Sidebar
Psychology
In the realm of psychological and therapeutic work, we often encounter deeply ingrained societal beliefs that link outward appearance to moral character or potential harm. This assumption—that how someone presents themselves can somehow be equated with their intentions, capabilities, or threat to others—is a misconception rooted in cultural norms and biases rather than reality. The notion that wearing makeup or dressing in nontraditional ways signifies something morally or ethically negative not only lacks evidence but perpetuates harmful stereotypes. **The Evolution of Gender Norms and Social Conditioning** Historically, societal standards for gender presentation have fluctuated. For example, in the 18th century, it was common for men to wear makeup, powdered wigs, and elaborate clothing. The colour pink, now often considered "feminine," was once associated with masculinity and strength, while blue was considered delicate and appropriate for women. These shifts highlight the arbitrary nature of social norms and the fact that what is deemed "appropriate" is not fixed but culturally and temporally contingent. When we evaluate individuals based on their adherence to these socially constructed norms, we’re not assessing their character, values, or intentions. Instead, we are reinforcing narrow, historically inconsistent frameworks. In clinical terms, this is a form of cognitive bias—specifically, "the halo effect"—wherein judgments about one aspect of a person (in this case, their appearance) unjustifiably influence our perception of their overall character. **The Psychological Impact of Gender Norms** From a therapeutic perspective, rigid adherence to societal norms around appearance and gender expression can have harmful psychological effects—both for those who feel confined by these expectations and for those who use them as criteria to evaluate others. Individuals who do not conform to traditional gender norms, for instance, may face prejudice, exclusion, or even accusations of potential harm simply because they challenge outdated stereotypes. This is especially concerning in the context of family dynamics, where support, understanding, and acceptance are critical for healthy relationships. When someone expresses themselves through makeup or nontraditional clothing, this does not signify a departure from their core identity or moral integrity. Rather, it reflects an alignment with their authentic self. Rejecting or distancing oneself from a family member because of their appearance can lead to emotional distress, familial estrangement, and unnecessary conflict. From a therapeutic standpoint, this represents a missed opportunity for empathy and connection, as the focus is mistakenly placed on external factors rather than internal qualities or intentions. **Challenging the Link Between Appearance and Behaviour** One common fear associated with nonconformity in appearance is the idea that it somehow increases the risk of harm—particularly to children or vulnerable individuals. Yet, this fear is unsupported by research. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that wearing makeup, dressing outside of traditional gender norms, or expressing oneself through alternative fashion choices correlates with inappropriate or harmful behavior. In fact, criminal psychology and research into deviant behavior show that external appearance is not a reliable indicator of potential for harm. Predatory behavior, for example, is more closely linked with factors like manipulation, lack of empathy, and antisocial personality traits—none of which are revealed by clothing or makeup choices. To draw a connection between someone’s outward expression and their likelihood to harm others is not only misguided but potentially damaging to relationships. **Psychological Flexibility and the Importance of Acceptance** From a therapeutic lens, psychological flexibility—the ability to adapt one's thinking and behavior in response to changing circumstances—is a crucial aspect of mental well-being. In this case, accepting a family member’s evolving sense of self-expression, rather than adhering to rigid and potentially harmful gender norms, can lead to healthier, more accepting relationships. Therapy encourages us to recognize the difference between deeply held beliefs and the actual evidence of harm. Rejecting someone based on appearance alone reduces the opportunity to engage with them on a deeper level, to understand their values, emotions, and aspirations. This kind of rejection may stem from fear—often a fear rooted in cultural conditioning—but when we explore these fears in therapy, we usually find they are unfounded or based on misconceptions. **The Role of Identity and Self-Expression in Mental Health** Self-expression is a fundamental component of personal identity. From a developmental perspective, identity formation is a key psychological task that individuals engage with throughout their lives. The ability to express oneself authentically is critical for mental health, as it fosters self-acceptance, self-esteem, and resilience. Limiting someone’s ability to do so—whether through judgment, exclusion, or fear—can lead to emotional harm, including anxiety, depression, and a diminished sense of self-worth. Conversely, allowing individuals the space to explore and express their identity—whether through makeup, fashion, or other means—can be an empowering and healing experience. This aligns with therapeutic goals of promoting self-compassion and authentic living, rather than living under the constraints of social conformity. **Conclusion: Breaking Free from Outdated Beliefs** To equate makeup, clothing choices, or nontraditional gender presentation with moral failing or potential harm is to fall into the trap of conflating appearance with behavior. As research and clinical experience have shown, these surface-level attributes do not provide insight into someone’s character or intent. Judgments based on appearance are reflective of social and cultural conditioning, not of empirical truths. The path forward, both in individual relationships and in broader societal discourse, is one of understanding and flexibility. Rather than clinging to outdated norms, we must embrace a more nuanced and compassionate view of self-expression—one that recognizes the difference between how someone looks and who they truly are.
phys.org
cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/7641
psyche.co
www.rnz.co.nz
> > > Imagine being able to remember every single day of your life, all the way back to when you were a newborn. > > > > > Australian woman Rebecca Sharrock is one of only 60 people in the world with a highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM), also known as hyperthymesia. > >
youtube.com
This is Nurse Apy with some quick practical tips on communicating with someone who has a serious mental illness! (SMI) (Obviously the video is not a real patient, but I can't show you a real patient and I stg this is actually pretty spot on.) Delusions have a tendency to strengthen themselves when confronted. Instead of new observations or information weakening the belief, they're usually incorporated into the delusional belief system. This means that when the person encounters that information or situation in the future, that information/situation will actually continually *strengthen* the belief. Don't confront delusions; instead, redirect! Try to redirect the conversation towards things that reconnect the person with the wider human community. Ppl with serious and ongoing delusions have a tendency to become progressively isolated from those around them. They want to talk about delusional topics, and most people only know how to confront them about something they can clearly see is untrue. This pushes the person further into their delusions to avoid conflict with those around them. This isolation also often leads to suicidal ideation, behavior, and completion, ppl w psychosis are some of the highest risks of suicide. Ways you can try to connect with the person are as varied as humans themselves. As the person who actually knows and interacts with a given person, you are likely the most knowledgeable about what the best topic to do that is in a given situation. Common examples include sports, popular media, and hobbies like sewing, woodworking, or gardening. Bonus points if it's related to a communal activity of some kind. As an aside, this is a big reason q-anon rose to popularity during the pandemic and has remained entrenched ever since. It provided community where people were missing it, and we have a very confrontational and argumentative culture that often serves to strengthen ingrained belief systems like this. TLDR: if you want to get your aunt off her q-anon roll, try to get her to go back to gardening club instead (preferably one that is not also q-anon-ers, a lot of people pushing it also understand these concepts).
www.rnz.co.nz
"We are constantly making decisions with our limited time and cognitive resources and memory storage. "We're not robots, and the fact that you can seemingly Google your way to anything does not make us smarter." She was plagued by the idea that while we're living in the information age, life seems to be making less sense. "It certainly doesn't seem to be feeling any better, even though the quality of life is overall actually improving. "Our innate irrationalities, that have always existed, are being dialled up to 11 because of the culture that we've created." Cognitive bias is a mental magic trick that we developed in order for us to make sense of the world sufficiently to survive it, she says. "The natural world was always too much for us to process, if we had to catalogue the precise colour and shape of every twig in order to understand it, that would take more than a lifetime. "So, we came up with these cognitive biases, dozens upon dozens of them. And they help us make decisions without our even noticing." Every human has cognitive biases, but when they collide with digital information overload, bad things can happen
psyche.co
www.livescience.com
The phenomenon of hearing intelligible voices or noises in meaningless background noise is known as "auditory pareidolia." The sources of this noise vary; they may include electric fans; running water; airplane engines; the hums of washing machines; or white-noise machines, according to audiologists. It is an auditory sub-type of pareidolia, in which people see faces or other meaningful patterns in ambiguous images.
Are you an asker or a guesser? Short interesting read.
economicsfromthetopdown.com
Have you heard of the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’? It’s the (apparent) tendency for unskilled people to overestimate their competence. Discovered in 1999 by psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning, the effect has since become famous. Except there’s a problem. The Dunning-Kruger effect also emerges from data in which it shouldn’t. For instance, if you carefully craft random data so that it does not contain a Dunning-Kruger effect, you will still find the effect. The reason turns out to be embarrassingly simple: the Dunning-Kruger effect has nothing to do with human psychology.1 It is a statistical artifact — a stunning example of autocorrelation. EDIT: see response from dustyData and the article they linked to https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/dunning-kruger-effect-and-its-discontents
www.popsci.com
psyche.co
thereader.mitpress.mit.edu
In which Bateson argues that the efficacy of Alcoholics Anonymous is (in a Western, Cartesian context) comes at least in part from providing a more correct epistemology/ontology that subsumes a reified "self" into a larger system/circuit. The alcoholic is, by "hitting bottom," forced to shift from a destructive symmetrical to a complementary pattern of relation with the system.
www.psychologytoday.com
Despite the persistence of anti-Black racism, White Americans report feeling worse off than Black Americans. We suggest that some White Americans may report low well-being despite high group-level status because of perceptions that they are falling behind their in-group. Using census-based quota sampling, we measured status comparisons and health among Black (N = 452, Wave 1) and White (N = 439, Wave 1) American adults over a period of 6 to 7 weeks. We found that Black and White Americans tended to make status comparisons within their own racial groups and that most Black participants felt better off than their racial group, whereas most White participants felt worse off than their racial group. Moreover, we found that White Americans’ perceptions of falling behind “most White people” predicted fewer positive emotions at a subsequent time, which predicted worse sleep quality and depressive symptoms in the future. Subjective within-group status did not have the same consequences among Black participants.
www.overcomingbias.com
1000wordphilosophy.com
www.psypost.org
[psychologytoday.com](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/invisible-bruises/202308/you-can-heal-even-if-others-fail-to-acknowledge-trauma) Online: Kaytee Gillis Jessilyn slumped on the couch, eyes cast downward. "I heard from my mother last week," she said, her first time making eye contact since she had sat down 10 minutes before. I tried to hide my excitement at her willingness to go deep, instead trying to reflect a sense of neutrality and openness. "We haven't talked in fifteen years. Maybe twenty," she began. "She left when I was about sixteen. My dad was violent, abusive really. He drank a lot. She couldn't handle it I guess, so she left. Last I knew she had remarried and had a couple other kids a few years back." During this session with Jessilyn, she relayed a painful conversation with the mother who abandoned her when she needed her most: I don't know why I opened this door. I knew it would upset me. But I asked her why she left so many years ago. I just came out and asked her. And do you know what she said to me? She said "you don't know how hard it was for me, Jessilyn. Living with that man. I just couldn't do it anymore. Hard for her?! I thought. Like, she was an adult. She left a teenage girl who was barely able to drive, with this man who was so dangerous that she had to leave. What about me?! But of course I didn't say this to her at first. I think I was in shock, honestly. She literally kept talking about how hard it was for her and how much better her life was once she got away, how much happier she is now... I couldn't even respond. Most people would be able to see that Jessilyn's experience was traumatic. Being left with a parent who was abusive and violent, and being unable to escape, is unthinkable. Even though she was a teenager, and not a small child, this experience nonetheless changed - and completely traumatized- her. But still she spent years unable to see this experience for what it was. Instead internalizing the shame and self-blame in ways that she struggled to articulate. Her mother's refusal- or inability- to see her daughter's experiences as traumatic compounded her feelings of shame and reinforced the trauma she had experienced. Eventually Jessilyn was able to ask her mom those terrifying three words: "what about me?" Her mom's response was that of shock and immediate denial. In her mother's eyes, she herself was the true (i.e. "only") victim of the violence and trauma within the home. During the very limited conversations that the mother and daughter had, Jessilyn's mother would say things such as "Your experience couldn't have been that bad, you turned out alright." or "You have no idea what I went through, you should be happy that I got out." “She just won’t believe me! She can’t see what happened in my childhood and how that affects me today,” Jessilyn cried out from her spot across from me on the couch. “How do I move on if she can’t even understand the pain of my experiences, and how her leaving made it even worse for me?” Many people come to me desperate to heal and move forward from their trauma history, yet struggling when it comes to convincing their caregivers what happened. Sometimes, caregivers who also experienced trauma, such as in the case of Jessilyn's mother, are so stuck in their own experiences that they are unable to see the bigger picture. In reality, Jessilyn's mother would not have to deny her own history in order to validate her daughter's. She could acknowledge her own experiences of abuse while recognizing that her daughter also experienced them- yet was powerless to leave due to being a child. However, mother was unable to focus on any reality other than her own. Many of my clients get stuck trying to convince their caregivers of their pain because they believe they need that acknowledgement to heal. In truth, few will receive the validation they seek from their experiences this way. This lack of validation can come from many sources, but it is often our caregivers’ own defense mechanisms keeping them in the denial stage—denial of their own actions (or inactions) but also denial of their own history of trauma that they unfortunately repeated. Shame comes in when confronted with the truth, and self-defenses take over in absence of self-esteem. They replace that shame with self-doubt, outward blame, and even rage. This is where our own internal tools will need to take over and make up for that lack of external support and understanding from our caregivers so we can heal. Remember, you do not need to convince others of your truth in order to move forward. No one has to acknowledge our mourning or grief for it to be authentic. Of course, this is easier said than done. Not being understood or believed comes with a feeling of invisibility, which compounds many survivors' trauma. Instead, move towards self-validation. When working with clients with this experience, we focus on self-validation as a form of healing. Focus on acknowledging and validating your history. Whenever you feel the beginnings of denial or self-gaslighting creeping in, stop and say "no, I will not deny my history. What happened to me was traumatic, and I am allowed to feel this way." Validating your own history is a crucial part of the healing process. Adapted, in part, from the book: Breaking the Cycle, the 6 Stages of Healing from Childhood Family Trauma. [PT.com Therapist Directory](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists) Links: [psychologytoday/openness](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/openness) [psychologytoday/trauma](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/trauma) [psychologytoday/adolescence](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/adolescence) [psychologytoday/embarrassment](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/embarrassment) [psychologytoday.com/denial](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/denial) [psychologytoday/child-development](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/child-development) [psychologytoday/defense-mechanisms](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/defense-mechanisms) [psychologytoday/self-esteem](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/self-esteem) [psychologytoday/anger](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/anger) [psychologytoday/grief](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/grief) [psychologytoday.com/gaslighting](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/gaslighting)
[psychologytoday.com](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/tech-support/202308/is-your-verbal-abuser-likely-to-change) Online: Harper Collins Author Profile The foundation for verbal abuse in an adult-on-adult relationship is an imbalance of power; one person has it and is highly motivated to keep it and continue to control the relationship. It’s important to remember that verbal abuse—whether it’s of the overt or covert variety—is highly motivated and goal-oriented as well as consistent, despite the fact there will likely be so-called “honeymoon” periods where the amount of abuse decreases or stops entirely. While the person who is the target of the verbal abuse will likely believe that the respite reflects a change of heart on the abuser’s part, the sad truth is that it’s usually a tactic to keep the target emotionally confused and hopeful and, most important, fully committed to staying in the relationship. **Understanding the Imbalance of Power in an Abusive Relationship** While a healthy and satisfying adult relationship would be based on a partnership model, in verbally abusive relationships, one person seeks to maintain control. That’s made possible by certain factors such as these: - One person has a greater emotional investment in the relationship than the other. - The abuser exploits what he or she knows about the target’s insecurities and self-doubts to control the him or her. - One person has greater financial resources than the other or the target is financially dependent on the abuser; each affects both the decision to stay or to leave. - The abuser and the target have children and the target is concerned that any action of her/his part will involve the abuser’s retaliation and that the children will be hurt emotionally or psychologically. **Verbal Abuse can be Subtle or Covert to Maintain Control** The culture tends to picture verbal abuse as loud, involving yelling, put-downs, name-calling, and shaming; while verbal abuse certainly can and does take these forms, it’s the more subtle forms of verbal abuse that are more likely to entrap you and render you feeling powerless. That was certainly true for Casey, now 42: “My ex-husband never raised his voice or called me a name; instead, he undermined me at every turn in subtle ways. Plans I’d made or initiated were always changed because he had a ‘better’ idea or solution that included everything from dinner reservations to renovating our kitchen and family vacations. He dismissed any complaints I had by telling me that I was ‘sensitive to rejection’ and that I was ‘emotionally over-reactive;’ it took me years to recognize that he was effectively shutting me up and shutting me down without ever saying so. There wasn’t a single domain in our lives where he didn’t insist on having the final say and, for a long time, I honestly believed that I had little or nothing of value to contribute to him or anyone. I went into therapy and when my counselor suggested I was being abused, I pushed back and denied it but it was the truth. When I tried to talk to him about it, he laughed at me and then refused to discuss it further. I was lucky, though. I ‘only’ wasted six years of my life with him.” Among the more difficult-to-recognize forms of verbal abuse are: - Blame-shifting: The abuser exploits your own self-doubts or insecurities by making whatever has happened your fault; that leaves the abuser with zero responsibility and more control and often makes you feel that you should apologize. A true sleight-of-hand. - Brinksmanship: Threatening you with leaving or asking why you just don’t leave if you’re so unhappy. This is enabled by the abuser’s knowledge that you aren’t ready to give up on relationship and that you’re still hopeful a corner can be turned. - Stonewalling or ignoring that you’ve said anything. This will put you into a defensive crouch and perhaps feeling panicked; this often ends up with your being a peacemaker and apologizing for something you didn’t do. - Gaslighting: Telling you that your perceptions are dead wrong or that you’re projecting or making things up. Again, this preys on your insecurities as well as your hopefulness that things will get better somehow. **Will Your Abuser Ever Change?** Again, this comes down to motivation. We’ve seen how control is established through verbal abuse so the question becomes this: What’s in it for the abuser to stop? If you find yourself in this situation, do speak to a counselor about strategies and what he or she thinks can happen given the nature of the relationship. Be cognizant of the possibility that confronting your verbal abuser may lead to escalation and remember that verbal abuse is always the foundation for physical abuse even if your relationship has never included it. Do examine your expectations and ask yourself the following questions, answering as honestly as you can: - Is he/she willing to acknowledge the verbal abuse without resorting to defensiveness or blame-shifting? - Is he/she willing to hear you out thoughtfully without pushing back, dismissing your remarks, objecting, or starting a fight? - Will he/she accept your pointing out verbal abuse and instituting respectful boundaries? - Is he/she willing to go into counseling and commit to working on change? - Is he/she willing to work on new ways of communicating and resolving conflict? - Is he/she willing to commit to a partnership model of relationship? - Is he/she willing to commit to a series of steps you mutually decide on if he/she backslides into old behaviors? - If there are children involved and they have been targets, is he/she willing to apologize for past behaviors and willing to work on acquiring new parenting skills? The truth is that if the answers to any of these questions is “no,” it will not be possible to repair or recover the relationship. [psychologytoday.com/therapy](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/therapy) [Psychologytoday.com/forgiveness](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/forgiveness) [Psychologytoday.com/gaslighting](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/gaslighting) [Psychologytoday.com/motivation](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/motivation) [Psychologytoday.com/parenting](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/parenting)
[www.psychologytoday.com](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/explorations-of-the-mind/202308/intuition-what-it-is-and-how-it-works) Intuition is the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning or an explanation. The use of intuition is sometimes referred to as responding to a "gut feeling" or "trusting your gut." It's a phenomenon that many people experience, but its biological basis is still an area of ongoing research and exploration. Here, I will review some of the most relevant biological findings and address the question, "Can we really rely on intuition, or is it a counsel to failure?" **What the Research Says** Recent evidence from Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, suggests that by 12 months, infants have an intuitive notion of probability that applies to never-experienced events and that they use it to predict subsequent events. The researchers suggest that extremely simple concepts of probability and causation, along with the concepts needed to form very basic epistemic (relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation), statistical, and logical generalizations are present in very young children from an early age. It is this inborn ability to make inferences about things that are relevant to form accurate beliefs and retain new knowledge. Rollin McCraty and his colleagues at the HeartMath Institute have performed experiments demonstrating how people respond to an emotionally arousing stimulus. The results were fascinating, showing that both the participants’ hearts and brains appeared to indicate receiving and responding to information about the emotional quality of pictures presented to them before a computer randomly selected them, as if they were responding to a future event. Even more startling, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. "It is first registered from the heart," Rollin McCraty explained, "then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs)." The gut and the heart contain a significant amount of neural tissue and are connected to the brain by way of the vagus nerve, the so-called gut-brain and heart-brain axes. In addition, we know that neurotransmitters and hormones, such as dopamine and serotonin, can influence cognitive processes and emotions. These biochemical signals might also contribute to our intuitive responses. Intuition relies on evolutionarily older, automatic, unconscious, and fast mental processing, primarily to save our brains time or energy. It also is prone to make mistakes, such as cognitive biases. Intuition later in life arises from the accumulation of knowledge and experiences that are processed and stored in our brain's neural networks, as well as other cells and tissues in our bodies, allowing us to access this information quickly, often unconsciously. Intuition is at the core of an epiphany; it is our own recognition and awareness of an idea or thought or vision for something that has yet to be discovered in the world. We all have access to that place, if we only learn to trust that internal voice. Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel prize in economics for his work on human judgment and decision-making, theorizes that human beings are intuitive thinkers and that human intuition is imperfect, with the result that judgments and choices often deviate substantially from the predictions of normative statistical and economic models. Kahneman believes that intuitive thinking has both advantages and disadvantages: it is faster than a rational approach but more prone to error. Kamila Malewska of the Poznán University of Economics and Business in Poland has studied intuition in real-world settings and concluded that people often apply a combination of strategies. When managers at a food company were asked how they use intuition in their everyday work, the majority of them said that, in addition to rational analyses, they relied on their gut feelings when making decisions. Interestingly, upper-level managers tended more toward intuition. Malewska thinks that intuition is neither irrational nor the opposite of logic. Rather, it is a quicker and more automatic process that taps into the many deep resources of experience and knowledge that people have gathered over the course of their lives. Intuition, she believes, is an ability that can be trained and can play a constructive role in decision-making. Intuition Essential Reads Whether we rely on our intuition or turn to sensible analysis to make a decision will largely depend on our past experiences. Most cognitive scientists maintain that intuitive and analytic thinking should not be viewed as opposites. Studies indicate that our decision-making often works best when we blend both strategies. **Conclusion** Clearly, the biological basis of intuition is complex and likely involves a combination of factors. There is growing evidence suggesting that all humans are born with a basic ability for intuitive thinking and that, as we mature, as our links between the embodied mind, emotional processing, and intuitive thinking strengthen with experience, we may get better at it. Of course, if we fail to listen to this channel, like a muscle not exercised, our intuitive abilities will decline. References Cesana-Arlotti, N., Téglás, E., & Bonatti, L. L. (2012). The probable and the possible at 12 months: Intuitive reasoning about the uncertain future. Advances in child development and behavior, 43, 1-25. Epstein, S. (2010). Demystifying intuition: What it is, what it does, and how it does it. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 295-312. Fedyk, M., Kushnir, T., & Xu, F. (2019). Intuitive epistemology: Children’s theory of evidence. Advances in experimental philosophy of science, 122-43 Kahneman, Daniel (2017). Thinking, fast and slow. Malewska, K. (2018). The profile of an intuitive decision maker and the use of intuition in decision-making practice. Management, 22(1). McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., & Bradley, R. T. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence of intuition: Part 1. The surprising role of the heart. The Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 10(1), 133-143. McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., & Bradley, R. T. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence of intuition: Part 2. A system-wide process?. The Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 10(2), 325-336.