I am going to try and combine the two sections as best as possible into one plot post to make up for points. Something that I wanted to look more into when I was reading chapter 5 on consciousness, was if (and how) psychological mental disorders were somehow correlated with sleep. I have heard several times that depression symptoms can either be loss of sleep of excess amounts of sleep. I wanted to know if some chemical imbalances in the brain causing types of mental disorders could be helped if sleep patterns were regulated. Sure enough, on health.harvard.edu, I found an article talking about this exact question. It talks about how sleep problems might contribute to the development of psychiatric disorders. So, treating a sleep disorder might also "reduce symptoms of a mental health problem." This is dependent on the psychiatric diagnosis of course, but I found this all very interesting. In high school, getting adequate amounts of sleep is stressed. People tend to not take it seriously, because it's something we do every night and there will always be another opportunity for more sleep. But, without regular sleeping patterns, our brains will not have enough time to recuperate and get ready for the next day. I could see how after time, this would exhaust the brain and possible cause some type of disorder, biologically.
3 Make up Points: May 2012 Archives
I am going to try and combine the two sections as best as possible into one plot post to make up for points. Something that I wanted to look more into when I was reading chapter 5 on consciousness, was if (and how) psychological mental disorders were somehow correlated with sleep. I have heard several times that depression symptoms can either be loss of sleep of excess amounts of sleep. I wanted to know if some chemical imbalances in the brain causing types of mental disorders could be helped if sleep patterns were regulated. Sure enough, on health.harvard.edu, I found an article talking about this exact question. It talks about how sleep problems might contribute to the development of psychiatric disorders. So, treating a sleep disorder might also "reduce symptoms of a mental health problem." This is dependent on the psychiatric diagnosis of course, but I found this all very interesting. In high school, getting adequate amounts of sleep is stressed. People tend to not take it seriously, because it's something we do every night and there will always be another opportunity for more sleep. But, without regular sleeping patterns, our brains will not have enough time to recuperate and get ready for the next day. I could see how after time, this would exhaust the brain and possible cause some type of disorder, biologically.
It is interesting to think about mental sets, we do one thing or similar things so many times that we become fixated on having only one way to come to the solution of such problem, but when a curve ball is thrown, we have trouble figuring it out. The more I began to think about mental sets, the more I see how it can be connected to short term memory. In both cases, the process is repeated and encoded into your mind, but the process does not stick with you forever. If you were to stop the process and take a break, it would be easy to see that a different path needs to be taken to reach the desired goal. This could be seen as similar to not transferring short term memory to long term memory. An example in the book gives us an algorithm that can be used to find the volume of different glass sizes, we get this stuck into our heads in the short run, and when we get to the last problem, the answer we get do not match the actual answer. When we take a break and the algorithm is not embedded in our minds we can easy see the new pattern, it is all about memory and what has worked in the past. To overcome the idea of mental sets, we need to cognitively think and work out each problem, avoiding the pattern and the possible down falls that may follow.
There were a lot of lessons in psychology that are applicable in everyday life now, and will be in the future. When thinking about the concepts we talk about in discussion and lecture, I often to relate them to my own life experiences, particularly my experiences with horses. My family has owned horses since the 60s and I've been riding since before I can walk and competing since I was 2. Through the years I have spent a significant amount of time training both horses and other riders.
There were some concepts from the learning, particularly operational as well as classical conditioning that I found applicable to training horses. Sometimes it's difficult to be patient, and easy to get frustrated and resort to punishment. According to psychology however, it's better to reinforce than to punish. Even though this is something I already knew from experience, it helps to see it laid out as fact in a textbook. I also enjoyed the social psychology portions concerning social facilitation as well as social disruption, which could be useful when giving lessons and knowing when it's best to take someone aside to learn something privately or when people may benefit from showing a skill in front of others.
Horses will always be a part of my life, as well as training horses and riders, so these are lessons that will absolutely still be remembered and relevant in my life 5 years from now.
I have always found biology and memory very fascinating, this could be because my Grandfather died of Alzheimer's and I always wanted to understand how the brain, this amazing organ, could fail on someone.
According to Lilienfeld, "The memory loss begins with recent events, with memories of the distant past being the last to go." This was the case for my grandfather. He realized that he was having difficulty at work and navigating around town and eventually he did not even recognize my mother. Lilienfeld also wrote, "These abnormalities (senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles) contribute to the loss of synapses and death of cells in the hippocampus and cerebral cortex." The fact that, early on, my grandfather had a lot of difficulty navigating could be due to death of cells in the hippocampus, which, according to Lilienfeld, "plays crucial roles in memory, especially spatial memory".
The horrible deterioration of my grandfather's memory was a mystery before taking PSY 1001 and I find it very beneficial to understand the disease that killed him.
*I was missing one point from each of biological psychology and memory so I am doing one post that brings the two subjects together! If you can only give me make-up points on one, that's okay.
When I was was reviewing for the final exam, I came upon the chapter about stress. I read this chapter with great interest, because lately I feel extremely stressed in my everyday life. I learned that everyone deals with stress a different way, and everyone lets stress affect themselves in a different way as well. Learning that stress can lead to many different physical health problems gave me a scare, and I now encourage myself to look at stress as more of an annoyance rather than a burden. Learning that stress can be one of the paths to heart disease inspired me to deal with stress a more efficient way, as well as inspiring me to watch what I eat! Stress also has been very prevalent in my family, as my dad had an extremely stressful job that eventually lead to major health problems. I am now more aware of what stress actually is, and now know how to combat it.
Upon reviewing this chapter for the final exam I found a few interesting concepts to consider. One is the continuation of the nature versus nurture debate. A term coined nature via nurture appeared in this chapter because humans create or seek out an environment that best matches what they want according to their genetic disposition. This segues into my next important concept of the chapter: correlation vs. causation.
Nature via nurture and the post hoc fallacy both exhibit principles that allow us to question which caused what, or demonstrate correlation vs. causation. Nature via nurture is fairly self-explanatory in this column because what causes our development, nature or nurture. The post hoc fallacy also relates to this subject because it is a logical error of assuming that because A comes before B, A must cause B. This can yield problems when analyzing situations and it is important to remember correlation vs. causation.
During week 6 we were focusing on behavior specifically how we are effected by adds through the use of conditioned stimuli and unconditioned stimuli. Seeing as we had an exam that was mostly based on the conditioned/unconditioned responses and stimulus' it is obvious that this section is a big part of Psychology. What I did not realize is why it is such a big part of Psychology until I had more time to analyze this information.
I found it very interesting as to how much putting an attractive person or an exciting/thrilling environment with whatever is being sold will make someone want that add. Most of the time when I watch adds I don't really think about what is making me want whatever it is I am seeing. However after this class I have found myself looking at adds much more often and discovering the different stimuli that are there to create a feeling (an unconditioned response), which in turn turns into a feeling for whatever is being sold. Through this discussion section and the psychology course I have learned a great deal about how are behavior can be manipulated in different ways and find a lot of it very interesting.
One important chapter that I read was chapter 12. It talked about being able to cope with stress. In the chapter they provided a lot of different ways to overcome stress. They also talked about a lot of ways stress can creep up on you and the different forms it can come in. Stress is defined as tension, discomfort, or physical symptoms that arise what a situation, called a stressor. The important thing that I will remember is to never let it get the best of me. Stress can cause many severe problems such as peptic ulcers or even suicide. Now I may not have that much stress at the moment but even the thought of it is kind of scary. Trying to remain calm and handle one thing at time seems to be the best way to do it. Finals just passed and that was a very stressful time especially when you are on the borderline of passing or failing a class. Worrying about one final at a time is the first thing you can do. You can even narrow it down further to just one problem at a time. Over complicating a problem or having a negative attitude just causes more stress. You dont want to bring more stress upon yourself if you dont have to. Managing all of this is something I will remember and continue to do.
One thing that I found very interesting in the biological psychology chapter was the story of Phineas Gage and his severed prefrontal cortex. It got me thinking, are there way to reverse these kinds of injuries? And if not, are there ways to adapt? When looking for this information, I came across a scholarly article on Pubmed.gov about a study that showed that damage to your prefrontal cortex can actually increase your utilitarian moral judgements. The six patients that were observed during this study showed complete functioning between right and wrong, and an increased awareness of why they made their decisions. Considering brain injuries are devastating
, I think this study could really lead the way for other studies observing brain injuries and creating ways for people to deal with them.
Memory is one of the greatest mysteries still to us. The full capacity of the human brain is something that humans do not use. We just a small fraction of its full potential. To think about what we could do and remember if we used 100% of our brains in crazy. Some people use more and have memories that remember everything they have ever done. While these are rare cases, even regular people that can experience, make sense of their experiences, and then store them in your mind is amazing to me. Memories react and behave in a way that can have physical and emotion effects on us. We remember things that we want to remember, but also things that we wish we could forget. There are things one can take to prevent bad memories from creating a larger more severe problem for people. Another very interesting thing is that people can create false memories. Just like the movie Inception, you can actually implant false memories into people. Not in the way the movie does, but people do it all the time with their childhood. In fact, most memories we have of our childhood are recreated and not really our own memories. Memories are fascinating and our understanding is constantly evolving.
As far as sensation and perception goes, only one outstanding example of optical illusion stands out to me since the unit: the Tupac "hologram" at this year's Coachella festival, where Dr. Dre and a team of techies created an incredibly realistic and three-dimensional image of the deceased-for-fifteen-years Tupac Shakur. Though this isn't too similar to any of the illusions we discussed in lab, it is based off another illusion; the Pepper's Ghost illusion. Here's how it works:
You know how when you look out a window, and on the other side is a sunny day? You can see everything outside, and nothing is really reflected back to you (unless you really look for it). However, if it is dark on the other side of the window, chances are (especially if you are in a well-lit area) you will be able to see your reflection. Pepper's Ghost is an old illusion that plays off this idea. There is a hidden room with a person in it, and a thin sheet of glass between you and an empty room, angled so that if it were a mirror, you would be able to see the person in the hidden room. When there is only darkness in the hidden room, you just see the empty room in from of you. However if a light is shined on the person in the hidden room, voila, you perceive a "ghost" of that person in the actually empty room in front of you.
This is pretty much exactly how the Tupac hologram worked. Producers created a tupac performance using digitally remastered footage of Tupac concerts with additional 3d technology, and played it on a 2d screen out of sight from the audience. When the footage was played, it reflected off of a large angled piece of glass that was on the Coachella stage, providing the audience with a 3d rendering of Tupac!
I think this is an outstanding example of sensation versus perception, and what a classy way to re-introduce a classic illusion.
Have you ever thought about how much your actions relate to what your gut is telling you to do? Well until I read chapter 11 about emotion I hadn't thought about it either. There is a theory known as "somatic marker theory" which is a theory proposing that we use our "gut reactions" to help us determine how we should act. When your nervous for something, such as when your on a date with someone and you start to sweat and your heart rate goes up, apparently that means its a signal to help you determine what to do next. Such as asking the person out on another date. The somatic marker theory help us make decisions, but aren't necessary for wise choices.
The topic of Eugenics is a very interesting one. I really enjoyed that it got brought up in lecture. A lot of people do not really know much about it. People in Minnesota especially do not know the history of Minnesota's contributions. Dight who was ahead of the programming of the Eugenics agenda in Minnesota was actually a University of Minnesota graduate. Knowing that it is kind of scary thinking that such horrific ideology can come from a University such as this one. But when you take a step back and think about it you realize it is not as unreasonable as you previously believed. This massive 45,000 student Liberal university may or may not have a greater chance of being infected by putrid ideas depending on how you look at it. Many thoughts flow through the university and are shot down by peers or professors. But that one idea that sticks into the community and if most of the intellectuals jump aboard that idea can become wide spread. Almost as a living organism the idea/s can change into something it was not intended to be. So being what I ask is for people to be open minded and critical with everything at every point. Once you agree to an idea it does not mean you have to stick with it all the way through. Build your morals and make proper decisions.
I had a great year in PSY 1001
Yesterday i was thinking as i walked back from class about just how much of my personality came directly because of my genetics. More specifically I pondered how can my musical tastes be determined by chemicals in the brain. Does it have something to do with my experiences that associated the music? Possibly my parents attitude or lack thereof to my preferences? Or did it really all come down to whether my predisposed attitudes toward agression chose what types of music I would enjoy. And this lead into an even broader thought. How much of our morals can be attributed to genetics? Sure, close your eyes and ears for a second and you can still hear childhood lessons echoing and bouncing around your skull, but what of the kids raised in good homes who end up being criminals, or worse, lawyers! Or in the case of one of my cousins, a young girl who grows up completely despite her parents with seemingly innate morals.
This growing up despite bad parenting leads into the question of are others standing up for this girl and taking the place of surrogate parents? Is there a social obligation to do so? All are very puzzling questions, and I doubt there are any non-puzzling answers.
Oh and as promised http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html
That site has a ton of cool visual brain twisters.
Much like the TV drama, The Mentalist, real life mentalists depend upon sensation and perception to draw conclusions from their environments, as well as different memory techniques to remember minute details at any given time. A mentalist is a person who demonstrates highly developed mental or intuitive abilities.
Mentalists will perform "cold readings" on individuals to determine a person's own characteristics and motives, often with unknowing help from the individuals themselves. By using techniques similar to the "sleight of tongue" they combine this with watching the physical cues of a person to determine when they've made an accurate assumption. For example, when asking about general item such as an illness in the family, when guessing through family members, they wait to see which family member mentioned illicits a physical reaction of some sort, like an involuntary facial reaction. However, one would ponder, what would be the difference between mentalists and fake psychics who use similar techniques to create fake psychic readings on an individual? Possibly the biggest difference is deception used on the individual.
While there are different ways to remember what you've seen or experienced, many "mentalists" are actually gifted with an exceedingly rare phenomenon of eidetic imagery, a form of iconic memory called "photographic memory." People with photographic memory can supposedly hold a visual image in their minds with such clarity that they can describe it almost perfectly. Many who call themselves mentalists have such memories and can keep much more information about minute details than the average person, which allows them to interpret such information that the average person wouldn't have picked up on.
Since the idea of having expanded mental capacity amazes and interests many people this concept has been used over and over again in entertainment. From shows like The Mentalist, Psych, and Mindfreak, mentalists have appeared in pop culture even as far back as Sherlock Holmes. I think the mental abilities of these people is amazing, but it makes one wonder, is it a double edged sword knowing all sorts of things the average person doesn't simply by looking at someone or something?
From our textbook, there are three major parenting styles: permissive, authoritarian and authoritative. Permissive parents give their children almost absolute freedom and praise children very often. Authoritarian parents are extremely strict with their children, punish them frequently and barely praise their children. Authoritative parents are combination of the other two types. They respond properly to their children. Also, some people believe there is one more style called uninvolved, which refers to parents who do not pay much attention to their children.
One limitation of the theory is culture differences. China's "Tiger Mother", Amy Chua, wrote a book titled "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother." This controversial book gives rise to a debate to western and eastern parenting styles. It is true that American parents have diverse and less harsh parenting styles. As a girl grown up in typically collectivist culture, I agree with the authors that the differences of three major parenting styles are not so obvious in my home country. Most Chinese parents are very strict with their children. Physical punishment is very common, especially when children are in primary school. Luckily, my parents are authoritative. But their parenting style is controversial among their friends. I think the reason is that Chinese population is huge, and we have one child policy. Therefore, parents always want their children to be the best and win out the competition. Also, obedience to parents and older family members is strongly encouraged as a tradition. So, I think most Chinese parents are authoritarian and authoritative, or the combination of both.
In the past few years, a new light has been shed on the Nature Vs. Nurture debate, the discovery of Epigenetics. The idea behind Epigenetics is "the expression of any one gene is embedded within a biological system influenced by a multitude of other genetic and environmental influences." Basically, instead of focusing on Nature or Nurture separately; these two ideas are being seen as combined and correlate to each other. An example of Epigenetics is someone that is born with a high level of intelligence (Nature) but not given the ample attention and educational resources (Nurture) needed to reach their full academic potential. Therefore instead of arguing which is more prominent, psychologists and scientists have mostly agreed that there is a very delicate balance between Nature and Nurture. I find this new information very interesting and agree with the idea behind Epigenetics. There is almost never only one answer in psychology, there are many factors that influence people and it's important that each factor is considered in order to obtain the best results.
Although very much off topic (because I need to cover two discussion sections), I am going to discuss what a supertaster is and list criteria for everyone to see if you have this amazing trait. Everybody tastes things differently, this is due to the number of taste buds each person contains on their tongue. The more taste buds a person has, the more intensely they perceive tastes, especially bitter ones. If you're A. Female and B. from Asia, Africa, or South America, you have a better chance of being a supertaster. Do you not like fruits and vegetables? Flavanoids that are found in these foods taste unpleasantly bitter to supertasters so they tend to shy away from them. Lastly, if you tend to stay away from super fatty, sugary, and salty foods; it could be a sign you're a supertaster. After looking at these traits, I am not a supertaster. Are you?
Our body can't pick up outside signals in their pure form but it must receive these signals (perception), encode the external stimulus into an electrical signal (transduction), and finally the brain must interpret the signal. So surprise, surprise, we may be exposed to 10 different external stimuli and only really focus on 3. The others will not be interpreted by the brain at all. This is the essence of inattentional blindness. This adaptation helps me in my life in so many ways. I live in a busy home and the constant hubbub would be detrimental to my schoolwork if I was unable to focus on studying. It is really a terrific phenomenon that occurs when we are able to filter so many stimuli so that we can focus on a tedious task. On the other hand however, we may miss important signals because we are focused on something else. This can prove to be problematic when we have offended those around us by merely forgetting about them when something like a final is taking up most of our attention. This can lead to emotional damage. Although we may have only forgotten, the cognitive theories of emotion show that the emotions of others will be determined only by their mental interpretations. So regardless of the reason, our friend may be severely offended because it appears to them that we simply don't care about them.
Caffeine might have been proven to help prevent memory loss in people who have neurodegenerative diseases. In an experiment in which lab rats were given caffeine over a long period of time, results showed that these lab rats displayed better memory than those that did not receive this treatment. Although the results from this experiment have not been proven to be the same with humans, the results could still be considered a medical breakthrough. It has to be extremely difficult to have even the slightest form of memory loss. If caffeine, which is widely available, is able to prevent memory loss in humans, many other things could be possible. And, obviously, the people with those neurodegenerative diseases will leave better lives.
http://www.science20.com/catarina_amorim/caffeine_may_prevent_memory_loss_diabetes-89734
The broaden and build theory discusses the following; happiness predisposes us to think more openly, allowing us to see the "big picture" we might have otherwise overlooked. They tested this theory by using candy and doctors. Doctors who received a candy bag made more accurate diagnoses on patients with liver diseases than doctors who didn't have any candy. While the book didn't go into detail about the study, for all intents and purposes we will assume that the study was done with equally competent doctors on both parties and that the candy made them noticeably happier. I can believe this hypothesis. I will go as far to say that the happier I am the more clearly I can think and project my thoughts more clearly and with more ease than I would be able to if I would be unhappy or under any kinds of stress. I'm not saying that someone can't be a depressed genius, but I think someone is more capable if they are happy. That may be because they see more of a point to it, or just because that is how our brain is wired. Your thoughts?
There is not a great way to incorporate the three chapters for 3 make up points so I will just segue as best as I can. First talking about consciousness, one of the things that I find most fascinating is lucid dreaming. I have always been able to remember my dreams with a decent amount of detail and frequency. There is one dream in particular where I believe I experienced a lucid dream. I was able to be aware of the fact that I was dreaming but at the same time was not able to control everything in the dream, just what I did. I remember it vividly because I was able to fly and that was probably the most exhilarating experience I've ever had. However, I did find that I woke up not feeling as rested and refreshed as a good nights sleep usually entails.
Continuing from that, when I was younger, I had bad dreams a lot. I am sure my parents were not happy but every time I would wake up I would go into their room and wake them up. Logically it is a weird notion to consider because their room is a short walk down the hall yet I felt exponentially safer and much less afraid when I was in there. This coincides a little with the developmental theory of contact comfort.
There is no correlation with either of the two previous topics but another thing I found interesting was the Stanford Prison Study. Before I actually read this in the textbook I had watched a movie called, "The Experiment" with Adrien Brody and it focused on this study. It brings to light some of the more sadistic and power hungry impulses that humans possess even though they stay dormant in everyday life unless provoked. What surprised me most about this study is that in only took the people in the prisoner's place two days before they revolted. It would be interesting to see what I would do in that situation, I would like to think that I would be able to be the guy that does not stray from his morals and ideals but in high pressure situation sometimes your Id takes over.
Today I saw a very interesting thing on the social networking site twitter. A person on it said that it's the most ridiculous thing that our society is so appalled that a minor would drink a beer, but do not think twice about people eating excessive amounts of fast food or food in general. And that got me thinking....is that a legitimate argument, that eating too much is worse than drinking? Should it be a crime to go to a fast food restaurant too much, like it is for consuming alcohol under the age of 21? As i looked up the facts about both, in chapter 12, a person could make a case that it indeed should be. First of all, you have to look at why alcohol is banned for people under the age of 21 in the first place. It is because alcohol has bad side effects, like brain shrinkage and liver problems, while also trying to dissuade people from becoming alcoholics. But as it shows in chapter 12 on page 477, being obese has side effects just as bad or worse. Obese people are at heightened risk for heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, arthritis, some types of cancer, respiratory problems, and diabetes. If that is not enough, a study showed that individuals that were overweight were less wealthy, didn't progress as far in school, and were less likely to be married. Although alcohol has some very bad side effects, and make people make horrible decisions like drinking and driving, food has just as bad of side effects, if people do not eat moderation. So although I believe fast food or over eating should not be banned, I do believe that people should worry a little less about minors drinking, and a little more about the obesity problem that effects 1/3 of all adults. Thank you for reading, feel free to comment
Growing up, my parents did nothing out of the ordinary to help enhance my intelligence. I brushed my teeth, and went to bed. As I got older, I started to babysit for family friends. I assumed that I would put the kids to bed the same way my parents put me to bed. However, not long after I was born, a study came out saying that parents said that they would play Mozart and other classical artist as the kids went to bed. There were rumors that playing the music for them as they went to bed helped to increase their intelligence, so the parents asked me to play the music for the kids as well.
There were some setbacks that came with these findings though. There was no measurement of long-term enhancement, it applied only to tasks administered directly after listening to the music, and the findings were solely based on college students.
So who knows, maybe I am better off without being raised with listening to Mozart, or maybe I'm not, but with the evidence that has been shown, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
Researchers have found, for the future, that babies learn better from playing actively than they do from videos, which may also contribute to a more active population in the future.
For this 3 point make up, I will be focusing a few different sections that we have gone over throughout the semester. Seeing as I couldn't come up with a particular way to unite all three sections in a smooth and impressive blog, I will instead be writing about a part I found most memorable from each section. The three sections are biological methods, sensation and perception, and social psychology.
The main part that stood out to me in the BIO section was the entirety of the nature vs nurture debate. I find it fascinating how both aspects of life can play a vital role in an individual's life. It is also quite interesting that there is still so much more to learn. Nobody knows for sure how both the way someone was raised, as well as their genes, truly affects them. Perhaps it will always remain a mystery, only time can tell. I found the illusions in the S&P section to be very entertaining. Our brains are always trying to make sense of our surroundings, often without out us even realizing it. This is very noticeable in the Necker Cube Illusion. The image is a bistable figure and our brains do the best they can to make sense of what is going. However, there are two possibilities for the position of the cube, and when we are attempting to decided what position it is in, it can often instantly change into the other one! The last section is SOC. The most interesting and (pardon the pun) shocking topic in this section was the Milgram experiment. It was almost scary seeing how willing a person is to obey orders just because they are coming from an authority figure. The fact that people would be willing to essentially kill someone just because a guy in a lab coat told them too, was quite startling.
In our chapter on Human development, we focused mainly on the works of Jean Piaget, and failed to deeply analyze the works of many other psychologists. One person who was briefly mentioned in the book was Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky was a Russian researcher who developed a theory of cognitive development that and was able to greatly influence his field before he died at the young age of 37 due to TB. The book focused on Vygotsky's theories on scaffolding and zone of proximal development.
Another concept that Vygotsky purposed was that every function of a child's development appears twice: once on the social level and then later on the personal level. This doesn't sound like it is a big deal because it follows along with the common phrase, "monkey see, monkey do," however with this theory Vygotsky paved the way to emphasize the importance of teachers and parents and their role in the development of children. Vygotsky's main points were that children would first experience something within their social level, which refers to the people around them, and then they would then analyze, breakdown, and interpret this new information on a personal level. Since are parents and our teachers are often the ones who expose us to new information, they have the ability, according to Vygotsky, to greatly influence the development of children.
In an attempt to combine the two discussion sections of "research methods" and "Biological Psychology", i took a closer look at the biological reasoning behind why we form heuristics. The mind is a wondrous thing. It is faster than a mighty computer and allows us to size up situations and take action in very short amounts of time. Because heuristics are split second short cuts, they can also lead us astray by not interpreting all information. According to scientists, they have discovered hundreds of heuristics used by our brains. Based on the brain's tendency to like to stick to known pathways, heuristics make decision making easier. Scientists have been studying those quick mental calculations for years and have found they work both to benefit us but may also fool us. But what part of our brain is responsible for this?
After looking more in depth, i found that there are different parts of the brain that are responsible for the difference between using a heuristic or using more of an analytical approach. Brain scans performed while people ponder problems indicate that using a heuristic device triggers different neural pathways than using these more analytical approaches. It is believed that heuristic thinking uses the left temporal lobe, and analytic thought activates the right lateral prefrontal cortex. I found this interesting that there is a certain part of our brain that is the main contributor in looking for shortcuts. Being the lazy kid that i am, i am beginning to more and more love my left temporal lobe.
Make up blog assignment for the discussion on Memory.
Every year, Americans spend millions of dollars on "smart pills" in hopes of improving their memory. But do these pills really work? Can they help you remember where you put your misplaced cell phone or car keys? One of the most popular memory-enhancing pills on the market today is Ginkgo, an ancient Chinese medicine extracted from the Gingko tree. Because this medicine has been around for hundreds of years, people immediately assume that it must work, that it must improve their memory. If it didn't work, then why would it still be available today? Well, according to numerous studies, Ginkgo, as compared to a placebo, has little to no effect on the memory of normal individuals. Furthermore, studies show that Ginkgo does not have an effect on Alzheimer's either and does not reverse memory loss. In fact, Ginkgo can actually be harmful under certain circumstances. For example, Gingko interferes with blood-thinning medicines and can actually cause a person excessive bleeding. Yikes!
Perhaps in the future, scientists will be able to create a drug that improves memory, but, as it stands today, no such "smart pill" exists.
