China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Beginning the Process of Change in Negative Thinking in Chronic Pain Management: A Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Approach
Published in Keren Fisher, Susan Childs, Lance McCracken, Glyn Towlerton, The Practical Pain Management Handbook, 2018
Keren Fisher, Susan Childs, Lance McCracken, Glyn Towlerton
Mind reading. You assume people are reacting negatively towards you with no real evidence. Example: My friends didn’t ring me today. They must think I’m a nuisance.
Emotional wellbeing
Published in Karen Stainsby, Mari Roberts, Develop your Interpersonal and Self-Management Skills, 2018
Mind reading – the idea that you can read the minds of other people and that they should be able to read yours, e.g. ‘I know she doesn’t like me. We’ve never spoken but I just know that she doesn’t’ or ‘He should have known that I wouldn’t like that idea.’
First steps, gathering information
Published in Stephen P Kliewer, John Saultz, Healthcare and Spirituality, 2017
Stephen P Kliewer, John Saultz
The mind reader doesn’t pay much attention to what people say. In fact he/she often distrusts it. This person is trying to figure out what the other person is really thinking and feeling. While we advocate active listening, and the art of helping people tells us what they need to tell us, we do not advocate mind reading – making assumptions, imposing our perceptions about the other person upon them. Whenever we assign a feeling or an issue to another person there is a significant danger that we may be inaccurate. We may decide a person is angry when they are really frustrated, or fearful when they are really angry. The very process of active listening is designed to help us listen, allow the other person to pursue their agenda, and eventually reveal clearly that which is within.
Regrouping scalets: Psychometric properties of the theory of mind picture stories task in a schizophrenic sample
Published in Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2022
Zita Fekete, Edit Vass, Ramóna Balajth, Ünige Tana, Attila Csaba Nagy, Nóra Domján, Anikó Égerházi, Ildikó Szabó Kuritárné
We studied construct validity by using Baron-Cohen's Eyes Test (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). We found no significant correlation with the Switching Between Minds scale. A miscorrelation was found between the Comprehension of Misleading Behaviour scale and the scores of RMET as well. We hypothesize that the underlying factors may be the different ToM components measured by the tasks. Mind-reading abilities are based on social-perceptive and social-cognitive processes. RMET is often used for evaluating the social-perceptive component of ToM (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). However, the non-correlating scales assessing higher-order ToM aspects require more complex and recursive social-cognitive processing (Choudhury et al., 2006). The weak correlations of the Eyes Test found in our study suggest a more pronounced sensitivity of ToM PST to the cognitive components of ToM. To verify this assumption, it would be worthwhile to study construct validity in future research with tests that are more sensitive to the cognitive ToM components.
Neurorights for Incarcerated Persons: Should We Curb Inflation?
Published in AJOB Neuroscience, 2022
Shannon Fyfe, Elizabeth Lanphier, Andrew Peterson
Consider first whether XR, or any other putative “mind reading” technology, can actually violate mental privacy. A standard view about the human mind is that most—if not all—mental content is intrinsically subjective (Nagel 1974). We have direct access to our own thoughts but only partial and imperfect access to others’. Neuroethicists envision neurotechnologies as bridging this subjective-objective gap, but it is far from clear whether this is possible. At best, neurotechnologies might allow only for mental voyeurism, but not mental incursion, as a strict interpretation of privacy would imply. Thoughts are often interdependent, context-specific, and only truly understood when viewed from another’s subjective point of view. Interpreting another’s thoughts from the “outside” can lead to speculation, even misunderstanding, about their content.
Seeing minds in patients with disorders of consciousness
Published in Brain Injury, 2020
Andrew Peterson, Kristin M. Kostick, Katherine A. O’Brien, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby
A second observation regarding family caregivers’ nonclinical understanding of consciousness concerns their descriptions of patients’ eyes. Appealing to the look in the patient’s eyes as evidence of consciousness is, again, consistent with the social science literature on mind perception. Baron-Cohen et al. (25) have written extensively on the relationship between mind perception and eye gaze. Indeed, they have even developed a scale, the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, which accurately discriminates neurologically healthy individuals from persons with mind-perception impairments, such as Asperger’s Syndrome. Baron-Cohen et al. (25) observe that mind reading in healthy participants is associated with the capacity to recognize the meaning of mental state terms, and to correctly associate these terms with human facial expressions localized to a small area around the eyes. Compared with our qualitative findings, these data suggest that health care professionals and family caregivers might be naturally inclined – at least, implicitly – to perceive minds in patients with DoC due to the look in their eyes, even if the patient displays no other behavioral signs of consciousness.