs that were alphabetized and then creating my own spreadsheet/database.

u/wothy · 8 pointsr/psychology

The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene (also try his other books, utterly fascinating, beautiful pieces of work)

Social Intelligence by Daniel Goleman

Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman

Vital Lies, Simple Truths by Daniel Goleman

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker

Leadership and Self Deception by The Arbinger Institute

Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury

Influence by Robert Cialdini

I could go on but these would have to be my favourites that come to mind which relate to what you seem to be interested in. Let me know if you want more suggestions :)

u/ArchMunky · 1 pointr/psychology

I only used the term biofeedback because I'm a child of the '70s/'80s. :)

I thought you could use biofeedback by simply becoming aware of your physical symptoms and how they respond to relaxation, meditation, visualization, etc. It's entirely possible that I've been using the term wrong all these years. :)

I linked the Talbot book in a previous comment, but here it is again. Basically, he discusses the theories of Bohm and Pribram that the universe can be modeled using the concepts of holography. It's an amazing read; I just wish they'd finally release it for the Kindle.

u/onepercent · 1 pointr/psychology

A good place to start is with the Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology. It ranks the programs on a 1-7 scale with 1 being completely clinically focused and 7 being completely research focused. You'd probably be interested in sites that rank about a 4. BUT make sure you check the websites of programs that sound interesting, as the information in the Insider's Guide may not be updated.

u/escapevelocity11 · 2 pointsr/psychology

Well, I just got accepted to the clinical psychology doctoral program at Texas Tech to work with Dr. Joaquin Borrego. I'm interested in PCIT (parent-child interaction therapy) and it's applications for children with autism. So I sort of understand where you're coming from. Have you considered applied behavior analysis, if you're seriously interested in autism? I plan on completing enough coursework within the ABA program at TTU that I can still obtain my BCBA (and maybe my BCBA-D) while still taking the clinical psychology coursework. Fortunately my mentor has a background in clinical behavior analysis so that works well for me.

All of the professors I worked with while in undergrad (at WVU, a research I school) highly suggested I go straight into a PhD program rather than obtaining my masters degree first. This was mostly because I was completely uninterested in wasting 2 years and tens of thousands of dollars just to have to go back and complete a lot of the same coursework for my PhD.

I highly suggest the Insiders Guide to Clinical and Counseling Psychology (http://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Graduate-Programs-Counseling-Psychology/dp/1609189329/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369282225&sr=1-1&keywords=insiders+guide+to+graduate+programs+in+clinical+and+counseling+psychology+2013) as a reference. It gives lots of details regarding what sorts of research is being conducted at universities all over the US.

Hope this helped a little!

u/eablokker · 16 pointsr/psychology

The fact that you can change your behaviors, attitudes, moods, and beliefs means that you are not those things. You are not your behaviors, skills, beliefs, or attitudes. Then who, after all, are you? You are the creator of your thoughts, behaviors, and beliefs. You are the creative force behind the ability to change those things about you. Congrats for realizing that the old depressed you was never really who you really were anyways, and neither is the new you. Sometimes you will feel depressed and sometimes you will feel happy - these states don't define you as a person, but by experiencing both of them at times you get to be a whole human being.

I think you may want to check out CBT as others have suggested. Try this book for starters: The Feeling Good Handbook.

You can also check out NLP as someone else suggested. The main difference is that the aforementioned CBT has many studies proving it's effectiveness, whereas NLP does not. That doesn't mean NLP isn't effective, just that it hasn't been studied as much. You're likely to learn very similar concepts and techniques either way, so either one is good depending on personal taste.

u/stfuirl · 1 pointr/psychology

This guided me through the whole process. I don't mean to sound like a shill for the book but it was really helpful to have all the stats laid out in front of me. You can probably find this in your library for free so give it a look!

u/Jayfrin · 35 pointsr/psychology

https://www.amazon.ca/influence-Psychology-Robert-PhD-Cialdini/dp/006124189X

This dude has a bunch of good stuff in social influence and persuasion, really great read for just generally becoming better at social interaction.

u/rockrobot · 4 pointsr/psychology

I'm not big on self help books in general, I tend to mistrust them for some reason.... but if you're interested in working on some CBT by yourself I highly recommend Feeling Good by David Burns. I can't personally attest to its efficacy but I know a few people it as helped. In addition there is a decent amount research behind it. Check it out - you can get it used on Amazon for $1.

u/timbojimbo · 3 pointsr/psychology

Stumbling on happiness did some good things for me. It focuses on how happiness is portrayed in our society versus how it occurs in reality.

Very cool stuff, and let me know that I wasn't actually unhappy. I was just believing a lie perpetrated by our society.

u/MetacogniShane · 1 pointr/psychology

Lang's book is good. I also really like "Make It Stick" by Brown and colleagues.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674729013/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0

Nate Kornell also has some really good blog posts (and published studies) on maximizing study effectiveness:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/everybody-is-stupid-except-you/201803/have-lot-study-in-limited-time-evidence-based-help

u/bmay · 32 pointsr/psychology

Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy

This book is based on the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy, one of the most prominent evidence-based treatments for psychological disturbances ranging from low self-esteem to schizophrenia.

Read this book. It's awesome and will change your life for the better.

Seriously.

u/dwarfed · 9 pointsr/psychology

There's a pretty interesting book that proposes a theory in which ancient humans actually heard their own thoughts and interpreted it as a different person, or god. The book is called "The Origin of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind," and here is an Amazon link.

u/seeker135 · 6 pointsr/psychology

Buy and read this book. FIXED

It was recommended to me by my therapist when I was having similar feelings. Good luck!

u/imwatchingyousleep · 56 pointsr/psychology

For grad school, I took a class called principles of learning. In it, I read Make It Stick which basically spells out what you observed as the ideal method of learning. I highly suggest it. The book gave me a ton of methods to learn more effectively.

u/CuriousGrugg · 5 pointsr/psychology

>A lot of modern psychology and neuroscience appears to be neglecting the concept of the unconscious mind.... Psychology is so determined to get religion out of science that it cannot allow for the concept of the unconscious

I honestly cannot imagine how you came to this conclusion. There is no question at all among psychologists that unconscious processes play an important role in cognition. Every single popular cognitive psychology book I can think of (e.g. 1 2 3 4) discusses the importance of unconscious processes.

u/mynameisalso · 1 pointr/psychology

I'm just a normal guy, but this book is a real trip. He thinks up to about 3000 years ago humans didn't have a conscience. And when it started to develop people thought it was God speaking to them. I don't know how true it is, but extremely interesting. https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072

u/Chyndonax · 1 pointr/psychology

Those both come from a book called The Definitive Book of Body Language by Barbra and Alan Pease. They back their claims up with studies Here's a link to the relevant section of the book using Amazon's search inside this book feature. At least I hope it will work that way.

http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Book-Body-Language/dp/0553804723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255564935&sr=8-1#reader

The don't mention the exact name of the study, just saying it was a University of Minnesota one. It's probably in an appendix.

Likewise with the palms.

http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Book-Body-Language/dp/0553804723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255564935&sr=8-1#reader

Intentionally using open palms to deceive. It can be tricky to do.

http://www.amazon.com/Definitive-Book-Body-Language/dp/0553804723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255564935&sr=8-1#reader

Get Anyone To Do Anything by David J. Lieberman, PhD is another excellent book on this topic. It goes more for the verbal manipulators.

http://www.amazon.com/Get-Anyone-Anything-Again-Psychological/dp/0312270178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255565543&sr=1-1

u/realdoctorwhy · 1 pointr/psychology

Dan Gilbert has a great book that touches on this - Stumbling on Happiness

u/contrarianism · 2 pointsr/psychology

Check out this book for another perspective on why men (and women) will have judgement lapses with the opposite sex. Authored by recent Nobel winner in Economics.

u/plucesiar · 1 pointr/psychology

Baumeister's recent book on Willpower is an excellent read on this topic for the layman. Link

u/Pocket_Lint · 2 pointsr/psychology

This book talks a lot about body language and its relation to the limbic system, and classifies certain behaviors depending on their use to the performer (pacifying, defensive, aggressive, etc). It's written by an ex-FBI agent with the help of a psychologist, I believe.

u/Kirill88 · 1 pointr/psychology

This book, i quess. You can find pdf for free, actually

u/philawesome · 1 pointr/psychology

That's interesting/disheartening. I own the Insider's Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology, and it ranks schools from 1 (exclusively clinically focused) to 7 (exclusively research focused). I've been looking at Ph.D programs that rank as a "4" (pretty much the lowest clinical programs go), and some of them do describe on their websites that they train in the "scientist/practitioner" model. Some of them are still pretty competitive, though. Do you know if there's the same sort of stigma at Ph.D programs that focus on more of a balance in clinical training and research than being more heavily research-focused?

u/Frostxtq · 1 pointr/psychology

Wikipedia says it's 3% in males and 1% in women.

I've also found a bunch of other sources, like this, or this book. It's more than 1% anyway.

u/MrDominus7 · 1 pointr/psychology

Try reading Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

It's a book about what influences and motivates people and how you can use that to your advantage.