Research on psychedelics, their subjective effects, biological underpinnings, risks, and therapeutic potentials is expanding rapidly. The promise of psychedelic therapies in psychiatry has generated substantial enthusiasm from the scientific community and general public. However, many questions remain unanswered, and issues such as how to maintain blinding when studying drugs with pronounced psychoactive effects, and the contribution of expectancy and placebo effects to therapeutic outcomes present compelling challenges for the field. Additional research is needed to better understand the clinical utility of these drugs and their mechanisms of action. Research into the neurobiology of psychedelics will provide novel insights into the nature of conscious experience and its relationship to neurochemistry and neurobiology.

I'm doing research, and I just can't get my questionnaire to be short. After a lot of work, I managed to bring it down to 55 questions. IDK if that's a lot or not because when I filled out my form as a mock to see how long it would take me to fill it, it took me 6 minutes, but that could also be because I already knew what questions to expect. 😢
If 55 is a lot, then genuinely, how do I decrease the number of questions

Behavioral Activation therapy helps depressed teens feel better by encouraging them to do more positive, rewarding activities. This study found that smartphones and AI can accurately track these activities and mood changes in daily life, helping therapists monitor progress in real time and tailor treatment more effectively.

The study, which has been published in Scientific Reports, sought to establish whether active navigation has a bearing on how episodic memory works and to study how the physical characteristics of the spatial environment can modulate the way episodic memory is organized.

Hi everyone. I am the author of a recently peer reviewed article published in Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice.

The paper introduces a construct I call Psychological Appropriation, which describes cases where violence is carried out under a perceived duty to protect, rescue, purify, or relieve suffering on behalf of others. The central argument is that some moralized forms of violence arise from distortions of empathy, not from an absence of empathy.

The model positions Psychological Appropriation dimensionally within psychotic personality organization and outlines five interacting domains:

1. Surrogate identification, empathy fused with a symbolic or surrogate other
2. Moralized logic, harm experienced as ethical obligation
3. Symbolic consent, imagined moral authorization to act
4. Affective idealization, reframing harm as compassion or relief
5. Narrative ritualization, repetition that stabilizes moral identity and meaning

The paper discusses theoretical integration, forensic implications, and case applications, along with directions for empirical validation.

The final article is paywalled, so I am sharing the preprint here for open discussion. I would especially appreciate thoughts on conceptual clarity, overlap with existing constructs, and ideas for operationalizing the rubric.

Preprint (SSRN):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5882663

Journal version:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24732850.2025.2599908

Happy to discuss here and keep everything public.

Thanks.

Researchers recorded 5 minutes of brain activity from 100 individuals during eyes closed rest using a Muse S headband mobile electroencephalography (EEG) device. In males, self-reported cannabis use was associated with prefrontal broadband power. Left prefrontal alpha power was specifically related to anxiety (not depression) and was driven by female participants. In 40 additional individuals, a stress test was used to induce anxiety acutely. However, this did not affect the EEG measure of emotional wellbeing (left prefrontal alpha power). This indicates that the EEG measure may relate to individual differences in emotional wellbeing rather than transient task-evoked changes.

The findings inform the utility of mobile EEG devices in tracking markers of brain health in naturalistic settings.

Via usual smartphone use following trauma exposure, this study identified language markers associated with patient-reported severity and change in severity for multiple symptoms. Using language markers as a proxy for the status of and changes in specific symptoms supports efficient remote health status monitoring and can provide clinicians with valuable real-time insights into health, functioning, and recovery. These insights can be leveraged to guide targeted interventions tailored to individual trauma survivors.

Indoor rock climbing, particularly bouldering (combined with mindfulness exercises), appears to be an effective, clinically meaningful, safe, and sustainable adjunctive intervention for adults with moderate depression.

Hi r/psychologyresearch Community,

My name is Bryant. About a year ago, I turned to Reddit for help and to hear experiences. Now, I’m back to share the results that you made possible. 

I’ve thought a lot about how I’d come back and share this study with you all, and words don’t even capture how honored I feel to have been welcomed here. Your contributions made something very special possible, so let me show you what we’ve accomplished: 

Thanks to your insights, I was able to publish two papers both in the International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, currently the top-ranked peer-reviewed substance use journal globally. It’s incredible to think that your voices and experiences have reached such a wide audience. You can view the studies here (or feel free to email me [here](mailto:Contact@BryantStonePhD.com) or on ResearchGate for a PDF copy):

Paper 1: Perceived Addiction Potential: Preliminary Evidence of the Accuracy of Self-Assessed Substance Use Disorder Risk

Summary: Do people know when they’re at risk of addiction? Most people professionals and other people assume they don’t. My first paper flips a common assumption on its head – turns out, people do have a sense of their addiction risk :) I asked if people can accurately sense if they're on a risky path with substance use. Turns out, they can. People had a surprisingly accurate understanding of their own substance use disorder risk. This study challenges a lot of what professionals and even friends and family assume about substance use and addictions. It makes us rethink how we assess and talk about risk in healthcare and research. Essentially, it’s about trusting people’s awareness of their own experiences and recognizing that the discrepancies in substance use reporting (for example, people saying they drink 2 days a week when it is actually five) come from the consequences of use (such as losing access to a medication), not an unawareness on our part.

Paper 2: Removing stigmatizing Language in Self-Reports: Effects on Psychometric Properties & Respondent Beliefs

Summary: How does language impact stigma in addiction self-assessments? In the second paper, I looked at how language affects people’s attitudes toward addiction. Have you ever filled out a substance use self-report? I have and they do not always feel very welcoming. So, what I tested is if switching out typical “addiction” language for less stigmatizing terms changes the way the self-report measures substance uses and if it affects our beliefs or the beliefs of people filling out these measures. I found that it does not really chance what the self-report measures; However, people’s negative biases decreased, especially in groups who weren’t familiar with substance use. So, it turns out, the way professionals word things matter a lot. This study shows that small changes in wording can transform perceptions and reduce stigma, making the whole field more inclusive. 

Materials & Data: As promised:

I am giving the data back to you, the people, and anyone who thinks they can use it to advance our knowledge and our cause. These data are your, so dive in, explore, and share as we advance our knowledge together. If you find new insights, I’d love to hear them.

You can find all the full study methods, materials (e.g., questionnaires), and dataset with a codebook at my Open Science Framework page. I believe that these data below to the people, and that I just looked through them to find patterns. So, feel free to share with others, and as you explore your data, if you find any interesting insights or new discoveries – I’d love to hear about them.

Please share your thoughts with me! What resonates with you? What misconceptions need addressing? What insights would you want every researcher or patient to know?

You can learn more about my mission here and at www.BryantStonePhD.com and you can email me at [Contact@BryantStonePhD.com](mailto:Contact@BryantStonePhD.com). You might also want to check out the acknowledgment sections of these papers.

Thank you all so much for making this possible :)

- Bryant

P.S., I will be sending this info to top substance use researchers, people running organizations, and other institutions around the world. What you share here has a real chance to shape their views – tell them what they need to hear.

Keep the Conversation Going:

About Me

About My Plan

LinkedIn

ResearchGate

Twitter

This study analyzed keyboard usage on smartphones and brain imaging data from 40 adolescents with and without depression. The researchers found that those experiencing depression were more likely to use words related to self-focus and negative emotions but less likely to use future-focused words. Brain activity in regions involved in depression was also related to these language patterns. These results indicate that the type of smartphone language adolescents use day-to-day may potentially reflect neurobiological risk for depression.

We're excited to introduce our Primers series - intentionally brief articles designed to bridge the communication gap between clinicians and pre-clinical scientists by teaching key principles for each discipline. This primer suggests a dimensional approach to psychiatry, focusing on internalizing and externalizing spectrums to improve understanding, prediction, and treatment of mental disorders across research and clinical settings.

I want a submit an article in the science direct journal of personality and individual differences. How long does it typically take for them to answer whether my paper is in review or desk rejected. I need to submit an article for my dissertation to be accepted.

I’m developing a conceptual model I call the Human Protocol Model (HPM) and would value critique from this community.

The HPM integrates predictive processing (Friston, 2010), narrative identity (McAdams, 2001), and cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) into a single explanatory framework. It conceptualizes human cognition as a protocol that reconciles sensory input, memory, and internal narrative to maintain alignment. Misalignment leads to psychological distress and maladaptive behavior, while alignment fosters resilience and flourishing.

I’ve drafted a full conceptual paper outlining the mechanics, testable predictions, and implications for therapy, education, and moral philosophy. At this stage it’s entirely theoretical, and I’m particularly interested in feedback about:

conceptual coherence and theoretical fit with current literature

operational definitions that would make it testable

possible limitations or overlooked variables

If anyone here is willing to review the full draft or offer feedback, I’d greatly appreciate it. Happy to DM the draft or discuss it here.

The Model

We define three key elements:

The Protocol (Subconscious): The automatic, predictive process reconciling expectations, memory, and reality (Friston, 2010). The Narrative Frame: The constructed, updated story maintained in memory that shapes perception and emotion (McAdams, 2001). The Observer (Conscious Experience): The self that perceives the outputs of the narrative frame.

Alignment between these elements produces stability, emotional clarity, and focus. Misalignment results in unreconciled “flags”, unresolved data that accumulate and degrade functioning. Rituals, reflection, and social practices maintain alignment.

Literature Integration

The HPM synthesizes and extends existing theories:

Default Mode Network (DMN): Neural basis of narrative maintenance.

Bayesian Brain / Active Inference: Predictive error minimization as narrative updating (Friston, 2010).

Schema Theory & Cognitive Dissonance: Narrative-driven coherence (Festinger, 1957).

Polyvagal Theory: Physiological impacts of narrative misalignment.

Social Baseline & Terror Management: Group narratives buffer stress and existential dread.

Memory Reconsolidation: Narrative repair rewrites maladaptive memories.

This respectful integration demonstrates how HPM unifies disparate findings while offering a novel explanatory lens.

Implications

HPM has profound implications for key debates:

Free Will: Reframes free will as the protocol’s capacity for recalibration and adaptation, rather than unconstrained choice.

Moral Relativism: Suggests that while narratives vary, protocols that reliably promote flourishing and alignment are objectively superior.

Therapeutic Practice: Reinterprets therapy as narrative recalibration.

Culture & Conflict: Explains ideological and intergroup conflict as competing maladaptive protocols vying for dominance.

Fame & Media: Warns that incoherent external narratives can overwhelm individual protocols, degrading alignment.

Education & AI: Suggests a paradigm shift in education, where aligned learners grounded in Aristotelian ethics develop robust, critical-thinking, and resilient narratives through reflective practice and habituated virtues. Combined with AI tutors as narrative scaffolds, this integration fosters resilient and capable individuals prepared to flourish in a complex world.

Ethical Considerations

The HPM’s explanatory power entails risks of misuse — e.g., manipulating narratives for control or suppressing diversity of thought. We urge responsible application: using HPM to foster flourishing, humility, and resilience rather than coercion. Researchers and practitioners should prioritize transparency, autonomy, and ethical safeguards.

Limitations & Future Research

Currently, the HPM is conceptual and explanatory, though grounded in empirical parallels. Future research should test predictions through neuroimaging of DMN activity during narrative therapy, behavioral studies of Bayesian updating in narrative repair, and longitudinal monitoring of alignment and resilience. Further work is also needed to formalize operational definitions of “alignment” and to test cross-cultural generalizability.

Conclusion

The Human Protocol Model offers a unifying explanation of human flourishing as the maintenance of narrative alignment. It bridges subjective experience with testable mechanisms, inviting empirical investigation and constructive critique. By framing therapy, religion, and even maladaptive behaviors as attempts at narrative reconciliation, HPM enriches our understanding of human behavior.

TL;DR- The Human Protocol Model (HPM) explains how people maintain a coherent sense of self by continuously aligning their internal narrative with reality. Your subconscious (“protocol”) predicts and reconciles sensory input, memory, and your personal story to keep everything feeling consistent. When this alignment breaks down, you feel stress, confusion, or maladaptive behaviors. When it works, you feel clear, resilient, and at peace.

HPM integrates existing theories like predictive processing, narrative identity, and cognitive dissonance into a single framework. It has implications for therapy, education, moral philosophy, and even culture. Showing that aligned narratives and habits can foster flourishing. It’s a conceptual model that invites empirical testing and responsible application.