user-pic

muell720

  • Posted what i will remember to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    What I will remember from this class for years to come was the section on common sense in the first chapter. There is a particular section that addresses the notion that we do not notice contradictions until they are pointed out to us. They give the following examples that, when actually read side by side, seem to be contradictions: 1. Birds of a feather flock together 6. Opposites attract. 2. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. 7. Out of sight, out of mind. 3. Better safe than sorry. 8. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. 4. Two heads are better than one. 9. Too many cooks spoil the broth. 5. Actions speak louder that words. 10. The pen is mightier than the sword. Based on common sense we tend to agree with these. The authors of the text book would have you re-evaluate the phrases in comparison to the ones across from them. I disagree that they are contradictions. For example, 3 and 8, "better safe than sorry" is about being prepared for out comes that are less favorable. "nothing ventured, nothing gained" is about taking risks. Who says the two are never both true? You can be prepared and take risks at the same time. 2 and 7, these two are used for two very different feelings towards something. "out of sight out of mind" is used for unfavorable things. "absence makes the heart grow fonder" is for things you love, or care for. They are true under certain conditions. What I will take away from this is be critical of anything we see as common sense, and look for biases in anything you read. source: the table of proverbs is on page 5 of the textbook for the class. Also, I wanted to pose a question based on one of the diagrams from the first chapter if anyone can recall from the confirmation bias. When it asks you to turn over two cards of four, they are trying to prove the bias that people will look for the answer they want. When I posed this same scenario to several of my friends, I asked all of them who chose E and 5 why they did so. They all said the same thing, "well it said if it has odd on the one side it has to have a vowel on the other, and vice versa. " The actual hypothesis only said vowel means odd number on other side. They were more fooled by the wording then trying to prove it right or wrong. Does this test have a confirmation bias itself? Would differently wording the question yield the same response? page 8 of the textbook....
  • Posted Projected personality tests, just like any other test. to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    Projected personality tests can be beat just like any other test if you really desire. The tests themselves use a very basic human bias that is very apperent in children. It is the line of thinking that other share your knowledge and or train of thought. Just like when you tell a child a story but some background info, then ask what the main characters knows, they will assume that the character knows all that they know, but they do not. They do not understand this concept until they are about 6 years old. We use the knowledge that people project their ideals onto blank slate of other humans. People like to think that they are normal, so they will stretch out their own problems onto others to try to justify what they do by telling themselves they are normal. We as people have become test smart. We can understand what the tests are looking for and answer accordingly. So we can start to beat these tests with more ease if we desire. We talked about a man just after world war 2 who was deeply disturbed but knew what to answer for any personality test to seem normal but got all tripped up on the ink blot tests because he didn't know what would be a normal answer. If those tests had been around long before the he might have been able to beat it by just not giving anything away and keeping very bland answers. Not projecting any internal fears, if he knew what to hide. Soon these tests will be less reliable as people start to catch on. It is a concerning thought that we can miss something, but then another test will come out and they cycle continues....
  • Posted Stressed body language and lying. to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    I have found body language and human lie detecting techniques very interesting, especially where they overlap. When people lie they tend to take defensive stances which include folding their arms in front of the torso or, if they are seated, leaning away from the person they are talking to. As far as facial cues go people often cover part of their face with their hand, in an attempt to hide other cues but this has become its own hint to lying. It is common to have heard that if someone is avoiding eye contact then they are lying, in fact any change in amount of eye contact can be a dead giveaway for lying. Keep in mind that in normal conversations people keep eye contact only 50% of the discussion. If we look at body language alone to tell if someone is lying we will not be 100% accurate. There is no way to be 100% accurate with human lie detectors. Still, you cannot be anywhere close to being always right. You need to look at other reasons for the body language the accused liar is displaying. Defensive stances could also be caused by the person feeling uncomfortable with the person asking the questions, or they have been on edge due to outside influences. Other signs of stressed body language are often linked to lying, because lying can bring up feelings of stress, you must think of what is causing the stress. Most lying body language is based on the person being stressed about having to deceive. When the person is stressed on their own it is mistaken for lies. To help lower the anxiety of lying, and to lower any cues you may be unaware that you are giving, if you can believe in the lies yourself, you are more likely to be able to sell it. Confidence is sometimes enough to sell the lie, or to lower the suspicion enough so that the questioner will brush off any doubt. Sources: http://www.humanliedetection.com/BodyLanguageOfLiars.php...
  • Posted False Memories to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    The reason false memories are easily implanted into our heads and tricks us begins to make more and more sense when you understand how we revive old memories. Jessica Snyder Sachs wrote an article for Popular Science about how our memories are like video tapes that are scattered around our head. As we look for a single video tape of a memory, we often cannot find it, but we have found pieces of the event. We cannot grasp every detail but we can try to guess what is missing. We take bit and pieces and try to weave them back into what we think happened, filling in blank spots with logical guesses. When more and more details are missing, the brain has to make even more guesses and As more details are missing from the memory, the more freedom the brain has to fill in what happened. This can stretch the truth further and further until the memory is barely a shell of its original self. Now thinking about how the mind instinctively fills in blanks, we can see why we can be fooled by false memories. We do not want to think we forgot something so we use the tiny bit of information we have and fill in any detail we can imagine to form a logical recreation of what we think we have forgotten. Eventually the information begins to make sense with the details we fill in, we can easily believe that it did, in fact, happen. Source: A Spielberg in your own mind By Jessica Snyder Sachs; Popular Science; July 25, 2003...
  • Posted False Memories to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    The reason false memories are easily implanted into our heads and tricks us begins to make more and more sense when you understand how we revive old memories. Jessica Snyder Sachs wrote an article for Popular Science about how our memories are like video tapes that are scattered around our head. As we look for a single video tape of a memory, we often cannot find it, but we have found pieces of the event. We cannot grasp every detail but we can try to guess what is missing. We take bit and pieces and try to weave them back into what we think happened, filling in blank spots with logical guesses. When more and more details are missing, the brain has to make even more guesses and As more details are missing from the memory, the more freedom the brain has to fill in what happened. This can stretch the truth further and further until the memory is barely a shell of its original self. Now thinking about how the mind instinctively fills in blanks, we can see why we can be fooled by false memories. We do not want to think we forgot something so we use the tiny bit of information we have and fill in any detail we can imagine to form a logical recreation of what we think we have forgotten. Eventually the information begins to make sense with the details we fill in, we can easily believe that it did, in fact, happen. Source: A Spielberg in your own mind By Jessica Snyder Sachs; Popular Science; July 25, 2003...
  • Posted Animals and time. to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    In lecture last week Dr. Gail Peterson showed us a video of a mouse demonstrating instrumental conditioning. This was not the video of Skinners work, but one that compared the mouse's behavior to that of someone gambling at the end of the video. I do not want to talk about the gambling comparison, instead I want to discuss how the mouse reacted when the reward was given due to different circumstances. In the video the mouse hits the lever, that activates a light and a food piece gets dispensed. The experimenter than changes the rules for the food reward. Now instead of being controlled by the mouse's actions, the food tablet is on a timer of 30 seconds. The mouse is now uncertain why his actions do not lead to the reward of food. He frantically presses on the lever, still illuminating the little light, but no food is dispensed. The experimenter claims that the mouse could just sit back and wait for the reward with no work, but instead he just puts in a lot of work for little reward. I think there is something else to the mouse not just sitting back for the predetermined time and waiting for food. Animals do not understand the concept of time that humans have made. The little mouse has no clue that if he sits back for 30 seconds another piece of food will come out because it is set on a release timer. Time, like many other things, is human created. Money, time, freedom, art, these are just a few things humans have come up with that animals do not share. The mouse just thinks that he is doing something incorrectly, and that is the reason he is not receiving a reward. When Skinner demonstrated his experiment on a mouse, the light was separate from the lever. When the light lit up, the mouse was then able to use the lever to activate the food dispenser. If the light was off, the lever had no effect. I am still trying to find a link to the video that I am talking about. When I have found it I will link it as a comment....
  • Posted Train vs. Penny to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011
    I was looking into urban legends and I found one that was amusing to me, both by the outrageous claim and the fact it brought back a very old memory. The tale was that of a penny, having been laid on a train track, derailed a train form its fixed course. This story was proven false and is very entertaining, the thought of a single penny vs. a train is quite humorous. The claim is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Using that scientific thinking principal we can easily reject this claim. If a penny could really derail a train you would be hearing about the dangers of coins on the train tracks in the news, and these dangers would be common knowledge. I have laid many pennies on train tracks and was never told of any such news story or witness such an event. Other things have been laid on train tracks, such as bricks, that have derailed trains. This leads to the ruling out of rival hypotheses principal of scientific thinking. When this myth started there was probably one occurrence of something that was on the train tracks. It could not have been a penny, but there may have been a penny on the track as well as a much more sizable obstacle on the tracks. Source: http://www.snopes.com/science/train.asp...
Subscribe to feed Recent Actions from muell720

Following

Not following anyone

About This Page

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