Author name: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 30/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Why likeability matters Being “likeable” is more than being popular. Research shows that people who are perceived as warm and trustworthy often enjoy better professional success, stronger relationships, and even better health outcomes (Cuddy et al., 2011). Likeability is a blend of interpersonal warmth, empathy, communication skills, and prosocial behaviour. The good news: likeability can be learned and improved through intentional practice. 1) Show warmth and empathy first Social psychology consistently finds that warmth and trustworthiness are judged before competence, and they are stronger predictors of initial impressions (Fiske et al., 2007). Warmth is conveyed through smiling, open body language, and empathic responses. Eye contact and genuine smiles activate positive affect in others. Empathy—showing you understand someone’s feelings—builds rapport and trust. Practical step: Begin conversations with a small warmth cue (smile, nod, “I’m glad we’re talking”), then listen before presenting information about yourself. 2) Practice active listening People consistently rate good listeners as more likeable. A study by Itzchakov et al. (2017) found that active listening—giving attention, paraphrasing, withholding judgment—leads to greater relationship satisfaction and perceived empathy. How to do it: Why it works: Active listening signals respect and validation, key drivers of likeability. 3) Find common ground (but keep it authentic) According to Byrne’s (1971) similarity–attraction hypothesis, we like people who are similar to us in attitudes, interests, or values. More recent studies confirm that perceived similarity increases trust and rapport (Montoya & Horton, 2013). Practical step: Early in conversations, identify shared experiences or values (“I also enjoy hiking,” “I’ve read that book too”). But avoid false agreement, which can backfire if discovered. 4) Use mimicry and nonverbal synchrony (subtly) Chartrand & Bargh (1999) coined the “chameleon effect”: people who subtly mimic others’ gestures, posture, or tone are rated as more likeable. Nonverbal synchrony increases rapport and perceived closeness (Stel & Vonk, 2010). How to do it well: 5) Express gratitude and give compliments A study by Algoe et al. (2008) showed that expressing gratitude strengthens social bonds and increases the expresser’s likeability. Compliments, when sincere, also raise perceptions of warmth and connection (Sezer et al., 2018). Tips: Why it works: Gratitude activates reciprocal prosocial behaviour, reinforcing mutual likeability. 6) Share (but don’t overshare) personal stories Self-disclosure increases likeability when it is moderate, appropriate, and reciprocal. Collins & Miller (1994) found that people who disclose at a moderate level are liked more, and disclosure encourages others to share too. Balance is key: 7) Display prosocial behaviour Helping behaviours—even small ones—boost likeability. Prosocial acts (holding a door, offering help, volunteering) increase perceptions of warmth and trustworthiness (Layous et al., 2012). Hack for everyday life: Try the “three kindness rule”: aim for three small, intentional prosocial actions daily (compliment, assistance, encouragement). 8) Manage likeability across digital spaces In 2025, much social interaction is online. Likeability in digital contexts follows similar rules: warmth, responsiveness, and authenticity. Studies of computer-mediated communication show that timely responses, warmth markers, and self-disclosure enhance online rapport (Walther, 2011). Tips for online likeability: 9) Be consistent and authentic Authenticity is a core driver of sustained likeability. Research suggests that people can detect insincerity and that perceived authenticity builds trust and long-term bonds (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Bottom line: Temporary tactics may win impressions, but long-term likeability requires congruence between words, behaviour, and values. Summary checklist Top ways to become more likeable (psychology-based): References Algoe, S.B., Haidt, J. & Gable, S.L. (2008) ‘Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday life’, Emotion, 8(3), pp.425–429.Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press.Callahan, J.L., et al. (2018) ‘Active listening and perceived empathy in therapy’, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(11), pp.1924–1937.Chartrand, T.L. & Bargh, J.A. (1999) ‘The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), pp.893–910.Collins, N.L. & Miller, L.C. (1994) ‘Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review’, Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), pp.457–475.Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T. & Glick, P. (2011) ‘The dynamics of warmth and competence’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(2), pp.63–71.Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C. & Glick, P. (2007) ‘Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), pp.77–83.Itzchakov, G., et al. (2017) ‘Active listening increases attitude clarity and likeability’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), pp.762–779.Kernis, M.H. & Goldman, B.M. (2006) ‘A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, pp.283–357.Layous, K., et al. (2012) ‘Kindness counts: Prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts well-being and popularity’, PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51380.Montoya, R.M. & Horton, R.S. (2013) ‘A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity–attraction effect’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), pp.64–94.Sezer, O., Gino, F. & Norton, M.I. (2018) ‘Humblebragging: A distinct and ineffective self-presentation strategy’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), pp.52–74.Stel, M. & Vonk, R. (2010) ‘Mimicry in social interaction: Benefits for mimickers, mimickees, and their interaction’, British Journal of Psychology, 101(2), pp.311–323.Walther, J.B. (2011) ‘Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations’, The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, pp.443–479.

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 29/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Read this first Therapy works best when it’s a team effort. The strongest predictors of good outcomes are things you and your clinician do together—a safe working relationship, clear goals, regular feedback, and practice between sessions (Flückiger et al., 2018; Callahan et al., 2018). 1) Choose fit first: the therapeutic alliance matters A large meta-analysis across 295 studies found a reliable, moderate association between the quality of the therapeutic alliance and outcomes—across modalities and even online formats (Flückiger et al., 2018). That means feeling safe, agreed goals, and collaboration are not “nice to have”—they’re treatment-active. Practical moves 2) State your preferences (and ask your therapist to honour them) A meta-analysis of 53 studies showed that accommodating client preferences (e.g., format, activities, therapist style) reduces dropout (OR≈1.8) and improves outcomes (d≈0.28) (Callahan et al., 2018). A 2025 update reports similar conclusions: preference accommodation improves satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome (Parkin, 2019; 2025 update). Try this“I get more from structured sessions with clear take-aways and some between-session practice. Can we work that way?” 3) Set clear, measurable goals—and review them with measurement-based care Therapy is more effective when progress is monitored with brief, standardised measures and fed back to the clinician (ROM/feedback). Meta-analyses show feedback improves outcomes and halves deterioration risk, and helps identify at-risk cases earlier (Lambert & Shimokawa, 2011; Shimokawa et al., 2018; de Jong et al., 2024 review). What to do 4) Show up consistently (and plan for wobble weeks) Across 669 studies (≈84,000 clients), about 20% of adults end therapy prematurely. Dropout is lower when expectations are aligned, preferences are honoured, and early progress is visible (Swift & Greenberg, 2012). Make it stick 5) Do the between-session work (homework = results) In CBT and behaviourally-informed therapies, homework adherence correlates with better outcomes. Evidence suggests both the amount and quality/skill of completion matter (Kazantzis et al., 2016; Psychiatric Clinics, 2018). Make it doable 6) Use strategic reflection between sessions (but don’t over-promise on journalling) Expressive-writing research is mixed. Classic reviews report some benefits in specific contexts, but a 2018 meta-analysis did not find robust effects on depressive symptoms in healthy adults doing brief, unguided writing (Reinhold et al., 2018). Guided reflection that links directly to therapy goals is more promising (pilot data, 2024). How to reflect well Share a 3-bullet summary with your clinician. 7) If motivation is shaky, ask for Motivational Interviewing (MI) elements Motivational Interviewing (MI) reliably produces small-to-moderate improvements in health behaviours and engagement across conditions; it’s a useful add-on when ambivalence is high (Lundahl et al., 2013). 8) Use telehealth intelligently—it’s effective and acceptable Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show tele-mental health is generally as effective as in-person care for many presentations, and acceptable to most users when platforms are usable and private (Sood et al., 2021; BMC Public Health, 2024). Telehealth tips 9) Ask about combinations when appropriate (therapy + medication) For depressive and anxiety disorders, combined psychotherapy + pharmacotherapy often outperforms either treatment alone, particularly for moderate–severe cases (Cuijpers et al., 2016). Your GP/psychiatrist can advise on safety and options. 10) Co-create the how of sessions (structure, pace, cultural needs) The APA taskforce on psychotherapy relationships highlights that adapting therapy to client culture, preferences and values is linked to better outcomes—sometimes more than choosing a particular brand of therapy (Norcross & Wampold, 2019). Tell your clinician if you prefer: 11) Expect (and request) regular feedback loops Ask every few sessions: “What’s one thing I could do differently between sessions?” and “What’s one thing we could change here?” Feedback-informed treatment is one of the few practice changes with replicated outcome benefits (Lambert & Shimokawa, 2011; de Jong, 2024). 12) A 10-point checklist you can start today FAQ Is the therapist–client match really more important than the specific therapy?Both matter, but meta-analyses consistently show the alliance and responsiveness to client characteristics account for a substantial share of outcome variance (Flückiger et al., 2018; Norcross & Wampold, 2019). Do I have to do homework to improve?Not always, but in cognitive-behavioural approaches, homework adherence is reliably associated with better outcomes (Kazantzis et al., 2016; Psychiatric Clinics, 2018). Will telehealth be as good as face-to-face?For many conditions, yes—effectiveness and acceptability are comparable when delivered well (Sood et al., 2021; BMC, 2024). What if I’m not improving?Ask for ROM/feedback and a treatment review. Feedback-informed approaches improve outcomes and reduce deterioration (Lambert & Shimokawa, 2011; de Jong, 2024). Bottom line Therapy works best when it’s collaborative. The evidence shows that relationship fit, clear goals, preferences, regular feedback, and small between-session actions make the biggest difference—sometimes more than the therapy model itself. Protect your therapy time, ask for feedback, and keep the process adaptive. References Becker, A. & Vazquez-Barquero, J.L. (2018). Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry.Callahan, J.L., et al. (2018). The impact of accommodating client preference in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(11), 1924–1937.Cuijpers, P., et al. (2016). Combining pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for major depression. Journal of Affective Disorders.Flückiger, C., et al. (2018). The working alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy.Lambert, M.J. & Shimokawa, K. (2011). Collecting and delivering progress feedback in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy.Lundahl, B., et al. (2013). Motivational interviewing in medical care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling.Mason, A.J., et al. (2018). Collecting and delivering progress feedback: a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review.Parkin, A. (2019). Preferences. In Psychotherapy Relationships that Work (OUP).Reinhold, M., et al. (2018). Effects of expressive writing on depressive symptoms: meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice.Sood, S., et al. (2021). The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: systematic review of meta-analyses. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare.Swift, J.K. & Greenberg, R.P. (2012). Premature discontinuation in adult psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.Norcross, J.C. & Wampold,

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 28/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. 2025 brings real change to the NDIS ecosystem. Your best “hacks” are: Important: This is general information only—always check the latest NDIS legislation, rules and operational guidance before acting. What’s Changed (and What It Means for You) in 2024–2025 New NDIS Act changesThe National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 5 September 2024. Some changes took effect from 3 October 2024 and others are phasing in (NDIA 2024; legislation.gov.au). Pricing & travel rulesThe NDIS Pricing Arrangements & Price Limits (PAPL) 2024–25 v1.3 clarified many details: Self-management flexibilitySelf-managed participants can use registered or unregistered providers and are not bound by NDIA price limits, provided purchases are still reasonable and necessary (NDIA 2024; NDIA 2025). “Supports in / supports out” clarityNDIA’s “Would we fund it?” library has been updated since the 2024 law changes to clarify many grey areas (NDIA 2025). Foundational supports + “Thriving Kids”On 20 August 2025, the Government announced Thriving Kids, a national foundational supports program for children with mild–moderate developmental delay or autism. Transitions are expected to begin mid-2026, with full rollout by mid-2027, ensuring no gap for families (NDIS Review 2023; Department of Health 2025; ABC/UNSW 2025; SPA 2025). The 12 Smartest (and Ethical) NDIS Hacks for 2025 1) Write measurable goals and track them with functional evidence Use validated tools like Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS). Providers can reference your GAS outcomes in reports at reassessment (Howlett & Gunes Sevinc 2024; Churilov et al. 2020; BMJ Open 2022; NDIA 2025). 2) Use Reasonable & Necessary + Would We Fund It as your purchase filter Before spending, check eligibility, value for money, and whether the item is more appropriately funded elsewhere. Save screenshots for your records (NDIA 2025). 3) Pick the right plan-management mode Micro-hack: Ask providers to itemise invoices (face-to-face, travel time, non-labour travel). (NDIA 2024; NDIA 2025). 4) Know the pricing rules (so you don’t leak budget) 5) Align your evidence with what the NDIS funds Ask clinicians to reference Our Guidelines and “Would we fund it?” in their reports, and to show measurable functional outcomes. (NDIA 2025). 6) Use case coordination/support coordination strategically Evidence shows robust coordination models improve outcomes (Suter et al. 2020; Jackson et al. 2018; Lukersmith 2020). 7) Prepare early for plan reassessments or unscheduled changes Submit fresh reports, progress data, and a short cover letter linking goals to evidence. (NDIA 2025; DSS 2024). 8) For families of young children: map your pathway now Keep strong functional evidence and monitor Thriving Kids rollout details (NDIA 2023–25; Department of Health 2025; ABC/UNSW 2025). 9) Avoid “supports out” traps Check lists and “Would we fund it?” before purchasing to avoid repayments (NDIA 2025). 10) Use plan management reports to spot leaks Review statements for travel overspend, unused budgets, or non-goal-linked expenses (NDIA 2024). 11) Be documentation-ready Keep service agreements, invoices, notes, and screenshots of guidance (NDIA 2025). 12) Stay across policy signals Government updates can affect pricing, eligibility, and supports (Department of Health 2024–25; NDIA 2025). High-Value Scripts & Templates Evidence request (GAS-framed):“Could you please include baseline and follow-up scores and a brief Goal Attainment Scaling summary for each goal (−2 to +2), plus a sentence linking each recommendation to my NDIS goals and the Reasonable & Necessary criteria?” Invoice wording (itemised travel):“Please itemise: face-to-face time; travel time (minutes); and provider travel non-labour costs (km @ up to $0.99/km + tolls/parking, as permitted), consistent with PAPL 2024–25.” Unscheduled change request:“Since my last plan there has been a material change: [facts]. Attached: progress data (GAS), risk notes, and provider reports. I am seeking a [variation/reassessment] to align supports with safety and participation.” FAQ What does “foundational supports/Thriving Kids” mean?Community-level supports outside the NDIS, starting with Thriving Kids (2025 announcement). Transitions begin mid-2026, full rollout by 2027 (NDIS Review 2023; Department of Health 2025; ABC/UNSW 2025; SPA 2025). Can I use unregistered providers in 2025?Yes, if you are self-managed or plan-managed. Agency-managed = registered providers only (NDIA 2024; NDIA 2025). What’s a realistic way to cut travel costs?Cluster appointments, use telehealth, choose closer providers, and pre-agree caps/rates in service agreements (NDIA 2024). In-Text Citations Used Above (NDIA 2024), (NDIA 2025), (Department of Health, Disability & Ageing 2024–25), (Howlett & Gunes Sevinc 2024), (Churilov et al. 2020), (BMJ Open 2022), (ABC News 2025), (UNSW 2025). References Australian Government / NDIA and related Foundational supports / “Thriving Kids” (2025 announcements & analysis) Peer-reviewed & scientific / policy research Bottom Line The best “NDIS hacks” in 2025 are boring but powerful: set clear, measurable goals, collect functional evidence, shop smart within the pricing rules, and use official guidance before you spend. Keep an eye on foundational supports and Thriving Kids announcements, and build a paper trail so your next reassessment is a lay-up, not a lottery. (NDIA 2024–2025; Department of Health 2025).

 Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 27/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. If you want to haggle effectively—at a market, car yard, property inspection, or in a salary meeting—three things move the needle most: prepare a strong BATNA, use first-offer anchoring wisely, and ask great questions (then be quiet). Layer in MESO offers, goal setting, framing, and cultural awareness for ethical, repeatable wins.(Fisher & Ury; Tversky & Kahneman; Galinsky & Mussweiler; Leonardelli et al.; Huang et al.) Why “Haggling” is Just Applied Psychology Haggling (or bargaining) is often seen as a distributive negotiation over price, but real-world deals often include integrative elements—timing, extras, warranties, delivery, service, payment terms. The biggest mistake is treating every negotiation as a fixed-sum tug-of-war (“if you win, I lose”). Research shows people systematically fall for this fixed-pie bias, missing value-creating trades (Thompson & Hastie, 1990). Step 1 — Do the Boring Prep That Wins the Exciting Deal Know Your BATNA (Your “Walk-Away”) Your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement is the leverage you carry in your back pocket. Compare any offer to your BATNA, concede less under pressure, and avoid bad deals (Fisher, Ury & Patton). How to operationalise: Set Specific, Challenging Goals Negotiators who set clear, ambitious goals (not “do my best”) achieve better outcomes (Zetik & Stuhlmacher, 2002, meta-analysis). Step 2 — Use First-Offer Anchoring (But Don’t Overplay It) Decades of evidence show the first offer can anchor the entire bargaining zone—to the maker’s advantage (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001). Do: Make anchors work harder with precision: Pro move: Offer a bolstering range (e.g., “$50–54k”) to secure better settlements without damaging relationships (Ames & Mason, 2015). Step 3 — Trade Smart with MESO Offers MESO (Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers): Present 2–3 packages you value equally. Example template: “Here are a few options that work for me:Option A: $X with pickup this week.Option B: $X+200 including delivery and 12-month warranty.Option C: $X-150 if we remove [extra].Which is closer to what you had in mind?” MESOs reveal priorities, strengthen your anchor, and often improve economic and relational outcomes (Leonardelli et al., 2017). Step 4 — Ask Great Questions, Then Use Strategic Silence Ask the questions that money hides: Add silence to your toolkit: Step 5 — Frame the Deal So Loss Aversion Works for You People are loss averse: losses loom larger than equal-sized gains (Prospect Theory). Step 6 — Manage Emotions (Yours and Theirs) Emotions are social information; displays of anger or happiness shift concessions (Van Kleef et al., 2004). Step 7 — Respect Culture and Context Culture shapes what counts as “reasonable,” directness, and haggling norms. Step 8 — Navigate Time Pressure and Deadlines Time pressure can reduce integrative agreements; balanced deadlines help, frantic ones hurt (De Dreu, 2003; Karagözoglu & Kocher, 2019).Tactics: Step 9 — Be Mindful of Social Backlash Dynamics Women may face penalties for pushing hard in some negotiations; justification and communal framing mitigate costs (Bowles et al., 2007). Example: “I’m asking for $X–Y because it aligns with market data and ensures I can deliver at the standard you expect.” Ethical Haggling (Why It Wins Long-Term) Short-term “gotcha” tactics burn trust. Integrative strategies—MESOs, questions, silence, framing, cultural sensitivity—create value, reduce remorse, and increase repeat business. Quick-Start Playbook FAQ Should I always make the first offer? Precise or round numbers? Is silence manipulative? Glossary References (Harvard Style) Ames, D.R. & Mason, M.F. (2015) ‘Tandem anchoring: informational and politeness effects of range offers in social exchange’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), pp. 256–274. Bowles, H.R., Babcock, L. & Lai, L. (2007) ‘Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), pp. 84–103. De Dreu, C.K.W. (2003) ‘Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), pp. 146–159. Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (2011) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (updated ed.). New York: Penguin. Galinsky, A.D. & Mussweiler, T. (2001) ‘First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), pp. 657–669. Gelfand, M.J., Raver, J.L., Nishii, L. et al. (2011) ‘Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study’, Science, 332(6033), pp. 1100–1104. Gelfand, M.J., Severance, L., Fulmer, C.A. & Al Dabbagh, M. (2015) ‘The science of culture and negotiation’, Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, pp. 60–65. Grigorov, D.N. & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2019) ‘Hypothetical questions as strategic devices in negotiation’, Negotiation Journal, 35(3), pp. 363–385. Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A.W., Minson, J. & Gino, F. (2017) ‘It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), pp. 430–452. Karagözoglu, E. & Kocher, M.G. (2019) ‘Bargaining under time pressure from deadlines’, Experimental Economics, 22(2), pp. 419–440. Lee, S., Loschelder, D.D., Schweinsberg, M., Mason, M.F. & Galinsky, A.D. (2018) ‘Too precise to pursue: How precise first offers create barriers-to-entry in negotiation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 147, pp. 146–165. Leonardelli, G.J., Gu, J., McRuer, G., Medvec, V.H. & Galinsky, A.D. (2017) ‘Multiple equivalent simultaneous offers (MESOs) reduce the negotiator dilemma: How a choice of first offers increases economic and relational outcomes’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 141, pp. 16–33. Mason, M.F., Lee, A.J., Wiley, E.A. & Ames, D.R. (2013) ‘Precise offers are potent anchors: Conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), pp. 759–763. Thompson, L. & Hastie, R. (1990) ‘Social perception in negotiation’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), pp. 98–123. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) ‘Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases’, Science, 185(4157), pp. 1124–1131. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) ‘The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice’, Science, 211(4481), pp. 453–458. Van Kleef, G.A., De Dreu, C.K.W. & Manstead, A.S.R. (2004)

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 26/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Read this first (important context) This article takes a strengths-based look at several conditions. That does not mean the conditions are benign or that treatment isn’t needed. Many people experience substantial impairment and distress. The idea here is: with the right supports, some traits can be channelled into useful capabilities for study, work, creativity, and life. Key takeaways (for quick readers) ADHD: divergent thinking, curiosity, and hyperfocus A robust line of studies finds that many adults with ADHD outperform controls on divergent-thinking tasks (generating many novel ideas), even while showing relative challenges on convergent tasks (arriving at one correct answer). (White & Shah, 2006; 2011). This is consistent with the observation that reduced inhibitory control can free associative thinking—useful for brainstorming, innovation, and entrepreneurial problem-solving. (White & Shah, 2006; 2011).  Hyperfocus, the intense absorption in intrinsically interesting tasks, is increasingly described in the ADHD literature. Large surveys and lab studies suggest many people with ADHD report more frequent and intense hyperfocus episodes than controls—helpful for deep work when channelled appropriately (while also risky for time-blindness). (Hupfeld et al., 2019; follow-ups in 2020–2023).  How to harness it (safely): value-based task selection; break big goals into stimulating sprints; externalise time (timers, calendars); pair ideation roles with partners who enjoy convergent execution. Autism: precision, pattern detection, and systemising The Enhanced Perceptual Functioning (EPF) model proposes autistic cognition often has locally oriented perception with enhanced low-level discrimination and autonomy of perceptual processing—mapping to exceptional detail detection, pattern recognition and accuracy-critical work. (Mottron et al., 2006; meta-analytic and neuroimaging updates).  These perceptual and cognitive profiles can be valuable in roles requiring quality assurance, data analysis, cybersecurity, engineering, and research, especially when environments reduce sensory overload and provide predictable routines. (Synthesis of the EPF literature).  How to harness it: job-task fit (clear rules, deep work time); sensory accommodations; written over verbal communication options; strengths-oriented coaching. Bipolar spectrum: ideation peaks and creative industries (with caution) Large registry studies from Sweden report a statistical association between creative professions and bipolar disorder—more pronounced among first-degree relatives of people with certain conditions (including bipolar). This suggests shared traits (e.g., novelty seeking, energy, associative fluency during hypomanic periods) may contribute to creative career pathways, although illness burden remains significant. (Kyaga et al., 2012; Karolinska summary).  How to harness it: close clinical care to stabilise mood; protect sleep; schedule creative work during euthymic/hypomanic-threshold energy while maintaining risk-management plans; collaborative editing during high-drive phases. Dyslexia: visual-spatial problem-solving and entrepreneurial coping Beyond phonological challenges, some studies show advantages in visual-spatial or global scene processing among groups with dyslexia—e.g., faster distributed-attention scene learning in specific tasks. Evidence is mixed, but several lab papers and reviews argue for relative strengths under the right task demands. (Schneps et al., 2012; ever since, findings remain heterogeneous).  In entrepreneurship research, dyslexia appears over-represented among founders compared with corporate managers in UK/US samples, possibly due to coping strategies, delegation, and big-picture thinking. (Logan, 2009; subsequent summaries). This is correlational—not destiny—but suggests a strength profile that some leverage in business contexts.  How to harness it: multimodal reading/writing tools; speech-to-text; diagram-first planning; team structures that pair vision-setting with operational detail support. Anxiety: vigilance at moderate arousal The classic Yerkes–Dodson curve—recently re-examined in modern neuroscience—describes how moderate arousal can improve performance, whereas too little or too much arousal degrades it. This helps explain why a little anxiety can sometimes sharpen focus before exams or presentations, but excess anxiety impairs memory and decision-making. (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908; review in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2024).  Meta-analytic work on attentional biases shows that anxious groups often orient rapidly to threat cues—a trait that, when managed, can be valuable in risk management, safety-critical monitoring, and security analysis, where early threat detection matters. (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; reviewed in later clinical syntheses).  How to harness it: skills for autonomic regulation (paced breathing, grounding); pre-performance routines; role design that validates risk scanning without rumination overload; CBT/ACT to keep vigilance functional, not paralysing. OCD: meticulous quality control through enhanced error monitoring Patients with OCD frequently show increased error-related negativity (ERN)—a neural index of hyperactive performance monitoring. In the real world, when symptoms are treated and compulsions reduced, this can map to exceptional conscientiousness and error detection in tasks where accuracy matters (e.g., auditing, code review, laboratory QA). (Endrass & Ullsperger, 2014; Gehring et al., 2000; meta-analytic confirmations).  How to harness it: evidence-based therapy (e.g., ERP); “definition of done” checklists to keep checking bounded; rotate responsibilities to prevent perfectionistic over-checking. After trauma: post-traumatic growth (PTG) is possible for some The PTG framework describes positive psychological change—such as deeper meaning, stronger relationships, or personal strength—that some people report after severe adversity, often alongside ongoing pain. Clinicians caution against “mandatory positivity”; PTG is not guaranteed, yet it’s a meaningful outcome for many survivors. (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004; critical reviews thereafter).  How to harness it: trauma-informed therapy; peer support; meaning-making practices; pacing and self-compassion. Practical ways to turn traits into strengths (without romanticising suffering) FAQs Is it harmful to call mental health traits “superpowers”? It can be if it minimises suffering. A safer frame is: some traits have upsides in certain contexts, and those upsides become accessible with care, supports, and workplace flexibility. (See evidence above on ADHD creativity, autism perceptual strengths, ERN in OCD, and PTG).  Does anxiety really help performance? Sometimes—at moderate levels. Too little arousal = under-engagement; too much = overwhelm. (Yerkes–Dodson; modern updates).  Is depression a “gift” for analysis? The analytical rumination hypothesis is debated. A meta-analysis of “depressive realism” finds only small/fragile effects; severe depression is typically impairing and merits treatment. (Moore & Fresco, 2012; critiques and replications).  References Final word Strengths-based care is about dignity + design: acknowledging real challenges and setting up environments where people can do their best work.

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 23/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Anniversaries are more than calendar markers—they are relationship rituals that can strengthen commitment, increase satisfaction, and create shared meaning when done intentionally (Gottman & Silver, 1999; Norton & Gino, 2014). Below is an evidence‑based guide to planning an anniversary that’s memorable, nourishing, and tailored to your personalities—complete with practical ideas, scripts, checklists, and adaptations for many life stages. The psychology of a great anniversary 25 research‑backed anniversary ideas Each idea includes the psychological why (in italics) and a quick how‑to. Tip: Anniversaries don’t need to be expensive. The dose of novelty and gratitude predicts the uplift more than price (Aron et al., 2000; Algoe, Gable & Maisel, 2010). Scripts you can borrow (low‑awkwardness) Anniversary plans tailored to your season of life New parents / sleep‑deprived Long‑distance couples Neurodivergent / sensory‑sensitive Tight budget Repairing after conflict Make it stick: a simple planning checklist Micro‑habits for between anniversaries Keywords anniversary ideas psychology, evidence‑based anniversary, romantic date ideas research, gratitude and relationships, self‑expansion couples, savoring exercises, relationship rituals, mindful couples activities, experiential gifts happiness, couples therapy Australia References Aknin, L.B., Dunn, E.W., Whillans, A.V., Grant, A.M. and Norton, M.I. (2013) ‘Making a difference matters: Impact of prosocial spending on happiness’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 45, pp. 52–58. Algoe, S.B., Gable, S.L. and Maisel, N.C. (2010) ‘It’s the little things: Everyday gratitude as a booster shot for romantic relationships’, Personal Relationships, 17(2), pp. 217–233. Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Tudor, M. and Nelson, G. (1991/1997) ‘Close relationships as self‑expansion: Consequences for love and self‑concept’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, pp. 242–259. Aron, A., Norman, C., Aron, E.N., McKenna, C. and Heyman, R. (2000) ‘Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), pp. 273–284. Bryant, F.B. and Veroff, J. (2007) Savoring: A New Model of Positive Experience. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Carson, J.W., Carson, K.M., Gil, K.M. and Baucom, D.H. (2004) ‘Mindfulness‑based relationship enhancement’, Behavior Therapy, 35(3), pp. 471–494. Ditzen, B. et al. (2007) ‘Effects of different kinds of couple interaction on cortisol and oxytocin’, Biological Psychology, 75, pp. 1–7. Dunn, E.W., Gilbert, D.T. and Wilson, T.D. (2011) ‘If money doesn’t make you happy, then you probably aren’t spending it right’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(2), pp. 115–125. Gable, S.L., Reis, H.T., Impett, E.A. and Asher, E.R. (2004) ‘What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), pp. 228–245. Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999) ‘Implementation intentions’, American Psychologist, 54(7), pp. 493–503. Gottman, J.M. and Silver, N. (1999) The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work. New York: Crown. Keltner, D. and Haidt, J. (2003) ‘Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion’, Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), pp. 297–314. Norton, M.I. and Gino, F. (2014) ‘Rituals alleviate grief, increase valuing, and build community’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), pp. 266–272. Pennebaker, J.W. and Seagal, J.D. (1999) ‘Forming a story: The health benefits of narrative’, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(10), pp. 1243–1254. Reis, H.T. and Aron, A. (eds.) (2008) Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy. New York: Psychology Press. Reissman, C., Aron, A. and Bergen, M. (1993) ‘Shared novel experiences and marital satisfaction’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(1), pp. 15–26. Van Boven, L. and Gilovich, T. (2003) ‘To do or to have? That is the question’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), pp. 1193–1202.

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 22/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. TL;DR: Mood changes around the period are common. They are driven by normal hormonal cycling (oestrogen, progesterone and the neurosteroid allopregnanolone), brain chemistry (serotonin and GABA), pain and sleep disruption, iron deficiency from heavy bleeding, and stress sensitivity. A smaller group experiences premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)—a severe, cyclic mood disorder linked to sensitivity to ovarian steroids rather than abnormal hormone levels (Schmidt & Rubinow, 1998; Gao et al., 2023; Bixo, Stiernman & Bäckström, 2025). Effective treatments include SSRIs (continuous or luteal‑phase dosing), certain combined oral contraceptives (e.g., ethinylestradiol/drospirenone 24/4), CBT, pain management, sleep hygiene and targeted nutrients such as calcium where appropriate (ACOG, 2023; Marjoribanks et al., 2013; Pearlstein et al., 2005; Busse et al., 2009; Thys‑Jacobs et al., 1998). What counts as “moody” (clinically)? Common premenstrual experiences include irritability, emotional lability, anxiety, low mood, increased tearfulness, and reduced stress tolerance. For a PMDD diagnosis (DSM‑5‑TR), symptoms must be severe, cyclic, present in the final week of the luteal phase, remit with menses, and cause clinically significant impairment; prospective daily ratings for two cycles are recommended (APA, 2024). The menstrual cycle, hormones and the brain Other biological drivers that amplify mood changes Why some people get PMDD (and others do not) Evidence‑based treatments (what actually works) First‑line options (supported by high‑quality evidence): Adjuncts (conditional/individualised): Second‑line / specialist options (severe, refractory PMDD): Practical self‑care playbook (evidence‑informed) When to seek professional help (red flags) Keywords PMS mood swings, PMDD symptoms, why am I moody on my period, luteal phase anxiety, drospirenone 24/4 PMDD, SSRI for PMDD, allopregnanolone GABA, period mood changes, heavy periods iron deficiency, menstrual pain sleep, CBT for PMS, women’s mental health Australia References Abdi, F. et al. (2017) ‘Effect of calcium supplement on premenstrual syndrome: A systematic review and meta‑analysis’, Obstetrics & Gynecology Science, 60(1), pp. 100–110. ACOG (2023) ‘Management of Premenstrual Disorders’, Clinical Practice Guideline. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Available at: https://www.acog.org (accessed 14 August 2025). Albert, K. et al. (2015) ‘Estradiol levels modulate brain activity and negative responses to psychosocial stress’, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 59, pp. 14–24. American Psychiatric Association (2024) DSM‑5‑TR Update (September 2024 supplement). Washington, DC: APA Publishing. Behboudi‑Gandevani, S. et al. (2013) ‘Effect of omega‑3 fatty acids on premenstrual syndrome: A randomised clinical trial’, Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, 35(6), pp. 241–246. Bixo, M., Stiernman, L. and Bäckström, T. (2025) ‘Neurosteroids and premenstrual dysphoric disorder’, The British Journal of Psychiatry, 226(5), pp. 1–9. Busse, J.W. et al. (2009) ‘Cognitive‑behavioural therapy for premenstrual syndrome: A systematic review’, Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 30(1), pp. 1–11. Comasco, E., Kopp Kallner, H. and Bäckström, T. (2014) ‘GABA‑active steroids in the female brain with a focus on PMDD’, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 93(8), pp. 810–815. Eisenlohr‑Moul, T.A. et al. (2017) ‘HPA‑axis function, allopregnanolone, and PMDD: A conceptual integration’, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 80, pp. 97–104. Gao, Q. et al. (2023) ‘Role of allopregnanolone‑mediated GABA‑A receptor sensitivity in the pathogenesis of PMDD’, Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1140796. Girdler, S.S. and Klatzkin, R.R. (2007) ‘Neurosteroids in stress and PMDD’, Psychopharmacology, 191, pp. 173–188. Hantsoo, L. and Epperson, C.N. (2015) ‘Premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Epidemiology and neurobiology’, CNS Spectrums, 20(1), pp. 54–61. Iacovides, S., Avidon, I. and Baker, F.C. (2015) ‘What we know about primary dysmenorrhea today: A critical review’, Human Reproduction Update, 21(6), pp. 762–778. Kleinstäuber, M. et al. (2019) ‘Internet‑based CBT for PMDD: A randomized clinical trial’, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 88(1), pp. 16–29. Marjoribanks, J. et al. (2013) ‘Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for premenstrual syndrome’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD001396. Munro, M.G. et al. (2023) ‘The relationship between heavy menstrual bleeding, iron deficiency and quality of life’, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 228(2), pp. B9–B21. Pearlstein, T. et al. (2005) ‘Treatment of PMDD with drospirenone/ethinylestradiol 24/4: A double‑blind randomised trial’, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106(3), pp. 492–501. Rapkin, A. et al. (2011) ‘EE 20 μg/drospirenone 3 mg (24/4) for PMDD: Randomised clinical trial subanalysis’, International Journal of Women’s Health, 3, pp. 91–97. Schmidt, P.J. and Rubinow, D.R. (1998) ‘Differential behavioural effects of gonadal steroids in women with and without PMS’, New England Journal of Medicine, 338(4), pp. 209–216. Schmidt, P.J. et al. (2017) ‘Acute changes in ovarian steroids, but not steady‑state levels, precipitate PMDD symptoms’, American Journal of Psychiatry, 174(10), pp. 970–981. Sundström‑Poromaa, I. et al. (2012) ‘Altered sensitivity to allopregnanolone in PMDD’, Psychopharmacology, 220(1), pp. 1–11. Thys‑Jacobs, S. et al. (1998) ‘Calcium carbonate and premenstrual syndrome: Randomised trial’, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 179(2), pp. 444–452. Ussher, J.M. (2017) ‘Women‑centred psychological interventions for premenstrual distress’, InPsych (APS).

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 21/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Understanding how intellect develops in boys and girls from infancy through adulthood is a question that has fascinated psychologists, neuroscientists, and educators for decades. While the foundations of cognitive growth are universal, subtle differences exist in how boys and girls acquire, process, and apply knowledge across life stages. This article explores the intellectual development of boys and girls, examining biological, psychological, and social influences, and using evidence from scientific research. Infancy and Early Childhood (0–5 years) During infancy, boys and girls share more similarities than differences in intellectual development. Cognitive milestones such as recognising faces, babbling, and object permanence typically occur at similar ages (Piaget, 1952). However, research indicates slight differences: girls often develop stronger verbal skills earlier, while boys may excel in spatial awareness tasks (Leaper & Friedman, 2007). For instance, girls may show earlier mastery of vocabulary and grammar, which can give them an advantage in communication and social bonding (Huttenlocher et al., 1991). Boys, on the other hand, are often more engaged in physical exploration, which may strengthen early problem-solving skills linked to motor coordination and spatial reasoning. Middle Childhood (6–12 years) As children enter school age, the differences between boys and girls’ intellect become more noticeable, particularly due to educational environments. Girls often outperform boys in reading and writing assessments (OECD, 2015), while boys may demonstrate stronger performance in mathematics and spatial reasoning (Halpern et al., 2007). Socialisation also plays a major role at this stage. Teachers may unconsciously encourage girls in reading and boys in science, reinforcing stereotypes that influence intellectual growth (Eccles & Wang, 2016). Peer expectations further shape self-confidence, with girls sometimes underestimating their abilities in STEM fields despite equal or superior performance. Adolescence (13–18 years) Adolescence marks a period of rapid neurological development, particularly in the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with decision-making and abstract reasoning (Casey et al., 2008). Hormonal changes also influence intellectual expression: testosterone can enhance risk-taking and competitiveness in boys, while estrogen may support verbal memory and social cognition in girls (Peper & Dahl, 2013). Educational studies reveal that girls continue to outperform boys in language-related subjects, while boys often dominate advanced mathematics and physics classes (Wang & Degol, 2017). However, these trends are not purely biological—societal expectations and cultural narratives play critical roles in shaping opportunities and achievements. Adulthood (18+ years) In adulthood, intellectual differences between men and women tend to level out. Meta-analyses suggest there is no overall difference in general intelligence (IQ) between genders (Neisser et al., 1996). Instead, differences emerge in specific domains: men may score slightly higher in visuospatial tasks, while women excel in verbal fluency and memory (Halpern, 2012). Professional and academic achievements show how intellectual skills translate into real-world outcomes. Women are increasingly represented in higher education, often outperforming men in academic attainment (UNESCO, 2021). Men remain overrepresented in engineering and physics, whereas women dominate in psychology, education, and health sciences, reflecting both interest and societal pathways. Biological vs Social Influences The debate over whether differences in intellectual development stem from biology or environment continues. Neuroimaging studies reveal structural differences in male and female brains, such as larger hippocampal volumes in women, associated with memory, and larger amygdala volumes in men, linked to spatial processing (Gur et al., 1999). However, these differences are subtle and often influenced by environmental factors. Socialisation, cultural expectations, and access to educational opportunities likely have a stronger impact on intellectual trajectories than innate biology. For example, when given equal encouragement and resources, girls perform equally well as boys in mathematics and science (Else-Quest et al., 2010). Conclusion The intellectual development of boys and girls from infancy to adulthood is shaped by a complex interaction of biology, environment, and culture. While certain cognitive tendencies—such as girls’ early verbal advantage and boys’ spatial strengths—are supported by research, the overall trajectory shows more similarities than differences. As society continues to break down gender stereotypes in education and career choices, it becomes clear that nurturing intellectual growth depends more on opportunity, support, and environment than on inherent gender distinctions. Keywords boys vs girls intellect, gender differences in intelligence, cognitive development, male vs female brain development, intellectual growth in childhood, developmental psychology and gender References Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M. & Hare, T.A. (2008) ‘The adolescent brain’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), pp. 111–126. Eccles, J.S. & Wang, M.T. (2016) ‘What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science?’, International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), pp. 100–106. Else-Quest, N.M., Hyde, J.S. & Linn, M.C. (2010) ‘Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), pp. 103–127. Gur, R.C., Gunning-Dixon, F.M., Bilker, W.B. & Gur, R.E. (1999) ‘Sex differences in temporo-limbic and frontal brain volumes of healthy adults’, Cerebral Cortex, 9(2), pp. 146–159. Halpern, D.F. (2012) Sex differences in cognitive abilities. 4th ed. New York: Psychology Press. Halpern, D.F., Benbow, C.P., Geary, D.C., Gur, R.C., Hyde, J.S. & Gernsbacher, M.A. (2007) ‘The science of sex differences in science and mathematics’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(1), pp. 1–51. Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M. & Lyons, T. (1991) ‘Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender’, Developmental Psychology, 27(2), pp. 236–248. Leaper, C. & Friedman, C.K. (2007) ‘The socialization of gender’, in Grusec, J.E. & Hastings, P.D. (eds.) Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 561–587. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J. & Urbina, S. (1996) ‘Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns’, American Psychologist, 51(2), pp. 77–101. OECD (2015) The ABC of gender equality in education: Aptitude, behaviour, confidence. Paris: OECD Publishing. Peper, J.S. & Dahl, R.E. (2013) ‘Surging hormones: Brain–behavior interactions during puberty’, Current Directions

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 21/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. TL;DR: The Australian Government has announced a shift so that many children with mild–moderate developmental delay or autism will be supported outside the NDIS through a new “Thriving Kids” foundational supports program (announced August 2025; staged implementation expected through mid‑2027). The aim is to reserve the NDIS for people with significant and enduring functional impairment, while improving mainstream and early supports for children who don’t need tier‑1 NDIS packages (NDIS Review, 2023; Government announcements, Aug 2025). Families should prepare by documenting functional needs, engaging with school‑ and health‑based supports, and understanding appeal rights under amended legislation (NDIS Amendment Act 2024). Early, high‑quality intervention remains crucial regardless of funding stream (BMJ meta‑analysis 2023; Cochrane 2018). 1) What exactly changed—and why now? Key point: This is system redesign, not an assertion that children no longer need help. The intent is to provide appropriate early supports—just not always via the NDIS (NDIS Review, 2023; NDIA evidence reviews, 2024). 2) Will children be “removed” from the NDIS? Public reporting uses strong language (“removed/diverted”), but the details matter: Bottom line: Some children—particularly those with Level 1 autism or milder functional impact—may be supported outside the NDIS once foundational options exist. Children with substantial functional limitations should still qualify. 3) What are “foundational supports” and will they be enough? The Review defined foundational supports as government‑funded services outside the NDIS to meet lower‑intensity or earlier needs—e.g., navigation, parent training, group‑based therapies, school‑embedded supports, and early childhood interventions (NDIS Review, 2023). The National Autism Strategy 2025–2031 also emphasises inclusive, whole‑of‑life supports (Australian Government, 2025). Pros: Risks: What to watch: Transparent funding levels, eligibility, workforce capacity, and clear pathways between foundational supports and the NDIS for children whose needs escalate. 4) What does the science say about early intervention? Implication: If children shift outside the NDIS, foundational supports must still enable timely, needs‑based, and sufficiently intense intervention where indicated, with clear escalation pathways. 5) Likely impact on families and mental health Protective factors: Transparent timelines, grandparenting arrangements, independent navigation, and school‑based supports can cushion transition impacts. 6) Practical steps for families (2025–2027) 7) Ethical and clinical bottom line Keywords NDIS autism 2025 changes, removing kids with autism from NDIS, Thriving Kids program Australia, foundational supports NDIS Review, early intervention autism evidence, NDIS Amendment Act 2024, autism Level 1 NDIS eligibility, Australian autism policy 2025, school‑based supports autism Australia, NDIA early childhood approach References Australian policy and legislation 2025 announcements (media reporting of government policy) NDIA and evidence on early supports Intervention effectiveness and economics Family wellbeing Note: Details of Thriving Kids (scope, eligibility, timelines) are subject to intergovernmental design and may evolve. Families should check NDIA and government updates regularly and seek individual advice from their clinicians, planners or legal services where needed.

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 20/08/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. For decades, the question of whether left-handed people are more intelligent than right-handed people has fascinated researchers, educators, and the general public. Popular culture often portrays left-handers as more creative or gifted, but does the science support this perception? In this article, we will explore the cognitive and psychological research on handedness, break down myths and realities, and examine how left-handedness relates to intelligence, creativity, and brain structure. 1. Understanding Handedness Handedness refers to the consistent preference for using one hand over the other for tasks such as writing, eating, and throwing. Around 10% of the global population is left-handed (Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2020). Hand preference is linked to brain lateralisation, where certain functions are more dominant in one hemisphere. In most people, the left hemisphere controls language and fine motor skills, but in left-handers, the distribution of these functions can differ, leading to unique neural connections (Ocklenburg & Güntürkün, 2018). 2. The Myth: Left-Handed People Are Naturally Smarter The belief that left-handed individuals are inherently smarter is largely a myth. Intelligence is influenced by complex interactions between genetics, environment, education, and lifestyle—not simply which hand you use (Neisser et al., 1996). However, some studies have found correlations between left-handedness and divergent thinking, a form of creativity that involves generating multiple solutions to a problem (Coren, 1993). This doesn’t necessarily mean higher IQ, but it can point to different problem-solving styles. 3. What the Research Says About IQ and Handedness Research findings are mixed: This suggests that handedness is more about variability in brain wiring than overall intelligence. 4. Creativity and Left-Handedness Creativity is where left-handers often shine. Some research suggests that because left-handers may have more bilateral brain activity, they could be better at integrating information across hemispheres, potentially enhancing creativity (Chrysikou & Thompson-Schill, 2011). Famous left-handed creatives include Leonardo da Vinci, Pablo Picasso, and Jimi Hendrix—though, of course, creativity is not exclusive to left-handers. 5. Challenges Faced by Left-Handers Being left-handed is not always advantageous. Historically, left-handers have faced social stigma and practical difficulties, especially in cultures where writing and tool use are designed for right-handed people (McManus, 2002). Some studies also suggest a slightly higher risk of developmental disorders such as dyslexia among left-handers (Knecht et al., 2001), though the causes are not fully understood. 6. Mental Health and Handedness There is emerging evidence that atypical brain lateralisation—more common in left-handers—may be associated with a higher susceptibility to certain mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and mood disorders (Somers et al., 2015). However, these associations are not deterministic and should not be used to stereotype left-handed individuals. 7. The Takeaway Left-handed people are not inherently smarter, but they may process information differently and have unique cognitive strengths, particularly in creativity and problem-solving. From a mental health perspective, what matters more than handedness is the environment—supportive education, mental stimulation, and emotional wellbeing all play crucial roles in cognitive development, regardless of which hand you write with. Keywords are left-handed people smarter, left-handedness and intelligence, left-handed brain differences, left-handed creativity, handedness and IQ, left-handers mental health, brain lateralisation, left-handed myths, cognitive science handedness, left-handed advantages and disadvantages References Chrysikou, E.G. and Thompson-Schill, S.L. (2011) ‘Dissociable brain states linked to common and creative object use’, Human Brain Mapping, 32(4), pp. 665–675. Coren, S. (1993) The Left-Hander Syndrome: The Causes and Consequences of Left-Handedness. New York: Vintage Books. Knecht, S. et al. (2001) ‘Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans’, Brain, 123(12), pp. 2512–2518. McManus, I.C. (2002) Right Hand, Left Hand: The Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Cultures. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Neisser, U. et al. (1996) ‘Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns’, American Psychologist, 51(2), pp. 77–101. Nettle, D. (2003) ‘Handedness and human development’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(6), pp. 263–264. Ocklenburg, S. and Güntürkün, O. (2018) The Lateralized Brain: The Neuroscience and Evolution of Hemispheric Asymmetries. London: Academic Press. Papadatou-Pastou, M. et al. (2020) ‘Human handedness: A meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 146(6), pp. 481–524. Somers, M., Shields, L.S. and Cash, R.F.H. (2015) ‘Handedness, language lateralisation and cognitive abilities: Meta-analytic evidence’, Neuropsychology Review, 25(2), pp. 199–215.