More Signs of Narcissism

Toria Sheffield       May 19, 2016

11 Subtle Signs Of Narcissism That Are Easy To Miss

 

We all probably think we know a narcissist when we see one. They're the person who seems totally in love with themselves, right? But the reality is there are often signs that you're dealing with a narcissist that are way more subtle and nuanced than an obvious show of self-admiration.

In a piece for Psychology Today, author and professor Preston Ni noted that a true narcissist may actually love themselves the least. "Narcissism is often interpreted in popular culture as a person who’s in love with him or herself. It is more accurate to characterize the pathological narcissist as someone who’s in love with an idealized self-image, which they project in order to avoid feeling (and being seen as) the real, disenfranchised, wounded self," Ni said. Ni went on to note that, "Deep down, most pathological narcissists feel like the 'ugly duckling,' even if they painfully don’t want to admit it."

And while this may give us a better understanding of the narcissistic people in our lives, it doesn't necessarily help us identify them, which in turn, can help us cope with their behavior. If you've found yourself dealing with a difficult personality lately, and can't quite put your finger on why the person is so hard to be around, here are 11 subtle signs they may be a narcissist.

1. They Constantly Interrupt

 

In that same Psychology Today piece, Ni noted that a classic sign of a narcissist is that they interrupt a lot in conversation. "The narcissist loves to talk about him or herself, and doesn’t give you a chance to take part in a two-way conversation," Ni noted.

 

2. They Call You Crazy

 

In a piece for MindBodyGreen.com, life coach Jennifer Kass said that narcissists "are known for what's called 'gas-lighting,' which is a form of psychological abuse employed to create anxiety and confusion, dismantling the other person's own trust in themselves and their ability to discern what's real and what is good for them." If you suddenly start questioning yourself and your choices when you usually feel like you have a pretty good sense of self, it may be because you're dealing with a narcissistic personality.

3. They Lose Interest When You Get Real

 

Kass also said that the narcissist will typically lose interest the second you start opening up about yourself or begin talking about your problems. So watch out if you spend hours listening to the other person talk about themselves, but then feel like their eyes are glazing over whenever you need a friend.

4. They're Charming

 

Ni also stressed that the narcissist can be extremely charming when they want to be, and in fact this very well could be why you were drawn to them in the first place. If you get the sense that a person turns their charm on and off depending on who they're talking to (as opposed to consistently being gregarious or extroverted), that could be a big red flag.

5. They Don't Have A Single Bad Picture On Facebook

 

In a piece for The Huffington Post, W. Keith Campbell, head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Georgia and co-author of The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, noted that the narcissist is often the person with a ton of Facebook friends, but not a single bad Facebook photo. He noted this is because the narcissist is extremely image-conscious and strives to project an idealized image of themselves to the world.

6. It's Never Their Fault

 

In that same HuffPost piece, Zlatan Krizan, Ph.D., an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University, said that when it comes to narcissistic people, you'll often begin to notice that things are never their fault. Even when they tell a story where they got in trouble, or were reprimanded at work, it will come down to how they were not being valued, or how they feel emotionally victimized. You will likely never hear, "It was ultimately my fault and I've learned a valuable lesson from the experience."

7. They Can't Handle Criticism

 

A compilation piece for Business Insider stressed the fact that as confident as the narcissist may seem on the surface, they absolutely can't handle even minor criticism and definitely can't let it roll off their backs. If you've noticed this contradiction in a friend or colleague, they could have elements of a narcissistic personality.

8. You Feel The Need To Constantly Flatter

 

The HuffPost piece also noted that you're likely dealing with a narcissist if you find that flattery is the easiest way to deal with them and avoid conflict. So if you feel like the foundation of your relationship is you just giving compliments and positive affirmations, it may be time to reevaluate your dynamic.

9. They Give Unsolicited Advice

 

In a piece for Health, psychotherapist Joseph Brugo, author of The Narcissist You Know, said the narcissist is often the person giving you unsolicited advise. "Narcissists are always a little more in the know. They seem to have the inside info on everything," Brugo said, because acting that way makes them feel more important.

10. They're Bad At Waiting

 

In the same Health piece, family therapist Karyl McBride noted that the narcissist is typically extremely bad at waiting in lines — and just waiting for things in general. "Whatever a narcissist's needs are, they need to be met now," McBride said. "They want automatic compliance because they are that important."

11. They're A Sore Loser... And Winner

 

The Business Insider piece also stressed that narcissists are bad sports. They get angry when they lose, and tease when they win. Needless to say, they're definitely not someone you'd want on your office kickball league...

Narcissistic people can create extremely toxic relationships in your life, but they're not always the easiest people to spot. If a person in your life exhibits some (or all) of the above behaviors, they very well could be a narcissist, and it just may be time to seek a little distance.

Source: http://www.bustle.com/articles/161566-11-subtle-signs-of-narcissism-that-are-easy-to-miss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I a Narcissist?

Marie Hartwell-Walker Ed.D.     May 13, 2016

Narcissistic Personality Disorder vs. Normal Narcissism

In Greek mythology, Narcissus was a proud young man who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. He was so enchanted by his image that he couldn’t leave it, so he starved to death. Now, if he had just looked into the pool (as many of us do when we check the mirror as we go out the door in the morning), said to himself something like, “Lookin’ good, dude” and moved on, he would have been okay.

That quick check in the mirror is normal, healthy narcissism. Feeling good about oneself, talking about it, even bragging now and then, isn’t pathological. Indeed, it is essential to a positive self-esteem. As comedian Will Rogers once said, “It ain’t bragging if it’s true.”

But there are those, like Narcissus, who need to see themselves as especially attractive, interesting and accomplished most of the time — whether they deserve it or not. They have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), this is only 6.2 percent of the U.S. population.

Let’s look at the distinction with more detail: For the sake of this discussion, I’ll contrast the characteristics of people with diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), those who are always checking their reflection in the “mirror” of other people’s admiration, with the traits of people with healthy normal narcissism (NN), those who are deservedly proud of themselves.

Remember: An important difference between the two is that NPD is an enduring, consistent pattern of self-aggrandizing attitudes and behaviors. Thoughtless, selfish behavior once in a while is just what normal people do when they are having a bad day.

Self-esteem

At their core, those with NPD have desperately low self-esteem. It can look to others like they have egos as big as Texas, but that is only a front for the scared little person inside. Their feelings of low self-worth make them need constant reassurance, even admiration, from others.
Those with NN have healthy self-esteem. They are usually engaged in doing things that contribute to their families, jobs and communities and that give meaning to their lives. Appreciation from others feels good but they don’t need it to feel good about themselves.

Relationship with others

To ease painful insecurity, people with NPD surround themselves with people who will stroke their egos. They are always checking to make sure they have more power, more status and more control than others. Their relationships are often based on whether others are useful to them or make them look good. It’s not unusual for them to drop someone once he or she is no longer needed to forward their personal agenda. Because they need to be in control to feel safe, people with NPD manipulate partners, coworkers and those who think they are friends through cycles of approval and rejection.

Those with NN are secure within themselves. They don’t need to feel superior in order to feel “enough.” They may seek relationships with other doers but it’s because of shared excitement about what they are doing, not in order to use them. Their friendships are based in equality and are characterized by balanced give and take. They make enduring relationships of mutual acceptance and support.

Capacity for empathy

People with NPD can act caring, but only if it will further their need for the relationship. To them, sympathetic behavior is seen as a way to gain status as a “good” person in the eyes of others. If it will cost attention to issues other than their own, their show of sympathy is short-lived.

Those with NN genuinely want to be there for others. If they do talk about their charitable actions, it is to enlist more support for someone in need. Their empathy is selfless and their love is unconditional.

Relationship with success and failure

People with NPD often inflate their accomplishments and overestimate their abilities. It’s not unusual for them to take credit for others’ work. If they can’t dazzle with what they have done, they will work to look good by contrast, emphasizing what others haven’t done or have done badly. Not surprisingly, they are unwilling to talk about their failures or mistakes, fearing that it will have a negative impact on other people’s opinion of them.

When people with NN talk about an achievement, it is without embellishment and with deserved pride and appropriate humility. Unlike those with NPD, they have no need to put their efforts in contrast with the efforts of others. They are quick to give credit to others. People with NN are comfortable sharing their failures or missteps. They understand that to err is only human and that talking about their imperfections doesn’t diminish their worth.

Response to criticism

People with NPD are oversensitive to criticism and are highly reactive to any real or perceived slight. They don’t take responsibility for making a poor decision or for behaviors others find offensive. If they are held accountable for a mistake or insult, they quickly shift the blame to someone else. If that isn’t successful, they will protest that someone else made them do it.

Those with NN may not like conflict or criticism either and may avoid it if they can. But once they think about it, they are able to participate in healthy dialogue when things go wrong. They take responsibility for their missteps and are willing to make changes in their perceptions and behavior. They are able to apologize to others without feeling diminished for doing so.

Narcissistic behavior or a narcissist? 

People with NN are certainly capable of moments of narcissistic behavior. Everyone is self-centered or selfish at times. Everyone has the capacity to inflate an achievement, duck responsibility or treat people badly now and then. In people with NN, such things don’t last. They quickly realize when they have been inappropriate, work to heal their relationships and move on. They see no shame in getting support from friends or help from a professional if they need it.

In contrast, true narcissists (NPD) are preoccupied with themselves most of the time. They are always looking over their shoulder, scared that someone else may be more competent, have more status, or take control away from them. Their black hole of need for admiration never gets filled. Although there is treatment, those with NPD usually don’t agree that they have a problem or truly believe relationship issues are the other person’s fault.

Source: http://psychcentral.com/lib/narcissistic-personality-disorder-vs-normal-narcissism/

 

Romantic Jealousy

David P. Schmitt Ph.D.      May 10, 2016

Sex Differences in Romantic Jealousy: Evolved or Illusory?

In everyday conversation, people often use the words "envy" and "jealousy" interchangeably. Scientists, however, tend to distinguish between these two emotions. Feeling envy is about desiring the possessions or qualities of someone else (e.g., I want her wealth, I wish I had his way with words). I definitely envy Stephen Curry's jump shot.

Jealousy is different, it’s about wanting to prevent the loss of something you already have (e.g., I don't want to lose my authority over others, I wish my current romantic partner would not stray). Envy and jealousy are related emotions, for sure, but each is psychologically specific in its own way.
The feeling of romantic jealousy is something even more specific. Nearly everyone has felt it, and its effects can be devastating. Heck, it's launched a thousand ships!

Although romantic jealousy has been studied for over 100 years, it wasn't until theorizing by 1990s evolutionary psychologists that sexual scientists began to consider how men and women might experience jealousy a little bit differently, given our differing reproductive biologies.

In 1992, Buss and his colleagues used evolutionary principles to hypothesize men might get more upset at the sexual infidelity of their romantic partners (because men, but not women, face the adaptive problem of paternity uncertainty and the fitness-damaging possibility of cuckoldry—spending huge amounts of parental effort on an unrelated child, often the child of a reproductive rival). Women, in contrast, might get more upset at the emotional infidelity of their romantic partners (because women incur greater costs than men when their partner defects and devotes all status and resources to a new, often younger family).

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., and Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.

As noted by Buss and Haselton (2005), one of the most impressive aspects of the 1990s “sex differences in jealousy hypothesis” made by evolutionary psychologists was that not a single psychologist had ever made that prediction before. Not one, ever. It took an evolutionary perspective to guide psychologists to predict men and women might get upset differently, based in part on their differing reproductive interests.

Since the early 1990s, over 100 studies have investigated whether, and to what degree, sex differences exist in the psychology of sexual versus emotional jealousy. This post contains a Top 10 List of especially informative findings regarding the sex differences in jealousy hypothesis (for most references, see Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 506-507; and Buss, D. M. (2013). Sexual jealousy. Psychological Topics, 22, 155-182):

1) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are meta-analytically robust (especially when analyzed appropriately, Sagarin et al., 2012; Tagler & Jeffers, 2013).

Many factors--other than Darwinian selection pressures--influence reactions to romantic betrayal (Buss, 2013). Consequently, evolutionary psychologists do not expect all (or even most) men will always find sexual infidelity more upsetting, whereas all or most women will always find emotional infidelity more upsetting. Factors particularly affecting sex differences in jealousy responses across studies include the precise ways “infidelity” is defined, anchoring effects from the wording used on response scales, the tendency for women to generally report more intense emotions than men, and the fact that cultures vary in overall rates of infidelity.

All these factors and more might shift men’s and women’s upset responses more toward sexual or emotional infidelity in any given research study. Given these considerations, it has been argued the most appropriate way to evaluate the sex differences in jealousy hypothesis is to test for a Participant Sex × Infidelity Type statistical interaction within a given study (Sagarin et al., 2012; see also Buss & Haselton, 2005, who advocate for examining 2 separate tests: 1) sex differences in sexual fidelity reactions, and 2) sex differences in emotional fidelity reactions; when combined these effects should typically result in a Participant Sex × Infidelity Type interaction effect).

Using these appropriate statistical testing approaches, in a meta-analysis of 72 studies (Hofhansl, Voracek, & Vitouch, 2004), the overall meta-analytic sex difference in jealousy psychology was moderate to large in size (d = 0.64). Across different types of scales, sometimes the effect size is smaller. Sagarin et al. (2012) found a small sex difference d = .26 across 45 samples that only used continuous scales (forced choice scales tend to produce larger effects; see also Edlund, 2008). Even with continuous scales, though, strong effects are observed if the upper end of continuum is spread out (Sagarin, 2004).

 

Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Skowronski, J. J., & Zengel, B. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 595-614.

So, overall, sex differences in jealousy should probably be considered meta-analytically robust. Larger effects are evident when using forced choice measures, and when the effect is properly tested as a Participant Sex × Infidelity Type statistical interaction.

2) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy (i.e., Participant Sex × Infidelity Type statistical interactions) are robust across cultures, including samples from the United States, Canada, England, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Romania, Brazil, Chile, Australia, China, Japan, Korea, and the Himba of Namibia (see Buss, 2013; Buss & Haselton, 2005).

3) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are robust using objective physiological measures (e.g., sex differences are found in heart rate, blood pressure, corrugator brow contraction, skin conductance, and other physical responses when men and women imagine different types of infidelity; see Buss, 2013). Recently, physiological-related jealousy sex differences were observed in affective modulation of startle eyeblink responses (importantly, this research employed several statistical controls; Baschnagel & Edlund, 2016). These studies further confirm sex differences are not simply an artifact of self-report methods.

Baschnagel, J. S., & Edlund, J. E. (2016). Affective modification of the startle eyeblink response during sexual and emotional Infidelity scripts. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 114-122.

4) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are robust when evaluating jealousy-related cognitive measures, such as involuntary attention, information search, decision time, and memory for cues to sexual versus emotional infidelity (Buss, 2013). For instance, Schutzwohl (2010) found men show greater recall of cues to sexual infidelity, women show greater recall of cues to emotional infidelity. Maner (2009) found the implicit cognitions of men and women follow predicted patterns.

5) fMRI studies reveal different patterns of jealousy-related brain activation across the sexes, supporting hypothesized sex differences in jealousy (Takahashi et al., 2006).

6) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are robust across demographic factors such as age, income levels, history of being cheated on, history of being unfaithful, relationship type, length.  Factors such as age, income, and whether participants have had children are all unrelated to sex differences in upset over sexual/emotional infidelity (Frederick, 2015; Zengel et al., 2013).
    
7) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are not due to the double-shot hypothesis (emotional infidelity may imply sexual infidelity when women think about men, DeSteno & Salovey, 1996). When emotional and sexual implications are explicitly de-linked, sex differences are still apparent (Buss et al., 1999; Cramer, 2001).

8) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy show predictable patterns of automaticity. DeSteno et al. (2002) a frequent (and frequently proven wrong) critic of evolved sex differences in jealousy purportedly found no sex differences in jealousy automaticity. Schutzwohl (2008) noted DeSteno et al. (2002) did not counter balance jealousy choices in his experimental design, and when counter balanced correctly (which Schutzwohl did in a 2008 study), sex differences in jealousy do show automaticity. Questionable research practices, indeed.

9) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy emerge (often stronger) in cases of real life infidelity. Sex differences in jealousy emerge when looking at retrospective reports of actual infidelity experience (Edlund, 2006). Kuhle (2011) found men ask more about “did you sleep with him?” whereas women more “do you love her?” in Cheaters television program (alright, perhaps not exactly “real” life, but not just self-reported survey responses, either).

Sagarin (2003) also found sex differences were greater among men who have actually experienced a sexual betrayal, and among women who have sexually betrayed a man (see also, Burchell, 2011; cf. Frederick, 2015). Of the 13 studies on the topic of actual infidelity, reviewed in a meta-analysis (Sagarin et al., 2012), the unweighted average effect size of sex differences in jealousy was d = .39.

 

10) Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are not simply side effects or by products of other psychological sex differences, such as attachment styles (Levy, 2011; Tagler, 2011). Brase and his colleagues (2014) recently examined many potential proximate mediators (infidelity implications beliefs, gender-role beliefs, interpersonal trust, attachment style, sociosexuality, and culture of honor beliefs) and found a consistent sex difference that was not mediated by any other variables.

But even if there were some mediators, it wouldn't mean the sex difference is not in any way “evolved.” Instead, it might mean sex differences in sociosexuality or attachment might be part of the causal developmental pathway of an evolved jealousy sex difference (as would finding the sex difference is related to testosterone, height, or any other developmentally reliable evolved sex difference; see Buss & Schmitt, 2011; Schmitt, 2015). Indeed, evolution often appears to count on reliable sex differences in one domain (e.g., dismissing attachment) to play a role in manifesting adaptive sex differences in another domain (e.g., sociosexuality; Schmitt, 2005). Again, though, Brase et al. did not find any mediation of evolved sex differences in jealousy, so we have to look elsewhere for the causal mechanisms that seem to reliably give rise to jealousy-related sex differences.

Brase, G. L., Adair, L., & Monk, K. (2014). Explaining sex differences in reactions to relationship infidelities: Comparisons of the roles of sex, gender, beliefs, attachment, and sociosexual orientation. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 73-96.

A Few Caveats

Many contextual factors influence the degree to which jealousy is experienced by men and women (including compersion), but most empirically-verified contextual factors actually support evolutionary hypotheses about sex differences in jealousy. For instance, jealousy is experienced more by low mate value men (Phillips, 2010), shorter men (Buunk, 2008), shorter-than-partner men (Brewer, 2010), when a male mate poacher is of high status (Buss, 2000), and when a female mate poacher is highly attractive (Buss, 2000). Jealousy, it appears, is calibrated by many evolutionary considerations (especially self and rival attributes, Buss, 2013).

There also is evidence that in some cultures heightened concern over paternity certainty may evoke in men extremely high concerns over sexual fidelity. Among a small-scale, natural fertility population, the Himba of Namibia, 31% of women admit to having at least one child from an extra-marital affair (Scelza, 2011). This is a very high cuckoldry rate (most studies find only about 2% of children are the concealed result of an extra-marital affair; Anderson, 2006). It appears extremely high rates of infidelity facultatively evoke even greater concern among men over the sexual fidelity of their partners, with 96% of Himba men finding sexual infidelity more upsetting than emotional infidelity (Scelza, 2014).

Women also feel especially upset at sexual infidelity among the Himba, but the sex difference is still evident, “the standard sex difference persists in these data, and is highly significant with men much more likely to be upset by the sexual infidelity than women (χ² = 13.89, df = 1, p < 0.001)” (Scelza, 2014, p. 105). Indeed, although Himba women choose sexual infidelity as more upsetting more 66% of the time (more than women in WEIRD cultures, about 20%), the effect size of the sex difference among the Himba, d = .80, is actually much larger than the overall effect size in meta-analyses of WEIRD samples, d = .24 (Sagarin et al., 2012).

Of course, even if the sex difference were not apparent in a particular culture, this would not indicate that the sex differences seen in most cultures are not in any way evolved. Most sex differences are sensitive to ecological and sociocultural contexts, sometimes by design (via facultative adaptations) and sometimes as an inadvertent side effect of other factors, including other adaptations (through facultative mediation or emergent moderation; see Schmitt, 2015).

For example, religions sometimes accentuate--and probably more often suppress--evolved sex differences, such as the Shaker religion not allowing any sexual contact between men and women, so no sex differences in reproductive strategies there! Another example is the sex difference in height.

Among cultures in high altitude ecologies, the sex difference in height is minimized and sometimes nearly absent as shorter body frames provide for much better survival (Gaulin, 1992; Gaulin & Sailer, 1983). Across most ecologies, though, sex differences in height are readily seen, and even manifest as the largest in nations that have the most sociopolitical gender equality (such as in Scandinavian nations; for fuller discussion of these issues, see Schmitt, 2015).

Schmitt, D.P. (2015). The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are…it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In Weekes-Shackelford, V.A., & Shackelford, T.K. (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 221-256). New York: Springer.

In Sum

Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are robust meta-analytically, across cultures, using objective measures of physiological distress, using cognitive-related measures, in brain activation differences, and across demographic factors such as age, income levels, history of being cheated on, history of being unfaithful, relationship type, and relationship length.

Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy are not due to the double-shot hypothesis, nor are they simply side effects of other psychological sex differences such as attachment styles. Sex differences in sexual versus emotional jealousy show predictable patterns of automaticity, and emerge (often more strongly) in cases of real life infidelity.

Time will tell whether all of these effects continue to replicate (and whether the evolutionary explanations of these effects are confirmed using converging lines of evidence, as with sex differences in mate preferences). At this point, what is clear is that critics of the “sex differences in jealousy hypothesis” should take heed of these many supportive findings, and fully account for them with compelling alternative theories, before claiming sexual diversity scientists should entirely dismiss such important and consequential sex differences in psychological design.

Key References

Brase, G. L., Adair, L., & Monk, K. (2014). Explaining sex differences in reactions to relationship infidelities: Comparisons of the roles of sex, gender, beliefs, attachment, and sociosexual orientation. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 73-96.

Buss, D. M. (2013). Sexual jealousy. Psychological Topics, 22, 155-182):
Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 506-507.

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., and Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.

Schmitt, D.P. (2015). The evolution of culturally-variable sex differences: Men and women are not always different, but when they are…it appears not to result from patriarchy or sex role socialization. In Weekes-Shackelford, V.A., & Shackelford, T.K. (Eds.), The evolution of sexuality (pp. 221-256). New York: Springer.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201605/sex-differences-in-romantic-jealousy-evolved-or-illusory

Is There an Ideal Number of Sexual Partners?

Noam Shpancer Ph.D.    May 13, 2016

How Many Sex Partners Does It Take to Be Happy?

What’s your number? Causes and consequences of the number of sexual partners 

 

One is the loneliest number, goes the old pop tune. When it comes to sex, most people will agree that the partnered version is better than the solitary one. But how many partners?

It’s a curious question, at once personal—you won’t get it at a job interview—and political, in that the answer may signal a person’s values and social standing. It’s also a season-of-life question: It seems crucial in your 20s; but in your 70s, who cares, or can remember?

Our interest in the number of sexual partners has much to do with social comparison. We live in groups, and our place in the group matters. One way by which we judge ourselves, our worth, our standing, and our progress—one way, in other words, by which we know ourselves—is in comparison to others. A number only has meaning in relation to other numbers.

Social scientists have their own reasons for studying the issue. First, it can serve as a gauge of changing social mores and attitudes about sex. Second, number of partners may predict other important outcomes, such as higher STI risk or reduced prostate cancer risk.

Third, if we find out what factors influence the number of partners people end up having, we may gain some control over this behavior. All societies busy themselves with the control of sexual activity, and for understandable reasons: patterns of sexual activity influence important social and economic issues, such as population growth, public health, and child rearing practices.

Human behavior as a whole is multi-determined; thus we are unlikely to find a sole cause shaping people’s sexual choices. Behavior is also contextual; thus, the meaning of, “I’ve slept with 10 people so far” to the individual, to society, and to scientific prediction will change depending on the speaker’s age, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, occupation, nationality, historical period etc.

That being said, we have in the past 50 years learned a few interesting things about the causes and consequences of a person’s number of sexual partners.

First, it is clear that genes play a role in the number-of-partners game. Genes may influence sexual behavior indirectly, for example through personality traits (extroverts like more people, and more people like them, sexually and otherwise) or physical appearance (very short men on average have fewer sexual partners than other men).

The evidence suggests that the tendency to seek more or less sexual variety is genetically coded. Recent research has found a link between in-utero testosterone exposure (gauged reliably by measuring the index finger to ring finger ratio in both men and women) and mating preferences. The shorter the index finger in relation to the ring finger, the higher in-utero testosterone exposure, and the more likely the tendency to seek multiple sex partners.

The effects of genes often go unmentioned in the popular discussion (and policy debates) surrounding sexual behavior. This is in part because people (and policy makers) often erroneously assume that not much can be done about genetic differences. In addition, genetic effects are often obscured from easy view by a phenomenon known as ‘gene-environment correlation.’ Scientists have identified three types of gene-environment correlation.

Passive gene-environment correlation has to do with the fact that parents usually supply both the child’s genes and early environment. Therefore, child outcome that looks like the result of environmental influence may in fact be the result of heredity. For example, the child of a reckless, risk-taking man is more likely to be raised in a chaotic home environment. If the child grows up to be reckless and risk-taking, was it due to his early environment, or to the genes inherited from the father? Hard to know.

Evocative gene-environment correlation has to do with how some genetic traits elicit certain reactions from the environment. For example, an early-maturing girl may experience teasing in school resulting in low self-esteem due to her physical appearance. If the same genes that predisposed her toward early maturation also predispose her toward earlier sexual activity, there will be a correlation between self-esteem and age of first sex, not because low self esteem causes early sex, but because a certain genetic constellation brings about both.

Active gene-environment correlation has to do with the fact that a person’s genetic endowment disposes them to choose certain environments over others. Extroverts seek out social connections, including sexual ones, and may find reading boring. Less time at the library (an environmental experience) will in this case correlate with promiscuity, but it is not the cause of promiscuity.
The bottom line result of gene-environment correlation is that we often confuse environmental predictors with environmental causes.

For example, research has long documented a link between early sex initiation and later promiscuity for both males and females.

This link has often been interpreted to mean that early initiation causes later sexual risk-taking. However, twin research has shown that identical twins’ different age of sexual initiation did not result in differences in sexual risk-taking. It appears that early initiation and later promiscuity, rather than being cause and effect, are both strongly influenced by genes.

Genetic influence, to be sure, is not the only game in town. In fact genetic influence is often dependent on the surrounding environment. For example, the onset of puberty, while largely under genetic control, is nonetheless subject to environmental influences such as nutrition and early family environment.

Moreover, genetic influences may change over time. For example, there is little difference in the ages of sexual initiation in identical twins when it happens early (ages 13-15); however, when it happens later, there is much more difference.

The effects of genes may also, of course, be overridden by the influence of environmental forces. A study of Australian twins found that a history of child sexual abuse overrode the effects of genetics in predicting sexual initiation in twin girls.

In fact, with due respect to genes, social and cultural forces are always powerfully at work in shaping behavior, sexual or otherwise. The fact that the average number of sexual partners has increased substantially between the Greatest Generation (2.16) and the Baby Boomers (11.68) is unlikely due to genetic differences between those populations; cohort-specific environmental conditions are the more likely culprits. For example, the Greatest Generation came of age before the advance of the birth control pill; Baby Boomers came of age after the pill (and before AIDS).

As with all matters sexual, gender is bound to play a role. Traditionally, men have been known to report average numbers of partners up to four times higher than women’s. Alas, people have also been known to lie about this, and due to the notorious ‘double standard’ (by which men’s stock tends to rise and women’s tends to fall with increased number of partners), women and men may lie in opposite directions.

In addition to straight-up liars, the gender disparity in number of partners may also be linked to outliers: a few men report very large numbers of partners, thus skewing the male average up, just like a few billionaires in a room full of middle class people would skew the average income upward.

Moreover, reported differences may be the result of different estimation methods. For example, a study by Brown and Sinclair (1999) found that regardless of gender, those who  estimate by “enumeration” (counting all the names they remembered) report systematically lower numbers than those who use “rough approximation” (just winging it). As it happens, women tend to favor the former method while men favor the latter.

Finally, when the median (the number that cuts a distribution in half) is calculated rather than the average, the differences between the genders appear to diminish. For example, CDC data from 2011-2013 shows median number of opposite-sex partners in lifetime among men and women aged 25-44 years of age was 6.7 and 4.3 respectively.

Still, the partner-number gap remains a robust finding in the literature, and with due respect for socio-cultural influences, there is good evidence that it is in part evolutionary, shaped by differences in short term mating strategies.

Evolutionarily speaking, short term mating can be beneficial for both sexes, albeit in different ways. Men may further ‘spread their seed’ in short-term sexual relationships, increasing the odds of an offspring. Women may be able to get high quality sperm from a healthy male who—given his attractiveness and increased mating options—is unlikely to stick around for the long haul.

Consequently, males and females differ in how they pursue short term mating strategies.

Casual sex is less risky for a man, both physically (men on average are physically stronger) and biologically (few men die in childbirth). Consequently, all over the world men are quicker to say yes to sex than women. Moreover, maximizing the number of partners offers a reproductive advantage for men—multiple concurrent partners may lead to multiple concurrent offspring.  Not so for women, who can only have one offspring at a time regardless of the number of concurrent partners. Thus, all around the world, men who opt for short-term mating pursue quantity—large numbers of partners.

Women who seek short-term mating pursue quality—they look for masculine men high in social dominance.

Still, while our underlying biological wiring is designed to pursue the biological imperative (move the genes forward), our overlaying socio-psychological systems have evolved to deal with multiple, non-reproductive problems of living (such as boredom) and pursue proximal non-reproductive goals (such as feeling happy).

Most people having sex right now around the world (roughly 166,666 people by some estimates) are not pursuing reproduction, but are more likely looking for the increased sense of wellbeing provided by intimacy, touch, connection, and orgasm. Is number of partners related to happiness? I have seen no research suggesting that more partners beget more happiness. Does promiscuity augurs ill? Not necessarily. A longitudinal study that followed 1000 children in New Zealand into their 30s found no significant relationship between number of partners and mental health problems such as anxiety or depression (higher number of partners did predict substance addiction risk for women).

Is there a magic number? Blanchflower and Oswald (2004), analyzing a random sample of 16,000 adult Americans, found that, “The happiness-maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous year is calculated to be 1.” Cheng and Smyth recently followed up with a similar investigation of 3,800 adult Chinese. The results: “We find that the happiness maximizing number of sexual partners is one.”

One, it turns out, may in fact be the least lonely number…

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201605/how-many-sex-partners-does-it-take-be-happy

Color Psychology

Design Sherpa    May 19, 2016

Can Color Strike The Same Chord Twice Or Is It Truly Ambiguous?

 

 

 

Have you ever had one of those days where every flip of the radio station creates another trip down memory lane? You could be minding your own business and all of the sudden you are thrown into a totally different mindset or mood by what you are hearing. Well, color can have this same type of affect on you only through sight instead of sound. Advertisers can even use color as a form of subliminal messaging. Here are a few examples of different colors attributes that can have a direct impact on your subconscious and decision making.

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you see or think of the color RED?? Passion, anger, heat or maybe … cheeseburger? I know, I know, red is the color of passion, but did you know that shades of red can entice hunger? Next time you are out and about, count how many of your favorite restaurants include RED in their motif or logo in some way.

Now what about black? Black is a color that has a special ability to be completely versatile. One minute black can symbolize death, now picture a black power suit – all of the sudden it becomes a symbol of rigidity and strength. Lastly, in regards to black, have you ever attempted to paint a room or accent wall black? I know it sounds outrageous. However, we use black as a great accent color so why not reverse the roles? When a room is painted black it can feel more cozy, not necessarily scary or overly dark. This technique works really well with stark white trim – the bigger the better. When you use black as an accent wall, it can make a space feel larger. As if you have painted a black hole on a wall. Combine black on the opposite wall from a large mirror and you are set!

Finally, I want to talk about green. Believe it or not, green is the ultimate neutral. Because green is the color most commonly associated with nature, it had an ability to fit in anywhere. Also, in my opinion, I think green is the most versatile because you can make green neon to dark hunter (almost black) green. It has a lot of variety and depth.

So these are just a few ways in which color can be ambiguous.

Source: https://www.thesequitur.com/color-psychology-can-color-strike-the-same-chord-twice-or-is-it-truly-ambiguous-2831307/
 

Art Therapy Found to Benefit Youths

Megan Reuther     May 16, 2016

Creative Arts Therapy Program Helping Young Patients Cope Through Creativity

A hospital stay doesn't sound anything like fun, but staff members at one hospital are trying to change that with the help of art.

Making the masterpieces provides more than just beauty.

Chelsea Capper is making her rounds. She isn't a doctor or nurse, but what she does inside rooms at Blank Children's Hospital could be just as powerful.

"It could be helping through hospitalization, dealing with traumas, or just kind of expressing yourself in an environment that's really hard to do so," she said.

Capper is an art therapist.

"So we have that understanding of art and art materials and the therapeutic quality, and then we also have the theoretical background of counseling and therapy," explained Capper.

With an undergrad degree in studio art and a Masters of Science in art therapy, she uses paper and paint to help kids express their feelings.

"This is a painting done by one of the patients, an older kid, who had a real love for video games," said Capper. "To get him involved, I incorporated remote control cars."

The young patient slowly became more comfortable by using the remote control car as his brush.

"What's ironic is the remote control actually gave him more control, where he kind of felt lost in this environment that's really scary, he was able to regain control and manipulate his environment in a way he was comfortable with using that kind of joystick approach," Capper said.

Child Life at Blank Children’s Hospital launched the Creative Arts Therapy program in August and it’s funded by donations.

"Several years ago, we started funding and raising money specifically to hire a music and art therapist," said Julie Pedigo, Child Life and Family Centered Services Manager.

Capper, along with a music therapist, work part time but the plan is to make the program full time.

"People are really starting to see the validity and how important it is to have this other form of communication for these kids who are dealing with hospitalization," said Capper.

Money raised at events like The Festival of Trees and funds donated from the Principal Charity Classic support the Creative Arts Therapy Program.

Source: http://whotv.com/2016/05/16/creative-arts-therapy-program-helping-young-patients-cope-through-creativity/

 

Using Magic Mushrooms to Treat Depression

Zoe Cormier    May 17, 2016

Magic Mushroom Drug Lifts Depression in Human Trial

Psilocybin shows higher remission rate than SSRI drugs in U.K. study

 

A hallucinogenic drug derived from magic mushrooms could be useful in treating depression, the first safety study of this approach has concluded.

Researchers from Imperial College London gave 12 people psilocybin, the active component in magic mushrooms. All had been clinically depressed for a significant amount of time—on average 17.8 years. None of the patients had responded to standard medications, such as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or had electroconvulsive therapy.

One week after receiving an oral dose of psilocybin, all patients experienced a marked improvement in their symptoms. Three months on, five patients were in complete remission. 

“That is pretty remarkable in the context of currently available treatments,” says Robin Carhart-Harris, a neuropsychopharmacologist at Imperial College London and first author of the latest study, which is published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

The equivalent remission rate for SSRIs is around 20%.

The study's authors are not suggesting that psilocybin should be a treatment of last resort for depressed patients. “Our conclusion is more sober than that—we are simply saying that this is doable,” says Carhart-Harris. “We can give psilocybin to depressed patients, they can tolerate it, and it is safe. This gives us an initial impression of the effectiveness of the treatment.”

Drug problems

 

Demonstrating the safety of psilocybin is no small task. Magic mushrooms are categorized as a Class A illegal drug in the United Kingdom—the most serious category, which also includes heroin and cocaine.

The ethics committee that granted approval for the trial was so concerned that trial volunteers could experience delayed onset psychotic symptoms that it requested a three-month follow-up on the subjects.

“This was unprecedented,” says neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt at Imperial, who is senior author of the study.

It took 32 months between having the grant awarded and dosing the first patient, says Nutt. By comparison, it took six months “to get through the machinations” for his team’s previous studies using the equally illegal drugs LSD and MDMA, he says.

“Every interaction—applying for licenses, waiting for licenses, receiving the licenses, applying for contracts for drug manufacture, on and on—involved a delay of up to two months. It was enormously frustrating, and most of it was unnecessary,” says Nutt. “The study result isn’t the remarkable part—it’s the fact that we did it at all.”

Scientists at the Heffter Research Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico, have been investigating how psilocybin could be used to alleviate depression and anxiety in people with terminal cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at how psilocybin could be used to treat depression alone.

The World Health Organisation calls depression “the leading cause of disability worldwide”. But effective therapies are hard to find. Searching for new treatments, researchers have looked to potent and quirky alternatives such as ketamine and ayahuasca, both of which have shown promise in clinical trials.

“It’s worth noting that we have not developed any new treatments which are widely used since the 1970s for depression, despite the fact that this is the major public-health problem in the Western world and middle-income countries,” says Glyn Lewis, who studies psychiatric disorders at University College London.

Particularly interesting, he says, is the fact that psilocybin seems to take effect with a single dose, unlike some current medications for depression that must be taken daily.

“This study is simply asking: is this interesting enough to pursue further as a treatment for depression?” says Lewis. “My own judgement is that yes, it is.”

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/magic-mushroom-drug-lifts-depression-in-human-trial1/