herti007: April 2012 Archives

There are several things from this psychology course that I am almost certain to remember. The funny part about the memories is that they will all have one common theme: gaining and maintaining the attraction/ affection of women.

An example of one part I will remember is how emotions are formed: first someone is aroused, and then they assign that arousal to a certain emotion. This is especially useful for date ideas. I will make sure to take my date to somewhere arousing like a theme park! Another theme from psychology that is sure to help me, is the fact that people are more attracted to people with close proximity, or who they see often. This can be taken advantage of when trying to woo a girl, and I believe this is the reason that persistent boys tend to have the most girlriends!

Lastly, it is very interesting that the most attractive type of face is the most average one. I think it would be interesting for me to take advantage of this by having children (way, way in the future) with an exotic-looking girl with many ethnicities in her blood. That would allow me to have the most "average" looking children and thus the most attractive children!

Lawrence Kohlberg's thoughts on morality had many facets, including his scheme of moral development. According to Kohlberg, the three levels of morality are preconventional morality, conventional morality, and postconventional morality.

While Kohlberg received more than his fair share of criticism for his work, (including issues with cultural bias, sex bias, low correlation with moral behavior, confound with verbal intelligence, and causal direction) I have my own problem with the reasoning of Lawrence Kohlberg.

The reason that Kohlberg rates the thought process of morality instead of the decisions themselves is because morality "[doesn't] have clear right or wrong answers." However, in my opinion, he then goes on to rate how 'correct' their thought process is. He does this by labeling certain stages of moral development. By saying some moral decisions are more developed than others, he is essentially arguing that some answers are more correct than others. This creates a massive contradiction with his work and therefore can be difficult to trust. And for him to even make the claim in the first place that certain responses or thought processes are more "developed" than others, Kohlberg would first need to test it through an experiment like this one, that starts with an unbiased view of what is correct or developed reasoning. Yet this would be impossible to falsify.

Essentially, Kohlberg's experiment design does the exact opposite of what he intended to do.