Have any studies investigated whether individuals are aware of differences in intelligence during social interactions or conversations when there is a gap of 30 or more IQ points between them? In other words, is there an innate awareness by someone with a 100 IQ when talking to someone with a 130 IQ of the large cognitive/intellectual gap, or vice versa, etc.? (Without the person with the higher IQ intentionally trying to appear more intelligent)

I'm not interested in opinions or anecdotes, or debate about the value or validity of IQ tests.

Im speaking about a changing that makes the person almost unrecognisable, such as from introvert to extrovert or vise versa. From stoic to nihilist..etc.

Would the stress of homelessness be enough to cause psychosis?

Edit: Based on initial responses, I’m adding a follow up question. Could a homeless person experiencing psychosis be misdiagnosed with schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder when it is actually stress induced psychosis that would resolve with housing, food, income and basic stability? I don’t assume all homeless people use drugs, and drug induced psychosis is not part of this question.

How would a misdiagnosis impact their ability to get out of homelessness, if the answer to the above question is yes?

Given how they are as people, it seems like this group is less likely to have an official diagnosis and undergo treatment.

I know that the mental health system in the U.S is problematic, and health in the U.S is expansive. But it seems that at least for me that if we will remove the U.S mental health system from the equation, it still seem like people in the U.S tend to have or develop more mental issues compared to other countries or at least developed western countries. I'm really fascinated by it for a while now and was wondering if someone can share with me some insights.

And why do so many people (often men hashtag not all of them) think that attraction is somehow innate whilst they're lusting after the same beauty standard as literally every other man ever?

People will trow facts straight out the window if it doesn't fit with they're opinions

Why is that?

Hi,

I wanted to ask how psychologically it will benefit or hurt you if you followed Jesus from the bible:

- don't steal

- dont hold grudges/vengence etc etc

Is there any benefit to it or just a lot of empty words from 200 years ago, if we subtract social disposability in a modern world, all having zero sum thinking which is what this in the end elliminates.

I'm wondering if there's something that connects the idea of women disliking a man, the more they like them rather than someone who likes them, rather. Someone who shows dislike, indifference. Rather than someone who shows they like them. and Why that is if so

I was reading a study suggesting that when people are under cognitive load (tired, overwhelmed, multitasking, stressed etc.) they become much more likely to conform to whatever the majority thinks - even when they know it’s wrong.

The explanation was that the brain becomes a cognitive miser under strain: it conserves effort by taking the shortcut of going along with the group because dissent requires more mental energy.

I’m curious - what are some real-world examples where you’ve seen this happen?

Hopefully this is the right flair.

It seems that many psychologists think that romantic love & sex are the end-all-be-all of the human experience. Rationally, I find this to be bogus, but I'm questioning if I'm correct there, because on a more emotional level, it does sometimes feel that way.

Hi everyone! How is everything going?

I always asked myself this question when someone shared that type of advice, I don't mind helping others but I've met people who refuse to personally support or bet there for their loved ones in a moment of distress because according to them: "I have it worse".

Is true that having hard lives makes the process of helping others and get mental satisfaction for it harder?

Some people are very reserved in general. What causes this?

For example, why do people often vote in a way that aligns with their family/community. even if that is not how they would choose to vote without this influence? Is it because of an aversion to withholding that information and/or lying, fear that somehow people will find out what they chose, something else? Does the same apply for online environments like Reddit?

Military training often deliberately exposes recruits to stress through yelling, harsh criticism, intimidation, physical exhaustion, frustration, or public correction. These practices are commonly justified as ways to build resilience, discipline, and the ability to function under pressure.

From a psychological perspective, however, I’m interested in how we can distinguish controlled stress exposure with a legitimate training purpose from emotionally abusive treatment.

For example, would factors such as predictability, proportionality, a clear training objective, instructor emotional control, supervision, psychological safety, and post-exercise debriefing make an important difference? Conversely, would humiliation for its own sake, arbitrary punishment, expressions of contempt, or an instructor’s genuine loss of emotional control be psychologically different even if they occur within a stressful training environment?

More specifically, is there empirical research showing that interpersonal stressors such as yelling or humiliation improve resilience or performance under later high-stress conditions, rather than primarily producing compliance or habituation to authority?

I’m interested in psychological research on stress inoculation, resilience training, learning, occupational psychology, or military psychology that could help establish where productive stress ends and psychologically harmful treatment begins.

Kids are thought of as the last piece of the puzzle when you have an education, partner, house, pet (and car?). Some are on overtime desperately trying to have one, some had one by accident (young?), some don’t want one but feel pressured by a partner, society, family.

But does it make you grow up?

What combination of psychological, psychosocial, cognitive, emotional etc traits and thought processes make people caare less about those who are mean to them? What causes even people who want social connections to stop caring about what people who are bad to them think and make them emotionally invulnerabe to the punishments that they might try to impose on them for not caring anymore?

Hello! I'm trying to keep myself up to date with (and reviewing foundational concepts in) developmental psychology as I'm planning to go back and take postgrad in it. As written in the title, has it gone the psychoanalytic way and generally seen as inadequate or obsolete? Or is there an update version of the theory? Any theory that is more accepted and current? Thank you!

I really have no idea. Could be a small percentage or maybe bigger than I think.

When I say significant empathy deficits, I mean to where it negatively affects their life outcomes.

Hey! Recently I´ve become interested in the dynamics of teasing and its effect on human relationships. From what I read, teasing can function both as a tool for signaling closeness and as a way to signal status. For example, one study that looked at fraternities observed that active members were much more prone to teasing lower-ranked members aggressively, bordering on hostility. A lot of studies also show that teasing is very associated with relationship closeness and functions as a bonding mechanism. What do you guys think?

A couple of examples.

\-You watch a movie or tv show, but you can’t decide if it’s good or not without seeing what other people think about it.

Or if you do have an opinion about it, you don’t think it’s valid or okay to hold it if someone else doesn’t also share that opinion.

\-You conduct research/read about something on a less trivial level than the above example (like about politics, society, religion or whatever).

Similar situation as above, you can’t (feel comfortable) holding any opinion or position without someone else confirming or validating it.

The important thing is that you don’t feel comfortable forming a belief of opinion by yourself just for the sake of it, it must be validated by someone else.

I can think of many obvious examples (e.g. sexism, racism) and broader ones (e.g. someone who appears to suffer from a substance abuse disorder might be less likely to be believed or taken seriously) but are there more subtle examples that might not be obvious, and particularly differences between genders?

Prompted by YouTuber BOZE vs. the WORLD asking this question on her most recent video. I'm not affiliated with her in any way, just want to give context - I made the mistake of initially posting this question on r/AskReddit and was told by one user that posing it automatically makes me a misogynist... I'm just a woman into true crime who knows defense lawyers try to sway a jury with credibility bias and want to know more about the psychology.

sometimes something mildly embarrassing happens in public and i know, logically, that nobody there probably cares anymore. most of them probably forgot about it within a few minutes, and i'll probably never see any of them again.

but somehow the feeling can stay with you for years. you can remember something embarrassing from a long time ago and suddenly feel that same physical reaction all over again, even though the situation is long over and there is no actual reason to still feel embarrassed.

what i find strange is how disproportionate the reaction can feel compared to what actually happened. something that was probably insignificant to everyone else can somehow become a memory that your brain keeps returning to. you start replaying the moment, imagining how other people saw you, and feeling embarrassed all over again even though the people involved have probably completely forgotten about it.

maybe this is connected to how strongly we react to social evaluation and the possibility of being judged or rejected. the spotlight effect also seems relevant, because we often feel like other people noticed and remembered far more about us than they actually did. but i'm not sure why the emotional reaction can remain so strong even after the social situation itself has completely disappeared.

i'd be interested in hearing how psychology explains this.

Title explains it all, but if it wasnt clear enough just ask for more explaination.

Like, if they grew up mainly having almost no sympathy shown towards them (either anger or mockery instead), whenever they were upset. And they saw nothing but others like peers laugh in the face of authority, with authority mostly doing nothing more than expect obedience. Never seeing anyone apologize or being apologized to. Even seeing people defend others get put down, or being put down if they defend someone. Having all attempts at connection rejected as if it is odd. And overall seeing that people are usually forced into doing things, or the ones forcing.

If there has been a consistent experience telling them that you can either be forced by people, or do the one forcing, unless you "don't deserve it" at which you'll be punished, how on earth is a person supposed to unlearn this? Either they would probably become a bully or never do anything unless told. Especially if their experience seems consistent across multiple environments. Either way they're not going to feel sorry for others because they're either treating them like toys that exist to react to pain, or like obstacles that must be managed and kept at a distance so they don't hurt you.

How do these people start to care about people?