These observations have led to the understanding that healthy, optimal function is a result of continuous, dynamic, bidirectional interactions among multiple neural, hormonal and mechanical control systems at both local and central levels. However, with the introduction of signal-processing technologies that can acquire continuous data over time from physiological processes such as heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP) and nerve activity, it has become abundantly apparent that biological processes vary in complex and nonlinear ways, even during so-called steady-state conditions. Since then, the study of physiology has been based on the principle that all cells, tissues and organs strive to maintain a static or constant steady-state condition. Cannon also introduced the concept of homeostasis. Presumably, all of our inner systems are activated together when we are aroused and calm down together when we are at rest and the brain is in control of the entire process. Cannon believed the autonomic nervous system and all of the related physiological responses moved in concert with the brain’s response to any given stimulus or challenge. In physiologist and researcher Walter Bradford Cannon’s view, when we are aroused, the mobilizing part of the nervous system (sympathetic) energizes us for fight or flight, which is indicated by an increase in heart rate, and in more quiescent moments, the calming part of the nervous system (parasympathetic) calms us down and slows the heart rate. During 20 years of research throughout the 1960s and ’70s, they observed that the heart communicates with the brain in ways that significantly affect how we perceive and react to the world. Some of the first researchers in the field of psychophysiology to examine the interactions between the heart and brain were John and Beatrice Lacey.
#Jay hathaway logical coherence professional
Find a Certified HeartMath Professional.Stress & Well-Being Assessment Provider.Mentor Certification / Coach Enrichment.
#Jay hathaway logical coherence trial
By identifying the cognitive phenomena that lie at the root of these failings, the research makes it possible to devise interventions and introduce procedures that reduce the risk of trial error. It argues that the current doctrine in these areas is based on misconceptions about human cognition, which lead to systematic legal errors. The Article applies this research to four important aspects of the trial. A natural result of this cognitive process is a skewing of the premises and facts toward inflated support for the chosen decision. Based on a connectionist cognitive architecture, coherence-based reasoning shows that the decision-making process progresses bidirectionally: premises and facts both determine conclusions and are affected by them in return. The experimental findings demonstrate that many legal decisions fit into neither of these models. This cognitive approach challenges the stalemated conflict between the Rationalist and Critical models of decision making that have dominated legal scholarship for over a century. This Article presents a novel body of research in cognitive psychology called coherence-based reasoning, which has thus far been published in journals of experimental psychology.
0 kommentar(er)
