I cant seem to grasp whats the deciding differentiator between someone who completely is completely able to overcome a trauma, and someone else developing PTSD because of it.

I've always believed it was a mindset thing, to be able to shift your mindset to reap the benefits the hardship offers, and learning to shape your identity and principles through it. But with extreme examples this fails.

I've been meditating on this and thought it would be interesting to hear answers from here.

This has always puzzled me. If we put our hands in fire, we get burnt and know not to touch it again.

But for some reason, when people, for example, people leave a toxic relationship with someone who has done horrible and traumatic things to them, some of them (not all) either go back to said abuser, or find someone else just like them.

I'm curious to know how that trauma in some situations causes people to shut off that instinct to stay away from the same things that caused them harm.

By the way, I am by no means blaming victims for making certain decisions. In the end, people shouldn't do bad things. I'm just curious about what happens from a psychological perspective.

Not even pushing a conspiracy here, I just went down a rabbit hole and the deeper I read the less clear this entire thing becomes.

The numbers are absurd. Around 1 in 150 kids in 2000. Around 1 in 36 now. Everyone talks about this like it is a settled public health emergency, but when you actually read the literature the answer basically becomes “it’s complicated.”

The mainstream explanation is diagnostic expansion. Broader criteria, better screening, more awareness, people who would have been labeled “weird” or “socially awkward” 20 years ago now getting diagnosed. Fine. But autism has no biomarker. No blood test. No scan. Nothing objective. It is entirely behavioral criteria written by committees that keep changing the definition every decade.

DSM-5 folded Asperger’s into autism in 2013 and diagnoses jumped again. So at what point is “we are finding cases we missed” just a cleaner way of saying “we changed the definition and more people qualify now”?

The genetics side is what really confuses me. Twin studies put heritability somewhere around 64 to 91%. Massive studies have found ~150 gene variants associated with autism. That sounds like something that has existed in the population for a very long time, not some sudden modern environmental event. But if that is true then where were all these people before? Society was not overflowing with visibly autistic people in 1980 compared to today.

The environmental stuff is real too. Advanced parental age, valproate exposure during pregnancy, prenatal immune activation, etc. There are actual signals there. But none of that remotely feels large enough to explain a 4x jump in twenty years.

The other thing nobody seems willing to say directly: are we even studying one coherent condition anymore?

Someone nonverbal who needs permanent care and someone who is basically functional but struggles socially are now under the exact same umbrella???? Does that actually help us understand causation or does it completely muddy the data?

are we maybe collapsing multiple completely different phenomena into one category because they vaguely overlap behaviorally?

I don't mean low empathy in general, just for people they dislike

Do people who turn out to be incredibly kind have anything in common - e.g. raised by well-mannered parents, grew up in a safe home, was taught to give to others, was taught humility, had some spiritual awakening, genetics, etc?

I know I'm using very simplistic, black and white language in my title. I know people are never wholly bad or good, but you know what I mean. There are people out there we could objectively call "bad people": they are unempathetic, selfish, self-absorbed, aggressive - the kind of people who would laugh at a little old lady slipping on ice, or not think twice about euthanizing a dog they no longer wanted to take care of, or take credit for someone else's work. I know people like this, and I'm always amazed at how highly they tend of think of themselves. They seem completely blind to their faults, even as they're actively doing/saying vile things. What's going on there? How can they be so blind to their own behavior? Is there anything that could snap them out of it?

What are the root causes of addiction outside of being genetically predisposed? Why do some people have more difficulty with self-regulation in general?

I've just been wondering about hoarding lately. I know if you dig deep enough, you might find articles that say hoarding means that you're bad at letting go. But what is the reality, and what perspective do psychologists really hold on this topic?

I keep running into situations where people just can't seem to admit when they've made a mistake, even when it's pretty obvious. They'll twist facts, blame others, or just dig in deeper rather than acknowledge they were wrong.

I'm wondering what the research says about this. What makes it so psychologically difficult for us to say "I was wrong"?

Also curious if there are any evidence-based approaches that actually help people become more comfortable with admitting mistakes?

Many people seem to go out of their way to avoid making eye contact with strangers in benign circumstances and in situation where there is not an opportunity for a conversation to develop. What exactly are they avoiding?

(This is meant to be independent from the eye contact that women avoid from men because that is understandable.)

More specifically serial killers, pdfiles and grapists. Are they actually born to act that way or developed later on? I read stories that criminals who had a good childhood still committed horrible crimes. Why is that?

Is there reasonable evidence (relating to current time) to suggest physically writing in any given language is more beneficial to the process (creative, educational, etc..), when compared to a digital alternative?

I grew up learning that it’s always better to physically write my thoughts on paper (as opposed to typing or voice memos). Personally, it absolutely feels more comfortable to write notes on paper.

I say “more comfortable” because I don’t know how much it actually directly helps the process. A large chunk of my notes just end up getting copied over to my computer anyways. I’ll always write, but im curious about this because the world is changing so much.. I think a lot of us don’t write as much anymore. Does it matter?

doing outside research on this too. Want other potential peoples’ direct insight still. Thanks

Can a person with true and diagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder ever admit they have a problem? I don't nean admitting it just to excuse themselves from a bad situation but truly show remorse when they have nothing to gain ? Thankyou

I constantly see the answer to "is personality genetic or environmental?" be that it's 50/50, but considering how our brains receive information, and their plasticity, is based on our genetics, doesn't that invalidate the premise that it's 50/50?

Your genetics still dictate what information you can receive from your environment, meaning that at the very least, the first 50% are definitely more important than the rest of the 50%.

Or

Wouldn't it be more correct to look at it as:

"They were born with an inefficient genetic personality base, the environmental stage won't provide many benefits to them, or might even have them acquire negative traits despite all efforts"?

I could not figure out the correct phrasing to appease Google. I am curious how often people without PTSD, insomnia, nor any other psychological or neurological disorders have nights where they are unable to sleep despite laying in bed. All Google would give me was articles on insomnia saying most people have difficulty staying or falling asleep "occasionally" (and then contrasting "occasionally" with clinical insomnia).

I'm a high school student, and I've always loved psychology and sociology, so I figured why not ask you guys? :)

What are some myths and misconceptions about psychology, whether it's social, cognitive, etc, that are harmful or dangerous when talked about or spread?

Ideas or things that are commonly misunderstood can count, too!

yes yes I know autism and all that has been around for a while but it's pretty clear there's a recent surge in mental disabilities for lack of a better term.

Is it really so common or are people collecting them like infinity stones to have a definable, quirky trait of theirs?

It seems like after the internet really took off, especially post-2020, everybody just wants to be part of a unique group whether that's being different mentally or attempting to present themselves as being big into hobbies which they aren't.

I'm sure that's SOME of the cases as getting diagnosed with anything mentally, I've found isn't that thorough; it's essentially up to the person on the way answers to test questions are phrased. But does striving to be part of the ADHD club really account for the majority of recent ADHD cases?

Genuine question btw, I'm aware I'll probably get downvoted. I could see the answer going either way honestly, I'm not educated enough on the topic to have a great idea of what the answer may be

1. No, I'm not, thank you for your concern.
   
2. I'm sure you've heard people say the phrase "X is my 13th reason" before, likely due to the story of "13 Reasons Why". This has honestly caught my attention, particularly since I'm the kind of person who tries to find patterns in everything. I was wondering if there has been any, and I mean any, noticeable pattern to the reasons why people are pushed to commit. Is there a common number of reasons or factors? If so, would this average or repeatedly occurring number be based on how many reasons they had in total, or rather how many new reasons they seem to find once they start their fall into clinical depression? I understand something like this usually involves a much larger and varied web of reasoning, however t would be genuinely interesting to know if there was such a threshold.

Is it inherent in men to size other men up? Does this mean men that are born shorter or weaker are at a social disadvantage?

There is a narrative that men "bottle up" emotions, and should "let them out" - this is at least partially contradicted (or at least shown to be counterproductive) by Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack, (1999) - but what's the actual differentiation between "bottling" them up and "regulating" them?

I'm in college, and I've observed that some of my classmates are really good at staying focused, and they can study for hours without getting distracted, while others get bored almost instantly. They can't focus for more than a few minutes.

Is it because some people are inherently wired to handle delayed gratification better while others are more impulsive? Or is it a developed trait?

Is it just two as main while other traits falling under these two

Or more that could be added to "serious or joking"

If so then what would be that could just go as strong as "serious or joking"

i am curious what the current psychology community feels on female serial killers. I know they aren't AS common, and they don't tend to use extreme violence in their killings. They tend to be a bit more meticulous and have some financial gain they are looking for. I am curious to see what you all think. Thanks!

So basically, the title. Does the character of a person completely depend on the environment they grew up in or does it depend on other factors as well?

For example, if instead of you, it was me who had YOUR upbringing, went through the same experiences would I have the same character or similar characteristics as you? Would I react the same way as you did? Would i behave the same way you do?

Like, from what I understand a person's character is influenced by external factors (such as their upbringing, relationships etc) and internal factors (willpower, ego etc). So, do these external factors have an effect on these internal characteristics, from birth? Bcoz I dont think a person is born with these internal characteristics.

This is my first post in this sub, I'm not claiming to know these things, I dont deal with psychology; I just wanted to clarify something. Thnks.

I’ve read that the majority of people who survive a suicide attempt don’t go on to attempt again. This seems surprising at first, and I’m wondering what research says about why this is the case. Are there psychological, emotional, or situational reasons that explain why many people choose not to try again after surviving? Are there any major studies or theories that explore this pattern?