Throughout the history of man we have seen a drastic change in the goal orientations exhibited by our race. From early colonialism; where expansion and imperialistic views dominated, to the industrial revolution, where innovation and quicker, more efficient ways of producing labor dominated. But one goal that has remained a under the radar, and yet coveted by man is the idea of self-actualization. Self-actualization is the process of realizing ones full potential, and once obtaining this realization, using it to better the world around us. "Self-actualized people tend to be accepting of themselves and others. They're self-confident but not self-centered. They focus on real-world and intellectual problems and have a few deep friendships rather than many superficial ones." This description of a self-actualized person hit home for me, because this has been a goal that I have been striving for since obtaining a new view on life as well as the world around me. I feel that this should be a goal all people strive for, because a world full of self-actualized people would be one that I would like to live in. Maslow, who did the main studies on self-actualization described moments that self-actualized people experience called "peak experiences" which are transcendent moments of intense excitement and tranquility marked by a profound sense of connection to the world. I hope that everyone someday can experience on of these peak experiences as they are one of the more gratifying experiences a person can have in life. I can't say that I have achieved this level of self-actualization, but it is something that I strive for everyday, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. Sometimes people need to take a step back and look at their life and when keeping this in mind they may find little things that upset them may seem miniscule in the larger picture of life. Self-actualization is truly a goal that all men and women should strive for every single day.
Recently in Writing #4 Category
I had a different upbringing, you could say, in that my great grandmother raised me from the age of four, because my parents just weren't cut out for it I guess. Sitting here now and writing this, I realize this is the thing I am most grateful for. If my great grandma, aka big grandma, hadn't raised me, I don't know who I would be now. Now what does this have to do with psychology and what we are doing right now? A lot actually that ties into the nature vs. nurture debate. You see I also have 3 siblings and we were all, at one point, raised by my great grandma. My older sister and I moved in with my great grandma when she was nine, so most of her young life was still spent with my parents, and she only stayed with my great grandma until she was about 14. At 14 she moved in with my aunt, who, in my opinion, was not the best person for my sister to live with. That same sister did not graduate high school and never really liked school in the first place. This, to me, is directly related to the nurture aspect, because myself, and my two younger siblings all enjoy school a little more than the average person. It seems when it comes to the nature via nurture idea, my sister picked the wrong environment (not all her fault) and lost out on the genes that were probably there. Now back to my great grandma raising us. I could not tell you right now what she did that brought out our intelligence so much, or made us do so well in school. She is 88 years old right now and it isn't like she could help us very much with homework, what with all of the new technology that we began using, but she must have done something, right? Well that is the question. What kind of environment really helps drive forth the nature via nurture idea? Is it that she just kept us in line, or maybe it was the forced independence that made us have to be more responsible in our education. I have no idea what she did, or didn't do, but I am happy she did it, because we all seem to have her to thank, since she is the only thing we have in common besides the same parents. Hopefully, my hypothesis that her nurturing was what brought out our intelligence is correct, because I am very hopeful for my two younger siblings.
The article above is about the methods to detect a liar. Eye contact, fidgeting, looking up and to the right, listen to voice pitch, bombard them with questions, make them say it reverse, how quickly do they answer?, listen to verbal cues, and honesty baseline are the subtitles in this article. Such as eye contact, fidgeting, looking up and to the right, and listening to voice pitch are nonverbal behaviors. Through the Lilienfeld text, detecting a liar with nonverbal behavior, such as gestures, eye movement, and faces, has high error rates. Also, rests of the methods are not always correct either.
While reading this article, I thought those methods are too general and not accurate. Even if a person is not lying, there can be any different reasons to feel embarrassed and tensioned; and embarrassing emotion can make him/ her some unusual behaviors such as nonverbal behaviors which are considered as motions showed when people are lying. Also, he/ she can be confused when he/ she is getting questions. If they get sudden questions, it might be harder to answer; and if a questioning person force to answer quicker, that can lead answering person to make mistakes.
I've heard so many different myths about lie detection. I don't think it always work, because there are so many different people living in and they all can feel and think different when they get same questions. Also, there are some people who are good at lying. That means not all the people show the same response to the lie detection which are generally known like the methods in the article above.
When thinking about parenthood, I have often thought about what kind of a father I want to be to my children. These thoughts were sparked again after reading about parenting, parenting styles, and the role of the father. Being only to base my opinion largely off how I was raised and the role my own father took in my upbringing, obviously I want to apply many of the same methods that he used in raising me. This includes many of the concepts mentioned in the reading as well. I want to be highly involved in my children's playtime, such as throwing a ball around, or teaching them to skate. The reading mentioned that fathers tend to be less attentive than mothers. However, even being a mama's boy that I am, my father is still able to take a very attentive and affectionate role in my life, which is something that I want to do for my kids, and not be limited just by having the "father role." I want to be able to assume a role where I can teach my children good values and morals, while also passing on wisdom that I have hopefully accumulated by the time that I become a father, while, at the same time, not pushing it upon them. I want to be lenient enough to allow them to learn things for themselves, because of the fact that I won't always be there to hold their hand and guide them through everything, much like the permissive parenting style. I also want to command a sense of respect and still have limits for my children, so they aren't running completely wild.
I too use to watch both barney and power rangers. When my mom and I were looking through old family videos (VHS) we found one of me watching Barney. I was in my diaper with my bottle and security blanket in my hand, dancing and completely entranced by the songs, just like those little children in the video that we watched in class. My mom asked me(in the video) who was on tv and i said, "my friends" and kept on dancing with the song that they were singing, i think it was the kookabara song, if i remember the video correctly i haven't watched it in a couple of months. If we had a digital copy of it i would post it as an example but alas it's STILL on VHS.
I think that Barney had a positive effect for me. Although I have been called a sweetheart all the time and very good with children(that's the positive part), there is a negative part as well. I am a minor pushover, I try to make everyone else happy before me even if it means doing something that I don't want to do, like having sex. I think that if I would have watched more Power Rangers than I did, I would have learned at an earlier age how to stand up for myself and then maybe my childhood wouldn't have been such a difficult time.
My group, after watching the video agreed that president obama should regulate but almost make it a little mandatory to help teach children that it is okay to stand up to the bad guy and defend your self. Yes violence isn't the answer but that would be what the other television show(in my case Barney and My Little Pony) would teach.
So you know how people ALWAYS say that women are just more emotional than men? I took it upon myself to see if science agreed with this school of thought. Personally, I totally concur. And I think it's nice to be able to explain away excessive displays of emotion with "I'm a girl, I'm emotional" end of story, but that's just me.
In a study done in 2004 by Robin Simon and Leda Nath, from Florida State University and U of W Whitewater (respectively) scientists sought to prove whether 1) women display a greater frequency in emotions, 2) which gender reports a higher range in emotions, and 3) women express their emotions more than men. If you want to see the whole report published in the American Journal of Science, use this link: http://www.fsu.edu/~soc/people/simon/simon_gender.pdf
The data provided by the study shows that 1) women don't actually "report emotions more frequently than men" 2) men display "positive" emotions more, and women display "negative" emotions more, and 3) the scientists found that once a certain social class is reached, regardless of gender, people on average show less overall emotion.
I think this study was really interesting, and parts of it were really surprising. Like I said before, I tend to agree with the general idea of women being more "emotional" than men. I've always heard that, and seen enough evidence, both personal and observed, that I rarely questioned it. Not to say I've never seen a guy show emotion. Sure, there are some guys who display neither positive nor negative emotions except under extenuating circumstances... but I've seen plenty of ice-women as well. I guess the social class part of it is what might set my personal experiences apart from scientific findings. I've spent my whole life surrounded by people of the middle and upper middle class, and I'm not complaining there! We're a pretty awesome class to be in most days :) it's just, being who we are, and in our lifestyles, we have stresses that we deal with: paying the bills, working difficult and sometimes downright unpleasant jobs, caring for our children and our sick parents, finding and then keeping a good steady partner in life. These things don't always affect the upper class as much, I would say. I think it's interesting how the study looked at social class as well as gender. Aside from that point though, I like their second point the most I think. That women display "negative" emotions more. Stuff like, oh let's say, complaining? Or anger, sadness, things of that sort. I can definitely see where all of that comes in, and I like that science has proven it to be more than urban myth. Women are what they are, and mean are what they are. Our emotions are how we deal with our lives; they enable us to make decisions, react to our environment, and communicate with our fellow beings. Does that mean every emotion always makes sense? Most definitely not! But they are an integral part of a human being, and apparently they are mostly equal in us all.
Growing up, I too was a true believer; a true believer that one day, I indeed, was going to become a power ranger. One to read this may think I have lost my mind, but the truth is I have. In fact, for your information, I am completely insane. I do not follow rules often; do not listen to what people have to say. In contrast, I am not a clinger nor attach to anyone in particular. I also like long walks on the beach? No, I am sure tired of talking about myself.
However, power rangers or violence as a child certainly did not shape my future, and if so, in a minimalist way. Power rangers were one of my favorite shows. I too, had a favorite character (Michael Angelo...Obviously), but this doesn't mean that it was not conformed throughout the rest of my life by other important events, relationships, lessons, lectures, etc. In America the average child is shaped shortly after his/her adolescence, when one starts caring about others and world issues.
Of course, there are a few oddballs out there that do not conform to caring about others. I tend to care a lot about world issues, and carry my emotions on a sleeve. Power rangers certainly did not make me a violent kid, as for now I am practically a pacifist, refusing to fight other than self-defense. Sure, power rangers are certainly impressive in their combated-aerial, special optic skills. But, one has to remember that children exposed to a lot of media often forget certain things or are uninfluenced within hours of watching the material. For example, even with my wisdom and age, I sometimes become inspired by watching motivational speakers or even Superman. I may walk sadly out of Spiderman, for now I wish I could just sling out.
However, I usually am uninspired of powers or motivation to a heightened sense within a day or two (perhaps a week if we're talking about superman here). In a psychological sense though, I do not believe that children misbehave or completely evolve into a difference specimen due to one small parallax in there long and hopefully symbolic life. One appears on the earth for a reason, and that reason is not to be condoned my adolescence, nor is it to be shaped while not even psychologically developed. The human is a very complex organism, and I do believe that each and every human was entered into this world purposefully; weather that be a musician street performing to barely scrape by, or a lawyer in the inner city making six figures.
See, in essence, we are all here together. Think about it, all of your peers were wearing diapers at the same time as you, and perhaps tied their shoes on the same day as you learned, they're not superior.
Nobody is above anybody in this world; no child is completely shaped by such a small event as power rangers. Perhaps a viewer of power rangers as a child will misbehave and conform to some mob or "gangster group" G-UNIT! (Sorry, I am ignorant about violence and rap and what not...) But this is due to chance, and one who thinks otherwise is pulling a confirmation bias or representative heuristic. I conclude that power rangers, Barney, yo-gabba-gabba, or even humpty dumpty does not shape any child, but may leave lasting memories.
As we discussed in class there seems to be a big debate on whether tv as well as video games determine whether someone (likely a child) is to become more violent when they grow up. In my own opinion I do not believe that there is a direct correlation from the amount of violent tv you watch to how violent you may become. After having spent my childhood watching shows such as Power Rangers that were often violent (although they were fighting evil for a good cause) I personally never experienced any extra aggression later on in my life nor do I now. Like we saw in the video from class about the study they did on the news with the children watching Barney and Power Rangers and their actions after, I do believe there is a short term memory where the children start to act out what they saw on television. However, I don't think it lasts a lifetime or causes any extra permanent aggression later on life. I believe it mainly depends on the child themselves as well as other outside elements that determine this. I don't think a child's added aggression can be based solely on the child's habit of watching violent television. I believe there would likely be other variables that would link this extra aggression. An example of this could be a child's group of friends as he or she grows older that influence their behaviors. After researching articles to support my claims, I found that most articles put the blame of aggression and violent behavior on the amount of violent tv as well as video games. With this said though, I think it would be nearly impossible to determine if violent television and video games are a direct cause of aggression and violent behavior rather than a combination of multiple elements. I still stand by my thoughts though as they support myself as well as most my friends in that no added aggression or violence was caused my the violent games and television we watched growing up.
When discussing having children some day, I have told my husband "I want to be a parent... I just don't want to be a mom." This may seem a contradictory statement but the textbook tells me I could have this. The role I'm actually hesitant to step into is that of the stereotypical mother. I'm not afraid of that special bond that many women seem to have with their babies and children; that I want. But every adolescent and adult I know has a more complicated relationship with their mom than their dad, and I believe this has a lot to do with the different roles that parents take on as the primary or secondary attachment figure. And yes, this is anecdotal but it's all I have to work with at this point (once again I'm asking the wrong questions if I want to find answers in prior studies.)
The textbook talked about how the father is often the secondary attachment figure, making his role to the children become more of the "fun" parent. It only talks about it in terms young children but might it carry over into adulthood. Based on observations of families I know, I'd hypothesize there's still a kind of "division of labor" even though it's no longer in terms of raising the children. Rather, grown kids have different sorts of relationships with their parents that seem to have a root in who was the primary and the secondary attachment figure. The transition from parent to person is easier when it comes to the secondary figure. They remain the "fun" parent because it's easier to disassociate them from the role of "parent" only. Not to say that they no longer are but just that it's more effortless to see them as more than just your parent. With the primary attachment figure, that disassociation seems to be much less easy. It takes more to see your mom as more than just your mom, and some people never quite seem to.
So in essence I want both. I want to be the primary attachment figure for my kids when they are young but be able to have the more well rounded adult relationship with them that seems to fit with the secondary attachment figure. It's something that may not be possible. But it is interesting to know that I could choose.
This article http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx has 11 myths about the affects of violent video games. Although I think it's a bit bias it has some interesting points or myths about the topic.
-Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
-The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
-Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
-Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
These are some of the myths. From reading this article I now agree with hypothesis that violent video games and media increase aggression and violent behavior. The article was interesting and convincing.