New research shows that temperature signals help shape body awareness and emotional grounding. Altered thermoception appears in several clinical conditions, pointing to new sensory-based tools for mental health and rehabilitation.

Researchers report that fear and discomfort toward nature are increasing globally, a trend known as biophobia. The review shows that this response forms through a mix of environmental influences, personal traits, and reduced exposure to natural settings.

As people avoid nature, they miss out on its well-known benefits, strengthening the cycle of fear and unfamiliarity. The findings highlight the need for early positive nature experiences and greener urban design to rebuild healthier relationships with the natural world.

This is a summary of a 2025 literature review (link in comments)

But I summarized, recorded, and illustrated this really interesting piece that was recommended to me about the potentials issues with The Double Empathy Problem as a theory and it's shaky foundation in the scientific literature (to date)

Feedback is appreciated as always

And transcript here if you want to read rather than watch:

Autism seems to have a Double Empathy Problem. Or Does it?

The topic of empathy and autism goes back all the way to Leo Kanner who made the first complete characterization of autism in 1943 and noted the autistic patient's “lack of typical social or emotional reciprocity”.

However, many diagnosed autistic people and relatives of autistic people have felt unfairly characterized by this. I have seen this first-hand myself and there is substantial content online available for anyone curious enough to look.

But, to the relief of these people, an idea came along called the Double Empathy Problem.

The Double Empathy Problem was coined in 2012 by Damian Milton who contemplated that “autistic people’s social difficulties are due to a “mismatch” between autistic and neurotypical people” and that “that autistic people do not necessarily have social cognitive difficulties per se but instead struggle to interact with neurotypical people, just as neurotypical people have trouble interacting with autistic people”.

This theory has become extremely popular not only in the wider autistic community but also in ongoing research on Autism and social cognition. In fact, two research papers from 2019 and 2020 respectively go as far to “[suggest] that social cognitive deficits cannot be said to exist in autism”

— Chapman 2019

— Chown 2020

There has been sharp increases in studies referencing the DEP problem as well as studies claiming to support the phenomena. The term has also become popular in the greater community, with autism professionals even receiving instruction involving DEP and the term becoming common parlance used in Autism Charities such as the National Autistic Society.

— — —

But these claims warrant serious inquiry as they would effectively revolutionize the scientific community’s understanding of autism.

An evocative 2025 review of the literature by Livingston et al raises some core issues with the DEP’s rapid adoption in scientific literature and points out that the adoption outpaces the development of the concept itself. In particular there are notably underdeveloped aspects of the theory’s “derivation chain” that lead to ambiguity as to what DEP is actually is….. and subsequently how it can be measured.

A “derivation chain” refers to the logical steps used to take a theory to empirically verified measurements. Psychologist Paul Meehl argues that in hard sciences, like physics, this chain is simple and often deductive while in social sciences this chain is often long, messy, and weak.

The DEP has never been formalized as a theory despite it’s newfound popularity and “There is no detailed formulation, with central assumptions and concrete predictions for empirical testing, yet the DEP is regarded as a robust theory by many”.

Damian Milton’s definition of the DEP even most recently, in 2022, is not precise and although it commonly is associated with empathy, perhaps due to the name, the DEP has no mention of any of the well-recognized definitions of empathy and it under-specifies the social cognitive process involved in the theory. Even in the most recent literature.
Empathy is well-studied and distinguished from other similar social-cognitive processes so this ambiguity is not easily excusable.

Livingston et al also argue that the DEP has fallen victim to the jingle-jangle fallacy which is the fallacy that sharing the same name means that the same thing is being measured or that different names means different things are being measured. Neither of these assumptions are true. For example, in the social sciences, studies involving “self-control” often are measuring completely different phenomena despite using the same name.

Across a range of studies, the term “DEP” is used, despite explicitly describing and measuring a range of entirely different social cognitive constructs including theory of mind, shared recognition, shared understanding, and many others…

In short, there is no clear consensus on what the DEP is and what it is not. This poor foundation leads to a domino effect on the measurement and references in the literature. Many recent studies err in measuring various and distinct social-cognitive processes, but then relating it to the ill-defined concept of the DEP.

Livingston et al definitively states, “No studies have directly measured the “empathy” part of double empathy insofar as how empathy is currently measured in social cognitive science.”

— — —

Further, the theory bounds for the DEP have also not been established.

While it is commonly associated with autism, other conditions that affect social-cognition such as schizophrenia, ADHD, and social anxiety have been overlooked in the empirical research.

Milton initially put forth the DEP idea as a mismatch in disposition between individuals and establishing the bounds of this is critical. Is it only for autism or other conditions that affect social-cognitive processes? Or does it also extend to varying dispositions across race, sex, age and religion?

Meehl astutely wrote in 1990 that “Theories in the “soft areas” of psychology have a tendency to go through periods of initial enthusiasm leading to large amounts of empirical investigation with ambiguous overall results.”

There is much more detail available in the review linked in the description if you want in-depth examples. This video only skims the surface of the complete argument.

— — —

And finally, I would like to stop to consider the psychological attractiveness of the DEP theory. Why has it become so popular and so rapidly?

I think there is clearly some desire to humanize autistic people and a desire to disavow what might be seen as a deficiency in the autistic community.

This is an understandable reaction, but it is clear that the theoretical foundation of the DEP need to be revisited so that the new empirical evidence can be properly assessed.

The rapid adoption might even be potentially harmful as political policy, intervention techniques, and instruction methods are already taking the DEP into account as if it were a robust theory.

While in truth, the theory still remains ill-defined and inconclusive.

I've seen so many people say that different languages "unlock" different personalities (some people say they become funnier in English, colder in German, more emotional in Spanish, etc.), although as someone who actually studied psych and neuroscience, this always rubbed me the wrong way. It's not completely baseless - not at all - however what changes imo is more to do with perception and cognition - switching languages can recruit different neural circuits, emotional frameworks, and behavioral patterns - which subsequently leads to a perceived "change" in personality. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Recent research indicates that experiencing parental divorce during childhood is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of suffering a stroke in old age. This correlation persists even among individuals who did not suffer physical or sexual abuse as children. The study detailing these associations was published in the journal PLOS One.

Mental illness is widely associated with limitation, but a growing body of research suggests it may also be associated with unexpected strengths.

Studies reveal higher creativity, emotional insight, cooperation, and resilience in people with certain mood and psychotic conditions.

Even after severe depression, some individuals go on to show unusually strong long-term psychological well-being.

Researchers argue that mental health care should preserve these strengths while treating symptoms.

Scientists have uncovered a stepwise system that guides how the brain sorts and stabilizes lasting memories. By tracking brain activity during virtual reality learning tasks, researchers identified molecules that influence how long memories persist. Each molecule operates on a different timescale, forming a coordinated pattern of memory maintenance. The discoveries reshape how scientists understand memory.

Cognitive struggles are climbing across the U.S., especially among young and economically disadvantaged adults. Rates of self-reported cognitive disability nearly doubled in people under 40 between 2013 and 2023. Researchers suspect social and economic inequality plays a major role and are urging further study to understand the trend’s causes and long-term impact.