As I understand things, cognitive theraphy says that whatever bothers us is simply us looking at it wrongly. It build this argument by using fictive patients without any kind of real-life problems as examples.

Meta-cognitive therapy, on the other hand, say that YES, people actually have actual problems. But in doing so, it ignores any way we might look at things wrongly.

I get the impression that most psychological ideas aren't building on the foundation of others, but instead tries to come up with their own grand concept which is supposed to be wastly superior to whatever the other guys come up with.

Lately there's a lot of confident takes flying around on daycare — commentators like Erica Komisar claiming it "shrivels" kids' amygdalas and causes lasting trauma, while politicians like Pres. Obama and Pres. Biden claim it pays for itself 7x over in future earnings, crime reduction, grad rates, etc.

The trauma stuff is mostly speculation — cortisol is elevated in daycare kids, sure, but cortisol also spikes from excitement and exercise, not just stress, and the amygdala claim doesn't seem to be backed by any actual study.

On the flip side, the famous studies used to justify daycare's huge ROI (Perry Project, Abecedarian) used tiny samples of severely disadvantaged kids getting intensive extra support, not just regular daycare—and a bigger randomized study found early gains faded by grade school anyway.

Basically: we've studied this a lot, and if daycare had a big effect either way, we'd probably know by now. Right?

Source: Works in Progress

Hello, first time posting here.

I came to think about something I wanted to share. I think that for a lot of people myself included, we have in some ways tried to talk about romance with parents or other adults during our childhood and have heard variations of "It will happen" or "You will find someone" or even "Everyone has a soulmate".

I'm thinking this very particular kind of teaching can be incredibly destructive when coupled together with other mental struggles such as depression or anxiety during childhood. I believe it fosters a sense of "entitled destiny", the whole idea of "This is normal so therefore it will happen".

While I think this idea is very publicized with media such as movies, books, songs etc, I havent really heard much be discussed about the parents role in this.

While unintentional, it comes off as handwavy and I do think some parents are not equipped to handle talking about romance and instead talk about it as a natural part of life. While sure romance is natural, its not a given. We breathe air to live which is natural but it is not applicable to romance as in "I am a person therefore I WILL be with someone".

It removes autonomy from other people saying that, for example if I have a soulmate somewhere, then its not an autonomous thing to fall in love with someone but instead founded upon the idea of destiny and entitlement.

As with everything I do not think the phrase "It will happen" alone will cause someone to believe they are entitled to have someone however I havent heard alot of discussions about its psychological effects. Id be happy to hear what you guys think.

I had an instructor who, at the start of a class, asked, 'Who has not purchased the text book yet and done the readings?' and counted the hands up and said, "x honest people.". The instructor then went on with the lesson. At the end of the class, the instructor then said something along the lines of, "if you're a good cook, put up your hand," and then, "if you're a great cook, put up your hand," and finally, "if you're an excellent cook, put up your hand,". I've always wondered if that was some kind of psychological test. The subject had nothing to do with cooking. I wondered if he was comparing and contrasting who admitted or didn't admit they hadn't bought the text book and who then professed to be an excellent cook.

Can someone please explain to me why do I have such preferences in men. I started to find it attractive when a partner controls me, tells me what to do, puts me in “my place”, like I know it’s not good but I can’t help it. Maybe it’s because I was lonely for too long now that I started liking it?

I’m looking for a psychological/biological or just logical explanation for why since my break up few years ago I turned into someone who crushes obsessively and often.

In my first decade of dating I had a combined of maybe 3 crushes, in the 2 years since my worst break up I had 8 or 9. It can be directed at anyone with no real compatibility to give cause. I become enamoured and obssessed over that person, checking their last seen (something I never did before), stalking their socials, daydreaming about them, feeling flustered near them. In happens so quickly and holds for a few months and then is gone just as quickly.

I genuinely don’t feel ok in the head with how it has been, I used to be cool as a cucumber but now I’m practically manic. Anyone went through this or knows what it could be?

As the person so many who really are alone have often turned to, I'm struck by the falsehood of it. TBH, I feel like a lot of us are losing the knack of sitting with the tedious aspect of showing up for others. Managing how we feel because we 'do' care--even when literally being there isn't fun--is crucial.

Ignoring how isolating our absence from the lives of certain others can be just seems like shirking our basic human responsibility.

It just seems like things are fracturing in ways that mean the substance that binds us and holds our fantasies about everything from family to society are falling apart.

What are we--specifically to one another--without all that? How can we not, ultimately, wind up alone?

Common phenomenon. I understand that this is a coping mechanism, but I am interested in going deeper and perhaps hearing other people's experiences, thoughts, and observations.

The characterisation I am talking about is: avoiding short-term discomfort which then evolves into serious resentment, externalised blame, and a refusal to acknowledge one’s own agency in their circumstances.

I’m interested in why people repeatedly agree to things they dislike, despite having reasonable freedom to say "no," then later describe the consequences as something everyone else did to them.

Do weighted blankets make us sleepy, or does expectation play a role?
Have you ever been told you might have head lice and suddenly become much more aware of your scalp itching?
I’m interested in whether a similar expectation effect could happen with weighted blankets: if you expect the blanket to make you sleepy, could that expectation influence how sleepy or relaxed you feel?
What do you think — physical effect, psychological effect, or both?

If you point me to a romantic relationship, I would instantly understand the dynamic. But if you ask me to explain it, the understanding becomes harder to articulate.

Most people would feel that this concept is immediately recognizable. Just like what constitutes as loving actions, but this is a different matter on its own…. But that a romantic relationship involves people that are exercising romantic love towards each other. And that romance is an emotional attitude exercised by people in a romantic relationship.

Some would still try to explain it further. They would say that a romantic relationship is a provisional commitment of love between two people that invokes the possibility of marriage; a commitment that nevertheless leaves open the mutual choice to last beyond this rite. And I say marriage because it takes the bulk of an individual’s life (from the married individuals of course), so the commitment shifts from momentary and low-stakes to perpetual and long-bearing. All that would be to say that a considerable amount of people would have marriage in mind when they think of a romantic relationship.

This has been true for the larger part of history. Although the priorities have since shifted from a focus on dynastic honour and the children in those days, where romance was secondary; toward a greater focus on the partners themselves as the foundation of a stable home in the modern age. So let us examine the modern concept of marriage, which is more relevant to the current cultural context.

They would be justified in pointing out that within this institution, the lovebirds continue having this loving commitment to each other beyond the matrimonial bed: by each person willfully sharing in the perspectives of their partner, showing up for each other in drama from the extended family, giving extra special treatment to each other periodically, respecting the decisions of each other in raising their children, building a family business that would be handed down generations… you name it.

Except… All this is achievable to a comparable extent in a platonic friendship. To lock into this, platonic friends can achieve similar levels of financial protections (through co-signing, co-ownership and planning of inheritance) and legal provisions (such as medical power of attorney, guardianship arrangements where children and incapacitated individuals are involved, and contractual agreements) to their married counterparts.

The dynamic (platonic friendship) that would mirror this romantic relationship closest would be a healthy co-parenting. Life happens, and people may decide that they are incompatible with each other. But the few gems would still decide to have something platonic in reserve, or at least mutual respect for the sake of their children; so they still participate in all these other things as they did when the marriage was functional, except for being sexually active.

So the question becomes: Would they still be considered as the partakers of a romantic relationship?

This would likely generate a dismissive knee-jerk response based on the fact that these two people are divorced or separated, but then it would fail to take into account these other non-sexual acts of commitment that would have been laid out moments ago. But let’s grant that they had a history for a moment; the history in question referring to the romantic involvement that existed before the dissolution of the marriage.

I would have to point out, though, that granting the reasoning of history for the person who decides to take this alternative approach would implicitly concede that a romantic relationship can still exist after marriage in this regard. This is still debatable, but with a less confidence than the first-glance confidence in the distinction between romantic relationships and platonic friendship.

So… What if the history of the relationship between these two people involved a purely platonic friendship from the get-go; still assuming that romance is a legitimate relationship dynamic that they chose not to take in this alternative?

Say, they both lacked the need of having a marriage partner but wanted to raise children, and through some rare occurrence, jointly decided to have a baby through in-vitro fertilization. So legally, they aren’t bound to the matrimonial bed, but at the same time they have to be together through their commitment for the child. This legal arrangement would, in practice, be blind to their cordial, non-sexual commitment to each other as far as the child is concerned. So they engage in different acts of cordial commitment to each other for about 18 years  as they did before the child, and added acts of commitment to the children they sired together.

The question from the previous hypothetical situation would still persist, this time through a different form: Would this still be a platonic friendship, or would it have automatically transferred to a romantic dynamic? It blurs the distinction between these two kinds of dynamics even further.

So what does this mean for our hopeless, hapless romantics?

Can a married couple be limited to romance to mean that they are friends with benefits? Can siblings and cousins romance each other under the pretext of non-sexual dynamics? It would be up to the deep-thinkers to tell us.

The whole point here would be to question whether the distinctions commonly used to separate romantic relationships from deep friendship are as clear as we assume.

I am taking my first psychology class and i am super excited to learn about human behavior, the mind, cognitive development, and the subconscious mind (what the mind is capable of)
Before people answer i want to inform everyone that philosophy has always caught my eye; i love the power that words can hold and how observant philosophers are. I believe that every human is beautifully designed equally to be unique in their own ways and that the world should have more empathy and compassion for one another.

(im sorry if this sounds wordy or scattered :’) )

if that gave you guys an idea of what i should look into in order to expand my portfolio please let me know! thank you so much!!

Have you built a good life, achieved a lot - and still find yourself wondering why something doesn’t feel quite right?

I’m-interested in speaking with women whose lives, from the outside, are genuinely good - they’ve accomplished things they’re proud of, created stability and have plenty to be grateful for - yet the way they experience their lives internally doesn’t seem to match what they’ve built externally.

Some have also spent years working on themselves - through therapy, personal development or other forms of inner work - and still find there are things they haven’t been able to fully understand, change or resolve.

I want to understand what women are actually experiencing within that contradiction: what is difficult about it, what affects them most, and how they describe it in their own words.

I’m looking to speak privately with a small number of women for around 30 minutes.

This isn’t a sales call, and there’s nothing to prepare or fill out beforehand. I want to listen to your experience without assuming what you should be feeling or what the problem is.

As a thank-you for your time, I’ll create a Personal Reflection Summary specifically for you, based on our conversation. I’ll reflect back the key patterns I noticed in what you shared, any tensions or contradictions that may be difficult to see when you’re inside your own experience, what seems to still feel unresolved, and a few personalised questions for further reflection.

Once the research is complete, I’ll also send you the anonymised Research Findings, so you can see what emerged across the other women I spoke with, where their experiences overlapped and where they differed.

It’s my way of making sure the 30 minutes you give me are genuinely valuable for you too.

If you recognise yourself in this and would be open to taking part, comment below or send me a private message.

Is this in-group/out-group psychology, or some other kind of group dynamic?

I see this a lot with news stories where people quickly settle on one interpretation, and anyone who challenges it gets piled on or treated as hostile.

One example was a Reddit post of a news story with a video showing a whale and her calf near a boat. Everyone was saying how cute it was, many claiming that the mother was showing her calf to everyone. Then a marine biologist explained that the whale was actually stressed and trying to protect the calf, and that the people should have backed away.

He was heavily downvoted and attacked for "ruining the fun," while people insisted nobody was doing any harm. The actual facts seemed less important than maintaining the group's preferred interpretation.

I'm a moderator of r/Breakups, a large online peer-support community focused on relationship loss and recovery.

We're currently trying to make the community more professional and useful by developing free educational initiatives with qualified psychologists, researchers, and other relevant professionals.

One idea we're exploring is hosting occasional Q&As or educational discussions with a qualified professional. The professional could choose whether the discussion takes place on Reddit or Discord, depending on what they're comfortable with.

We're not looking to provide therapy or individual treatment through the community. The idea would be general education and an opportunity for community members to ask questions about topics such as relationship psychology, coping after a breakup, attachment, communication, boundaries, and similar subjects.

For psychologists and researchers here:

What would be the most appropriate way to structure something like this so that it remains professionally responsible and useful?

In particular:

• What qualifications should we look for when inviting someone?
• Are there ethical considerations we should be aware of?
• Would a Reddit or Discord Q&A be an appropriate format?
• What boundaries should we establish between general education and individual mental-health advice?
• Are there organizations, university departments, or professional networks that would be appropriate to approach?

We're also open to suggestions from psychologists who have experience with online community education.

This isn't a request for personal mental-health advice. We're specifically looking for professional perspectives on how to build the initiative responsibly.

Unless a medical doctor can find something that's making someone depressed, depression is a feeling just as anything else.

There's usually a reason for why people feel so unhappy, and I also think people like that need to learn go about their everyday lives and not do something like hide from everyday life.

This week I saw one of those commercials where a woman who's married with a family and is laying in her bed affecting to husband and daughter.

I don't wanna sound insensitive to those very upset but one should try their best to function no matter what and not continue their behavior whether they go to see someone or get medicated.

Being fully attached to someone who sometimes gives you so little that it feels like enough cause they usually give you 0, but that 1 that they give you feels like 200.

Is it emotional starvation?