This does not specifically have to do with anything we've done recently in class, but relates to bits of different things we have mentioned, and is rather something cool I stumbled across. Brainwave Entrainment is a practice that makes brainwave frequencies fall in sync with stimulus frequencies to put the brain in a specific state (i.e., alpha, beta, theta, or delta waves.) This happens by stimulating different brain frequencies. This works because the brain can switch its dominant EEG frequency to that of an"external dominant stimulus". This can be done through seeing something, hearing something, seeing and hearing something at the same time, or electromagnetic radiation. The stimulus would have to be something specially able to stimulate these tones, like music at just the right frequency for the brain to mimic.
I was looking into this because I was looking for something that could help me focus, and I stumbled onto this music that is said to increase Beta waves in the brain, which help with attention and functionality. The music has undertones of Binaural beats and Isochronic tones. The Binaural beats are audio signals that cause a brain response of the same frequency/ type of signal. Headphones are important, because they are made up of two similar tones played at the same time in different ears, and then the brain creates the tone both of our ears end up "hearing" by combining the two tones. This is said to have many different health benefits, including decreasing anxiety and promoting memorization and learning. The sensation (as in sensation and perception) having to do with Binaural beats is thought to come from a part of the brainstem known as the superior olivary nucleus. Isochronic tones are evenly spaced out noises that rapidly turn on and off. They help priduce strong cortical responses in the brain, and these also have plenty of proposed health benefits, along with stress reduction, improved studying power and cognition, and plenty more!
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
A Cold War Fought By Women
 |
| Same woman, different outfit. Do you think differently of this woman depending on what she's wearing? |
Dear Ladies, for the love of Gahd, please read this one! Really- it's super interesting! It's called "A Cold War Fought by Women" and its by John Tierney and you can read it by clicking here and you're going to love it so just read it. My CliffsNotes on it won't do it justice, so you should really read the article. It's about women being aggressive and mean towards each other. Come on! If you love Mean Girls, you'll love this article even more, I promise!
Thirty years ago, science couldn't confirm anything about the competitive nature of women; today there are many studies done devoted entirely to the topic of female aggression. Now, science is starting to prove right ideas that those of us who have been in high school have all been hypothesizing: girls get super competitive with each other. Things that distinguish female competitiveness from that of the male variety: more subtle and indirect, less violent. Do you agree with this assertion? I think it is safe to say that I see a lot of this passive-aggressive female competition kind've often. Guys often make fun of the girls for this. They say stuff like, "Guys get in a fight, then get over it. Girls are so passive aggressive and never get over things." What do you think about this bold comment?
What's perhaps most interesting about this research is the finding that the pressure that young women feel to meet the standards of sexual conduct and physical appearance is due to this "intrasexual competition." As in- it is girl on girl forces that are pressuring girls to look and act certain ways.
Here's a brief overview of the experiment conducted by Tracy Vaillancourt and Aanchal Sharma at McMaster University: researchers put pairs of women into a laboratory for what they thought was a discussion about female friendships. The real experiment, however, took place when a different young woman entered the room asking where to find one of the researchers. This woman was conventionally attractive. Sometimes she wore a T-shirt and jeans and other times she'd wear a tightfitting, low-cut blouse and a short skirt. What did you think would happen? When she wore the jeans, she attracted very little attention from her fellow female peers. When she wore the other outfit, though, "virtually all the students reacted with hostility."
They stared at her, looked her up and down, rolled their eyes and sometimes showed outright anger. One asked her in disgust, "What the [expletive] is that?"
Not surprisingly, the majority of the aggression happened after she left the room. The girls laughed about her and ridiculed her, going as far to suggest that "she dressed that way in order to have sex with the professor."
"Women are indeed very capable of aggressing against others, especially women they perceive as rivals," said Dr. Vaillancourt. .. "The research also shows that the suppression of female sexuality is by women, not necessarily by men."
"Slut shaming" has often been blamed on men, but this evidence seems to suggest the opposite- that women are the primary aggressors of slut shaming. What do you think? (Slut shaming= stigmatizing female promiscuity) Personally, I have to say that I see slut shaming come a lot more often and naturally from other girls. But is this because they are feeling pressure from society? Is it because they feel insecure? What is the root of this issue? Women feel worse when they compare themselves to peers in their own social circles. Women tend to feel worse about themselves when they're surrounded by other women in makeup and sleek attire. What do you think of these findings? Does it resonate with you?
This article talks a lot about the valid evolutionary aspects that would factor into this competitiveness. However, I would like to see this issue from a more holistic perspective, from a bio-pscyo-social approach. I think it would be really interesting to look further into this. What other studies have been done? Has this study been repeated? How would you design a similar study?
This article reminded me of the following scene from Mean Girls:
Idealistically, I hope that we can find some way to stop this girl-on-girl madness. There must be some way.. Any ideas? Or do you not think/see it as a problem?
Monday, December 9, 2013
Amnesia
As we learned in class there are a few essential steps to memory: encoding, storage, and retrieval. if something is messed up in one of these steps, we won't be able to remember the event or information. So, one would think that Amnesia is just a permanent damage to one of these steps (or atleast that's what I thought). What is it really?
When people lose their ability to memorize data, they have amnesia. It also refers to an inability to recall information that's stored in memory. Amnesia is the loss of memory. So it seems to be that my initial assumption was right! Lets look at the different causes of amnesia.
Organic causes may include brain damage through injury or the use of specific drugs. It may be the symptoms of some degenerative brain diseases (like Alzheimer's which we'll get to after).
Functional causes are psychological factors - like defense mechanisms.
Seems simple enough.. But then wouldn't it be fair to assume that Alzheimer's or dementia would also be just another form of damage to one of those steps (encoding, storage, or retrieval)? I would think so!
"Dementia isn't really a specific disease, it's a term that describes a wide range of symptoms associated with a decline in memory or other thinking skills severe enough to reduce a person's ability to perform everyday activities."--- this was very insightful because I thought that dementia was it's own disease, I was wrong.
Alzheimer's, which is the most common form of dementia, is a general term for memory loss and other intellectual abilities serious enough to interfere with daily life. Although many think that it has to do with aging, it is not a normal part of aging and it worsens over time. As Alzheimer's progresses, brain cells die and connections among cells are lost, causing cognitive symptoms (memory loses, confusion, and problems with thinking and reasoning) to worsen. There are treatments that can temporarily slow the worsening of dementia symptoms and improve the quality of life for those with Alzheimer's and their caregivers. The medication can't cure, but it can help lessen or stabilize symptoms for a limited time.
So, one would think that if Alzheimer's is is a form of memory loss, then the treatments would strengthen the steps of memory (encoding, storage, and retrieval). There are things called 'memory medications:' cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. These medications treat the cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. Cholinesterase is given during the early to moderate stages. They prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine (important for learning and memory). It supports communication among nerve cells. For patients with moderate to severe stages, memantine is usually prescribed to improve memory, attention, reason, language, and the ability to perform simple tasks. It regulates the activity of glutamate (involved in learning and memory as well). It delays the worsening of symptoms temporarily.
The pictures above show two abnormal structures (plaques and tangles) that are prime suspects in damaging and killing nerve cells. Plaques are deposits of protein fragment called beta-amyllid that build up in spaces between nerve cells. Tangles are twisted fibers of another protein called tau that build up inside cells.
When people lose their ability to memorize data, they have amnesia. It also refers to an inability to recall information that's stored in memory. Amnesia is the loss of memory. So it seems to be that my initial assumption was right! Lets look at the different causes of amnesia.
Organic causes may include brain damage through injury or the use of specific drugs. It may be the symptoms of some degenerative brain diseases (like Alzheimer's which we'll get to after).
Functional causes are psychological factors - like defense mechanisms.
Seems simple enough.. But then wouldn't it be fair to assume that Alzheimer's or dementia would also be just another form of damage to one of those steps (encoding, storage, or retrieval)? I would think so!
"Dementia isn't really a specific disease, it's a term that describes a wide range of symptoms associated with a decline in memory or other thinking skills severe enough to reduce a person's ability to perform everyday activities."--- this was very insightful because I thought that dementia was it's own disease, I was wrong.
Alzheimer's, which is the most common form of dementia, is a general term for memory loss and other intellectual abilities serious enough to interfere with daily life. Although many think that it has to do with aging, it is not a normal part of aging and it worsens over time. As Alzheimer's progresses, brain cells die and connections among cells are lost, causing cognitive symptoms (memory loses, confusion, and problems with thinking and reasoning) to worsen. There are treatments that can temporarily slow the worsening of dementia symptoms and improve the quality of life for those with Alzheimer's and their caregivers. The medication can't cure, but it can help lessen or stabilize symptoms for a limited time.
So, one would think that if Alzheimer's is is a form of memory loss, then the treatments would strengthen the steps of memory (encoding, storage, and retrieval). There are things called 'memory medications:' cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine. These medications treat the cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. Cholinesterase is given during the early to moderate stages. They prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine (important for learning and memory). It supports communication among nerve cells. For patients with moderate to severe stages, memantine is usually prescribed to improve memory, attention, reason, language, and the ability to perform simple tasks. It regulates the activity of glutamate (involved in learning and memory as well). It delays the worsening of symptoms temporarily.
  |
This is also a pretty cool link to a Brain Tour: http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_4719.asp
It explains how the brain works and how Alzheimer's affects it.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Writing Things Down (Titles really aren't my thing!)
As we become more and more dependent on computers in school (and in life) we tend to pick up a pen and paper less and less. What we may not realize is what we are losing by doing so.
I remember always being told to write things down when studying for a test because it would make it easier to remember in the end. Whenever I had a spelling test I wouldn't just sit there and spell the letters in my head or even say them aloud- I would instead write them on paper. If I didn't spell a word right my mom always made me write the word down ten times. It turned out that doing so really seared the spelling into my brain and helped me spell the word right on the test.
As you can see from my personal experience, the idea that writing something down helps you better recall it later proved true. I would like to know if there is any hard evidence or studies done that proves this concept.
It turns out there is. Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway and Jean-Luv Velay, a French neuroscientist, found that writing by hand is a totally different experience than typing on a computer. According to their research, learning new letters (whether it be a child learning the alphabet or an adult learning a second language) is easier when the letters are written down, by hand, on paper. (Sorry, Rosetta Stone.) Apparently, the physical act alone of holding a pencil between your fingers sends signals to the brain which enables your "motor memory", and helps you later recall what you wrote down. This is different than the act of typing a key, because it is the same motion whether you are typing a "h" or a "z", and so on.
Maybe we should all consider ditching the computer and taking those history notes by hand. It might take longer and require more effort, but those hand cramps may be worth it in the long run.
Have y'all noticed that writing something down has helped you remember it? Would you consider switching from typing notes to handwriting them?
I remember always being told to write things down when studying for a test because it would make it easier to remember in the end. Whenever I had a spelling test I wouldn't just sit there and spell the letters in my head or even say them aloud- I would instead write them on paper. If I didn't spell a word right my mom always made me write the word down ten times. It turned out that doing so really seared the spelling into my brain and helped me spell the word right on the test.
As you can see from my personal experience, the idea that writing something down helps you better recall it later proved true. I would like to know if there is any hard evidence or studies done that proves this concept.
It turns out there is. Anne Mangen of the University of Stavanger in Norway and Jean-Luv Velay, a French neuroscientist, found that writing by hand is a totally different experience than typing on a computer. According to their research, learning new letters (whether it be a child learning the alphabet or an adult learning a second language) is easier when the letters are written down, by hand, on paper. (Sorry, Rosetta Stone.) Apparently, the physical act alone of holding a pencil between your fingers sends signals to the brain which enables your "motor memory", and helps you later recall what you wrote down. This is different than the act of typing a key, because it is the same motion whether you are typing a "h" or a "z", and so on.
Maybe we should all consider ditching the computer and taking those history notes by hand. It might take longer and require more effort, but those hand cramps may be worth it in the long run.
Have y'all noticed that writing something down has helped you remember it? Would you consider switching from typing notes to handwriting them?
Deja Who? Deja Vu!
As I was surfing the web tonight, I found a V-Sauce video on the psychological phenomenon on deja vu. Deja vu can be described as moments that, when we are in them, feel like they have happened before. It feels like you are in the exact same situation or moment from a past experience. To me, like Michael from V-Sauce, deja vu is similar to hypnosis. We don't have any provable information on how it really occurs.
People don't even have the ability to experience deja vu until they are 8 or 9 years old, and it only continues through maybe your early to middle twenties. Because of this, we can infer that deja vu is related to brain development. Michael explains to us that one of the number one causes of deja vu is that disconnection between the unconscious and conscious awareness of processing the stimuli entering the brain. He explains this through visual processing. From earlier units we know that the light waves enter through the eyes, and make their way back to the visual cortex, in the occipital lobe to be processed into an image. We also know that people who have damage to their occipital love are blind because they can't process any images. But, Michael brings another bit of information to our attention. While the lightwaves make their way from the retina to the occipital lobe, they make many stops along the way. One for example being the somewhere in the limbic system. This would give emotional meaning to the image someone is seeing or not seeing. People who only have damage to the occipital lobe can see the light waves and process emotion through them because of the passing through the limbic system. Just like the visual information, the memory associated with deja vu could stop in the limbic system and trigger emotions from the very place you are in, making you feel as though you are in the exact same position.
There could also be a biologic predisposition to deja vu. Michael explains this as random epileptic seizures of neurons in the brain. He then goes on to tell us that people who have deja vu very often, usually have some damage in their temporal lobes. These epileptic events are triggered in the temporal lobe, and they also explain hypnogogic jerk. The idea that when you are in stage one of sleep, you feel as though you may be falling or floating.
While that is what we know about deja vu for know, there are also presque vu, and jamais vu. Presque vu is when something is on "the tip of your tongue," but for the life of you, you cannot remember it. Jamais vu is when you say something over and over again and it suddenly starts to lose meaning and seems like a whole new word.
I think what makes all these "vu's" so interesting is that there is not anyone piece of provable evidence that we can use to confirm what deja vu is. It shall remain a mystery for now!
People don't even have the ability to experience deja vu until they are 8 or 9 years old, and it only continues through maybe your early to middle twenties. Because of this, we can infer that deja vu is related to brain development. Michael explains to us that one of the number one causes of deja vu is that disconnection between the unconscious and conscious awareness of processing the stimuli entering the brain. He explains this through visual processing. From earlier units we know that the light waves enter through the eyes, and make their way back to the visual cortex, in the occipital lobe to be processed into an image. We also know that people who have damage to their occipital love are blind because they can't process any images. But, Michael brings another bit of information to our attention. While the lightwaves make their way from the retina to the occipital lobe, they make many stops along the way. One for example being the somewhere in the limbic system. This would give emotional meaning to the image someone is seeing or not seeing. People who only have damage to the occipital lobe can see the light waves and process emotion through them because of the passing through the limbic system. Just like the visual information, the memory associated with deja vu could stop in the limbic system and trigger emotions from the very place you are in, making you feel as though you are in the exact same position.
There could also be a biologic predisposition to deja vu. Michael explains this as random epileptic seizures of neurons in the brain. He then goes on to tell us that people who have deja vu very often, usually have some damage in their temporal lobes. These epileptic events are triggered in the temporal lobe, and they also explain hypnogogic jerk. The idea that when you are in stage one of sleep, you feel as though you may be falling or floating.
While that is what we know about deja vu for know, there are also presque vu, and jamais vu. Presque vu is when something is on "the tip of your tongue," but for the life of you, you cannot remember it. Jamais vu is when you say something over and over again and it suddenly starts to lose meaning and seems like a whole new word.
I think what makes all these "vu's" so interesting is that there is not anyone piece of provable evidence that we can use to confirm what deja vu is. It shall remain a mystery for now!
Amnesia...Wait, What Is It Called Again?
So, we're halfway done with the AP Psych textbook and we've come to learn about memory. Memory is a seemingly complex process, with different components and models. The first thing to know about memory is that it takes place in three stages: encoding, storage, and retrieval.
The three models of memory include ideas from Atkinson and Shiffrin- there is sensory memory, which is fleeting and takes place when there is sensation but no perception, short-term memory which is encoding through rehearsal, and long-term memory, which is storage for later retrieval. These models represent basic, simple memory and the whole idea all together is very static and passive- either you store the information or it's forgotten. This type of memory is very limited.
Unlike the static system described above, working memory has do with a more active system that is dynamic, but limited (though not as much as sensory memory). Working memory is in place of short-term memory. Baddeley's model is an explanation of what is involved in working memory. This model includes the central executive, which controls attention, the phonological loop, which has to do with language, the visuo-spatial sketchpad, which stores visual and spatial information, and the episodic buffer, which processes events. Connectionism revolves around the idea that there are interconnected neural networks that are involved in storage and allow for specific memories to come out of particular activation patterns. For instance, you recall experiences associated with a specific object.
Both types of memory have a limited amount of space, because we can only process 7 pieces of information into memory at a time, give or take 2. In working memory, we need to focus our attention on certain aspects so that we can keep them in our memory.
So that is how memory is stored, but while learning this I was more interesting to learn about memory failures like amnesia. Though we haven't discussed it yet, I decided to look it up on my own. According to medicalnewstoday.com, amnesia is when people lose their ability to memorize data. It also refers to the inability to recall information that has already been stored. According to this website, there can be organic or functional causes of amnesia. Organic causes can include brain damage through injury or the use of drugs, usually sedatives. Amnesia can also be one of the symptoms of diseases like Alzheimer's. Functional causes are psychological factors, like defense mechanisms.
There are many, many types of amnesia, though the one I want to discuss is traumatic amnesia. Not to get all drama-llama up in here, but in 5th grade I fell off my bike (looking back, I see that I tend to fall or jump off moving vehicles with wheels, but I actually fell this time, I didn't jump) and I got amnesia. Ever since then, I've thought that amnesia was just forgetting stuff, but I actually had a specific type, called traumatic amnesia. This is caused by a hard blow to the head and is usually found in people who have been in car accidents. People with this type of amnesia can experience a brief loss of consciousness or even go into a coma, but in the majority of cases, this amnesia is temporary. How long it lasts usually depends on how sever the injury is. Some scientists say that amnesia is an important indicator of a concussion.
Thankfully, I didn't go into a coma and my amnesia was obviously temporary, but I think it's interesting to see how this has to do with memory.
Link to full article: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9673.php
Remembering
I remember as a little kid, when we used to live by Anshei and my family and I would occasionally stay Shabbat at my Grandmother's house so we could go to Baron Hirsch sometimes. Since I was younger, I needed something that would aways entertain me. We used to play with puzzles or memory card games. I remember when we would play the memory games, I would be really good at it. My grandmother and my mother would always tell me how good my memory was and how good I was at the game.
Now, I still think that I have a good memory. I know that I am really good at remembering birthdays, numbers, and names. It kind of seems really creepy. Sometimes when I have memorized someone's birthday after them only telling me once, they will think that I am a creeper for knowing it, but I think it's just because I can remember numbers pretty easily.
Now, I still think that I have a good memory. I know that I am really good at remembering birthdays, numbers, and names. It kind of seems really creepy. Sometimes when I have memorized someone's birthday after them only telling me once, they will think that I am a creeper for knowing it, but I think it's just because I can remember numbers pretty easily.
Then, there are those memories that I remember vividly happening. I see those events as part of my childhood. When I ask my parents about the memory, they say that never happened and I get confused. It seemed like it was something that could happen and when I am told that it never happened it just doesn't seem right.
Also, when I was a kid, I remember having a certain dream that I remember until this day. I think that I remember it because it was a semantic dream. I remember the dream with detail. The dream was that I was at this zoo type thing and there was a pool with baby sharks and I remember that my mom threw me in that pool and walked away. I remember having the dream and I know that I did have the dream. Since it was so long ago, I'm not sure if I got the details fully correct. It is kind of frustrating to not be able to remember all the things that happened at an event and our mind just puts pieces into a memory and throws out some and adds some, but you can never truly know if your memory is exact.
Eidetic Memory
In many of the world's most beloved movies and TV series, there is that one character whose intelligence really stands out. In Criminal Minds, it's Dr. Spencer Reid. In Star Trek, it's Mr. Spock. In Gilmore Girls, it's Rory Gilmore. In X-Men, it's Professor Charles Xavier. What do all of these people have in common? Apart from having beyond-average intelligence, all of these characters also claim to have eidetic memories. Eidetic memory is the ability to recall sights, sounds, or objects in memory with great precision, and is not required through mnemonics. This phenomenon is also known as photographic memory or total recall.
Although I introduced the list of people above as having over-average intelligence, eidetic memory and intelligence are not actually connected. This ability is mostly found in children below age 6. However after age 6, the ability for "total recall" is often lost. The people I listed above, despite the fact that they are fictional characters, have managed to maintain this ability well into adulthood. Additionally, it is important to note that eidetic memory is a process that applies to long-term memory. Once the information enters the working memory, the person has an easier time encoding all of that information. For example, a person with eidetic memory would be able to remember large amounts of literature that was read to him/her or that he/she once read. Again, this information is not "rehearsed" in the sense that the person does not consciously try to retain all of that information at once.
This all sounds great on paper, but psychologists have a really hard time deciding if this is a true phenomenon or not. Some psychologists, including Martin Minsky, claim that this phenomenon is just a myth. One particular test stands out among the rest. in 1970, Charles Stromeyer conducted an experiment on his fiance in which he had her recall poetry in a foreign language that she did not understand. The poetry held no semantic meaning to her, so her recollection of it was attributed to eidetic memory. The fiance, known as Elizabeth, was also able to recall complex dot patterns and combine the patterns into one image. To date, she is the only person to have passed such a test. While this experiment seems great, there are some loopholes. First, Elizabeth refused to repeat the experiment. Second, the scientist married the subject, making the whole experiment seem a bit skewed.
Although I introduced the list of people above as having over-average intelligence, eidetic memory and intelligence are not actually connected. This ability is mostly found in children below age 6. However after age 6, the ability for "total recall" is often lost. The people I listed above, despite the fact that they are fictional characters, have managed to maintain this ability well into adulthood. Additionally, it is important to note that eidetic memory is a process that applies to long-term memory. Once the information enters the working memory, the person has an easier time encoding all of that information. For example, a person with eidetic memory would be able to remember large amounts of literature that was read to him/her or that he/she once read. Again, this information is not "rehearsed" in the sense that the person does not consciously try to retain all of that information at once.
This all sounds great on paper, but psychologists have a really hard time deciding if this is a true phenomenon or not. Some psychologists, including Martin Minsky, claim that this phenomenon is just a myth. One particular test stands out among the rest. in 1970, Charles Stromeyer conducted an experiment on his fiance in which he had her recall poetry in a foreign language that she did not understand. The poetry held no semantic meaning to her, so her recollection of it was attributed to eidetic memory. The fiance, known as Elizabeth, was also able to recall complex dot patterns and combine the patterns into one image. To date, she is the only person to have passed such a test. While this experiment seems great, there are some loopholes. First, Elizabeth refused to repeat the experiment. Second, the scientist married the subject, making the whole experiment seem a bit skewed.
What do you think? Is eidetic memory real?
For all of the Sheldon Cooper fans out there, look what I found!
Creepy déjà vu!
Ever had that weird feeling that what you saying or doing already happened once. It happens to me all the time and it creeps me out. I will be in a store that I have never gone to or talking to someone about something completely random and this weird feeling comes over me. The feeling that this already happened. That I have been there before. That I have talked about this to her already. But I know I didn't and it bothers me to no end. So when something like bothers you, you research it and see if its a normal thing. Like when you have a cold and you research your symptoms and it tells you, you have diabetes and will die in the next month. When I researched déjà vu I found a few answers to why we experience it. Not many made sense but one kind of did.
The concept of déjà vu has been around for a while. The french word itself mean "all ready been seen". While there are many different theory and reason given they all do not make sense and have been disproved. All but one.
There is a theory that déjà vu is linked with are memory. It is kind of like flashbulb memory- When something triggers a bad or great experience you had. The older you get the more likely it is to experience déjà vu. Everything that has ever happened to us is stored in are brain. There are many things though that can trigger those memories to come out of storage. If you are doing something that you have never done before there can be a stimulus there that you don't even consciously realize is there that triggers your brain of something that already happened. That gives you the feeling of I have already been here or said that. The brain is triggering something that is already stored but not fully taking it out. So you don't remember then fully what happened but you just feel like you have experienced something already.
Have you ever experienced déjà vu?
Do you think this theory makes sense?
Do you know of any better theories?
The concept of déjà vu has been around for a while. The french word itself mean "all ready been seen". While there are many different theory and reason given they all do not make sense and have been disproved. All but one.
There is a theory that déjà vu is linked with are memory. It is kind of like flashbulb memory- When something triggers a bad or great experience you had. The older you get the more likely it is to experience déjà vu. Everything that has ever happened to us is stored in are brain. There are many things though that can trigger those memories to come out of storage. If you are doing something that you have never done before there can be a stimulus there that you don't even consciously realize is there that triggers your brain of something that already happened. That gives you the feeling of I have already been here or said that. The brain is triggering something that is already stored but not fully taking it out. So you don't remember then fully what happened but you just feel like you have experienced something already.
Have you ever experienced déjà vu?
Do you think this theory makes sense?
Do you know of any better theories?
Hyperthymesia and Memory Distortion
How do we remember information? How memory works is often analogized to a computer’s information-processing system. To remember any event, we must get the information into our brain through the process of encoding, or the processing of information into the memory system, retain the information over time through storage, and later get it back out, through retrieval. A computer also encodes, stores, and retrieves information. First, it translates input (keystrokes) into an electronic language, much as the brain encodes sensory information into a neural language. The computer permanently stores vast amounts of information on a drive, from which it can later be retrieved.
But, imagine being able to recall every moment of your entire life, beginning around age 10. UC Irvine neuroscientists James McGaugh and Larry Cahill studied people with this type of phenomenal memory, hyperthymesia. Their first scientific paper in 2006 consisted of a study about a woman nicknamed AJ (Jill Price), who had hyperthymesia. Hyperthymesia, also known as highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM), is a condition in which one can remember astonishing details about every single day of their life going back to childhood. Given any specific date in the last few decades, Brad Williams can remember both what he did that day and what significant world events occurred. Bob Petrella can recall the date he met every one of his friends and associates. Jill Price can remember the day that any episode of any TV show she’s ever seen first aired—including, in a handful of cases, that day’s weather.
“Researchers have previously found that memories can be distorted in every group they’ve looked at: in the young, the old, those with high intelligence and those with low intelligence,” Lawrence Patihis, a psychologist at UC Irvine and the lead author of the new study, says. “And when we looked at people with HSAM, in all measures, we found memory distortions too.”
To test whether these people could be deceived into remembering false or distorted memories, the researchers enlisted 20 people with hyperthymesia and compared their performance in a set of standard memory implantation tests—which attempt to fool the participant into recalling incorrect specifics or events that didn’t occur—to 38 people with normal memory. These types of tests have frequently been used in the push for limiting the reliance on witness testimony in the criminal justice system, as they indicate that people often misremember events and details because of leading questions.
In the first test, the participants were shown a series of 15 related words one by one on a screen. Then, afterward, they were tested on whether they’d seen specific words, including a critical “lure” word that was related to the rest but did not actually appear. Most non-hyperthymestic people taking the test would report seeing the lure word even though it was never displayed, because they’d associate it with the words actually shown.
But what about hyperthymestic people? In the experiment, both the control group and the participants with hyperthymesia said they observed the "lure" 70 percent of the time.
The second test involved a slideshow of photographs that portrayed a crime. Forty minutes later, the participants read a text narrative that described the same event, but also included six detailed errors. After this, the participants were given multiple choice questions on what they saw in the original photos. Both groups made errors, influenced by the text they read after seeing the photos. However, the people with hyperthymesia made nearly 73 percent more errors than the control group, perhaps indicating a greater reliance on textual cues.
The results of the third test were the most staggering. Dispersed among dozens of irrelevant facts about recent history that were meant to distract, the participants were told that, on 9/11, someone had captured footage of United Flight 93 crashing in Pennsylvania. Then, on a written questionnaire, they were asked if they’d seen that “well-publicized footage.” Twenty-nine percent of the control group and twenty percent of the hyperthymestic participants reported that they’d seen the footage—an impossibility, because no such video exists.
Anyways, the study served as a broader glimpse into the memory processes of people with hyperthymesia and how they might—or might not—actually differ from the rest of the human race.
One of this study’s authors, Aurora LePort, had previously conducted neurological research into the same people with HSAM tested in this study, and found structural differences in their brains, including stronger white matter in areas specifically associated with autobiographical memory—recall of events that occurred to oneself—rather than areas linked to wider applications of memory. The reality that these people can’t perform any better on memory distortion tests similarly implies a fundamental difference between autobiographical memory (at which they clearly surpass the average human in) and memory as a whole.
For your reading pleasure, here's the article: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/11/even-people-with-perfect-memory-can-be-tricked-into-recalling-fake-events/
“Researchers have previously found that memories can be distorted in every group they’ve looked at: in the young, the old, those with high intelligence and those with low intelligence,” Lawrence Patihis, a psychologist at UC Irvine and the lead author of the new study, says. “And when we looked at people with HSAM, in all measures, we found memory distortions too.”
To test whether these people could be deceived into remembering false or distorted memories, the researchers enlisted 20 people with hyperthymesia and compared their performance in a set of standard memory implantation tests—which attempt to fool the participant into recalling incorrect specifics or events that didn’t occur—to 38 people with normal memory. These types of tests have frequently been used in the push for limiting the reliance on witness testimony in the criminal justice system, as they indicate that people often misremember events and details because of leading questions.
In the first test, the participants were shown a series of 15 related words one by one on a screen. Then, afterward, they were tested on whether they’d seen specific words, including a critical “lure” word that was related to the rest but did not actually appear. Most non-hyperthymestic people taking the test would report seeing the lure word even though it was never displayed, because they’d associate it with the words actually shown.
But what about hyperthymestic people? In the experiment, both the control group and the participants with hyperthymesia said they observed the "lure" 70 percent of the time.
The second test involved a slideshow of photographs that portrayed a crime. Forty minutes later, the participants read a text narrative that described the same event, but also included six detailed errors. After this, the participants were given multiple choice questions on what they saw in the original photos. Both groups made errors, influenced by the text they read after seeing the photos. However, the people with hyperthymesia made nearly 73 percent more errors than the control group, perhaps indicating a greater reliance on textual cues.
The results of the third test were the most staggering. Dispersed among dozens of irrelevant facts about recent history that were meant to distract, the participants were told that, on 9/11, someone had captured footage of United Flight 93 crashing in Pennsylvania. Then, on a written questionnaire, they were asked if they’d seen that “well-publicized footage.” Twenty-nine percent of the control group and twenty percent of the hyperthymestic participants reported that they’d seen the footage—an impossibility, because no such video exists.
Anyways, the study served as a broader glimpse into the memory processes of people with hyperthymesia and how they might—or might not—actually differ from the rest of the human race.
One of this study’s authors, Aurora LePort, had previously conducted neurological research into the same people with HSAM tested in this study, and found structural differences in their brains, including stronger white matter in areas specifically associated with autobiographical memory—recall of events that occurred to oneself—rather than areas linked to wider applications of memory. The reality that these people can’t perform any better on memory distortion tests similarly implies a fundamental difference between autobiographical memory (at which they clearly surpass the average human in) and memory as a whole.
For your reading pleasure, here's the article: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/11/even-people-with-perfect-memory-can-be-tricked-into-recalling-fake-events/
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Dr. Doolittle's Takes Working Memory
Memory just seems like another system of sensation and perception, just that what is perceived is saved forever. We sense everything in our sensory memory, but our sensory memory is fleeting and limited. What we actually perceive, we rehearse and it becomes part of our long term memory that we can retrieve later on. Before it gets to the long term memory, though, it is still in short term memory--or your working memory. The working memory is the more evolved term for the short term memory. The working memory is more dynamic than the static short term memory. Your working memory temporarily stores information and manipulates it. It is active and dynamic. When you see something, it goes into your working memory and you can evoke long term memories that will make you notice some things and not others. It basically ties together all of your memories so you can make connections. So, that's all very nice. Lovely definitions. So I found a Ted video in which Peter Doolittle, an educational psychologist, talks about the importance and limitations of your working memory.
Dr. Dootlittle (lol) talks about a guy who couldn't text and talk at the same time and approaches it from a working memory perspective. He describes the working memory as having four parts. It can store immediate experiences and knowledge, it allows us pull back long term memories, it helps us process our goals, and processes and manipulates our memories. Our working memory capacity can have effects on us. People with a high working memory capacity are known to be good story tellers, do well on standardized tests, have high level writing abilities, and can reason at high levels. Then, Peter asks the audience to perform a few tests to play with their working memories. He tells them to remember 5 words: tree, highway, mirror, saturn, and electrode. He then asks them what 23x8 is. He asks them to count on their left hand and recite the last 5 letters of the english alphabet backward. He then asks the audience how many words they remember. Only about half of the people raised their hands.
Dr. Doolittle says that our working memory allows us to make sense of the world around us, but it has limitations. It has limited capacity and limited duration. We can only remember things for about 4 things for about 10-20 seconds unless we do something with that information. We can apply it to something or even just talk to someone about it.
He says that we need to process what's going on the moment it happens. We need to practice, apply, and talk to others about new information. We need to think elaborately. We need to make connections with information and use imagery when thinking. We need to structure what we're doing in ways it makes sense. We also need to support information over time as it changes. His take home message is that what we process, we learn and if we're not processing life, we're not living it.
Eh. Seems a bit fluffy to me--like obviously if we're not processing life then we're not perceiving and then we're really just not taking in everything around us. That's basically like being in a coma. I think his point was more to just show the people how our memory works and some ways to improve your working memory. It was just a bit short for a crash course on memory.
Anyway, what do you guys think about his message? Did it inspire you? Personally I found it a bit weak for a Ted talk. The the video is posted below--take a look if you want.
Dr. Dootlittle (lol) talks about a guy who couldn't text and talk at the same time and approaches it from a working memory perspective. He describes the working memory as having four parts. It can store immediate experiences and knowledge, it allows us pull back long term memories, it helps us process our goals, and processes and manipulates our memories. Our working memory capacity can have effects on us. People with a high working memory capacity are known to be good story tellers, do well on standardized tests, have high level writing abilities, and can reason at high levels. Then, Peter asks the audience to perform a few tests to play with their working memories. He tells them to remember 5 words: tree, highway, mirror, saturn, and electrode. He then asks them what 23x8 is. He asks them to count on their left hand and recite the last 5 letters of the english alphabet backward. He then asks the audience how many words they remember. Only about half of the people raised their hands.
Dr. Doolittle says that our working memory allows us to make sense of the world around us, but it has limitations. It has limited capacity and limited duration. We can only remember things for about 4 things for about 10-20 seconds unless we do something with that information. We can apply it to something or even just talk to someone about it.
He says that we need to process what's going on the moment it happens. We need to practice, apply, and talk to others about new information. We need to think elaborately. We need to make connections with information and use imagery when thinking. We need to structure what we're doing in ways it makes sense. We also need to support information over time as it changes. His take home message is that what we process, we learn and if we're not processing life, we're not living it.
Eh. Seems a bit fluffy to me--like obviously if we're not processing life then we're not perceiving and then we're really just not taking in everything around us. That's basically like being in a coma. I think his point was more to just show the people how our memory works and some ways to improve your working memory. It was just a bit short for a crash course on memory.
Anyway, what do you guys think about his message? Did it inspire you? Personally I found it a bit weak for a Ted talk. The the video is posted below--take a look if you want.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Working Memory
I came across an interesting article about working memory. In this article, it states that, just as we learned yesterday, working memory is "decidedly finite," much like our flashlight example. This has a lot to do with our problem solving skills and our ability to focus. Apparently, as Jennifer Wiley and Andrew Jarosz of the University of Illinois at Chicago found out, it also has a lot to do with how we solve mathematical and creative problems.
Interestingly, working memory has a lot to do with solving math problems and thinking analytically. High working memory capacity has to do with better mathematical problem solving. It also helps focus attention and keep people from being distracted.
However, high working memory capacity appears to hinder creative thinking, such as creative, out-of-the box problem solving. Because creative thinking can require seeing the bigger picture, thinking of a totally new approach, or analyzing different, random pieces of information, people with higher working memory capacity find this difficult because they are to focused in to what they are doing or a specific way of thinking. As it turns out, too much focus can make creative problem solving hard.
I find this very interesting, because it helps explain how I think, as well as other people that are not mathematically inclined. I do have trouble focusing on concepts occasionally, and math is challenging to understand for me. I find that I have a talent at approaching problems creatively and finding unusual solutions and approaches. Perhaps I don't have a higher working memory capacity. How interesting!
Learning in Action
Right after being tested on chapter 6 about Learning, I went home for Thanksgiving break. At home, I had the funniest experience that had to with the topics we have covered in class and provided some real-life examples. First, my cat ran outside at night on Thanksgiving. It was dark, and we did not know how to find her. We were looking outside for about 20 minutes when my mom had the idea to bring out her bag of cat food and shake it, in the hopes that my cat would come when she heard the food. Amazingly, this worked. Right after we started shaking the bag around my neighbor's yard, which was the direction we saw her run in, she darted out from where she was hiding and came right up to the bag. I realized that this might be a nice example of Operant Conditioning. We always shake her bag of food when we pour it into her bowl, which lets her know food is coming, and she runs to it. The reinforcer is that she gets food, so she keeps repeating the behavior. She responded the same way, even in a different environment! Skinner would be proud.
Another example of learning occurred with my brother. He used to get rewards for cleaning his room, but over time my mom stopped rewarding him. He realized that he wasn't getting anything in return for cleaning his room anymore, so he stopped. His behavior was not being reinforced, so it waned off. He used to be given a treat after every week that he cleaned his room (fixed interval.) That worked fairly well when he was getting reinforces, but as this slowly dwindled (every few weeks to whenever it was randomly checked) the set schedule faded and the behavior ceased to be repeated. This shaping only worked when he was getting reinforced on a set pattern, and without this structure it collapsed. Psychology at work!
Another example of learning occurred with my brother. He used to get rewards for cleaning his room, but over time my mom stopped rewarding him. He realized that he wasn't getting anything in return for cleaning his room anymore, so he stopped. His behavior was not being reinforced, so it waned off. He used to be given a treat after every week that he cleaned his room (fixed interval.) That worked fairly well when he was getting reinforces, but as this slowly dwindled (every few weeks to whenever it was randomly checked) the set schedule faded and the behavior ceased to be repeated. This shaping only worked when he was getting reinforced on a set pattern, and without this structure it collapsed. Psychology at work!
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Sleeping Disords
There are 5 stages of sleep. Stage 1: transition into sleep. Falling asleep, but still alert. Stage 2: Sleep spindles-start to go into a deeper sleep. Stage 3 and 4: Deep sleep-many delta waves. REM: intense brain activity sleep-mind goes crazy, body is paralyzed.
I find sleep disorders very interesting. Personally, I cherish my sleep and I don't know what I would do if I didn't have it. To have a sleep disorder, for me, is just more difficult to actually picture.
There is insomnia which is where you can't fall asleep at night or where you wake up in the middle of the night. I know someone who has insomnia that I used to babysit for. Their siblings would go to bed when I told them, but every so often, she would come out of her room and see what was going on because she couldn't fall asleep. She would either wait until her parents came home to go to sleep, or she would fall asleep way past her bed time.
Then there is narcolepsy which is a sleep disorder that you would randomly fall into an REM sleep. This can be very dangerous because just out of no where, unexpectedly, you just fall asleep. There is also sleep apnea, which is where there is a partial blockage in your throat and you take a gasp of air throughout the night. Both my parents have sleep apnea. With sleep apnea, you will never get a full cycle of sleep.
The one that seems like the most difficult sleep disorder to me is night terrors. From a parent's point of view, it has to seem like something so scary. Randomly, your child will just start screaming and there is no way that you can stop it, they just scream and scream. Also, they are sleeping, so it's not like they're awake and aware. They won't remember it happening to them in the morning either. It's just something so scary and out of this world.
I find sleep disorders very interesting. Personally, I cherish my sleep and I don't know what I would do if I didn't have it. To have a sleep disorder, for me, is just more difficult to actually picture.
There is insomnia which is where you can't fall asleep at night or where you wake up in the middle of the night. I know someone who has insomnia that I used to babysit for. Their siblings would go to bed when I told them, but every so often, she would come out of her room and see what was going on because she couldn't fall asleep. She would either wait until her parents came home to go to sleep, or she would fall asleep way past her bed time.
Then there is narcolepsy which is a sleep disorder that you would randomly fall into an REM sleep. This can be very dangerous because just out of no where, unexpectedly, you just fall asleep. There is also sleep apnea, which is where there is a partial blockage in your throat and you take a gasp of air throughout the night. Both my parents have sleep apnea. With sleep apnea, you will never get a full cycle of sleep.
The one that seems like the most difficult sleep disorder to me is night terrors. From a parent's point of view, it has to seem like something so scary. Randomly, your child will just start screaming and there is no way that you can stop it, they just scream and scream. Also, they are sleeping, so it's not like they're awake and aware. They won't remember it happening to them in the morning either. It's just something so scary and out of this world.
Watch and Learn
I find myself to learn more by watching other people do something and I try to mimic it. When it comes to being taught to do something, I get too caught up in the instructions and trying to pay attention to making sure that I'm doing it right. I like watching how other people do it and then trying to figure it out from there. In my piano lessons, when my teacher is teaching me a song and he plays it, I will watch him playing it rather than following with the notes. In the end, it's not such a good thing because I end up not learning how to read the notes, rather just memorize where his fingers were placed on the keys and playing that.
Learning by watching others can be something so dangerous. Kids with aggressive parents become aggressive people. Kids who play video games can become kids with so many anger and violence issues. If they get in trouble for it, they can just tell the person that told them to stop that their mommy or daddy also does those types of things and that means it's not wrong.
It also can be dangerous with peer experiences. If you see your friend drinking or using drugs and you see that they can tolerate it, no problems, you might think that it's okay because your friend was fine so you will also be fine. That is very wrong because everyone has different tolerance levels. Just because your friend was fine doesn't mean you will be because your tolerance level may be much lower.
Learning by watching others can also be something so great. If a parent is a good person and they do kind things for others, the kids might mimic their behavior and do kind things for others. Learning by observing can go either way, good or bad, it all depends on who you are observing. If a kid is taught only by observing, I don't believe they will get so far in life. If they only know how to do things because of what others do, they won't ever learn how to do things on their own.
Learning by watching others can be something so dangerous. Kids with aggressive parents become aggressive people. Kids who play video games can become kids with so many anger and violence issues. If they get in trouble for it, they can just tell the person that told them to stop that their mommy or daddy also does those types of things and that means it's not wrong.
It also can be dangerous with peer experiences. If you see your friend drinking or using drugs and you see that they can tolerate it, no problems, you might think that it's okay because your friend was fine so you will also be fine. That is very wrong because everyone has different tolerance levels. Just because your friend was fine doesn't mean you will be because your tolerance level may be much lower.
Learning by watching others can also be something so great. If a parent is a good person and they do kind things for others, the kids might mimic their behavior and do kind things for others. Learning by observing can go either way, good or bad, it all depends on who you are observing. If a kid is taught only by observing, I don't believe they will get so far in life. If they only know how to do things because of what others do, they won't ever learn how to do things on their own.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Teaching the Dog to Go Outside
Classical Conditioning is learning to associate two stimuli and to anticipate an event.
Recently I got a dog. We have been trying to train her to go to the bathroom outside, because she would always go to the bathroom on the carpet, and I would have to clean it up, which I hated. First we started trying to crate train meaning that she would be in her crate all day and then when we came home from school/work, we would take her out and she could take care of her business outside. It was working for a while, but then we stopped crate training her and she was taking care of her business inside again. Then we had to go back to crate training and we would give her treats every time she would come back from her walk after going to the bathroom outside, but then she started to get fat. Nothing was working, but that's probably just because we hadn't been training her long enough.
Anyways, reason for me telling you this: As we were training her to go to the bathroom outside, my mom told me a story about her friend and how her friend trained her dog in a classical conditioning type of way . What m mom's friend did was that every time they would take the dog out for a walk and to go to the bathroom, they would take the dog's paw and tap it on a bell that was hanging on the door, which would make the noise. After a while the dog had learned to associate the bell and going to the bathroom. The dog learned to tap the bell when it needed to go outside to go to the bathroom.
When my mom told me about the dog, we had not learned about classical conditioning yet, so I just thought that it was a cool idea that the dog was able to do that after a while. After learning about classical conditioning, I actually understand what was going on with the dog while it was learning to go to the bathroom outside. Maybe we should try that on my dog and maybe she will stop going to the bathroom on all of our carpets.
Recently I got a dog. We have been trying to train her to go to the bathroom outside, because she would always go to the bathroom on the carpet, and I would have to clean it up, which I hated. First we started trying to crate train meaning that she would be in her crate all day and then when we came home from school/work, we would take her out and she could take care of her business outside. It was working for a while, but then we stopped crate training her and she was taking care of her business inside again. Then we had to go back to crate training and we would give her treats every time she would come back from her walk after going to the bathroom outside, but then she started to get fat. Nothing was working, but that's probably just because we hadn't been training her long enough.
Anyways, reason for me telling you this: As we were training her to go to the bathroom outside, my mom told me a story about her friend and how her friend trained her dog in a classical conditioning type of way . What m mom's friend did was that every time they would take the dog out for a walk and to go to the bathroom, they would take the dog's paw and tap it on a bell that was hanging on the door, which would make the noise. After a while the dog had learned to associate the bell and going to the bathroom. The dog learned to tap the bell when it needed to go outside to go to the bathroom.
When my mom told me about the dog, we had not learned about classical conditioning yet, so I just thought that it was a cool idea that the dog was able to do that after a while. After learning about classical conditioning, I actually understand what was going on with the dog while it was learning to go to the bathroom outside. Maybe we should try that on my dog and maybe she will stop going to the bathroom on all of our carpets.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Learned Helplessness
While conducting research on classical conditioning at the University of Pennsylvania in the 60's, Martin Seligman accidentally discovered the theory of learned helplessness. He observed that dogs that received a shock on one side of a box didn't even try to jump over the dividing fence to the other side of the box where, unbeknown to the poor pup, there would be no shock given. The dog here illustrated the concept of learned helplessness- he didn't even attempt to escape to safety because he assumed the shock would be on the other side of the fence as well. This assumption is an example of the cognitive element of classical conditioning.
Learned helplessness is very much present in humans too. In life we are constantly faced with failures and defeats that crush us. They make us feel like we are helpless, that we have no control over our lives and what goes on in it. Learned helplessness explains why we often remain passive or indifferent to adverse situations in life even when we have the capability of changing the outcome. The idea of earned helplessness has even been used in relation to very weighty situations and disorders such as depression, domestic abuse, poverty, discrimination, addiction, etc.
The moral of the story: We have control over our lives and situations. Want to lose those few extra pounds? Hard work will get you there! Want to improve your grades? Better get on it, sister! Want to make some extra moolah? Find someone in need of a babysitter! You got this, I promise.
(Am I as inspiring as Charlie Harary yet?)
I'll end here with a fun fact: Martin Seligman's favorite color is magenta because of its amazing calming effects on then body. Cool.
Learned helplessness is very much present in humans too. In life we are constantly faced with failures and defeats that crush us. They make us feel like we are helpless, that we have no control over our lives and what goes on in it. Learned helplessness explains why we often remain passive or indifferent to adverse situations in life even when we have the capability of changing the outcome. The idea of earned helplessness has even been used in relation to very weighty situations and disorders such as depression, domestic abuse, poverty, discrimination, addiction, etc.
The moral of the story: We have control over our lives and situations. Want to lose those few extra pounds? Hard work will get you there! Want to improve your grades? Better get on it, sister! Want to make some extra moolah? Find someone in need of a babysitter! You got this, I promise.
(Am I as inspiring as Charlie Harary yet?)
I'll end here with a fun fact: Martin Seligman's favorite color is magenta because of its amazing calming effects on then body. Cool.
Generalizations vs. Discriminations
Generalization: when the same response occurs for similar stimuli.
Discrimination: learning to respond differently to different stimuli.
These two things are so fascinating. They're opposites of one another, yet they both happen rather frequently.
Let's look at some examples of the two things..
Generalization: when a child learns how to say dog when he sees a specific type of dog (ex. a poodle) and then he says dog again when he sees a different type of dog (ex. a german shepherd) the child has generalized between the two stimuli.
Discrimination: going back to the example of Pavlov's dogs - if the dog had salivated only at the sound of the tone that had been paired with the food and not a similar tone that was slightly different it would have been discriminating.
What I want to know is how does one thing happen over another??
I think that a lot of it has to do with the stimulus and also the persons mindset at the time. It just goes to show you that classical conditioning is just another one of those things we can use the bio-pscho-social approach for!
There are biological influences (genetic predispositions, unconditioned responses, adaptive responses), psychological influences (previous experiences, predictability of associations, generalization, discrimination), and social-cultural influences (culturally learned preferences and motivating, affected by presence of others).
Discrimination: learning to respond differently to different stimuli.
These two things are so fascinating. They're opposites of one another, yet they both happen rather frequently.
Let's look at some examples of the two things..
Generalization: when a child learns how to say dog when he sees a specific type of dog (ex. a poodle) and then he says dog again when he sees a different type of dog (ex. a german shepherd) the child has generalized between the two stimuli.
Discrimination: going back to the example of Pavlov's dogs - if the dog had salivated only at the sound of the tone that had been paired with the food and not a similar tone that was slightly different it would have been discriminating.
What I want to know is how does one thing happen over another??
I think that a lot of it has to do with the stimulus and also the persons mindset at the time. It just goes to show you that classical conditioning is just another one of those things we can use the bio-pscho-social approach for!
There are biological influences (genetic predispositions, unconditioned responses, adaptive responses), psychological influences (previous experiences, predictability of associations, generalization, discrimination), and social-cultural influences (culturally learned preferences and motivating, affected by presence of others).
Sunday, November 24, 2013
The marshmallow test.
A test was done on children. They wanted to see how much patience and understanding kids have. They sad a kid in a room with one marshmallow. They told them that if they don't eat the marshmallow the whole time they have to wait then they get another one. The results where interesting. Some kids ate it right away. Some waited but then couldn't resist. A few withstood the challenge and kept out until they received the second one. They realized that by suffering now they will get a larger reward later.
How much to we understand and learn about time. Do we learn and understand how we should act today to benefit tomorrow? What age do we learn that concept. I wonder if those kids turn out differently when they are older. Are the patient kids more successful? Do they do better at school? The way we learn is a fascinating subject. But how much do personality play into it all?
Bad Parenting...or is it?
While we were learning about operant conditioning in class, we learned all about reinforcement and punishment. We also learned about how positive and negative mean adding something and taking something away, respectively. As we were going through all of the concepts and related examples in class, all I could think of was parenting. How do our parents use reinforcements and punishments to get their children to behave the way they want them to behave? Then, on Saturday night, I was sitting in my room, when "What Would You Do?" came on. Funny enough, the episode was about parents who put their kids on leashes. Here's the video:
Naturally, as they said at the start of the video, this video was a representation of the leash concept's extreme conclusion. I would like to examine the concept of putting a child, or even a dog, on a leash. First of all, using a least is a form of positive punishment. It adds the leash to help get rid of the negative behavior: running away. Yes, I understand that this is not always the case. Sometimes, leashes are merely used as safety measures to keep dogs and children close by.
Imagine that your two-year-old kid loves running away from you in the middle of the grocery store. As a parent, you have a few options. For example, you can either take the kid outside when he runs away (negative punishment) or you can put a leash on the kid to keep him from running too far (positive punishment and safety). Recently, I have noticed that many parents are opting for the leash method, especially for toddlers and energetic children. Interestingly enough, a lot of parents actually think that putting their kids on leashes isn't a form of punishment at all. I suppose it depends on the situation. Even so, leashes have gotten a bad rap recently because some parents, like the "mom" in the video, treat their children like actual animals.
Naturally, as they said at the start of the video, this video was a representation of the leash concept's extreme conclusion. I would like to examine the concept of putting a child, or even a dog, on a leash. First of all, using a least is a form of positive punishment. It adds the leash to help get rid of the negative behavior: running away. Yes, I understand that this is not always the case. Sometimes, leashes are merely used as safety measures to keep dogs and children close by.
Imagine that your two-year-old kid loves running away from you in the middle of the grocery store. As a parent, you have a few options. For example, you can either take the kid outside when he runs away (negative punishment) or you can put a leash on the kid to keep him from running too far (positive punishment and safety). Recently, I have noticed that many parents are opting for the leash method, especially for toddlers and energetic children. Interestingly enough, a lot of parents actually think that putting their kids on leashes isn't a form of punishment at all. I suppose it depends on the situation. Even so, leashes have gotten a bad rap recently because some parents, like the "mom" in the video, treat their children like actual animals.
Here are some questions to consider: What would you have done if you saw the child in the video tied to the post? As a future parent, will you even consider using this form of positive punishment on your children? Do you think it actually works?
Why Are Seals and Dogs So Talented?
This past May, I took a family vacation to California, and oh boy, do I miss it. Anyways, when we were at Sea World in San Diego, the last show that we say of a seal/sea lion show. Even if you have been to the Memphis Zoo, you have probably seen seal and sea lions perform right?
It was a hot day, and my family and I were getting tired. We decided to see one last show before heading out. Oh man, did we choose wisely. As we sat down and were waiting for the show to start, I looked at the stage and saw the trainers practicing with the seals and sea lions. Every time they had done a trick correctly they got a fish. At the time, I really didn't think anything of it at the time. Of course they would give them fish, because in their wild habitat, that is what they would eat anyways. So basically, I thought of it as a simple snack.
This past week in class we had started the unit on learning. There are three types of learning, but I want to focus on one particular one, called operant conditioning. Operant conditioning can be described as when an organism's behavior is reinforced by its consequence. Now the fish for a trick thing made sense. I can now understand that the trainers were giving the seals and sea lions fish as positive reinforcement. The fish, being the positive reinforcement, made the seals and sea lions think that, "oh, maybe if I do that trick again, I'll get another fish!" Because of this amazing concept of operant conditioning, Seamore, the sea lion can entertain America!
It was a hot day, and my family and I were getting tired. We decided to see one last show before heading out. Oh man, did we choose wisely. As we sat down and were waiting for the show to start, I looked at the stage and saw the trainers practicing with the seals and sea lions. Every time they had done a trick correctly they got a fish. At the time, I really didn't think anything of it at the time. Of course they would give them fish, because in their wild habitat, that is what they would eat anyways. So basically, I thought of it as a simple snack.
This past week in class we had started the unit on learning. There are three types of learning, but I want to focus on one particular one, called operant conditioning. Operant conditioning can be described as when an organism's behavior is reinforced by its consequence. Now the fish for a trick thing made sense. I can now understand that the trainers were giving the seals and sea lions fish as positive reinforcement. The fish, being the positive reinforcement, made the seals and sea lions think that, "oh, maybe if I do that trick again, I'll get another fish!" Because of this amazing concept of operant conditioning, Seamore, the sea lion can entertain America!
Besides, positive reinforcement, there is also something called positive punishment. Now, I know what you might be thinking, how can punishment be positive. We must not think of punishment as a bad thing because in psychological terms all it means is doing an action to make a behavior stop. For example, when my dog was puppy and was not house trained, he used to pee all over the house. When he did so, we called him over to the puddle and stuck his nose in the pee. I mean, I don't think pee smells so good, so between that and taking him outside to pee as often as possible he learned not to pee in the house. So, let me break it down. Leo peed in the house (the behavior that we didn't like), we took his nose and stuck it in the pee (positive punishment because it was adding something to make the action stop), and he eventually stopped peeing in the house (desired response). Leo is just so smart! (I love funny memes)
Is Punishment Really Worth It?
As we continue to learn about learning, I find it more and more interesting. This week we focused more on operant conditioning, the second idea? method? of learning. Operant conditioning is where we learn to associate our behavior with the consequences of this behavior and thus to repeat acts followed by good results and to avoid acts followed by bad results. Pretty much, operant conditioning revolves around reinforcements (rewards) and punishments (punishments).
Unlike classical conditioning, which upholds the beliefs of Pavlov and John Watson, operant conditioning revolves around the ideas of Thorndike and Skinner. Thorndike believed in the law of effect, which states that something that is reinforced will continue to be performed in the future, and vice versa. Skinner developed the operant chamber (or the Skinner box) that revealed principles of behavior control. In this box, there would be different things for testing behavior, such as lights, bars, food and water dispensers, etc. Through this box, Skinner wanted to see if a rat could learn to push the bar when being reinforced with water or only when the light comes on.
These ideas contained the principles of shaping and reinforcement/punishment. In shaping, reinforcers are any events that strengthens a preceding response. There is also successive approximations, or chaining, where the animal would be reinforced first for going near the bar, then touching the bar, and then eventually pressing the bar- you are using successive approximations and reinforcement to get the animal to produce the desired behavior.
The discriminative stimulus is also part of these ideas. The animal learns to discriminate from the desired product. For instance, if a rat was conditioned to only press the bar when a square came up, it would discriminate any other shape.
Reinforcements and punishments are the basis of operant conditioning. It is important to remember the the psychological definitions of reinforcement and punishment differ from the normal definition. In psychology, reinforcement is any event that strengthens a preceding response and increases the likelihood that it will occur again in the future. Punishment is any event that diminishes a preceding response and decreases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again in the future.
Another part of reinforcements and punishments that aren't how we usually think are positive and negative reinforcements and punishments. Positive reinforcements is where something added to make the behavior continue and positive punishments is where something is added to make the behavior stop. Negative reinforcements is where something is taken away to make the behavior continue and negative punishments is where something is taken away to make the behavior stop.
On psychologytoday.com, there is an article entitled "Should You Punish Your Child" that clearly applies these ideas. According to Gina Green, the best way to reduce undesired behavior is to provide reinforcement for good behavior. Instead of using punishments, which often lead to resentment, emotional strife, or avoidance, use positive reinforcement! By looking at the situation in a different light, there's a better chance that you'll get the desired behavior.
Unlike classical conditioning, which upholds the beliefs of Pavlov and John Watson, operant conditioning revolves around the ideas of Thorndike and Skinner. Thorndike believed in the law of effect, which states that something that is reinforced will continue to be performed in the future, and vice versa. Skinner developed the operant chamber (or the Skinner box) that revealed principles of behavior control. In this box, there would be different things for testing behavior, such as lights, bars, food and water dispensers, etc. Through this box, Skinner wanted to see if a rat could learn to push the bar when being reinforced with water or only when the light comes on.
These ideas contained the principles of shaping and reinforcement/punishment. In shaping, reinforcers are any events that strengthens a preceding response. There is also successive approximations, or chaining, where the animal would be reinforced first for going near the bar, then touching the bar, and then eventually pressing the bar- you are using successive approximations and reinforcement to get the animal to produce the desired behavior.
The discriminative stimulus is also part of these ideas. The animal learns to discriminate from the desired product. For instance, if a rat was conditioned to only press the bar when a square came up, it would discriminate any other shape.
Reinforcements and punishments are the basis of operant conditioning. It is important to remember the the psychological definitions of reinforcement and punishment differ from the normal definition. In psychology, reinforcement is any event that strengthens a preceding response and increases the likelihood that it will occur again in the future. Punishment is any event that diminishes a preceding response and decreases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again in the future.
Another part of reinforcements and punishments that aren't how we usually think are positive and negative reinforcements and punishments. Positive reinforcements is where something added to make the behavior continue and positive punishments is where something is added to make the behavior stop. Negative reinforcements is where something is taken away to make the behavior continue and negative punishments is where something is taken away to make the behavior stop.
On psychologytoday.com, there is an article entitled "Should You Punish Your Child" that clearly applies these ideas. According to Gina Green, the best way to reduce undesired behavior is to provide reinforcement for good behavior. Instead of using punishments, which often lead to resentment, emotional strife, or avoidance, use positive reinforcement! By looking at the situation in a different light, there's a better chance that you'll get the desired behavior.
Your Brain Lies To You
 |
The article refers to "source amnesia". In the comic, Calvin is pretending to have actual amnesia. The point is: I love Calvin.The New York Times posted an article written by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt on June 29, 2008 entitled "Your brain lies to you". READ IT. CLICK HERE. YOU'LL LOVE IT. I know it's not a TEDx video, but it's still worth something in my eyes.False beliefs; this is the premise of the article. This article was written, remember, back in the summer of 2008, when current President Barack Obama was still a just a senator on a campaign. And on this groundbreaking campaign of his, he was faced with many an obstacle. One such obstacle was the accusation that he was a "Muslim". Now, I know. It sounds dumb to discriminate against someone because he/she is a Muslim. But, you know... Discrimination is odd and fears are irrational. Anyways, the point is that 10 percent of the citizens in this country believed Obama to be a Muslim even though he's Christian. How is this possible? Well, the brain is a weird and complex thing. (It's not as weird and complex as Americans, but it's cutting it close.. ;) )The article goes on to describe how brain stores information. Facts are stored in the hippocampus, but every time we recall information, our brain writes it down again. It is reprocessed. In time, the fact is gathered in the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. Do you remember how you learned every fact you know? Do you think you could trace all your known-facts back to their sources? This phenomenon is known as source amnesia; because of this, people might be lead to forget whether a statement is true or false- even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer.Misremembering gets worse over time. "A false statement from a non-credible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage." Have you ever found yourself believing something to be true when you knew the source wasn't credible? Campaign strategists use source amnesia to spread misinformation. Over time, when repeating a falsehood, people may back it up with "I think I read it somewhere" or something like that. The more you're exposed to a falsehood, the more likely you are to believe it and give it credibility. The article then quotes the Stanford study with the students who either opposed or favored capital punishment. Hey! That was in the book! Fun! But in the book it focused on how we like to believe things that favor our opinions. Indeed, so does the article- "ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods." Are you quicker to believe ideas that you agree with? Be honest!
Things to think about:
What does it take to get people to listen to ideas outside their personal beliefs?
Do you think source amnesia is dangerous?
|
Behavior Modification in Modern Culture
During last night's whirlwind of a storm, I browsed through the handy-dandy interweb, looking for "blogspiration."Suddenly, as the rain pattered against my window, I stumbled across a perfect example of operant conditioning. The laugh-inducing video, from an episode of The Big Bang Theory, describes how Sheldon Cooper attempts to modify Penny's behaviors using operant conditioning.
First, let's define operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is learning to associate a behavior (a response) with the consequences of this behavior and thus to repeat acts followed by good results and to avoid acts followed by bad results. Organisms associate their own actions with consequences. Learning takes place after the response and is used to impact future behavior.
Operant conditioning is based off the ideas of Edward L. Thorndike and B.F. Skinner. Thorndike introduced his law of effect which is the basis of operant conditioning. His idea was the principle that behaviors followed by favorable consequences become more likely and that behaviors followed by unfavorable consequences become less likely. Skinner developed a behavioral technology that revealed principles of behavior control. Skinner designed an operant chamber, otherwise known as a Skinner box, containing a bar or key that an animal can manipulate to obtain a food or water reinforcer. Attached devices record the animal’s rate of bar pressing or key pecking. To form behavior, Skinner used shaping, a procedure in which reinforcers guide behavior toward closer and closer approximations of the desired behavior.
First, let's define operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is learning to associate a behavior (a response) with the consequences of this behavior and thus to repeat acts followed by good results and to avoid acts followed by bad results. Organisms associate their own actions with consequences. Learning takes place after the response and is used to impact future behavior.
Operant conditioning is based off the ideas of Edward L. Thorndike and B.F. Skinner. Thorndike introduced his law of effect which is the basis of operant conditioning. His idea was the principle that behaviors followed by favorable consequences become more likely and that behaviors followed by unfavorable consequences become less likely. Skinner developed a behavioral technology that revealed principles of behavior control. Skinner designed an operant chamber, otherwise known as a Skinner box, containing a bar or key that an animal can manipulate to obtain a food or water reinforcer. Attached devices record the animal’s rate of bar pressing or key pecking. To form behavior, Skinner used shaping, a procedure in which reinforcers guide behavior toward closer and closer approximations of the desired behavior.
The first part of the four-minute, twenty-two second clip, is of Penny doing behaviors that are favorable in Sheldon's eyes. She clears his plate, assures he has a seat on the couch, remains quiet, and takes her phone call outside. Each time she does so, she receives a chocolate. Sheldon was using positive reinforcement to strengthen Penny's response. Sheldon added a desirable stimulus, the chocolate, following the correct behavior so that it would continue.
Leonard realizes this, and is soon offered a chocolate for his correct assumption. He declines, but Sheldon assures him that he can train Penny to jump out of the pool bouncing a beach ball on her head (that had me laughing). When Leonard forbids Sheldon from applying the principles of operant conditioning on Penny, Sheldon sprays Leonard with water, therefore using positive punishment to stop the behavior. He administered an aversive stimulus to cease the behavior or response from occurring again.
Sheldon then tells Leonard that if he were to use negative reinforcement, he could train Penny by the time they were ready to go to sleep. In negative reinforcement, Sheldon would remove something each time so that for example, Penny's voice could be lowered to a more "pleasing register."
Anyways, I found this video incredibly entertaining. On a side note, Sheldon ends his plans by making warm milk and then going to sleep (a reference to the sleep chapter)!
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
For your viewing pleasure, here is the video.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Punish Your Child!
The most interesting scenario we talked about last week, in my opinion, was the parent dealing with the kid throwing a tantrum in the store. We talked about quite a few scenarios this week, but this one I found particularly relatable. In the scenario, the father is pushing around his child in a grocery store. The child is throwing a tantrum. She is screaming and begging for a lollipop. If the parent gives in and gives the child the lollipop, then the child is likely to throw a tantrum again when she wants something. This is known as positive reinforcement (adding a desirable stimulus that increases a certain behavior). If the parent is giving the child a lollipop just to get her to stop screaming then it is negative punishment (removing an aversive stimulus that increases a certain behavior). No matter which kind of reinforcement it is, the child is likely to throw another tantrum every time she does not get what she wants. This, my friends, is what we call the creation of a monster.
I'm sure parents and even siblings can attest to how awful and painful it can be to listen to a little kid scream and shriek about not getting exactly what they want all the time. Girls are the worst. As a an older sister, I have had my fair share of experiences when I have had to deal with a little girl screaming in public because we are not willing to buy her an expensive, useless piece of junk. The issue is, a little girl is also daddy's little princess. And the Dad never wants to punish or say no to his little princess. The problem is, each time you can't say no to your child or can't push yourself to punish your child when they misbehave, the more likely it is that they will continue to display this type of undersized behavior. This is why we always yell at my dad when he gives in to Emma's demands. According to operant conditioning, the more you give in to a child when they act poorly/scream/yell, the more likely they are to do it again. It would even be better to just ignore the child, which is negative punishment (withdrawing an undersized stimulus).
Studies have even shown that adults who are not punished as a child are more likely to act cruelly and commit crimes. These children are not used to limitations since their parents did not punish them and just gave in whenever they wanted something. Psychologists have also said that cruelty in adolescents is a sign of their inability to accept any punishment. So, what this means is that punishment is important. I don't mean physical violence or abuse, but the psychological meaning of punishment in relation to operant conditioning--decreasing the likelihood of a behavior by adding or removing a stimulus. Punishing a child not only saves you money, it also decreases the likelihood that your child will become a criminal! So it's about time parents stop worrying about making their child cry for 10 minutes and actually do something that will help in the long run. Punishment is not bad--it actually is a win-win situation. Parents have to deal with the kid's temper less often, won't have to buy their kids unnecessary toys or give in to whatever they want, and the kid will learn valuable lessons while also not becoming prone to getting their way. And of course there's that plus of not being a criminal.
I'm sure parents and even siblings can attest to how awful and painful it can be to listen to a little kid scream and shriek about not getting exactly what they want all the time. Girls are the worst. As a an older sister, I have had my fair share of experiences when I have had to deal with a little girl screaming in public because we are not willing to buy her an expensive, useless piece of junk. The issue is, a little girl is also daddy's little princess. And the Dad never wants to punish or say no to his little princess. The problem is, each time you can't say no to your child or can't push yourself to punish your child when they misbehave, the more likely it is that they will continue to display this type of undersized behavior. This is why we always yell at my dad when he gives in to Emma's demands. According to operant conditioning, the more you give in to a child when they act poorly/scream/yell, the more likely they are to do it again. It would even be better to just ignore the child, which is negative punishment (withdrawing an undersized stimulus).
Studies have even shown that adults who are not punished as a child are more likely to act cruelly and commit crimes. These children are not used to limitations since their parents did not punish them and just gave in whenever they wanted something. Psychologists have also said that cruelty in adolescents is a sign of their inability to accept any punishment. So, what this means is that punishment is important. I don't mean physical violence or abuse, but the psychological meaning of punishment in relation to operant conditioning--decreasing the likelihood of a behavior by adding or removing a stimulus. Punishing a child not only saves you money, it also decreases the likelihood that your child will become a criminal! So it's about time parents stop worrying about making their child cry for 10 minutes and actually do something that will help in the long run. Punishment is not bad--it actually is a win-win situation. Parents have to deal with the kid's temper less often, won't have to buy their kids unnecessary toys or give in to whatever they want, and the kid will learn valuable lessons while also not becoming prone to getting their way. And of course there's that plus of not being a criminal.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Life Without Caffiene
Lately in class, we have been talking about addictions. One of the addictions was caffeine. Everyone always talks about that cup (or two) of coffee that keeps them going throughout the day. What I found interesting is how much people actually do rely on that cup of coffee to actually keep them going.
I found out that I was allergic to caffeine the summer of 2010. That means I haven't had a drink with caffeine in it in over three years. I didn't get the whole fuss about caffeine and how it's so wonderful to keep you up during the day. I have found that I develop my own energy throughout the day.
This video explains what caffeine actually does to your body:
Like the video said, the caffeine keeps you up for about 6 hours and then you aren't energized anymore, there's nothing keeping you up anymore. People become addicted to caffeine because their body begins to rely on it because it's the only thing keeping the awake so they drink more and more caffeine to be able to stay awake and that's all that is keeping them up.
Since I realized that sometimes I can have more energy than someone who had that cup of coffee I decided that I want to research it further to see what was actually happening in my body as I have a lot of energy usually. Yes, I have days that I want to just have a cup of coffee so I can stay up to finish work or to not always feel like I'm falling asleep in class, but I've realized it is more worth it to not get the headache and stay tired and get a better nights sleep.
I also remembered that when we talked in class about how when you consume a lot of caffeine if affects your amount of REM sleep. I may be wrong, but I think that I have a lot of REM sleep at night, because I realized that I do dream a lot. Maybe it's the fact that since I don't drink that cup of coffee in the morning that I'm more genuinely awake during the day and I'm filled with energy.
LAY OFF THE CAFFEINE AND GET SOME SLEEP!!
I found out that I was allergic to caffeine the summer of 2010. That means I haven't had a drink with caffeine in it in over three years. I didn't get the whole fuss about caffeine and how it's so wonderful to keep you up during the day. I have found that I develop my own energy throughout the day.
This video explains what caffeine actually does to your body:
Like the video said, the caffeine keeps you up for about 6 hours and then you aren't energized anymore, there's nothing keeping you up anymore. People become addicted to caffeine because their body begins to rely on it because it's the only thing keeping the awake so they drink more and more caffeine to be able to stay awake and that's all that is keeping them up.
Since I realized that sometimes I can have more energy than someone who had that cup of coffee I decided that I want to research it further to see what was actually happening in my body as I have a lot of energy usually. Yes, I have days that I want to just have a cup of coffee so I can stay up to finish work or to not always feel like I'm falling asleep in class, but I've realized it is more worth it to not get the headache and stay tired and get a better nights sleep.
I also remembered that when we talked in class about how when you consume a lot of caffeine if affects your amount of REM sleep. I may be wrong, but I think that I have a lot of REM sleep at night, because I realized that I do dream a lot. Maybe it's the fact that since I don't drink that cup of coffee in the morning that I'm more genuinely awake during the day and I'm filled with energy.
LAY OFF THE CAFFEINE AND GET SOME SLEEP!!
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Guys, You Need to Watch The Office
As we finished learning about consciousness, this week we turned to learning. Before learning about the way in which people learn, we first had to learn the psychological definition of learning. David Myers (who wrote our textbook) came up with a basic definition: learning is a relatively permanent change in an organism's behavior due to experience. Thomas Rocklin (I have no idea who he is) added on to this definition: learning is a relatively permanent change in an organism's behavior is a given situation brought about by his or her repeated experiences in that situation, provided that the behavior change cannot be explained on the basis of native response tendencies, maturation, or temporary states.
Pretty much, learning is a temporary change in a behavior that isn't affected by natural growth or tendencies.
Now that we've got that down, we turn to look at classical conditioning, the first method of learning. This method is mainly based off of Pavlov's studies and experiments. In one of his experiments, a dog was brought food and began to salivate. When a bell was paired with the food, the dog began to associate the bell with the food and eventually began to salivate only when the bell rang.
This brings about the definition of classical conditioning: learning by associating two stimuli and anticipating events. Basically, an unconditioned stimulus (food) is paired with a neutral stimulus (bell), which brings about an unconditioned response (salivation). However, when the bell (now the conditioned stimulus) is not paired with the food, it still produces salivation (now a conditioned response).
There is also higher-order conditioning, where after the bell becomes conditioned, when the it is paired with a light, the light also becomes a conditioned stimulus. This causes the dog to salivate at the food, the bell, and the light.
While you are able to learn this way, you can also lose this association of two stimuli. Extinction occurs when you would show the bell for a long time without bringing out the food, therefore causing the dog to no longer respond to the bell. It has unlearned the association. However, spontaneous recovery could occur, where the next day, the dog would still respond, but it would not be as intense and it would not take as long to cause extinction.
As we were learning this, I was reminded of an episode of The Office. If you do not watch this show, you are missing out on an important aspect of life. Seriously. Watch the show. Anyway, in this episode, titled "Phyllis' Wedding", Jim (one of the main characters) classically conditions Dwight (another main character) to crave a mint every time he hears the default Windows "unlock workstation" sound on Jim's computer. This is a prank (duh, and if you don't watch the show then you won't know why I said duh), and eventually Jim makes the sound on his computer and doesn't offer Dwight a mint. Either way, it's an episode worth watching.
Watch Jim's experiment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE8pFWP5QDM
YOU WON'T REGRET IT!!
Pretty much, learning is a temporary change in a behavior that isn't affected by natural growth or tendencies.
Now that we've got that down, we turn to look at classical conditioning, the first method of learning. This method is mainly based off of Pavlov's studies and experiments. In one of his experiments, a dog was brought food and began to salivate. When a bell was paired with the food, the dog began to associate the bell with the food and eventually began to salivate only when the bell rang.
This brings about the definition of classical conditioning: learning by associating two stimuli and anticipating events. Basically, an unconditioned stimulus (food) is paired with a neutral stimulus (bell), which brings about an unconditioned response (salivation). However, when the bell (now the conditioned stimulus) is not paired with the food, it still produces salivation (now a conditioned response).
There is also higher-order conditioning, where after the bell becomes conditioned, when the it is paired with a light, the light also becomes a conditioned stimulus. This causes the dog to salivate at the food, the bell, and the light.
While you are able to learn this way, you can also lose this association of two stimuli. Extinction occurs when you would show the bell for a long time without bringing out the food, therefore causing the dog to no longer respond to the bell. It has unlearned the association. However, spontaneous recovery could occur, where the next day, the dog would still respond, but it would not be as intense and it would not take as long to cause extinction.
As we were learning this, I was reminded of an episode of The Office. If you do not watch this show, you are missing out on an important aspect of life. Seriously. Watch the show. Anyway, in this episode, titled "Phyllis' Wedding", Jim (one of the main characters) classically conditions Dwight (another main character) to crave a mint every time he hears the default Windows "unlock workstation" sound on Jim's computer. This is a prank (duh, and if you don't watch the show then you won't know why I said duh), and eventually Jim makes the sound on his computer and doesn't offer Dwight a mint. Either way, it's an episode worth watching.
Watch Jim's experiment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE8pFWP5QDM
YOU WON'T REGRET IT!!
What The "Roofie" Drug Can Do
So when I'm on the computer and I need to be doing things, I usually just browse Buzzfeed instead. For those of you who are obsessed with Buzzfeed like me, you'll understand thing. For those of you who are not, don't do it. It will consume you.
Anyways, I was browsing the site and happened upon an article about a girl's experience being drugged with roofies, otherwise known as the date rape drug. Luckily for this particular girl, she was with a group and was unharmed. But she spoke about the aftermath of the situation. She found herself on a flight home from her vacation with literally no memory of how she got on the plane. The previous four hours of her life had been erased from her memory forever. If it was not for her loyal companion, who knows what could have happened to her? We discussed many different types of drugs in class, and this idea of chunks of time being completely erased from your memory seemed frightening and fascinating to me. So, I did a little research.
Flunitrazepam is the scientific term for the roofie drug. The drug is a hypnotic, sedative, anticonvulsant, muscle-relaxing concoction. A small prescription dose of this drug is meant to treat insomniacs.
When this drug, a strong depressant, is slipped into someone's drink, therefore being mixed with alcohol, it becomes dangerously effective. The drug releases GABA (we talked about this earlier in class), which slows and relaxes the body. Sedation, intoxication, and amnesia follow. The drug usually causes a victim to have difficulty of speech and movement and eventually pass out. This, unfortunately, is why many men use it to take advantage of women. The effects of the drug usually lasts around eight hours and completely blocks any memory of events during most of that time period (similar to the memory loss that comes with the consumption of alcohol, but much more severe), so many victims may not even realize they are victims!
So, girls, please be careful when you are drinking! Especially when you are around strangers! Never leave your drink unattended, and if you do, do not drink it. Even if you think this could never happen to you, it is so important to understand the risks and the possibilities, because it really could happen to anyone. Please be careful and if your drink tastes funny or is an odd shade, do not drink it. Please be careful!!!
Anyways, I was browsing the site and happened upon an article about a girl's experience being drugged with roofies, otherwise known as the date rape drug. Luckily for this particular girl, she was with a group and was unharmed. But she spoke about the aftermath of the situation. She found herself on a flight home from her vacation with literally no memory of how she got on the plane. The previous four hours of her life had been erased from her memory forever. If it was not for her loyal companion, who knows what could have happened to her? We discussed many different types of drugs in class, and this idea of chunks of time being completely erased from your memory seemed frightening and fascinating to me. So, I did a little research.
Flunitrazepam is the scientific term for the roofie drug. The drug is a hypnotic, sedative, anticonvulsant, muscle-relaxing concoction. A small prescription dose of this drug is meant to treat insomniacs.
When this drug, a strong depressant, is slipped into someone's drink, therefore being mixed with alcohol, it becomes dangerously effective. The drug releases GABA (we talked about this earlier in class), which slows and relaxes the body. Sedation, intoxication, and amnesia follow. The drug usually causes a victim to have difficulty of speech and movement and eventually pass out. This, unfortunately, is why many men use it to take advantage of women. The effects of the drug usually lasts around eight hours and completely blocks any memory of events during most of that time period (similar to the memory loss that comes with the consumption of alcohol, but much more severe), so many victims may not even realize they are victims!
So, girls, please be careful when you are drinking! Especially when you are around strangers! Never leave your drink unattended, and if you do, do not drink it. Even if you think this could never happen to you, it is so important to understand the risks and the possibilities, because it really could happen to anyone. Please be careful and if your drink tastes funny or is an odd shade, do not drink it. Please be careful!!!
Classical Conditioning
When we learned about classical conditioning, I understood how it happened.. but I found it really difficult to think of my own examples, and when we thought of examples in class I thought that they couldn't really work in real life. To review..
Classical Conditioning is when we learn to associate 2 stimuli and to anticipate an event.
Pavlov found classical conditioning through temporal association - an associating formed by time.
When he performed an unconditioned stimulus (one that creates an automatic, autonomic, or reflexive response in an organism. It's unlearned), he would get an unconditioned response (an unlearned response that can be elicited from an organism). When simply performing a conditioned stimulus (one that can be learned), there was no response. However, when paired with an unconditioned stimulus, there would be a conditioned response (a learned response association).
I found a very cool video that demonstrates the concepts of classical conditioning:
In this video, the unconditioned stimulus is when he shoots him with the gun. The unconditioned response is his jumping out of the way or grabbing his arm in pain. The conditioned stimulus is the "that was easy" noise, and the conditioned response is his jumping out of the way to avoid the pain.
It's really cool to see a real life example of how this works.
Classical Conditioning is when we learn to associate 2 stimuli and to anticipate an event.
Pavlov found classical conditioning through temporal association - an associating formed by time.
When he performed an unconditioned stimulus (one that creates an automatic, autonomic, or reflexive response in an organism. It's unlearned), he would get an unconditioned response (an unlearned response that can be elicited from an organism). When simply performing a conditioned stimulus (one that can be learned), there was no response. However, when paired with an unconditioned stimulus, there would be a conditioned response (a learned response association).
I found a very cool video that demonstrates the concepts of classical conditioning:
It's really cool to see a real life example of how this works.
If you're planning on taking LSD.. don't.
Seriously. Don't even think about it.
The effects of LSD are not just potentially terrifying, but can even be life-threatening.
A "bad trip" can consist of intense terror, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, tremor, dry mouth, fear of insanity and death, and much, much more; the experience can vary between users. The effects of LSD are not just potentially terrifying, but can even be life-threatening. LSD users' ability to sense danger can be impaired, meaning they may think they can fly and jump out of a window, or unknowingly walk into the middle of traffic.
"Flashbacks" are a reported phenomenon in which someone who has taken LSD experiences brief LSD induced effects long after taking the substance. These flashbacks are typically triggered by alcohol or marijuana use. Although there are reported cases of flashbacks, it is widely debated over whether it is a legitimate phenomenon. After all, over 70% of LSD users claimed to have never experienced flashbacks.
Although flashbacks are not considered a medical condition, there is something called Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder which is. This syndrome, unlike flashbacks, involves long, persistent LSD-like visual changes. It is suggested that HPPD is rare, but this is not taking into consideration the number of potential LSD users who may have these symptoms but are reluctant to share the knowledge of their past drug use with their health care practitioner. Like all things psychological (this is an exaggeration), there is no clear cut answer for the cause of HPPD. A study of HPPD subjects showed no abnormalities in their EEGs. The explanation that LSD lingers in the body long after ingestion have been proved false. Some believe that HPPD is a type of post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by a reminder of the original LSD trip.
Into the Archives: BF Skinner is Dead
Dava Sobel comes bearing big news, you guys: B.F. Skinner is dead! Who knew, right? Well, anyways, the article was written in 1990, so at the time it was news. The NYT article "B.F. Skinner, the Champion Of Behaviorism, Is Dead at 86" was published on August 20, 1990. Click here to read all about the life and death of the famous Skinner. Love him or hate him, admit it: we've all learned something from him! (nudge, nudge)
Let's discuss, shall we? "Dr. Skinner advanced the belief that individuals could understand themselves and build a better world only through systematic modification of their behavior according to scientific principles he promulgated [def: promoted]." What do you think of the behaviorism philosophy of Skinner? Do you think that's the only way that we can change ourselves?
Skinner became a behaviorist in the 20s, when the discipline was just in its infancy. He turned behaviorism into a behavioral psychology of laboratory science and as a philosophy. If you think about it, behaviorism is sort of a philosophy.. In order to get the sort of data that he did, Skinner conducted all sorts of experiments; some were more humane than others. He was sometimes seen as a "cold manipulator of humanity" whose ideas could have "disastrous consequences" if they fell into the wrong hands. What do you guys think? What he over-manipulative? Mad scientist or truth-seeker?
Everything was a behavior, according to this guy. Even thinking was a behavior- no matter how hard it was to observe and describe.
Dr. Skinner's most important achievement was "his full explication of the theory of operant behavior." We know all about this from the book and class. Yay. In his 1938 book "The Behavior of Organisms," Skinner writes about "schedules of reinforcement" that sustain established behaviors.
According to Skinner, punishment was ineffective in training animals, teaching children, or managing public offenders. Do you all think punishment is an effective tool?
Skinner - What do you think?
"All human beings are controlled, but the ideal of behaviorism is to eliminate coercion, to apply controls by changing the environment in such a way as to reinforce the kind of behavior that benefits everyone." -BF Skinner
Skinner majored in English, wrote for the literary magazine, and dreamed of becoming a novelist. Robert Frost wrote encouraging words about his short stories! And yet... he said "I had no reason to write anything; I had nothing to say." Weird, right? Cool,though. Gotto love an English major! Apparently all his short stories paid careful attention to human behavior, which led him to apply to Harvard to become a psychologist.
For more on Skinner, don't forget to read the article!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)