Kevin Conti

Studies into creatine show that is has a neuroprotective effect, as well as boosting short-term memory and mental functioning.

Really? from what I see i contribute more in this forum than you do, if you analyse the standard of replies. Every since i have joined i have responsed to most questions and gave explanatory information to what I have said. Not that i should mention it, just you questioned my credibility here. You seem a very confused immature young lad. and radical edwards, who win on Sat?

That is unimportant.

ofc, cognitive-behavioural therapy is quite effective in helping individuals with avoidant personality disorder, maybe you should enquire about it.

I don't recall saying it wasn't. Don't call me 'kid'. << It seems as though one of our boys has a personality problem And just to MAKE something clear, my post reply was for the poster of the question, not you.

Perception is certainly subjective and subject to interpretation. In fact, the empiricism vs. rationalism debate was central to european philosophical thought over the last few centuries. In terms of what you said i am sure it has some meaning to you but has no psychological research foundation in it so i will not comment kid. later

Obviously not you, Cap..

No need for your sarcastic way of putting it, but am going with the evidence that i've came accross to specifically answer the question the guy asked. I am the authors of the research.

I would not be so sure, they reckon they the origin of medical miracles have an orign in psychoimmunological thoughts. In one example, i read of an individual who was cured of an illness based on his positive thinking.

This is not true, the mind is the controller of the physiological system and thought power can greatly influence how the physical system operates. I have referred to psychoimmunology before and essentially the area of specialism focuses on the effect of the mind on the immune system. Adding to that, studies with place groups show that they are likely to have physical side effects if told prior to the issuing of the placebo. How does the placebo work then? From the top of my head here and the current views on it. Firstly, proponents of classical conditioning may say that it results from involuntarily associative learning, where a past drug (UCS) results in positive effects (UCR). However, the placebo drug at a later date may act as a CS seeing that is is generalised as a help mechanism, and the response is the effects of the drug. In addition, placebo's are more likely to work on individuals who are easily stressed and anxious. it could be that the mock pill invokes a sense of relaxation, which is the causal effect for the subjective reportings of the effectiveness of it. However, but crucially the real reason behind placebo's that i advocate is that it is down to endorphins. That is, the bodies natural feel good pain killers that share a similar chemical form to opiods like heroin. Specifically, studies have shown that when a endorphin antagonist is used in the placebo drug, the placebo effect is non existent. This i feel is conclusive proof that endorphins have a significant role to play in the workings of the phenomena. In terms of how endorphins may affect the physical system, they act as a pain killer so obviously have an adapative value in times of injury and survival. But i think placebos, at least in the form of the drug version, is not the thing you want to be looking at. You want to be studying into the collective field that governs it and find out how the power of thought has a monumental effect on the physical system, and how thinking positiively etc can promote greater health and longer living.

Once again, this is not my own theory, it is central to the whole of psychological knowledge on the memory process. If something decays it does not necessary imply that the information is accurate. Rather, the traces of the reconstruction of a specific memory just deteriorate meaning that it cannot be retrieved accurately or inaccurately at a later date.

To furher add on what i've said, recent study on my part has revealed what you are talking about is known as the "tape recorder theory" of memory The evidence for it, specifically concerning the question of whether or not individuals store every memory and past happening is non existent. Essentially, what i've said is backed up, attention is very selective and memory information decays over time. This can be due to pro or re-active interference, i.e when old and new memories affect current ones, or it can be down to metabolic processes affecting memory processes eventually leading to their disintegration (animal study support for this). Furthermore, without going into detail memory retrieval is very much due to cognitive reconstructions, and due to that, memories can be an inaccurate reflection of what really happened. Consider, leading questions in hypnosis in in courts. What effect do they have on cognitive reconstructions? confabulations are likely... This also applies to the strongest form of memories, flashbuild ones.

biggles: like most of psychology, it is based on statistical averages, not population actualities.

Well Hello there *flicks eye brows*

LOL my bad, i was just drunk at the time. (no am not al alchy!, my football team glasgow celtic got knocked out the UEFA cup so i was annoyed, ended up getting leathered with all the boys.

am just backing up what he said.

np dude

Moneypoo, Indeed sir.

Computer use can be very addictive because of all the reinforcements that it has to offer. I would not say that they are addictive in psychiatric terms, that is, they do not result in tolerance (you dont need more use to get same feelings) and am unsure whether or not it results in psychological of physiological dependence, although it may the former. Prolonged internet use does have its problems, particularly as it may result in a form of hypnosis when an individual is totally concentrated to a screen. He/she is totally focused on the conversation or what ever else he is looking at and can strain the eyes. But more importantly, in pathological terms individuals can be very irritable when interupted while using their computer or can have extreme cravings when they are away from it for a while. Furtermore, due to the lack of socialisation due to excessive net use individuals may be more prone to social related problems, such as social anxiety disorder. In evolutionary terms, we are heavily inclined to release important brain rewarding neurotransmitters when a behaviour is highly pleasurable. Such behaviours in ancestoral times were heavily linked with reproductive success or social status, so we evolved mechanisms to feel depressed when a reward is took away. This highlights the discrepency between conditioning yourself to be more confident over a life time and drug talking which cheats. The same principle can be applied to net addiction and it explains why individuals often feel an irrational impulses to use their computer again after they have been away from it for a while. So certainly there are pathological elements associates with excessive PC use and you could be treated for it by a psychologist.

I am not away of any stages, hypnosis just involves the individual being put into an alpha state of conscious and giving hypnotic suggestions by the person hypnotising. The individual is fully awake all the time and is able to exercise freewill.,

ah, ur absolutely right. sorry dude.

np bud. It would perhaps be useful for you to download hypnotic scripts from the net or rather sound files from kazaa or something similar, allowing you to test them. Basically, you just relax and listen to what the dude has to say.

When i first read what u wrote, i thought u were attacking me and saying that i wrote too broad. LOl, i need to stay off those delusion pills.

http://www.innermind.co.uk/hypnosis.html <quote> Our mind consists of two parts: The Conscious Mind (10%) is responsible for thoughts, language, decisions and will power. It is the part that is in charge when we are awake. The Unconscious Mind (90%) is a vast store of everything that we have ever learned or experienced. It is also responsible for bodily functions, breathing, blood pressure etc. In fact, anything we can do without thinking about it consciously, is controlled by the Unconscious mind. </quote> This is absolutely wrong and there is no neurological support what so ever for that assertion. This myth is reinforced by the media and serves as a motivational factor to encourage that are apprehensive about mental change. From an evolutionary point of view, it is incredibly unlikely that the evolution of larger brains would have evolved if there were no survival or reproductive advantage. if we do not use 90% of it, what is the point? Furthermore, functional brain imaging studies accentuate that individuals, if given the correct experimental stimulation, will use every region of our brain, albeit depending on what the stimulation is. We do not use all of our brain obviously at once, but we have access to most of it if required - i.e. when we are dealing with the necessary stimuli. In addition, there is a principle in neuroscience that can be said to be "use it or use it". Specifically, neural development for every particular region in the brain is determined in the genetic phenotype, however, it is the formation development from birth of the neural areas associated that cause it to develop. If there is insufficient use and stimulation of the particular function in the early stages of life, it will not develop properly. For e.g. monkeys who are born with one eye closed artificially ultimately lose that eye's vision. Therefore it stands to reason that if we did not use 90% of our brain, then numerous neural pathways would deteriorate. In terms of hypnosis, it is fundamentally a relaxed state of consciousness. In the electroencephalogram (EEG) the state appears to that of alpha (8 - 12 Cycles per second). It is suggested that individuals in that state are far more susceptible to suggestion hence are far more likely to have their behaviour changed. This process is known as hypnosis. But is hypnosis effective? The jury is still out but certainly there is an abundance of medical research that has shown hypnosis to be an effective alternative psychological technique for changing behaviours and promoting new ones. In one study I read recently it suggested that hypnosis may result in the release of endorphins, which may explain why individuals are inclined to feel a greater sense of well-being and more likely to release anxiety. However, it may just be another advanced form of the placebo effect, especially as those individuals who have deep belief in it are far more easily hypnotized effectively. However, I doubt that claim and my personal view is that it does work and it may allow us to systematically change our behaviours by tricking particular parts of the brain and through reinforcing particular thoughts/feelings in the alpha mode, when we are less inclined to be mentally active and challenge thoughts and feelings. Nevertheless, it is not the answer to everything and its effects are small to moderate. Hypnosis has many myths that are unfounded, such as it accesses the unconscious mind and allows individuals to be completely controlled by the researcher. That is simply wrong. I would give you some hypnotic scripts I have used in practice but I accidentally deleted them when I reformatted my hard drive last week. Sorry, I was drunk Want to try hypnosis???? Sit down and close your eyes and wait until are very calm and relaxed. Now hold your hands out straight, with both of them in parallel. Now say to yourself through your inner voice, and MEAN IT. My left and right hand are the same weight and are in same position relative to the floor. Now imagine someone putting a weight on your left hand. Say to yourself, I can feel it getting heavier than the right hand. Keep doing that, progressively adding more weight. Furthermore, pretend that there is a helium blood on your right hand and that it is beginning to rise above to the ceiling. At the end your hands will be some distance from how they were at the start, if it works ofc!

I've mentioned the neurological determinism factors in terms of them determining what we think of, how we think, and therefore how we behave. But there is a deeper motivation that is a incredibly strong reinforcer of behaviour, the purpose of the Action-Attention-Reward system(AAR) in influencing behaviour. It is this adapation that explains why so many peoples may committ criminal or deviant acts. Specifically, An action (such as selling drugs) leads to attention (an indicator of status) that in the Short term releases rewarding brain chemicals, and in the long term improves reproductive success - at least the way we think subconsciously (although studies backs it up). This is usually one evolutionary reason why males are predisposed to commit crimes linked to status gaining. Furthermore, Activiites that lead to feelings of increased status are very rewarding. They release dopeamine and endorphins, which result in greater emotional feelings. the reward system is crucial for human motivation and what ever brings such rewards is likely to be repeated. We did not have drugs in ancestral times so any behaviour that resulted in very good rewards would had been repeated again. Drugs take advantage of this desire and this it is the reason why they are so highly addictive. So this is yet another factor that may pre-determine how we think and behave. In other contexts, we have little control over our sexuality and the thoughts that we get are usually our adapative processes that encourage us to engage in sexual behaviour to increase our reproductive chances. As an example, no NORMAL mentally stable sexually capable man will never fail to have sexual thoughts about attractive looking girls he knows. Similarly, no girl will reject her appearence as she knows that it is the most important factor in her attempts to attract her ideal man.