I previously talked about how scores on an IQ test are developed, and what they mean mathematically. Now, I’ll look at what they can mean for individuals.
IQ scores can be seen as the mind equivalent of BMI scores. Although both numbers can provide useful information when averaged across large groups, they shouldn’t be used to directly compare individuals, or used to sum up a person in one statistic. BMI can be helpful for an average-height and middling-framed Western person, but it is near-useless for athletes, who will often score as overweight or obese due to their increased muscle mass. Similarly, IQ measurements may be an accurate representation for a neurotypical person who is familiar with Western education systems and standardized testing. But they are not an accurate summation for people with neurodevelopmental disorders, or people who aren’t used to standardised tests and solving problems in a room with a stranger.
3) IQ tests cannot always measure someone’s ability accurately. Health conditions and neurological differences result in people having uneven patterns of ability, which confuse IQ tests.
The Intelligence Quotient- or IQ- is one of the most popular subjects in psychology. Yet despite us often using IQ as a shorthand for intelligence, and even using it to define others, misconceptions about IQ are often louder than explanations.
So how do IQ tests work, and what does an IQ score mean?
1) An IQ test does not directly measure your ability. It uses maths to estimate your ability in relation to other people.
When I was a psychology student and in my “learn everything about Christianity” phase, I discovered a book called “The Integration of Psychology and Theology”. Then I forgot to ever read it. By the time I eventually started reading the book, it logically shouldn’t have meant anything to me. But I found value in how the book was written and how it approached both topics.
Integration… does exactly what you would expect; it talks about why people perceive conflicts between psychology and theology, and whether these conflicts can be overcome. It was written by the Rosemead School of Psychology, an APA-accredited University which aims “to train clinical psychologists from a Christian perspective”. The book lays out four potential ways in which someone can view psychology and theology:
- Psychology and theology are in direct and irreconcilable conflict, so one must eventually override the other.
- Both fields appear to have common ground because psychology is a subset of theology.
- Psychology and theology are like two trains on separate tracks, which don’t need to interact or to confront each other.
- Psychology and theology are separately valuable fields which have the potential to work together based on their underlying principles (This is the book’s main argument).
The final personality disorder in the current diagnostic system is Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). First, I’ll explain why OCPD is not the same as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD).
In OCD, someone’s obsessions and compulsions are entirely subjective, and individual to them. While the person knows their obsessions and fears are irrational, they feel forced to listen to those fears. At the core of OCD are ingrained if-then loops: if the person does not listen to those fears, something bad will happen to them or people they care about. If the person carries out their compulsions – either activities or rituals of specific thoughts – then they have briefly stopped those negative things from happening
As a stereotypical example, consider a person with OCD whose particular obsession and compulsion centres on locking doors. The person may need to spend an hour checking that every door in their house is locked before leaving, to prevent the overwhelming consequences of leaving one unlocked. However, they will not think differently of their family members for being able to leave after checking once. They may envy their family for being free from that worry and may feel guilty over how the time spent checking intrudes upon other family members.
In OCPD, the person’s rules and beliefs are not subjective and personal. They see their rules and methods as “objectively” correct, regardless of how complex, rigid or time consuming their approach may appear to others. Someone with OCPD who had specific rules about the correct location of every item in their house would require everyone else to abide by those rules exactly. If a housemate wanted to do things differently, the person with OCPD would see them as incorrect, illogical, or even morally wrong.
Dependent Personality Disorder was introduced in the first version of the DSM in 1952. Originally, it was seen as a subtype of an now-unused condition named “Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder”, but it was quickly changed to being a separate condition.
The core symptom of DPD is a person’s belief that they are unable to function independently. A person with DPD is compelled to rely excessively on either one person (often a significant other) or multiple people (such as a close group of friends) to help them navigate most or all parts of their life. This reliance is not out of laziness, nor a wish to delegate responsibility. Instead, it is to escape a primal fear of inability. A person with DPD sees the world as a cold, dangerous place, and usually believes that they are deficient and unable to survive on their own. Therefore, they will seek out others who they view as stronger and more capable to help them navigate through life. They are terrified of losing that support or angering their support network, as they believe they cannot function alone.
The DSM-5 describes DPD as a pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of, which leads to submissive and clinging behaviour and fears of separation. To be diagnosed with DPD, someone needs to have at least 5 of these criteria:
- They have difficulty making everyday decisions without excessive advice and reassurance from others
- They need others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his or her life
- They struggle to disagree with others because they fear a loss of support or approval.
- They have difficulty initiating projects or doing things on their own. because they lack self-confidence in their own judgment or abilities (Not because of lacking motivation/energy etc)
- They go to extremes to get nurture and support from others, even to the point of volunteering for uncomfortable or dangerous situations
- They feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone, as they are convinced they cannot care for themselves
- They must urgently seek out new relationships to provide care and support when a relationship ends
- They are unrealistically preoccupied with fears about being left to take care of themself alone
Today we move on to the Cluster C personality disorders, which are known as the “anxious” or “fearful” disorders. The first of these is Avoidant Personality Disorder (AvPD).
In 1911, Swiss psychiatrist Bleuler wrote about people who shied away from most social contact and activities. Bleuler is better-known for coining the words schizophrenia and schizoid, and he interpreted people’s avoidance through that lens; he assumed severe social avoidance was part of an unnoticed type of schizophrenia. However, this opinion was not widely accepted, and within ten years others described severe social avoidance as a separate condition.
AvPD is leagues beyond being shy and introverted. Instead, it is a deep-rooted and severe fear of rejection and criticism which impacts almost every aspect of a person’s life. While someone with AvPD will want to connect with and develop friendships with others, their fear of being criticised and disapproved of can be so painful that they are unable to take part in social activities. Their self-loathing and feelings of inferiority may be so strong that they assume others would not want to interact with them. As a result, they often interpret neutral statements as containing hidden rejections or reminders of their perceived social inability, which reinforces their perception of being socially inadequate.
The DSM-5 describes AvPD as a widespread pattern of being inhibited around people, feeling inadequate, and being very sensitive to any negative judgements. To be diagnosed with AvPD, someone must meet 4 of these criteria:
- They avoid occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal contact because they fear criticism, disapproval, or rejection.
- They are unwilling to get involved with people unless they can be certain of being liked.
- They show restraint within close relationships because of the fear of being shamed or ridiculed
- They are preoccupied with being criticized or rejected in social situations.
- They are inhibited in new social situations because they feel inadequate
- They seem themselves as socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to others
- They are unusually reluctant to take personal risks or to engage in new activities in case they embarass themseleves.
Today’s topic, Borderline Personality Disorder, is perhaps the third most argued-about psychiatric disorder (with first and second place going to Dissociative Identity Disorder and ADHD/ADD).
One of the many contentious points is its name. When the DSM was first developed during the 1950s, psychiatrists divided mental health issues into “neurotic” and “psychotic”. People with “neurotic” illnesses were in distress but still aware of reality and that they were ill, while people with “psychotic” illnesses were detached from reality and often unaware that they were ill. Borderline personality disorder received its name because psychiatrists saw the symptoms as being on the border of both categories. However, that method of categorising mental health conditions is no longer used, so “borderline” now doesn’t mean anything. It can also be actively unhelpful, because people can assume it means that someone is on the border of having a mental health condition and not having one. The ICD-10 instead uses the name “Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder”, which better reflects the condition’s core symptom.
A person with EUPD experiences much more intense and changeable emotions than a typical person, and the overwhelming nature of those emotions underpins the other EUPD symptoms. To be diagnosed with EUPD in the DSM-5, someone must meet 5 of the 9 criteria:
The term “Narcissism” comes from the Greek myth of Narkissos, a demigod famed for his beauty. Although everybody admired Narkissos, he scorned and rejected everyone who loved him. Eventually Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, led Narkissos to a pool of water where he fell in love with the image he saw. When Narkissos realised the image was himself, and understood that he could never love anyone else in the same way, he died.
Psychologists first used the word narcissism to mean vanity and self-admiration. Now, people often call an arrogant or over-confident person a narcissist. But the disorder covers far more areas than vanity or confidence. The DSM-5 describes Narcissistic PD as a pattern of having an unrealistic sense of greatness or uniqueness, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. The person needs to have at least 5 of the following criteria:
- They have a grandiose sense of self-importance. They exaggerate their achievements and talents, and they expect to be recognized as superior without reason.
- They are preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, or beauty, or of ideal love.
- They believe they are “special” and unique, and that they can only be understood by other special, high-status people.
- They require excessive admiration.
- They have a sense of entitlement. They expect especially favourable treatment or automatic obedience to their expectations.
- They take advantage of others to achieve their own goals.
- They lack empathy and are unwilling to recognize or identify others’ feelings and needs.
- They are envious of others, and believe others are envious of them.
- They are arrogant and haughty to others.
The word histrionic comes from the Latin word “histrio”, which means both “actor” and “excessively dramatic or emotional”. People with HPD struggle to be genuinely intimate in relationships, so often maintain relationships through acting out a role. Yet they are skilled at setting up situations which force specific emotions from others, often by using their appearance to attract others. Their reliance on seduction can generate many shallow friendships but spark distrust from longer-term friends or partners.
In the DSM-5 Histrionic Personality Disorder is a long-term pattern of being excessively emotional, dramatic, and attention-seeking, which is true across multiple areas of life. To be diagnosed with HPD, a person must meet 5 or more of these criteria:
- They are uncomfortable whenever they are not the center of attention
- They use inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior to interact with others
- They express rapidly shifting and shallow emotions
- They consistently use their physical appearance to draw attention
- They speak in an excessively impressionistic way which lacks detail
- They are dramatic and theatrical, showing exaggerated expressions of emotion
- They are suggestible – easily influenced by others or circumstances
- considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are Continue reading
Today we move on to the Cluster B disorders, which are known as the “dramatic” or “erratic” disorders. The first of these is Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD).
The stereotypical understanding of ASPD is of a criminal with little-to-no empathy or regard for others; someone who will break things and break people “just because they can”. While elements of that are true for some people with ASPD, this stereotype is more influenced by sensationalism and crime-based media than reality.
In the DSM-5, ASPD is considered to be a long-term pattern of disregard for and violation of other people’s rights, which has occurred since the age of 15. To be diagnosed with ASPD, someone must meet at least three of these criteria:
Previously, I talked about the relationship between schizophrenia, Schizoid PD (SPD) and Schizotypal PD (SzPD). Continuing on from that, today’s topic is SzPD.
Schizotypal PD (SzPD) overlaps with some symptoms of schizophrenia, such as disordered thoughts and perceptions. However, someone with SzPD will not experience reduced motivation or catatonia, and they will have fewer difficulties in thinking and working than someone with schizophrenia. Instead, many SzPD symptoms link back to social situations and social performance. While people with SzPD desire social interaction, they are often anxious in social situations regardless of who they are with. Delusional or paranoid beliefs, such as that others can hear their thoughts, may be behind their anxiety. Alternately, their anxiety may be from the pressure of communicating with minds which work on very different wavelengths to their own.
The DSM-5 describes SzPD as a long-term pattern of being uncomfortable with and unsuccessful at maintaining close relationships, as well as experiencing distorted thoughts and perceptions and odd behaviors. To be diagnosed with SzPD, someone must meet 5 of the following criteria:
Today’s topic is Schizoid Personality Disorder, and the first step with this one is explaining why both a Schizoid and a Schizotypal PD exist. Both names are derived from the Greek prefix skhizein, which means “split”. They are both part of the schizophrenia spectrum, and they are more common in people who have relatives with schizophrenia. However, their symptoms oppose each other.
A common way to explain symptoms of schizophrenia is by sorting them into “positive” and “negative”. Positive symptoms refer to when something atypical is added, such as when a person experiences hallucinations or delusions. Negative symptoms refer to when something typical is lost, such as when a person is unable to feel happy or unable to motivate themselves. (Think of positive and negative as representing plus and minus, rather than good and bad).
Schizotypal PD (SzPD) lies inbetween a personality disorder and a schizophrenic disorder, as some people who have SzPD later develop schizophrenia while others only ever have SzPD. SzPD includes many positive symptoms of schizophrenia, including disordered thoughts, disordered speech, and near-psychotic experiences. However, it doesn’t feature any negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
Schizoid PD (SPD), in contrast, is solely a personality disorder. Its diagnostic criteria include many negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but none of the positive symptoms. To be diagnosed with Schizoid PD, a person needs to meet 4 of these criteria:
- They are emotionally cold and detached, and do not seem to experience strong emotions.
- They do not often express emotions towards others or react strongly to others.
- They consistently prefer to work alone and have solitary hobbies.
- They have few or no close friends or relationships (due to not wanting them rather than anxiety or fear).
- They don’t care about being praised or criticised.
- They find few or no activities pleasurable.
- They are indifferent to social norms and conventions.
- They are preoccupied with fantasy and introspection; they may seem “in their own world” or absent-minded.
- They do not desire or care about having sexual experiences with another person.
The first in the series of personality disoders is Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD). Although experiencing paranoia in a stressful situation is common, PPD refers to a much bigger idea; a permanent fear that someone or something is trying to cause you harm, and that you are in almost-constant danger.
A person with PPD will treat every experience, however neutral or friendly, as a personal attack and a sign of their “put-upon” status. They will feel like they always need to be on guard to defend themselves. Someone with PPD will struggle to trustanything, as they fear (or expect) that everything in their world could be revealed as a lie or trick at any moment. This uncertainty may drive someone with PPD towards anger and constant arguments with other people, who they assume are lying or hiding information. Alternately, the person may isolate themselves from the world and from others so they cannot be decieved.
To be diagnosed with PPD in the DSM-5, someone must meet 4 of these criteria;
The study of psychological differences and “abnormal” behaviour has received more public attention than many other branches of psychology, but this attention isn’t always beneficial. “Abnormal” behaviour – is associated with sensationalist news headlines more than sensible conversation. As a result, people often know about psychological through their portrayals in mass media, rather than from factual explanations.
Of the many psychological differences, the category of personality disorders is most frequently misunderstood. The individual personality disorders (PDs) are often mis-represented, while the idea of a “disordered personality” sparks criticism from anti-psychiatry groups and people diagnosed with PDs.
So what are PDs, and what do they mean by “personality”?
Currently, personality disorders are defined as groups of traits, experiences and behaviours that are significantly different from the majority of people; that affect someone’s thinking, emotions and impulses; and are associated with personal distress and dysfunction. These general criteria needs to be met for any PD diagnosis.
So to be diagnosed with a PD, someone needs to have a collection of unusal behaviours and traits which affects a large portion of their everyday life. Those behaviours and traits must start before early adulthood. They need to cause negative consequences for the person, who should be upset by or annoyed at those behaviours. The name “personality disorder” attempts to represent how far-reaching and impactful those behaviours and experiences are upon almost every aspect of the person’s understanding of themselves and their ability to relate to others.
On the way to work, you stop for your usual coffee. As you walk through the door, 20,000 cups of coffee are laid out all across the room, covering the floor and tables. Somehow, you need to choose the one you’ll like best.
Tasting all 20,000 is impossible. So after trying a few, picking your favourite, and going on to work, you may not feel too satisfied with your chosen coffee. With so many options, there’s no way to know you chose the best- the very next cup could have been even better. (20,000 sounds absurdly large, but that’s fewer options than some big-name shops offer.)
During the day there are only more choices and decisions to make; from the best way to get your work done, to meetings, to the quickest way home. By the end of the day there probably isn’t much room left for thinking about anything difficult, such as starting that project you’ve been putting off or resisting the cake in the cupboard.
Although we hate not being able to make our own choices, it turns out that having too much choice is just as much of a problem. Making choices, major or minor, drains us. It leaves us less able to resist impulses or see through illogical options. Psychologists sensibly call this decision fatigue.
Right now, conversations about “fake news” are everywhere. Between debates about Facebook’s role in creating and promoting “fake news”, websites promising to fix or block fake providers, and the Trump administration shouting “fake news” at every opportunity possible, there’s a cloud of confusion around the idea.
But what actually is fake news? One thing is for sure – fake news was not born in 2016. It is not a sudden intrusion into the media world, and to treat it as such masks its history and context.
A few weeks ago, I said about getting to explore scicomm on YouTube in a uni assignment. Now that I’ve got it finished, marked, and out of the way, here’s the story.
The assignment was a content analysis- which means an attempt to interpret media such as writing, speech or video into quantifiable data to analyse it. I decided to try using YouTube videos as my medium, rather than newspapers, and my topic was how YouTube creators represented psychology in videos. Thanks to undergrad, and previous videos I’d seen, I had some ideas of what to expect, so those ideas were the start of my research questions. Also, there’s so little research yet in this kind of area that I could end up finding anything- that unexpectedness made this topic appealing.
Have some bonus XP for reaching the second stage of the series! You are now Level 2.
The game of the day here is Mafia City, a business management game created by 68games. In Mafia City, the aim is to create a Mafia character and grow from a petty criminal to a master of the city.
The campaign of MC didn’t get off to the best start for me, as it initially consisted of a lot of handholding. Single-action commands, bright flashy “click here” arrows, continual rewards, you name it. My main reason for continuing in the campaign was the sense of achievement I got from succeeding at the practically failure-proof early missions, which produced so much XP that I reached level 20 on my second day.
For completing the first paragraph, you receive 50XP.
Photo courtesy of http://www.wpcentral.com
Time for some cross-disciplinary nerdiness today! And also for the next few weeks, as today is the beginning of series on the mechanics, and psychology of freemium games.
Before we begin, I’ll explain some of the terms I’ll need to use in the series:
Freemium: a business model where the basic product is provided for free, but upgrades and customisation is charged.
Mechanics: the separate working components of how exactly button presses are translated into action and gameplay, that fit together in a game. For example, the speed at which characters run, the delay between pressing an attack button and starting the attack, or the radius of where a sword swing will connect with an opponent, are all choices of mechanics.
During uni, a lot of focus is put on the ability to think critically, evaluate research, and work out how best to psychologically study the world…apparently. In all honesty, while evaluating results and testing methods is strictly marked, a student could easily coast through the entire three years without putting any deep thought into research participants and their dynamics.
When evaluating research, it’s easy to make superficial criticisms of the study based on one factor. This study uses only males? It’s androcentric. Only females? It’s gynocentric (and rare). Only Americans? It’s ethnocentric.
Beyond that most salient factor, however, that’s it for thinking about participants. And I’m questioning whether that is a form of prejudice or dehumanisation in a way: all we’re doing is reducing a group of complex individuals down to one factor, and claiming that one factor can explain their performance in the study. Continue reading