various psychological concepts

critical thinking

Unnatural critical thought as the driver of social change: Steve Joordens at TEDxTrondheim

classical conditioning

“Classical conditioning (also known as Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is a process of behavior analysis in which an innate response to a potent biological stimulus becomes expressed in response to a previously neutral stimulus; this is achieved by repeated pairings of the neutral stimulus and the potent biological stimulus that elicits the desired response. Classical conditioning was made famous by Ivan Pavlov and his experiments conducted with dogs. Classical conditioning became the basis for a theory of how organisms learn, and a philosophy of psychology developed by John B. Watson, B. F. Skinner and others. Learning theory grew into the foundation of Behaviorism, a school of psychology that had great societal influence in the mid-20th century.”

Classical Conditioning
“Behaviorism as a movement in psychology appeared in 1913 when John Broadus Watson published the classic article Psychology as the behaviorist views it.

John Watson proposed that the process of classical conditioning (based on Pavlov’s observations) was able to explain all aspects of human psychology.

Everything from speech to emotional responses were simply patterns of stimulus and response. Watson denied completely the existence of the mind or consciousness.

Watson believed that all individual differences in behavior were due to different experiences of learning. He famously said:

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and the race of his ancestors” (Watson, 1924, p. 104).”

Operant conditioning

Operant conditioning

Operant Conditioning and Gaming Addiction

If Pavlov Played the Slots, He wouldn’t Have Needed a Dog


Play to Extinction

Conditionability and Reinforcement Sensitivity in Gambling Behaviour

Operant Conditioning Chamber


Classical vs. Operant Conditioning

Differences Between Classical and Operant Conditioning

Schedules of Reinforcement in Operant Conditioning

Schedules of Reinforcement
“A schedule of reinforcement is a series of reinforcers or punishments utilized to control behavior patterns in operant conditioning.”

Schedules of Reinforcement

Schedules of Reinforcement
“A schedule of reinforcement is basically a rule stating which instances of a behavior will be reinforced. In some case, a behavior might be reinforced every time it occurs. Sometimes, a behavior might not be reinforced at all.”


Reinforcement Theory
“Behaviorist B.F. Skinner derived the reinforcement theory, one of the oldest theories of motivation, as a way to explain behavior and why we do what we do. The theory may also be known as Behaviorism, or Operant Conditioning, which is still commonly taught in psychology today. The theory states that “an individual’s behavior is a function of its consequences.” (Management Study Guide, 2013) Behaviorism evolved out of frustration with the introspective techniques of humanism and psychoanalysis, as some researchers were dissatisfied with the lack of directly observable phenomena that could be measured and experimented with. In their opinion, it would make the discipline of Psychology more “scientific” and on par with the core sciences. These researchers turned to exploring only the behaviors that could be observed and measured, and away from the mysterious workings of the mind. (Funder, 2010) The science of psychology that is often associated with the current era may be considered inadmissible to those that follow Skinner’s beliefs. Psychology has frequently been associated with the human mind and the evolution of cognitive awareness, causing Skinner to move in a different direction. By applying his thoughts on adjusting motivation through various stimuli, industries such as business, government, education, prisons, and mental institutions can gain a broader understanding of human behavior. “In understanding why any organism behaves the way it does, Skinner saw no place for dwelling on a person’s intentions or goals.” (Banaji, 2011) For him, it was outward behavior and its environment that mattered. His most important contribution to psychological science was the concept of reinforcement, formalized in his principles of operant conditioning. This was in contrast to Ivan Pavlov’s principles of classical conditioning, which along with J.B. Watson’s extreme environmentalism, strongly influenced his own thinking.”

The Big Bang Theory – Sheldon Trains Penny

Operant Conditioning – Negative Reinforcement vs Positive Punishment

The difference between classical and operand conditioning – Peggy Andover

Classical Conditioning: real-world example

Beyond Freedom and Dignity

emotional abuse

Emotional Abuse – Are You Being Abused?

Types of Domestic Abuse

Verbal & Emotional Abuse

Emotional Abuse

Types of Emotional Abuse

Gestalt psychology

Gestalt psychology

Amy Helps Sheldon With His Closure Issue

Gestalt Laws: Similarity, Proximity and Closure

Stockholm Syndrome

What Underlies Stockholm Syndrome?

Corporate Stockholm Syndrome

Why Do People Stay in Abusive Relationships?
“The features of Stockholm Syndrome include some of the following:

Positive feelings by the prisoner toward the captor.
Negative feelings by the prisoner toward his or her family, friends or authorities attempting any rescue.
Support for the captor’s reasons and behaviors.
Positive feelings on the end of the captor toward the victim.
Support from the victim to help the captor.
Inability by the victim to execute behaviors that can lead to release or detachment from the captor.”
What causes Stockholm syndrome?
“A severely uneven power relationship in which the captor dictates what the prisoner can and cannot do
The threat of death or physical injury to the prisoner at the hands of the captor
A self-preservation instinct on the part of the prisoner”

Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser
Abusive Relationships: Situations-Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome

Abusive Relationships: Situations-Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome

Theory of mind – ToM

Theory of mind
“Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one’s own.”
Empathy, Mindblindness, and Theory of Mind
Theory of Mind
“Theory of mind (ToM) is the intuitive understanding of one’s own and other people’s minds or mental states— including thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, knowledge, intentions, desires, and emotions—and of how those mental states influence behavior. Sometimes called intuitive psychology, folk psychology, or even mind-reading, ToM is an innate human ability. The understanding that others have mental states different from one’s own makes it possible to infer what others are thinking and to predict their behavior. This ability to recognize one’s own state of mind and those of others is central to human consciousness. The study of ToM and identification of the skills comprising ToM is a rapidly changing field of developmental psychology.”

Top 10 Facts – Psychology


“The principle of individuation, or principium individuationis,[1] describes the manner in which a thing is identified as distinguished from other things.[2]

The concept appears in numerous fields and is encountered in works of Carl Jung, Gilbert Simondon, Bernard Stiegler, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, David Bohm, Henri Bergson, Gilles Deleuze, and Manuel De Landa.”

“Individuation is part of the separation/individuation process that begins at birth. When an infant is born, he/she is merged with mother. For the infant in this symbiotic relationship, there is no differentiation between you and me: mother and infant are one. As development proceeds, an infant and then toddler emerges from the symbiosis and begins to become a separate person. After the early stages of separation, we individuate from mother and become a separate self. This unique self, separate and different from any other self, is developed by the process of individuation.”

Pratfall effect

Pratfall effect
“In social psychology, the pratfall effect is the tendency for attractiveness to increase or decrease after an individual makes a mistake, depending on the individual’s perceived competence, or ability to perform well in a general sense. A perceived competent individual would be, on average, more likable after committing a blunder, while the opposite would occur if a perceived average person makes a mistake.”

Effects that explain our brains
“1) The Pratfall Effect: Your likability will increase if you aren’t perfect.
2) The Pygmalion Effect: Greater expectations drive greater performance.
3) The Paradox of Choice: The more choices we have, the less likely we are to be content with our decision.
4) The Bystander Effect: The more people who see someone in need, the less likely that person is to receive help.
5) The Spotlight Effect: Your mistakes are not notices as much as you think.
6) The Focusing Effect: People place too much importance on one aspect of an event and fail to recognize other factors.”

The Pratfall Effect
“When a person makes a mistake or acts in a clumsy way that might even make people laugh, they are found to be more likeable, including in comparison with people who are more intelligent and clever.

When you make a mistake, you appear more human, more like others and so more likeable. People who are perfect can seem threatening, but people who are imperfect are safe and hence easier to truly like.”

Elliot Aronson

What Do We Mortals Have in Common with Elliot Aronson?

Misattribution of arousal: Rickety Bridge Experiment

Misattribution of arousal
“Misattribution of arousal is a term in psychology which describes the process whereby people make a mistake in assuming what is causing them to feel aroused. For example, when actually experiencing physiological responses related to fear, people mislabel those responses as romantic arousal. The reason physiological symptoms may be attributed to incorrect stimuli is because many stimuli have similar physiological symptoms such as increased blood pressure or shortness of breath.”

What “The Love Bridge” Tells Us About How Thoughts and Emotions Interact
“Have you ever wondered why one person can speak in public without apparent nerves while another crumples under pressure?
Or why one elite athlete can shake off their nerves to win Olympic gold while another chokes?
Even with ample experience some people never seem to learn to cope with their emotions.
A key insight comes from a controversial psychology study carried out on a rickety bridge by Dutton and Aron (1973).”

Misattribution of Arousal
“The Misconception: You always know why you feel the way you feel.
The Truth: You can experience emotional states without knowing why, even if you believe you can pinpoint the source.
The bridge is still in British Columbia, still long and scary, still sagging across the Capilano Canyon daring people to traverse it.
If you were to place the Statue of Liberty underneath the bridge, base and all, it would lightly drape across her copper shoulders. It is about as wide as a park bench for its entire suspended length, and when you try to cross, feeling it sway and rock in the wind, hearing it creak and buckle, it is difficult to take your eyes off of the rocks and roaring water two-hundred and thirty feet below – far enough for you feel in your stomach the distance between you and a messy, crumpled death. Not everyone makes it across.
In 1974, psychologists Art Aron and Donald Dutton hired a woman to stand in the middle of this suspension bridge. As men passed her on their way across, she asked them if they would be willing to fill out a questionnaire. At the end of the questions, she asked them to examine an illustration of a lady covering her face and then make up a back story to explain it. She then told each man she would be more than happy to discuss the study further if he wanted to call her that night, and tore off a portion of the paper, wrote down her number, and handed it over.”

Bobo Doll Experiment

Bobo Doll Experiment
“Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) tested 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University Nursery School aged between 3 to 6 years old.

The researchers pre-tested the children for how aggressive they were by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behavior on four 5-point rating scales. It was then possible to match the children in each group so that they had similar levels of aggression in their everyday behavior. The experiment is therefore an example of a matched pairs design.

To test the inter-rater reliability of the observers, 51 of the children were rated by two observers independently and their ratings compared. These ratings showed a very high reliability correlation (r = 0.89), which suggested that the observers had good agreement about the behavior of the children.”

Bobo doll experiment
“The Bobo doll experiment was the collective name of experiments conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 when he studied children’s behavior after watching an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo doll. There are different variations of the experiment. The most notable experiment measured the children’s behavior after seeing the model get rewarded, get punished, or experience no consequence for beating up the bobo doll.”

Bobo Doll Experiment

Bobo Doll Experiment

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment

Dunbar’s number

Dunbar’s number

The Limits of Friendship
“Robin Dunbar came up with his eponymous number almost by accident. The University of Oxford anthropologist and psychologist (then at University College London) was trying to solve the problem of why primates devote so much time and effort to grooming. In the process of figuring out the solution, he chanced upon a potentially far more intriguing application for his research. At the time, in the nineteen-eighties, the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis (now known as the Social Brain Hypothesis) had just been introduced into anthropological and primatology discourse. It held that primates have large brains because they live in socially complex societies: the larger the group, the larger the brain. Thus, from the size of an animal’s neocortex, the frontal lobe in particular, you could theoretically predict the group size for that animal.

Looking at his grooming data, Dunbar made the mental leap to humans. “We also had humans in our data set so it occurred to me to look to see what size group that relationship might predict for humans,” he told me recently. Dunbar did the math, using a ratio of neocortical volume to total brain volume and mean group size, and came up with a number. Judging from the size of an average human brain, the number of people the average person could have in her social group was a hundred and fifty. Anything beyond that would be too complicated to handle at optimal processing levels. For the last twenty-two years, Dunbar has been “unpacking and exploring” what that number actually means—and whether our ever-expanding social networks have done anything to change it.
The Dunbar number is actually a series of them. The best known, a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social of us.) From there, through qualitative interviews coupled with analysis of experimental and survey data, Dunbar discovered that the number grows and decreases according to a precise formula, roughly a “rule of three.” The next step down, fifty, is the number of people we call close friends—perhaps the people you’d invite to a group dinner. You see them often, but not so much that you consider them to be true intimates. Then there’s the circle of fifteen: the friends that you can turn to for sympathy when you need it, the ones you can confide in about most things. The most intimate Dunbar number, five, is your close support group. These are your best friends (and often family members). On the flipside, groups can extend to five hundred, the acquaintance level, and to fifteen hundred, the absolute limit—the people for whom you can put a name to a face. While the group sizes are relatively stable, their composition can be fluid. Your five today may not be your five next week; people drift among layers and sometimes fall out of them altogether.

When Dunbar consulted the anthropological and historical record, he found remarkable consistency in support of his structure. The average group size among modern hunter-gatherer societies (where there was accurate census data) was 148.4 individuals. Company size in professional armies, Dunbar found, was also remarkably close to a hundred and fifty, from the Roman Empire to sixteenth-century Spain to the twentieth-century Soviet Union. Companies, in turn, tended to be broken down into smaller units of around fifty then further divided into sections of between ten and fifteen. At the opposite end, the companies formed battalions that ranged from five hundred and fifty to eight hundred, and even larger regiments.”

Robin Dunbar

hedonic adaptation

hedonic adaptation or hedonic treadmill
“The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes.[1] According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness. Brickman and Campbell coined the term in their essay “Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society” (1971).[2] During the late 1990s, the concept was modified by Michael Eysenck, a British psychologist, to become the current “hedonic treadmill theory” which compares the pursuit of happiness to a person on a treadmill, who has to keep walking just to stay in the same place. The concept dates back millennia, to such writers as St. Augustine, cited in Robert Burton’s 1621 Anatomy of Melancholy: “A true saying it is, Desire hath no rest, is infinite in itself, endless, and as one calls it, a perpetual rack, or horse-mill.”

The Hedonic (or Happiness) Set Point has gained interest throughout the field of positive psychology where it has been developed and revised further.[3] Given that hedonic adaptation generally demonstrates that a person’s long term happiness is not significantly affected by otherwise impactful events, positive psychology has concerned itself with the discovery of things that can lead to lasting changes in happiness levels.”

Delusional disorder

Delusional disorder
“Delusional disorder is a psychiatric condition in which the patients present with delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect.[1][2] Delusions are a specific symptom of psychosis. Delusions can be bizarre or non-bizarre in content.[3] Non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that could potentially occur in real life; examples include being followed or poisoned.[4] Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behaviour does not generally seem odd or bizarre.[5] However, the preoccupation with delusional ideas can be disruptive to their overall lives.[5] For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[3]”

Delusional Disorder
“Delusional Disorder is diagnosed when prominent delusions are present for at least one month. Hallucinations, if present, are not prominent and are related to the delusional theme. This disorder is unlike Schizophrenia in that the individual has never had: (1) prominent hallucinations, (2) disorganized speech, (3) grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior, (4) negative symptoms (i.e., diminished emotional expression or avolition). If there are manic or depressive episodes, the total duration of all mood episodes must be brief relative to the total duration of the delusions. This disorder is not due to the effects of a drug, medication, or other medical condition. This disorder’s delusions are not widely accepted beliefs in the individual’s culture. WARNING: When initially interviewed, people with this disorder may appear normal until the topic of their delusion is discussed or acted on. ”

Delusional Disorder
“Delusional disorder refers to a condition associated with one or more nonbizarre delusions of thinking—such as expressing beliefs that occur in real life such as being poisoned, being stalked, being loved or deceived, or having an illness, provided no other symptoms of schizophrenia are exhibited.

Delusions may seem believable at face value, and patients may appear normal as long as an outsider does not touch upon their delusional themes. Mood episodes are relatively brief compared with the total duration of the delusional periods. Also, these delusions are not due to a medical condition or substance abuse.”

Shit Happens
“Focuses on research done by University of Tennessee psychologists into the human ability to detect and accept randomness. How our minds are trained to resist randomness, searching for meaning even where none exists; Research done at Duke University which focused on whether humans have the ability to act in a random fashion.”

Diffusion of responsibility
“Diffusion of responsibility is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present. However this theory lends no necessary individual safety. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so.[1] The phenomenon tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size and when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. It rarely occurs when the person is alone and diffusion increases with groups of three or more.”

What Is Diffusion of Responsibility?
“Diffusion of responsibility is a psychological phenomenon in which people are less likely to take action or feel a sense of responsibility in the presence of a large group of people. Essentially, in a large group of people, people may feel that individual responsibility to intervene is lessened because it is shared by all of the onlookers.

Diffusion of responsibility is often used to explain the bystander effect, a phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are to help an individual in distress.”

Diffusion of Responsibility: Definition, Theory & Examples

Personality Types

DISC Assessment
“DISC is a quadrant behavioral model based on the work of Dr. William Moulton Marston. Let’s learn more.”

Guessing a Personality Type in 5 Steps
How to know someone’s personality

Determining Other People’s Personality

5 Signs Your Emotional Baggage Is Sabotaging Your Relationship

Performance science

Military psychology

Barnum Effect

Barnum effect
“The Barnum effect, also called the Forer effect, is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them but are, in fact, vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, aura reading and some types of personality tests.
A related and more general phenomenon is that of subjective validation.[1] Subjective validation occurs when two unrelated or even random events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectation, or hypothesis demands a relationship. For example, while reading it, people actively seek a correspondence between their perception of their personality and the contents of a horoscope.
The name “Barnum effect” seems to have originated with psychologist Paul Meehl in reference to the American circus entertainer P.T. Barnum, said to have claimed “we have something for everybody”, or possibly in the sense of the noun meaning ‘nonsense, humbug’ to which he also lends his name.[2][3]”

The Barnum Effect
“The Barnum effect in psychology refers to the gullibility of people when reading descriptions of themselves. By personality, we mean the ways in which people are different and unique. However, it is possible to give everyone the same description and people nevertheless rate the description as very very accurate.
They way I used to run this test was to give people some personality test on paper, then give everyone an envelope with a printout of their personality, have them rate the accuracy, and then reveal to everyone that they all got the same description. So, how can it be called accurate?

Here is an example of such a Barnum description:

You have a great need for other people to like and admire you.
You have a great deal of unused capacity, which you have not turned to your advantage.
Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside.
You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others statements without satisfactory proof.
You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
At times you are extroverted, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.
While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them.
Whenever I ran this in class, one student would invariably raise his or her hand and declare: “Well, I was right to rate it as very very accurate because you gave everyone MY description!” And the rest of the class would laugh because they all felt the same way.”
We’ve Got Something for Everyone: The Barnum Effect
“Why do people believe in graphology and astrology? One possibility is that the interpretations they provide are ‘true.’ They are true because they consist of vague positive generalisations with high base-rate validity, yet are supposedly derived specifically for a named person.

For several decades, psychologists have investigated the ‘Barnum effect’ (sometimes known as the Forer effect). This phenomenon occurs when people accept personality feedback about themselves because it is supposedly derived from personality assessment procedures. In other words, people fall victim to the fallacy of personal validation. People accept the generalisations that are true of nearly everybody to be specifically true of themselves.

Over 60 years ago a psychologist called Stagner gave a group of personnel managers a personality test, but instead of scoring it and giving them the actual answers, he gave each of them bogus feedback in the form of statements derived from horoscopes, graphological analyses and so on. Each manager was then asked to read over the feedback (supposedly derived from him or herself from the ‘scientific’ test) and decide how accurate the assessment was. Over half felt their profile was an accurate description of them, and almost none believed it to be wrong.”


sleep paralysis

Sleep paralysis

The Nightmare (Sleep Paralysis documentary)

The Nightmare Official Trailer 1 (2015) – Documentary HD

Object sexuality

10 People In Love with Inanimate Objects

Intimate and Inanimate: A brief look at objectum sexuality

A History of Humans Loving Inanimate Objects

Object sexuality

All About Objectum Sexuality

Intimate and Inanimate: A brief look at objectum sexuality

Personality Types

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

Sociological Concepts

Tipping point (sociology)
“In sociology, a tipping point is a point in time when a group—or a large number of group members—rapidly and dramatically changes its behavior by widely adopting a previously rare practice.
The phrase was first used in sociology by Morton Grodzins when he adopted the phrase from physics where it referred to the adding a small amount of weight to a balanced object until the additional weight caused the object to suddenly and completely topple, or tip. Grodzins studied integrating American neighborhoods in the early 1960s. He discovered that most of the white families remained in the neighborhood as long as the comparative number of black families remained very small. But, at a certain point, when “one too many” black families arrived, the remaining white families would move out en masse in a process known as white flight. He called that moment the ‘tipping point’.”

Identifiable Victim Effect

The Identifiable Victim Effect in Action
“Victims whose stories we know are more likely to elicit sympathy”

Explaining the “Identifiable Victim Effect”

The Identifiable Victim Effect

Identifiable victim effect
The “identifiable victim effect” refers to the tendency of individuals to offer greater aid when a specific, identifiable person (“victim”) is observed under hardship, as compared to a large, vaguely defined group with the same need.[1] The effect is also observed when subjects administer punishment rather than reward. Research has shown that individuals can be more likely to mete out punishment, even at their own expense, when they are punishing specific, identifiable individuals (“perpetrators”).

The identifiable victim effect: a meta-analytic review
“The identifiable victim effect (IVE) refers to individuals’ tendency to offer greater help to specific, identifiable victims than to anonymous, statistical victims. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to determine the overall weighted effect of IVE. Overall, 41 studies were included. Results indicated an overall significant yet modest IVE (r = .05). In addition, findings showed that IVE appears reliable mainly when there is a single identified or a single unidentified victim, and/or when study characteristics include elements of the following: a photographed child suffering from poverty, bearing little responsibility for the need, and/or associated with monetary requests. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.”

On the Psychology of the Identifiable Victim Effect
“This chapter reviews the literature from psychology on aid allocation decisions—focusing specifically on the “identifiable victim effect.” The goal is to build a bridge between what the research from psychology and other disciplines tells us about the effect and the normative discussions that follow. The research goes beyond anecdotal contrasts between a certain legendary identifiable victim and overlooked statistical victims. Instead, controlled experiments test isolated psychological factors, including specificity, vividness, and proportion of a reference group. Thus, it paints a more complete picture of how human sympathy drives decision-making in ways that diverge from normative frameworks discussed elsewhere.”

personality traits

Trait theory
“neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness”