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.
Monday, October 12, 2009
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)