Five years from now, I'm positive I will remember the things we learned on classical and operant conditioning. These concepts are fundamental in understanding how we develop and how we can influence the actions of others. They are very useful in understanding why some people, and even animals, behave the way they do. I'll always remember Pavlov and his salivating dogs, that's for sure. But there are others like Little Albert and Skinner's cats that are great examples to look at when trying to understand conditioning. One of my favorite examples we looked at was a clip from the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon uses the idea of positive and negative reinforcement to "train" Penny and Leonard. I like that most of these situations can be broken down so simply into identifiable parts like the unconditioned response, unconditioned stimulus, reinforcement, punishment, etc. It's easy to identify areas of my life where I have been affected by operant and classical conditioning even. Many of my behaviors and reactions to situations are based off of operant or classical conditioning from growing up. For example, when I was younger, I had a bad experience getting sick after eating a banana, and now I can't stand them! Random traits like this can quickly be explained by the concept of conditioning.
April 2012 Archives
I think what has resonated most with me with everything I've learned throughout Psy 1001 is how easy I identify with many of the psychological tendencies displayed by humans and why it is important to be critical about everyday perceptions and claims. The course has shown me how valuable the scientific enterprise is in psychology. As a future scientist, it has re-solidified the importance of seeking scientific evidence for observations and hypothesis. Psy 1001 has done this by demonstrating how common perceptions encountered everyday can be misguided. To name a few-- "Opposites Attract", "Crime rates increase during the full moon", and "Newborns are not cognitively active until a few months after being born". The course has made me aware that I am just as capable as my neighbor to fall victim to many of the tenants of psychology, and that I'm anything but a unique individual within a large sample size. Because I'm made aware of this, I'm more enlightened about my own weaknesses and I can now work to strengthen them. Of course, the way I will start is to start is to be less accepting of extraordinary claims (without the provision of evidence), avoiding confirmation bias, and being more humble about my susceptibility to psychological tendencies that I perceive as negative.
5 years from now i hope to remember a lot about what i learned in psychology this semester because a lot of the information i learned can be useful in my everyday life. If i had to pick one thing that i would have to choose Operant Conditioning and how it is used to train animals. I think i will remember this the best 5 years from now because it was the topic that was most interesting to me, Watching all of Skinner's experiments involving Operant Conditioning in the training of different animals was really cool. I really like the experiment where he train pigeons to play ping pong. Another reason this topic will stick with me over the years is because Operant Conditioning is used a lot and it will be a good tool for me to have when i decide to get a dog so i will know how to train it easier.
Through this course, I was introduced to the world of psychology. It was a world that I had never previously acknowledged even though it had crossed my path many times. What surprised me the most after taking PSY 1001 is how many people, including myself, get the concept of psychology all wrong.
Several subjects will always stand out in my mind; memory, emotion, intelligence, and personality. I found these and many more concepts quite fascinating but I think the one thing that will stick with me in five years is the way psychology approaches these subjects. As laid out in Chapter 1 "Psychology and Scientific Thinking" of the textbook, there is a process and a definite set of guidelines in the world of psychology.
One of the main criticisms of psychology is also one of the greatest misconceptions. Many "real" scientists dismiss psychological findings as imprecise and relative. While there are certainly false claims out there parading as "psychology," the real stuff is just as structured and unbiased as chemistry or biology.
What makes psychology and consciousness so difficult to categorize and study is the vast number of variables present. In the desired controlled environment of an experiment, it is essential to also take into account the missing variables (the ever-present concept of Correlation vs. Causation).
Five years from now I hope will remember many concepts in psychology, but I think the most memorable concept is think critically on everything I experience. Because until I read this psychology text book, I barely had can think critically on the information I get from the media or anything I experience. When I read an article or the news paper I pretty much always believed everything because that information is from the news paper and news paper never put untrue information. Therefore, when there is news about some kind new research I just believed that it is always true, and there is no doubt about that. But, after critical thinking I started to ask question about every information or experience I have. For example, now when I read article about some kind new experiment, I start ask question about it. Such as how many times did this experiment success or is there any other explanation for this experiment. Critical thinking made me see new side of the world. Therefore, five years from now critical thinking is the concept in psychology that I will never forget.
One concept in psychology that was especially appealing to me and that I will remember five years from now is the different types of biases and how to recognize them. The first type of bias is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is defined as the tendency to seek out evidence that supports our beliefs and deny, dismiss, or distort evidence that contradicts them. This concept is applied to many arguments I have daily. Another type of bias is belief perseverance, the tendency to stick to our initial beliefs even when evidence contradicts them. Often times it is hard for people to change their minds about things when they have believed one thing their entire lives. It's key that you keep biases in mind when considering a topic. TV stations and other pubic media sources often fall subject to both types of bias. When watching a political television program it is not difficult to determine which political party the station favors. Biases are everywhere in today's world, it's important we notice and consider these biases.
The concept in Psychology 1001 that I feel will stick with me most in five years is Jean Piaget's stages of cognitive development. Whether I'm still working as a nanny for young children or have some of my own at home, I will remember his theories of child development and put those to use in my everyday life. From object permanence to egocentrism and conservation, Piaget's work has put a name to some phenomena that I've noticed before but never fully understood until he explained it. The most interesting aspect to me is that some children reach the stages of development earlier than others and are already mentally capable of deconstructing abstract tasks, experimenting systematically and reasoning hypothetically beyond the here and now. It's amazing to me that until the concrete operational stage, around age seven, children cannot perform mental transformations and mentally conserve amounts of objects. Understanding of these concepts allows me to interact with children better because I have a more thorough idea of their cognitive abilities and, concurrently, their motivations. I hope that I will remember most of the concepts I've learned in Psych 1001, but this is the one that I don't think I'll ever forget.
Throughout this semester, I think that the idea of scientific thinking is the most important point the course made and I may remember for a long period of life. It's a world of information nowadays, we are surrounded by tons of information in everyday's life and how to make the best use of it has become an issue. Though complexed terms may be forgotten, I'll still remember being aware of confirmation bias, recognizing pseudoscience, following principle of Occam's razor and so on. The argument about if we truely have "free will" also leaves an deep impression in my mind. Since we can be easily mislead, controlled by media, or other information around us, "being yourself" seems to become a hard thing. Things in this world have so many faces in different perspectives, truths are always hard to find, but as long as we plant a clear idea of scientific thinking in our minds, there is always a way to know the truth and do the right. No one wants to be a puppet, that's why think right and free are so important, that's what I got from this course.
To be completely honest, in five years I am not really sure I will remember anything from this class. That is not because I didn't find it valuable, but simply because not one thing truly stands out in my mind. If I had to make a guess at what I will remember in five years, I would say the things we learned about IQ testing.
Since we have been little we have always heard about how intelligence and one's IQ plays a major role in their success in life. As a result, it seems that a lot of weight is placed on one's intelligence. To learn that the tests are sometimes biased, and do not have strong correlations with job performance in some cases, was quite shocking to me. I really am not sure why that is, but a lot of it most likely has to do with the pressure society places on kids from very early ages to be very smart. That isn't saying that intelligence isn't important, it is. It just seems that in order to truly perform the best in life you need to have intelligence and also the ability to interact with people, which is something that IQ tests cannot measure.
I think that five years from now, I will remember the activity we did during the time that we studied emotion, more specifically physical attraction. It was interesting to learn about how influential outside sources, like exotic/pricey dates for example, are when it comes to falling in love with a person. Are we falling in love with a person? Or are we falling in love with the situation that this other person happens to be a part of? This notion can be applied to other contexts as well. Like right now, I am currently sitting in my room alone because my roommate is out of town for the weekend. I often claim to my friends, that I LOVE living in our bedroom and am sad that I have to move out next fall. But it really comes down to the fact that I could do without the physical room; I naturally associate how much I enjoy where we live with how much I actually enjoy living with my best friend. Because certain settings, like bungie jumping off a bridge on a first date (as seen in Jake and Vienna's season of the Bachelor) tend to carry certain connotations and cause our emotions to run wild-even get carried out of proportion-we are led to believe that we have found our soul mate, when really we are just in a surreal context.
Before this class, I knew what classical conditioning was. I knew who Ivan Pavlov was, and what Pavlovian conditioning was. Both my parents have psychology degrees, and talk about the subject occasionally. I think that this is a very important topic in psychology and will be talked about for a very long time.
Pavlov's findings, especially his four concepts of conditioning are extremely important in the basics of conditioning. The unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, conditioned stimulus, and conditioned response are important for other types of conditioning, since they provide a stable base in which to start training an animal. Pavlov had shown this with his dogs; he had taught his dogs how to salivate with certain stimulus's, or know when the food was coming. And to think he wasn't even interested in the subject!
Here's a weird/cute/CREEPY video about Pavlov's conditioning techniques:
I think after five years from now, I will still remember about the concepts of "scientific" psychology. During the semester, we talked about how scientific the psychological field is. We examined psychological theories with the six principles of scientific thinking. We also talked about science and pseudoscience. What we normally face from the media, such as television shows, books and magazines, are mostly not proper science. In many cases, popular psychology was proven to be not true and not scientific. It was more likely to be beliefs which widely exist among society. Among the six principles of scientific thinking, correlation versus causation and falsifiability were the most impressive principles to me. I learned that the existence of relationship does not mean that A causes B to happen. Also I learned that if I want to claim something to be scientific theory, it should be falsifiable. At first, I could not understand this principle because I thought a theory that is not possible to falsify equals to flawless. Soon after, I could understand the book's saying that falsifiable is different with false; it is being able to test to disprove which it is essential component in science. I am not sure how much I would be able to remember the knowledge that I learned this semester. However, the basics of scientific thinking will remain in me and enable me to interpret and filter the flow of information which claim themselves to be "psychology". Actually, this concept is already being really helpful in my life.
Five years from now I think the topics covered Stress, Coping, and Health will be things that resonate with me. Although all the topics covered were relatable on some personal level, stress is something that has been present in my life for a while now and will continue to be present for some time. Learning about the different kinds of stress and what effects they have on our bodies and health was really interesting.
The part that will stay with me five years from now will be the coping methods that were discussed. The different ways to gain control were really interesting. I had heard about many ways to deal with stress in general, like exercise, meditation, and spirituality, but the controls discussed in the book elaborated the reasoning behind those common stress relievers.
It was also really interesting to read what kind of medical solutions there were to stress. I knew about the more well-known ones, like chiropractic medicine and acupuncture. The medicine that I was unaware of was the vitamins, herbs, and food supplements. Since body health is such a huge factor when it comes to stress levels, these medicines make sense now, but they are simply things that didn't come to mind when I thought of ways to help relieve stress.
Article on Stress:
This is a though assignment to grapple with. I plan to major in psychology and therefore would like a job related to my studies. I hope for all of these concepts to be pertinent, and they should be built upon in future classes. The thing that is tricky to me is figuring out how I will be applying these concepts. In five years I will (hopefully at least) be graduated with a degree in psychology. I would be content with one of two options. The first option would be applying these topics to a job relevant to psychology. The next would be furthering my education in psychology or getting certification in a related field. My future classes in this major will decide which field my emphasis will be in or what way psychology would change my career choice. If anybody else is in a similar position, I would love to hear any input!
In five years from now I will most likely remember stress (from Chapter 12). I not only suffered from stress throughout this semester but I also dealt with a lot of other personal stresses such as family, friends, and life in general. I took part of a REP study that involves students listing their stresses and indicating whether they think they have control or not. I remember thinking to myself of course not, because when I undergo stress I feel like the world is against me and it makes me highly agitated and angry that I have so much on my shoulders. After a week or so I received another email to further participate in the study and record some stress logs. I was interested in what the REP study had to offer so I agreed to participate in that as well. In the end of the study, I felt like a better person at managing my stress. Before I felt like I had no control and now I felt like I do have control. The REP study gave the participants a general idea of what stress is, the negative side effects of it, and how to manage it. When I read chapter 12, it gave a more in depth review of stress. I found the study to be very beneficial and since it has helped lift a few weights off of my shoulders I will most definitely remember the topic five years from now. Remember that you DO have control over your stressors. Don't let it control you and make you believe you don't. It will just make you more vulnerable.
I think the thing I will remember most about this course was the idea of realizing that no one person, not even I, is immune to biases. This I feel I will remember well because it stands out in my mind in many of the hobbies I enjoy such as Magic the Gathering and chess. This concept helps me understand and learn from my games. I no longer just lose a game blaming it on something like poor draws on my part and lucky draws for my opponent (Magic the Gathering is a card game). I realize that I don't always make the correct decisions in a game and more often than not I notate my games, particularly in chess, and really take a good look at them to see where things went awry. I don't know if this idea perfectly fits with biases but in my opinion it is the whole idea of the individual performing actions (in some cases very commonly) that result in unreliable (or in the case of my hobbies--unfavorable) results. Now I really ask myself the question that is "Where did I go wrong" and not just assuming my opponents simply outplayed me based on position (chess) or deck construction (Magic) and I never look at a loss as simply poor luck anymore.
Post traumatic stress disorder is developed when a person experiences or witnesses a traumatic event, such as front-line combat, an earthquake, or sexual assault. To qualify for post traumatic stress disorder, the event must be physically dangerous or life-threatening, either to one self or somebody else. I know a little bit about this disorder because my grandpa was in the Vietnam war. After speaking with him about it, I can sense that it is a touchy subject. He could be a victim of it, because he explains the flashbacks he has of the traumatic event. He was there from 1965-1970, and from what I got from it is that five years of war can be very traumatizing. I asked if he killed anybody, and he responded, "with five years of combat I would expect you to know the answer to that question." In the book, it says that post traumatic stress disorder involves a constellation of symptoms that can be quite debilitating. He doesn't show many symptoms compared to the people that have the disorder in the worst way, but he says he still thinks about it from time to time. My grandpa is a very outgoing happy man, but I feel I can sometimes see a side of him that is not normal in a person that has not been through what he has. This is why people should be wary while speaking with a person that has gone through something traumatic.
The lesson that will stick with me even after the course ends is what we learned about human development and more specifically, how infants develop mentally.
I used to work in a daycare that had a few infants and when taking care of them I was always surprised by how much they seemed to comprehend the world around them (remembering favorite toys, responding to voices etc.) At the time (this was a few years back) I thought that a lot of it had to be in my head because I'd always thought, before I spent any extended time with them, that babies weren't really capable of observing much.
The lectures with Professor Koeing were my favorite of the semester because I was able to learn that those cognitive abilities that I thought I saw in the infants I took care of were actually there and I wasn't just seeing things. The studies we looked at during this section of the course, particularly the ones involving babies and language comprehension were full of information and concepts that I will retain years from now especially when I reach that point in my life when I start having and raising kids of my own.
I've always been hugely fascinated by personality, but had never really learned anything about it. It was a part of the class that I was looking forward to learning about and greatly enjoyed. It is probably the part of this class that I will remember. I think that some of the other aspects such as development are boring and don't really interest me. But personality was a somewhat fun chapter. It was very interesting to learn about the big five and how by examining those five aspects you can sort of define someone's personality. I think that thinking about these aspects of personality can dramatically help you ability to understand someone and their motivations behind their actions. We tend to think that if someone is extroverted they're also open to experience, but that's not always the case. Learning about the big five is a good way to see how aspects of someone's personality are not dependent on the other aspects of it. Another part of this area that I found very interesting was the projection tests. It is was fascinating to see how these tests could expose personality disorders and mental disorders that could not be seen through other tests and methods.
I think that the biology and possibly the developmental section of psychology will benefit me the most five years from now. Right now I plan on going into the field of nursing and I know that knowing what different parts of the body and brain are meant for will be great for me to know. If I can expand my knowledge on the brain, neurons and all of the different systems even further I know that I will end up going very far in this field.
The developmental part could be very useful also because in five years I could be married with children on the way. I think that it would be very difficult to raise a child and not know how he/she is supposed to be developing at different stages in their lives.
I am pretty sure that knowing information on most all of the sections in this textbook will eventually come back to me and help at different points in my life but these two seem that they will be the most helpful to me.
Due to the fact that this semester was packed full of introductory information on a breadth of different psychology topics, I have already forgotten a lot of the surface information we have learned about certain topics. I will not be able to remember the specific stages people developed such as Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development, however I will remember the directions that people like Jane Goodall have made in observing animals and comparing them to humans.
The reason I use this example is because I have always been someone who is fascinated with how people react to certain situations and environments, but even further, I LOVE building connections with people. I went into psychology with the mindset that even though I was required to take this course, I would find something that applied to my major or desires for the future. I really want to work on the front line of a non-profit such as the Red Cross or the American Cancer Society, so I feel that the personality chapter as well as other information on how people respond to stressful situations like discussed in Chapter 12 will be the most important for me to understand in order to most effectively respond to others and help guide them when they need a hand. I am going to miss this class...aside from all the chapter quizzes... :)
Science is always auto-correcting itself! The thing that I believe will stick most with me because of this psychology class is an altered way to think. I did not previously think the same way that I do now. Before Psychology 1001, I would accept almost any information I was given by an authoritative figure as correct. I suffered from a flawed form of logic. Since the first chapter in the book for this class, I have been constantly encouraged to think for myself in a way that agrees with the scientific community. The book introduced 6 common mistakes that people make and ways to think about them so that future errors may be prevented. Ruling our Rival Hypothesis, Correlation vs. Correlation, Falsifiability, Replicability, Extraordinary Claims, and Occam's Razor. With even a basic understanding of these 6 scientific principles, I began to see new information in a new way. As the class went on I grew deeper in my understanding of these 6 principles, and how I could use them in deciphering my world. I found many things interesting and thought-provoking in this book, many of it will probably stick with me for a long time (if encoding happened and my retrieval isn't too bad). But a critical way to think was the most meaningful thing that I learned for sure.
Over this semester we have all learned a lot about various areas of psychology. Some of them seemed very important to me and others seemed rather unimportant but that is just my opinion. I think that the major area of psychology that I will remember will be the lessons on classical and operant conditioning. I like the idea that we have been conditioned and taught how to react to certain stimuli through whether or not we gain pleasure from the experience or are negatively affected by it. I think this idea has very important real world applications because it can be used to subliminally guide people to a desired outcome. At times this seems like it takes away from people's freedoms. It is hard to think that nearly every action taken by people is in response to stimuli in the world around us. In fact, most of us who are writing these blogs are doing so to get a good grade in this class because we have been conditioned to dislike bad grades. I plan on using this in the future, particularly when I have children, to try and make them behave and listen to me when I tell them what to do. This is something I feel I will remember in the future and will be useful in my life.
Spare the rod and spoil the child? Possibly like many of you, my family operated firmly on this belief. When I messed up it was easy to tell: a frown, possibly a finger shake, the infamous "You're father is going to hear about this", and of course the spanking that ultimately told you that what you did was wrong. Hopefully unlike me, you were quick learners and learned that what ever actions caused that response should not be attempted again. While reading and nostalgically looking back on my childhood ups and downs, I was thinking about which of the three parenting styles the book referenced to was the one that my parents would fit in. Permissive, Authoritarian, or Authoritative? After reading the three different descriptions, I figured that my parents fell into the authoritative style. Not too hard, but if I did wrong I was reminded with a little correction. The book also talks about the fourth and more recent parenting style, uninvolved. This tragic addition is one that needs to be avoided at all costs. As life continues around we are forced to think about ourselves. What style are we going to choose? This is a question that deserves thought.
I think a concept that I learned a bit more in depth during my psychology class this year is consciousness and sleep. I've always found it fascinating and just a wonder to think about. I'm not sure a lot of my thoughts about consciousness are answerable, but its still fun to think about. The practical part I think I will take away and still remember five years from now and beyond are some of the things about sleep. Sleep is one of the things that I never seem to get enough of, and it affects many aspects of my life. It affects my performance in school, fitness, general well being, happiness and many more. One thing I learned is that I may have mild insomnia, it can regularly take me an hour or longer to fall asleep, and I frequently wake up in the middle of the night and may or may not fall back asleep. Thankfully, at least compared to my friends and family, I seem to function well on little sleep (as little as 5 hours). Probably not healthy, but that's okay. I enjoyed learning about the different stages in our sleep cycle, why sleeping is necessary and different disorders that can interfere with sleep.
For me, one of the ideas that I really thought was interesting was the notion that correlation doesn't equal causation. I remember reading about how test prep companies like the Princeton Review raved about the great test scores that students received after going through their program. What they failed to take into account is that by the very nature of their industry they are attracting students that are likely to get high marks. That is to say that if a child's parents are willing to pay extra money so that their child has a greater chance of doing well on a test, odds are that the parents are at least moderately well-off and fairly likely that they are highly educated themselves, leading to the greater likelihood that the child was bound for a relatively high test score from the outset.
This was very similar to something I read in the book Freakonomics. When discussing what is and what is not important in parenting, the authors argued that having books in one's house is a sign of a good parent. Contrary to what some might think, they contended that the physical act of going out and buying books would be futile. Instead, they suggested that the mere fact that you have books around your house illustrates that you are probably well-educated and are an involved, responsible parent.
So i got a bit mixed up and did the topic for blog 4 for my blog 3, so its a bit of a flashback blog.
When trying to remember the Big Five for our test a few weeks ago, i decided to take a break and watch my favorite t.v show, F.R.I.E.N.D.S. As i was watching it i realized that the six of them show all five of these traits in different ways, just like in the Simpson's episodes. These mix of characteristics keep the plot lines going and the episodes interesting. This is what i came up with. Monica Gellar:Neurotic. Monica is always in a tissy,everything has to be her way and if it doesn't she is normally freaking out or cleaning something. Her brother Ross Gellar: Concsiencess. very studious, and is very by the book. He is a professor and very much in to science. Joey Tribeoni:openness to experiences. He is artistic and ready to do pretty much anything stupid or out of the normal.Rachel Green:a mix of all depending on the situation,however in big extremes. Pheobee Bufee:Extraverted. she is always going to for jokes and is always the life of the party. And finally, Chandler Bing:Agreeablness. He is always agreeing with the group and tagging along. i have never seen him really take the bull by the horns and be the leader.
i don't know about you but it helped keep the big five straight in my head and helped me a lot during the test.
I was always pretty aware of what kind of personality I had, and after learning about the big 5 this year, I was able to put it into words. I'll remember this in 5 years because personality sticks with you for your life, and I will be similar to what I am today. When we took the the personality test, I was not surprised by the scores that I had received. I was high in conscientiousness, neuroticism, low in extraversion, and about average in openness and agreeableness. In the next few years, I feel that these will remain the same, and that I will be able to recall the 5 words that are able to describe me. The Big 5 is an easy thing to remember, because it affects how your interact on a daily basis and always follows you essentially, and that is why I think I will remember in the most in 5 years.
Five years from now, the thing that will stick out the most to me from Psychology class will be the process of shaping. I thought that the whole shaping process was very interesting and genius at the same time. It made it even better to learn that it was introduced by the University of Minnesota's very own, B.F. Skinner. It was cool to see how Skinner and his colleagues trained certain behaviors to animals such as pigeons, dogs, and dolphins. One of the reasons why this will be remembered is because you can use the shaping process with humans as well. A parent can shape their new born by rewarding the child with something positive for behaving a certain way or doing something right. Inversely, they can give the child a negative consequence for behaving wrongly. This is a good way to teach "rights" and "wrongs" at an early stage in development for not only humans but animals as well! I just think that it is so interesting how an individual is capable of shaping and training another individual simply be rewarding or disciplining for certain behaviors. As long as they are being rewarded for behaving a certain way then they are most certainly going to keep acting that way for the positive reinforcement. That is the process that I will remember the most five years from now!
The concept that I think will continue to be present throughout my entire life is the idea of the "Big 5." It's also something that I know I will remember five years from now, no doubt. Easily remembered with the mnemonic device "OCEAN," this is something I want to utilize and apply to my life when necessary. I think it will come in handy when in a situation like an interview or something, and you are asked to talk about yourself. Knowing whether you scored high or low in each category gives you something to at least get you started. When asked things like that and you had no preparation, it'll be nice to have that on the top of your head. It would definitely lower my anxiety in that situation which is also a big positive, because interviews can be a scary thing. Also if you were to be on the other side of the situation and you were interviewing someone, the Big 5 would definitely be useful. If trying to decide between two different applicants, weighing where you think they would each score in the Big 5 according to their resumes and interviews, and then applying it to the job description could really help you narrow it down. This topic interests me a lot and I'm glad it's applicable to real life situations.
The concept that I will remember the most from this class is the scientific thinking principles. I remember thinking at the beginning of the year that I would never be able to remember them all, and now I know them like the back of my hand. Not only are there questions about them on every chapter quiz, but also every midterm so far as well. They easily apply to daily life, not just scientific scenerios. I like how you can use them to prove something to be wrong. It has helped me realize that just because information comes from "a "study" or an "expert", that does not mean the information is accurate.
You should always second guess everything you hear, even though it is our tendency to oversimplify everything. Doing so using the scientific principles pretty much guarantees a more accurate and clear view of the issue at hand. This is why I think these principles are one of the most memorable and applicable concepts I have learned from this course.
I found out that the computer network that resembles that way neurons work is called as Neural network. In this network, each parts make its own decision in some degree and each parts communicate with each others in both direction.
What is really amazing about this network is that it has the ability of "fault tolerance," since the entire network is okay even if some of its member is not functioning. Also, this network has ability to learn from the external environment.
It is cool that the human brain serves as a paradigm for the most advanced machine.
When we were asked to compare beauty standards across different cultures, I thought what could be better than researching the people from the country I come from: India. I looked up an article that the Times of India wrote about what makes a person desirable and found some shocking results. According to India, men and women have different expectations now; women aren't attracted to extremely muscular men anymore and men prefer women that are curvy, not skinny. As discussed in the book and lecture, the more symmetrical a person's facial features and body is, the more attractive they appear. However, India believes that how they perceive attractiveness is perceived by their experiences. A second point that the book made was that like attracts like, but Indians reduce their expectations of attractiveness in order to obtain other traits in their partners. For most Indians, it's not the body that causes attraction, it's the mind that does. I believe that the importance of physical attraction is slowly decreasing and people are now looking for more worthy traits (such as sensibility).
In five years, I think I will still think about what shapes our personalities and what influences them the most. I never realized all the different things that can change our personalities, and also what helps create our personalities. I always thought that it was more based on our environment and how our parents have raised us and what they surrounded us with growing up. But now I realize that heredity plays a large role too. I think about the aggression cases that we looked at in class and realize that it doesn't always matter the environment that you grow up in, but also what your parent's and grandparent's traits are and what your inherit from them.
Also, growing up and learning what my personality is, it is strange to now think that I have a distinct personality and distinct traits that I fit in with. And looking at some of my friends that I have been friends with for years, I can look at their personality and remember some aspects of their personality being established as we have grown up and some of the aspects changing as we grow.
I wasn't surprised to learn that bulimia is more common than anorexia because I feel like being bulimic is easier to hide from others than being anorexic is. Do you know anybody who suffers from an eating disorder? I don't know anybody who does suffer from anorexia or bulimia, but when I was in middle school I had considered becoming anorexic so that I could stay thin forever. I became obsessed with losing weight because I wanted to look like the other "perfect girls." However, I wasn't that obsessed to let me harm myself. I thought that "quitting" eating wouldn't be that hard, but then at that time in health class we learned about the severe harms of eating disorders such as heart problems, hair loss, fragile bones, and in some cases even death. I'm glad that I thought about the negative consequences before I made a life-changing decision. I would want to ask a person who previously suffered from an eating disorder if they are still times where they think about going to back to their extreme ways to lose weight.
To answer the question what kind of concepts in psychology I think I will remember five years from now, I find myself encountering another question: what is the most important concept I have learned from the Psy 1001 course? Out of numerous concepts that have been taught during the semester, I pick the one - naive realism. This is because psychology has changed some of my fundamental views about how to look at our world. Naïve realism is the belief that we see the world precisely as it is. This concept actually can relate to a number of other psychological concepts that together point out our tendency to misinterpret reality: confirmation bias, belief perseverance, pseudoscience, apophenia, pareidolia, representativeness heuristic and so forth. I now feel like that many of us are too confident with what we know about our world while in fact we are not. No matter how objective our findings tend to be, they are still the products of our mind and thus are more or less subjective. In this sense, naïve realism is indeed pretty naïve. Hundreds of years ago, a prestigious philosopher, Descartes, pointed out that we cannot trust out senses because they are not reliable. This philosophical idea now has shown more of a practical meaning and significance to me after I have taken the Psy 1001 course. If we hope to gain some real knowledge about the world we live in, we have to rely on critical thinking; not only need we constantly evaluate others' claims about our world but constantly question our own understanding as well. I think I will remember the concept for not just 5 years but the rest of my life.
A concept of psychology that I will most likely remember in 5 years is sleep and dreaming. To me, sleep is a strange thing to think about. We are alive, but not fully conscious of what's going on. I find that dreaming is very interesting in the way that we perceive things that aren't actually there. There are days when I have very vivid and active dreams, and others where I can't recall any in the morning. I also find it interesting how we are paralyzed in our sleep so that we can dream without acting it out. Sleep and dreaming will always be a part of everyone's lives, and yet it's still so weird to think about.
I don't think I have ever sleepwalked, but I know someone who does and it just fascinates me. He has absolutely no idea what he does during the night. To me, finding out about what I do in my sleep would be a little scary because it would feel like it wasn't actually me. I have been told that I talk in my sleep, and I've been told that sometimes it sounds like a different, indistinguishable language, which freaks me out, because I only know English, Spanish, and French. Finding out strange sleep patterns will always interest me and I hope to learn about sleep and dreaming more in depth in the future.
Five years from now....I think I will still remember is the concept of classical conditioning, also known as Pavlovian conditioning. As a reminder, classical conditioning is a form of learning in which animals (and humans) are taught to automatically respond to objects that once caused no reaction. When we were first introduced to the concept of classical conditioning, I was so confused about how to identify the different factors, but at the same time I was fascinated at the fact that it worked so well. Without even knowing, I realized that classical conditioning plays a big role in our everyday lives. For example, I unconsciously trained my guinea pig to squeak to the sound of the refrigerator even though she couldn't see the food arriving and now she squeaks every time which is starting to become a little annoying. I will remember the concept of classical conditioning because it shows our ability to control our minds and to shape it the way we want to.
Years from now, I think that the topic of psychology most in engrained in my memory will be that of personality. It is something which defines us, and a way by which we define others. It is so interesting and instantly visible and applicable in our daily lives and interactions with one another. When looking at your own personality, through tests and simple self assessment, some traits are known and some are surprisingly true! Some we can see were somewhat inherited from our parents and some formed around the environments in which we grew up in and in which we live today. In terms of others personality, personality can be used as a tool to which we can compare ourselves and interact. Furthermore, I think that Freud's studies in personality are very profound. I remember learning about some of this in middle school and some more in high school so that background knowledge peaked my interest and learning this made my interest in the topic grow. Id, ego, and superego, psychic determinism, and all the defense mechanisms make you consider your own personality and make you re-evaluate others motives behind their personality. The concepts covered in this are interesting in the fact that personality is what shapes us and makes us the unique, or not so unique person that we are.
I will remember all of the information presented in our textbook, lectures, and discussion groups about pseudoscience. I know many people who will believe anything that they read on the internet and now I will be able to explain to them that they shouldn't be so easily convinced. I have even fallen to the persuasiveness and hope that pseudoscience provides. After a while I realized it wasn't working and gave up on believing stuff from the internet that wasn't scientifically proven. I have a friend who is a huge promoter for seeing chiropractors. She almost takes pride in going to see them. After reading the chapter on managing stress and other health related topics, I've realized that chiropractors are not a cure all source. Being that my friend has had back problems for a good 4 years, I should probably let her know that the chiropractor is not working and that she should save her money. (Note: I don't have anything against you if you visit a chiropractor, I personally do not believe in their supposed results). Pseudoscience is all around us and is plaguing the wallets of a majority of our country. It's great that we were able to learn about this because it could save all of us a lot of money in the future. Thank you Psychology 1001!
When I was reading text book, I thought it is very interesting on different aspect on attractive to different sex. In the text book, first it says that men always put more weight on looks in women than the women do in men. However, when I looked up in the internet, and from my personal experience, since I am from Korea, women also put weight as much as men put weight on to look for romantic partner. For instance, in Korea the number of women who wants to live alone is rapidly increasing because some of them like to be alone, but usually they failed to find their romantic partner even they put many time on it. Second, in the book, it says different culture prefers their women to be a different size, however, when I looked up in the internet there was no different size. Every culture preferred the women who have slim body, and stay in fit. Because of that there are many women go see a doctor for plastic sugary. Although, I found out that the physically attractive on appearance was different on each culture. So, I think because of the internet world is become smaller than in the past, from that everyone knows what is going on different side of the Earth, or they can watch tv shows from different country. Because of that the standard beauty is becoming similar through all over the different cultures.
Five years from now I am sure I will still be intrigued by optical illusions. An optical illusion is characterized by visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. I never really thought about learning about them in psychology class but now that I did, it makes sense. I always thought they were fascinating to look at. I usually have a fun time trying to figure them out, but often times I never can. They really mess with your mind. I never use to know how they did this. Thanks to Psychology 1001 I can more easily figure them out and understand how they do what they do. There are always many life size structure optical illusions in Chicago and other big cities. I love visiting these kinds of places so I know I will run into more of these huge optical illusions in the future. I'm looking forward to going back to ones I have already visited and analyzing them and figuring them out. I would really enjoy going to a magic show or watch someone do card tricks. When I was younger and found out that people actually can't perform magic, I still could not believe it because the tricks always seem so real. I would love to try to analyze some magic tricks and figure out how they are really done.
I think I will really remember the different types of parenting styles the best. I want to have kids when I'm older and I'd obviously like to be the Authoritative type of parent, supportive of my kids and what they'd like to do but also making sure they know the rules and don't step outside of boundaries. I grew up with a permissive mom at one house and an authoritarian stepmother at my dad's house, hopefully that mix of parenting styles will give me an edge in being a really great authoritarian mom. I know I will also have to work at being this kind of parenting style because I tend to be affectionate and the people I love and trust tend to not be able to do any wrong in my eyes. Also, being female I prefer to be in control so being in the right balance of control without being to authoritarian could also be a challenge.
A concept in psychology that I think I'm going to remember five years from now is the concept in Development ; it's called "Habituation", meaning that decreasing in responding to a stimulation with longer exposure. Basically it's saying that the more you're exposing to something the more you will get used to it. I'm going to remember this concept in psychology because I think it's really interesting concept. Even though, you're uncomfortable with things that you're being exposed to, but after a while being exposed to it, you will feel normal. So that's why I think this concept is amazing when I really think about it, and I'm going to remember this concept for a long period of time .
Although I can barely remember what I ate for breakfast the day before, I know I'll remember what I learned in discussion about abnormal psychology and what is classified as "abnormal." Although some things are abnormal according to social norms, it is not always classified as officially abnormal. In order for someone to be officially abnormal they must meet the 4 D's of abnormality: Deviance, Distress, Dysfunction, and Danger. If they do not meet all four of the D's then they are not considered officially abnormal. This really stuck with me because I did not realize that there were guidelines to follow in order to diagnose someone with an abnormal behavior. I just thought that if I thought it was weird, or unacceptable, then they were abnormal. As I was learning about some of the disorders people have, I felt very compassionate for them because they really do not have control over the situation. It was interesting to me to learn about schizophrenia as well. I always thought that schizophrenics had more than one personality and were violent and crazy, but after learning more about their disorder it's really truly sad. I would like to learn more about abnormal psychology and why people are born with these abnormalities.
Despite learning many interesting topics, the one concept I will probably remember the most strongly is the concept of operant conditioning and its applications on animal training, and in my case horse training. Operant conditioning is very prevalent in all aspects of horse training, whether it be teaching a horse not stop and eat grass while you are leading it, or training it to do a certain drill correctly. One example I have is with a young horse I had that would always stop and try to eat grass while I was leading it to the barn. This is a very undesirable trait for horses to have, so I took steps to end it as quickly as possible. First, I got a special rope halter that put a bit more pressure on the nose than a regular nylon halter (this did not harm the horse in anyway). I used this halter whenever I would lead her from the pasture. Whenever she ducked her head down to eat some grass, I would give her a quick unpleasant jerk on the rope. This action did not hurt her, but successfully stopped her eating. I proceeded to give her this swift jerk every time she attempted to eat. After about a week of reinforcing her not to pull on the rope to eat, she learned that to avoid my swift pulls on the rope, she simply had to quit eating grass while I walked her. This simple solution has its roots in operant condition, where the animal learns to walk respectfully with their owner to avoid the unpleasant tug of the rope. This is just one example of the many ways that operant conditioning is used in training horses.
When discussing social comparison, the book defines upward social comparison as though we compare ourselves with people who seem superior to us in some way. The book claims that when we engage in upward social comparison, we may feel better because we conclude "if he can achieve that, I bet I can achieve it too." I definitely find myself doing this, especially when it comes to school. I often times feel this way when I know that my friend did well in the course that I have to take next semester. For example, I have been trying to figure out which science class to take in the Fall. I have been asking numerous people what sciences they have taken. Multiple people have told me they easily succeeded in BIOL 1003, therefore I am seriously considering taking it. On the other hand, I can disagree with what the book has to say on upward social comparison. When I compare myself to someone superior, I sometimes find myself feeling bad about myself. I will find myself envying others for good traits they possess. I then point out the flaws in myself, convincing myself that my traits are not as good as that person's. I believe that society has taught us to think this way, especially when it comes to advertisements and celebrities. I always compare my appearance to people in the media, but I just need to remember that most of it is fake.
In the next five years optical illusions will always bring me back to the visual perception concept of psychology. Optical illusions not only represent the concept of visual perception, but they are also very fun to be amazed by. When I think about psychology in its simplest of terms, I think about how our mind interprets information in our surrounding environment. This brings me back to the optical illusion situation that plays into our visual perception field. Even before this class, optical illusions reminded me of psychology. So it only seems right that in five years from now illusions such as pictures or magic tricks will bring me back to the concept of visual perception. From here I'm sure I will be reminded of different topics discussed in lecture or discussion. This will give me a more in depth knowledge of what is actually happening in my mind when I see an optical illusion. Before this course I would only be able to marvel at how impressive illusion artwork was. Now I will understand and display my understanding to others. I have always been intrigued on understanding how things work in life. I am very glad that this course has given me a skill set and background necessary to break down psychological information.
Explore the research on birth order. It's something we all like to believe, but as the textbook points out, "Many popular book...claim that firstborns tend toward achievement, middle-borns toward diplomacy and later-borns towards risk taking. Yet virtually all of these claims are exaggerated, because most researchers have failed to uncover strong or consistent associations between birth order and personality." Can you apply any of the principles of scientific thinking to these popular claims? Why do you suppose the idea is so popular?
I think one of the main reasons people want to believe/do believe in birth order is that they want a reason for how they are. People like know why things are the way they are and this is not an exception. Each of the birth order traits, tending for achievement, diplomacy, and risk-taking can all be construed in a positive way. One scientist, Frank Sulloway examined the association between birth order and attitudes towards revolutionary scientific theories, and found correlations between 4000 scientists, their birth orders and their reactions to those scientific controversies. This is one of the reasons birth order has risen in popularity, but unfortunately it hasn't quite held up against scrutiny. Some of the biggest issues with is studies are that it could have been biased, the historians examining the 4,000 scientists may not have been blind to their birth order, and the results of his study have not been able to replicated by many other scientists. There is not enough empirical evidence to take birth order seriously, it has not been replicated in double blind studies. It also does not follow the scientific principle of skepticism, it's a rather extraordinary claim, whereas correlating the personality traits to DNA or changes in how the children are brought up could explain it just as well.
This immediately brings up the scientific think principles of correlation vs. causation and extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. The correlation vs. causation principle rings an immediate bell because it brings about the debate on whether or not every sibling structure follows this exact model. I must say that I have somewhat of first hand experience with this claim that firstborns tend to be more achievement oriented, middle-born children are more diplomatic and later-born children are more risk taking. My experience comes from my immediate family and me having 3 younger siblings. Now coming from the oldest sibling's point of view I am slightly biased but the concept still stands. In all, just because it's possible that many sibling structures have these habits doesn't mean that there is a correlation on the matter. It's very possible that our current society could just be highly influential in these matters and this structure is one that has been deemed acceptable and popular in our current society.
On the extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims section, I feel that it is nearly impossible to have a measureable field to prove this data to be a fact. It is near impossible to examine even the majority of families in any setting because it's the setting and surroundings that could be influencing this which in turn is almost immeasurable. Therefore, I believe that this structure is both common and for the most part true, but unfortunately will never be made a fact and recognized as a general sibling structure.
In chapter 9, the book describes differences in specific mental abilities between men and women. It was specifically interesting to me because of how accurate it was compared to my real life experiences. The book explains that men do better than women on most tasks requiring spatial ability and also geography. The book also explains how woman tend to do better than men on some verbal tasks, such as spelling, writing, and pronouncing words. I've noticed in life that I have been quite geographically inclined. I have been told I have great sense of direction and that I also can remember roads and routs very well. However, I have always had trouble with English courses and activities involving reading and writing. I know this isn't a definite science and that some men are better than women at verbal tasks and that some woman have more geographic skills than men, but for me this definitely holds true.
One dominant theme in Social Psychology that affects our behavior is our need to belong. The textbook mentioned a study that was done involving 5 men that had to live in separate rooms for an extended time. The shortest amount of time that one participant can handle was 20 minutes. The longest amount of time that the last standing participant lasted for was only 8 days. However, the participant that made it through the longest suffered from anxiety as a result of the study. This was due to the lack of communication he had with other people and his need to "belong"(495).
We all have a need to belong--at school, work, and even at home. At school I have the need to declare in a major so that I can feel belonged and connect to other students with similar interests as me. At work I have the need to leave a good impression to show that I belong with the company and believe in their mission. At home I also have a need to belong as a daughter, sister, and even a mother. Being around people makes us all feel a lot better in general because we are able to communicate our likes, dislikes, and stresses. Without having anyone to talk to we will eventually begin to feel like we do not belong and eventually live our lives being grumpy and agitated all the time. In order to live in a positive lifestyle we have to feel a sense of belonging.
In politics, it seems as though money is just as important as the issues. I examined the websites of three different politicians that seek your decision, just in slightly different ways. For Barack Obama, it seems as though he is utilizing the foot-in-the-door technique of persuasion when he asks are you in? with a request of your email address and zip code. By doing so, he isn't blatantly saying that you should give him your money, but he is now capable of sending you emails and letters. For Mitt Romney, it seems as though he is using the door-in-the-face technique because the first page of his website asks for your donation amount, as well as other personal information, even including your occupation. Finally, it appears as though Ron Paul isn't utilizing either of the aforementioned strategies. Of the 11 tabs on his main page, donate doesn't come until number six. It seems as though he is more concerned about his message than actually getting your donation. This would normally not make sense in a typical election, but in the case of Ron Paul it is evident that his chances of being nominating are minimal and he is therefore pushing his ideology first and foremost in order to have some influence on the next administration's policies, whether Romney or Obama.
In the tv series "New Girl," Zooey Deschanel plays Jess Day, a young, eccentric, and downright quirky teacher that has recently had her heart broken. She's vibrant and unique in every way and brings a whole new meaning to the word "roommate" when she moves into an apartment with three bachelors. According to the big five model, I would assume that Jess would score very high in openness to experience and extraversion, and probably fairly high in agreeableness as well. She would definitely score lower in conscientiousness and neuroticism.
Jess is lively and unconventional to say the least (which is why she'd score high in openness and extraversion), but she tries very hard to make things work with her roommates... maybe a little too hard. That's why I don't think she would score quite as high in agreeableness - she's sociable, but not exactly easy for the guys to live with. I wouldn't really call her careful or responsible, even though she is a teacher. She tends to let her desire to please others get in the way of everything. But she's very positive, even in the stickiest situations. Her moods are simply varying degrees of happiness; so she's not very conscientious or neurotic.
With this combination, the writers create quite an interesting character that's very entertaining to watch. They've sure got me hooked! If you haven't seen the show, I suggest you try it!
Cover of The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Many people have read the book "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" - Stephan Chbosky, and felt so many different emotions towards the main character, Charlie. Emotions ranging from despair for the main character to even anger as he chooses to make some very illogical decisions. I have decided to analyze Charlie's personality because I feel like whenever people read this book they start to adopt his personality and feelings allowing the book to be so powerful.
Extravert: After reading the book twice, I have a good idea of how extraverted the character is. Charlie is mostly a very quiet person who spends most of his time inside his thoughts. He prefers to be alone. Although, when he is in his usual group of ten or so people, he is fairly sociable. He probably scores around an 18-21 in the extravert category.
Agreeableness: Charlie would definitely score high on agreeableness due to the fact that others easily influence his behavior. At one point in the book he is convinced to try LSD. The average person would not be easily convinced into trying this drug, but Charlie is easily persuaded into trying it. He would score around 29-33 for agreeableness.
Conscientiousness: Charlie is very aware of his surroundings and is very well composed, but many times he demonstrates an inability to be self-disciplined. At times Charlie would score around 30 on conscientiousness whereas other times he would score as low as 19 or 20.
Neuroticism: After analyzing the character, it is pretty obvious that he suffers from Major Depressive disorder. The book is actually composed of several dozen letters that Charlie has written to someone at his school (anonymously), and a common subject for each letter is his futile and hopeless attempts at trying to be happy. I would rate Charlie's level of Neuroticism anywhere from 7-14.
Openness to Experiences: Charlie is a very open and creative person. As stated earlier, he is not afraid of trying new things (whether they be good or bad). He is also very open to different views allowing a freer and less constrained amount of creativity. Charlie would score probably around 29-32 on Openness to Experiences.
I highly recommend this book to anyone reading this blog entry; it's very captivating and only took me two nights to read it (and I'm an oddly slow reader).
The cast of The Perks of Being a Wallflower (yet to be released).
I decided to take the Implicit Associations Test (IAT) for this blog entry. I took two tests, one on weight, and one on gender and career. The one on weight was supposed to determine whether I had a preference towards fat or skinny people. The test started by having pictures flash and I had to sort whether the person was considered fat or skinny by hitting either the 'e' or 'i' key. If I gave a wrong answer, it showed a red X, and I would need to correct the answer. After that, I was shown word like 'joy' and 'hate' and had to categorize them in either the 'good' or 'bad' group. Once that step was complete, I was shown both words and images and had to categorize them as either 'bad or fat' or 'good or skinny'. They then switched the groups to be 'good or fat' and 'bad or skinny'. I felt like the test was a little biased because it started with categories associating fat with bad words and skinny with good words, so then for the next test, it was harder to press a different key when the good and bad switched sides. It wasn't that it was harder to associate good words with fat images, but just the fact that you had to press a different key for the words was tricky. The results showed that most people had a moderate association with good words and skinny people and vice versa, and I feel that this was mostly because of the order and letters they had us pushing for the two categories. It also happened with the gender and career test. They had us associate family words with names of girls and career words with names of boys, and once again the test results showed that there was more of an association with female names and family words. If at the start of the test we learned to put career words on the 'e' key and female names on the 'e' key as well, I feel like the test would have shown different results.
If you would like to take an IAT test, here is the link: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/
Over spring break i went back to work for a few days. i was so excited to see all the kids that i had been working with over the fall, however i was scared that they would not remember me. i spent the fall semester learning and playing with these kids and also taking care of infants; feeding, clothing, changing, simply loving these babies. Most of these children are between the age of 6 weeks to 4-6 years. i spent most of my time with the infants and 2 year olds. After learning how the development of the brain works it was easier for me to except the fact that it was not that they simply forgot about me or did not have feel the connection with them that i felt but that their brains simply are not developed to the point were they can retain long term memory. The idea of out of sight out of mind i feel applies here. i feel that if i had not learned this concept at the beginning on this spring semester i would have had a very difficult time excepting that fact that little Georgia and Lucy felt very shy around me all of a sudden and that Seth and Tyler did not run up to give me a hug right as i walked in the door like they had before in the fall/winter. Everything i am learning today in psychology and will be learning in child psychology and infant psychology is going to do nothing but help me understand the children i work with and create a better enviornment for these children to learn.
There are many differences in the way business is done across the globe, and processes that managers go through to make decisions are representative of this. Western managers are often motivated to increase profit margins as much as possible, and their effectiveness as managers is sometimes judged by this. Managers in eastern cultures are not as fully motivated by profits alone, but to maintain a stable and lasting business model. This kind of thinking instills different thinking processes in managers. Western managers think that they must take action as quickly as possible, without taking into account of other factors that may be affected my hasty action. Eastern managers make sure they understand all the implications that an action will have in the long run, and not blinded by the tempting sight of short term gain, while there could be long term loss. Cultural boundaries also greatly affect the way that businesspeople interact. In some countries, it is the social norm to give a potential business partner a gift when you first meet them. There are many other traditions like this, which range from greetings to the types of meals eaten, that all affect the way that business is done in different cultures.
In the media, intelligence is portrayed by a character or characters that are nerdy and with most of these nerds wearing glasses. Due to this portrayed image of what a intelligent person is portrayed on t.v. most people just assume just because you wear glasses you are some kind of a nerd. The media seems to put a negative look on people who are so called nerds. In most t.v. shows and movies the nerds are picked on, made fun of, and are made to believe that they have no friends. Because of this many kids growing up who are smart are picked on because other kids watch these shows and think that its the right thing to do. I think the media needs to start portraying intelligence as a good thing because being smart really is a good thing. If the media portrays intelligence more as a good and popular thing, then i think more kids will want to get more involved in school and will want to succeed in school.
The debate of whether a state should allow a gay couple to marry is and has been a contentious subject in the United States. From a scientific point, we can see why this issue has come to light. It was less than 40 years ago that the American Psychiatric Association considered the desire to spend ones life with a person of the same gender a mental disorder. With that logic, of course the government could not support a loving union that was being deemed by medicine as diseased. Since then, however, the American Psychiatric Association has come to a different understanding, that "same-sex sexual and romantic attractions are normal variations of human sexuality" (text 441). With this shift in understanding, it is no wonder that a large population in our Country would also like a shift in policy.
Now, to put it as stated above is far too simple. This is not just a medical issue. You have arguments based on the religious connotations of marriage, the implication on divergent family structures, religious objections, and lets just be honest plain old hatefulness.
Now, I come into this debate biased. I am a queer woman, I almost married another woman, I worked on staff on the Ref I campaign back in Colorado (the domestic partnership referendum). I know the issue like the back of my hand. But reading this textbook is nice, because it reminds me of the scientific claus behind the argument. That not only does one battle religion and homophobia, one also battles the fact that this was once demonized by APA. Though now an outlier, it is science that will hopefully help in policy questions like these.
I understand studying the brain, human behavior, but quantifying how humans love still remarks me. Yet we need it, if we are ever going to get fair treatment in Minnesota.
In our psychology book, it is stated that bulimia nervosa affects 1-35 of the nation, whereas anorexia nervosa affects about 0.5-1% of the population. Reading this surprised me because I had always that anorexia was much more common. One of the reasons I thought this was because throughout the first few years of high school, my best friend suffered from anorexia. I had first started to notice something was off when she started to have a preoccupation with what she was eating and when she would exercise. Not only was she eating the bare minimum, she would exercise up to a couple hours every day. On top of her developing eating disorder she also had depression, and previous to this, she self-harmed. Although not every eating disorder starts this way, hers started off because she felt like she had no control over her life, so she took control over one of the more obvious things she did have control over, such as eating. I'm curious as to whether eating disorders stand on their own, or are they usually coupled with some other psychological disorder, such as depression, or anxiety. I also wonder if once a person gets better from an eating disorder, if relapses are common. I'm guessing that environmental factors and how severs the eating disorder was could also play roles in whether or a not a person relapses.
Many researchers in the field of psychology have conducted experiments and observations of twins in a twin study. Twin studies compare the correlations in a trait in two types of twins: identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic). Higher identical than fraternal twin correlations strongly suggest genetic influence. In fact, almost in most cases, studies of twins reared together have offered evidence of considerably higher identical than fraternal twin correlations for IQ. I think that this evidence is interesting, and also true. I had two sets of twins in my grade in high school. The identical pair seemed to have their intelligence and many other traits positively correlate. The fraternal ones seemed like they were very opposite than the identical pair's case. This is just supporting the fact that the traits in identical twins are more positively correlated than what fraternal twin's might be. However, I know a pair of identical twins that are completely different in every way. Obviously there are outliers in most sets of data, but this is showing the replicability of the research findings in the textbook.
This blog post is a somewhat personal to me, because I've had a friend in high school that had an eating disorder. My friend had anorexia, but was extremely embarrassed by it, and didn't tell anyone (I feel as if keeping anorexia private is common). I remember her being normal-sized in middle school; she wasn't fat, but she wasn't skinny either. Just normal (or what most people define as normal anyway). I also remember that she was very self-conscious about how her clothes fit on her, how she wore her hair, the way she walked, etc. I never really took any of that into consideration though...and I wished I would have.
One day in high school, my friend and I were standing around talking to a group of people before class started. I remember someone saying "Wow, you have lost a lot of weight. How did you do it?!" to her. I looked over at her face for her response, and she did one of those low sort-of-embarrassed chuckles and shifted her eyes to her feet. At that moment, I wasn't just looking at her, I was noticing her. I saw her sunken-in cheeks, the way her bones popped out of her hands, how I could almost see every vein on what little skin she was showing (she had covered up that day, and it was a nice day too). I couldn't believe I had missed how she had drastically changed, and in only just a few months because of this disease.
The book mentions an interesting concept that I also remember my friend stating. "Along with a 'fear of fatness,' individuals with anorexia-like those with bulimia-have a distorted perception of their body size. Even those with bones showing through their skin may describe themselves as fat," (Lilienfeld, 437). My friend was terrifiedof being fat! She even said this right after I realized what she was doing to herself, and that she thought she was actually fat. This might be a stupid comment, and please comment below if you know, but I wonder if someone with anorexia looks in the mirror and their image of themselves is literally distorted. As in, they honestly see the "fat" around their bones. Is this what the book is saying?
"Psychologists diagnose anorexia when individuals display a refusal to maintain body weight at or above a minimally normal weight for age and height (specifically, their body weight is less than 85 percent of that expected)...Concerns about body shape can become so all-consuming that individuals with anorexia stubbornly deny the seriousness of their condition and resist pressure from family and friends to gain weight," (Lilienfeld, 437). I watched this Dr. Phil episode (below) on TV, and as I was writing this blog post, I thought about his episode. At one point in the episode, the family was claiming that she was refusing to get better. This problem is also coupled with the fact that she has many other problems, such as stealing, manipulating her family (supposedly), fighting her family, etc. Keep in mind when watching the video that correlation does not equal causation (e.g. the disease is causes her to steal).
Sorry for the long blog post! Thank you for reading!
Individual differences have always had a significant effect on the way people are viewed and treated in our world. I looked into a specific topic regarding individual differences: how physical attractiveness affects the hiring process.
One specific study concluded that being attractive is an advantage when applying for a job, but not necessarily when that job is gender dominant for the opposite of the applicant's gender. This means that when an attractive woman applies for a job in a typically male dominant field, such as an engineer, she is less likely to get the job because she is considered to be attractive.
This study also showed that the attractiveness bias is significantly high. I find it odd then that jobs are required to not show bias with things such as race, gender, or ethnicity, but attractiveness is nowhere to be found on that list.
Hiring isn't the only thing that has an attractiveness bias in our world, I feel like being attractive is looked at as one of the most important features a person can have. It affects things outside of just getting hired for a job, such as the people one dates or even a jury decision. This bias has seemed to only get worse as well. How far is our society willing taking this whole attractiveness bias before something is done?
People's perspectives on IQ vary greatly. Some tend to think that it is genetics that explains IQ while others believe it is the environment which determines ones IQ. However, both genes and environment affect IQ scores. I want to know which kind of environmental factors influence IQ. One thing that really stood out to me was the significance of the social environment as well as the biological environment. Research indicates that schooling does indeed influence ones IQ. This seems obvious, as it should, but what about when the students have a long break away from the school environment. It was pretty interesting to learn that children's IQ's tend to drop significantly during summer vacation. All of a sudden the social environment of school, books, and homework is replaced by the biological environment of beaches, lakes, and ice cream. It is kind of cool to see how big of an impact the social and biological environments have on our IQ. I can certainly relate to this because this happens to me every single fall of a new school year. The last thing that I do during the summer months is think about school. As I am sitting through my first few weeks of classes it gets really hard to adjust back to the social environment of school. You have to be able to transfer from the biological environment of beaches and lakes back to the school environment of books, homework and tests. Your focus completely changes simply because of the environment!
Although it is a slightly upsetting truth to many, physical attractiveness doesn't only matter when it comes to choosing a partner, but also when it comes to a person's employment. My parents are both business people who have always stressed the importance of appearance when pursuing a job, so the concept of the physical attractiveness bias wasn't as a complete shock. Even though I had grown up with this idea, it was still surprising to see how much emphasis was placed of physical attractiveness.
Many studies have shown that there is a distinct attractiveness bias in many work settings which gives people who are more physically appealing a better chance at getting an interview and being hired when compared to their unattractive counterpart. The ideology behind this is that these attractive people are more intelligent, better in social settings, possess better self-control and more self-confident. In recent years the problem of judging an applicant largely based on appearance has started to diminish, but the bias is still an important factor. Although organizations are now looking more carefully at applicants qualifications, if it comes down to two applicants who are very comparable as far as qualification, the more attractive person will most likely be hired.
Here's an interesting article that talks about the different studies done on the topic of Physical Attractiveness Bias! http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/16753/the_effects_of_physical_attractiveness_on_jobrelated_outcomes/
I find it very interesting the the Lilienfeld text, which normally has no problem going into specifics was actually quite general on the many different facets of physical attractiveness. Sure, on page 446 the book discusses briefly the example body weight and how men from different cultures prefer their women to be a different size, but that's really the only example given and it's an example of something that is (relatively speaking) out of the woman's control.
I decided to research the internet to see what else there was and I was surprised to see that most of the websites I came across focused almost entirely on completely elective processes that people in other cultures undergo in order to appear more attractive to the opposite sex.
The best website I found (linked below) features what various cultures find attractive and what the women (or men in some cases) do to themselves in order to have these traits. For example, in the Kayan tribe a woman's beauty is judged by how long her neck is and so from a very young age they begin the process of "stretching" their necks out by wearing brass rings that elongate the neck and thus make the girl or woman more attractive by her culture's standards.
Even though the article goes into deeper detail than the textbook does the information between the two remains pretty consistent: different cultures find different things attractive (446) and, generally speaking, men focus more on physical attractiveness than women (445).
Here's that website I mentioned above: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3798150-beauty-ideals-around-the-world
The two most common eating disorders, bulimia and anorexia, are commonly addressed, but what is the underlying cause of these dangerous diseases? I haven't seen a clear answer yet, or maybe it just hasn't been satisfying to me. The book says that bulimia is influenced by genetic factors, but also majority is from sociocultural expectations. I want to know what genes cause these diseases, is it a common mutation, or is it just passed down? Anorexia is one of the most life-threatening psychological conditions (Lilienfeld). I had at least 4 girls in high school in my larger group of friends that all became anorexic the summer prior to senior year. Two of them so severe that they were thankfully taken to treatment, but the other two were not for whatever reason. One that went to treatment a year ago is still struggling and does not look an inch bigger than when she was admitted to the rehabilitation center. She is no longer attending rehab, but i fear that she should be. Of all the 4 girls, one of them is doing better and gaining back weight in a positive way. I don't understand, I've heard it's difficult to gain back that weight, so is it a slow process and maybe that's why only one of the girls looks better? It's something that has always worried me and I'd be very interested to know the process of rehab for these diseases. Here is an example to show that it can truly be a disease that kills, so sad but very real.
I remember that at an earlier age I would have been pretty upset if someone had told me that my head is big because I simply thought that a big head ran against the common aesthetic view about the body and head proportion of human.Then I have learned that the most common defense by people of bigger heads tends to be that "it is because I'm smarter". The logic is that a bigger head implies a bigger brain and thus a higher intelligence. Is this scientifically true?
I did a little search over the internet and has found this short piece of news from The Independent, which came out on Oct 21st, 2007. It states that "new scientific research proves that people with big heads have higher than average intelligence." "Edinburgh University researchers, using MRI scans and IQ tests on 48 volunteers, discovered that the larger the head, and therefore the brain, the greater the IQ. A person with a brain of 1,600cc has an IQ of around 125." The news also cites another expert's argument as confirmation of the scientific result. "Dr Alasdair MacLullich of the university's Queen's Medical Research Institute said: 'As a general rule, the larger the dimensions of front to back and side to side, the greater the IQ, although, of course, there will be exceptions.' "
While it seems to me somewhat convincing of the piece of news, I have come up with the question whether head size fully suggests brain size. Then I have found another piece of information from the website "Science Netlinks" which draws on scientists' arguments regarding the issue. It reports that "Grant Hurlburt, a visiting professor of biology at California State University in Bakersfield says measuring the size of the head does give some indication of how big the brain is". He says: "Even though head size also depends on factors such as the muscularity of the head and thickness of the bone, it's very likely that a bigger head means a bigger brain." However, the professor also suggests that "people with bigger brains aren't necessarily smarter than those with smaller ones. Studies have shown a weak correlation between brain size and I.Q. But scientists aren't sure what causes it".
Therefore I have decided not to totally believe in the first piece of news but accept the idea that head size might have some positive correlation with brain size. In fact, some people I know that have relatively big heads are indeed smart and have achieved high academically while some others have not. So I really cannot tell. Interestingly, I also have found out that the range of human man brain size is actually quite large: a study of 46 adults aged 22-49 years and of mainly European descent, found an average brain volume of 1273.6cc for men, ranging from 1052.9 to 1498.5cc, and 1131.1cc for women, ranging from 974.9 to 1398.1cc.( from Wikipedia, "Brain size"). Thus I really wonder whether people of the biggest brain size like 1498cc are much more likely to be smarter.
The sources of the news:
Intelligence can take many forms. Some people may be musical geniuses yet lack mathematical foundations. Others can score low on an IQ test but have a particular skill set required to excel at their job. When we look into the media, whether it's the news or magazines, I see two basic types of intelligence. One is the stylistic, modern, sophisticated intelligence that is usually portrayed on the front of a respectable magazine. These individuals are usually people of great wealth and have worked hard to stand up in front of the public and display what they have accomplished. Examples of these people are the creators of Facebook, Microsoft, or Apple. The other type of intelligence is one that you still hear in the news, but there intelligence is hidden. All we see is headlines like, "scientist have discovered a new cure for...". Now to me, this is how I see intelligence portrayed in the media. Now when we compare these portrayals of intelligence to that in our book, it seems to me that our book represents a more structured definition of intelligence. This structure follows general outlines of how we define intelligence. Yes, an IQ test can give us a basic idea of how smart an individual is, but the media usually portrays intelligence on whether an individual is successful.
Everyone lies. But how can we tell if someone is lying or not? The person who is lying knows that they are lying, but can anyone, or anything, detect that the person is lying? This is extremely important to know during a court case so that the person on trial is convicted correctly. There are many ways to tell if a person is lying, such as their behavior like not making eye contact, fidgeting, playing with their fingers, or a waver in their voice. But these are not solid ways to tell if the person is nervous, or if they are lying. Other times a person could be staring straight into your eyes and lying to you, but you may believe that they are telling the truth. Other methods include polygraph tests, guilty knowledge tests, integrity tests, or even brain scans. But these methods are not always 100% accurate. It's interesting that lies are so difficult to detect. You would think that a brain scan or a polygraph test (which measures blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductance would not be able to detect if a person is lying. I guess that, unless you are a really really really bad lyer, then no one will be able to tell unless they saw you do it.
Eating disorders have always fascinated me; however, I have never been compelled to try them. Anorexia makes sense to me, but Bulimia is a whole other story. I've never understood why someone would eat, and then want to go throw up to get rid of the delicious food they have just eaten. After reading about Bulimia, I understand that it is a vicious cycle. People who are Bulimic are addicted to food, but then later are ashamed that they have consumed maybe 3,000-5,000 calories in one HOUR, so then they vomit, use laxatives, or fast. The most interesting part about the research done on Bulimia is that even though this person has just thrown up all of their food that they have consumed, the vomiting does NOT prevent weight gain. Neither does using laxatives or diuretics. I've always thought that Bulimia was like anorexia, except that you ate food then threw it up and then lost weight. But most Bulimics are in fact over weight. Bulimia does a lot of damage to your body and teeth as well. You can become dehydrated, calluses form on your fingers, you could become anemic, and depression can set in as well. Also, your teeth become corroded and you are more prone to cavities and gum disease (from being exposed to stomach acid after vomiting.) Bulimia will not help you lose weight, so if you think you are bulimic go talk to a doctor. The most effective way to lose weight is to eat right, and exercise regularly.
This past weekend, 20/20 featured an expose on children living with Schizophrenia. Not really knowing anything about schizophrenia (other than it's a serious psychological disorder), I decided to tune in.
What I learned was shocking. The symptoms elicited by the children in the documentary included hallucinations, beliefs not based in reality, and extremely disturbing meditations, including inclinations to hurt close family members.
Experts of the disorder express that for whatever unfortunate reason, schizophrenia puts the mind into an extreme defense mode when it inaccurately perceives the dangers of the world to an extreme level. They speculated that deficiencies in brain grey matter may be correlated to the disease. Also, there is a genetic factor that plays a role.
It's obvious the disease has a huge impact on families, both emotionally and financially. Parents grapple with the disorder as they live in fear of their children, witness the strain of dark delusions on their children, and juggle enormous medical expenses.
The horrific toll this disorder takes on a family is unimaginable. What I found inspiring was the unconditional love and support these parents had for their children. It really struck a chord with me that it is of great importance to be compassionate and sensitive to people impacted by psychological disorders.
I agree with the concept of pre-conventional morality. Many people do things because they think they can get away with it. Marijuana is one example. Even where it is illegal, people will take risks and assume they won't get caught. Another part of that is the notion that "it could never happen to me." I once lived in a fraternity house with guys that vandalized my bike. They thought they could get away with it, and when I was able to get support from the inter-fraternity council, the brothers compensated.
I also agree with the conventional morality. I believe we are naturally subject to acting based on the social and moral constructs we live in. In some places, it's okay to tie a sweater around your neck. Whereas others, one might get ridiculed. In my neighborhood, that kind of thing would have been made fun of. At my middle school, I got made fun of for making fun of that.
I think the post conventional morality seems to relate to religion and just very abstract principles. One must have some sense of morality that transcends society. The basic value to do good for others is enough for me.
I think that the order in which these processes go depends on the individual and the situation. To insist that they go in any particular order would be the point where it's debatable.
The issue of illegal downloads and pirating seems almost anti-post conventional. There seems to be limited or no moral value to stealing when people can get away with it. I don't doubt that some of these people come from religions where stealing is wrong.
After watching the video in lecture a couple weeks ago about whether or not children realize if an object is still there when it is covered up or if they think that it actually disappears when it is covered up. During spring break I saw a real life example of this. I was sitting by the pool and there was a baby with her dad in the pool. The baby was probably around one year old. The baby was floating in an inter tube and her father was holding on to the tube. The father would go under the water and the baby would just look around for him wondering where he went. Then a couple seconds later he would pop up out of the water and she would just smile and laugh and then he would repeat this and every time she would laugh and smile. But I wonder if she really thought he disappeared or knew that he went under the water.
I found chapter 10's conclusions about single parent families to be very surprising; especially those about single mothers whose husbands had died. According to the book, children raised by single mothers whose spouses passed away exhibit no abnormal emotional or behavioral problems compared to children in traditional, two-parent households.
Just because a child doesn't show problems doesn't mean they're not there. I know from personal experience; my father fell terminally ill with melanoma when I was nine, and passed away in 2005, when I was 12. My mother has not remarried.
I was very close to my dad, and i took his death very hard- when I think about it, though, it didn't really have negative effects on my behavior. He was the authority in my family- he laid down the law. Even after his passing, the idea of disobeying him would scare me. I had my disrespectful streak in high school- what teenager didn't? My Junior year, after an argument during which i had yelled and swore at my mom, she asked me, "Do you think this is okay? What would your dad say about how you treat me, if he were here right now?" I had a pretty good idea of what he would say- just thinking about it made my gut clench up and gave me chills.
The point I'm getting at is maybe losing a parent in a family doesn't cause behavioral problems, but there's an emotional impact that shouldn't be overlooked.
I'm not sure if everyone else thought the same thing as me when reading about lie detector tests, but all I could think about is how glorified they seem to be in popular culture. The thing I found most interesting about this topic was how easy it seemed to be to beat the lie detector test. The book states that in less than 30 minutes a subject can beat the test by changing their physiological responses to control questions and they can do this through using difficult arithmetic problems, biting their tongues, or simply curling their toes. A major scene from pop culture I remember was in the movie Meet the Parents when the father could supposedly tell if someone was telling a lie by reading their outstretched arms while they talked to him. This seems almost completely impossible after reading more into lie detection theories and their applications. Another example of pop culture's influence on the use of lie detector tests is through shows like Doctor Phil or (and don't judge me on this) The Maury Povich Show, in both of these shows lie detector tests are seen as truth and looking back on these shows now that would just seem silly. Can you think of any other pop culture references to lie detector tests (other than those given) and see major flaws in them now. Because I think this reading may have ruined many a future movie plot for me.........
When I read the pages, the most impressive part was the set point. The book defines the set point as a "value that establishes a range of body and muscle mass we tend to maintain". Research findings suggest that there is a certain point of weight that our body tries to keep. If our weight is lower than the set point, levels of appetite and desire for high-calorie foods increase to go back to the set point. On the other hand, if our weight is higher than the set point, we lose appetite of foods and have higher metabolism rate to decrease the excessive energy. However, recent researches argue that there is no fixed amount of weight that we are destined to have. They say that there are range of weights where we can "settle into" by controlling our lifestyle and diet. When I read this part, it was interesting that our body has certain weight that we are sort of fated into. In my opinion, this theme has both strength and weakness. Firstly, its strength is that it explains why people have different figures even they have similar routine of life; and this is because of biological differences among individuals. Weakness is that - it is a personal opinion - I do not think that it sufficiently explains why people become obese. Do we earn weight when we ignore the body's signal going back to the set point? Is the power of set point strong?
Weight loss plans in the textbook are non-realistic. I can't believe that so many people fall into these misconceptions all the time. Usually when people try those types of weight loss plans, they tend to get more weights which is called as "yoyo" effect; does this show that our set points are changed?
In this article they talked about the polygraph test, the guilty knowledge test, brain scans, and integrity tests. Before reading about lie detection I used to think that the polygraph was perfect at detecting whether or not someone is lying. Now I don't really believe in its validity. I agree with how they call it the 'arousal detector' instead of the lie detector. It is more of an arousal detector because it mainly detects the fear of being convicted of a crime that someone may or may not have committed. Some other flaws with the polygraph test is that some people can 'beat' it, have a psychopathic personality with low levels of fear and guilt, or even fail the test because of how nervous or anxious they are. The only good thing about the test is that it usually brings an actual confession once the test is over. Although the polygraph test is not 100% accurate I think that it's one of the best instruments used to detect lies as of now. I think that in the future lie detection will be much better but I don't think that there is something that happens in your brain when you actually tell a lie.
My three year old sister, Ava, has a "mind of her own." It was not until I read this particular section regarding Piaget's Preoperational Stage proposal that I truly understood what this expression meant. Her symbolic behavior is evident nearly every situation I find myself observing her in. She reinforces the idea of playing make believe when she plays with her dolls. Ava acts as though she is their mother by feeding them with pretend food or changing their diaper and even talking to them like my own mother talks to her. Like the example of playing house delineated in our textbook, she assumes an imaginary role that differs from the legitimate or actual role. Another example of this dissociation or detachment of the real life conditions imposed with objects or props would be when she uses our kitchen Swiffer as a microphone. This kid belts out songs like Moves Like Jagger and Tomorrow from Annie, into the cleaning utensil as if she is performing a live concert in our living room with a real microphone. Each of these examples support Piaget's Preoperational Stage of Development.
Lie detection has always been and probably will always be a tricky subject to master. There is very little that is black and white; it almost always falls in a grey area. As the book talks about, none of the current methods used are 100% and possibly far from it. The standard lie detection test claims to have a 98% accuracy but the proof to these claims do not live up to the unbelievable claim. There are some physiological changes that go with lying but these are general with anxiety so they can be misleading or even faked. I believe even more so that lies are hard to detect because very little is absolute truth. Since everything is based on perspective and memories are changed every time they are accessed what you get is probably somewhere between fact and fiction.
Lie detection has always been and probably will always be a tricky subject to master. There is very little that is black and white; it almost always falls in a grey area. As the book talks about, none of the current methods used are 100% and possibly far from it. The standard lie detection test claims to have a 98% accuracy but the proof to these claims do not live up to the unbelievable claim. There are some physiological changes that go with lying but these are general with anxiety so they can be misleading or even faked. I believe even more so that lies are hard to detect because very little is absolute truth. Since everything is based on perspective and memories are changed every time they are accessed what you get is probably somewhere between fact and fiction.
I found it interesting that they found different correlations of how children act based on why the kids had only 1 parent. Kids that lost a parent tended to be more emotionally distressed. Whereas kids that are missing a parent tend to be more involved in crime, although they also happen to be in lower class families. Also, it's interesting that it doesn't affect the kids much if it's just their father, or just their mother, that the gender difference did not affect the outcome of how they acted by much. Divorce's effect on long term mental health was interesting because they found that children were less likely to be affected long term if the time before the divorce was very hostile and had intense conflict, rather than mild conflict. Another thing I found interesting is that same sex couples with children didn't affect the children either negatively or positively. Children associate one parent with being the primary figure and the other being the secondary, and as long as there is a difference in roles, the children develop pretty much normally. This occurs in traditional families also where the father is usually the one who is 'fun' and supports the family and the mother is the caregiver, or it can also be the other way around.