We've learned so many things this semester, but I think one thing that will stick with me quite a bit is how important and crucial development is. Working with a lot of young children through volunteering, as well as with my nephews has really showed me how important development in all forms is in the growth of a child. What stuck with me is how much I influence the younger children I am around, how important nutrition is, and how important it is to have a healthy and safe environment for children to grow into excellent adults. The ideas provided within the development chapter have reminded me how to be a good aunt, and Amplatz volunteer and I think that chapter will really have a lasting impact on me. This course also helped teach me about myself, and helped me to further realize my interest in child psychology and development. Since taking this course, I am now considering a future in neonatal or childhood development or nutrition which I find interesting, because I hadn't thought much about that before. Hopefully, I'll continue to learn more and be able to help make a difference with my newfound psychology knowledge!
skogs012: April 2012 Archives
Should we be censoring what our children see? Does violence on television, video games, and media sources lead to violent behavior in children? Do children respond to violence with violence? The answer to all of the questions is simple; yes. When young children are exposed to violence, they tend to mimic those behaviors, as they do when they mimic our speech or mannerisms. This is exemplified by Bandura's Bobo the Doll experiment, where parents were aggressive towards an inflated doll, and the child watched. When the parent left the room, the child then moved toward the doll and mimicked their behavior, also being extremely aggressive to the doll. This is also showcased in higher rates of aggression in children that play violent video games. Children, when shown behaviors, tend to absorb and behave in the same manner, especially when shown by trusted adults. Therefore, I think it's extremely important to prevent children from witnessing violence. Some ways to prevent having children exposed to violence includes limiting violent video games, having non-violent age appropriate television programming available, and behaving appropriately in front of young children. These things can help prevent violence in children, which can lead to extreme problems as the child grows.
Our memories are so reconstructive that with continuous suggestion of false memories, we may believe its true, and even recreate untrue events based on what we think we remember. With detail, suggestion, and false reasoning, people have been convinced that they have committed hideous crimes which they have not committed. This is what happened in the Paul Ingram case. After his daughters accused him of sexually abusing them, investigators pushed him to confess. Though he didn't remember it, after several suggestive techniques and pressuring him to "look back into his repressed memories", he confessed to a crime he didn't commit. The police were able to persuade him that he had repressed the memories of harming his daughters, and that if he delved deep enough, he would remember what he did. They told him that he would feel better once he "admitted to what he had done". After being isolated, he eventually wrote a full description of what his daughters accused him of doing, and even added in graphic details of what he thought were repressed memories. After his confession, they put the evidence together, realized that it was literally impossible for him to have done this, and he was proven innocent. His daughters later confessed to making the whole thing up. The power our brains have in reconstructing memories are extremely powerful, and at times dangerous. Be careful what you think you remember. Think to yourself, "did that actually happen," before you tell someone about a memory you once thought you had.
Recently, I was at a blood drive organized by one of my friends who is a homosexual male, and he was not allowed to donate blood due to his sexual orientation. Is this discrimination? Why is he not allowed to? Is that fair? In order to make a decision, one needs to see both sides of the argument to make an educated decision. The reasoning behind not allowing homosexuals to donate blood (according to blood banks) is that those who engage in homosexual relationships are at a higher risk of being infected with HIV or AIDS. However, after researching statistics of Americans with HIV, overall, heterosexual men that have unprotected sex with women are equally at risk (about 1 in 5). With this being known, I have to say that discriminating against homosexuals based on the risk of HIV alone seems unjust, because the blood is screened before being donated and used. If the risk of infection was the only reason, why would it matter if the risks are the same? I questioned this myself, and wondered why. Rather than questioning about the gender of their sexual partners, I think the questions should also be asked about if they have had unprotected sex and how many partners they have had to evaluate the risks, rather than using sexual orientation as a basis. Thoughts anyone?