Recently in assignment 3 Category

Is self-actualization possible in todays world? I find the idea of self-actualization to be very interesting.
The idea of self-actualization in the last twenty years or so is one that has been forgotten, or perhaps the aim to become self-actualized is not one that is deemed to be important to many.

It may be a consequence of the times, and our financial obligations that frequently force us to focus on money instead of self-fulfillment, or self-analysis, but the focus on material wealth instead of many other things that would fulfill us, or make us culturally literate is prominent.
I am simply questioning this predisposition with currency as the beginning, and end of our lives. It is hard to argue against, "you need to eat." in an urban setting but many people go on perfectly well growing their own food, and living without money as a daily part of their lives.
What am I trying to prove? You might ask, well I'm simply making a comment about the idea of self-actualization in the context of history, and todays culture.
Perhaps the 'rocking-the-boat', aspect of self-actualization is now harder, and harder to achieve, considering the widespread lines of communication that the world now uses, everyone is capable of rocking the boat quite easily, and maybe people simply have stopped noticing it.
Overall it is my belief that people no longer focus on self, and self-improvement, or self-actualization because of the emphasis placed on financial "success" and material gains.

Coming to college, I really decided that I wanted to work out. Luckily, the Rec Center is free for us students. My friend, Zach, is a workout enthusiast and helped me to start a new awesome work out regimen. I decided to start working out with him rather than going alone. It seemed to make my workout 100% better. I felt better, more enhanced and just more fit. This fits in with a topic in Psychology 1001 where we have an enhancement of performance among various things due to being in a group or around others. It happens when we study too quizzing each other and stuff we want to push and make sure we always get the right answer. It also happens within teams in sports and stuff. Now, I tend to do a lot of tasks that I'm just not feeling in groups so i have a better work ethic and push myself as hard as I possibly can. Yay, for working in groups!

So I took the 2012 Implicit Associations Test and was quite surprised by the results!

In this task, I was asked to categorize "good" words, such as successful and wonderful, with white faces compared to "good" words with black faces as fast as I could. Afterwards I was asked to categorize presidential candidates with good words as fast as I could. The faster I categorized good words with one presidential candidate compared to the other candidate determined my implicit preference for that candidate. The same concept was measured when comparing white and black faces with good words: The faster I categorized good words with one racial group compared to the other exposed my hidden preference for that group.

The results of my test suggested that I had a MODERATE implicit preference for white people compared to black people and a SLIGHT implicit preference for Newt Gingrich compared to Mitt Romney.

I thought these results made sense for the most part. I wasn't surprised that I showed a higher preference toward Newt Gingrich due to his Republican affiliation; however, my white racial preference caught me off guard. Although I do not consider myself racist, I'll admit to stereotyping racial groups by using the shortcut way of thinking--the availability heuristic. The IAT revealed my subconscious racial predispositions and allowed me the opportunity to self-reflect on these test findings.

I think this test is very informative and sheds much light on the role racial attitudes and party affiliation plays on voting preferences. Although we may be unaware of some of our feelings, the IAT successfully exposes the impact implicit thinking has on our judgment, perception and action and also provides participants the opportunity for self-reflection on their individual results.

In a world in which discrimination already consumes so much of our life, it is not hard to believe that mankind will always find a way to use discrimination to their advantage.With so much new research going into the field of genetics, it's not surprising that scientists are finding that specific genes correlate with specific behaviors. Although this research is exciting and opens up many new and exciting doors, If humans are not careful all of the new research in genetics could lead to a totally new form of discrimination. There is a gene out there that has been labeled the "cheaters" gene. If a person has this gene he or she has been found to more likely cheat and his or her partner. I can see it now; in the future dating companies will advertise having people with the lowest number of this particular genes, or on a date with a potential partner that first question asked will be, hey, do you have the cheaters gene?
We shouldn't only be concerned with genetic discrimination in relationships though. Employers could possibly start scanning their potential employees for certain genetic tendencies, such as anger or even if they are likely to get a fatal disease in the future. I know the government has already passed a law prohibiting such acts, but with the research only becoming so much profound and in our daily live, where people will stop to reach the top?
Discrimination is a part of every day life for people in the United States, hopefully, there won't be an excuse to add more.

As has been noted in past Psych 1001 blogs, "Minnesota nice" (a form of altruism) is a very real phenomenon. I myself have experienced multiple instances of people helping others for seemingly totally unselfish reasons. This past summer, my boyfriend and I were trying to pick up a friend from a concert in downtown Minneapolis at a very late hour. We hit an incredibly large pothole and blew out the front right tire of my car. The car was undriveable and so we were forced to pull over onto the side of a very busy street where parking was not permitted. I didn't know what to do. No towing company would be open this late and both my boyfriend and I had no idea how to fix the tire ourselves. We had not even gotten out of the car yet when 2 young men came up to us and asked if we needed some help. They immediately asked me to pop my trunk and they proceeded to find a tire that I had no idea was even there. They spent about an hour putting a new wheel on my car and chatting amiably with us. When they were done, they refused the money we offered them and told us that we could repay them by doing something like this for someone else in their time of need. This is a great example of altruism. If everyone had more empathy for those around them, the world would be a much better place. If everyone partook in it, altruism would turn into a common prosocial norm.

As I was thinking about what to write for this blog, I came across this article on Cracked.com about the 6 most outrageous crash diets of all time. The one that really surprised me was the 'tapeworm' diet. The idea is that if tapeworms are digesting your food, you won't get fat. As the poster advertises, you can eat as much as you want and all of the food will be digested by the worm and not you.

While the idea of having a tapeworm inhabit your digestive tract should probably disturb you, apparently female body image problems date back many years and "some desperate women looked right past the words 'worm,' 'parasite,' 'lay eggs inside your digestive system,' 'severe health danger' and pictures of this:

... and fixated on the phrase 'causes severe weight loss.'" (Cracked.com)

While people with tapeworms may not show any symptoms, the worms use all of that food to grow bigger and stronger. The host is missing out on key vitamins and nutrients and probably has diarrhea, nausea, and bloating. If the larvae that this worm lays are able to spread to other parts of your body, they can even effect your brain, cause seizures, meningitis, and dementia.

"One would think that it's not necessary to point out that there are drawbacks to having a disgusting meter-long parasite embedded in your intestines, but apparently some people need it said." (Cracked.com)

Last summer I started going to the fitness classes that my gym offered (my favorite is Zumba!) I was amazed at what a great workout I got, and how much fun exercising could be. Whenever I left a fitness class, I felt that I had gotten a much better workout with the group than I would have alone. This is because of the concept from Social Psychology called Social Facilitation, or the enhancement of performance brought about by the presence of others. When we do something in a group, like working out, we are pushed to go faster or work harder, and to exercise longer. In the textbook, it talks about how bicycle racers got faster speeds when they were racing with other bicyclists, rather than racing by themselves. When we're with other people, we don't want to look weak, so we push ourselves more. I'm looking forward to returning home this summer and going to my favorite fitness classes again. Working out by myself in the rec center just isn't cutting it!

The Big Five are five traits that have surfaced repeatedly in factor analysis of personality measures. The five dimensions of the Big Five are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Everyone supposedly carries an extent to all these dimensions but the amounts of each vary in different people. The Big Five appears in people's ratings of personality even when researchers ask participants to describe people they've only seen, not met. This shows that we judge the characteristics of a person based off of their behavior. This finding is important because it breaks down the human personality in a way so that one can see why a person acts the way they do. I took a little quiz online and these were my results.

You may have noticed in any of your classes the students who either are always the first ones to raise their hands whenever the teacher asks for volunteers and the ones who cringe and seek coverage, hiding behind their hands when the professor asks "who would like to share first?". Or even when you are out shopping with friends, and there is that one friend who must get everything in bright neon, colors and the other friend who would rather stick to the neutral-beige toned clothing.

The students who jump to the opportunity of sharing would have probably scored high on the "openess to experience" personality trait and that friend who refuses anything highlighter-yellow, green would probably score low on the "openess to experience" trait.
The "openess to experience" trait is just one of the personality traits of what psychologists call The Big Five, five traits that have surfaced repeatedly in factor analysis of personality measures. OCEAN is acronym that describes the five dimension of the the Big Five which, as defined by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae, are:

• Openess to Experience/Openess- open people tend to be intellectually curious and unconventional;
• Conscientiousness- conscientious people tend to be careful and responsible;
• Extraversion- extraverted people tend to be social and lively;
• Agreeableness- agreeable people tend to be sociable and easy to get along with; and
• Neuroticism- neurotic people tend to be tense and moody.

However, is there a reason why one person possess one trait more than another? Does genes have a role in someone's personality trait? Or can it be the environment of a person's upbringing that shapes and influences it? This brings up the never ending Nature-Nuture debate.
For those of us who are familiar with "The Simpsons", we can see how "nature" fails to be the sole factor when it comes to "The Big Five". For example, Lisa Simpson is very Conscientious because she sets goals, she is attentive to details, and she is very reliable. Her brother, Bart, by contrast, is very unreliable. He breaks his promises, doesn't follow rules, and so on. Biological siblings, same father and mother, who show to be quite opposites and are literally on opposite ends in terms of the "conscientiousness" scale. They also seem to be examples that contradict the "nurture" aspect as well; both grew up and live in the exact same environment, yet are very different in regards to their personalities.

So what makes a person the way they are? Why is that someone can be completely composed and calm in stressful situations where another person may have a complete break-down just at the thought of working in the busiest cafe that morning? We cannot assume that a person's genetics is the sole contributor or the way a person may have grown up to be the reason why they score high on the "neuroticism" trait. We can, for sure, state that each and everyone of us are different and The Big Five can only act as a model of the different personalities that we all carry in our selves.

As I was searching on the internet yesterday, I found something that even I could not believe. I know the internet is full of stupid crap but this one topped them all. It was a diet that was from all the way back in 1926. There is a picture of the ad claiming that if you use this certain soap, you could "wash" away fat. On the ad it says, "Reduce any part of body desired without affecting other parts. No dieting or exercising. Be as slim as you wish. Acts like magic in reducing double chin, abdomen, ungainly ankles, or any superfluous fat on body."

The sad thing is, I am sure people bought this soap and actually thought they could scrub their fat away like it was some sort of body odor or something. I would like to think that nobody is dumb enough nowadays to actually believe in something that ridiculous but then I think of all the stupid weight loss gimmicks and plans that are on the market today and it makes me wonder; are we really any different now then we were nearly a century ago?

VS

This may be a little off topic but I've wanted to write a blog about this debate for awhile and see what other's opinions are on it. I'm going to start with some facts, I'll leave some links at the bottom if you'd like to read more on it before adding your own opinions, and then lastly I'm just going to say some of my own opinions. I searched "Alcohol VS Marijuana Debate" in Google and clicked on the first three links. Of those three all of them said that Alcohol is worse for you. But here are some facts. Moderate intake of alcohol, according to a study from Harvard, can help reduce the risk of heart disease. There are supposed cardiovascular benefits, but health officials are still conflicted on the meaning of these findings and are not sure if they are true or not. It is also an enjoyable means of social interaction and leisure. Other then these three, I could find no other positives from the three websites. Now for Marijuana I could find many more positives and not as many negatives. Marijuana can be used as a treatment for nausea and vomiting in aids and cancer patients, as a treatment of pain for a variety of illnesses and maladies, and is a useful sleeping aid with no risk of accidental overdose or respitory arrest. I'll leave it to that for the facts if you want to know more go to any of the bottom links or look it up yourself. Now here are some of my own opinions and feel free to ask questions or counter argue them, that of which is what a debate is after all. Anyway, I feel that what we do as an individual shouldn't be of importance to others AS LONG as we aren't hurting others in the process. If we want to hurt our livers by drinking, it's our own choice; we know the consequences of our actions do we not? If we want to smoke Marijuana even though it may affect us adversely, why can't we? I also feel as if EVERYONE has a release to get away from the world and the stress of everyday life, be it video games, sports, sky diving, drinking, dungeons and dragons, watching TV, smoking, running, anything. And it really could be anything. If someone wants to do one of these as their stress reliever then why not? I do believe though that there should be rules governing these activities, as to make it safer for everyone but that's true for everything. Anyway, I could go on, but I'd like to hear your opinions, feel free to check out the websites and argue with me all you want.

http://alcoholvsmarijuana.com/
http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
http://mphdegree.org/2010/marijuana-vs-alcohol-25-enlightening-studies-and-infographics/

If you are familiar with the cast Friends, you know that they all have very distinct personalities. You can clearly see who is high/low within all of the big five personality traits They are all very outgoing, don't mind talking to strangers, and enjoy being in groups of people. Joey is especially high because he will talk to any woman he finds attractive and likes the celebrity lifestyle with all the parties that comes along with his role in Days of our Lives. The next characteristic is agreeableness. Rachel is very high in agreeableness. She is always there for everyone when they need advice; she is an affectionate person and gets along very well with others. Monica is a good example of someone who is high in conscientiousness. She is very organized and pays close attention to detail. This is very prevalent in the fact that she is obsessive with cleanliness and everything has a certain place where it belongs. Ross is especially high in neuroticism. He is depressed a lot and having a not-so-ideal life. He is made fun of because of the fact he has had multiple failed marriages and got fired from his job because he over reacted to someone eating his sandwich. Phoebe is the one that comes to my mind when I think of openness to experience. She tries a lot of new and different things that most people wouldn't. She is very unconventional in the way she lives her life and is intellectually curious.

The link provided is an example of why I believe Ross is high in neuroticism.

Although shows such as "Are you smarter than a 5th grader,"1 vs. 100," and "Jeopardy" are television shows aired on American television, Intelligence is not often portrayed in the mass of American media. You always hear about research that is going on and examples of "studies" to prove points to you in commercials, but how often are these statistics realistic? It is clearly proven that schooling makes us smarter, but how does television and movies help, reflect and enhance our IQ? Does it? Our textbook tells us that there are different types of IQ but yet none of these ideas are represented in media. Media does not emphasize the importance of intelligence. The ideas from our textbook are not often proven or shown through most types of advertisements, television, or movies. The only publicity for intelligence is the debate of IQ testing. This debate is often emphasized in the sense that an IQ test cannot possibly show ones true intelligence level. So how does this reflect what should be. Should we be trying to better represent what intelligence is through the media or is it's representation not effecting anything right now?

There has been a debate for a very long time over whether gay people choose their sexual orientation. A study by Simon LeVay did a study in 1981 examining the brain of homosexual and heterosexual men to examine any slight differences. His findings show that the neurons in the hypothalamus are less than half of the size in gay men as compared to heterosexual men. While there were a few criticisms of LeVay's study, however newer studies have shown that the hypothalamus plays a key role in one's sexual orientation. People that believe homosexuals are choosing their sexual orientation are backed by very little scientific evidence and are typically raised in families that have negative feelings towards gays. Personally, I believe that gays cannot choose their own sexual orientation and are born that way. I have developed this viewpoint for myself through experience with friends that happened to be homosexuals and stating that from a young age they knew they were different from other boys. There is a significant amount of evidence that shows homosexuals did not choose to be the way they are to convince any rational person in my own opinion.

Now the idea that the little extra skin around the eye makes someone beautiful seems a little strange to us, but the question about beauty standards around the world really peeked my interest, so while googling some countries beauty ideology, I came across a blog from a woman who studied abroad in China. She asked many of the girls in her class who they thought were beautiful, and what made a person beautiful. Many of them showed her beauty products, one of them being pieces of adhesive that gives them the appearance of having that extra skin and another being whitening cream. This is something I found really funny because people here "fake bake" and try to get tanner and hate how white they are, not to mention many of us don't even take notice to little things that are beautiful. It makes me wonder what other countries around the world take notice to, and find beautiful. I think if we could see what other people see that many of us would appreciate our bodies the way they are; I know the next time I look in the mirror, and I see that extra flabby skin around my eye, I will appreciate it, because some people on the other side of the world go through surgery just to have it.

After watching the video, you may be very confused about what I'm going to talk about. It has nothing to do with the idea of time travel, but the idea of identity. If you haven't seen the movie, The Butterfly Effect, one of the most important themes seems to be the idea of identity and how people change when one thing is altered in the past. For example, when the main character goes back in time and changes something, his roommate always seems to change. For instance, at one point he could be labeled as "punk," another he could be labeled "gothic," and one he could be labeled simply normal. This all relates back to the idea of Erikson's Model of Identity: The Identity Crisis. This model discusses adolescence as a time of exploring who we are and how we try on different identities to fit into society. As things change in the roommates life, he changes his identity over and over again. The way the roommate confronts a psychosocial crisis, which is a dilemma concerning our relations to other people, causes different outcomes to occur. If the roommate ever felt isolated from the world around him, this may have caused him to put on a different identity such as being "gothic" and wearing all black. This causes me to think back to my adolescence. I recall putting on different clothing attempting to be something I may not have been. I wanted to try on all different types of identities because I was confused about how to deal with society and the people around me. How did you deal with society throughout adolescence? How did this affect your perception of your own identity?

Okay, so that quote isn't entirely relevant to anything I'm about to say. Except that it involves food. I SUPPOSE that rice could be used as a transition to say how hunger is a problem that plagues billions, and eating 2000 of something is nice when you live in one of those places. Maybe that's why rice is so common in the third world... Anyways, here in the plump first world, we often suffer from the opposite of hunger, as evidenced by the accurate illustration below.But I digress, when the conflict between our seeming desire to put anything near us into our mouths meets with societies demands of physical perfection, eating disorders may arise. Whether these be bulimia, anorexia, or anything in between, they can wreak havoc on our physical and psychological health (but then again they are a result of a psychological irregularity, so I suppose it'd be the other way around). This being 'merica, the simplest and fastest solution is the one we all want. However, the majority of these miracle diets are hogwash, especially anything that involves cleansing, purging, fasting, magical foods, one specific food, or cardboard. These can often lead to even more severe physiological consequences on top of your already weak psychological state, and end up worsening the condition altogether. I know... intense. So long story short, eating is complicated. If you're hungry, you're screwed unless you eat more. If you're fat, you're pretty much screwed either way, unless you have the will power and motivation to eat your vegetables and exercise regularly. Hey that sounds like a good idea for a diet... I should sell that to someone.

The concept of beauty has been distorted. Mass media resources have had a heavy contribution on society's perception of what we need to look like. Who is to say what is beautiful and what is not? When did emaciated models become the preference over the common woman? For women, size four is considered "plus size" while men with a 32-inch waist are also deemed "extra large". What kind of example is this setting for young generations? Evolving the concept of beauty into a distorted mess for young kids is projecting a low image of self-worth. Teenagers, especially girls, are more prone to developing eating disorders than ever before. To improve on the psychological outlook for children, new approaches need to be taken by the media to boost self-esteem and give humankind back the respect they deserve for their bodies. Continuing on this path of degrading average people will only lead to a downward spiral effect of mental disorders and several body distortion problems.

Sure, it's true that genes play a role in our weight. As seen in chapter 11 of the textbook we can see that scientists have identified genes that have to do with metabolism, appetite, and body fat that influence the chance of getting obese. But I would argue that with the exception of a few severe cases of obesity, that our society plays an even bigger role in causing obesity. As pointed out in the textbook, portion distortion has become a major issue in the United States. Just between 1977 and 1996 the size of portions in restaurants has increased by 25 percent. Eating more food has become a social norm, while the nutritional value in food has decreased. I think that even though some people may be genetically pre-disposed to obesity this pre-disposition could be more easily overcome if society didn't play such a huge factor in our bad eating habits. Just think, if king size candy bars, quarter pound hamburgers, and jumbo tubs of popcorn weren't favored in our society, fighting obesity would be a little easier. This is upheld by the internal-external theory which states that obese people are motivated to eat more by external cues like portion size and appearance of food than internal cues such that indicate how hungry they are. This helps us understand the great difficulty involved in fighting obesity; it would take an entire shift in society to reverse the highly influential external cues.

I thought one of the most interesting sections in Chapter 11 was how different societies view beauty. The ideal woman in the western hemisphere differs greatly from the ideal woman in Asia. However, according to the social role theory, biological variables play a role in both men's and women's preferences. Men are traditionally viewed as bigger, stronger, and sources of financial stability whereas women are viewed as providers for children. Although these roles are traditional and seen consistently across many different cultures there are still many differences as to what is "attractive". In the Kayan tribes of Thailand, women beginning at age five deliberately lengthen their necks in order to have a higher level of attractiveness. This lengthening process is done by putting brass rings around the neck, which suppresses the collarbone, shoulders, and rib cage in order to obtain a longer neck. This practice certainly would not be viewed as attractive in women of the western hemisphere, but rather extreme. However, the use of implants, hair extensions and diets by women in the United States may seem rather extreme to other cultures as well. So who can judge upon physical attractiveness and what should be done in order to become attractive? I truly believe that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

One topic I read about during Chapter 8 that I began to wonder about was reading to children in the womb. Many mothers will read children's books to their unborn children aloud to make their voice known even before birth. This makes sense to me because unborn children can hear their mother's voice quite well when they are in the womb, but studies explain another perk of reading. Scientists and many mothers believe that this practice will make babies better readers in the future. I don't know if I believe this statement. Just because a baby is hearing their mother read books doesn't necessary correlate with better reading skills in the future. Reading to me is more about the visual words and using comprehension and other skills to put these words together into meaningful thoughts.

Another similar practice that has exaggerated claims is that playing music can affect the baby. There is the common rumor that playing classical music for your child whether aloud or putting headphones on the belly like in the picture above, can increase your child's IQ or intelligence. Again, I understand that there are benefits of this for the child including calming sensation or introduction to different sounds, but I find it hard to believe that it can affect the child's brain that greatly.

A Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart famously said of pornography that it was hard to define, "but I know it when I see it". The same thing can be said about beauty. There are so many different cultural opinions of beauty across the world. Piercings, rings around the neck, different skin colors, different hair colors, body types, and many other things are deemed attractive in different cultures.
For instance, in America being skinny has become analogous to being beautiful. A slim body is seen as beautiful in our western culture. However in many parts of Africa, larger women are seen as much more beautiful than slim women. In Mauritania, this even leads to force-feeding, and is a social issue similar to the epidemic of eating disorders in America such as bulimia and anorexia.

Click Here to learn more about the issue of force-feeding in Mauritainia

Why do different cultures find such opposing body types appealing? When you think about it from an evolutionary psychologists point of view, finding attractiveness in larger people makes sense. As mammals, we're made to survive, and to do that we must eat. The larger the person, the more well fed and healthier they are. In cultures where food has historically been scarce, large equated to wealth. The problem is, now that cultures are progressing to be more industrial and western, scarce food has become less of a problem and that is why obesity is becoming an issue in these places.
This explains why in America we don't view fat as beauty. Most people have enough to eat, so a large body doesn't equate to wealth. A skinny body, in turn, could equate to many things, such as motivation or health (good diet). Environmental factors have changed the overall view of beauty. It's fascinating how mass psychology can be impacted by factors such as these.

In America, it's hard to avoid the overly skinny models advertised in magazines and television. Although in the U.S. girls feel the pressure to be thin with nicely toned bodies, that isn't true in every culture. In the northwestern part of Africa is a country that values women on the opposite end of the scale. Mauritanian women are forced from an early age to consume up to 16,000 calories every day because men are blissfully drawn to their stretch marks, rolls of fat, and a hefty waistline. In Mauritian the obesity of their wives was seen as symbols of their wealth in their historical culture and since women here typically marry in their early teens, obese girls also have a more mature figure. But there are numerous health problems that also affect these women.
It is reported that although obesity is the standard of beauty in this country, many women that have decided to go along the career track verses marriage and thus have preferred a slimmer shape as well where their mobility isn't limited. While some women still favor this less than obese look, it is said that the America supermodel size of 0 will never be the Mauritanian average.

Force-feeding is now said to be a more uncommon practice in Mauritania, but the full figures are still desired.

http://personalitycafe.com/current-events/67035-mauritania-cultural-beauty-standard-overweight.html

People who are physically attractive are often perceived as more sociable, happier, and more successful than other people. This principle is related to the "halo effect" in that there is a tendency for ratings of one positive characteristic to "spill over" to influence the ratings of other positive characteristics. There is considerable evidence that physical attractiveness impacts employment decision making, with the result that the more attractive an individual, the greater the likelihood that that person will be hired. This generalization is known as the" what is beautiful is good" stereotype. There is some evidence that counters the "beautiful is good" hypothesis with the "beauty is beastly" principle. It seems that unattractive applicants may fare better when found guilty of misbehavior. Supervisors are more likely to perceive attractive employees as failing because of a lack of effort, whereas unattractive employees are more often perceived to fail because of bad luck. Thus, attractive people are held more accountable for poor performance. However, most of this research was done in western societies or individualistic cultures, rather than collective cultures. In a study done to compare perspectives towards physical attractiveness of Indian and American individuals, in Indian individuals, physical attractiveness was not found to affect ratings of qualifications or the likelihood of hiring, yet they did choose to give higher salaries to more attractive applicants. This result indicated that physical attractiveness is indeed seen as a benefit among various cultures. What do you think about this phenomenon?

The SAT is the most used college acceptance test in the United States. Colleges use the test to test the student's ability to abstract think. Colleges are relying on Binet and Simon's theory that intelligence results from the ability to abstract think, adapt, and acquire knowledge from experiences. However, society did not believe these were the only forms of intelligence. In order to still be the most used college acceptance test the SAT added subject tests, but did not change much on their actual main comprehensive SAT test. Since the SAT does not test multiple intelligence is the SAT still useful and fair? According to the SAT this is their response to the question.

The SAT controversy is still in negotiation, but it is still used nationally.