Posts by Gerald Rivera60

Come on, people, what is the actual purpose of that chatter thread...🙂

Taylor Campbell4 said:Honestly, I’m already fed up with these Fxx—you guys bring them up constantly regardless of the context, yet I haven't the slightest clue what they actually signify. Not that I’m complaining, though—if I were truly interested, some pretentious psychiatrist would likely try to give me an analysis.

Those are just disease classifications from the International Classification of Diseases (the ICD).
The F category covers mental health conditions and disorders, while J refers to respiratory diseases, and so on.
You can find the complete list of codes at the link below.
http://www.who.int/classifications/a...d/icd10online/

Richard Murphy6 said:driving me crazy

What kind of language is that... 🙂
this is supposed to be a serious discussion...

We aren't puritans, but still...
🙂

Keith Lee2 said:My first vibe when thinking about derivatives or integrals—it's like being in a lecture hall, surrounded by people,
staring at chalkboards covered in random symbols... just pure fear of the unknown,
that knot in your stomach, total discomfort—(straight up PTSD vibes)—and still nothing, just a complete
mental block.
As for a thought? It's like a white mist—kind of like a ghost drifting through a huge empty space.
Quincy:

I don't have a visual in my head, and I can't really conjure one up (though I'd recognize it if I saw it), and I think it's just a way our brains protect our memory—instead of storing images, we just store names and the basic, necessary details.

Man, what you're saying really trips me out—makes me wonder how someone born blind would "shape" their perception.

That’s always been the question for me... much like how those who are deaf-mute develop language symbols and grasp abstract concepts.
We’ve drifted quite far off-topic here. I’m thinking about moving these posts to a dedicated thread—it would be useful to have a specific cognitive psychology topic on this subforum.

I agree that we shouldn't blindly apply methods or tests that haven't been fully validated yet.
However, IBM isn't a metric for personal happiness or success. It measures how proficient someone is at "reading" emotions—both in others and themselves—and the extent to which they can regulate and leverage those emotions in various interpersonal settings.
In that sense, you could view it as just another facet of intelligence.
Provided, of course, that the data holds up.
Here is an example of the type of questions found in the MSCEIT test.


As you can see, the questions focus more on emotional knowledge and experience. The first task involves identifying emotions based on facial expressions, while the second and third tasks deal with determining the appropriateness or likelihood of certain emotions arising in specific situations.
(These sample questions are drawn from a recent article in Scientific American; the author notes that while these aren't the exact questions used in the questionnaire, they are very similar.)

Keith Lee2 said:So when I read "Bobby and Ruda are friends," my brain's first instinct
was actually thinking of "Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy"—it took me a second to realize I was talking about someone else.
It makes me think that if your first thought when you hear "bread" is "knife," then your brain
is definitely processing in images.
But if you hear "bread" and immediately think "circle," then you're probably more of a verbal processor.
Basically, we’ve got visual types and verbal types.
The visual ones are usually guys, and the verbal ones are usually women.

Here's something that's pretty tough to process purely verbally:
"Predator is stronger than Alien, and Hulk is stronger than both of them.
If you're a strictly verbal thinker, you'll probably just get stuck on the typos.😁

Sure, but reading your sentence didn't trigger any mental images of the Predator, Hulk, or Alien. I don't see them as pictures, even though I can tell you Hulk is a green giant.
In fact, I’d have to make a conscious effort to visualize an Alien or a Predator. Instead of percepts, my brain encodes them as abstract concepts within a semantic network. I’ve encoded the Alien as a headed monster with acid for blood that is highly dangerous. I don't have a mental image, nor can I conjure one; I’d recognize him if I saw him, and that’s it. I suspect this is a mechanism for preserving memory—instead of storing images, you store names and core, relevant traits.
Those bread-knife or circle-circle associations you mentioned aren't about percepts; they belong to semantic links and networks.
Networks of abstract concepts, not percepts.
How, then, do you visualize something like derivation, integrals, or a thought? What kind of percept exists there?
Here is an example of semantic networks... this is a massive simplification because there are far more associations, and connections exist between the primary associations of terms. All of this exists in multiple dimensions, not just two...

Keith Lee2 said:See, when I say "I need to grab some bread," I'm definitely working with mental imagery.
Those three little words act like a trigger that pulls up every single image my brain has stored.
I can already see the whole loaf—maybe a half, maybe a chunk—and whether it’s soft or crusty.
I can almost smell the fresh bread, picture the walk to the corner store, see the cashier's face,
think about the cash I need to carry, what I'm having with it, and a million other tiny details.
Only after my brain processes all that does it set the stage for me to actually leave.
It kind of explains that "automatic no" thing too.
When someone asks you for a favor, your first instinct is often just "NO,"
mostly because your brain just needs enough time to run through all those generated images.

So, I'd argue abstract concepts are just triggers to find
and link together everything we've already perceived.

If I said "I need to buy brenk," then you're just messing with words that mean nothing
until your brain scans its memory to find something familiar.
That's basically the brain's job—filtering through info—and you can't really stop it from happening consciously.

Well, we disagree there. I think it would be far too slow if the brain always operated through perception. Most of the time, I believe it operates via abstract concepts.
For instance, if I say, "Bobby and Ruda are friends." How do you process that? Do you visualize imaginary characters, or how do you conceptualize "friend"?
I don't have those mental images; they are quite rare for me. When I think about things or people—say, "I need to call John tomorrow and ask to borrow his lawnmower"—there isn't a single image in my head. It stays entirely on a linguistic-symbolic level.
Here is a concrete example: I'm hungry right now. First, the thought arises: "I am hungry," then "what should I eat?" No imagery involved, just an internal monologue: "I'll make some pasta." I get to the fridge and there's no sauce. "I know I bought it." Everything is still purely symbolic.
But then... "where did I leave that sauce?" That's when the imagery kicks in. I try to visualize where I put it yesterday after getting back from the supermarket.
In my experience, imagery only shows up when the symbolic level fails or when you intentionally want to visualize something to relive a sensation, like a pretty girl you saw on the subway. 😁
I suspect the human perceptual analyzer would simply be overwhelmed if it had to "think" by visualizing while simultaneously analyzing current sensory input.
The way it works now, perceptual analysis is reserved for processing real-time stimuli, while thinking is handled by other parts of the brain that have translated those perceptions into a different language. It's like how I don't draw a car; I just write the word.

Keith Lee2 said:I don't think I was talking about speed when describing perception itself
but rather the processing of what's been perceived.
Basically, perception has a volume, while processing has the speed.

And just a heads up—if you want to dial back your perception to match your capacity for
processing—and actually boost your EQ, you'd probably need an anti-anxiety med
or, you know, just get hammered. (but that's more of a whole other conversation about alcoholism)

That brings up the question of how we process abstract concepts.
The bulk of information we receive arrives via language. Someone speaks, and that audio hits the primary auditory cortex for basic sensory processing. From there, those tones are synthesized into meaningful phonemes and sent deeper into the brain, where the vocal sequence is translated into a series of connected concepts. It then integrates into an existing semantic network, accounting for context and everything else.
At this stage, the processing of raw percepts is lost. When I say "I need to buy bread," I am not working with mental images or simulating the act of purchasing; I am operating with concepts. Everything stays at a symbolic level. This allows us to handle massive amounts of data. In fact, if we had to operate using raw mental representations, we would be much slower. Instead, we swap them for concepts—using a semantic network to perform our mental data processing.
We only rely on mental imagery when we lack specific skills or when we are learning something new and need to visualize it.
In most cases, perception acts merely as a trigger for processes within semantic networks.
(We need more "hard" cognitive psychology topics on this subforum)

Keith Lee2 said:I don't think I was talking about speed when describing perception itself
but rather the processing of what's been perceived.
Basically, perception has a volume, while processing has the speed.

And just a heads up—if you want to dial back your perception to match your capacity for
processing—and actually boost your EQ, you'd probably need an anti-anxiety med
or, you know, just get hammered. (but that's more of a whole other conversation about alcoholism)

Heh... interesting theory.
The pathway for processing emotional information is different from other types of data. Ultimately, the cortical regions handling that processing are distinct.
Take prosopagnosia, for example. It’s a specific disorder caused by a lesion in a certain part of the cortex, resulting in an inability to recognize faces despite having perfectly intact perception of everything else. A person with prosopagnosia can see a nose, eyes, and individual facial features, but they cannot synthesize them into a cohesive whole. Otherwise, their perception remains normal, no matter the complexity. This proves we have a dedicated center in the brain for this task. Evolution likely favored individuals who were better at recognizing faces—and the expressions on them—as it improved survival and reproduction.
(But now we're drifting into evolutionary biology... that's a topic for another day. Still, it's fascinating how evolution, emotion, perception, semantic networks, language, and social context all intertwine. It reminds me of how a French historian might say there is no history of France, only the history of Europe, and no history of Europe, only the history of the world)

Keith Lee2 said:It wasn't intentional or anything—just life forcing my hand.
Basically, if I pick up on way more details in my surroundings, then there's way more data
to crunch just to figure out if stuff is a "1" or a "0" (like, safe or dangerous).
If you live somewhere totally chill, but you notice every little thing and your brain
can't keep up with labeling everything as "safe," you're still gonna end up feeling anxious.
So, the brain gets flooded with input and is basically forced to handle a massive amount
of processing—which, I guess, forces it to develop intelligence.
Sadly, I'm just not fast enough at processing all that info, so I end up stuck in this weird spot
where I'm constantly on edge—basically lacking Emotional Intelligence.

I don't know what your background is, but you clearly know your stuff.

Just a sci-fi geek (speculator) here—thanks though.😁

Fair enough. I agree that sensory overload can definitely trigger feelings of discomfort or even fear.
The brain doesn't actually "develop" intelligence. At most, it might demonstrate intelligent behavior that stems from some underlying, latent capacity. Cognitive capacity is largely hardwired. You are simply as intelligent as you are. It isn't that the environment plays zero role, but the alternative implies my brain will suddenly sprout new intelligence just because I've been exposed to massive amounts of data. That isn't how it works.
3. Hmm... you’ve suddenly pivoted to Emotional Intelligence. In principle, it functions much like standard intelligence, except you're processing emotional data—whether that's your own internal state or reading the emotional expressions of everyone else around you.
I’m just not convinced that an inability to process information always, or even necessarily, results in a state of fear.

Keith Lee2 said:It wasn't intentional or anything—just life forcing my hand.
Basically, if I pick up on way more details in my surroundings, then there's way more data
to crunch just to figure out if stuff is a "1" or a "0" (like, safe or dangerous).
If you live somewhere totally chill, but you notice every little thing and your brain
can't keep up with labeling everything as "safe," you're still gonna end up feeling anxious.
So, the brain gets flooded with input and is basically forced to handle a massive amount
of processing—which, I guess, forces it to develop intelligence.
Sadly, I'm just not fast enough at processing all that info, so I end up stuck in this weird spot
where I'm constantly on edge—basically lacking Emotional Intelligence.

I don't know what your background is, but you clearly know your stuff.

Just a sci-fi geek (speculator) here—thanks though.😁

It’s a fair point. It’s worth thinking about, and even speculating.

Keith Lee2 As specified by:
The relationship between EQ and IQ.
I suppose it’s my turn to throw some speculation into the ring.
I’ve noticed that IQ is largely dependent on perception and how quickly one can process what they perceive.

A solid starting point. This follows the path set by Francis Galton, who attempted to measure intelligence through reaction times and various other perceptual assessments.
Even by today's standards, certain intelligence assessments still rely on perceptual tasks, such as shape recognition or spotting differences between images.
Perception and the processing of what we perceive are necessary prerequisites, but they aren't enough to constitute intelligence on their own. It isn't always about handling raw sensory data. Often, we are dealing with the processing of abstract concepts, which is where perception plays its part. Technically speaking. Questionable.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "processing the perceived." Are you referring to how we handle abstract concepts that don't immediately hit our senses in such a direct way?

Keith Lee2 said:The link between EQ and IQ.
Just my two cents here—speculating a bit.
From what I can tell, IQ really comes down to perception and how fast you process what you see.
Basically, your brain looks at everything around you and flags it as either familiar or unknown,
and then decides if it’s dangerous or safe. If it picks up too many signals
that feel unknown or risky, it triggers fear—ranging from just a little
unease to full-on panic—just to get you away from "danger" as fast as possible.

Now, picture someone who perceives *everything* (super high sensitivity),
but doesn't have a fast enough processing speed to keep up.
That person is basically living in a state of constant anxiety.
On the flip side, someone who doesn't notice much but processes things lightning-fast
is going to be pretty chill, even in a "scary" environment.

So, the sheer amount of data you can process—that's IQ.
But the ratio between how much you perceive versus how much you process? That's EQ.

People who are highly perceptive are forced to develop higher intelligence just to cope,
basically leveling up their IQ to balance out the perception
and reach a sense of equilibrium—or, you know, actual happiness.

True. Much of this processing happens on an unconscious level—not in the Freudian sense, but at a physiological one involving the thalamic structures and the limbic system. It occurs incredibly fast. You feel the physical surge before you even consciously register the fear.

Keith Lee2 said:The link between EQ and IQ.
Just my two cents here—speculating a bit.
From what I can tell, IQ really comes down to perception and how fast you process what you see.
Basically, your brain looks at everything around you and flags it as either familiar or unknown,
and then decides if it’s dangerous or safe. If it picks up too many signals
that feel unknown or risky, it triggers fear—ranging from just a little
unease to full-on panic—just to get you away from "danger" as fast as possible.

Now, picture someone who perceives *everything* (super high sensitivity),
but doesn't have a fast enough processing speed to keep up.
That person is basically living in a state of constant anxiety.
On the flip side, someone who doesn't notice much but processes things lightning-fast
is going to be pretty chill, even in a "scary" environment.

So, the sheer amount of data you can process—that's IQ.
But the ratio between how much you perceive versus how much you process? That's EQ.

People who are highly perceptive are forced to develop higher intelligence just to cope,
basically leveling up their IQ to balance out the perception
and reach a sense of equilibrium—or, you know, actual happiness.

You aren't being clear here. What exactly do you mean by "high perception," and how are you defining "speed of perception"?

Keith Lee2 As specified by:
Someone who perceives poorly but processes information quickly will still struggle, even in an environment that feels more intimidating.
To be quite carefree.

It isn't just about how fast someone perceives things, and it certainly isn't always the case.

Keith Lee2 said:The link between EQ and IQ.
Just my two cents here—speculating a bit.
From what I can tell, IQ really comes down to perception and how fast you process what you see.
Basically, your brain looks at everything around you and flags it as either familiar or unknown,
and then decides if it’s dangerous or safe. If it picks up too many signals
that feel unknown or risky, it triggers fear—ranging from just a little
unease to full-on panic—just to get you away from "danger" as fast as possible.

Now, picture someone who perceives *everything* (super high sensitivity),
but doesn't have a fast enough processing speed to keep up.
That person is basically living in a state of constant anxiety.
On the flip side, someone who doesn't notice much but processes things lightning-fast
is going to be pretty chill, even in a "scary" environment.

So, the sheer amount of data you can process—that's IQ.
But the ratio between how much you perceive versus how much you process? That's EQ.

People who are highly perceptive are forced to develop higher intelligence just to cope,
basically leveling up their IQ to balance out the perception
and reach a sense of equilibrium—or, you know, actual happiness.

I could agree that IQ involves the volume of data, but also its accuracy. Impulsive people often process information quickly, but they frequently make mistakes.
As for EQ, I'm less certain because we are still talking about data processing, just different types of data. Based on your logic, EQ would involve perceiving and processing stimuli, but also interpreting them in alignment with an organism's homeostatic needs and environmental demands.
If we stick to the original definition, Emotional Intelligence is the ability to perceive, recognize, and manage emotions.

Keith Lee2 said:The link between EQ and IQ.
Just my two cents here—speculating a bit.
From what I can tell, IQ really comes down to perception and how fast you process what you see.
Basically, your brain looks at everything around you and flags it as either familiar or unknown,
and then decides if it’s dangerous or safe. If it picks up too many signals
that feel unknown or risky, it triggers fear—ranging from just a little
unease to full-on panic—just to get you away from "danger" as fast as possible.

Now, picture someone who perceives *everything* (super high sensitivity),
but doesn't have a fast enough processing speed to keep up.
That person is basically living in a state of constant anxiety.
On the flip side, someone who doesn't notice much but processes things lightning-fast
is going to be pretty chill, even in a "scary" environment.

So, the sheer amount of data you can process—that's IQ.
But the ratio between how much you perceive versus how much you process? That's EQ.

People who are highly perceptive are forced to develop higher intelligence just to cope,
basically leveling up their IQ to balance out the perception
and reach a sense of equilibrium—or, you know, actual happiness.

In my view, you're introducing a causal link here that isn't necessary. Someone with high perception doesn't intentionally "develop" intelligence to solve this problem, which is what your argument implies. Furthermore, you equate perception and processing with intelligence, yet then you suddenly introduce intelligence again as a separate factor.
One more thing... if you want to develop this concept, you have to find a way to operationalize and quantify it so it can be scientifically tested—even if it's just through a pen-and-paper test. You need to keep that in mind.
I'm being a bit critical—or rather, pointing out where I think your explanation falls short—not to discourage you, but to push you further. 🙂
I don't know what your professional background is, but you have potential. 👍

I agree. The concept of traditional academic intelligence is far more established and extensively researched, though it’s been around for a century. EQ, by comparison, is a relatively recent arrival.
In my view, neither metric alone is sufficient to reliably predict someone's success.

The original architects of the EI concept define it as an ability, suggesting that EI might simply be one facet of general intelligence.
Under that original framework, we are looking at four distinct categories of abilities
1. Emotion Perception—the capacity to detect and interpret emotions through facial expressions, behavior, tone of voice, and cultural cues.
(Early research has already demonstrated that perceiving and experiencing basic emotions is a cross-cultural phenomenon.)
2. Emotion Facilitation—using emotions to direct thought processes and prioritize specific tasks.
3. Emotion Understanding—grasping emotional language and the complex relationships between different feelings.
4. Emotion Management—the ability to regulate both your own emotions and those of others.
These aspects of EI are interconnected and correlated; they aren't entirely independent skills. When it comes to measurement, the MSCEIT (Meyer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test), developed in 2002, tends to yield the most robust results.

Much of the research suggests there is either no correlation between EQ and IQ, or if there is, it’s marginal at best.

For instance, Bastian et al. found a slight link between EQ and academic performance, but noted a connection between EI and life satisfaction, improved perception, and better problem-solving. However, once they controlled for personality traits and cognitive abilities, the actual impact of EI (measured via questionnaire) proved to be quite minimal. Essentially, variables like life satisfaction and coping mechanisms are more strongly tied to personality and core cognitive skills.

Schulte et al. identified a relatively high correlation between general intelligence and EI—around 0.45—while also noting a strong link between intelligence and certain personality dimensions based on the Big Five model. This leads them to question whether the concept of EI offers much practical utility.

Ruud van Rooy and Subramania Viswesvaran also observed a link between EI and general intelligence. Their correlation coefficient was significant at 0.23, but hardly large—representing only about 5% of the shared variance. Furthermore, the correlation between EI and personality dimensions never exceeded 0.34, accounting for roughly 12% of the shared variance.
Ultimately, EI—or EQ—still needs to prove its validity and utility. We have yet to determine if it is truly just an aspect of intelligence, as the original authors suggest, or if it should be treated as a standalone ability (assuming it proves itself useful).
(There is some food for thought for the OP.)

I have my own reservations regarding IQ and the whole concept of intelligence, though I’m coming at it from a different angle than the typical EQ advocates.
(But that’s off-topic anyway), and I've already covered my thoughts on it elsewhere. I don't feel like repeating myself—it starts to feel like parroting.

To be more precise, the concept of Emotional Intelligence was actually developed by Peter Salovey and John Mayer back in 1990.
While Robert Sternberg laid some of the groundwork for this idea in 1985, he didn't create the construct himself.
Daniel Goleman is the one who really brought it into the mainstream in 1998, though I doubt the original authors, Peter Salovey and John Mayer, saw much direct benefit from all that hype.
...I should also point out that the craze around the concept has definitely cooled off lately; you can see it in the declining number of academic papers being published compared to just a few years ago.

Please refrain from starting unnecessary debates.
The system now includes an option to issue warnings—both yellow and red cards—so I suggest you don't give me a reason to test that feature on any of you.
If you want to engage in casual chat or similar banter, there is a dedicated thread for that.

A little bit of everything 😬

Have you taken your medication yet? Try to focus and get your head in the game; you have control over your own thoughts.
If you are genuinely struggling, maybe reach out to someone who can actually provide professional support. I’m not equipped for this, nor am I a clinician (and honestly, I’m not much of a counselor anyway).

😘

Everyone agrees that both nature and nurture play a role in how diseases develop. However, determining which one carries more weight remains a constant debate. Every few months, a new study hits the press favoring environmental factors, only to be followed by another claiming genetics are the primary driver. It is difficult to settle on a definitive verdict. That said, nobody disputes that both sets of variables are essential, especially considering the complex interaction between our DNA and our surroundings.

It’s possible he inherited the gene, but it’s also possible he didn't...
Even if one parent deals with schizophrenia, the odds are roughly 50/50, assuming a carrier is present in the lineage.
However, you neglected to mention what kind of medication was used, which matters. You might not even know.
There is a significant difference between schizophrenia and other conditions.
On the other hand, seeing a pattern where an aunt and her children all required treatment points toward genetics, but it could just as easily be environmental factors that triggered the illness within that family.
Ultimately, the chances sit at 50/50.

As for this man...
First, you are viewing him through a specific lens, which means you might be hunting for symptoms that aren't actually there. Some people are simply more level-headed than others. The real question is whether you have observed him across enough different scenarios to confirm his behavior is consistent. We often meet people in limited contexts, making them seem predictable; when we see them in a new setting, their true nature can be surprising.
If he truly lacks emotional range, that could be a red flag, but it isn't a certainty. It could easily be a side effect of medication—perhaps he is already undergoing treatment?
In short, drawing conclusions from such thin data is difficult. Have you actually spoken with him? Is he employed, and how does he interact with his colleagues? Does his speech fluctuate, or is it monotone? Can he stay on topic? How are his relationships with his family and his community? Have you ever visited his home? There are many variables to consider.

Yes, schizophrenia definitely has a strong hereditary component.
It essentially boils down to a disruption in brain biochemistry—likely involving dopamine pathways. While we still haven't fully mapped out how environmental factors interact with these biological triggers, the genetic influence is undeniably significant.

urbannomad12 said:What kind of people actually listen to pop-country? Your average listener finishes community college, serves a stint in the military, and then spends six months hunting for a job. They still live at home, so they have enough cash for a night out and can drop 500-$333 at a nightclub on the weekend. They never cared about history, so after spending Friday losing their minds to songs sung by the ex-wife of some notorious American criminal, they’ll head to a Johnny Štulić concert on Saturday to shout slogans along with a hyped-up crowd of like-minded people.
From Monday to Thursday, they'll be at work retelling stories about how wild the weekend was, and then Friday rolls around and it all starts over again.
That's the mediocre life cycle. They'll live like that until they hit 30, get married because they managed to hook up with some girl, have a kid, and suddenly have neither the time nor the desire for music or partying.

... you really think it's like that?
I don't know where you're from, but here in Chicago, plenty of kids—even middle and high schoolers—listen to pop-country.
A lot of people listen to it who definitely don't fit the profile you described.
I remember seeing a news report from a madhouse... even quite a few American celebrities were spotted there.

I "slightly" butchered this thread... my apologies if there were any collateral damage.
I’m repeating myself here... the issue isn't the music itself, but rather the type of people who listen to it.
Please stick to that point.

Regarding dating or "hanging out" with someone who listens to pop stars...
Would you date someone who exclusively reads Danielle Steel novels or spends their time watching cheap B-movie action flicks?
What’s the difference?

Linking certain music to specific psychological traits doesn't stem from the songs themselves, but from the social context and the reputation built around them.

Do you honestly believe listening to R&B or rock requires more sophistication or intelligence than listening to pop?

If there is indeed a pattern among those fans, it isn't tied to intelligence or personality—it's tied to social background.
In other words, social background is the latent variable influencing both their psychological profile and their taste in music.