Self-control is something we all must deal with from time-to-time. Whether it's not going to that party to stay in and study for a test, or skipping dessert when you're on a diet. Whatever the case maybe, this may all start out from when we are just a child. A portion of the text stated an experiment where they left children in a room with a cookie. They told the children if they could wait 15 minutes they could receive two cookies. Now these kids had to make a choice: wait the 15 minutes and get a better/bigger reward or eat the scrumptious cookie that sits in front of them. What would you do? Reading this remind me of addicts. Many addicts, in recovery, say "the reason I wanted to use is that I wanted the instant gratification." Instant gratification meaning, they wanted it NOW! Reading up on impulse control I found out that people with ADHD are more likely to take the faster and smaller reward. I know I never had been diagnosed with ADHD, but I have always been impulsive myself. I love to live impulsively. The day I turned 16yo I bought a motorcycle with my life savings, not a car. My parents said it was an impulsive buy and I would regret it living in Minnesota. Still have it today, and in the past two years I have put more miles on it then my car. I love that bike. Not all the time, and it may be wrong, but I figure you have more fun eating the first cookie. Thoughts?
April 2012 Archives
I have dealt with a multitude of different phobias over my life so far, and they can really become annoying after awhile once they begin to hinder your daily life. The biggest of these phobias would probably be my fear of heights, which can actually become quite comical sometimes when looking at some of the ridiculous things I avoid because of them (i.e. an open staircase no more than thirty feet high that I have to climb every year to get to my seat at the Daytona 500). However, being a business major and realizing that I could very well find myself in a job in several years located atop one of the many skyscrapers of this world, I now have a new sense of urgency to get rid of my phobia completely.
I was very interested in what Professor Gewirtz had to say about these new methods of using exposure therapy to get rid of these phobias. However, through my many experiences of trying (I use the term "trying" very loosely) to get rid of this phobia, I was a bit skeptical that mere exposure could get rid of this. Then I came across this article which described a new finding that taking a pill of the stress hormone cortisol could help get rid of these phobias when taken during exposure therapy. According to the article, this hormone plays a key role in the body's "fight or flight" response used in fear-provoking situations, and actually opens up and "reprograms" the brain to stop coupling the fear response with the fear provoking stimulus. In the research study described in the article, half of the participants (all of which suffered from acrophobia) were given cortisol while the other half were given a placebo, and the portion that receive the hormone experienced significantly less anxiety levels during further exposure therapy sessions than those that were given the placebo. So while this research is very promising for people wishing to get rid of a fear without truly having to confront it, I still believe that "facing your fears" in really life will still be the best way to get rid of these phobias.
If you desperately want to lose weight, you might be interested in the tapeworm diet. This video is from Tyra Show with the purpose of persuading people to go on a healthy diet:
A tapeworm is a tapelike parasitic flatworm living in the alimentary canal of vertebrates including humans when adult. You can incubate it in your body by swallowing a pill. It will grow in your stomach and eat about a half of what you eat. Ideally, you can eat whatever you want but lose weight! This is all women's dream, isn't it? That's why even though it's illegal in the United States, still many women are willing to go to Mexico, pay $2000, and culture a parasite in their body.
All you can imagine grotesque side effects, however, may hinder you from putting it into action. Dr. D. Scott Smith, Stanford University Parasitologist, warns against trying this diet, for the tapeworm can cause abdominal pain, indigestion, headache and nausea and finally can be deadly. If the tapeworm goes to the brain, it can cause people to have a seizure, to lose the function of motor control, to go psychotic, and so on.
I go on a diet every summer. I once tried to reduce the amount of food by half, but had to quit because my orthostatic hypotension went really bad and made me almost faint at the bookstore. Health first. The right way to lose weight must accompany proper exercise, not a fad diet.
Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Kurasina Kana, Priyanka Chopra, Jennifer Aniston and Halle Berry. Johnny Debb, Tom Cruise ..............
What comes first when you think of them?
Yes, they are the attractive actors around the world.
It feels like that countries might have their own criteria that decide whether the face is attractive or not because all countries pursue distinctive culture.
However, there is one thing in common among those actors I listed.
The answer is that their faces are symmetry.
According to the text book and what we have done at our discussion session, people are more likely to be attracted by average appearance with symmetry outline.
Of course, people who I listed above don't have "average" appearance, but they have better face than average. However, the important thing is that all of them have symmetry outline.
It seems that having a symmetry face outline is the basic factor of being beauty regardless of culture.
Then, whichspecific factors make people more beautiful than others?
These specific factors are the standard of beauty for countries.
Japanese think that beauty skin and straight hair style make people attractive. Most women have soft and flawless skin. In japan, people can get collagen which is good for skin from supermarkets easily. Moreover, japanese think that having some projecting teeth makes a person cutter than before.
Members of the Kayan tribe in the Burma and Thailand thimk that long neck is the attractive point of a person. Since 5 years old, they have circular bracelet around their neck and those bracelets are added as they grow.
In Iran, a sharp little nose is the attractive point of a person's face. This is because, women in Iran wear clothes that cover their body from head to toe so that what they can show to others is face only so that women want to have cute nose not big nose that Iran women normally have. In order to have a sharp little nose, women undergo plastic surgery.
In Brazil, slim body and beautiful nose are the factors that affect people to be attractive or not. Thus, diet pill and plastic surgery are widely spread and performed in the Brazil. For the nose plastic surgery, Brazil is the best in the world.
Finally, people in Indonesia think that slim is important for being attractive.
In order to be a slim person even after pregnant, women wrapped around their body using Stage to suppress waist. Stage works as a corset so that their waist can be reduced to fit into the size of stage or corset.
Like this, beauty standards are different from all over the world.
However, I think along with symmetry face, one factor is same all over the world without cultural differences which is broad mind without bias.
No doubt about it, America is obsessed with body image, and eating disorders are have more than doubled since the 1960's. This is in part due to social media holding stick thin, underweight women as the ideal model of a beautiful woman (the average BMI, or body mass index, of a fashion model is 16.3-17.1), despite the fact that men typically hold curvier women in a healthy weight range to be more attractive (BMI of 18-21). The truth is, men DON'T find unhealthily thin models attractive--men find curves attractive. The average Playmate has a BMI of 18.5, which is still quite thin, however the point is her average bust-waist-hip measurements are 35-23-24 in. This would indicate that men find curves, rather than being stick-thin, attractive. Now, some could argue that an 18.5 BMI is still unrealistically small for many if not most women, but this just leads to the point I wanted to make in the first place: health is attractive. Starving yourself to be underweight doesn't look good probably because being underweight indicates you're barely healthy enough to function, much less reproduce. Curves--but not being unhealthily overweight--are attractive because they indicate feminine health and fertility. If you're properly taking care of yourself, then regardless of what your BMI is, you're as healthy as YOU can be, and you're looking the best that YOU can be, and you shouldn't try to conform yourself to society's standards. I propose that eating disorders have become more and more common because too many women and girls feel pressure to maintain a body shape that is unhealthy for them, and frankly, I find it disgusting that the media continues to promote this by constantly flashing pictures of underweight women that supposedly have an ideal figure. It's wrong, and women should focus on being healthy inside and out rather than trying to force their bodies into an unrealistic shape. I know that many factors contribute to eating disorders beyond pressure from social media, but I argue that this pressure is a major one, and women need to train themselves to become immune to it and focus on what truly matters: health.
My sources include: http://womensenews.org/story/arts/060924/fashion-world-says-too-thin-too-hazardous http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/what-female-figure-do-males-find-the-most-attractive/ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/why-women-need-fat/201202/do-men-find-very-skinny-women-attractive
Eating disorders are a major issue that many people face, mostly teens, but sometimes even adults. I think the reason it is escalated so much is because no matter where we look there are images of what perfection should look like. For example, models always look super thin, usually portray a sexy thin body, and are usually everywhere we look. They are on magazine covers, billboards, clothing stores, and much more. Seeing these types of women make girls even more vulnerable to look "perfect." They want to look just like the models, so they go to any extreme to get there. However, the models that are on magazine covers don't even look like that; most of have them have been airbrushed to look "perfect." Plus, even if they do look like that it is not healthy at all, and the girls that go on the eating disorders are just harming their bodies, when they are usually perfect the way they are. The media is a major cause of eating disorders because they put out various things that say this is the "perfect" body and this what girls should look like. Some girls then get self conscious about themselves because they don't look like that and then use dangerous methods to make themselves look "perfect."
The National Organization for Marriage is at the forefront in the fight against the right for same sex couples to join in civil unions or marriages and adopt children. Their primary argument is that marriage should be "about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.1" The underlying message is that marriage is about raising children and same sex couples are unfit to do that. One of the most eloquent rebuttals to that assertion is given by Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student who was raised by two mothers, in a testimony before the Iowa House of Representatives opposing a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman:
Our book supports his claim, stating, "[H]omosexual and heterosexual adults don't differ in their approach to parenting and are equally likely to provide supportive environments for their children" (p. 440).
I think that the assertion that marriage should not be between two people of the same-sex because it hurts children is an extremely poor one. Not only is there a lack of evidence for that claim, but where does that line of thinking lead to? There is evidence that divorce hurts children, so do you ban divorce to help children? People with higher incomes can provide better for their children, so do you sterilize people with low incomes to help children? People with higher education levels have children who then are better educated, so do you sterilize people who don't get bachelor's degrees to help children? Just because you have a personal opinion on what a perfect family is and what is best for children doesn't mean that the government should try and force your opinion onto other people, especially when that opinion isn't backed with anything.
Moreover, not recognizing civil unions or marriages for same sex couples doesn't keep children from having same-sex parents. Marital status or sexual orientation cannot be used to keep a woman from using a sperm donor to have a child. It's against the law to discriminate against would be adopted parents because they are of the same sex. Furthermore, children who are adopted, especially from developing nations like many of them are, are always going to be better off growing up in the United States with two loving parents, even if they are of the same-sex, then in orphanages.
Self-esteem is related to many aspects of personality. But I am going to discuss mainly about two aspects. What is self-esteem? Self-esteem is basically a collection of our believes of ourselves. Two main concepts that deal with that are self-worthiness, I am a valuable person who is valuable for receiving love and for receiving other people's care. The other part is confidence, I am a capable and able person who is able to do task in front of me.
First, self-esteem is related to an ability of empathizing with others. If a person thinks he is not loved or he is always in trouble and unlucky, he doesn't have enough energy to read other people's mind and he can't respond to it properly. Therefore, he has distorted viewpoint. It makes misunderstanding more and more, which makes a person has difficulty in making healthy social relationship with others.
Moreover, a person with high self-esteem usually has good leadership. If a person has affection for himself, he is warmhearted, so he can understand others' mistakes or bad behavior without blame. At the same time, he can lead to a desirable result coping with others and respecting each person's opinions and their strength.
To conclude, self-esteem is quite closely related to social relationship (empathizing) and leadership. I can't easily conclude this is obvious causation, but it's clear that there is a correlation between self-esteem and these two aspects of personality.
As if job hunting wasn't difficult enough these days, let's add another factor to that resumé: physical attractiveness. While there is no law prohibiting discrimination regarding physical attractiveness, some studies have shown that these superficial biases exist when choosing new employees.
The effect of physical attractiveness depends on the type of job for which the person is being interviewed, and the person's gender. In one study, college students played the role of hiring managers for a fictitious company and were given resumes and photographs of applicants. The position was for a high-level manager, which (like it or not) is traditionally a job done by men. When the researchers reviewed the students' choices, it was found that attractive male applicants were consistently chosen to fill the position. However, attractive women were overtaken by "plain" women in this fake review of potential employees.
The halo effect seemed to work in favor of attractive male employees, but not in the case of their female counterparts. The subjects' reasons for not choosing the attractive women for the position varied, the general consensus was that her feminine qualities would impede her ability to be high-level manger.
Of course, the results of these studies aren't going to be the same for all professions. The halo effect can only take you so far. Someone needs to tell this British women, who laments, "Women hate me because I'm beautiful."
There is a difference between and heathy way to lose weight and a non healthy crash diet. Most of us have seen commercials with ridiculous claims on losing weight fast and getting a ripped six pack. These diets do not keep off the weight lost for long and can be very dangerous to your health. The right diet and exercise plan over a long period of time is the right way to lose weight. The media shows you so many false realities on what men and women are suppose to look like. This causes people to try crash diets to lose weight that lead to health problems and even death. This video shows some extreme cases of anorexia and bulimia. Hope you enjoyed reading my post and next time you decide to go on a diet make sure you are doing it the right way!
As I was reading the post prompts, I found the opportunity to test my own unconscious bias/prejudice intriguing. The process for taking the IAT was very straightforward, simply pressing the 'e' or 'i' keys to put given words into designated categories.
While I was reading the description of the test in the textbook, I wondered if it created biases rather than measuring them. After taking it, though, I can see that this would not be the case. I do question whether or not one can truly measure an unconscious prejudice based on the amount of time it takes you to categorize the given words. As the book pointed out, there doesn't appear to be a correlation between the two, and using the lack of correlation as proof makes the test's hypothesis difficult to falsify.
It's very interesting that the test could detect that I preferred the policy option that I did. One might suspect that because the test asks you your preference outright and then uses the categorization to report your preference that it would simply retort back the selection that you clicked as a preference. Because the test is not administered by humans, but by computer instead, I highly doubt that the test is that subjective. I encourage you guys to click the IAT link above and try it yourself. From my understanding, test prompts vary, so you may not get the political policy one.
According to the IAT, I have a slight preference for black people over white people. However, the IAT found I have a moderate preference for Rick Santorum over Herman Cain. This proves to be very interesting to me because Rick Santorum is white and Herman Cain is black. I don't completely understand how they can come to this conclusion. The way the system works is to press "K" whenever a picture of the specific subject or a "good word" (love, friend, success, etc.) appears, and to press "D" whenever the other subject or a "bad word" (hate, terrible, enemy, etc.) appear. I believe they judge your beliefs off of how long it takes you to answer and how many errors you make in each set. Their results would conclude I answered the questions faster when "black people" or "Rick Santorum" was mixed in with "good words". These results seem absolutely ridiculous. I don't believe it is accurate to assume I have a preference for either of these subjects based off of me making more or less mistakes when seeing quick images appear on screen. I believe many people have preferences/prejudices over liking white or black people more, but I don't believe this test is the one to prove it. I don't think the IAT is very credible but it is funny to see what this data reveals.
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, according to the textbook, is similar to having a song stuck in our heads. People suffering from OCD's brains contain "persistent ideas, thoughts, or impulses that are unwanted and inappropriate and cause marked distress." These extreme obsessions lead to the compulsive behavior of repeatedly doing something. Possible rituals people with OCD struggle with include repeating touching of objects, performing tasks in specific ways every time, repeated arranging/rearranging objects.
This video displays just on case of OCD. Other people suffering from OCD act differently. Rather than obsession of washing hands and staying away from germs, some might repeatedly touch objects before grabbing/moving them. "One patient", regarded in the textbook, "spent 15-18 hours per day washing his hands, showering, getting dressed, and cleaning money."
However many people suffering from OCD still find they can be successful. Famous celebrities like Cameron Diaz, Billy Bob Thornton, and David Beckham all suffer from this disorder and have found high levels of success.
You've been there before. You're standing in a public place and a stranger approaches you. They stand right next to you, in your "personal distance" (1 ½ - 4 feet away). You wonder why they're so close, but you stand your ground. Then they decide to start a conversation, and they are wayyyyyy too close. What could be worse? Their breath smells, of course. Ever notice how people that have really bad breath always want to tell you secrets? Why is that?
According to the textbook, there are 4 levels of personal space. Public distance, 12 or more feet, is known for public speaking or a professor in lecture. Social distance, 4 to 12 feet, used for when you meet someone knew (obviously the person in the situation above is unaware of this). Personal distance, 1 ½ to 4 feet away, is reserved for your close friends and significant others. Intimate distance, 1 ½ feet or less, is saved for kissing, hugging, whispering, and affectionate touch.
So why is it that not everyone is aware of these four levels and find the need to make you feel uncomfortable? When you're at a party and a guy/girl decides to make you their "target" for the night. Notice the intimate touching and that they are coming way too close?
I'm just saying... strangers should take notes on these levels of personal space.
Conformity - the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms. So why do people want to be like everyone else? The textbook says that social pressure plays a role in conforming to be like others.
When you were growing up did you ever do something like your friends and get in trouble? Your mom always said the same thing... "If _____ jumped off a bridge, would you?" Answering that question with "Depends, how high is the bridge?" probably isn't the answer your mom is looking for.
According to a study by Gregory Berns and his colleagues, participants went along with the other's answers 41 percent of the time, regardless of whether the answer was right or wrong.
The textbook describes different individual, cultural and gender differences that contribute to conformity. People with low self-esteem are more prone to conforming, as well as Asians. In the past, women have been known to conform more than men. Nowadays gender plays little to no role in conformity.
So why conform? People always post things on Facebook and other social media sites saying that they want to be original but end up falling in line and doing things just like everyone else.
"You were born an original, don't die a copy."
When you were younger, you know the "cool kids" don't usually have glasses and braces, all you wanted was to be popular.We all want to be a part of something; we don't want to be that person on the side that no one talks to or likes. But why do we feel that way? Why do we form groups? According to out textbook being cut off from the social contract "hurts" literally and figuratively. Social isolation can lead to self-destruction or even impair our mental functioning. To be needed means that we want affection, we want that feeling that someone cares about us and that we make a difference in their life. All of that is important to our self-esteem, without it, as stated earlier it could lead to self-destruction.
Most of us have also done stupid things just because others said we should. You were trying to do something to make you feel like you belonged, even though you knew it may have been a bad idea. Some people may or may not notice but most of our friends are our friends because we have something in common, something to talk about and not feel like you are the only person feeling like that. But if everyone took that fact into account, we would all be friends because we all have that need to belong. Things other people say can also damage our self esteem and make us feel different and out of place.
Why children have different personality in a family? They living in the same environment, some children even share the same genes. However, the order of they came to this world decided the character of each one.
In recent years, the Harvard University historian and psychologist Frank Sulloway, tested this argument in 894 scientists, 893 members of the French National Assembly, 62 leaders of the reform movement in the United States, as well as 700 people of the Protestant Reformation in Europe in order to use this theory to more areas.
Sulloway suggested, the eldest children are more diligent, responsible and conservative, they tend to be successful in life; later-born children are more likely to accept radical and innovative thinking and more likely to become rebels. For many parents, this theory sounds true. The author of the book Sibling Rivalry, Dr. Richard Wolfson -a child psychologist, said: "There is evidence show that birth order do influences personality, and common sense tells us this is true. Sulloway leads this theory to an extreme. "
Sulloway concluded that the point is that the eldest children treated with favour from parents, they tend to maintain the status so that they respect for authority. Sulloway said in an interview on the Internet: in general, the eldest children tend to prepared work diligently, and do better at school.
The later-born child have more difficult task, since the duty of responsible in the family has been taken by their older brother/sister, they either to compete for this position, or choose another way to find suitable position to avoid direct competition in their family. Sulloway said: "later-born children are more likely to accept radical innovation in the field of science and social.
I think people believe the theory because it is happened in real life, and we can confirm that in ourselves' family. Even there is some special case, the idea still supported by majority.
The Special Olympics is a program, which prides itself in promoting people with handicaps of physical or mental nature to achieve what they may consider to be impossible. During the summers I work with our local group as a part of their Equestrian team and have met some outstanding people. For example the girl that I specifically work with in the program has a physical handicap, which binds her to a wheel chair. She had always dreamed of riding a horse, but was extremely afraid about putting herself in the position of being dependent on three mentors and a potentially unpredictable animal. The first day she walked one lap of the ring, with her Dad by her side, and three other people hanging on. By the day she competed in the Special Olympics, she was able to ride with us only present as spotters. She is an amazing and inspiring girl who I am lucky to have the chance to know. Now what if through a genetic testing procedure called Prenatal testing her parents had figured out that she would have come out with this handicap? Seeing as prenatal testing makes it possible to identify fetuses that will have disabilities like hers, or mental retardation, would knowing have caused them to abort her supposedly undesirable fetus? Determining her worth by her genetics alone. This selective abortion technique could also be construed as a modern form of Eugenics, and the breeding of a genetically superior race. Views like this put a twist on not only the ethical debate of genetics but provides insight into the ethics of abortion as well.
One of my favorite TV shows is Friends: a 90's sitcom about six friends who live in New York. One of the reasons I love to watch this show is the interesting characters. I now realize the characters are so engaging because of the writers' excellent use of Big 5 Personality profiles for the characters. Here I will analyze three of the characters from friends: Monica, Joey and Pheobe.
Monica (pictured third from the right) is very high in conscientiousness. She is very dependable and reliable, she has to win, and her apartment is always perfectly organized and clean. In one episode she can't sleep because she knows that her shoes aren't put away. She is also high in neuroticism, prone to worry and stress. Monica provides some stability to the show and always offers a clean apartment for everyone to hang out at and being on top of plans for holidays.
Joey (pictured second from the right) is very low in conscientiousness, his apartment is always a mess and he is known to forget to do things, like show up to the Macy's day parade he is to appear on as a star of Days of our Lives. He is also very high in extraversion, and hits on basically every girl he meets. Joey's character provides an interesting comedic element to the show, especially when his low conscientiousness clashes with Monica's plans.
Pheobe (pictured on the far right) is very high in openness to experience. One of the most unusual characters on the show, she is very creative and unconventional. She always has crazy ideas, and thinks in very different ways from the other characters on the show. In one episode, she tries to teach Joey to play the guitar, and her unconventional character is portrayed very well. She doesn't actually know the names of the chords, however, but has just made up names based on what her hand looks like playing them. She uses names like: "Turkey Leg," "Old Lady," and "Bear Claw." Her very diverse way of looking at the world leads to many funny moments on the show.
Ok, let's set up a situation first.
Situation: You just saw a person who is almost dying at the moment on the street and you're walking down the street toward him/her.
Do you think you would definitely help him/her?
Many people might think they would help him/her as soon as they catch the scene.
I thought so too before i watched this clip down here.
In the video, you may see things are quite different in reality, and i think this reality fact is really sad.
From the video, we can observe that people are actually just passing by the scene and completely ignore the person.
This is an example of the bystander effect.
The bystander effect describes the phenomenon in which less people would stand up and help a person in distress when there are more people around. When an emergency situation occurs, more people would take an action if there are few or no other people around.
It basically tells us that even if we are such a nice person, we might not show the nice side of us when there are people around and when we don't have the responsibility to take care of that person.
More interesting thing however is i think that people actually did not follow the bystander effect when the actor is wearing a nice suit. People in 7 seconds helped the actor who was acting out as if he was almost dying on the street.
I think this last scene helps out even more with our understanding of social psychology. We even act differently (off of the bystander effect theory) when the person dying looks more professional and somehow "fitted in the society."
This phenomenon totally made me angry, but I could not be 100% sure that I would definitely help because i have never been in that kind of position yet.
But I'm hoping that I do not follow the bystander effect theory and actually help out the person in distress.
The bystander effect occurs when individuals do not offer any means of help in an emergency situation to the victim when other people are present at the scene. Often people believe that it is safe to be in the company of others in a dangerous situation. For example, let's say that a few 13-year-old girls want to go to the mall by themselves. The way that they plead with their parents is by saying, "We will be okay, and there are hundreds of people around us. Nobody will hurt us." Parents sometimes agree and think that it is safe since there are so many people around and nothing bad will happen to their kids. However, the bystander effect proves that this is not always true. What if a child predator in the mall parking lot swooped up the three girls? What would you do in that situation? Would you rush and help and call 911 or would you just assume that someone else had already called the police so therefore it's not your responsibility? Many would think that since there is dozens of people around, somebody else would take action. However, the bystander effect proves that wrong. There has been much research that has found that people are less likely to take action in these instances when there are a lot of other people present. According to our textbook, there are two factors that explain bystander nonintervention. The first is pluralistic ignorance. This is defined as the error of assuming that no one in a group perceives things as we do. Sometimes when we don't see anybody intervening during an emergency, we believe that is actually not an emergency. The second factor that contributes to the bystander effect is the diffusion of responsibility. This is defined as the reduction in feelings of personal responsibility in the presence of others. It's interesting that there are actual obstacles that prevent us from intervening.
Five years from now, I think the one concept in psychology I will remember most is probably the study of personality. As a growing teenager, I noticed that my peers were constantly changing in their self-image and how they portray themselves and what stereotypes they chose to fit. One year, two friends may have so much in common, and then the next year they can go their separate ways, and I notice we always used the excuse that "people change." Although it is true that people may change in their beliefs and views of the world, I learned through this course that personality is a permanent thing, something that we are all born with genetically. It was fascinating to learn about Oskar Stohr and Jack Yufe, the two identical twins separated at birth who had extremely identical personalities yet very distinct political views. Having never been in contact with one another, their personalities were obviously not influenced by their environment but their genetic make-up. Contributing to the nature versus nurture debate, personality is definitely a thing of nature. I will probably carry this fact with me all throughout life, knowing that even though people may seem to change, they really have not because their personalities are permanent, since we are all born with them and they all level out as we get older. Maybe people do not seem to "change" as much as we thought afterall.
One thing that I found to be extremely interesting in discussion this week, was the subject of conformity. We watched that video all about how vast majority of students, all but one, were planted in the room and told to choose the wrong answers to see if the real subject would stick to their beliefs and answer with the obvious correct answer or fall into the group and answer with the incorrect response simply to not feel out of place. It was fascinating to me because, there were so few people who actually answered with the correct responses the entire time where as all the other subjects succumbed to the group pressure. Even the one man who claimed he was the most "non-conformist" and he prided himself on that fact. He actually conformed faster than most of the other participants. So, why do they all conform? the subtle pressure just seemed to be too much. It is very difficult to be the only one in the group who does not agree. When they interviewed the participants afterward they all felt the same way. It was just too hard to be the only one who did not agree. It left me with a question. Would I conform to the group pressure in that situation? Certainly the situational influences had a great impact. So what would I do...hard to say. I would like to think that I, along with the rest of the population, would not give in to the pressure. Then we can pride ourselves on our will power, but in that pressure packed situation, would I? Would you?
http://youtu.be/rPH7JwhsfEo Thinking About Intelligence Chapter 9
Please watch the above video. I found this competition between what is deemed intelligence and what is deemed creativity to be fascinating. Several people in the experiment thought they would do quite well because they were so intelligent, but after a bit they found creativity is something different. Where does creativity come from? Is it a part of the genetic material in which intelligence originates? Is creativity more of a personality trait? Right up there with extraversion and openness to experience? Are you not as open if you are super intelligent? I cannot prove or disprove correlation for either of these. I cannot because that is intelligence I do not have. This area is extremely interesting to explore. What do you think?
Coming from a family where divorces are very common, I was extremely interested to read chapter 10: Human Development. Society believes that divorce negatively affects children, but "... studies show that the substantial majority of children survive their parents' divorce without long-term emotional damage" (391). In my situation, this is true as my parents divorced when I was quite young, my mother remarried, and I was raised by her and my step-dad whom I call "dad" and consider him to fully be my father as he has raised me for the majority of my life. I believe myself and my siblings to be more open-minded when it comes to others' home lives. This leads me to my next point: children coming from non-traditional families do not suffer as much as society thinks that we do. In fact, "children raised by same-sex couples don't differ from those raised by opposite-sex couples in social adjustment outcomes academic performance, or sexual orientation" (390). My argument is that society and politicians need to stop making assumptions about how children will behave based on whether or not they come from a "traditional" family. In fact, 55% of American children are being raised in divorced, single parent, remarried, or same-sex households. You can not say that 55% of American children will turn out to be bad eggs!
While reading Chapter 15 on Psychological Disorders, I thought it was interesting to learn the history of mental illnesses and how they were cured, and how mental illnesses are present in many different societies all around the world.
In high school, we were required to read books like The Crucible, books that center around the witch hunts of the Middle Ages. From reading these books, I have gained general knowledge on the topic about witch hunts. Those who exhibited strange and odd qualities were very suspicious in society then. In The Crucible, though, the characters would claim others who they disliked to be witches so they would be executed. One can only imagine the disorder that was caused back then due to the witch hunts. The textbook notes the demonic model where mental disorders were attributed to evil spirits in the body. Because of this model, it led to a series of executions, exorcisms and other tests, like the "dunking test."
I also found it interesting to learn about the different kinds of "mental disorders" that are supposedly present in different cultures and societies. There was a table present in the textbook with the names of different syndromes in different societies and their descriptions. For example, there is a syndrome called "Windigo" present in Native Americans in Central and Northeastern Canada in which one feels a "morbid state of anxiety with fears of becoming a cannibal." This raises a question I have about mental disorders. How do they come about and how are they formed? I agree with the textbook that there is a strong factor of social contagion, where if one begins to experience symptoms of a condition, others will begin to follow suit. But that can't be said for those who are diagnosed with serious and harmful conditions.
In high school, there is no doubt that many kids text during class even when they are repeatedly threatened with the fact that their phones will be confiscated. Even so, many kids continue to use their phones without their teachers knowing. How is this possible? Sometimes when a phone vibrates it is audible enough that the teacher would know, and obviously the ringer can't be on... Or can it?
With TeenBuzz, kids know when they have received a text. The teacher is left completely clueless. I remember in high school constantly hearing a high-pitched ringing noise and looking around to see the smug faces of all my peers. Obviously someone was using their phone, but it was hard to pinpoint who. Most importantly, the teacher remained completely oblivious because their ears' hearing ability was significantly lower than ours. Thank goodness for that, so many kids would have wound in up detention.
As we age, our senses decrease. It's almost as though kids have super-hearing senses. There are many cases where humans, indeed, have super senses. For example, this man named Daniel Kish uses his super-hearing skills to make up for his inability to see.
I've always been a pretty skeptical person. I don't generally believe things people say, and I'm not very gullible. I'm not saying that I don't believe anything at all, or that I think people are constantly lying, but in society people take shortcuts in order to get ahead, and other people pay the price. I don't know about you, but I would prefer not to be one of those people. In all honesty, I couldn't afford it.
The fact that our book emphasizes the six scientific principles of thinking--Rival hypotheses, correlation/causation, falsifiability, replicability, extraordinary claims, and Occam's Razor--makes me feel a lot better about my skepticism, as well as give me ways to evaluate things I may or may not believe. The six principles give me a way to evaluate the world and organize the unknown. I can briefly challenge new concepts, and accept them for what they are or take them with a grain of salt. While I'm certain that many of the things we've covered in PSY 1001 will stick with me throughout life, I can use the six principles every day.
I ride the bus to the university everyday. I have really been able to plug into my cognitive miser lately. I think I am just more aware of my thoughts now that I have taken this introductory course of psychology. I am a compassionate person, generally and really have a hard time with judgmental people, but here in the middle of the 3A bus on Como Avenue, I am lurking as a cognitive miser. Look at that persons hair. I don't like that dress. Bet he's a brat. He must be late for everything. You get the picture. All of these lazy thoughts. There is no scientific information to back any of these thoughts that are most assuredly not accurate.Perhaps I'm just making myself feel better by noticing flaws, my thought, about others. Anyway, I don't believe there is any way to monitor these seemingly automatic thoughts. I am trying not to do it. I am trying not to be biased in my thoughts. I bet if I knew what others were thinking about me I might be more careful. To error is human, to forgive, divine. I apologize for my thoughtshttp://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/funny-pictures-only-one-cat-had-a-cheeseburger.jpg What kind of unmonitored thoughts is the kitten on the right having?
One of the things we kept coming back to in psychology was the idea that correlation does not always mean causation. This concept will stay with me five years into the future, because it came up with many of the experiments we studied, as well as in several widely believed concepts that aren't necessarily true. Now, when I hear about a correlation between two things, I never assume the first variable caused the second. I always consider that the second could have caused the first, that a third variable could have caused an increase in both, or that they may not be related at all and two separate variable caused them to increase individually.
Maybe I'm just skeptical, but I also keep the correlation/causation idea in mind when hearing news stories about different things that cause cancer or any various number of other diseases. I need to know more information, like is there just a correlation between the variable and cancer? Was any lab testing done to check this theory? Were the results replicated? I think too often, news stations jump to conclusions regarding causal relationships, and I will no longer blindly believe everything they tell me.
I really love the section on Abnormal psychology. I love it because it has been a way of life for me. This is really my norm. I am used to helping and being interactive with people dealing with a wide variety of mental illnesses. My eldest daughter has a severe panic disorder and is prone to having panic attacks. I should qualify this by saying that it has improved greatly from its initial onset as a 16 year old high school student.She has never been able to hold down a job for long as she experiences horrible panic attacks that preclude her from working efficiently. Some bosses have tried to work with her situation, but eventually they are baffled by it and decide they don't want this on the job site. The more she experiences these attacks, the more they are reinforced.
My oldest son has generalized depression and is bi-polar. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? He also has struggled with ADHD. He struggled with it throughout his school career and even into adulthood. Now at the mature age of thirty he is getting ready to go back to college and finish his degree. He works at the Home Depot service desk, and his ADHD is a positive thing. He can service more customers on the phone and in person than anyone else in the division. So what is often thought to be a negative can work for the good if you look at it through positive eyes.
My middle daughter has an anxiety disorder. She runs and exercises to help keep it in check. She takes meds and deals with it using humor. Sometimes it is overwhelming and she takes a step back and begins once again.
My youngest son has generalized depression and OCD. He has struggled much. He gets stuck on his weight, even though he is thin and buff. If you know what I mean. We laugh because if we watch movies together he picks his eyebrows out. I go crazy and he looks at me. He also takes meds and goes up and down, back and forth. So you see it is all in the family. Both genetically and environmentally.
I have worked with clients with Borderline Personality Disorder and found this to be such a challenge. But in a good way. I've learned so much about human nature and compassion. Meeting people where they are at matters most. I learned so much clinical information in this class. I put that with all my life experience and it is a complete whole. I can understand these disorders from all angles. Thank you for your efforts to help me learn.
I took a psychology class in high school and some of the things that sparked my interest then were the Freudian theories of the unconscious and the idea of memory. Our brains influence our thinking and memory an incredible amount. In college, I think the one thing that struck me the most was the amount that our parents, genes, and environments shape us a person. I had a general understanding of nature vs. nurture, but this course went into it SO much more from so many different angles. The whole section on attachment really hit home. I have a very secure attachment with my mother, but my father is a completely different story. That explains so much about why I am the way I am. It helps explain the way I operate and the way I view others. There are obviously a multitude of factors to consider when looking at why I am the way I am, but I didn't think that my history with my parents influenced my behavior SO much. It's like me looking at myself in the mirror but seeing a different person - some things are the same, but some things are completely different. But overall, it's a more complete reflection.
As a human, we live in this world and we have our demand. Not only eat, drink and sleep to make us survive, we also need some higher needs to satisfied, love is a good one we all want.
But how do we deal with love? Our relationship sometimes going well and sometimes going bad, what is the component of a good love? In Robert Sternberg's triangular theory of love, he proposed three major elements of love: Intimacy, passion and commitment. I believe in this theory because it is reasonable for the shape of good love in my mind, that is you met a person and both of you like each other (no matter physically or mentally), and then passion created some chemical sparks between you two. Finally, if both of you love to make commitment to each other? Bang! Congratulation, consummate love has been created.
But in the reality, things not always come up to ours expectation, you will not approaching consummate love if your relationship are missing component of Intimacy out of three, what you get is Fatuous love. But if you are missing passion, you will get companionate love. Without commitment, which is romantic love that I believe it is the most common situation we had in relationship right now in collage.
The study of consummate love is very interesting subject which I will use my whole life to learn it and pursue it.
I think that 5 years from now I will most likely remember the behavioral psychology unit, specifically classical conditioning. This unit sticks out most to me because it is something that we experience as humans daily. After learning about this unit every time I watch a commercial I start to figure out what the stimulus and responses are. This was also a unit that I thought was very important because as humans our brains can often be like sponges and we absorb a lot of things and sometimes we don't realize how the things we are exposed to affect or influence us and I think it is in our best interest to be aware of that. When I become a parent in the future I think I will also take what I've learned in this unit to make sure my children are not getting wrong messages from their environment and the things they watch on television. I also think this lesson can help with parenting and raising your child.
In five years from now when I look back and think about this psychology class, I'm mostly going to remember the section we learned about emotion and motivation. As I develop more relationships in the future, it is interesting to know the science behind it and why I am attracted to some people. Many people believe that opposites attract, that is not entirely true. People actually prefer others who are similar, like attracts like. I think it's interesting how people from all sorts of different cultures have different views on what's attractive. Also, the fact that the attitude towards what is beautiful frequently shifts over historical time is very interesting. I've also learned what is necessary to form good relationships with others. It is extremely important that each person is putting equally amount of effort into a relationship. Without reciprocity, relationships are not able to move into deeper levels. Robert Sternberg's believes in his triangular theory of love, which includes intimacy, passion, and commitment. This model gives a descriptive view on love types and provides an explanation for why people fall in love. This psychology class has given me so much information about relationships and how they function. Relationships are a vital part to human lives and this course has provided me lots of knowledge to which I can use in my daily life.
As Professor Gonzales mentioned in her lecture, culture had long been neglected and less developed in psychological field of study. Until recently, I also had no chance to think this topic over because I lived in quite a homogeneous culture: I am from East Asia. If you are familiar with these terms from the lecture, it is a society that is collectivistic rather than individualistic, homogeneous rather than heterogeneous, and harmonious rather than competitive.
It's been four and a half months since I came to the United States but I'm still surprised to encounter these cultural differences. For example, Westerners are more likely to fall into the trap of Fundamental Attribution Error than Asians. Recently, an Olympic gold medalist's doctoral thesis plagiarism was a big issue in my country. To make matters worse, he is a member of International Olympic Committee and recently elected lawmaker. When I explained this case to my friends who had no idea who he was, my European American friends tended to describe him as an immoral, irresponsible, and stupid person whereas Asian American friends tended to mention his athletic background, though all of them agreed his behavior was unforgivable. It was an exciting moment where I applied what I learned to the real world.
The idiographic approach to understanding other's personalities is something I've learned in this Psychology 1001 course that has stuck with me. Previous to learning this, I never actually considered how someone's personality could affect their day-to-day lives. This concept has helped me understand that because someone you run into throughout your day/ in your life is different than you, does not mean you should judge them. They're background, family history, and personal experiences have had an impact on their personality and may have altered who they are as a person.
Personality differences in people represent the different upbringings and life experiences each of us has throughout our life. Without these unique experiences, everyone would be a carbon-copy of another personality-wise. Our life stories shape our different personality traits creating an interesting world.
I've learned that it is unfair to judge someone based on their behaviors without having an understanding of where these behaviors stemmed from. Only after knowing someone's life story or "walking a mile in their shoes" would it then be fair to judge their actions.
Selective attention is the process of selecting one sensory channel and ignoring or minimizing others.
I read the chapter 4 (sensation and perception) very interestingly because I realized so many things from the chapter.
When I learned the chapter, I wanted to tell some of my stubborn friends that they should know that what they think they saw or experienced can be twisted or incorrect sometimes.
Maybe it can be bad sometimes ,but now I tend to doubt first whenever selective attention might occurred in the place.
Selective attention theory is definitely what I would not forget during my life time because it was so true to me. I tend to fall into the trap of selective attention and I think it can be because I'm really bad at multitasking. I'm one of the people who have to focus one thing at a time. I think I easily give my attention to a certain thing and lose others.
So for me, learning about this theory was good. I now know it's normal for humans ;)
here is a not that great example because many could figure it out, but personally I could not.
I failed at seeing it. Watch this youtube for fun! I hope you enjoy.
Despite the vast amount of different fields of psychology we have examined and the many theories and experiments within each one, I've noticed that one central idea seems to be constantly be brought up as a way to combat psychological problems or just improve your daily life, and that is to stay happy and positive. Everybody goes through a lot of different things in their lives, and through everything we've learned, this simple (well, maybe not so simple) task of keeping a good attitude with good expectations seems to be the best way to get us through things.
I have always seemed to add way to much stress to my life, whether I am worrying too much about an upcoming event or trying to avoid situations that I don't want to deal with. Sometimes it is very hard to maintain calmness and a good attitude. However, when looking at the effects that feeling alone can have on you, it shows just how much your attitudes and expectations can change things for the better. For example, throughout nearly every chapter of the book, there seemed to always be some crazy experiment in which a person given a placebo would actually exhibit some seemingly biological effects just because he or she had changed their thoughts. On top of this, we have just recently been learning about how a good, calm attitude can reap countless health benefits for you in the long run, even warding off some horrible diseases that we may not even associate with our feelings. Even simply smiling when you don't even want to smile (facial-feedback hypothesis) can biologically change your emotions for the better!
Everybody on this Earth experiences a tremendous amount of hurdles in their lifetime, and keeping a good attitude can get you through a lot of these problems. I had always thought that being happy was just good because it made you feel better for the time being, but the long-term effects it can bring really surprised me. It may seem hard at times, but if you just keep smiling, things may just figure themselves out for you.
One subject covered in the many discussed this semester in lecture was the theory of attachment. I found this theory to be particularly interesting as it correlated perfectly with my FSOS 1201 course on life span and human development. As covered there are three major types of attachment with a fourth that is less common. These include: secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-anxious attachment, and the fourth is disorganized. Most babies qualify for the secure attachment model. They are generally happy, giggly babies. These babies when placed in the strange situation test exhibit discomfort when their parent leaves but are immediately happy to see their care giver return. This form of attachment surfaces in many facets of the behavior of the infant. Their overall disposition being one aspect affected, and also their development, being a well-cared for and attended baby sets you up for greater success later. The parent is the secure base for the child. When this child is a completely new environment with their mom, the world is not so scary. The baby will venture out to play with the new toys and be naturally curious. This behavior is fine with the infant because mom is right there in case anything scary happens, and mom makes everything okay, or at least, less scary. I was recently out to a restaurant and saw this behavior exhibited to a perfection. There was an adorable one year old little boy who was affectionately called "trouble" by his parents for his overwhelming energy and curiosity. This infant felt comfortable exploring and walking further distances away from hi parents because he knew that mom and dad were right there if anything got scary and he could go run and hide in their arms. It was so cool to see a real life example on a Saturday morning of a lecture topic with no prompting by a video or anything. Just human nature and development at work.
The one concept that I think I remember 5 years from now is when we learned about developmental psychology. That is because this is the stuff that interests me, it's interesting to see how someone develops from the time they are born to adulthood. Another reason human development interests me is because I have a younger brother who is 4 years old, and it's fascinating to know what was going through his mind when he was a baby and as he was getting older. Also, knowing the reason why he does various things and understanding the concept behind it. One thing that stuck out the most from the development chapter was Piaget's stages of development. That is because knowing the different methods and knowing what each stage consists of is fascinating. And it's cool to see my brother go through each stage and know what is happening, plus realizing when he goes from one stage to the next. It's nice that I get to see what I learned on a first hand bases because I get to see my brother grow up in front of me and know what stages and how he is developing.
Through out the term, I think I would remember concepts I learned at the child psychology for a long time. Unfortunately, it is not because I wanna be an expert in that area (I wanna study forensic psychology later on), but because I studied that part by applying theories we learned to my childhood.
I have some pictures which show object permanence in one year old baby. That picture was taken when I was one year old. My parents leave me in stroller on the middle of the road and hid behind the tree. And took a picture of me how I react to that. My response was divided into three stages first: look aroud second: freeze third: cry. I asked my mom why she took those pictures and she said "It was fun!" Like this, I have some other pictures related to Piaget's theory.
Since I was young, I have decided to have four kids! I don't know why but I decided in that way and I still want to have four babies if I can, Obviously, it would be really burdensome to take care all of them and raise them properly. However, I think if I apply concepts that I have learned at the development psychology, I could raise my kids very well!
Over the course of PSY1001, I gained a deeper understanding of how the human mind thinks and operates. Oddly though, out of all the grand concepts we learned, from emotion to intelligence, I continue to be fascinated by two little concepts, functional fixedness and mental sets. I will remember these concepts well into the future because they are reminders of how much we can get stuck at looking at things, people or situations in just one way, literally or figuratively. When I meet a person who is difficult to deal with, I will avoid functional fixedness by remembering that there are multiple ways of approaching them. Just as there are creative uses for duct tape, just as there are various ways to solve a problem. Overcoming functional fixedness and mental sets are important because they help us to avoid getting stuck in the same rut over and over again. MacGyver didn't get out of sticky situations by using paperclips as paperclips. With the knowledge I've gained across all chapters in this class, I hope to avoid the error functional fixedness as I continue navigating through life and college.
Some (repeat, some) redneck/white trash repairs are great examples of overcoming functional fixedness. Yep, that's a drill and a pair of scissors.
The concept of mental illness is a difficult concept for many people to grasp. Its defining lines are subjective and fuzzy, and the entire field often seems clouded and poorly defined. These characteristics, however, make this field extremely intriguing. Learning how psychologists and psychiatrists define and diagnose mental illness is one thing I know will affect the way I view people, communities, and the intricate connections between the two for the rest of my life.
The "Four Ds" often used as guidelines for determining mental illness - Deviance, Distress, Dysfunction, and Danger - are very subjective terms. In studying the "Four Ds", we were told to keep the subjectivity of these terms in mind, and to consider the way the definition of these terms may change over cultural lines. I think that, as we move closer to globalization, these definitions will become cloudier. The process of globalization will work to bring cultures together, which will change the way we view other cultures. This will primarily affect the 'deviance' portion of the diagnosing process, and I believe it will become much more relevant as our technology improves and we move closer to globalization.
I am hoping to study sociology and advertising (that is, how advertising affects people of different cultures, etc.) I can certainly see myself using this information in the near future. Furthermore, I can see the relevance that these topics will soon have across the globe, and throughout many different areas of work. Knowing these things, and learning the skills of defining a mental state (as we have been learning for much of this semester) will certainly become more relevant within the next five years. Furthermore, I am confident that this field will continue to grow and change, affecting the way we interact with each other, within our communities, and across cultural borders.
Even after I finish studying Psychology 1001, I would remember the concept of nature versus nurture debate and twin study, because nature versus nurture debate was always in almost every area of Psychology when I studied. The reason that we could see this debate in many areas is that the debate is a basic knowledge that we all have to know throughout Psychology. This debate and twin study is related to psychological characteristics, IQ, and many other areas. The debate is reasoning about what makes human. In other words, what influences human being to grow, genetics or environment?
Twin study is a representative study to demonstrate this debate. This twin study is extremely consistent. According to the twin study, monozygotic twins are still similar even they are reared apart. This means that genetics is important. Also, it doesn't matter they are reared in the same environment, because adopted siblings shows no relation even though they are grown up in the same environment. However, the monozygotic twins are never perfectly identical, which means that genetics is not everything, and environment is also important. I know that this debate is endless debate that would not end or would not be concluded, but I also know that this debate is a very important concept that everyone has to know.
Children have many early abilities that we didn't know exactly. When we studied cognitive development, we realized that children get many abilities earlier than we anticipated. Among these abilities such as object concept, number concept, and person concept, I think I would remember children's preference for reliable and accurate source informants. I was surprised by children's ability that they can distinguish who is reliable informant and even prefer the informant when I studied cognitive development. This ability seems high-developed ability than any others to me.
This resulted from one experiment. First, an experimenter presented children with two speakers who differ in their reliability for 3 or 4 times for familization. One person was consistently naming object accurately, the other was consistently miss-naming the object. Then the experimenter asked explicit judgment question, asking children to indicate the speaker who was not very good at naming things. Finally, the experimenter asked children to request and endorse information from one of the speakers. The result was that even a 2-year-old child preferred more reliable and accurate source informants. According to this kind of experiments, psychologists realized that cognitive development emerges more continuous and earlier than my thought and previous thought of Piaget.
Of all the interesting things we have learned this year in Psychology 1001, the topic I believe I will remember for next five years is the implanting of false memories. I thought that all the different ways false memories originate were very compelling. I found the method of planting memories was the most interesting of all the different methods. It was fascinating to me how a person's memory can be completely altered by hearing something that a person has told them or seeing something that a person has shown them. The experiment done where individuals were asked to share their experience at Disney World after being shown an add that featured Bugs Bunny, a Warner Brothers character, was very fascinating to me. After seeing the add, many shared that they had a great experience at Disney World and included that their great experience included meeting Bugs Bunny. After being asked about their experience, the individuals were asked what other characters they would associate Bugs Bunny with and many said Mickey Mouse, who is a Disney character. It was surprising to me that people would so quickly believe that they had met Bugs Bunny at Disney World after viewing the add, being that Bugs Bunny being at Disney World would be highly unlikely, probably impossible. It shows how easily people's memories can be altered and changed simply by the influence of hearing or seeing something that is not a part of their original memory.
One thing I am going to remember from Psychology 1001 is the concept of determinism. I think a large part of that has to do with the fact that I think it's really strange. Determinism is basically the idea that free will doesn't actually exist (p. 595). Determinism holds that our actions are pre-determined by our genetic make-up and life experiences. The work that psychologists do is essentially done off the assumption that determinism is correct. Psychology rests on the idea that someone's actions can be explained either by genetics or their environment. I can't really find anything wrong with that. What else could factor into why someone would do something?
Because before Psychology 1001 I felt pretty strongly that free will did exist, this process of changing my mind is something that I won't forget. Which I guess means that I won't forget about belief perseverance either. The fact that I changed my mind in light of new evidence means that I didn't succumb to belief perseverance. Hopefully, I won't in the future either now that I'm aware of it.
This is funny sign about determinism I found:
And this is some of what our book has to say about free will and determinism (p. 595):
There has been a lot of interesting subjects we have discussed in this class. Many stick out, and I'm sure I will remember a much for many years. But as I do these "REP" points, I think what would I want to study in other people? I think one of the most interesting things we have read about and discussed in class was memory. More specific, was false memory and implanting false memory. It's amazing how well we think our memory is. But with a little bit of help from another person, that other person can implant a completely false memory altogether. In class, I remember talking about people who had never been lost in a mall as a child, but when a sibling started talking about the experience, the subject would start to create these memories of being lost in a mall. As seen below, these memories can get really specific. The first of the seven sins of memory is suggestibility. By giving misinformation your memory can change significantly. By changing the word "bump" to "crash" can change what a person saw in a photo. What we see, and given as testimony, can but someone away for life. But are the past memories the real events, or have they been skewed by decaying memory or misinformation?
Social comparison theory was derived because humans are highly social species. The theory is that we seek to evaluate our abilities by comparing them with those of others. This behavior helps us to understand ourselves better. Social comparison happens in two different ways. First, upward social comparison is that we compare ourselves with people who do something better than us. Second, downward social comparison is that we compare ourselves with people who do something worse than us. Both can boost our self-concepts.
This really happens in our lives. In my experience, I was always curious to know my rank in my class after every exam when I was in high school. I don't really care my exam score itself and how I feel about it without any comparison, because the only important thing to me at that time was how much I did well compared to others. Also, in fact, I want to know whether my friends and others perform well or not, and how much they perform well. I think this is caused by social comparison theory which is fairly pervasive throughout many people. If I could know how others perform, then I could feel better because I find that I do better than others, and sometimes I could realize that I have to do better and cheer up. Also, by knowing someone who performs similar to me, I could be relieved and feel comfortable because I know there are people who do similar to me.
There are many different beauty standards all over the world. However, nowadays, women's beauty standard is fairly similar in many developed countries across cultures. Thin and tall woman with glamorous body is preferred. Also, women have to have oval face, big eyes with a double eyelid, and big nose. I think the reason that this kind of standard becomes pervasive is an influx of western culture to Asian countries. In Asia, there are not many people who have this western preferred faces naturally, some women tend to do plastic surgery to fulfill the western beauty standard that I mentioned above even though people emphasize individual facial characteristics more than past.
The title of the picture above is 'me-in-doe' which means a drawing of a beauty. This is a drawn by a famous Korean painter in early of 19th century. This shows traditional Korean's beauty standard long time ago. Woman in the picture has slightly round face (not an oval face) with chubby cheeks. Also she has small eyes without a double eyelid. And it shows a gentle impression on her face. This is really different from current beauty standard of women and western standard which is easily seen from Hollywood stars.
After this class the thing that I will always remember is the nature vs nurture debate. The reason I will remember this is because it brought up a lot in class a lot and a very interesting topic. Along with that both sides have support that show they are important to the development of children. The reason this debate is so important is that it attempts to show which is more important in development, the environment or genetics. The twin study by the university of Minnesota that compares twins that are seperated and compares their IQ and psychological characteristics. The study was a comparison study done between twins that were separated when they were very young. The study showed that mono zygotic twins were still similar even when they are apart, so it shows that genetics do matter in development. Another thing that is important to note is the fact that the monozygotic twins are never identical, this shows that genetics doesn't show the whole thing. Another thing they studied was adopted kids. When comparing the adopted kids they are not the same either. Since they are grown in the same environment this shows that the environment doesn't define a person either. After this class I now understand a lot more about what influences kids when they are growing up and I will never forget the nature nurture debate because it repeatedly shows up just by seeing different people everyday.
Comic about environment and child development
The studies in social psychology on prejudice and discrimination are what I believe to be the most important concepts I have learned in PSYCH 1001. I want to be a middle-high school English teacher and I will definitely be dealing with these issues when I'm an educator. I will welcome students into my classroom when they are at a very important stage of their development as humans--growing out of childhood and becoming young adults. These students will arrive with many stereotypes (a positive or negative belief about a group's characteristics that we apply to most members of that group) about others, and hopefully I can teach these students that this is not correct: everyone deserves a chance; you should not judge someone just because they have a certain religion or skin color. As we have learned many times throughout the PSYCH 1001 course, humans are cognitive misers, we try to save mental energy and simplify our world. According to our book, "stereotypes can be the seeds from which prejudice grows" (528). The in-group bias is the tendency to favor individuals inside our group relative to members outside our group, a result of stereotypes and prejudice. As an educator, I will try to teach my students how to break down stereotypes and eliminate prejudice in our school to help create a more accepting world.
The three concepts that have surprised, provided explanation and a point for pushing off of for me personally, have been The Big Five of personality, Attachment Theory, and the Yerkes Dodson Law.
I've always had a strong predisposition for being critical of myself and the Berkley Personality Profile not only gives clear definition to these identifiable, real, and universal traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism) but has helped me to objectively identify the strengths of the unique constellation that is my personality and those around me. Friends, co-workers, and family can all be appreciated for their uniqueness and I can see harnessing this concept to create the best working team in future projects . I can see also understand on a psychology level why particular friendships are a natural fit.
Attachment theory will be very important for me in the next five years. Again by identifying an explanation, "Oh, I withdraw or am afraid of being too dependent or close", already has broken down walls for me. In particular with someone who has proven trustworthy, I realize it's important to let myself need him and it allows him to come through- something he's very good at. It also creates an informed point of view toward others who might throw up walls or act in a way that can be confusing. I will now make more of an effort to reassure others that I'm there for them too.
Thirdly, the Yerkes Dodson Law is permanently stuck in my memory already. I'm obsessed with productivity and efficiencies, so being brutally honest with myself I know I write or study topics like psychology better in a slightly arousing setting (like Starbucks) than in a dead silent library. These simpler tasks are performed better that way, while working on a design project or photo editing are best done quietly and without observation. It's these concepts along with motivation and emotion that shape and improve systems for success in academics, work, and relationships. Thank you PSY 1001.