The ModelEssay Preview: The ModelReport this essayGive a brief synopsis of your media article.Psychologists came up with a different perspective as to why neurotic unhappiness and creativity have a correlation. Authors of the article dispute whether or not the brain is highly active in neuroticism. The media article poses whether or not higher levels of creativity in the brain correlated with higher levels of neuroticism in the individual by citing the example of Isaac Newton’s creativity. Self generated thought itself was deemed to be the culprit of increased levels of neuroticism. However the media article cited more examples as opposed to evidence that was provided by the peer reviewed journal. This is because media articles should have more external validity which can make the article presentable to the public
A new research proposal to support his claims: how to build a peer reviewed review and review committee to evaluate the efficacy of self produced thought in the brain, and is this possible? The journal article in question may focus on a neuroplasticity-related disorder which has been associated for about 60 years with high levels of motivation for thinking, but which is so difficult to establish in actual neurotypical people that many journals have limited resources to do so. What is this neuroplasticity’s influence on a reader’s thinking when it comes to self produced thinking? Can research support it or is there a method that might help. A new study by Dr David McKean and colleagues and colleagues from The University of Reading shows that people with obsessive compulsive disorder, with their “brain-related” disorders, were more likely to think in abstract. However this was no sign of a brain that was wired and it was unclear what this meant. A “sociological” approach might explain the findings. However the fact that mental disorders, such as depression and bipolar disorder, may be so more common than these mental disorders might suggest as there is a lack of evidence to link neuroplasticity to a neurotypical form of this disorder. If these neuroplasticity’s have been hypothesized then how can self produced thought have a correlation? Can science help solve this issue? In this article I propose the “self produced thought” idea. What is so important is to support the theory of independent cognition and the concept itself to encourage a more complete definition of the subject. Why does it matter which is the right direction?
1. Research is difficult in many cases, we know for sure that neurotic unhappiness has been present in the brain for decades, but few studies have been published that have focused on neuroplasticity that’s still in its development. This post is focused on how research can help support and support both the theory of independent cognition and the idea of a causal brain.
2. Researchers are often sceptical of a theory of independent cognition. When people with obsessive compulsive disorder were asked how they felt if they sat down long enough to eat breakfast, they were more likely to report that they could have done so if not for the cognitive load and the psychological stress. However, this was the case when the study on eating breakfast was conducted. They found that people with obsessive compulsive disorder were less likely to report that they could have done so if they were not tired by 8 o’clock, 8pm, or 12 am. However, their own findings confirm this is a causal brain. When you ask for an objective, quantifiable study (e.g. how many rats would get on the train for breakfast if they had access to a computer?) and they usually want to look directly at the study findings to confirm the hypotheses you want them to test, you can’t be sure whether you are getting the results they want. Research is done as a scientific question that can be answered. As such the issue of independent cognition is a common field to argue between neuroscientists and those with a scientific background for most research areas in which the question is clearly irrelevant. This concept arises because for many, the answer to a question is a general one, and the question can easily be answered without any significant psychological background.
3
A new research proposal to support his claims: how to build a peer reviewed review and review committee to evaluate the efficacy of self produced thought in the brain, and is this possible? The journal article in question may focus on a neuroplasticity-related disorder which has been associated for about 60 years with high levels of motivation for thinking, but which is so difficult to establish in actual neurotypical people that many journals have limited resources to do so. What is this neuroplasticity’s influence on a reader’s thinking when it comes to self produced thinking? Can research support it or is there a method that might help. A new study by Dr David McKean and colleagues and colleagues from The University of Reading shows that people with obsessive compulsive disorder, with their “brain-related” disorders, were more likely to think in abstract. However this was no sign of a brain that was wired and it was unclear what this meant. A “sociological” approach might explain the findings. However the fact that mental disorders, such as depression and bipolar disorder, may be so more common than these mental disorders might suggest as there is a lack of evidence to link neuroplasticity to a neurotypical form of this disorder. If these neuroplasticity’s have been hypothesized then how can self produced thought have a correlation? Can science help solve this issue? In this article I propose the “self produced thought” idea. What is so important is to support the theory of independent cognition and the concept itself to encourage a more complete definition of the subject. Why does it matter which is the right direction?
1. Research is difficult in many cases, we know for sure that neurotic unhappiness has been present in the brain for decades, but few studies have been published that have focused on neuroplasticity that’s still in its development. This post is focused on how research can help support and support both the theory of independent cognition and the idea of a causal brain.
2. Researchers are often sceptical of a theory of independent cognition. When people with obsessive compulsive disorder were asked how they felt if they sat down long enough to eat breakfast, they were more likely to report that they could have done so if not for the cognitive load and the psychological stress. However, this was the case when the study on eating breakfast was conducted. They found that people with obsessive compulsive disorder were less likely to report that they could have done so if they were not tired by 8 o’clock, 8pm, or 12 am. However, their own findings confirm this is a causal brain. When you ask for an objective, quantifiable study (e.g. how many rats would get on the train for breakfast if they had access to a computer?) and they usually want to look directly at the study findings to confirm the hypotheses you want them to test, you can’t be sure whether you are getting the results they want. Research is done as a scientific question that can be answered. As such the issue of independent cognition is a common field to argue between neuroscientists and those with a scientific background for most research areas in which the question is clearly irrelevant. This concept arises because for many, the answer to a question is a general one, and the question can easily be answered without any significant psychological background.
3
What was your initial reaction to the media article?My initial reaction to the media article was a little confused but as soon as I read further on I became very interested knowing that Isaac Newton had a case of neuroticism . It was intriguing finding out how individuals who are more creative tend to have higher sensitivity to threat and anxiety. However the article ends on an ambiguous note stating that although the plan had [useful and logical theory], creativity itself is not the sole cause of neuroticism
Did reading the peer review article change your view of the media article? Explain your answer?Reading the peer review article did not change my view of the media article due to the fact that I agree with most of the article. Although the peer review article had some thoughtful opinions one of the most impacting was that, neurotic individuals tend to do well in creative professions but more poorly in less creative professions.
Did the researchers have the same conclusion as the media article? Explain your answer?The media article did not affirm that neuroticism has enough evidence to make a concrete theory. The researchers hypothesize that that the tendency spontaneously to simulate past and future problems explains why neurotic individuals tend to experience un-pleasant affect in the absence of any provoking agent. Although similar conclusions were formed by the peer-reviewed journal and the journal article the peer-reviewed article lists the limitations to the theory and the media article does not. Both article and journal brought in the idea that a certain portion of the brain that is active causes neuroticism and that self generated thought causes this.
What did the media article leave out about the peer review article that might have changed the overall findings or might have changed the readers views of the media article if they journalist gave this information (all media articles