Recently in Writing Assignment 1 Category

picture
As I walked outside i wonder why people put on sunscreen. Also, i wondered why hybrid cars were the new craze. In my head, i knew why people put sunscreen on and drove hybrid cars.... Not to get sunburn and to save gas money, right? But the other main reason is because the o-zone layer is getting destroyed by carbon dioxide. Also, people are starting to get Skin cancer because the UV rays are destroying people's skin and giving them harmful cancer cells. One principle of thinking is using the principle of causation vs.correlation. Many experts say that peoples excessive use of cars, and the excessive carbon dioxide in the air, is caused by people wanting to drive to places, because they are lazy. Many experts use the statement that carbon dioxide is destroying the o-zone layer. This statement could be true, but its still a hypothesis. Just because researches say that carbon dioxide say that the o-zone layer is being destroyed by the carbon dioxide does not mean that it is true. There are many other alternate explanations like how the world is deteriorating by its aging process. Correlation does not prove causation, carbon dioxide does not purely responsible for the global warming, many other things are responsible for the global warming.

Informed Consent

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

Researchers must inform the participants of what is involved in their study before asking the participants to partake in their experiment. When I read about the Tuskee study I was shocked that these researchers did not inform their participants that they had syphilis and that they did not treat them. Instead, the researchers watched more than a hundred men die with deaths related to syphilis. This case, although unfortunate clearly demonstrates why informed consent is necessary. Participants should be able to know the risks and information about the experiment.

Today, although researchers must tell subjects what they are getting into, it seems like informed consent should apply to other aspects of life as well. Numerous embarrassing photos and videos are uploaded to YouTube and Facebook daily. Through these devices people are often mocked and humiliated. Before this information is released to the public, shouldn't the permission of the subject of the work be required? Often these photos and videos can cause problems with friends; they can prevent one from getting into college or from getting a job offer.

An example of an embarrassing video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sd-j0rKeKw. More than three million people have watched this video, and it seems like it would be embarrassing to the sobbing girl that just wanted to make it snow. Before this video was made public, I believe that she should have had to give her consent.

An urban legend that relates to the subject of informed consent is when a couple was video taped during sexual intercourse during the night of their honeymoon by the hotel in which they spent the night. The couple was not informed that they were being video taped and the hotel did not ask for their consent, which violates their privacy. Although this would be hard to fake, an alternate explanation could be that the couple was lying. Replicability could be then applied to ensure that this was not just a hoax.

http://www.snopes.com/weddings/newlywed/video.asp

It was claimed, by professor Sunha Ji of Yonsei University, that the suicide probability of short, thin people with low level of cholesterol is relatively high. Professor Ji and her team with the National Health Insurance Corporation have found and researched 472 Korean people who had committed suicide from 1992 to 2009. It is interesting that three unrelated traits, height, level of cholesterol, and degree of obesity, are all claimed to be the possible cause of suicide.

The professor Ji has claimed that "the reason why the people with low level of cholesterol are more likely to commit suicide might be the factor of controlling emotions of the cholesterol." She has also claimed that "the decline in growth caused by mental stress during childhood might have an influence on suicide." It seems that her claims are somewhat reasonable, but clearly they are not in terms of critical or scientific thinking.

First of all, the criteria of whether tall or short in terms of height is ambiguous, and the study was also limited to Koreans whose number was too small to be used to define the causality. Secondly, the conditions of each group other than their height, degree of obesity, and the level of cholesterol were not controlled. That said, there might have been a 3rd variable that had influence on their relationships. Therefore, the study conducted by professor Sunha Ji and her team can be said that it has neglected one of the principles of scientific thinking: correlation isn't causation.


http://insurance-technology.tmcnet.com/news/2011/09/29/5815071.htm


Psych You Out

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes

Psychics are everywhere in the media from Silvia Brown to Shawn Spencer on the USA show, Psych. America's fascination with their gifts only fuels their lies. What is believed to be a psychic reading is really only an observation. Many of these TV psychics are highly trained in observation and can easily read body language and facial expressions. Psychic's can make as obvious an observation as stating someone is married when they're wearing a wedding ring. As long as the person isn't any kind of a skeptic and really wants to believe they are speaking to a psychic, they won't even notice the obvious observation. All it takes to debunk a psychic is a little bit of skepticism. They're doing nothing but making guesses about you. It's always important to think of another reason the person may know certain things about you. If they guess that you're there to talk about your mother that just passed in a car accident, they may have read about it in the newspaper and recognized your last name. There is always another explanation.

The concept Nature Vs. Nurture was an important concept that I took a major interest. The argument has been ongoing for a hundred years, whether nature more affects the outcome of a person, or whether nurture does. When we look at the nature argument, genes and chromosomes are to play in affect. Genetics are the basics of our biological structure. They determine our physical appearance as well as our personal traits (agressiveness, depression, mood swings, etc.). Nurture is your enviornment you grow up in, the people, place, events that occur in your life that help shape an adalencent.
Being a twin, I have a hands on look at how nature and nurture can affect not only myself, but my twin sister as well. We are not identical, so our genetics varies a bit, although they are closer than most siblings. We are similar is almost everything. We enjoy the same topics in school, same sports, we even have the same humor. Their are a few things we differ on, but overall we are like one person split in two bodies. My personal opinion is that nurture has more of an affect than nature. Your mind obsorbs so much as a child, and the enviornment your placed in molds your brain to make you the person you are when you get older.

Fotolia_2959010_XS-300x200.jpg
The psychological idea of selective attention rings true in many aspects of life. People often focus on one important interest, while minimizing others surrounding it. I believe this is important because we often miss out on other equally important events or information throughout life because we are more focused on our stronger interest at the moment. My dad, for example, personifies selective attention perfectly. He has lived a life constantly surrounded by four women, which caused him to become incredibly selective in what he pays attention to. His selective attention is sometimes so extreme that we can have extensive conversations or perform several tasks and, if asked about them, he would have no clue, but would know exactly what was happening on the TV. Or, for instance, people often seek out news stations that correspond to their personal views, which cause them to remain blind to different or opposing views. This sort of selective attention can easily end up giving people a very narrow perspective resulting in extreme politics or a lack in knowledge regarding a wide range of subjects. Also, when we are driving, we concentrate on more important variables like cars and pedestrians and can switch our attention to things like signals, yet we are also able to ignore less important things while driving because of our selective attention. A couple questions still arise: Is the change in arousal/importance level automatic, or deliberate? Do we only consciously decide to avoid less arousing/interesting subjects, is it all subconsciously, or a little of both?

Nature vs nurture is a long lasting debate in psychology that questions the development of a persons behavior as part of their genetic make up (nature), or their life experiences (nurture). In the debate of nature vs nurture, the average person will believe that these two explanations are mutually exclusive, that is, its either one explanation that describes the situation or the other. Is it completely irrational to believe that one, either nature or nurture, is more involved in the process of human development? Not entirely. Just like everything else in psychology, the issue of nature vs nurture needs to be inspected from multiple viewpoints.
In the case of the Bogle family, it is quite obvious that the family values instilled on the children at a young age played a huge role in the development of their questionable character. But, it is not fair to rule out that maybe there is some genetic, nature based explanation for the violent behavior of the Bogle family. For instance, are a genetically violent person and a person raised to be violent going to have similar violence levels? Situations like this are key to figuring out if a genetically compound person can be "cured" or changed by learning throughout childhood and adolescence to suppress bad behaviors and enhance good ones.
Because this issue of nature vs nurture is so complex, it is incredibly difficult to determine how much of ones behavior is nature or nurture. The only thing that psychologist have confirmed is that nature and nurture influence 100% of human behaviors. My analysis of this question is that it is different for every individual person. Coming form a family that has a wide variety of personalities and behaviors (the goody good, the smart one, the responsible one, the risk-taker "aka me", etc.) I am incredibly interested in how someone's personality is shaped. From my personal experience, there is no solid answer to how one's personality is shaped for the general population. It is completely unique to the person on what influences them more. If it weren't, there would be too many people who have similar personalities. I don't know about you, but I couldn't handle someone with the exact same personality as mine.

Human behavior in psychology is often multiply determined. As a result, it is difficult to distinguish between the causes of psychological behavior. More specifically, it is often difficult to differentiate between genetic and environmental causes. However, being able to tell them apart is essential to gaining insight to how the mind works and influences behavior.
Important ideas to psychology are behavioral designs. Adoption studies are of extreme significance because of its ability to differentiate between shared genes and that of the environment. In adoption studies, researchers examine families that are not intact. This makes it easier to distinguish between characteristics that are genetic in nature or qualities acquired by imitating the parents of the homes in which the children are placed. The idea is simple in that if the behavioral attribute resembles the biological parents, the characteristic is genetic. However, if the trait better resembles the adopting parents, the characteristic is environmental. This is especially important because few concepts that help us determine these differences are available. Exploring the factors that influence our behavioral patterns is essential to understanding the human psyche.
My family, for example, consists of six; a mother, a father and four daughters. Although we are each unique in our own ways, we are also very much alike. However, because our family is intact, it is extremely difficult to determine the source of our behavior. Could we all be similar due to the genes we share or could it be that we are all exposed to the same environment? In intact families, it is especially hard to tell the cause of certain behaviors.
Although adoption studies provide much insight to the cause of behavior, it appears that other factors have failed to be taken into account. If the behavior closely resembles that of the biological parents, the origin must be genetic however, what if the environment of the biological parents and the adopting parents are very much alike? Additionally, could it be possible that both families could share similar genes as well? How is this taken into account in adoption studies?

- Video Commercial: http://youtu.be/Y_O-djDJjIg

-The claim of weight loss: http://www.xenadrine.com/

This claim states that it's shown that 7 times more weight is lost when taking this diet pill compared to people just dieting alone. This is an extraordinary claim, and there isn't extraordinary evidence to prove this. It even says at the bottom that the Food and Drug Administration have not evaluated the statements. Also, they have success stories, but are they able to replicate these successes over and over again... most likely not. Does correlation mean causation? Different successes could have been due to the amount of exercise they did when taking the supplement, or the amount they ate. They have a celebrity as a success story. That just tricks people into buying the product, because a lot of people will think they will get muscles like that if they take the product, which in reality, muscle comes from working out.

People could believe it due to naïve realism. They see these skinny, muscular, fit people (sometimes famous) talking about how this supplement helped them get their dream body. This leads people to believing that it's all because of this pill. It causes them to draw incorrect conclusions. Also, people could believe it because of belief perseverance. Even though there are so many different types of evidence saying how diet pills really aren't very effective, people still buy them and choose to believe the commercials/media instead. The extraordinary principle is definitely the most useful for these claims.

Weight loss products do work sometimes for different reasons. They are more for obese individuals to help them. They work with a good amount of exercise and a proper reduced calorie diet. People are just so set on a dream body because of the impact of the media that they think the supplements are right for them.
- False weight loss claims: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/12/weightlossrpt.shtm

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Writing Assignment 1 category.

Writing 6 is the previous category.

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

Writing Assignment 1: Monthly Archives