I thought that learning about the different theories of development was pretty interesting. As far as understanding what they were saying, I think that Piaget's theory made a lot of sense. For the most part, I thought that he had an accurate theory on the stages of life. In my case the stages fit pretty well. Before age two, (not that I really remember this stage) I didn't do much imaginary playing or talking. In the next stage I did a lot of talking and a lot of imaginary games like 'house' or 'restaurant' with my younger brother. In the next stage I had started school and I started doing a lot more thinking into different things and I understood how to do more advanced school work. On the negative side of Piaget’s theory, the years he gave didn't always line up with my life. The stages I went through all happened a lot like Piaget predicted, but at a little bit different ages. By the time I was 1 1/2 years old I could say over twenty words and could put a lot of the words with pictures. On the other side of that, by the time I was eight years old, I still did a lot of pretend playing with my little brother. (I was always told I had a crazy imagination.) So while Piaget had the right ideas, I don't think that the ages held true in every case.
With Erikson's theory, I had a lot harder time relating to it, and didn't have as good of an understanding on what it was saying. I think some of it made sense, like children under one developing a sense of basic trust, but again, I think the flaw in his theory is in the ages listed. There were a lot of the things listed that happened to me at some point in my life, but a lot of what happened occurred before the ages Erikson said it would.
Learning about parent attachment really showed me that parents matter. It helped me see that kids need to develop a sense of trust in their parents in order to develop in a healthy way. I thought that the study that the Harlows did with the monkeys was good proof that children need to be nurtured and share an attachment to their parents. The picture of the little monkey cowering with his hands over his eyes on page 190 really helps show how important it is to have some form of parent to be attached too. When that attachment was taken away the monkey didn’t know what to do. In my own case, I know this is true. I've always been pretty attached to my parents. As a kid I cried when I had to go to school for the first time, and I always felt safer in public when my parents were with me. If I hadn't grown up with that attachment I think I'd have been a different person today. I probably would be a lot less caring about others and a lot more afraid to socialize with other people because I wouldn't have grown up with that sense of security we get from being around other people.
For now, most of the changes I expect later in life are pretty predictable. I think the biggest life changes will be going to college, getting married, getting my first real job, and eventually retiring. As far as answering what has prepared me to manage these changes, I think that I still have a long way to go before I'm prepared for most of them. For now I can prepare for college by staying in school and giving it my best. Then I can use college to prepare for my future career, and I can use my career to prepare for my retirement. It goes to show that most of the things we do in life often come back to prepare us for the next major switch that will occur.
The most interesting concept I came across was in the four styles of parenting. I thought it was weird that three of the four styles of parenting could lead to the same negative results. In the neglectful parent, the permissive parent and the authoritarian parent families it showed that possible outcomes for the kids all included anxiety about social comparison, lack of initiative, and poor communication skills. I thought it was weird because each style is so different, yet could be equally harmful for the kids.
One question that the chapter raised was related to maturation and infant memory. The book said "our earliest memories seldom predate our third birthday." From personal experience I actually have at least four or five memories from when I was two years old. I remember the night that I broke my arm when I was two and a half, and I also remember going to the doctors to get the cast off three months later. Now, I know the theories of development that we learned about are relative and the ages aren't strictly proven, but I did come up with one theory as to why my memories started so early. See, by the time I was one and a half I had a bigger vocabulary than most of the babies around the same age. So to pull away from my personal bragging time, I'll get to my question in all of this. Do you think that the earlier we learn to talk makes us start making memories earlier? And by talking earlier, do we gain a better understanding of the world around us at a younger age?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Nature/Nurture
After reading and reviewing the Nature/Nurture chapter, my perspective on this issue has changed in several ways. Before reading the chapter I didn’t realize that the two worked together to form our behaviors. So many people argue about the two subjects, fighting over whether it is nurture or nature that determines our behaviors. After looking at heritability and twin studies I realized that a lot of our behaviors, such as personality, interests, fears, and heart rate all might be affected by our genes. On the other hand other parts of our personality come from the way we are raised; our religious and political views, our manners, our beliefs, and our values. This helped me fully realize that both nurture and nature are important, and while we might fight over which is more important in behavior, we can’t deny that both do have significance in life.
One thing I learned that I didn’t know before was that sometimes our genes can be ‘outdated’. Both the book, and the video lecture by Richard Dawkins talk about the fact that our genes and natural selection have prepared us for situations in which we no longer need to be prepared. I liked the example they gave when they said that our genes are programmed to make us like to eat food. This used to be necessary to survive. They pointed out that in the modern world we have food everywhere we look, and no longer need to worry about finding enough food to stay alive. I really liked the line the book gave, “We are, in some ways, biologically prepared for a world that no longer exists.
Something else I found interesting was that there are two different types of societies; individualistic and collectivist. When they described the individualistic view of life and said that America is individualistic, I laughed because I knew it was true. We as Americans are always thinking about ourselves, and this is the way we are taught to live. Movies promote individualist views and messages such as teaching us to be independent individuals, people who don’t have to rely on anyone else. The collectivist societies are completely different, learning to work together and help each other. It made me wonder what kind of movies people in Asia watch. Do their movie heroes promote helping out their societies and working together, or are they unique and independent like the characters in our movies?
A third thing I learned was that identical twins have 100% of the same genetics and that they are always the same gender. I guess that makes sense since they both came from the same egg and sperm, but I never really thought about it before. I know this doesn’t seem like a very applicable fact to pull away from the chapter, but realizing this helped me understand why twin studies are so important.
And that leads me into that exact question, why are twin studies so important? I think they are important because by showing the behaviors and lifestyles of two people with identical genetic make-up, it helps us decide how much of our behavior is based on our genetic nature, and how much is based on parental and environmental nurture. I think cases where identical twins are raised in separate homes are especially important because then the two people weren’t nurtured the same way, which means most of what they have in common could be based on their inborn nature.
I think the videos we watched were important because they showed us that a lot of our traits can be looked at to decide what parts of behavior are affected by nurture or nature. Richard Dawkins pointed out that all humans should want to pass on their genes to offspring in order to keep their species alive. It is in our nature. It’s pretty interesting to understand which parts of our behavior are affected by certain parts of our lives and inborn ideas.
To conclude, a question that came to mind was in the PowerPoint lecture on the slide titled ‘Parenting’. It talks about how certain behaviors come about because of the way our parents brought us up. They said that our religious faith is affected by our parent’s beliefs. Now, I certainly agree with this, I mean, you don’t often see a Buddhist come out of a Christian home, or vice versa. However, one thing that I wondered through this was whether or not there was a point in life when we break away from our parents believes and decide for ourselves what we believe in. We may say we’ve stepped away from what they believe, but then, do the new ideas that we come up with still have a bias based on what we used to believe? Personally, about a year ago I went through a period where I realized that everything I believed in was based on my parents beliefs and ideas, and I basically went through everything I stood for and trusted in to see that I believed it for myself, and not based on what I’d been raised with. While I feel that my beliefs are now all my own and not solely based on my parents beliefs, the question could be raised as to whether or not I’m still putting my beliefs in what I’ve always known thought to be true.
One thing I learned that I didn’t know before was that sometimes our genes can be ‘outdated’. Both the book, and the video lecture by Richard Dawkins talk about the fact that our genes and natural selection have prepared us for situations in which we no longer need to be prepared. I liked the example they gave when they said that our genes are programmed to make us like to eat food. This used to be necessary to survive. They pointed out that in the modern world we have food everywhere we look, and no longer need to worry about finding enough food to stay alive. I really liked the line the book gave, “We are, in some ways, biologically prepared for a world that no longer exists.
Something else I found interesting was that there are two different types of societies; individualistic and collectivist. When they described the individualistic view of life and said that America is individualistic, I laughed because I knew it was true. We as Americans are always thinking about ourselves, and this is the way we are taught to live. Movies promote individualist views and messages such as teaching us to be independent individuals, people who don’t have to rely on anyone else. The collectivist societies are completely different, learning to work together and help each other. It made me wonder what kind of movies people in Asia watch. Do their movie heroes promote helping out their societies and working together, or are they unique and independent like the characters in our movies?
A third thing I learned was that identical twins have 100% of the same genetics and that they are always the same gender. I guess that makes sense since they both came from the same egg and sperm, but I never really thought about it before. I know this doesn’t seem like a very applicable fact to pull away from the chapter, but realizing this helped me understand why twin studies are so important.
And that leads me into that exact question, why are twin studies so important? I think they are important because by showing the behaviors and lifestyles of two people with identical genetic make-up, it helps us decide how much of our behavior is based on our genetic nature, and how much is based on parental and environmental nurture. I think cases where identical twins are raised in separate homes are especially important because then the two people weren’t nurtured the same way, which means most of what they have in common could be based on their inborn nature.
I think the videos we watched were important because they showed us that a lot of our traits can be looked at to decide what parts of behavior are affected by nurture or nature. Richard Dawkins pointed out that all humans should want to pass on their genes to offspring in order to keep their species alive. It is in our nature. It’s pretty interesting to understand which parts of our behavior are affected by certain parts of our lives and inborn ideas.
To conclude, a question that came to mind was in the PowerPoint lecture on the slide titled ‘Parenting’. It talks about how certain behaviors come about because of the way our parents brought us up. They said that our religious faith is affected by our parent’s beliefs. Now, I certainly agree with this, I mean, you don’t often see a Buddhist come out of a Christian home, or vice versa. However, one thing that I wondered through this was whether or not there was a point in life when we break away from our parents believes and decide for ourselves what we believe in. We may say we’ve stepped away from what they believe, but then, do the new ideas that we come up with still have a bias based on what we used to believe? Personally, about a year ago I went through a period where I realized that everything I believed in was based on my parents beliefs and ideas, and I basically went through everything I stood for and trusted in to see that I believed it for myself, and not based on what I’d been raised with. While I feel that my beliefs are now all my own and not solely based on my parents beliefs, the question could be raised as to whether or not I’m still putting my beliefs in what I’ve always known thought to be true.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thinking Critically
Research is extremely important. Yeah, I know that sounds like a really bland opener and a pretty obvious statement too, but it’s true. Doing research helps us discover all sorts of new things we hadn’t learned before. It also helps us get a better understanding about something that we had an incorrect idea about. The classic example of this is found in history when people used to believe that the world was flat. After research and exploration we learned that Earth is actually round. If we didn’t research anything, we would have to rely on people’s gut instincts and ideas as fact. The problem with this is that everybody has different ideas and instincts, and without doing research to prove our ideas, we can’t really be sure that anyone is more correct than anyone else. For example, if I claimed that setting a clock five minutes fast helps people get places five minutes earlier, but someone else says that setting your clock fast makes people rely on the extra five minutes and leave the house later than they should, we can both claim to be right, but neither of us can prove this without research. By doing experiments, (in this case we might survey people who set their clocks fast to see how early and late they arrive places) we can understand who’s viewpoint is more true.
An example of research that is relevant to my life was found on Psyblog in an article called, “Ads for Unhealthy foods Increase Children’s Consumption by 45%. The article showed that kids that saw commercials for unhealthy snacks were more likely to want to eat unhealthy snacks. This is relevant to my life because this has happened to me several times. Earlier today I saw a commercial for Papa Murphy’s pizza. For Valentine’s Day they were selling heart shaped pizza, and I looked at it and suddenly really was in the mood to have pizza for supper. Before this, earlier today, my doctor told me that I needed to cut some calories out of my diet, and I decided that I wouldn’t eat as much anymore. However, after watching the commercial, all healthy thoughts left my mind and all I wanted was a nice restaurant style pizza. It’s scary how such simple things can affect our decisions and thoughts.
Another thing that I found interesting in the chapter was on page 18 in our text books. It talks about being overconfident in our self-ability to predict what is going to happen. I learned that there are a lot of times in life where we think we know more than we do. I think this is important because it shows us that we need to measure all sides of an issue before we jump to conclusions, assuming that we already know what’s right. Something else that I learned was the difference between causation and correlation. I realized that correlation can show us possible reasons why something could happen, but it can’t say that one specific thing is the cause of something else. For example, if we did an experiment on pollution in a big city to see what the cause is, and find out that people smoking on street corners adds to the pollution, we can’t just decide that smoking is the cause of pollution. It could be part of the pollution problem, but it isn’t the only cause. All we’ve really found is a correlation between smoking and air pollution. A third thing that I learned also has to do with correlation. I learned that we often have illusory correlations, where we think to things are connected, when really it’s just random chance. This is important because if we incorrectly link two completely separate ideas, it could affect our judgment on a situation, based on our incorrect views and ideas.
According to the New York Times article, our minds and bodies are connected in several ways. I really like the first example where they said that people tend to lean back when they are trying to remember something. I laughed because I do this all the time. On the flip side I liked the example where they said that people who thought about happier things were more likely to stay warm than people who were upset. I really don’t understand all of this stuff as well as I wish I could, but I do understand that our actions are often affected by what’s going on in our heads, and our thoughts are often affected by what is happening in the world around us. I think I am more in the Descartes view than Aristotle’s though. The mind and body are connected in certain ways, but I do think that there is a separation between soul and body.
One question I had is related to the article. I wonder how this whole connection between the brain and body works. Why do physical actions affect our minds? And the even more confusing idea, how can our brain and thoughts affect our actions? It’s not like when I have a warm thought I go “Okay body, you should be warmer now because I’m thinking warm thoughts.”
An example of research that is relevant to my life was found on Psyblog in an article called, “Ads for Unhealthy foods Increase Children’s Consumption by 45%. The article showed that kids that saw commercials for unhealthy snacks were more likely to want to eat unhealthy snacks. This is relevant to my life because this has happened to me several times. Earlier today I saw a commercial for Papa Murphy’s pizza. For Valentine’s Day they were selling heart shaped pizza, and I looked at it and suddenly really was in the mood to have pizza for supper. Before this, earlier today, my doctor told me that I needed to cut some calories out of my diet, and I decided that I wouldn’t eat as much anymore. However, after watching the commercial, all healthy thoughts left my mind and all I wanted was a nice restaurant style pizza. It’s scary how such simple things can affect our decisions and thoughts.
Another thing that I found interesting in the chapter was on page 18 in our text books. It talks about being overconfident in our self-ability to predict what is going to happen. I learned that there are a lot of times in life where we think we know more than we do. I think this is important because it shows us that we need to measure all sides of an issue before we jump to conclusions, assuming that we already know what’s right. Something else that I learned was the difference between causation and correlation. I realized that correlation can show us possible reasons why something could happen, but it can’t say that one specific thing is the cause of something else. For example, if we did an experiment on pollution in a big city to see what the cause is, and find out that people smoking on street corners adds to the pollution, we can’t just decide that smoking is the cause of pollution. It could be part of the pollution problem, but it isn’t the only cause. All we’ve really found is a correlation between smoking and air pollution. A third thing that I learned also has to do with correlation. I learned that we often have illusory correlations, where we think to things are connected, when really it’s just random chance. This is important because if we incorrectly link two completely separate ideas, it could affect our judgment on a situation, based on our incorrect views and ideas.
According to the New York Times article, our minds and bodies are connected in several ways. I really like the first example where they said that people tend to lean back when they are trying to remember something. I laughed because I do this all the time. On the flip side I liked the example where they said that people who thought about happier things were more likely to stay warm than people who were upset. I really don’t understand all of this stuff as well as I wish I could, but I do understand that our actions are often affected by what’s going on in our heads, and our thoughts are often affected by what is happening in the world around us. I think I am more in the Descartes view than Aristotle’s though. The mind and body are connected in certain ways, but I do think that there is a separation between soul and body.
One question I had is related to the article. I wonder how this whole connection between the brain and body works. Why do physical actions affect our minds? And the even more confusing idea, how can our brain and thoughts affect our actions? It’s not like when I have a warm thought I go “Okay body, you should be warmer now because I’m thinking warm thoughts.”
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Prologue Blog
When I first decided to take Psychology, I thought that it had to do with studying the way the brain works. I knew that it would look at why our brains respond in certain ways to the situations around us. I also thought that it would look at how the way we are raised and what we believe in affect the way we think. Now that I have read chapter 1, I understand that Psychology studies a lot of different areas including clinical studies, counseling, educating, and organizing. I also learned that psychology looks at every human action and decision and applies it to how the mind works.
I definitely learned a lot of new information about Psychology in this chapter. One thing that really stood out to me was that psychological thinking began around 500 B.C. I hadn't realized that the philosophers of the past really, in their own way, were psychologists too. A second fact that I thought was pretty cool was that some psychologists think that the mind is a 'blank slate' at birth, (John Locke, and Aristotle) while others think that certain ideas are inborn. I never really wondered whether my interests were created by what happened to me in life, or if I was born the way I was with certain interests in mind. This helped me see that there are always new elements of Psychology to study.
I think Psychology affects my life because every decision I make, every action I do, and every single thought that goes through my mind is following a studied pattern of psychology. For example, if I think that I would like to stay home from school one day because I have a big test to take, I could use the behavioral perspective of Psychology to point out that my mind is telling me to skip school because I'm afraid of the situation of taking a test. By studying Psychology, we can realize that this situation that seems so normal is really a studied pattern of the mind.
I thought the NPR clip was really interesting. In class last Wednesday we talked about Lydia saying that we are 'slaves to our mind's decisions'. I said that even though we have natural instincts, I still thought that we had control over them and that every decision in life is an option. After watching the NPR clip I realized that a simple decision like choosing between cake and fruit can be affected by learning seven numbers. I still think that most of our decisions in life really are our own, but the video definitely helped me understand that our decisions can be affected by very simple distractions that we often aren't aware of. When I realized that our decisions can be swayed this easily, it made me want to make every decision more carefully.
One question that came to my mind was in the PowerPoint lecture. On the third slide it was mentioned that we need to be rational and logical in perspective, always looking for evidence so that we can find what is true. A question that came to mind though is what exactly is truth? For example, if someone finds evidence of a fossil and says that it is millions of years old, and another person says it is only thousands of years old, could someone use the fossil as evidence to prove a theory of how old the earth is, or does it just add to the theory? Basically, what I mean is how can we decide what is really evidence and what is really truth? Is there really such thing as absolute proof, or is evidence and truth open to our interpretation? If that were true, could we ever really prove anything?
(Oh, and this isn't part of my blog, but a separate question for Professor Kashdan. After we post our own blogs, how soon do you want us to comment on three other blogs? My main reason for asking is because I don't want to post my three comments and then forget to ever go back and read the blogs that were added later.)
I definitely learned a lot of new information about Psychology in this chapter. One thing that really stood out to me was that psychological thinking began around 500 B.C. I hadn't realized that the philosophers of the past really, in their own way, were psychologists too. A second fact that I thought was pretty cool was that some psychologists think that the mind is a 'blank slate' at birth, (John Locke, and Aristotle) while others think that certain ideas are inborn. I never really wondered whether my interests were created by what happened to me in life, or if I was born the way I was with certain interests in mind. This helped me see that there are always new elements of Psychology to study.
I think Psychology affects my life because every decision I make, every action I do, and every single thought that goes through my mind is following a studied pattern of psychology. For example, if I think that I would like to stay home from school one day because I have a big test to take, I could use the behavioral perspective of Psychology to point out that my mind is telling me to skip school because I'm afraid of the situation of taking a test. By studying Psychology, we can realize that this situation that seems so normal is really a studied pattern of the mind.
I thought the NPR clip was really interesting. In class last Wednesday we talked about Lydia saying that we are 'slaves to our mind's decisions'. I said that even though we have natural instincts, I still thought that we had control over them and that every decision in life is an option. After watching the NPR clip I realized that a simple decision like choosing between cake and fruit can be affected by learning seven numbers. I still think that most of our decisions in life really are our own, but the video definitely helped me understand that our decisions can be affected by very simple distractions that we often aren't aware of. When I realized that our decisions can be swayed this easily, it made me want to make every decision more carefully.
One question that came to my mind was in the PowerPoint lecture. On the third slide it was mentioned that we need to be rational and logical in perspective, always looking for evidence so that we can find what is true. A question that came to mind though is what exactly is truth? For example, if someone finds evidence of a fossil and says that it is millions of years old, and another person says it is only thousands of years old, could someone use the fossil as evidence to prove a theory of how old the earth is, or does it just add to the theory? Basically, what I mean is how can we decide what is really evidence and what is really truth? Is there really such thing as absolute proof, or is evidence and truth open to our interpretation? If that were true, could we ever really prove anything?
(Oh, and this isn't part of my blog, but a separate question for Professor Kashdan. After we post our own blogs, how soon do you want us to comment on three other blogs? My main reason for asking is because I don't want to post my three comments and then forget to ever go back and read the blogs that were added later.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)