Recently in Assignment #4 Category

An important concept in the biology of sleep is sleep apnea. Sleep apnea occurs at most withtin 20% on the general population. It is a sleep disorder caused by a blockage of the airway during sleep. Sleeping with sleep apnea includes: snoring loudly, gasping for air, and sometimes a halt in breathing for more than 20 seconds. A lack of oxygen and a buildup of carbon dioxide leads to multiple problems including: night sweats, weight gain, hearing loss, irregular heartbeat, and most of all fatigue during the day. Lots of people are not aware of the fact that they have sleep apnea until they go see their doctor and describe some of the symptoms like being tired and gaining weight. Sleep apnea is important to understand and deal with because it raises the overall risk of death by 17%! Children with sleep apnea usually just get their tonsils removed, but for adults with sleep apnea removal of the tonsils usually doesn't work. Thus, many adults with sleep apnea wear a face mask when they sleep that blows air into their nasal passages, forcing the airway to stay open. My stepfather has sleep apnea and has to wear a face mask every night even when we go on vacations. Unfortunately, sleep apnea may not be something adults can get rid of easily, bu there are methods to help ease their sleep, lessen their risk of death, and decrease the feeling of fatigue. I do still wonder though why removing the tonsils of an adult does not usually work to eliminate sleep apnea.

I remember a couple of years back trying to master Howard Berg's Speed Reading program. Being that it was on cassette and that he was miserably boring to listen to, the results weren't too positive. It seems as though there has become more of an emphasis on speed reading today with the always on-the-go lifestyles maintained by most people. This is as well the case for a typical college student as the effort to skim read a chapter the night before an exam is likely an all too familiar feeling. With this, people look for ways to comprehend material in a short period of time, leading to speed-reading programs.

Speed-reading programs are basically courses designed to enhance reading rates. Extraordinary claims like "Double your reading speed and comprehension in just 7 days!" are made and draw in students and professionals who are desperate to get the most out of their hectic days. Most colleges, including the U of M, have speed-reading courses made available to their students. However, these programs are being targeted as "scams" as skeptics argue that comprehension rates drop drastically when attempting to increase reading speed significantly. In regards to the Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, "research conducted on speed reading experts who claim to be able to read at over 1000 words per minute with full comprehension has found that their claims are false (Homa, 1983) and that these two readers who were studied failed miserably in comprehension rates.

Be that as it may, it is in my belief that these programs will always be around as new generations try their hand at increasing their own reading rates. Internet sites like "speedreadingsoftware.com" even rank these courses and have their own top ten! So if we know that these courses are a scam and positive results are exaggerated, why are they still around? Its simple. Money. Companies know that there will always be a consistent set of people looking for that edge and these programs with their bold claims will always draw in an audience. With the rapid advances in technology however, it begs the question, will we ever be able to live up to these extraordinary claims or is it just wishful thinking?

When looking at snopes.com for a claim, I came across one that said "The rubber tires on a car protect you if lightening strikes". It took me by surprise, because until I read this I still believed that!

When reading about this, the claim isn't so far off, but there is a much easier explanation to why cars are "safe" during lightening storms. Instead of it being the rubber tires, because the lightening will bounce off of them and keep you safe. There is really a much simpler explanation.. you are safe because the of small metallic frame of the car. This showing a perfect example of Occam's Razor. If you car gets struck my lightening the metal in the frame of the car will keep you safe from getting the brunt of the shock. You may still get hurt but you will be a lot safer inside of the car than outside. The frame almost acts as a shield taking the charge of the lightening and having it go down to the ground instead of to you.

So no worries, you are still safe in your car when it is storming out. Just know that it isn't because of the rubber tires, but because of the actual car itself! It is our own little shield against mother nature when she is at her worst (okay..well maybe not her worst..) :)

It has been shown that most people prefer average looking people over exotic, unique looking people. Judith Langlois and Lori Roggman state that being average isn't necessarily a bad thing. They found that people preferred average faces 96% of the time! This is quite shocking to most people because everyone seems to have a preference for some unique look. Some believe the reasoning behind this is because people who are average tend to have more symmetrical faces. People are known to be more attracted to symmetrical features. I find this research interesting because it is something that people don't really think of too much about. It never comes to a person's mind that the reason they think someone is attractive is because they are average looking.

.

Researchers and people alike have been debating back and forth on the topic of whether playing violent video games or exposure to violent media lead to aggressive behaviors. As for me, I don't think that playing violent video games or watching violent media will create violent behavior. However, I feel like if kids who tends to already be aggressive, and are expose to violent things, they may in turn be even more violent.

My brother for example, he is the sweetest kid ever. But I remember one or two years ago, he used to be pretty aggressive also for kids his age. Especially when he was watching show like power ranger or any show that has "kung-fu". You can see him kicking thin air and copying the "kung-fu" moves on TV. And when he played with his friends, he would "show off" his kung fu moves. Even though he didn't mean any harm, but his friends of course got pretty upset. Our family was a bit worry about his behavior, and for some time, I was afraid that he would grow up acting like that and be violent. But he is not violent or aggressive at all. His behavior have changed since then. He doesn't kick or punch like he used to. And he just sits still when we watch some sort of action movie; he doesn't act out the moves anymore. So when I watched the video in discussion about the changes in the behaviors of the toddlers, it reminded me of my brother. Kids likes to imitate what they see. Even though they were more aroused after watching power ranger does not necessary mean that it made them violent. They may just simply imitating what they saw.

Also if there is a connection between violent things versus crime, then why was there a decrease in crime as the sales of violent video games went up, according to one of the article we looked at in discussion session? The article says: "The myth that video games cause violent behavior is undermined by scientific research and common sense. According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline, but the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior. Indeed, as the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared: "The state has not produced substantial evidence that ... violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to minors."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/05/10/video-games-dont-cause-children-to-be-violent

I think that genetics play a big role if the person is violent or not. Also the environment that they live in and how they are brought up. Playing violent video games or watching violent media may increase or bring out violent in kids who tend to behave that way already. I also think that kids who are already violent would more likely buy violent video games. So I don't think that violent video games and media plays a direct role in aggressiveness in children.

Do you ever remember having the, "Everyone gets to do Everything and I Never get to do Anything" talk with your parents? I sure do, you probably do too, unless you were the youngest child, in which case, you were the "Everyone that got to do Everything." Those parents who go around buying their teenage kids alcohol and throwing them parties and letting them run amuck are doing nothing close to parenting, they are doing their kids a dis-service. While they may seem like the "Cool parents" at the time, it doesn't do anything for your kids, other than tell them they can brake or disregard rules/laws without consequences. Well my parents were definitely the parents that didn't let us do everything, they did let us do somethings, but they also did their best to use their judgement on what activities they allowed us to participate in or what television programs we were permitted to watch. For instance, I was not allowed to watch such shows as Power Rangers, Rugrats, or Pokemon, this limited my options for television time, it forced me to be more creative with my free time, I turned to music. It also helped shape my values as a child, instead of watching shows like that, I watched programs such as Arthur, which did its best to use a family of aardvarks to teach life lessons to children. Music is still my outlet for creativity, and with the values that were instilled in me, I don't produce music about how horrible life is and how much hate I have toward the world, rather I make music that, while talking about the struggles in everyday life, it focuses on the hope that there is out there. Here is a sample of my music, and how my parents influence on me affected what I'm doing with my life. While I don't believe them prohibiting me from watching Power Rangers was a pivotal point in my development, it was just one of the many good choices they made in raising me with a core set of values.
http://soundcloud.com/robmahlummusic/falling-feat-joe-jaeger

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.
The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that?

This is a direct excerpt from Lawrence Kohlberg's famous "Heinz Steals the Drug" test to study the reasoning behind moral development. His moral development theory broke down the influential thought processes into 3 main different stages: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional morality. The first taps into basing decisions on the rewards and punishments. The conventional morality involves societal values. According to Psychology: Inquiry to Understanding, most adults never pass this conventional level, however, there is the third post level which focuses on the internal moral principles such as fundamental human rights and values.
This theory is important to understanding the thinking that goes into moral questions. A simple example that I have encountered is when a wrong answer on a test was overlooked. I have been faced with this decision and had to choose whether to own up to that mistake by telling the teacher, or ignore the finding and keeping the extra points which would put my grade over to the next grade level for the class. The reward is obvious, but the punishment is merely a misrepresentation and assessment on my ability and knowledge on the subject. So the "wrong" feelings which influence me to choose the first action are more derived from my conventional and postconventional moral levels. Society expects me to be an honest student, and I would not like to risk the relationship I have with my teacher.
But there are some criticisms of Kohlberg's theory such as how the theory focuses only on the thought process of moral dilemmas, not the actions that follow. Someone can choose the "right" decision, but it takes courage to act upon that decision. Rationality is important and does have a major influence in ethical problems, but compassion, courage, and various other factors must also be taken into account. It took courage for Heinz to steal the cure and save his wife.

People have been trying to detect lies effectively for ages. Many people have tried to find a 100 percent accurate way of detecting lies and one of these possible solutions is the polygraph. The polygraph has actually been around since 1915 and has been claimed to be 98 percent accurate. Basically, using sensors attached to the person that connect to the polygraph, the polygraph measures the person's blood pressure, pulse, respiration and the amount of sweating on there palm when they are asked and respond to certain questions they might be lying about. It is thought that when someone is lying these physiological signals will increase.

Using a few of the six principles of critical thinking, the effectiveness of the polygraph can be determined. First replicability. If someone is tested using the polygraph more than once, the polygraph might conclude the person was lying the first time yet telling the truth the next time even though they answered the same question the same way twice. This is because they might have been nervous for the first test yet much calmer and more relaxed the next time. By using the principle of ruling out rival hypothesis, you can come up with another reason for someone failing the test. They might have been telling the truth but nervous about being falsely accused and therefor displayed increased pulse and sweating. Another problem is falsifiability. If someone is convicted of lying by the polygraph test, it cannot be proved that they were actually telling the truth.

Below I found another method of lie detecting that has been used in the past that relies on a few of the same principles of the polygraph: http://antipolygraph.org/
I can relate to this because if someone accuses me of lying and I actually am lying I usually confess to it. I think this is the main reason why the companies of polygraphs are so confident in its effectiveness. Because many people will either tell the truth when under the pressure of a lie detector, or they will confess if it accurately accuses them of lying. There are obviously exceptions to this therefor I would not recommend that the polygraph be used as a sole mean of lie detecting but as a possible mean for getting a confession out of someone.

There is in most cases a grain of truth to many of the false claims brought up in Psychology. The "Mozart Effect" is usually a quick subject for people dispute. Disregarding claims that Mozart's music raises intelligence should be considered a logical reaction to studies that were not able to replicate the effects of such a bold assertion. However, there seems to be a hidden story that is in the background. Some evidence has shown that music in general has aided in recovery of stroke or Parkinson's patients. There could be many reasons for some beliefs that music can help people become smarter or even recover from an illness. Perhaps the effects are purely brought about by an increase in happiness. It could be reasonable to believe that a better attitude allows people to work harder towards a goal. If that is the case then it would provide a fantastic research opportunity to isolate what aspects of music that people enjoy and how different people enjoy different genres of music. But why do people think that Mozart specifically may be the composer for increased intelligence? Interestingly, Mozart is a composer that delves very far into the types of music that people will enjoy. His music is written primarily for the point of pleasing his listeners. It is for this reason that he very rarely wrote music in a minor key. One argument for the Mozart Effect is that his music is extremely complex and teaches critical thinking, but if that were the case, then there are many more composers that would fit the description as well or better than Mozart. Therefore, it would make more sense to believe that it is the emotional impact of music that brings people any changes in intellect or attitude. It would also explain the how it is very difficult to replicate among a large group of people because different music may make different people happy. http://fora.tv/2009/03/17/Glenn_Wilson_The_Power_of_Music#fullprogram

The topic I wanted to talk about today that intrigued me is IQ tests in the United States. The first thing that caught my mind was the Flynn effect, which says that IQ scores have been rising about three points on average per generation. In one of the sections it talks about an author named Arthur Jensen who contended that IQ is highly heritable and that ones environment doesn't play much of a factor. I don't really agree with this. Well obviously genetics plays some role in the cards we are dealt, however it doesn't solely determine our intelligence.

One thing that they mentioned in the book is that diet is a key factor. I agree that diet matters, but the question is how much. It cites malnutrition as being a factor of low IQ score, which I agree with but just because one isn't eating at a deficit, that doesn't mean they are eating healthy either. Americans have a high percentage of the population that is obese, and it seems like they would be healthier if they ate less. So basically if more Americans had better brain habits with regards to diet, I think it would improve IQ scores on average. The point I'm trying to make is that just because we don't eat at a deficit, that doesn't mean our IQ will necessarily benefit.

The best point that was made in the book in my opinion is education. It says that education has a .5-.6 correlation with intelligence and IQ tests. I suppose this is obvious to some people, but to others they still believe like Arthur Jensen that we are constrained by our genes. That's not true obviously considering that the more education that one possess, the more synapses they have in the brain. In conclusion our genes do not constrain us fully but with a good environment, an education, and hard work, one can increase their intelligence and IQ.