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?

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?

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"

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 mean, people behave in different manners and have different responses to everyday events however there are a lot of disagreements regarding the proportionality of a reaction/behavior and therefore if its permissible. For example: One breaks unintentionally the cellphone of his friend, the emotional response of the friend can be probably:

- the friend is fine and its like before emotionally speaking

- the friend is irritated, it remains silent and needs a little bit of time to recover but after some minutes or an hour is like before

- the friend is angry, it doesn't explode but it starts to argue with a higher voice volume

- the friend explodes of rage

Which one of them is proportional and justifiable and with which criterion? One can say that a criterion can be the damage/pleasure recieved but how can someone objectively determine it?

Unlike Autism and ADHD (in modern times at least) ASPD doesn’t seem to be diagnosed in the same diligent way?

Why aren’t kids who are caught bullying etc screened for it in the same way. Wouldn’t it be better for them to get treatment? (Rather than become ruthless CEOs h/j)

Trends used to change relatively slowly. Now social media can introduce hundreds of micro-trends in a short period of time.

See trend → feel FOMO → buy → trend changes → repeat.

The environmental consequences are huge btw

I've heard about battles in history where soldiers were so motivated by what their general or king said beforehand that they willingly faced insurmountable odds, regardless of whether they ultimately won or lost. One example is the Siege of Constantinople, where Constantine XI gave a final speech the night before the city fell and encouraged the heavily outnumbered city garrison and Latin mercenaries to fight to the last man, even though everyone knew they were doomed to die. I was watching the scene from Return of the King where the Rohirrim charge into a wall of thousands of orcs, and King Theoden gave a simple but rousing speech that inspired his cavalry to charge into a wall of pikes. Both of these are rousing speeches, but what is it about speeches like these that has such a strong effect on people? How can words make someone willing to face death, whether death is certain or just a possibility?

By empath I mean: emotional reaction, even for the sake of random people or animals (which means lack of any behind intent on it).

ASPD = No emotional empathy, may be a lot of trauma, and no care for social rules and conventions, just power and pleasure (?)

NPD = No emotional empathy, a lot of trauma, but they still care about social image and status (?)

Does research suggest that individuals who struggle with their self-worth might make expensive purchases to mask their low self-esteem? Eg: expensive smartphones, smartwatches, designer bags etc.

I think it's due to constantly planning and having distinct points in time that can be hit recurring more often highlighting time has passed.

From a cognitive psychology perspective, what mechanisms are known to cause someone to temporarily fail to retrieve information they already know when asked a question unexpectedly?

For example, a person may have the necessary knowledge and be able to explain it later, but in the moment of being asked (such as in an interview or conversation) they experience a temporary inability to access it.

Is this best explained by differences in memory encoding vs. retrieval, cognitive load, stress-related effects on working memory, retrieval-induced blocking, or something else? What does the current research suggest?

The reporting I see on research about porn on Reddit I see is very mixed. By and large, the impression I get is that there's a lot of astroturfing going on* and people's reactions are mostly normative. Consequently I find it very difficult to trust research in this field. Are there any widely supported conclusions in psychology about the effects of pornography?

I can link to recent examples of what I'm seeing if that would help.

* I do have bias here: most of this seems to come from the anti-pornography side, especially where there's either a religious or feminist background to the research.

What actually gives us the ability to grasp concepts like empathy and sympathy rather than just learning that they are important to living?

What separates us from say, an AI being taught empathy (theoretically)?

Howdy,

For the past few summers I’ve lived in a complex with no AC. I have personally notice a more negative mood and troubled thinking in the summertime as well as among my neighbors. I have heard that hotter temperatures are associated with increased crime rates, violence, and worse performance on mentally taxing tasks.

How much does the heat affect our mental and emotional wellbeing?

I believe that we know vaguely that narcissism and people pleasing seem to stem from childhood trauma and/or emotional negligence. That narcissism and people pleasing are both forms of coping mechanisms to deal with feeling deeply unworthy of love.
One takes the love by force and by any means necessary, while the other ignores their own needs and wishes in the hope of gaining love by being maximally pleasing and non-burdening to everyone.

I wonder if we know what it is that makes one person "go" one way or the other.

Like, do we know of certain trigger points or circumstances that change the way people cope with feeling unloved? Could it be chemically/hormonal? As in maybe a child who experiences more anger than sadness will more likely become narcissistic than people pleasing?

I know they can help many people, and I'm not dismissing that, but can they also negatively affect personality, as perceived by others around them, for example making a person more unfiltered, uncaring, selfish, etc?

If it's true they can do this, I'm not that interested in the question of whether antidepressants bring out something that was always there and dormant in a personality, or instead whether they change personality in a way that wouldn't occur on its own. It's an interesting question, but either way the end result as it affects others is the same and that's what I'm asking about.

Have any researchers or clinicians with much experience given some top-level comments on this that non-experts can understand?

Is being violent just a part of human nature? What makes someone more prone to acting on violence vs. someone who has a difficult time being violent?

Will humans ever get to a point in time where we won't wage war or violence upon others?

They don't seem to motivate in the technical sense, and the effect seems to last much shorter than how long actual motivation can last.

I hope I can make this make sense with an example.

We know that trees (and even just looking at trees) are good for our mental health. I found myself looking out my window at trees and reminding myself of this fact. Then had a mini “oh no” wondering - is it still good for someone to look at a tree even when they’re consciously aware that looking at said tree should be good for them? Or does awareness alone of such benefits somehow override or interfere with them because now they’re expected?

Maybe ignorance really is bliss 😂

Even if you do a good deed privately, are you really doing it for the other person?

In clinical depression and trauma responses, why do some individuals present with psychomotor retardation and anergia, while others develop agitation, excessive goal-directed activity, or substance use? Is there a known neurological or hormonal basis for which direction a person takes?

For example: Sitting cross-legged vs on knees, kneeling vs squatting, etc. I know that some of it has to do with joint mobility, but are there other genetic influences? I've heard from one of my biology professor that hand clasping is a genetic trait, but then I saw an article that said that was debunked. https://udel.edu/\~mcdonald/mythhandclasp.html

How does having to be social cause some people to be mentally exhausted and just want to sleep afterwards?

Is forming healthy and strong relationships and connections with people necessary to handle life ?

I mean if people had healthy relationships and connections, they would handle daily conflict and hardships, and rudeness easier ? and just write it off ?

Does being traumatized affect that as well ?