I picked these 8 illusions for the activity: Adelson's Corrugated Plaid, Stereokinetic phenomenon, Scintillating Grid, Face in Blocks, Rotation changes the Interpretation, The Frankfurter Illusion, Shepard's "Turning the Tables", and Contrast Constancy.
From the tutorials, I was able to realize that there is often a lot more to a picture, image, or even something that seems to be a gob of nothing. The tutorials showed me that my mind percieves sometimes only the things it WANTS to percieve. It also showed me that sometimes my mind is surprised by illusions I wasn't ready to see because they aren't "set," common, or expected.
In some of the tutorials, I tried to figure out what I was supposed to learn before reading the write up on each one. Sometimes I could figure it out, but most times I couldn't. This surprised me. I expected that I would be able to see whatever I was "supposed" to see without reading the write ups, but it wasn't until I read that I saw Abraham Lincoln's "face in blocks!" I was also surprised in the corrugated plaid tutorial when the dots were turning colors as I looked at and away from them. I thought my mind was playing tricks on my or that my eyes were going weird until I read the tutorial and learned that that was the illusion part of it.
I think these tutorials can teach us something about how we percieve the world. Not everything in life is an optical illusion or has to be stared at, but these tutorials demonstrate that there really is more to life than only the things we want or choose to see. In some of the tutorials I almost "ignored" the illusion until what I was supposed to see was spelled out for me! It's the same way in life. It's easy to not percieve things until they're placed right under your nose.
Experiences in which I fail to sense or percieve things happen every day. A perfect example could be not sensing or percieving what someone is trying to get across to me without verbalizing. Someone may be sending oodles of body language messages, and I may fail to notice completely. I think this happens to many of us, and it all deals with whether our mind is in tune to percieve our surroundings.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sit Up Straight, Be Confident! - Psyblog
This blog was...odd. I didn't completely understand how the experiment worked, but I did understand it's purpose (which I think is all I need in order to blog about it).
First of all, I feel like I have pretty decent self-confidence. I know i'm a responsible, hard worker, but I do usually slouch. So does that mean I'm negative? I also can think of several people I know who sit up perfectly straight and work hard, but are shy and have no self-esteem or confidence in themselves. So, based off of personal experience, I disagree with the article. I do believe we should sit up straight in order to look like we have a little self-respect.
Finally, when did someone say (and who is the someone who said) that sitting up stright is BAD for your back? I have mild scoleosis and have NEVER been told by a doctor NOT to sit up straight! Anyone know anything about this?
First of all, I feel like I have pretty decent self-confidence. I know i'm a responsible, hard worker, but I do usually slouch. So does that mean I'm negative? I also can think of several people I know who sit up perfectly straight and work hard, but are shy and have no self-esteem or confidence in themselves. So, based off of personal experience, I disagree with the article. I do believe we should sit up straight in order to look like we have a little self-respect.
Finally, when did someone say (and who is the someone who said) that sitting up stright is BAD for your back? I have mild scoleosis and have NEVER been told by a doctor NOT to sit up straight! Anyone know anything about this?
Chapter 6: Sensation and Perception
This chapter interested and confused me. The parts of the text that explained how our individual senses work got lengthy and reminded me of anatomy class, while the parts about ESP and sensual adaptions were really grabbing.
The three main things I learned/found interesting were the basic four skin sensation variations, association of smells, and how perceptual set influences what we hear.
I found it interesting how certain motions create tickles, itching, wetness, dryness, and heat when pressure is put on the right spot. Stroking adjacent pressure spots creates a tickle, repeated gentle stroking of a painful spot creates itching, touching adjacent cold pressure spots triggers a sens of wetness (this can be experienced my touching dry cold metal as well!), and stimulating nearby cold and warm spots produces hot sensations. The variation about touching cold dry metal and thinking you are touching water rings a bell for me. I can remember times when i have even thought my clothing was wet because it was so cold (outside at football games, etc.).
The example used about the smell of wintergreen stimulating thought of candy or gum for Americans and medicine for British was a great perspective. The text explained how our attractedness to smeel depends on what we have rpeviously associated that smell with. I found it interesting that babies are not born with a preference to their mother's smell, but that the preference builds. I ahd previously assumed that, after 9 months in mommy's tummy, a baby would recognize and favor their mother's odor. The text also explained how smells evoke memories, whether pleasant or unpleasant. I remember a time when, after being out of the hospital for 2 months, I smelled someone's hand sanitizer. This hand sanitizer happened to smeel just like the sanitizer the hospital staff used, and I immediately disliked it.
Finally, the chapter talked about perceptual sets. I liked the example given about the pilot who raised the wheels of a plane too early after thinking he had heard his co-pilot say "gear up." really, the pilot had said "cheer up" but the pilot operating the plane was anticipating gear-up and therefore "heard" the phrase. This seems to be extremely common in my life! I feel like I often do something totally opposite of what I'm told to do, just because the words may sound the similar. I'm sure everyone has had some type of similar incident, becuase we all form perceptual sets.
I hope we talk about color constancy, proximity, continuity, similarity, and connectedness in class because I don't feel that I completely understood them. Did everyone else?
The three main things I learned/found interesting were the basic four skin sensation variations, association of smells, and how perceptual set influences what we hear.
I found it interesting how certain motions create tickles, itching, wetness, dryness, and heat when pressure is put on the right spot. Stroking adjacent pressure spots creates a tickle, repeated gentle stroking of a painful spot creates itching, touching adjacent cold pressure spots triggers a sens of wetness (this can be experienced my touching dry cold metal as well!), and stimulating nearby cold and warm spots produces hot sensations. The variation about touching cold dry metal and thinking you are touching water rings a bell for me. I can remember times when i have even thought my clothing was wet because it was so cold (outside at football games, etc.).
The example used about the smell of wintergreen stimulating thought of candy or gum for Americans and medicine for British was a great perspective. The text explained how our attractedness to smeel depends on what we have rpeviously associated that smell with. I found it interesting that babies are not born with a preference to their mother's smell, but that the preference builds. I ahd previously assumed that, after 9 months in mommy's tummy, a baby would recognize and favor their mother's odor. The text also explained how smells evoke memories, whether pleasant or unpleasant. I remember a time when, after being out of the hospital for 2 months, I smelled someone's hand sanitizer. This hand sanitizer happened to smeel just like the sanitizer the hospital staff used, and I immediately disliked it.
Finally, the chapter talked about perceptual sets. I liked the example given about the pilot who raised the wheels of a plane too early after thinking he had heard his co-pilot say "gear up." really, the pilot had said "cheer up" but the pilot operating the plane was anticipating gear-up and therefore "heard" the phrase. This seems to be extremely common in my life! I feel like I often do something totally opposite of what I'm told to do, just because the words may sound the similar. I'm sure everyone has had some type of similar incident, becuase we all form perceptual sets.
I hope we talk about color constancy, proximity, continuity, similarity, and connectedness in class because I don't feel that I completely understood them. Did everyone else?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Persuasion: The Right Ear Advantage-Psyblog
This was an interesting, yet seemingly controversial psyblog. It discussed how when asked a request in our right ear, we (male or female) are more likely to respond. The theory behind this statement was that language heard through the right ear is interpreted in the left side of the brain-the side more preferentially processing language.
I think to some extent this could be true. When I began reading the article, I didn't really buy into what the author was saying because their study didn't seem very supportive (a person went around and asked people for a "smoke" while at a club. More people said yes when asked in their right ear.) When the blog talked about how some people prefer talking into the phone in their right ear (although more people prefer left) I was able to grasp what the author was trying to say. Personally, I CAN'T talk with the phone on my left ear, so this made more sense to me,
The blog was interesting, but I wouldn't recommend taking the time to read it.
I think to some extent this could be true. When I began reading the article, I didn't really buy into what the author was saying because their study didn't seem very supportive (a person went around and asked people for a "smoke" while at a club. More people said yes when asked in their right ear.) When the blog talked about how some people prefer talking into the phone in their right ear (although more people prefer left) I was able to grasp what the author was trying to say. Personally, I CAN'T talk with the phone on my left ear, so this made more sense to me,
The blog was interesting, but I wouldn't recommend taking the time to read it.
Age 25...the new "adult age?"
A part of this week's text that I wasnted to blog about specifically was the fact that "the brain's frontal lobes will continue to develop until about age 25."
The reason I wanted to blog about this individual fact was because I want everyone to think about it for a while. Consider this: If our brain's are not fully developed until age 25, why are we considered adults, and allowed to make adult decisions at 18? If we are not at our stage of complete competency and understanding, why are 18 year olds tried as adults in court? Why is it legal to potentially damage your brain with alcohol after age 21? Is it smart for some high schoolers to make life decisions, such as go to college or work, when their brains have not reached full maturity?
I don't think so.
I think that this issue needs to be considered a bit more. If the driving license age were a bit older (not 25, but not 16) would there be less accidents due to better decision making?
I'd really appreciate some feedback on this blog. I could be completely wrong; I just simply found the whole thing interesting.
The reason I wanted to blog about this individual fact was because I want everyone to think about it for a while. Consider this: If our brain's are not fully developed until age 25, why are we considered adults, and allowed to make adult decisions at 18? If we are not at our stage of complete competency and understanding, why are 18 year olds tried as adults in court? Why is it legal to potentially damage your brain with alcohol after age 21? Is it smart for some high schoolers to make life decisions, such as go to college or work, when their brains have not reached full maturity?
I don't think so.
I think that this issue needs to be considered a bit more. If the driving license age were a bit older (not 25, but not 16) would there be less accidents due to better decision making?
I'd really appreciate some feedback on this blog. I could be completely wrong; I just simply found the whole thing interesting.
Developing Through the Life Span-Chapter 5
Thank goodness we're done with heritability! I enjoyed reading this chapter MUCH more and feel that I was able to take more away from it. Many of the theories discussed were familiar to me, such as Piaget's and Kohlberg's, but it was interesting to read a little more in depth about their studies and research findings.
I agree with Piaget (and most of today's researchers) that chldren actively create and modify their minds and understanding of the world. One of Piaget's main ideas was object permanance. I have always found this concept fascinating, most likely because I cannot remember when it applied to me! Object permanence is the awareness that things continue to exist when they cannot be percieved. It baffles me how infants seem to think that an object has "disappeared" and forget about it immediately!
Another bit of information that I found interesting and agreed with was the fact that people are usually unable to remember early memories. I had heard the whole "no memory before the age of 3" bit before but never really knew if it was completely true. The text confirmed that it is, in fact, true and further explained how the human cerebral cortex is too immature to retain information during infancy and beginning toddlerhood.
Habituation (decreasing responsiveness to repeated stimulation) is a concept that fascinates me! I never would have realized that this is how we learn and retain most information, even after infancey, if the term "habituation" hadn't been given. Although with familiarity comes boredom, intelligence and recognition come as well. This is a genious way of "asking" infants what they can remember (brain stimulation tests).
Finally, Jonathon Haidt's social intuitionist account of morality (moral feelings precede moral resoning) was a theory that really made me think about what I would do in life threatening situations (of others). Would I let 5 die if it meant having to push one person to their death? Or, if i wasn't involved, would I choose to save the 5 at the expense of one life? This is an extremely tough decision and I thought about it for a long time. I continued thinking about this at night as I was going to sleep and actually dreamt about it. In my dream, the 5 people on the train tracks, waiting to die, were my boyfriend and 4 family members. I chose to push a friend onto the tracks to save my 5 loved ones. If this were a real life situtation, I would be haunted forever, yet feel happy to still have my family. It was really an intense section of the chapter that I feel deserves some in class discussion.
I agree with Piaget (and most of today's researchers) that chldren actively create and modify their minds and understanding of the world. One of Piaget's main ideas was object permanance. I have always found this concept fascinating, most likely because I cannot remember when it applied to me! Object permanence is the awareness that things continue to exist when they cannot be percieved. It baffles me how infants seem to think that an object has "disappeared" and forget about it immediately!
Another bit of information that I found interesting and agreed with was the fact that people are usually unable to remember early memories. I had heard the whole "no memory before the age of 3" bit before but never really knew if it was completely true. The text confirmed that it is, in fact, true and further explained how the human cerebral cortex is too immature to retain information during infancy and beginning toddlerhood.
Habituation (decreasing responsiveness to repeated stimulation) is a concept that fascinates me! I never would have realized that this is how we learn and retain most information, even after infancey, if the term "habituation" hadn't been given. Although with familiarity comes boredom, intelligence and recognition come as well. This is a genious way of "asking" infants what they can remember (brain stimulation tests).
Finally, Jonathon Haidt's social intuitionist account of morality (moral feelings precede moral resoning) was a theory that really made me think about what I would do in life threatening situations (of others). Would I let 5 die if it meant having to push one person to their death? Or, if i wasn't involved, would I choose to save the 5 at the expense of one life? This is an extremely tough decision and I thought about it for a long time. I continued thinking about this at night as I was going to sleep and actually dreamt about it. In my dream, the 5 people on the train tracks, waiting to die, were my boyfriend and 4 family members. I chose to push a friend onto the tracks to save my 5 loved ones. If this were a real life situtation, I would be haunted forever, yet feel happy to still have my family. It was really an intense section of the chapter that I feel deserves some in class discussion.
Monday, October 12, 2009
How rewards Can Backfire-Psyblog
I LOVED this article because it is so true, yet never really thought about.
To summarize, the article talked about how when a reward is hung infront of a childs face, their attention turns from the activity at hand to that reward, and often results in a poorly finished activity (in the study on Psyblog, the activity was drawing). The article stated it very well: "Play becomes work." Ponder it for a moment and you'll probably be able to think of a time when you were a kid, or maybe when you saw a child, perform a simple task differently because a reward was involved. Maybe you didn't go beyond expectations because you knew that when you finished the bare minimum, you would get a reward. Maybe the opposite is true; maybe you went TOO far above and beyond in order to obtain your reward and, in result, overdid it.
An example that came to mind in my life is volleyball. Our team played a very poor, very beatable team on senior night two weeks ago and lost. I kept asking myself "why do we ALWAYS crack under pressure?!" and I think this may take part in the reason. When a reward, in my situation, winning, is the main thing on one's mind, they play/draw/etc. FOR that reward, not for the fun of the activity. This is where play becomes work, where individuals and teams meet their breaking points.
To summarize, the article talked about how when a reward is hung infront of a childs face, their attention turns from the activity at hand to that reward, and often results in a poorly finished activity (in the study on Psyblog, the activity was drawing). The article stated it very well: "Play becomes work." Ponder it for a moment and you'll probably be able to think of a time when you were a kid, or maybe when you saw a child, perform a simple task differently because a reward was involved. Maybe you didn't go beyond expectations because you knew that when you finished the bare minimum, you would get a reward. Maybe the opposite is true; maybe you went TOO far above and beyond in order to obtain your reward and, in result, overdid it.
An example that came to mind in my life is volleyball. Our team played a very poor, very beatable team on senior night two weeks ago and lost. I kept asking myself "why do we ALWAYS crack under pressure?!" and I think this may take part in the reason. When a reward, in my situation, winning, is the main thing on one's mind, they play/draw/etc. FOR that reward, not for the fun of the activity. This is where play becomes work, where individuals and teams meet their breaking points.
Evolutionary Psychology and Sexual Attitudes-Video
I think this video made some very good points. The first that caught my attention was what young women look for in men and what young men look for in women. I wasn't surprised by the fact that the majority of women look for someone reliable with status who can make a living because I myself hope to one day marry someone who is able to provide. What surprised me was that, for the most part, men look for similar reliable, homemaker quailities in women they date! I guess I always figured that most young guys are more about looks that potential.
Later in the video it talked about how these quality needs erode as we age and become able to do them ourselves. When a woman lands a decent job and realizes she can do the things that she thought the man must do, she will probably begin to seek someone who has more things in common with her. The same goes for a man who, with time, realizes he cand o just fine on his own and doesn't need someone to look after him.
The second video, supporting Darwin's theory, was interesting, and although I am sticking to what I said about Darwin in my chapter blog, I do agree with the fact that vital genes were passed from our ancestors, helping us survive. I found the fact that the speaker thought adoption to be un-Darwinian very interesting! If we are able to reproduce and pass on our genes, adopting someone elses offspring definitely goes against Darwin's theory.
Later in the video it talked about how these quality needs erode as we age and become able to do them ourselves. When a woman lands a decent job and realizes she can do the things that she thought the man must do, she will probably begin to seek someone who has more things in common with her. The same goes for a man who, with time, realizes he cand o just fine on his own and doesn't need someone to look after him.
The second video, supporting Darwin's theory, was interesting, and although I am sticking to what I said about Darwin in my chapter blog, I do agree with the fact that vital genes were passed from our ancestors, helping us survive. I found the fact that the speaker thought adoption to be un-Darwinian very interesting! If we are able to reproduce and pass on our genes, adopting someone elses offspring definitely goes against Darwin's theory.
Chapter 4- Nature, Nurture, and Human Diversity
This was a very complex chapter. Parts of it interested me, but other parts were very hard to understand, probably because they went against previous beliefs of mine.
I thought that heritability accounted for more personality characteristics than it apparently does. The book said that heritable individual differences can describe traits such as height, but I thought things such as shyness, outspokenness, etc. could be attributed to genetics as well, when really, they are more often the result of our environment. It surprised me how much the chapter emphasized the influence our environment has on us, even though I felt like I knew most of what it was saying. The way I was raised just made it seem like how I turned out depended on my parents!
I disagree (and always have) with Darwins' theory of natural selection. I don't believe that the world came from a "big bang" and that it was "survival of the fittest cells" from there on forward. I believe that, as the book said, the world is so perfectly created that taking even "one number from the equation" would turn the earth to soup or destroy it completely. I believe that our universe is perfectly engineered, but I believe that it is because of the amazing works of God. By no means are the authors of the book or scientists who agree with Darwin's theory wrong or stupid, these are just my opinions.
A part of the chapter that has always interested me was the section about social and cultural norms. Our (American) expected behaviors, ideas, attitudes, and values are very unlike those of other cultures, yet completely acceptable and expected in our country. What would happen if each person in our psych class were told to adapt to just one cultural norm from a different part of the world for a week and document how people reacted to each of us? I think the result would be fascinating!
Finally, I learned that some people I have previously thought of as narcissists or arrogant may just have been "individualists," as the book described. At the end of this individualist/collectivist section of chapter 4 it asked which we thought we were. I honestly didn't know how to answer that question, because I believe I am somewhat both. Everyone likes to think of themselves as independant to some degree, but not to the point that we are disagreeable to groups or standoffish. It was a very thought-provoking section!
I thought that heritability accounted for more personality characteristics than it apparently does. The book said that heritable individual differences can describe traits such as height, but I thought things such as shyness, outspokenness, etc. could be attributed to genetics as well, when really, they are more often the result of our environment. It surprised me how much the chapter emphasized the influence our environment has on us, even though I felt like I knew most of what it was saying. The way I was raised just made it seem like how I turned out depended on my parents!
I disagree (and always have) with Darwins' theory of natural selection. I don't believe that the world came from a "big bang" and that it was "survival of the fittest cells" from there on forward. I believe that, as the book said, the world is so perfectly created that taking even "one number from the equation" would turn the earth to soup or destroy it completely. I believe that our universe is perfectly engineered, but I believe that it is because of the amazing works of God. By no means are the authors of the book or scientists who agree with Darwin's theory wrong or stupid, these are just my opinions.
A part of the chapter that has always interested me was the section about social and cultural norms. Our (American) expected behaviors, ideas, attitudes, and values are very unlike those of other cultures, yet completely acceptable and expected in our country. What would happen if each person in our psych class were told to adapt to just one cultural norm from a different part of the world for a week and document how people reacted to each of us? I think the result would be fascinating!
Finally, I learned that some people I have previously thought of as narcissists or arrogant may just have been "individualists," as the book described. At the end of this individualist/collectivist section of chapter 4 it asked which we thought we were. I honestly didn't know how to answer that question, because I believe I am somewhat both. Everyone likes to think of themselves as independant to some degree, but not to the point that we are disagreeable to groups or standoffish. It was a very thought-provoking section!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Are Your Initials Holding You Back? -Psyblog
This was a very interesting article, and I'm not sure whether I believe all of it or not.
The main point the article tried to make was that, in most studies, people's actions, choices, grades, places of employment, etc. were influenced by their initials. A few examples: In a survey of 14,000, peple whose names started with a C or D were more likely to get these grades than those with initials A or B. The same went for law school students: students with initials A or B went to better schools than those initialed C or D. My question is, what about the people with initials after A, B, C, or D? The study didn't talk about these at all!
Another study showed that people were more likely to pick a prize that has one of their initials in it's label (example: Prize F) whether it was a grand prize or consolation prize. The same went for employment. People were slightly more inclined to work for a company who shared one or more of their initials. The interesting point with this theory (called implicit egotism) was that companies were slightly more inclined to HIRE workers with similar initials!
So, is it coincidence or evidence?
Personally, I often pick at random when choosing things that include letters. BUT, after reading this week's chapter, I wonder how random my choices really are. Is my subconcious fooling me, and really choosing for me?
The main point the article tried to make was that, in most studies, people's actions, choices, grades, places of employment, etc. were influenced by their initials. A few examples: In a survey of 14,000, peple whose names started with a C or D were more likely to get these grades than those with initials A or B. The same went for law school students: students with initials A or B went to better schools than those initialed C or D. My question is, what about the people with initials after A, B, C, or D? The study didn't talk about these at all!
Another study showed that people were more likely to pick a prize that has one of their initials in it's label (example: Prize F) whether it was a grand prize or consolation prize. The same went for employment. People were slightly more inclined to work for a company who shared one or more of their initials. The interesting point with this theory (called implicit egotism) was that companies were slightly more inclined to HIRE workers with similar initials!
So, is it coincidence or evidence?
Personally, I often pick at random when choosing things that include letters. BUT, after reading this week's chapter, I wonder how random my choices really are. Is my subconcious fooling me, and really choosing for me?
Implicit Association Test
The implicit association test was REALLY interesting!
The question I was given was "Do you have a preference to New over Old?" I interpreted this as new technology, new cars, etc. My options were strong preference to new, moderate preference, slight preference, no preference to either, slight preference to old, moderate preference to old, or strong preference to old. I chose slight preference to new because, while I like new things like i-pods, cell phones, clothes, etc., I still agree with many old traditions, not to mention I don't have internet yet!
After taking the test, my score showed that I have a STRONG preference to new! I was really surprised by this, and wondered if the score was affected by how many wrong "clicks" I had between the e and i keys. (I was not very good at hitting the right one!)
The test showed me that my subconcious must have a stronger input that I thought, and that maybe my subconcious is more influenced my society than my concious. Obviously, I'm more "new-age" than I can aknowledge.
The test also made me think that maybe we aren't completely aware of our attitudes and their effects on our behavior. If I knew I had a strong preference for new things, I would have indicated so at the beginning of the test!
The question I was given was "Do you have a preference to New over Old?" I interpreted this as new technology, new cars, etc. My options were strong preference to new, moderate preference, slight preference, no preference to either, slight preference to old, moderate preference to old, or strong preference to old. I chose slight preference to new because, while I like new things like i-pods, cell phones, clothes, etc., I still agree with many old traditions, not to mention I don't have internet yet!
After taking the test, my score showed that I have a STRONG preference to new! I was really surprised by this, and wondered if the score was affected by how many wrong "clicks" I had between the e and i keys. (I was not very good at hitting the right one!)
The test showed me that my subconcious must have a stronger input that I thought, and that maybe my subconcious is more influenced my society than my concious. Obviously, I'm more "new-age" than I can aknowledge.
The test also made me think that maybe we aren't completely aware of our attitudes and their effects on our behavior. If I knew I had a strong preference for new things, I would have indicated so at the beginning of the test!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Chapter 3- Conciousness and the Two Track Mind
This was another easy-to-read chapter. It caught my interest right away with describing the different states of conciousness, such as spontaneously occuring, physiologically induced, and psychologically induced. It was useful to learn about each state so because we have the potential to experience every one! We have all felt drowsy, daydreamt, and had dreams in our sleep (spontaneous), some of us may have experienced hallucinations, orgasms, or extreme starvation (physiological), and maybe some of us have even had the opportunity to be hypnotized at a school event, volunteered in a sensory deprivation expericment, or taken some extra time to meditate (psychological).
Dual processing was another interesting topic that I previously didn't completely understand. It indirectly explained how we "know more than we know we know." A perfect example of this is the fact that most of our everyday thinking, feeling, and acting happens outside of our concious awareness. This is a hard concept to process, but basically, we just have to give the credit to our minds. An example the book gave was how a woman who was blinded was still able to place an evelope in a narrow mail-space even without seeing it. This example shows that our mind can percieve things our eyes may not be able to.
An idea I found surprising was inattentional blindness, or failing to see visible objects because our attention is directed elsewhere. This is true in many circumstances. Things may happen right before our eyes without us even seeing them because we are so intensely focused on our activity at hand. Change blindness is a concept much like inattentional blindness. In change blindness, one fails to notice changes in the environment (example: someone in a crowd of a few people may be wearing a green t-shirt, and after a brief visual iterruption they may change to a red t-shirt without you noticing because you are focused on someone else in the group). A common phrase used for this is "out of sight, out of mind."
When I learned about the importance of sleep and what it does for the brain, I really reconsidered my bedtime/waking habits. I think from now on I will do what it takes to get better amounts of sleep in order to keep a healthy, stress-free mind. I am excited to see the outcome of our sleep experiment for class; I want to know what I need to change and what my dreams mean in relevance to my life.
Last year our school hired a hypnotist or an afternoon assembly and I found it incredibly funny to watch some of my friends make fools out of themselves without knowing it. After reading the chapter, I learned that, while they may not have remembered doing all the things they were asked to do by the hypnotist, their subconcious was taking care of them and knew what they were doing (dual processing, once again!).
I agree with what the book had to say about tolerance and withdrawal from an addictive substance. I can support this belief because I have family member who is addicted to alcohol and I have been able to watch this disease progress. With time, more and more alcohol was needed to get to the "happy place" where there were no worries, or to the point where this person could fall into VERY deep sleep. When certain circumstances didn't allow for alcohol, I witnessed this person experiencing withdrawal symptoms which were unpleasant to watch, and, I would imagine, even more unpleasant to experience. I also believe that the book is correct with the three main influences on drug use. Many people object that addictions, like those to alcohol, are not bilogical, but I agree with the book that they most certainly are. The family member I have who is addicted also had an addict father. I also agree that psychological and social-cultural influences also play a major role. Who you are around the most, what they do, and how they make you feel all influence how you percieve usage of drugs. It is sad that becoming a user could be this simple, but it is the truth. I think it's very important for kids to have positive influences at school and for adolescents to be well-informed of drugs and their consequences before age 14.
Dual processing was another interesting topic that I previously didn't completely understand. It indirectly explained how we "know more than we know we know." A perfect example of this is the fact that most of our everyday thinking, feeling, and acting happens outside of our concious awareness. This is a hard concept to process, but basically, we just have to give the credit to our minds. An example the book gave was how a woman who was blinded was still able to place an evelope in a narrow mail-space even without seeing it. This example shows that our mind can percieve things our eyes may not be able to.
An idea I found surprising was inattentional blindness, or failing to see visible objects because our attention is directed elsewhere. This is true in many circumstances. Things may happen right before our eyes without us even seeing them because we are so intensely focused on our activity at hand. Change blindness is a concept much like inattentional blindness. In change blindness, one fails to notice changes in the environment (example: someone in a crowd of a few people may be wearing a green t-shirt, and after a brief visual iterruption they may change to a red t-shirt without you noticing because you are focused on someone else in the group). A common phrase used for this is "out of sight, out of mind."
When I learned about the importance of sleep and what it does for the brain, I really reconsidered my bedtime/waking habits. I think from now on I will do what it takes to get better amounts of sleep in order to keep a healthy, stress-free mind. I am excited to see the outcome of our sleep experiment for class; I want to know what I need to change and what my dreams mean in relevance to my life.
Last year our school hired a hypnotist or an afternoon assembly and I found it incredibly funny to watch some of my friends make fools out of themselves without knowing it. After reading the chapter, I learned that, while they may not have remembered doing all the things they were asked to do by the hypnotist, their subconcious was taking care of them and knew what they were doing (dual processing, once again!).
I agree with what the book had to say about tolerance and withdrawal from an addictive substance. I can support this belief because I have family member who is addicted to alcohol and I have been able to watch this disease progress. With time, more and more alcohol was needed to get to the "happy place" where there were no worries, or to the point where this person could fall into VERY deep sleep. When certain circumstances didn't allow for alcohol, I witnessed this person experiencing withdrawal symptoms which were unpleasant to watch, and, I would imagine, even more unpleasant to experience. I also believe that the book is correct with the three main influences on drug use. Many people object that addictions, like those to alcohol, are not bilogical, but I agree with the book that they most certainly are. The family member I have who is addicted also had an addict father. I also agree that psychological and social-cultural influences also play a major role. Who you are around the most, what they do, and how they make you feel all influence how you percieve usage of drugs. It is sad that becoming a user could be this simple, but it is the truth. I think it's very important for kids to have positive influences at school and for adolescents to be well-informed of drugs and their consequences before age 14.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Psyblog- The cocktail Party Effect -10/1/09
I was reading some interesting blogs on Psyblog.com and came across The Cocktail Party Effect. It was something I had heard of, but forgotten how it worked, so I clicked and read over it. I forgot how interesting this theory was!
To summarize, it basically said that if you're interested in a conversation around you (and not interested in the conversation you're supposed to be engaged in) the brain and ears together are able to pick up on that interesting conversation and distinguish it from a multitude of voices! This is amazing because it takes a lot of hard work for the brain to pick one voice from many, both male and female, loud and soft, etc.
The author of the blog talked about a study where volunteers wore headphones and were asked to "shadow" or follow, one of two conversations coming through the speakers. This was a hard task because the two voices were from the same person! Somehow, most volunteers were able to trail one of the conversations but, in result, had no idea when the language changed to German etc. because they were focused so much on the voice they were trying to follow. This holds true in day to day scenarios when your brain is focusing on someone or something other than the rpesent conversation. Often, one's name can be dropped in conversation without the distracted person even noticing because the brain is so intent on listening or processing something else!
I think we can all think of a time when we've been caught in our "own little world."
This was a great article- go read it!
To summarize, it basically said that if you're interested in a conversation around you (and not interested in the conversation you're supposed to be engaged in) the brain and ears together are able to pick up on that interesting conversation and distinguish it from a multitude of voices! This is amazing because it takes a lot of hard work for the brain to pick one voice from many, both male and female, loud and soft, etc.
The author of the blog talked about a study where volunteers wore headphones and were asked to "shadow" or follow, one of two conversations coming through the speakers. This was a hard task because the two voices were from the same person! Somehow, most volunteers were able to trail one of the conversations but, in result, had no idea when the language changed to German etc. because they were focused so much on the voice they were trying to follow. This holds true in day to day scenarios when your brain is focusing on someone or something other than the rpesent conversation. Often, one's name can be dropped in conversation without the distracted person even noticing because the brain is so intent on listening or processing something else!
I think we can all think of a time when we've been caught in our "own little world."
This was a great article- go read it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)