The girl who feels no pain: 3 fascinating neurological disorders

This post is the first in a short series on “What I learned in my undergrad neuroscience classes.” Today, I describe a few fascinating neurological disorders.

Have you watched episodes of medical shows like Grey’s Anatomy or House and wondered where they come up with some of their disorders? Are there really people out there who feel no pain, or who only have half a brain? There are. In undergrad I took a few neuroscience classes and learned fascinating details about neurological disorders. It seems that if you want to understand how the brain works, one of the best approaches is look at what happens when parts of the brain malfunction. Although I’ve forgotten 85% of what I learned, some of the more unbelievable details have stuck with me, and I thought I’d share a few of them with you today. So without further ado, here are some of the neurological disorders that I can’t get out of my head:

The NFL Needs a Lesson in Bounded Ethicality

source

Over the last week we learned that the New Orleans Saints defense was delivering bonus money to players who were able to injure opposing offensive players. When the NFL discovered this bounty system, they conducted a swift investigation and handed out a stiff punishment: Gregg Williams, the defensive coordinator, was suspended indefinitely, Sean Payton, the head coach, was suspended for one year, and several fines were levied on the Saints organization itself. The result of these punishments is that we likely won't see the Saints making a run at the Super Bowl any time soon.

I'm sure the NFL thinks of this sort of punishment as sending a clear message to its teams: Don't promote or engage in unethical or unsportsmanlike acts that put the health and safety of other players at risk... or else the punishment will be severe. Will this severe punishment really deter future bounty systems? Or ensure greater health and safety of NFL players? Based on my understanding of psychology principles, I'm not convinced this penalty will do anything more than torpedo the 2012 season of one NFL franchise.

Friday Fun: The Ryan Gosling Obsession

Source

When Bradley Cooper was named People Magazine's Sexist Man Alive this year, angry protesters swarmed People's headquarters (okay, there were only about 15 protesters, but still). According to one, Ryan's "left arm alone makes him the Sexiest Man Alive. Hello, look at his abs!" Ryan is also the subject of the "Hey Girl" meme, which started with a single tumblr that inspired multiple off-shoots, like feminist Ryan Gosling, typographer Ryan Gosling, and biostatistics Ryan Gosling (featured at left). What can explain this singular obsession? What is it that sets Ryan apart?

Neighborly Love: The Psychology of Mr. Rogers

Source

Mr. Rogers is undoubtedly one of the most beloved cultural icons in American history. His TV show, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, ran for more than thirty years and inspired many generations of young viewers. Admittedly, I remember sometimes finding the show a little cheesy and slow-paced (I wanted to be watching Saved By The Bell or Full House instead). But there was also something comforting about Mr. Rogers' kind, gentle demeanor. When he looked at me and said, I like you just the way you are, I felt like he really meant it, even though he didn't actually know me. Mr. Rogers' message of unconditional acceptance is a simple one, but from a social psychological perspective it's more complicated than it might seem. As much as we extoll Mr. Rogers, most of us do little more than pay lip service to his ideals, despite our best intentions. So what's getting in the way?

Two ways to right: The perils of naive realism

In honor of PYM's 1-year anniversary last week, I'm re-posting my very first post for PYM today. I also wanted to re-post it because, almost one year later, I found myself in a situation very similar to the one that prompted this post! Last week, after a few bad nights of sleep, I got into a stupid fight with my husband. Just as the last time, I was baffled at how a pleasant evening could suddenly end with us barely speaking to each other. In the midst of things, I returned to this post and decided that I should try taking my own advice. The good news - the advice still works!

Last weekend my husband and I got into a fight over a pillowcase. It was one of those times where it was clearly his fault, and I was sure he would apologize the next day. He didn't. Instead he seemed surprised that I wasn't apologizing to him. How could we have such different views of the same conflict? Which one of us was right?

It turns out that we were both right, in our own way. Misunderstandings like the one that led to a fight over a pillowcase occur because people tend to be naïve realists. That is, we believe that we see social interactions as they truly are, and that other people see them the same way that we do. However, one of the most enduring contributions of social psychology is the understanding that two people can interpret the same social interaction in very different ways based on their own personal knowledge and experiences (Asch, 1952). What does this mean for me? I thought my husband had taken my pillowcase as a joke. He knew he had done it on accident. These different pieces of knowledge led us to interpret the same conversation in very different ways.

Friday Fun: An Insider's Guide To Psychology Prose

source

I have been writing empirical articles for a little while now, and one of things I have come to notice is that there is a very specific style that social psychologists develop in their articles. It's not a style that is reflected in other disciplines of science or even in other realms of psychology. Nor is this style represented in popular guides to academic writing (e.g., Gullickson, 1997) or in the official publication manual of the American Psychological Association.

 In today's Friday Fun post I thought that it might be fun to examine these stylistic techniques to (1) give you, as a consumer of science research, a better understanding of the articles you read, and (2) illustrate that sometimes journal article writing actually can have a second meaning. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on other patterns in science writing covered here or not. I've also included example quotes from my own writing!

Happy Birthday, Psych Your Mind!

source

On this day last year, Psych Your Mind (PYM) was born.

The first post was a brief summary of our expectations for the future of this blog, and I must admit that we have exceeded those expectations. How you ask? Well, let me put the blog into perspective for you:

Why we sometimes make bad decisions: The anchoring and adjustment heuristic

How much to pay for the house of your dreams

Imagine you are interested in buying a house and you've been out looking on the weekends. You find a 3 bedroom, 2 bath bungalow on a quiet street that already feels like home. The asking price is $475,000 (for those of us living in pricier areas, play along by imagining it's 1995). You want the house, but you don't want to pay too much. You've noticed other comparable homes in the area seem to go for anything from $350,000 to $600,000. So how much do you offer? Have a number in mind? Now, read through the scenario again, but this time imagine that the asking price is $439,999. How much would you offer then? Do you come up with a different number?

Let's try a different example: First, what are the last two digits of your telephone number? Got that number in mind? Now, I'd like you to think about what percentage of African countries are in the United Nations. Do you think there are more or less than the telephone number? How many more or less? Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman did a similar study in their seminal 1974 paper on biases in judgment and they found that people who had a lower number (after spinning a wheel of fortune) estimated fewer countries than people who had a higher number. For example, the median answer for people who spun a '10' was 25%, whereas the median answer for people who spun a '65' was 45%. So why does a random number influence our judgment about something unrelated?