• Maximization
• The Thermostat Effect
• Overstimulation, Overwhelming Information/Information Overload, and Numbness
• The “Paradoxical Effect” Research
• The Stimulation-Seeking Paradox
• Sensory Processing and Regulation
• The Neurobiological Explanation
• Idiot Compassion vs Wise Compassion
• Denial of Death
• The Last Meeting and the Goodbye Conversation
• Transactional Relationships
• Hope Molecules
• Social approach and block off people conflict
• We adore the ones who ignore us and ignore the ones who adore us:
• Insecurity Paradox
• Self-Induced Obsolescence
• Winners and losers
• Normalizing to the Environment
• Signal and Noise
• Emotional hedging or relationship avoidance with attachment
• Concepts

Maximization

Maximization in psychology refers to a decision-making strategy where individuals seek to find the absolute best possible option among all available alternatives. This concept was notably developed by psychologist Barry Schwartz and his colleagues.

Maximizers differ from “satisficers” (a term coined by Herbert Simon) in their approach to choices. While satisficers look for options that meet their criteria and are “good enough,” maximizers exhaustively search through alternatives to find the optimal choice. They tend to:

• Compare extensively across all available options
• Seek out additional alternatives even after finding good ones
• Experience regret more intensely when they discover better options later
• Spend significantly more time on decisions
• Often feel less satisfied with their choices, even when objectively better

Research has shown that while maximizers often do make objectively better choices, they tend to be less happy with their decisions and experience more regret, anxiety, and depression compared to satisficers. This occurs because maximizers face higher opportunity costs - they’re more aware of what they’re giving up and more likely to engage in upward social comparisons.

The maximization tendency is often measured using scales that assess how much people engage in extensive alternative search, experience difficulty with decisions, and feel regret about choices. Understanding this concept has important implications for consumer behavior, career decisions, and overall well-being.

The Thermostat Effect

02:13:11 Scicomm Media How to Find & Be a Great Romantic Partner | Lori Gottlieb

When people grow up with parents or peers who overreact with the little things, they grow up either not knowing what they want or don’t want to go out of someone else’s comfort zone

Relates to several well-documented concepts in psychology:

Emotional dysregulation modeling - When children grow up with parents who have extreme reactions to minor issues, they often struggle to develop their own emotional “calibration.” They may not learn what constitutes an appropriate response to different situations.

Conflict avoidance patterns - Children from households with volatile reactions often become hypervigilant about maintaining peace. They learn to suppress their own needs and preferences to avoid triggering others’ overreactions.

Learned helplessness and people-pleasing - Constantly walking on eggshells can lead to a diminished sense of personal agency. People may genuinely lose touch with their own desires because they’ve spent so much energy managing others’ emotions.

Boundary confusion - When parents overreact to normal childhood behavior, it can create confusion about what’s reasonable to expect or ask for in relationships.

These individuals often become the family’s emotional thermostat, constantly adjusting their behavior to keep everyone else comfortable, while losing touch with their own emotional needs and preferences.

This pattern often continues into adulthood, where they may struggle with decision-making, assertiveness, and knowing what they actually want versus what they think others want them to want.

Overstimulation, Overwhelming Information/Information Overload, and Numbness

Numbness is overwhelming information. Numbness is not that same as calm.

The “Paradoxical Effect” Research

Studies using dopamine (DA) transporter (DAT) knockout (KO) mice have suggested that the paradoxical calming effect of psychostimulants might occur through actions on serotonin (5-HT) neurotransmission , and research has shown that low doses of stimulants focus attention and improve executive function in both normal and ADHD subjects .

The key insight is that individuals with ADHD often exhibit altered D1 receptor availability, leading to inefficient cortical processing . This means their brains operate differently at baseline, so what appears “overstimulating” to neurotypical people might actually bring ADHD brains into an optimal functioning range.

The Stimulation-Seeking Paradox

Research identifies two distinct patterns in ADHD brains regarding stimulation:

For some ADHD brains, optimal functioning involves augmenting the existing stimulation — seeking louder, faster, bigger, funnier, and riskier — the more intense, the better . However, this can lead to a cycle where their brains abruptly demand respite from the commotion, so that they can regroup with negligible stimulation .

The research shows that people with ADHD produce less dopamine from positive stimulation than neurotypicals, which can lead to feeling understimulated in situations that others are typically comfortable in . This creates a complex relationship with stimulation where what seems overwhelming might actually be regulating.

Sensory Processing and Regulation

Sensory processing problems in children with ADHD are more common than in typically developing children , and the ADHD brain processes and organizes stimuli differently . This different processing can mean that certain types of intense stimulation actually help with focus and regulation.

Importantly, love and overstimulation are not mutually exclusive - neurodivergent people can simultaneously find something overwhelming yet calming, which reflects the complex way their brains process sensory information.

The Neurobiological Explanation

We hypothesize that PFC DA is the common mechanism that drives this paradoxical effect . Essentially, what appears to be overstimulation might actually be providing the prefrontal cortex with the dopamine and norepinephrine it needs to function optimally, creating a sense of calm and focus rather than chaos.

This research helps explain why many neurodivergent people describe feeling most “at peace” in environments that others find overwhelming - their brains may genuinely be finding regulation and calm through what seems like overstimulation.

Idiot Compassion vs Wise Compassion

01:21:31 Scicomm Media How to Find & Be a Great Romantic Partner | Lori Gottlieb

Idiot Compassion: Surrounding yourself with people who are only going to validate your experience.

Wise Compassion: What is actually going on here?

Denial of Death

00:36:27 Scicomm Media How to Find & Be a Great Romantic Partner | Lori Gottlieb

The awareness of death to live more fully. How much do we let death in and how much do we let life in? The opposite of depression is vitality.

The Last Meeting and the Goodbye Conversation

When you and someone you deeply loved have completed your journey together and learned the lessons you needed, the universe will ensure you will never meet again.

Andrew Huberman (00:43:44) talked about how he had to have a goodbye conversation with one of his close friends who died of cancer.

These conversations typically involve:

• Expressing unfinished feelings and thoughts
• Sharing gratitude and appreciation
• Seeking or offering forgiveness for past hurts
• Creating closure while the person is still able to engage
• Allowing both people to process the reality of the upcoming loss together

The psychological value of such conversations includes reducing anticipatory grief, preventing complicated grief later, and ensuring that important things are said while there's still time. It's different from waiting until someone is actively dying or unable to communicate meaningfully.

Transactional Relationships

What you’re describing sounds like conditional acceptance or transactional validation - where someone only engages with you when they receive something in return, rather than valuing your inherent worth as a person.

The psychological term that comes closest is probably “contingent self-worth” or “conditional positive regard,” though these usually describe how we view ourselves rather than how others view us. When someone treats you this way, they’re essentially communicating that your presence alone isn’t valuable enough to warrant their time or attention.

This behavior often stems from several psychological factors:

• Avoidant attachment patterns - difficulty forming genuine emotional connections
• Narcissistic tendencies - viewing relationships primarily through the lens of what they can gain
• Low empathy - inability to appreciate someone’s intrinsic human value
• Transactional worldview - seeing all relationships as exchanges rather than genuine connections

As for psychological counters, recognizing this pattern is the first step. People who truly value you won’t need compensation to spend time with you - they’ll genuinely enjoy your company. The healthiest response is usually to invest your energy in relationships where you feel valued for who you are, not what you can provide.

This dynamic can be particularly painful because it creates a sense of being “not enough,” but it’s important to remember that this reflects the other person’s capacity for connection, not your inherent worth.

Hope Molecules

Myokines - the proteins and other signaling molecules that muscles secrete during exercise. These are sometimes called "hope molecules" in popular science writing because of their profound effects on mood, cognition, and overall well-being.

The main "hope molecule" that gets attention is BDNF (Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor), which is released during exercise and acts like fertilizer for the brain, promoting new neural connections and neuroplasticity. But there are many other myokines involved:

• Irisin - helps convert white fat to brown fat and may improve cognitive function
• Cathepsin B - crosses the blood-brain barrier and supports memory formation
• VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor) - promotes blood vessel growth in the brain
• IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1) - supports brain cell growth and survival

Social approach and block off people conflict

This phenomenon you’re describing doesn’t have one specific psychological term, but it involves several related concepts that psychologists study.

The initial defensive response you’re talking about relates to social approach-avoidance conflict - where part of you wants connection but another part instinctively guards against interruption or social demands. This often happens when you’re already mentally engaged in something else or when your social energy feels depleted.

The brief adjustment period before you “warm up” involves what researchers call cognitive switching costs - the mental effort required to shift from whatever headspace you were in to a social, conversational mode. There’s also an element of social calibration, where you’re unconsciously assessing the social situation and adjusting your response.

The problematic part you’ve identified - where your initial guardedness creates a negative feedback loop - relates to interpersonal synchrony breakdown. The other person reads your defensive signals and begins to mirror them or withdraw, even though you’ve internally shifted to wanting the interaction.

Some psychologists might describe this as a social lag or interpersonal timing mismatch. It’s that awkward space where your internal state has changed but your external signals haven’t caught up, and the other person is still responding to your earlier cues.

This is actually a pretty common social experience, especially among introverts or people who need a moment to mentally transition between activities and social interaction. The awareness you have of it happening is actually the first step toward managing it better.

We adore the ones who ignore us and ignore the ones who adore us:

This pattern stems from several deep-seated psychological mechanisms working together:

Dopamine and uncertainty: Our brains are wired to find unpredictable rewards more exciting than guaranteed ones. When someone’s attention is inconsistent or hard to earn, each positive interaction triggers a bigger dopamine hit than steady, reliable affection does. It’s the same reason gambling is addictive - the uncertainty makes the reward feel more valuable.

Attachment patterns: If you grew up with inconsistent caregiving, your nervous system might have learned to associate love with anxiety and effort. Secure, available love can actually feel unfamiliar or “boring” because it doesn’t match your early template for what relationships feel like.

Self-worth dynamics: Sometimes we unconsciously believe we don’t deserve easy love. We trust the judgment of people who withhold affection more than those who give it freely, thinking “they must see something real about my worth.” Meanwhile, we dismiss those who adore us as having poor judgment or low standards.

The scarcity principle: We tend to value what seems rare or hard to obtain. Someone who’s readily available feels less valuable than someone who’s elusive, even though availability is actually a sign of emotional health and genuine interest.

Projection and fantasy: With distant people, we fill in the gaps with our imagination, creating an idealized version of who they might be. With people who are open and present, we see their full, complex humanity - which feels less exciting than our projections.

The healthiest relationships actually exist in that space you might initially find “boring” - where someone is genuinely available, consistent, and chooses you clearly. Learning to find excitement in security rather than chaos is often a sign of emotional growth.

Insecurity Paradox

Yes, this describes a real psychological pattern, though it might not be formally called the “insecurity paradox” in academic literature. What you’re describing is often discussed in terms of defensive inconsistency or strategic vulnerability.

The core dynamic is that deeply insecure people can flip between seemingly contradictory stances - appearing empowered and assertive when it serves them, then shifting to victimhood when that’s more advantageous. This happens because the underlying insecurity creates a desperate need to maintain some sense of control or avoid further harm to their self-image.

For example, someone might:

• Act confident and dismissive when criticized (“I don’t care what anyone thinks”)
• Then play the victim when that same confidence backfires (“Everyone’s always attacking me”)

This isn’t usually conscious manipulation - it’s more like an emotional survival mechanism. The person genuinely feels both powerful and powerless at different moments, depending on what their psyche needs to protect itself.

Psychologists sometimes frame this through concepts like narcissistic vulnerability (grandiosity alternating with fragility) or emotional dysregulation where someone’s sense of self is so unstable that they ping-pong between defensive strategies.

The “paradox” aspect makes sense because from the outside, it looks contradictory and manipulative. But from the inside, each response feels authentic and necessary in that moment. The person isn’t choosing a consistent identity - they’re just trying to avoid psychological pain however they can.

Self-Induced Obsolescence

• In manufacturing there is a term: planned obsolescence (or engineered obsolescence). The overall idea is that a product is designed to fail, to keep revenue and customers happy. This is also regression and counterproductivity. Essentially this includes everything that either holds you back or causes points of friction and resistance. And most of this happens from reflections, past experiences, and unacknowledged feelings.

Winners and losers

• Theodore Roosevelt and asthma as a child.
• Winners focus on winning, losers focus on winners
• People prefer a bad winner to a great loser
• Because resilience is attractive, despite the odds, you still won
• The main problem with people is that they need context. No known wins just imply lack of evidence.

Normalizing to the Environment

• Social Contagion is probably the closest match to what you're describing. This refers to how behaviors, emotions, attitudes, and even physiological states spread automatically through social networks. People unconsciously "catch" the moods, habits, and behaviors of those around them.
• Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura) explains how we learn and adapt by observing and imitating others in our environment. We model behaviors we see, especially from people we're close to or respect.
• Conformity describes our tendency to adjust our behavior, attitudes, and beliefs to match those of our social group. Solomon Asch's famous experiments showed how powerful this influence can be, even when we know the group is wrong.
• Habituation is the process where we become accustomed to repeated stimuli in our environment - whether physical, social, or emotional - and our responses diminish over time.
• Social Identity Theory explains how our sense of self becomes shaped by the groups we belong to, leading us to adopt group norms and characteristics.
• The "closest 5 people" idea you mentioned reflects the concept of proximal social influence - the disproportionate impact that our immediate social circle has on our thoughts, behaviors, and life outcomes. While not a formal psychological term, it captures how our most frequent social contacts create a kind of "social microclimate" that we adapt to.

Signal and Noise

The distinction between “signal” and “noise” has been made by various thinkers across different fields, but the most influential formalization came from Claude Shannon in his groundbreaking 1948 paper “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Shannon, working at Bell Labs, developed information theory and precisely defined signal (the meaningful information being transmitted) versus noise (unwanted interference that corrupts the signal).

Emotional hedging or relationship avoidance with attachment

• Avoidant attachment patterns often involve wanting connection but creating distance to avoid vulnerability or commitment. You're staying close enough to maintain hope but far enough to avoid the risk of rejection or the responsibility of actually pursuing something.
• Limerence might be part of this too - that persistent, intrusive thinking about someone combined with hope for reciprocation. But unlike typical crushes, you're not actively pursuing resolution, which keeps the fantasy alive indefinitely.
• There's also an element of self-protection through ambiguity. By never making your feelings clear, you avoid the definitive "no" that would force you to move on. The uncertainty, while sometimes painful, preserves the possibility.
• The lingering hope after they enter a relationship suggests you might be engaging in emotional insurance - keeping them as a backup option rather than fully accepting the reality of the situation. This can indeed have manipulative undertones, even if unintentional, because it means you're not offering them complete friendship either.
• This pattern often stems from fear - of rejection, of commitment, of being truly vulnerable. It's a way of wanting connection while minimizing risk, but it can end up creating a kind of emotional limbo for both people involved.

Concepts

Purpose

Self-Development

• Self-Sufficiency
• Capability
• Attention and Focus
• Consistency
• Resilience
• Dopamine (reward systems)
• Discomfort
• Patience

Self-Knowledge

• Awareness
• Identity/Your Word
• Authenticity
• Emotional Maturity
• Insecurity
• Vulnerability
• Acceptance (of self)
• Letting go/Non-attachment
• Pride/Humility

Relationships & Social

• Communication
• Trust
• Respect
• Boundaries and Space
• Giving Space
• Comparison
• Expectations
• Projections
• Accountability
• Sacrifice and Support
• Kindness
• Candor

Character & Values

• Principles
• Character
• Ethics
• Duty
• Honor
• Faith
• Leadership
• Authority
• Traditions
• Community
• Earned Realities

Growth Process

• Journey/The Process
• Consequences
• Improvement (incremental or mutual)
• Acceptance (of others)
• Wasting Time
• Gratefulness

Emotional Intelligence

• Love (emotion)
• Love (action-based)
• Emotions
• Joy vs. Happiness