Assignment 3: March 2012 Archives

For a moment, please think back to everything you've ever learned in a biology course. The details may elude you, but if you're anything like me, there's one abstract idea that sticks out above the others. The theory of evolution is as close to unanimous acceptance as the worldwide community of biologists, ecologists, and psychologists will ever allow. With it comes the underlying notion that species change over time in such a way as to carry forth the traits that best enhance survival and reproduction.

This classic idea behind the origins of life as we know it came to mind as I read about attachment styles in Chapter 10. It stands to reason that rhesus monkeys, the subjects of Harry Harlow's experiments on reinforcement, might be biologically inclined to jump immediately to the surrogate mother with an available food source when a frightening stimulus comes along. Theoretically, the monkeys who could quickly reach and claim food sources would be in a better position to pass on their genes. However, as Harlow identified, the warmth and soft texture of the cloth-wrapped surrogate mother proved to be a much more appealing companion in frightening moments, even with a food-supplied mother nearby.

Harlow's discovery and coining of "contact comfort" was used as a contradiction to the single-minded focus on reinforcement that behaviorism trumpeted. However, I see his discovery as more of an affront to evolution itself. There's no evolutionary reason to believe that a rhesus monkey would favor the more comfortable surrogate mother over the wire mother with food. Therefore, I believe that "contact comfort" demonstrates the power of emotions in directing our behavior. As the rhesus monkeys show us, this phenomenon is even powerful enough to override our evolutionary coding. This makes me wonder how often the same rule applies to myself and other human beings. How often do we allow our emotions to rule over what our genes are pushing us to do? Does genetic influence even matter to mankind anymore? The most important question is whether we are influencing our own evolutionary trajectory, wherein the emotional decisions we make affect reproductive success and which genes are carried forth. How do the warm feelings and positive emotions that characterize "contact comfort" increase our survival or reproductive success?

(full disclaimer: I am a Biochemistry major with experience in evolutionary biology courses.)

After rereading the Pages 383 to 392 in the textbook, I thought about how my parents stack up to the different parenting styles. I thought my parents would fall in the strictest group of authoritarian because my whole life it seemed they would not let me do what I wanted to do. I just remember the times they said nowhere they said yes a lot and I just was expecting them to say yes and was not as emotional about the decision. They still had a give and take perspective and set limits but let me figure out stuff on my own. This would most resemble authoritative because it shows they had rules and allowed for me to be independent. This was very interesting for me to understand what parenting style my parents used with me and which parenting style I will try to use when the time comes. So there was not a definite answer to who has the best parents but through reading about the four different styles of parenting: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful, I found authoritative parenting would be the best parenting style. This style is a mix between authoritarian (very strict, teaching rule following) and permissive (few rules, allowing for freedom and independence) parenting.

After rereading the Pages 383 to 392 in the textbook, I thought about how my parents stack up to the different parenting styles. I thought my parents would fall in the strictest group of authoritarian because my whole life it seemed they would not let me do what I wanted to do. I just remember the times they said nowhere they said yes a lot and I just was expecting them to say yes and was not as emotional about the decision. They still had a give and take perspective and set limits but let me figure out stuff on my own. This would most resemble authoritative because it shows they had rules and allowed for me to be independent. This was very interesting for me to understand what parenting style my parents used with me and which parenting style I will try to use when the time comes. So there was not a definite answer to who has the best parents but through reading about the four different styles of parenting: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful, I found authoritative parenting would be the best parenting style. This style is a mix between authoritarian (very strict, teaching rule following) and permissive (few rules, allowing for freedom and independence) parenting.

Growing up, I never gave much thought to the fact that I knew how to fluently speak two languages. I was really quite convinced that it was totally normal and even expected for kids my age to know how to speak English AND their native language. This type of mindset never made me think twice about what it meant to be bilingual. That was until I read up on the different cognitive features of language in the psychology text.

As researched in the text, many kids (including I) who grow up actively learning two languages may experience syntax impairment, or confusion in the arrangement of words and sentences probably due to the blending of both languages together from time to time. But this is a very minor obstacle that always results into rewarding long-term benefits. Benefits that I notice in myself today, such as my metalinguistic skills, and abilities to understand more than one culture or ethnic group, let alone be a part of it. I have learned that language can really allow you to join and be a part of different communities whether raised bilingual or not.
But I do have to admit, being taught at a young age by my parents was what allowed me to absorb another language faster and more effectively, as it is proven, "the earlier, the better". But should that really hold anyone back from potentially also becoming bilingual? Even at an older age? For many older folks, age IS the factor holding them back.

When I was in high school, I was an active member of my schools student council. Now, like most student councils, we were in charge of organizing a lot of events: dances, pre-game parties, pep rallies, prom, senior banquet, state convention- you name it. As a council of 35 like-minded students, it was often difficult to arrange events that were unique from what had been done in the past. We faced this problem a lot. When it came to themes, we had 3 or 4 'cornerstone' themes that we almost always used; when it came to decorations, we had a closet full of decorations we used every year; and when it came to games, well, you can guess that it all got pretty old after a while.
Our biggest issue wasn't that we had such huge undertakings, but it was that we simply could not think of any new ideas, and because of it, school spirit suffered. I wish I could say that we got out of our funk of having too familiar of mental sets, but unfortunately, and apparently, we hadn't been studying up on our psychology.

However, it's important to note that despite how much hard work goes into large events, they can still fail regardless of the efforts of those involved. So for all of you who can think back to high school, and how boring some of your pep rallies were, remember: it's hard to please everyone and always keep ideas flowing!

Despite this, and now that we've all read up on our psychology, the best way to counter a mental set is to just take a step back and take a break. You'll find that when you return to whatever you're working on, you'll be able to think a lot clearer!

I'm sure many of you, even today, have run into a problem or were assigned a problem in which you had to find a solution. Last semester I took Calculus I, where I ran into numerous math problems where I got stuck and didn't know how to solve it. Sometimes I spent hours on one problem, repeatedly trying to solve it in different ways. I would try using different algorithms to help lead me to the correct solution. Once in awhile, I would find myself in a mental set, where I come across a math problem and assume to incorporate the most recently learned formula, when really I can solve the problem without it. Fully understanding the idea of the problem before solving it would have helped me avoid this barrier.

In an article I read, there was a study done on algebra students to see if there was a correlation between writing about a problem while solving it and the students overall performance in solving the problem. In the study, the students were asked to solve a difficult problem that required much more than a simple use of equations and formulas. The experimental group was told to write down the steps they took during the process of solving the problem. On the other hand, the control group was just simply told to solve the problem. The results in fact showed the scores of the experimental group to be significantly higher than the control group.

In the article, Kenneth Williams concludes that "writing about a mathematical concept helps students to organize their thought processes about that concept, focus on difficult points and more clearly understand the concept." The writing procedure helped the students' organization, as well as giving them guidance through more difficult problems. Overall, this research suggests students to write down the steps taken in the process of problem solving, as it has been evidenced to be advantageous to their learning.

Link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuserwww.sfsu.edu%2F~jcooks%2Fold_projects%2Fmathguides%2Fmath15.doc&ei=ZfZvT9rWIMXdgQfWka1r&usg=AFQjCNHFI8k-3XeUs8w-pogqTtrnSs1L-g

I have always thought that divorce can have a very negative impact on children and cause emotional problems throughout their lives. I know people who grew up with divorced parents and were very angry and bitter about it. On the other hand, I also know people who are completely okay with having divorced parents. However, after reading the section of the textbook where it talks about the effects of divorce on children, I realized that, contrary to what I had previously thought, most children don't end up with long-term emotional damage from their parents' divorce.

Most people would think that the more the parents fought before the divorce, the more emotional problems would be present in their children. However, as stated in the textbook, less conflict leads to more emotional problems in the children than more fighting. This especially surprised me because I think it would upset children more than if the parents fought less. I think this might be because for children with parents who didn't argue very often, the divorce might be much more shocking than if the parents fought all the time. According to an article by the University of New Hampshire (found at this link: http://extension.unh.edu/family/documents/divorce.pdf), other factors such as the child's age and gender may also influence how the divorce impacts them.

Learning more about the impact divorce can have on children left me wondering whether or not other aspects of the child's life, such as the number of children in the family, can influence the emotional impact the divorce has on them.

The reasoning behind why a baby bonds to their parents was often assumed to be related to the fact the mother is the one supplying food to the baby. So through reinforcement of food, the baby grows fond of the parents. Harry Harlow went forth in life to disprove this. By examining a baby monkey, he found it prefer ed going to a "comfortably" fake mother with no food, instead of a rigid and rough fake mother with food.

My god! What does this mean?
This shows that the comfort a baby has comes more from the physical touch than the knowledge of food or comfort of survival by affiliating with people. So next time you have a baby, wear a comfy sweater to hold it instead of that plate mail you normally dance around in. You will be more liked.

Does this apply to older people as well? When people have a bad day, full of tears and sad songs. Human contact is usually the best medicine, in the form of a hug. But people also indulge on things like snack treats to calm themselves. So what has a better effect?

Also as we get older, a random person touching us may seem weird. So do you not just randomly start touching strangers. First introduce yourself. Don't hide behind bushes.

The minds of children are like sponges because they are constantly absorbing knowledge of the everyday world. This is a fascinating age, yet it can be very delicate. Children pay attention to every answer and every reaction a parent gives. So when a child makes a mistake or behaves badly, they naturally absorb the reaction of the adults around them. This absorption can affect the probability of the child behaving badly again. So as a parent or guardian, how do you react?
According to Piaget, children between 7 and 11 focus more on the amount of damage done, rather than the motives or intentions. This is due to moral development being inhibited by cognitive development. Although over time the children will focus more on the intentions, what do parents do in the meantime? Parents generally want to raise their children to be kind and gentle people, yet Piaget claims that during this certain age gap, children are cognitively unable to understand the severity of minimal yet intentional damage. This makes it extremely difficult to discipline bad behavior at this age. Should parents still try to instill these good morals in their children who are in this age group? Should they do this by setting good examples or by disciplining their children? If they choose the latter of the two methods, is this morally acceptable of the parents since understanding the punishment is beyond the child's cognitive development?

We all had that one person in High School we just could not stand, correct? No matter what they did, what they said, or how they acted, you always felt a little annoyed. But if it ever involved you, you made sure to put him/her in their place. I'm sure you all have someone in mind right now for various different reasons. My reason was because ever since high school, this kid would always just bully people whether it be about race, their friends, etc. Anyways, it was the final month of Senior Year and he had just gone on a rampage of bullying. I saw him talking to the girl I was going to Prom with, and decided this would be my chance for revenge. Me and a couple friends were always recording music, and when I arrived at the two of them talking, I heard him trying to impress her with his apparent knowledge about music. I intervened, saying: "Hey ____, did you hear that new Tupac and Biggie and Jay Z and Kanye West song they just remade?". For those who don't know a song like this never existed, but obviously he wasn't aware because after this he said something along the lines of "HELL YEAH. What do I look like? For real girl, you're going to Prom with this dude? I've known about that song for like a month". After that, I simply said "Dude, that song never happened. There is no Kanye, Jay-Z, Tupac, Biggie song".
Now you might be wondering, how does this have to do anything with Psychology? Well, in the previous unit I learned it did! The suggestion of the song by me that ended up making this kid feel really awkard, turned out to be known as the Suggestive Memory Technique. Hey, I might have been a bully for just that instant, but it was worth it. So next time you have someone you dislike: have a "dude, that never happened" story, just please don't use it on me.

There is evidence of culture differences in the tendency toward bias or distortion in probability assessments.
On the one hand, Wright G.N, who wrote the article "Organizational, group and individual decision making in cross-cultural perspective", suggests that in making decisions under uncertainty, Westerners adopt a probabilistic set and make relatively fine discriminations or "calibrations" in assessment of probability of outcomes. However, Asians tend to adopt a non-probabilistic set that leads them to see outcomes as either certain or uncertain.

On the other hand, A group of scholars used the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire to test for similarities and differences between culture samples in self-reported tendencies to use the decision coping patterns and decision self-esteem. The subjects consisted of undergraduate university students in psychology/behavioral science courses in six countries: USA, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Student were told that the questionnaires measure the way people usually approach decision making and therefore the answer that is true for them is the correct answer. The result showed in Table 1 represents the means and standard deviations for decision self-esteem, vigilance, hyper-vigilance, buckpassing, and procrastination by country and gender. Take Decision self-esteem as an example, the score for Western countries is generally higher than that of Eastern countries. Also, across culture samples, males expressed greater confidence in their decision-making ability than females. However, after analyzing all the data in the table, you can see the difference are not very high. After more studies, the conclusion from the questionnaire is that despite cross-cultural differences in confidence in decision making and in buskpassing, procrastination, and hyper vigilance, Western and East Asian students are more alike in their self-reported decision styles than different.

While reading Chapter 10 in the psych textbook this week, one topic that really stuck with me and got me asking questions was Kohlberg's scheme of moral development. He came up with three levels that were to describe the reasoning process people took when arriving at an answer to a certain dilemma. Kohlberg came up with three levels--preconvential morality, conventional morality, and postconventional morality. I decided to look deeper into these levels and found an article that broke them down into two stages inside of each level. Following this link will provide you with a table to see this different sub stages, http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/Kohlberg.htm. Not only did I find it interesting that there these sub stages existed, I was more fasicinated by the claim that once on a certain level, a person can only comprehend up to one stage ahead of their current stage.

I found this to be particularly interesting, because through my experience with people, it seems as if individuals think that they are on a higher moral ground than their reasoning process is in reality. This article states that "movement through these stages are not natural, that is people do not automatically move from one stage to the next as they mature". Kohlberg himself too thought that most adults never actually reach postconventional morality and are stuck in conventional morality. Contrary to this claim, I believe that most adults and young adults would classify themselves as reasoning at the postconventional morality level, even though Kohlberg's findings show that this is not the case. What do you think? What level of moral development do you think the majority of the population would classify themselves at versus where they are in reality?

During the spring break, I made a decision that I would cook for myself. Unfortunately, I failed in my first dish. I tried to fry some meat and vegetable, but they were burning finally. There were some dirty things stuck on the bottom of the pot. I had to clean them all.
I knew it's good to wash the oily pot by soaking it in the mixture of warm water and cleanser essence, therefore I believed this method still worked in this situation. However I got stuck in the mental set. I did not consider a lot and try to alter my thought. As a result, after 1 hour, I used sponge to clean the pot's bottom, but the dirty things were still hard to wash.

I felt really upset and decided to calm down. At the same time I started to look around to see if there were something helpful. Suddenly I noticed a steel scrubber， which is very often to find in Chinese kitchen to clean the dishes and pot. It was just next to me but I never noticed it when I was busy in washing. Because of my stubbornness, I ignored the environment around me and just stock on my own opinion.

Finally I use the steel scrubber to make the pot clean. The mental set made me become stubborn and couldn't notice the other things. To overcome the problem ,we need to get away the origin thought and find out new ways.

I am proud to say that I recently have overcome a serious case of functional fixedness and a mental set at the same time!

By now, the Zynga game "Words With Friends" has become extremely popular on facebook. It is a board game that involves scoring points by making words crossword-style while also using bonus spaces that boost the points, either for an individual letter or for an entire word. Rarely used letters are worth more points, but clever use of the bonus spaces can equally boost your score. So there are multiple options to solve the problem of scoring a whole load of points and beating your friends.

Here was my situation: My letters were arranged in front of me to form the word "vessel" in combination with letters already on the board. V is worth 5 points, and the word used up a lot of letters. However, I couldn't play this word with the V on a "double letter tile." I stared at the board for 10 minutes, trying to find a good word to use V in, since it scores so high. I scrambled the letters in front of me, and saw that I could make "saddles." Now this would score a lot less (the entire word is only worth 10 points), but I could play it over two "double word" tiles, which quadruples my score to 40 points!

In this example, the letter V was part of my mental set. I was convinced I had to use it. The functional fixedness was on the ordering of the letters. Because I had started thinking with words beginning with V, I never thought to start a word with S until I scrambled them up. I find that when coming up with words, whether for a board game, an essay, or a poem, the longer I have to think about it, the more problems I have with mental sets and functional fixedness.

I often wonder how people can make some of the decisions they make when the right moral decision seems so obvious. Lawrence Kohlberg attempts to answer this question by studying how people answer questions that do not have clear cut morally right or wrong answers. From his studies he came up with 3 levels of moral thinking, including preconventional, conventional, and postconventional morality. He believes that everyone passes through the three stages in the order listed, but at varying speeds, some never reaching the postconventional level. At the preconventional level, people decide that something is right if it will result in reward and wrong if it will result in punishment. The conventional level is when people think something is right if it's socially acceptable and wrong if not. At the last level, postconventional, people decide what's right or wrong based on internal moral principles. This gives a wide variety of ways that people might be making decisions. Then there's also the fact that we don't know what underlying reasons people are considering when making the decisions. An example given by Kohlberg is of a person stealing a jacket. From an outside view, this looks to most of us like someone who has poor moral judgement and just wants a new jacket. However, they could have a better reason for wanting to steal it. Maybe they're trying to keep their homeless family warm. It's a little harder to look down on their decision if this is the case.

Although Kohlberg's explanation may cover a wide range of bases, it doesn't account for everything, like emotional decision making. It seems easy to look at a scenario and say that you would react and feel a certain way, but being put in a situation may cause us to do things that we didn't think we would do because of how we feel emotionally. However, Kohlberg's theory still helps us to understand why people do the things that they do a little better. It's probably best to reserve judgement on other's actions since it's highly unlikely that we actually know what they are dealing with or considering when making their decisions.

We have all been taught that stealing something that is not yours is bad. But what if a loved ones life depended on it? This is a scenario that Lawrence Kohlberg presented on page 395 in the book. To sum it up a man couldn't afford a drug to save his wife's life, so as the last option he stole the drug. Is this acceptable? Should he get in trouble? It's interesting to hear what you all think but i think he should. Even though i believe that it is wrong to steal I would have stolen the drug, willing to face the consequences of the action. Maybe a reduced or minimal punishment due to the circumstances but there should be a punishment for doing something against the law but perhaps morally correct.

Thoughts?