Overconfidence or Underconfidence

We learned in class about hinsight bias, and that we are just overconfident and overjudging what we know, or think we know.

I was asking myself then, what about those people who are known to be underconfident? I am not sure if they would behave the same way in those kind of situations since they will underestimate themselves. Mrs. Perl asked us that we should guess what grade we would get in history, and depending on certain factors we would make a decision. But if one is underestimating themselves, he most likely will say a number lower than he will get and therefore will not fit with the concept of hinsight bias. Is there a concept for such a thing too, or is there something about that person who underestimates himself?(Maybe he just tries to underestimate himself so he won't be dissappointed or is it really just a pure underestimation since he does not have confidence?)

Drugs

We are currently working on questions in chapter for homework, and the answer to question 3 interested me. The question was about drugs and how they affect neuro-transmissions, and about agonists and antagonists.
The book explained that we don’t want to use to many chemicals to boost our endorphins, because when flooded with opiate drugs the brain might stop making its own natural opiates. And then once the drug is not used anymore, the brain will have no opiate.
Basically you are messing up your brain. So why do people who are perfectly happy and are just hanging out with their friends at a party use drugs? You know you are only causing harm to yourself. And why do people let their friends do it? You're only being a horrible, horrible friend. And when you push other people to do it- that's also a terrible (if not worse) friend. People need to stop acting like when you're young you should have fun and experience with drugs.
Does it not disturb you?

Hunger

Today in psychology, we learned about five different steps included in the scientific method. I found the example that Mrs. Perl used to describe the fifth step, operational definitions, to be extremely interesting because in my science class today, we had to come up with an experiment using the scientific method, and my experiment was a lot like the example she gave. I chose to focus on the topic of hunger, which I tested out by measuring how many times my stomach growled during the day depending on whether or not I had a snack in between breakfast and lunch. This is why I found Mrs. Perl's example kind of funny when she explained that we need to define something like hunger by either hearing our stomach's growling or by saying that we feel hungry. I was able to relate the information that I had previously learned in science to what we were being taught in psychology. I just thought this was an interesting comparison between the two classes!

Statistics

Hello my dear fellow classmates,

Statistics is often used in psychology in order to prove certain behaviors and conditions by collecting data. I just wanted to share a quick thought about statistics that really started to bother me. Often statistics are used in order to prove something about people in our society. Nevertheless, these statistics may often be wrong and don’t really show the true results. The results can be manipulated in order to make them seem correct. The idea that that is possible really disturbed me

For example, I recently learned that according to statistics most criminals are African American. However, what statistics did not show was that most of the crimes the African Americans committed were very minor. The Whites are actually the ones that commit the dreaded crimes such as murder and rape. Nevertheless, because of the results of the statistics, most people will simply automatically believe that the Blacks are the ones that commit most crimes and will begin to form opinions and ideas that are actually false.

Another way through which statistics can be controlled is when the person conducting the research for the data only chooses subjects who will respond to his survey as he wants. For example, if one is trying to make a serve about how many people like chocolate ice cream out of 100 people, he will specifically choose 89 people about whom he is certain will like chocolate ice cream (I know it’s a dumb example but I was trying to give an easy one so bear with me).Therefore, it will look in his survey like most people like chocolate ice cream although there is no way of knowing if that is really the case.

It is troublesome that we cannot really rely on statistics all the time. Although there are ways to determine when statistics are “wrong” not everyone knows how o do some and will therefore base their opinions on incorrect ideas.

For Good or for Evil?!

After reading about psychology being a potential danger, I realized that there is so much good that psychologists are able to do for people. They assist people with some of their greatest problems whether they are family or relationship issues or other world problems such as crime and war. I, personally, would never think of psychology as trying to deceive anybody because of all of the good that comes out of it. However, it is still possible that psychology, like all knowledge can be used for evil as well. It says in the book that Nuclear power has been used to light up cities and also to destroy them. So, it seems kind of frightening to think about it. If we see much of psychology as common sense, can't psychologists or researches use this to their advantage to manipulate us?

Surveys

After just one week of being in AP statistics and AP Psychology, I have learned that everything you read is not always so accurate. All over the internet, you see surveys and huge signs that read "95 percent of the people in your area have switched from Sprint to Verizon." Our initial reaction is "Wow! Maybe I should look into switching to Verizon." However, don't fall into that trap. You don't know how the survey was worded or who the people who were given the survey were. Maybe the survey was intentionally given to two hundred people in the area who have recently made derogatory comments about Sprint on their facebook page. Also, sometimes the way in which questions are worded can be interpreted in different ways. As we know, people look at things differently and make their own ideas about something. This is why on a test we are so inclined to always ask the teacher what exactly he/she is expecting for each question. Also, on a survey that is multiple choice, there might not be a choice that is exactly what you feel but if it is close enough, you'll 'check' it anyways. So, that is not really indicating your true belief. With that said, why are we always told to include statistics in our essays. Yes, they do add excitement and depth to our topic, but are they reliable?

Over Confidence and Hindsight Bias

The beginning of chapter one in the psychology book introduces us to "the hindsight bias." This is also known as the I knew it all along phenomenon. Essentially, it is a tendency to think events are more predictable than they really are. For example, you are at a Grizzlies game and you are sure they are going to win. They've been on fire and you know that they are motivated to win. You cheer the whole game and tell people that there is no chance the Grizzlies will lose. Three hours later, the Grizzlies have lost and you confidently tell your friend, "I knew that they would lose. It was obvious once he missed that shot right at the beginning."

You act as though all along you knew what would happen.

Question:
1. Why do you think that we pretend we knew all along what was really going to happen?

Which brings me to my next point and question:
Overconfidence. We tend to think we know more than we do. You make assumptions that you think are right, and even when you are proven wrong you tend to stick to your first assumption.

1. Why are we so unwilling to accept we are wrong?
2. How does overconfidence affect hindsight bias and vice versa?

Things to ponder:
How much of what we assume about other people is true? If you decide that you don't like a certain person because they are a snob, will you continue to think that even if the person proves they aren't truly snobby? And do we initially make these assumptions because we are overconfident?

Hello my dear fellow classmates,

I have been thinking a lot about the debate about nature versus nurture. I found it quite interesting actually that that theme was indirectly mentioned in a book that I read this previous summer. I thought that by explaining how the book brought forth this debate I might be able to add on to the mystery of whether we are born with certain characteristics or if the exposure to our environment will change us completely. I also used this book as a source to support my opinion about the subject (although I am certain the book can be used to argue against my opinion as well).

The Lord of the Flies by William Golding is an allegorical novel that takes place during WWII on a deserted island. A group of young boys crash on the deserted island and are left with no adult figure for numerous weeks. Immediately, the protagonist of the story, Ralph, seeks to establish an organized community with rules, morals and the value of good. Ralph is then voted as chief and together the boys create a peaceful society. However, a few weeks later, the antagonist, Jack, overthrows Ralph and influences the boys to become savages and to act violently and in a barbaric manner. This novel demonstrates that every human being is born with an inner savagery and the desire to live without rules and restrictions. This novel is trying to prove that because these young boys were isolated from their community at home, they felt no need to establish a civilization controlled by rules and a system by working together. Instead they gave in to their inner savagery because it seems much easier, effortless and undemanding.

Most of us do not give in to our savagery preexisting in us. We are raised and nurtured to suppress that desire and to instead yearn for an organized life with a system and regulations. Our environment has a great impact on our behavior and influences us to overcome our inner nature. It is only when the factor that nurtures us is taken away from us that our nature comes forth and takes over.

Ponder with Imagination

Imagine you were born in the time of Socrates in 470 B.C.E

Socrates and many other very wise philosophers had different and sometimes untrue ideas about psychology.

If you would not have any scientific proof, and you did not have this knowledge about the things that are true and untrue about psychology, how would you answer these following questions and why?

1. Are mind and body related, why do you think so?
2. Do you think nature shapes us more than nurture?
3. Are ideas inborn or are you born with a blank slate?

Question to ponder about: Socrates and Plato both believed that their mind continues existing after their death. Why do you think did they believe so, and don’t we have a similar belief with our soul? What does this mean?

Welcome to the AP Psychology Blog!

Welcome to the AP Psychology Blog!
In an effort to encourage collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking, each week you will be responsible to write one new blog post and to respond to two blog posts from your classmates.  In order to hold you accountable, you will be graded on these posts!

If there is a prompt on the blog, you will be required to respond to that particular prompt in your post (the prompt could be a video, article, question, cartoon etc.). If there is no prompt, you can be creative in your post and can bring in your own thoughts or resources concerning the topic that we are studying during that particular week.

I look forward to using this blog as a means to share ideas and reflections as we embark on our study of psychology.