user-pic

burg0433

  • Posted Milgram Experiment to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    The effects of the Milgram experiment will reside with me for many years. The level of obedience participants had to authority figures surprised Milgram himself. If you look at the video of the original Milgram study one man was reduced to tears. He was visibly shaken and even went as far as apply a legal electrical shock, all because a man in a white coat told him to. The ramifications of this study are just scary. Ordinary people administered legal shocks after simply being told by an unknown authority figure. They followed blindly because they viewed him as an authoritative figure. The implication of this study has been viewed many times throughout history. The obvious examples are the Jewish and Darfur genocides. We must educate ourselves about this history so we can prevent such incidents in the future. It is crucial for people to remember to questioning authority. One must never followed blindly and always question authority....
  • Posted The Big Five to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    The "Big Five" model of personality has become the basis for many personality assessments. Many companies these days even have potential employees take the test as part of an application process. The model is very popular but is it truly a reliable test of personality? The first question i raise is what is personality? Personality is an abstract construct. How can one measure it and give it a numerical value when it is not even clearly defined? I think these kinds of test can be helpful to tell us more about ourselves. What it cannot do is give a definitive answer on who we are. These tests are not falsifiable. How can you give a numerical vale to how open one is to new experiences? I call shenanigans. Another aspect i question is the way the tests are given. Not every person will interpret the question the same. If each person will take the test in a different way how can the "Big Five" test be considered reliable? Also, when given for interview purposes, clever individuals will simply answer the question to what they think the company prefers. I think the test is at its peak when it is taken alone and the results are only seen by the test taker. This way the person taking the test has no other motives to answer the questions to anyone others preference and will really be able to look inward at themselves. This way the test more accurate. Companies who give this out as part of an applicant process are really just kidding themselves. If you really want the best employee you can get and want to know their personality, give the person a good ole fashion interview and find out for sure!...
  • Posted Mozart Effect to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    In a 1993 study, researchers Raushecher, shaw, and Ky found that college students who listened to about 10 minutes of a Mozart piano sonata showed a significant improvement on spatial reasoning task compared with a group of student who listened to a relaxation tape. This phenomenon was dubbed the "Mozart Effect." Our book describes the Mozart Effect as, " The supposed enhancement in intelligence after listening to classical music" (Lilienfeld 377). Although the popular media ran wild with this theory, including marketing scores of CDs targeted toward babies, these findings have yet to be replicated. Those who found similar effects only saw very low magnitudes and durations only lasting an hour or less. An explanation for such an effect could be that listening to such music elicits greater emotional arousal. Another study done found that subjects who watched a scary movie before memorization found similar effects to those who listened to classical music. Perhaps anything that boosts emotional arousal can increase spatial memory and long-term memory. From now on when i try to block out my roommates nonsense while studying, i will switch from a white noise generator, to perhaps some classy classical!...
  • Posted Observational Learning to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    I recently stumbled upon a very interesting psychology experiment dealing with monkeys and observational learning. http://www.sageconcepts.com/5-monkeys-and-a-cage After reading this i was rather taken back. I thought how ridiculous, humans could never be naive. The theory of observational learning begs to differ. Our book tells us that observational learning spares us the expense of having to learn everything first hand (Bandura, 1977). If you take a step back sometime observe large groups of people it can be easy to spot this. If you have ever tried to walk down a busy sidewalk on the left side you will find it to be very difficult and get an abundance of weird looks. There are no signs that ever say keep right, so why does everyone do so? People observe others and assume this to be correct behavior....
  • Posted Fact or Fiction: The Madden Curse to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    Over the past decade EA sport's Madden has become by far the most popular football video game. The game originally had John Madden on the cover each year. Starting in 2000 they decided to put NFL stars on the cover. After a couple years of doing this observers came up with the theory call the "Madden Curse". This theory claims that whoever appears on the cover will have a decline in performance, typically due to injury, the following year. A more in depth explanation and history can be found here. http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/maddencurse.asp Some year it appears as if the curse was real. For example in 2004 Michael Vick was put on the cover. That year Vick broke his Fibula in a preseason game, one day after the game was released. Ray Lewis was put on the cover in 2005 and that was the only year of his career so far he was not voted into the pro-bowl! These findings have not been consistent or replicable. For example Larry Fitzgerald appeared on the 2009 cover and had a career season and led his team to the playoffs the following year. Some of the examples are quite spooky although. After appearing on the 2003 cover Marshal Faulk experienced career low numbers and was never quite the same. But could there be an alternative explanation? Have observers ruled out rival hypotheses? During the year Faulk was on the cover he was 32. This is considered old in the NFL and could explain his decline in performance. Another explanation for apparent decline in numbers could lie in the Madden cover decision process. Players who appear on the cover are often chosen as they had a stellar year the previous season. They typically chose a player who was the MVP or won the super bowl. An alternative factor could be that it is incredibly difficult to repeat such a stellar performance back to back seasons in the NFL. While I do not believe in the "Madden Curse" it is quite eerie. I was rather upset when Aaron Rodgers was completely y snubbed by not getting on the cover, but who knows, the Pack are 4-0 and the Browns are 2-2. Call me superstitious but maybe it's a good thing!...
  • Commented on Does Dr Who know about this?
    Wherever the tardis decides to take me!...
Subscribe to feed Recent Actions from burg0433

Following

Not following anyone

About This Page

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.