<table style="border:1px solid #adadad; background-color: #F3F1EC; color: #666666; padding:8px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; line-height:16px; margin-bottom:6px;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:20px;font-weight:bold;">PsyPost – Psychology News</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/the-neuroscience-of-limerence-and-how-to-break-the-cycle-of-romantic-obsession/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">The neuroscience of limerence and how to break the cycle of romantic obsession</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 19th 2026, 09:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p><em><strong>PsyPost’s PodWatch highlights interesting clips from recent podcasts related to psychology and neuroscience.</strong></em></p>
<p>On Friday, January 30, the Sex and Psychology podcast, hosted by social psychologist Dr. Justin Lehmiller, featured Dr. Tom Bellamy. The episode explored the neurobiology of limerence, a state of intense romantic obsession, and examined strategies for breaking the cycle of unwanted attachment.</p>
<p>The conversation began by defining limerence not as a disorder, but as a biological trait that can be integrated into one’s emotional life. Bellamy explained that while the euphoric “fireworks” of new attachment are powerful, they typically fade within a few years. He noted that chasing this specific high often traps people in a cycle of serial monogamy, preventing the formation of stable, companionate love.</p>
<p>Later in the episode, the discussion shifted to the neurological similarities between limerence and addiction. Bellamy described a process where the brain’s dopamine-driven “wanting” system becomes sensitized, acting like an accelerator pedal pressed to the floor. Simultaneously, the prefrontal cortex—the area of the brain responsible for self-control and decision-making—becomes weakened, effectively releasing the brakes.</p>
<p>To counter this, Bellamy emphasized the need to strengthen executive function and “wake up the mental CEO.” He recommended mindfulness practices to interrupt subconscious habit loops, such as recognizing the urge to check a text message before acting on it. He also highlighted that foundational health habits, including proper sleep and exercise, create a “halo effect” that improves cognitive bandwidth for emotional regulation.</p>
<p>A more aggressive strategy involves “devaluing” the object of affection to break the cycle of idealization. Bellamy introduced the concept of the “daymare,” a technique where individuals deliberately alter their pleasant daydreams to include negative or rejecting endings. This approach uses negative conditioning to replace feelings of comfort with aversion.</p>
<p>Bellamy clarified that the purpose of this negative visualization is not to harbor permanent resentment. Instead, the aim is to accelerate the psychological process of extinction, where the brain stops expecting a reward from the person. The ultimate goal is to reach a state of neutrality, viewing the former partner realistically as an ordinary person with normal flaws.</p>
<p>You can listen to the full interview <a href="https://www.sexandpsychology.com/blog/podcast/episode-471-letting-go-of-someone-you-cant-let-go-of/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/what-was-albert-einsteins-iq/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">What was Albert Einstein’s IQ?</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 19th 2026, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>If you search the internet for the smartest people in history, one name appears more than any other. That name is Albert Einstein. His wild hair and expressive face have become the universal symbol for genius. But what was his IQ score?</p>
<p>Einstein was a theoretical physicist born in Germany in 1879. He is best known for developing the theory of relativity. This work fundamentally changed how humanity understands the universe.</p>
<p>Before Einstein, the laws of physics seemed set in stone. Isaac Newton had described a world of absolute time and space. Einstein challenged this view.</p>
<p>In 1905, often called his “miracle year,” he published four groundbreaking papers. One of these papers introduced the famous equation E=mc². This equation demonstrated that mass and energy are interchangeable.</p>
<p>He did not stop there. He went on to explain the photoelectric effect, which was a vital step toward quantum theory. This specific work won him the Nobel Prize in Physics.</p>
<p>His contributions led to technologies we use every day. Without his theories, we would not have GPS navigation or laser technology. He reshaped our concept of reality itself.</p>
<p>Because his achievements were so monumental, people naturally wonder about the mind that created them. We want to quantify his brilliance. We want to know if his brain was different from ours.</p>
<h2><strong>Understanding the Intelligence Quotient</strong></h2>
<p>To understand the rumors about Einstein’s score, we must first understand the test itself. IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient. It is a standardized score derived from a set of tests.</p>
<p>These tests are designed to assess human intelligence. The first modern intelligence test was developed in France in 1905. Psychologists Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon created it.</p>
<p>Their original goal was not to identify geniuses. Instead, they wanted to identify children who needed extra help in school. The test was a tool for education, not a measure of elite status.</p>
<p>Later, American psychologists adapted these tests for adults. The most famous early version was the Army Alpha test. It was created in 1917 to evaluate soldiers during World War I.</p>
<p>Modern tests, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, measure various cognitive abilities. They look at verbal comprehension and working memory. They also measure perceptual reasoning and processing speed.</p>
<p>The average score on these tests is set at 100. Most people score between 85 and 115. A score above 130 is typically considered “gifted.”</p>
<p>The maximum score on current tests often tops out around 160. This is the 99.9th percentile. This means a person with this score scores higher than almost everyone else in the general population.</p>
<h2><strong>The Missing Evidence</strong></h2>
<p>This brings us to the central question. Did Albert Einstein ever take an IQ test? According to <a href="https://russellwarne.com/2023/09/14/the-search-for-albert-einsteins-iq/">a 2023 article by psychologist Russell T. Warne</a>, the answer is almost certainly no. Warne asserts that there is no evidence Einstein ever sat for such an assessment.</p>
<p>Warne analyzes the timeline of Einstein’s life to support this conclusion. Einstein was born in 1879. He was already 26 years old when Binet created the first children’s test in 1905. He was an established adult by the time testing became common.</p>
<p>The first adult test, the Army Alpha, appeared in 1917. At that time, Einstein was 39 years old. He was living in Europe and was already a world-famous celebrity. Warne argues that Einstein had little to gain from taking an intelligence test.</p>
<p>It is unlikely that a physicist of his stature would have bothered with a psychometric evaluation. He was busy working on unified field theory. He was also navigating the political turmoil of Europe. There are no records in the Albert Einstein Archives or biographies that mention a test.</p>
<h2><strong>Where the Estimates Originate</strong></h2>
<p>If there is no record of a test, where does the number 160 come from? Warne conducted a search of historical publications to find the answer. He found that journalists and writers have been guessing Einstein’s IQ for nearly a century.</p>
<p>One of the earliest estimates appeared in a 1945 issue of <em>Life</em> magazine. The article profiled a 14-year-old prodigy named Merrill Kenneth Wolf. The magazine reported that Wolf had an IQ of 182. The article stated that this was “only 23 points lower than Einstein’s.”</p>
<p>This phrasing implies that the magazine believed Einstein’s IQ was 205. However, <em>Life</em> magazine was not consistent. In 1954, the same magazine published an article about another prodigy. This time, they estimated Einstein’s IQ at 192.</p>
<p>Other publications joined the guessing game. In 1962, <em>Popular Mechanics</em> stated that Einstein was estimated to have an IQ of 207. A 1974 book by Mariann Olden claimed his IQ was 205. </p>
<p>Warne points out that the variation in these numbers is extreme. They range from 150 to over 200. This inconsistency suggests that the numbers are fabricated. There is no primary source. The number 160 appears to be a modern consensus among journalists, but it is not based on data.</p>
<h2><strong>Psychologists Weigh In</strong></h2>
<p>Academic experts are skeptical of these numbers. In <a href="https://www.biography.com/scientists/albert-einstein-iq">a 2020 article for <em>Biography.com</em></a>, Dean Keith Simonton weighed in on the issue. Simonton is a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California, Davis.</p>
<p>Simonton warns that these estimates often confuse two different things. They conflate intellectual ability with domain-specific achievement. Einstein was the greatest theoretical physicist of his time. This means he was exceptional in physics.</p>
<p>However, general intelligence tests measure a wide range of skills. They test vocabulary, pattern recognition, and memory. Being a genius in physics does not guarantee a perfect score in every other area. Simonton suggests that if you look at Einstein’s early development, his raw IQ might not have been as striking as his physics work.</p>
<p>Jonathan Wai, a professor at the University of Arkansas, offers a different perspective in the same <em>Biography.com</em> article. Wai notes that people who earn PhDs in physics typically have extremely high IQs.</p>
<p>Wai points to Einstein’s famous thought experiments. As a teenager, Einstein imagined chasing a beam of light. This required intense spatial visualization. Wai argues that this suggests Einstein was highly talented in spatial reasoning.</p>
<p>Wai believes that if Einstein had been tested, he would have scored well above average. This is consistent with data on other physicists. However, this is still a prediction, not a confirmed score.</p>
<h2><strong>The Biological Evidence</strong></h2>
<p>While we lack a test score, we do have biological evidence. We have Einstein’s brain. When Einstein died in 1955, a pathologist named Thomas Harvey performed the autopsy. Harvey removed the brain for scientific study.</p>
<p>In 1999, a team of researchers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)10327-6">published a landmark study</a> in <em>The Lancet</em>. The team was led by Sandra F. Witelson and Debra L. Kigar. They worked with Thomas Harvey to analyze the anatomy of the brain.</p>
<p>The researchers compared Einstein’s brain to a control group. This group consisted of 35 brains from men with normal intelligence. The men in the control group had an average IQ of 116.</p>
<p>The study revealed something surprising about brain size. Many people assume that a genius must have a massive brain. However, Einstein’s brain weighed 1,230 grams. This was not statistically different from the control group.</p>
<p>In fact, his brain was slightly lighter than the average for the men in the study. This finding is significant. It proves that total brain weight is not the primary factor in exceptional intelligence. A heavy brain does not automatically equal a smart mind.</p>
<h2><strong>Unique Brain Architecture</strong></h2>
<p>Although the weight was normal, the structure was not. Witelson and her colleagues found unique features in the parietal lobes. The parietal lobes are the part of the brain responsible for processing sensory information.</p>
<p>This region handles visuospatial cognition and mathematical thinking. The researchers measured the width of Einstein’s brain. They found that his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider than those of the control group.</p>
<p>This extra width gave his brain a more spherical shape than a typical human brain. The researchers also discovered a unique feature on the surface of the brain. The brain has deep folds and grooves. One major groove is called the Sylvian fissure.</p>
<p>In a normal brain, the Sylvian fissure runs deep and meets a structure called the parietal operculum. The study found that Einstein lacked a parietal operculum in both hemispheres.</p>
<p>Because this structure was missing, the Sylvian fissure did not run as far as usual. It merged with another groove called the postcentral sulcus. This was a unique anatomical variation. The researchers did not see this in any of the control brains.</p>
<h2><strong>The Functional Impact</strong></h2>
<p>The researchers in <em>The Lancet</em> study proposed a theory about this anatomy. They suggested that the absence of the parietal operculum allowed the inferior parietal lobule to expand. This is a specific area within the parietal lobe.</p>
<p>The scientists hypothesized that this expansion allowed for better connections between neurons. Without the usual groove separating the area, the brain cells could communicate more efficiently. This creates a highly integrated network for visual and spatial thinking.</p>
<p>This biological finding aligns with how Einstein described his own mind. He often stated that words were not significant in his thought process. Instead, he thought in signs and images.</p>
<p>He visualized complex physical problems. His theory of relativity came from visualizing moving bodies and light. The researchers concluded that his unique parietal anatomy likely supported this specific type of reasoning.</p>
<h2><strong>The Threshold of Intelligence</strong></h2>
<p>The biological evidence tells us Einstein was unique. However, it does not confirm a specific IQ number. This leads to a broader discussion about the value of IQ scores.</p>
<p>In his book <em>Outliers</em>, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the relationship between IQ and success. He compares Einstein to a man named Christopher Langan. Langan appeared on the TV show <em>1 vs. 100</em>. The show claimed Langan had an IQ of 195.</p>
<p>If we accept the common estimate of 160 for Einstein, then Langan’s score is significantly higher. By strict numerical logic, Langan should be “smarter.” Yet, Einstein is the one who revolutionized science.</p>
<p>Gladwell uses this comparison to introduce the “threshold theory.” He argues that intelligence matters up to a point. You have to be smart enough to handle complex ideas. But once you cross that threshold, a higher score does not guarantee more success.</p>
<p>Gladwell supports this by looking at Nobel Prize winners. He lists the colleges attended by the last 25 American winners in medicine. The list includes elite schools like Harvard and Yale. But it also includes schools like Holy Cross, Gettysburg College, and the University of Illinois.</p>
<p>These are good schools, but they are not all exclusive Ivy League institutions. Gladwell argues that a Nobel Prize winner does not need to have the highest IQ in the world. They just need to be smart enough to get into a decent university.</p>
<p>Once a person is “smart enough,” other factors take over. Creativity, persistence, and a willingness to question authority become essential. Einstein possessed these traits in abundance.</p>
<h2><strong>Why We Obsess Over the Number</strong></h2>
<p>Robert B. McCall, a professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, questioned the value of these estimates in his interview with <em>Biography.com</em>. He stated that he does not see the value in trying to calculate Einstein’s IQ.</p>
<p>McCall argues that famous people are famous for their actions. We should celebrate those actions. Their contributions are only modestly related to a test score. A person can be accomplished in ways that an IQ test cannot measure.</p>
<p>The obsession with the number 160 reveals more about society than it does about Einstein. We want to believe that intelligence is a single, measurable trait. We want to rank people on a scoreboard.</p>
<p>Assigning a score of 160 to Einstein gives us a reference point. It makes the concept of “genius” feel tangible. However, it is an oversimplification. It ignores the specific nature of his mind.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/evolutionary-psychology-is-unfalsifiable-new-scientific-paper-aims-to-kill-this-zombie-idea/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Evolutionary psychology is unfalsifiable? New scientific paper aims to kill this “zombie idea”</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 19th 2026, 07:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Evolutionary psychology hypotheses can be rigorously tested, and sometimes decisively overturned, challenging the long-standing claim that the field is inherently unfalsifiable, according to a conceptual review published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001529"><em>American Psychologist</em></a>.</p>
<p>Since the 1970s, critics have contended that evolutionary explanations of human behavior amount to “just-so stories,” plausible but empirically untestable narratives flexible enough to accommodate virtually any outcome.</p>
<p>Drawing on <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994627">Popper’s</a> philosophy of science, these critiques claim that <a href="https://www.psypost.org/is-evolutionary-psychology-underappreciated/">evolutionary psychology</a> fails the criterion of falsifiability and therefore lacks <a href="https://www.psypost.org/is-evolutionary-psychology-a-scientific-revolution-or-an-evolving-paradigm/">scientific rigor</a>, a perception that has persisted both within academia and public discourse.</p>
<p>William Costello, a doctoral researcher at the University of Texas at Austin explains, “As a graduate student preparing to go on the job market I am passionate about correcting the many misconceptions about evolutionary psychology that pervade academia and cultural consciousness. Evolutionary psychology is enormously explanatorily powerful for a wide range of domains, so it is frustrating to constantly have to contend with the decades old ‘zombie idea’ that its hypotheses are unfalsifiable. This false perception may also prevent younger scholars from embracing the framework in their own work, so hopefully our paper can empower them to push back against uncharged criticisms when they face them.”</p>
<p>The article takes up that challenge by clarifying what falsifiability requires and by examining how evolutionary psychology constructs and evaluates its hypotheses.</p>
<p>The authors begin by specifying formal criteria for falsifiability: a hypothesis must generate explicit, prohibitive predictions that could, in principle, be contradicted by observable evidence. Vague or underspecified claims can evade disconfirmation, but the authors argue that this is a problem of imprecision, not a defining feature of evolutionary psychology.</p>
<p>They then situate evolutionary psychology within a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PL%20I1101_01">Lakatosian</a> research program structure. At the top sits evolutionary theory as a metatheoretical foundation; below it are middle-level theories (such as parental investment theory); and at the lowest level are specific hypotheses that generate concrete predictions. It is at this level that falsification operates. By distinguishing among these tiers, the authors argue that critics often mistake broad theoretical commitments for unfalsifiable claims, when in fact it is the lower-level predictions that are directly tested and, at times, rejected.</p>
<p>To demonstrate falsifiability in action, the authors review three prominent hypotheses that have been substantially weakened or refuted. First, the ovulatory shift (dual-mating) hypothesis predicted that women’s mate preferences would reliably shift toward traits signaling “good genes” during ovulation. Although early studies appeared supportive, larger and more rigorous replication efforts largely failed to confirm consistent fertility-linked preference shifts. The core prediction has not proven robust.</p>
<p>Second, the mate deprivation hypothesis of rape proposed that men lacking mating opportunities would be more likely to commit sexual violence. Empirical tests found the opposite pattern: men with greater mating success and higher status were more likely to report coercive behavior. These findings directly contradict the hypothesis’ central prediction.</p>
<p>Third, the kin altruism hypothesis for male homosexuality suggested that same-sex-attracted men would offset reduced direct reproduction by investing heavily in genetic relatives. Cross-cultural research has yielded mixed or negative evidence, and the level of kin investment observed does not appear sufficient to satisfy inclusive fitness requirements. As a result, the hypothesis lacks strong empirical support.</p>
<p>Alongside these refuted cases, the authors emphasize that many other evolutionary psychological hypotheses, such as those concerning <a href="https://www.psypost.org/low-quality-father-involvement-leads-sons-to-invest-less-in-romantic-relationships-study-finds/">parental investment</a>, <a href="https://www.psypost.org/romantic-jealousy-spikes-with-mate-value-mismatch-infidelity-tolerance-and-opposite-sex-interactions/">jealousy</a>, <a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-sheds-light-on-the-evolutionary-origin-of-disgust-toward-older-adults/">disgust</a>, and <a href="https://www.psypost.org/relatives-with-lower-paternity-uncertainty-are-perceived-as-kinder/">kin-directed altruism</a>, have generated precise predictions that have received substantial empirical backing. The coexistence of confirmed and disconfirmed hypotheses, they argue, is exactly what one would expect in a progressive scientific field.</p>
<p>Reflecting on broader lessons, Costello noted: “There are many other leaders in the field (e.g., Ed Hagen) who have already tackled this problem well in other work. It would be nice to think that our article would be the final word and resolve the matter once and for all, but I think that because there are so many who are ideologically motivated to dismiss evolutionary psychology, scholars will need to defend against this misconception in each generation. We need to be prepared to do so and not allow misconceptions to flourish. There are those who think that we should not bother defensively correcting misconceptions and instead just focus on improving our field. I think we can and should do both.”</p>
<p>He added, “I think it’s good for scholars to have contemporary theoretical work in a leading psychology journal to now point to when they hear the myth espoused in academic or public discourse.”</p>
<p>“Evolutionary psychology is by no means immune to poor hypothesizing and we should always reflect on helping scholars to formulate their hypotheses with sufficient precision that they garner evidence for or against the hypothesized design features of a psychological mechanism,” explained Costello.</p>
<p>“Previous generations of our lab, led by David Lewis (who has been an amazing mentor to me) have taken a very proactive approach on this front. They published a terrific paper in American Psychologist called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040409"><em>Evolutionary Psychology: A How to Guide</em></a>. I encourage readers to read that article too.”</p>
<p>By documenting hypotheses that have been directly contradicted by empirical findings, the article argues that evolutionary psychology is not immune to disconfirmation but instead operates as a research program capable of generating testable (and falsifiable) claims.</p>
<p>The researcher shared that future work could examine whether academic and public perceptions of unfalsifiability have shifted since earlier surveys, and whether interventions such as reading the present article or taking an evolutionary psychology course change minds.</p>
<p>“I was pleased that the article was chosen as the APA Editor’s choice, which means it will be available to read ‘open access’ for 30 days since publication so please go and read it,” Costello told PsyPost. “Or reach out to me to get your hands on a PDF if you can’t gain access to it.” </p>
<p>“Also, the article was published alongside two commentaries, who both agreed with our core argument that evolutionary psychology hypotheses are indeed falsifiable. Our reply gave us the opportunity to speak to some of evolutionary psychology’s other theoretical strengths (e.g., its heuristic value). That’s titled <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001603"><em>Beyond Falsifiability: Evolutionary Psychology’s Many Theoretical Strengths: Reply to Geary (2026) and Moore (2026)</em></a> and I encourage people to read those also.”</p>
<p>William Costello is a doctoral researcher of Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin working under the supervision of Dr. David Buss. You can follow his work on ResearchGate, Google Scholar or on social media at X: <a href="https://x.com/CostelloWilliam">@CostelloWilliam</a> or BlueSky: <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/williamcostello.bsky.social">@williamcostello.bsky.social</a></p>
<p>The research, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001529">Evolutionary Psychology Hypotheses Are Testable and Falsifiable,</a>” was authored by William Costello, Anna G. B. Sedlacek, Patrick K. Durkee, Courtney L. Crosby, Rebecka K. Hahnel-Peeters, and David M. Buss.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/neuroscientists-identify-a-unique-feature-in-the-brains-wiring-that-predicts-sudden-epiphanies/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Neuroscientists identify a unique feature in the brain’s wiring that predicts sudden epiphanies</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 19th 2026, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03593-0" target="_blank">BMC Psychology</a></em> suggests that the structural wiring of the brain may play a significant role in how people solve problems through sudden insight. The study indicates that individuals who frequently experience “Aha!” moments tend to have less organized white matter pathways in specific language-processing areas of the left hemisphere. These findings imply that a slightly less rigid neural structure might allow the brain to relax its focus, enabling the unique connections required for creative breakthroughs.</p>
<p>For decades, scientists have studied the phenomenon of insight, which occurs when a solution to a problem enters awareness suddenly and unexpectedly. This is often contrasted with analytical problem solving, which involves a deliberate and continuous step-by-step approach. </p>
<p>While previous studies using functional MRI and EEG have mapped the brain activity that occurs during these moments, there has been little understanding of the underlying physical structure that supports them. The researchers behind the new study aimed to determine if stable differences in white matter—the bundles of nerve fibers that connect different brain regions—predict an individual’s tendency to solve problems via insight.</p>
<p>“For over two decades, neuroscience has mapped what happens in the brain during these moments using EEG and fMRI. We know from prior research that insight feels sudden, tends to be accurate, and involves distinct functional activation patterns — including a burst of activity in the right temporal cortex just before the solution reaches awareness,” said study authors <a href="https://www.carolasalvi.org/" target="_blank">Carola Salvi</a> of the Cattolica University of Milan and Simone A. Luchini of Pennsylvania State University.</p>
<p>“But one major question remained open: what structural features of the brain might make some people more likely to experience insight in the first place?”</p>
<p>“Most previous white matter studies of creativity did not specifically focus on Aha! experiences. They measured how many problems people solved, or how creatively, not how they solved them (with or without these sudden epiphanies). Yet insight and non insight solutions are phenomenologically and neurally distinct processes.” </p>
<p>White matter acts as the communication infrastructure of the brain, transmitting signals between distant regions. To examine this structure, the researchers employed a technique called Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI). This method tracks the movement of water molecules within brain tissue. </p>
<p>“We wanted to know whether stable white matter microstructure — the brain’s anatomical wiring — differs depending on whether someone tends to solve problems through sudden insight or through deliberate step-by-step reasoning (non insight solutions),” Salvi and Luchini explained. “Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) allowed us to examine this structural dimension directly.”</p>
<p>In healthy white matter, water tends to move along the direction of the nerve fibers, a property known as fractional anisotropy (FA). High FA values generally indicate highly organized, dense, and well-insulated fibers, which are typically associated with efficient signal transmission and strong cognitive performance.</p>
<p>The study involved 38 distinct participants, after excluding those who did not meet specific criteria or failed to complete the task correctly. These participants engaged in a standard test used to measure creative potential known as the Compound Remote Associates (CRA) task. In this activity, individuals viewed three words, such as “crab,” “pine,” and “sauce,” and were asked to find a fourth word that forms a common phrase with all three, in this case, “apple.”</p>
<p>After each successful solution, participants reported whether they arrived at the answer through a step-by-step analysis or a sudden insight. This self-reporting method allowed the scientists to quantify an “insight propensity” for each person. The researchers then analyzed the DTI scans to see how white matter integrity correlated with this propensity, controlling for variables such as age and gender.</p>
<p>The findings offered a counterintuitive perspective on brain connectivity. The analysis revealed that participants who solved more problems via insight exhibited lower fractional anisotropy in the left hemisphere’s dorsal language network. This network includes the arcuate fasciculus and the superior longitudinal fasciculus, pathways that connect brain regions responsible for language production, comprehension, and semantic processing.</p>
<p>“One striking finding was that people who more frequently experienced insight showed lower fractional anisotropy in specific left-hemisphere dorsal language pathways, including parts of the arcuate fasciculus and superior longitudinal fasciculus,” Salvi and Luchini told PsyPost.</p>
<p>“At first glance, that might sound counterintuitive. Fractional anisotropy is often interpreted as reflecting the coherence or organization of white matter pathways. In many cognitive domains, higher fractional anisotropy is associated with better performance.”</p>
<p>“But insight may operate differently. The left hemisphere is typically involved in focused, fine-grained semantic processing — narrowing in on dominant interpretations of words and concepts. The right hemisphere, by contrast, is thought to support broader, ‘coarse’ semantic coding — integrating more distantly related ideas. Slightly lower fractional anisotropy in left dorsal language pathways may reflect a system that is less tightly constrained by dominant interpretations. </p>
<p>“In other words, it may allow a partial ‘release’ from habitual patterns of thought and it is in line with other studies where lesions in the left frontotemporal regions have been shown to increase artistic creativity,” Salvi and Luchini continued. “Taken together, these findings imply that left hemispheric regions play a regulatory role in creativity and that their disruption lifts this constraint, thus promoting novel ideas.”</p>
<p>“That release effect is fascinating. In simple words It suggests that creativity sometimes emerges not from strengthening control, but from relaxing it just enough to let weaker, more remote associations surface. When the brain is less locked into its most obvious interpretations, it may be more capable of restructuring the problem — and that restructuring is the heart of an Aha! moment.”</p>
<p>It is worth noting that no significant structural associations were found for the step-by-step analytical problem solving style. This suggests that the neural architecture supporting insight is distinct and specific. Analytical solving may rely on dynamic brain activity rather than the stable structural traits identified for insight.</p>
<p>This concept of sudden recognition is being explored in other sensory domains as well. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68711-x" target="_blank">separate study</a> recently conducted by researchers at NYU Langone Health examined “one-shot learning,” which is the visual equivalent of an “Aha!” moment. </p>
<p>In that study, participants viewed blurred images that became recognizable only after seeing a clear version. The NYU team found that the high-level visual cortex stores “priors,” or memory templates, which the brain accesses to suddenly make sense of ambiguous visual information.</p>
<p>While the NYU study focused on visual perception and the current study focused on linguistic creativity, both highlight a similar cognitive phenomenon: the brain’s ability to reorganize information suddenly to form a coherent whole. The NYU findings suggest this happens through accessing stored memory templates, while the current study suggests that linguistic insight relies on structural flexibility that permits distant connections to surface.</p>
<p>There are some limitations to the current study that warrant mention. The sample size of 38 participants is relatively small, though it is typical for technically intensive DTI studies. Additionally, the study establishes a correlation but does not prove causation. It remains unclear whether people are born with this structural connectivity or if engaging in creative thinking alters the white matter over time. Demographic factors such as education level were also noted as potential influences on white matter integrity.</p>
<p>Future research will likely focus on larger and more diverse groups to verify these results. Scientists may also attempt to combine structural imaging with functional tracking to see how these white matter highways are utilized in real-time during the moment of insight. By understanding the physical architecture of creativity, science moves closer to demystifying how the human brain generates novel ideas.</p>
<p>“In many areas of cognition, greater microstructural organization (as indexed by higher fractional anisotropy) is associated with stronger performance. Here, greater insight propensity was linked to lower fractional anisotropy in specific left dorsal pathways,” the researchers added.</p>
<p>“This challenges a simple ‘more organized white matter equals better cognition’ view. Instead, it suggests that the neural architecture supporting insight may involve a delicate balance between constraint and flexibility. Too much structural rigidity could reinforce dominant interpretations. A slightly less constrained system may allow the mind to wander just far enough to discover something unexpected. That idea — that brilliance can emerge from loosening control rather than tightening it — is both scientifically intriguing and deeply human.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03593-0" target="_blank">The white matter of Aha! moments</a>,” was authored by Carola Salvi, Simone A. Luchini, Franco Pestilli, Sandra Hanekamp, Todd Parrish, Mark Beeman, and Jordan Grafman.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/video-games-may-offer-small-attention-benefits-for-children-with-adhd/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Video games may offer small attention benefits for children with ADHD</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 18th 2026, 16:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New analyses regarding digital health interventions suggest that specially designed video games may offer a small benefit in improving attention symptoms for children with certain neurodevelopmental conditions. While the findings indicate a positive outcome in a research setting, the improvements were not large enough to be considered a standalone cure. These results were recently published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116884" target="_blank">Psychiatry Research</a></em>.</p>
<p>Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, is a widespread condition that often manifests in children as difficulty sustaining focus or regulating impulses. This inattention is thought to stem from underlying differences in brain function related to neurotransmitter systems. </p>
<p>Standard treatments usually involve stimulant or non-stimulant medications, which can be highly effective for many children in managing core symptoms. However, these pharmaceutical options sometimes carry unwanted side effects, such as sleep difficulties or reduced appetite, prompting families and clinicians to search for additional approaches.</p>
<p>Over the past decade, various researchers have proposed digital interventions as a potential avenue for therapy. The underlying theory posits that certain video games designed to engage specific cognitive networks might stimulate brain activity in areas associated with attention. </p>
<p>Pengwei Ma, affiliated with Southwest University in China, aimed to evaluate the collective quality and consistency of the evidence regarding these digital therapeutics. Ma and the research team recognized that while individual experiments existed, their results were sometimes inconsistent or limited by small participant numbers.</p>
<p>To address this uncertainty with greater statistical power, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This approach essentially functions as a “study of studies.” Instead of running a new clinical trial with patients, the team comprehensively searched major scientific databases to locate existing, high-quality research papers. By pooling data from multiple smaller projects, researchers can sometimes detect subtle effects that might be missed in an individual trial with fewer participants.</p>
<p>The researchers specifically looked for randomized controlled trials, which are generally considered the gold standard for evaluating medical interventions. The analysis was narrowed to include only studies focusing on children aged twelve and younger who had received a formal clinical diagnosis of ADHD. The search ultimately identified ten reputable trials that met strict inclusion criteria, encompassing data from a total of 820 participants across different countries.</p>
<p>By combining the numerical outcomes from these ten separate trials, the investigators calculated an overall statistical measure known as an “effect size.” This number indicates the magnitude of the difference between groups that used the video game interventions and control groups that did not. </p>
<p>The combined analysis revealed that children who used the targeted video games experienced a measurable improvement in attention deficits compared to their peers. Statistical tests confirmed that this positive result was likely a genuine effect of the intervention rather than a chance occurrence.</p>
<p>It is important for a non-expert audience to contextualize the magnitude of this improvement. While the effect was statistically detectable, the researchers characterized the benefit as not biologically strong enough to be clinically meaningful on its own. To put this in perspective, medical researchers use specific numerical ranges to define how well a treatment works in a practical sense. Standard stimulant interventions for ADHD typically show a moderate to strong effect size in similar analyses.</p>
<p>The pooled effect size for the video game interventions fell into a range that scientists classify as small. This distinction is vital for parents and clinicians to understand when considering treatment options. A measurable change in a controlled research setting does not always translate to a major transformation in a child’s daily life skills or academic performance. </p>
<p>The analysis suggests that while digital interventions have a verifiable positive impact, they are not currently powerful enough to replace existing first-line treatments like medication or behavioral therapy.</p>
<p>The authors noted several aspects of the available data that require cautious interpretation. The review was limited to studies published in English and Chinese, potentially missing relevant research conducted in other languages. Furthermore, some of the included trials did not fully report methodological details, such as precisely how they ensured researchers remained unaware of which children were assigned to the treatment or control groups.</p>
<p>The review also highlighted variables that might influence how well these digital therapies work in future applications. There were indications that interventions lasting eight weeks or longer might be more effective than programs with shorter durations. Additionally, the researchers observed that video games incorporating physical exercise seemed to yield better results than sedentary cognitive games. Ma and colleagues suggested that future inquiries should investigate combining video game therapy with physical activity to potentially enhance therapeutic outcomes.</p>
<p>The ultimate conclusion drawn by the paper is one of cautious optimism. The findings support the idea that video games “may be therapeutic when added to other evidence-based therapies.” They appear best suited as a complementary tool within a broader treatment plan rather than a solitary solution for attention deficits in children.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116884" target="_blank">Effects of video game intervention on attention deficit in children with ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis</a>,” was authored by Pengwei Ma, Zhuolin Xue, Kun Yuan, Peiyun Zheng, Junfeng Li, and Jindong Chang.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/rising-number-of-americans-report-owning-firearms-for-protection-at-public-political-events/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Rising number of Americans report owning firearms for protection at public political events</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 18th 2026, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>New research published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-026-00655-8" target="_blank">Injury Epidemiology</a></em> highlights a shift in the motivations behind gun ownership in the United States. Following the 2024 presidential election, fewer gun owners reported possessing firearms to advance political objectives. However, a growing number of owners, particularly Republicans, cited the need for protection at political rallies and protests as a primary reason for owning a gun.</p>
<p>The landscape of gun ownership in America has evolved substantially over the past few decades. “Over time, we’ve been noticing shifts in Americans’ reasons for owning guns,” said study author <a href="https://as.vanderbilt.edu/medicine-health-society/bio/julie-ward/" target="_blank">Julie A. Ward</a>, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University.</p>
<p>“It used to be that if you asked gun owners why they own a gun or guns, the main reason you would hear was ‘for hunting’. Over time, hunting has stayed an important reason for many gun owners, but we’ve also seen growth in other reasons. Now, for example, “protection from other people” or for potential use in political or ideological conflict is increasingly common.”</p>
<p>“In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.06.026" target="_blank">nationally representative survey</a> we fielded in 2023, we saw that 85% of newer gun owners (meaning, people who purchased their first gun since 2020) said that at least one political violence related reason for gun ownership was personally important to them.” </p>
<p>“Roughly 60% of these newer gun owners cited defensive reasons (meaning, to protect themselves from political violence) and a similar portion cited assertive reasons (meaning, to advance an important political objective of their own). These proportions were nearly double what we saw among longer-term gun owners that year.”</p>
<p>“Knowing this – we wondered what changes we might see in Americans’ reasons for gun ownership two years later – following these hints of potential growth in owning guns for use in political conflict and on the heels of a 2024 US Presidential election that involved very high levels of political aggression and violence,” Ward explained.</p>
<p>“These are very real-world questions that we were trying to answer: What reasons do US gun owners give for their personal gun ownership? And, have those reasons changed since 2023 – either overall or by political affiliation? Understanding gun owners’ interests and concerns in this time of escalating tensions is critical for figuring out what we need to do to keep people safe.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from the National Survey of Gun Policy. This is a recurring survey that tracks public opinion on firearms and related policies. The study utilized two specific waves of the survey. The first wave was collected in January and February of 2023. The second wave was collected in January 2025, shortly before the presidential inauguration.</p>
<p>The total sample consisted of 2,003 adults who personally owned firearms. The participants were split evenly between the 2023 and 2025 groups. To ensure the findings applied to the general public, the researchers used statistical weighting. This is a method that adjusts the survey data so that the demographics of the respondents match the age, race, and gender makeup of the entire country.</p>
<p>Participants in the study were presented with a list of ten potential reasons for owning a gun. They were asked to rate how important each reason was to them personally. The options covered a wide range of motivations. These included traditional reasons like hunting or recreational target shooting.</p>
<p>The list also included specific questions regarding political violence. For example, participants were asked if they owned a gun “for protection at demonstrations, rallies, or protests.” Another option asked if they owned a gun “to advance an important political objective.” This phrasing implies using the firearm as a tool to force a political outcome rather than just for safety.</p>
<p>The researchers found a notable decline in the number of people owning guns for offensive political purposes. In 2023, roughly 35 percent of gun owners said that advancing a political objective was an important reason for ownership. By 2025, that number had dropped significantly to 22 percent.</p>
<p>“We found that as political violence escalated nationally, large majorities of Democrat, Independent, and Republican gun owners were rejecting such violence,” Ward told PsyPost. “Compared with responses in 2023, in 2025, we saw significantly fewer gun owners endorsing gun ownership to ‘advance an important political objective’ across each of these political groups.”</p>
<p>In contrast, the researchers observed a rise in gun ownership motivated by a desire for protection in political spaces. In 2025, 42 percent of all gun owners said protection at demonstrations or rallies was an important reason for ownership. This was an increase from 35 percent in 2023.</p>
<p>This shift was largely driven by Republican gun owners. The data showed that 51 percent of Republican respondents in 2025 cited protection at rallies as a key reason for owning a gun. This was a significant jump from 40 percent in 2023.</p>
<p>“This tells us there is growing concern among gun owners for personal safety in spaces that are used for political speech,” Ward said. “The problem is, even when motivated by defensive interests, increased gun carrying doesn’t reduce a population’s risk for gun-related harms – it increases it.”</p>
<p>“It is especially urgent that policymakers act on these safety concerns. For example, policies that regulate gun carrying in sensitive spaces are a strategy that can protect First and Second Amendment rights at the same time. For public safety and for democracy, it is critical that that people not only feel safe – but actually also are safe – when they are exercising their right to free speech.”</p>
<p>Republicans also reported increases in other protective motivations. In 2025, 97 percent of Republican gun owners cited home protection as an important reason, up from 93 percent. Additionally, concern regarding police violence increased within this group. About 34 percent of Republicans cited protection against police as a reason for ownership in 2025, compared to 25 percent in 2023.</p>
<p>The researchers also found a resurgence in hunting as a motivation. Among all gun owners, 81 percent listed hunting as important in 2025. This was an increase from 74 percent in the previous survey.</p>
<p>“We think there may be some interesting explanations for why we see these differences happening together,” Ward told PsyPost. “One may relate to marketing – linking consumerism (related to buying more or different guns) to threat messaging and to personal identities can be a powerful way to increase gun sales. And, those types of messages don’t come at us randomly. Social media and newsfeed algorithms can use political identity to shape the messages we see. How those exposures shape how we feel about our own gun ownership could be an important direction for future research.”</p>
<p>There are some limitations to this study that should be considered. The research compared two different groups of people at two different times. It did not track the same individuals over the two-year period. This means the study describes changes in the overall population, but it cannot pinpoint if specific individuals changed their minds.</p>
<p>“The results we report are both statistically significant and practically significant,” Ward noted. “Many of these differences were double-digit percentage point shifts. It’s also important to note that the way this large survey was designed means these results are representative of the population of gun owners nationwide.”</p>
<p>There is also the potential for social desirability bias. This is a phenomenon where survey takers give answers they believe are socially acceptable, rather than what they truly feel. However, the anonymous nature of the survey helps to reduce this likelihood.</p>
<p>Future research could examine the underlying causes of these shifts. Scientists suggest investigating how media consumption and political marketing influence fears of victimization. Understanding why specific groups feel unsafe at political events could help policymakers design better security measures.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-026-00655-8" target="_blank">Gun ownership for political protection or armed political expression: a nationally representative analysis of differences in 2025 vs. 2023</a>,” was authored by Julie A. Ward, Rebecca A. Valek, Vanya C. Jones, Lilliana Mason, and Cassandra K. Crifasi.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/high-iq-men-tend-to-be-less-conservative-than-their-average-peers-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">High IQ men tend to be less conservative than their average peers, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 18th 2026, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>The stereotype of the eccentric genius with radical political views is a common trope in fiction. A new study challenges this assumption by suggesting that highly intelligent adults may hold political views that are remarkably similar to the general population. Researchers found that adults identified as gifted in childhood largely share the same political outlooks as their non-gifted peers, with one specific exception regarding conservatism in men. These findings were published in the scientific journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101986" target="_blank">Intelligence</a></em>.</p>
<p>Society often looks to gifted individuals to solve major problems. These individuals frequently occupy leadership roles in economics, science, and politics. Because they hold positions of influence, understanding how they view the world is a matter of public interest.</p>
<p>Researchers have spent decades trying to understand <a href="https://www.psypost.org/the-politics-of-iq-are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives/" target="_blank">the link between cognitive ability and political belief</a>. Some past theories suggested that higher intelligence leads to left-wing or liberal views. Other theories proposed that intelligent people might favor economic conservatism.</p>
<p>The results of these past studies have been inconsistent. This inconsistency led a team of researchers to investigate the matter using a long-term approach. They wanted to see if distinct political patterns emerge when comparing gifted adults to a control group of average intelligence.</p>
<p>The lead author of the study is Maximilian Krolo from the Department of Educational Science at Saarland University in Germany. He collaborated with Jörn R. Sparfeldt, also from Saarland University, and Detlef H. Rost from the Department of Psychology at Philipps-University Marburg.</p>
<p>The team based their research on the “Cognitive Complexity-Openness Hypothesis.” This concept suggests that people with higher intelligence are generally more open to new experiences. They are also thought to be better equipped to handle complex or nuanced ideas.</p>
<p>If this hypothesis holds true, gifted individuals might reject rigid political dogmas. They might gravitate toward more flexible or moderate positions. The researchers aimed to test if this theoretical flexibility translates into specific political preferences in adulthood.</p>
<p>To do this, the authors utilized data from the Marburg Giftedness Project. This is a longitudinal study based in Germany that tracks the development of individuals over time. The project began during the 1987-1988 school year.</p>
<p>The initial phase involved examining over 7,000 third-grade students. The researchers administered standardized intelligence tests to this large group. These tests measured reasoning abilities and the speed at which the students processed information.</p>
<p>From this large pool, the team identified a group of gifted students. These students had an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 130 or higher. In the general population, an IQ of 100 is considered average.</p>
<p>The researchers then selected a control group of non-gifted students. This group had IQ scores near 100. The researchers ensured this control group matched the gifted group in other ways, such as gender ratios and socioeconomic background.</p>
<p>This matching process was designed to ensure fair comparisons. It allows researchers to be more confident that any differences found later are actually due to intelligence differences.</p>
<p>Six years later, when the students were in the ninth grade, the team tested them again. This re-evaluation confirmed the cognitive status of the participants. It ensured that the classification of “gifted” or “non-gifted” remained accurate as the children entered adolescence.</p>
<p>The current study focuses on these same individuals roughly 35 years after they were first identified. The participants were now adults with an average age of about 43. The researchers sent them surveys to assess their political orientations.</p>
<p>A total of 87 gifted adults and 71 non-gifted adults completed the survey. The response rate was notably high for a study spanning so many decades. This level of participation helps strengthen the reliability of the data.</p>
<p>The survey measured political views in two different ways. The first method was a simple single-dimensional scale. Participants were asked to place themselves on a spectrum ranging from left (1) to right (10).</p>
<p>The second method was more detailed. The researchers used the “Political Ideologies Questionnaire” to measure four distinct dimensions of political thought. These dimensions allowed for a more precise understanding of specific beliefs.</p>
<p>The first dimension was economic libertarianism. This viewpoint emphasizes free markets and individual liberty in economic matters. People who score high here often view merit-based inequality as fair.</p>
<p>The second dimension was conservatism. This outlook values tradition and social stability. High scorers usually believe that shared culture and established rules are necessary to prevent societal fragmentation.</p>
<p>The third dimension was socialism. This perspective focuses on equality of outcome. It emphasizes protecting disadvantaged groups and may advocate for social changes to reduce exploitation.</p>
<p>The fourth dimension was liberalism. In this context, liberalism refers to placing a high value on individual autonomy. It suggests that people should be free to live as they please provided they do not harm others.</p>
<p>The researchers analyzed the survey data using statistical methods called Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). They checked for differences between the gifted and non-gifted groups. They also looked for differences based on sex.</p>
<p>On the simple left-right scale, the results showed no statistical difference between the two groups. Both the gifted and non-gifted adults tended to place themselves near the center of the spectrum. This suggests a general tendency toward moderation in both groups.</p>
<p>The researchers then analyzed the four specific dimensions of the detailed questionnaire. For economic libertarianism, socialism, and liberalism, the analysis again showed no statistical difference between the groups. Giftedness did not appear to push individuals toward or away from these specific ideologies.</p>
<p>However, a distinct pattern emerged regarding the dimension of conservatism. The researchers found an interaction effect between giftedness and sex. This means the relationship between intelligence and conservatism depended on whether the participant was male or female.</p>
<p>Specifically, non-gifted men scored higher on conservatism than gifted men. The non-gifted men were more likely to endorse values related to tradition and strict social order. Gifted men were less likely to hold these traditional conservative views.</p>
<p>This difference was not observed among the women in the study. Gifted women and non-gifted women showed similar levels of conservatism. The divergence was unique to the male participants.</p>
<p>The researchers used supplementary Bayesian analyses to verify these results. Bayesian analysis is a statistical technique that weighs the strength of evidence for different models. These additional tests supported the initial findings.</p>
<p>The team interpreted the findings through the lens of cognitive flexibility. They suggest that non-gifted men might rely more on traditional perspectives when processing complex social issues. This reliance could lead to higher conservatism scores.</p>
<p>On the other hand, gifted men may possess greater cognitive flexibility. This allows them to process diverse perspectives more easily. Consequently, they may be less inclined to adhere to rigid traditional norms.</p>
<p>The lack of difference in the other categories supports the “centering” hypothesis. This is the idea that intelligent individuals often avoid extreme political positions. They may see extreme views as oversimplifications of a complex reality.</p>
<p>The authors also noted that the German political context might play a role. Germany has a “social market economy” that blends capitalism with social welfare. This cultural environment might encourage a consensus around moderate views for everyone, regardless of intelligence.</p>
<p>As with all research, there are limitations to the study that must be considered. The sample size was relatively small, which is common in studies that last for decades. A larger sample might have detected smaller effects that this study missed.</p>
<p>Additionally, the study was conducted exclusively in Germany. Political terms like “liberal” or “conservative” can have different meanings in different countries. The results might not apply perfectly to the political landscape of the United States or other nations.</p>
<p>The study also relied on self-reported beliefs. While honest reporting is assumed, people sometimes describe themselves differently than their actions might suggest.</p>
<p>Future research could address these limitations by looking at actual behavior. For instance, scientists could examine voting records or party memberships. This would help determine if these internal orientations translate into real-world political action.</p>
<p>Despite the limitations, the study offers a clear message. High intelligence does not automatically lead to radical or distinct political views. Gifted adults appear to be as politically diverse and moderate as the rest of the population.</p>
<p>The one notable exception regarding male conservatism warrants further investigation. It highlights how intelligence and gender might interact to shape how people value tradition.</p>
<p>Ultimately, this research suggests that while gifted individuals may process information differently, their political conclusions are not fundamentally alien. They navigate the same societal debates as everyone else. Their minds may be exceptional, but their politics are often quite ordinary.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2025.101986" target="_blank">Exploring exceptional minds: Political orientations of gifted adults</a>,” was authored by Maximilian Krolo, Jörn R. Sparfeldt, and Detlef H. Rost.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/study-finds-a-disconnect-between-brain-activity-and-feelings-in-lonely-people/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Study finds a disconnect between brain activity and feelings in lonely people</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Feb 18th 2026, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>Loneliness acts as more than a fleeting emotional state; it functions as a persistent filter that alters how the human brain processes the social world. New research published in the journal <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109175" target="_blank">Biological Psychology</a></em> provides evidence that this condition changes the neural mechanisms responsible for evaluating threats and regulating emotions. </p>
<p>The study demonstrates that applying a mild, targeted electrical current to the frontal lobe can help lonely individuals perceive negative social scenes as less distressing. These findings offer a new perspective on the disconnect between how lonely people react to their environment physiologically and how they consciously perceive those reactions.</p>
<p>Social isolation is widely recognized as a risk factor for a variety of physical and mental health issues. These range from increased susceptibility to cardiovascular disease to a higher likelihood of developing neurodegenerative disorders. Psychologists have long sought to understand the cognitive machinery that drives these negative outcomes. One prominent framework is the Evolutionary Theory of Loneliness. This theory suggests that isolation triggers a state of hypervigilance. The lonely brain becomes obsessively tuned to social signals in an effort to reconnect with others.</p>
<p>This constant scanning for social cues can lead to a depletion of cognitive resources. When the brain is busy monitoring for threats, it may have less capacity remaining to manage or regulate emotional responses. Szymon Mąka and his colleagues at the Institute of Psychology within the Polish Academy of Sciences designed a study to test these theoretical mechanisms. Mąka and senior author Łukasz Okruszek had previously noted a paradox in their research. They observed that lonely individuals often display strong physiological reactions to negative social cues. Despite this bodily response, these same individuals frequently report feeling lower levels of emotional arousal compared to non-lonely people.</p>
<p>This discrepancy suggests that loneliness might not simply break the brain’s ability to regulate emotion. Instead, it may disrupt the self-monitoring processes that allow a person to accurately interpret their own internal state. To investigate this, the researchers focused on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. This region of the brain sits just behind the forehead and acts as a control center for executive functions. It plays a primary role in top-down processing, which is the ability of higher-level thoughts to regulate lower-level emotional impulses.</p>
<p>The research team recruited 120 participants for the experiment. They stratified these volunteers into two distinct groups based on their scores on the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. One group consisted of sixty individuals who reported high levels of loneliness. The other group consisted of sixty individuals who reported low levels of loneliness. The researchers aimed to see if manipulating the activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex could alter how these groups processed negative imagery.</p>
<p>To manipulate brain activity, the researchers employed a technique known as transcranial direct current stimulation. This non-invasive method involves placing electrodes on the scalp to deliver a weak electrical current to specific brain areas. The current can temporarily increase or decrease the excitability of the neurons underneath. In this study, participants attended two separate sessions. In one session, they received active anodal stimulation, which generally enhances neuronal activity, applied to either the left or right side of the prefrontal cortex. In the other session, they received a sham stimulation.</p>
<p>The sham condition served as a control. The device would ramp up to mimic the physical sensation of the stimulation starting but would then turn off. This ensured that the participants could not distinguish between the active and control sessions. This double-blind design prevented the participants’ expectations from influencing the results. While receiving the stimulation, participants sat before a computer screen while wearing a cap equipped with sensors to record electroencephalography, or EEG, data.</p>
<p>The researchers presented the participants with a series of images. Some of these pictures depicted negative social content, such as scenes of violence or accidents. Others depicted negative non-social content, such as spiders or snakes. Neutral images were also included as a baseline. For each image, the participants received one of two instructions. They were told either to simply “watch” the image passively or to “reappraise” it. Cognitive reappraisal is a strategy where a person mentally reframes a situation to reduce its emotional impact. For example, a participant might view a bloody scene and remind themselves that it is a fake scene from a movie.</p>
<p>After viewing each image, participants rated how negative they felt and how intense their emotional arousal was. Simultaneously, the EEG sensors recorded event-related potentials. These are specific changes in the brain’s electrical activity that occur in response to a stimulus. The researchers were particularly interested in the Late Positive Potential. This is a brain wave pattern that typically reflects the amount of attention and cognitive resources the brain is dedicating to an emotional stimulus.</p>
<p>The analysis revealed a specific effect regarding how stimulation influenced the lonely group. When highly lonely participants received active stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, they rated negative social images as less unpleasant compared to the sham condition. This change in perceived valence occurred during the passive watching condition. This suggests that boosting activity in the left frontal lobe helped lonely individuals dampen their immediate, automatic negative evaluation of social threats.</p>
<p>The physiological data provided a layer of complexity to these behavioral findings. Despite the lonely participants reporting that they felt less negativity, their brain wave patterns did not show a corresponding drop in activity. The electrical markers of emotional processing remained similar between the active and sham conditions for this group. This finding aligns with the researchers’ earlier hypothesis regarding a disconnect in self-awareness. It appears that loneliness may impair the ability to map internal physiological responses onto conscious feelings. The stimulation altered the subjective report without necessarily changing the underlying neural magnitude of the threat response.</p>
<p>The study also yielded results regarding the general mechanism of cognitive reappraisal across all participants. When the researchers analyzed the data for the entire sample, they found that active stimulation enhanced the neural modulation associated with reappraisal. Specifically, there was a larger difference in the Late Positive Potential between the reappraisal condition and the passive watching condition during active stimulation. This effect was specific to social stimuli.</p>
<p>This indicates that the stimulation successfully helped the brain engage the neural circuits required to regulate emotions. However, a divergence appeared here as well. While the brain data showed enhanced regulation, the participants rated the images as more negative during the reappraisal trials under active stimulation than they did under sham stimulation. This implies that while the brain was working harder to reframe the images, the participants subjectively felt that their attempts at regulation were less effective.</p>
<p>The authors interpret these findings as evidence that the left and right sides of the prefrontal cortex may have distinct roles. Previous studies have often linked the right side to deliberate cognitive control and the left side to more automatic emotional processing. The current results support the idea that the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex helps modulate spontaneous affective evaluations. For lonely individuals, whose automatic processing of social threats may be biased, stimulation of this region provided a specific benefit in reducing subjective distress.</p>
<p>There are limitations to the study that warrant consideration. The use of electrical stimulation during EEG recording can introduce noise into the data, which requires extensive processing to remove. This can sometimes affect the clarity of the brain signals. The experimental task was also relatively brief to fit within the time window where the electrical stimulation is most effective. In daily life, regulating emotions in response to social isolation is a prolonged process that may not be fully captured by looking at a picture for a few seconds.</p>
<p>Additionally, the study relied on young adult participants. It is not yet clear if these findings would apply to older adults, who are often the focus of loneliness research. The researchers also note that they did not include a direct measure of metacognition, or thinking about thinking. Future studies would benefit from asking participants to explicitly evaluate how well they think they are tracking their own emotions.</p>
<p>Despite these caveats, the research highlights that loneliness is not merely a problem of feeling too much or regulating too little. It involves a complex mismatch between the brain’s automatic reactions and the individual’s conscious experience of the social world. By showing that targeted brain stimulation can shift these subjective evaluations, the study opens potential avenues for understanding how neural interventions might one day support therapies for social isolation.</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109175" target="_blank">Targeted neuromodulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex alleviates altered affective response evaluation in lonely individuals</a>,” was authored by Szymon Mąka, Marta Chrustowicz, and Łukasz Okruszek.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Forwarded by:<br />
Michael Reeder LCPC<br />
Baltimore, MD</strong></p>
<p><strong>This information is taken from free public RSS feeds published by each organization for the purpose of public distribution. Readers are linked back to the article content on each organization's website. This email is an unaffiliated unofficial redistribution of this freely provided content from the publishers. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><s><small><a href="#" style="color:#ffffff;"><a href='https://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/565/DY9DKf'>unsubscribe from this feed</a></a></small></s></p>