A Deconstruction of Freud's own psyche

No one would deny that Freud was a visionary, launching modern psychology and setting the stage for the biopsychosocial approach. His theories are lauded by some, and ridiculed by others. Nevertheless, his name is down in history as perhaps the most eminent psychologist of all time. But has anyone thought of decoding the mind of this genius?

Freud was the eldest of eight, born into a strong Hassidic family. He excelled in all his studies and even graduated from his prominent high school with honors. His family often lived in poverty, a proven factor to have negative effects on cognitive abilities. Also, with such a large family living so poorly, one would think each family member would have to work to support the family. This was not the case by Sigmund though. He exceeded in all of his studies, and was able to focus on them, not needing to work. His parents doted upon him, obviously favoring him over the other children, providing for an exceptional education. This all contributed to one of Freud's earliest psychological misfires, the denial and regression of his family. Freud's mind denied the poverty that his family lived in, focusing on the fact that he attended prominent schools and achieved top marks as evidence of his higher societal status, thus combating the otherwise possible detriments to being poor. Being a favored child, and sheltered from the hardships of having to work, his mind did not really register the rest of his family, repressing them to the back of his mind. This way he felt no guilt at always studying and going to better schools than his younger siblings. However, the guilt pushed through to his married life, having six children.

Later in his professional life, when others challenged his theories, Freud was unable to accept them. This most likely stemmed from his early childhood educational successes; Freud could not admit he was wrong, shaking his honors persona. There were also rumors, that evidence was found to support, that suggested Freud had an affair. I like to think that this was perhaps related to his Oedipus Complex.

As one can see, even a brief window into the life of Freud shows that the psycho-(analysis) genius had his own fair share of problems. Only thing is, he repressed them all so he never knew it!

i was watching a tv show the other night and one of the characters brought up an amazing point. while eating a dish he said that it reminded him of his youth when his mom used to make him that exact same  meal. now as im sure we all remember that the sense of smell has a close connection to the limbic system so smells easily bring back emotional memorie. but the interesting part is that when he smelt his food he did not smell each individual item, he smelled them as a whole unit. on top of that, if he had just smelled one ingredient he would not have had the same experience. even if all the ingredients had been combined, but not in the same way he would not have been reminded of his past. and the same thing happens with taste (besides the jogging the memory part). when food are eaten together as one they do not taste like their separate ingredients. imagine a piece of bread, does it taste anything like flour and water to you? i know it does not to me. that is another interesting question: do stimuli produce the same outcome for everyone? like taste things similarly? when you smell something, does it smell the same as it does to me? do we see the same colors even? there is no way of knowing. just a thought

The Neo-Freudians

It turns out, Mrs. Perl and Gabe Goldstein aren't the only people who had issues with Sigmund Freud: there was a whole school of psychology that formed as an "Oh yeah?!" to Freud. Ironically, the psychologists involved in this area are called Neo-Freudians, which basically sounds like they're saying, "We disagree with Freud because we understand Freud's theories better than he does." Three of the most important psychologists in this area are Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and Carl Jung. Adler and Horney both agreed with Freud that one's childhood plays an important in the development of his or her psychology, but Adler had a more negative approach. He believed that childhood feelings and experiences drive people to try to overcome obstacles and not feel so inferior to other people (famously known as the inferiority complex). Horney thought that the child's sense of helplessness triggers his or her desire for love and security, and she basically found a better explanation than Freud's "subtley" sexist studies. Unlike Adler and Horney, Carl Jung focused more on the unconscious than social factors. Jung is sort of the Noam Chomsky of Neo-Freudianism--he believes in a collective unconscious, a common reservoir of images derived from our species' universal experiences. If you have trouble following, a collective unconscious is exactly what it sounds like: everybody is born sharing the same ideas of symbolism and myths. For instance, everybody seems to agree that the mother is the symbol for nurturance. To tell you the truth, I think the Neo-Freudians are just as insane as Freud himself. There's really no hard evidence to prove what they're saying, and you could just as easily argue against what they have to say. However, I still find this perspective very interesting, and I'm now even more interested in watching the film "A Dangerous Method," directed by David Cronenberg and starring Michael Fassbender as Carl Jung and Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud.

BREAKING NEWS: Nature vs. Nurture Debate Solved

I have just received word that the nature vs. nurture debate has been solved. State Farm psychologists have found a case between two twins who were separated at birth: Cliff Paul and Chris and Paul who, although living in different environments, both love assisting others. Cliff Paul as an insurance agent and Chris Paul as a basketball player. This would make it seem as if nature is the most important thing, and that nurture is only secondary. If you have not yet seen this amazing discovery here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqBj3P13ABA
In all seriousness, this commercial is in line with psychological studies which say that personality traits (such as loving to assist others) is based nature whereas views and opinions are based on nurture. Whatever the case may be, State Farm has found a huge discovery that could lead to further evidence that nature is indeed more important than nurture.

Trait Perspective

       In my opinion, the trait perspective is the best perspetive to studying personality. They do not try to explain why people act in the way they do, which I do not think is so necessary anyways. Rather, they try to explain what is happening and how people act and react in different situations. They say personality is about character traits and they look at what characteristics cause people to act in a certain way.
       Eysenck said that there are two major scales of personality traits or as he called them "super traits."He said that every single trait that you can think of falls under the scale of introverted to extroverted or stable to unstable. Gordon Allport said that there are common traits that are shared by every culture and individual traits that are unique to every individual. Cardinal traits, central traits, and secondary traits are a few types of individual traits. Cardinal traits are the most basic traits of a person, central traits are the next set of basic traits to a person's character, and secondary traits are those inconsistent and superficial characteristics that people possess. Raymond Cattell took a different stance. He used factor analysis in which he took a bunch of traits and boiled them down to the 16 most basic characteristics. He said that every single trait falls under those basic 16. He added that every single person possesses each of those traits to a certain extent. The fourth view that we learned was the CANOE/OCEAN personality. This view holds that there are five basic traits including openness to experience, conscientiousness, introversion/extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. I like the Raymond Cattell view the best because I think it is the most realistic. I think that everyone has some amount of all 16 of those characteristics. 

My Pops

My pops is a good dude. But this wasn't always so. I'm going to talk about his evolution from an authoritative parent to an authoritarian parent. When Ben and Amy were born, my dad was in the game. He was ready to raise kids and wasn't going to take any nonsense. He was very strict, very dismissive, and very boring. As the years went by, and boy was it many years, he grew tired of this parenting style. He lost the energy to enforce strict rules on a daily basis. He lost the energy to be authoritative. Lucky me! When I was born, he was an old feller. He was done with the whole game and wanted to just chill, ya feel? So when I grew up he turned into the ultimate authoritarian parent. He reasons with us when we have objections to his rules, but he knows when to exert his executive powers. He is one of the coolest men alive and it's truly a blessing having an authoritarian dad.

Being an authoritative son

I have several younger siblings, four to be exact. If I had it my way, I would have had my parents have just me, wait fifteen years, and then have my baby sister, Noa. Noa is cute, adorable, sweet, and very unannoying. The age gap between us is perfect, where I can focus on her and her on me until we get tired of each other and then all is still fine because she's still cute. That, however, is not the case and my parents have a couple more kids to parent.

I do not believe that my parents always do an adequate job of parenting, often even requiring assistance. There have been times when decisions have been so off, there's no doubt in my mind they merely wanted me to offer my advice and were too proud to admit it. Luckily for them, I'm always happy to offer my support and expertise and will give them a piece of my mind without them having to ask.

It is important when dealing with my parents to not be too assertive. When my younger sister shouts "No!!!!!! How dare you! I do everything and you can at least take me to the____" in a very loud and inappropriate voice, I handle the situation carefully. I do not go to my mother/father and say in a cold, unwieldy tone, "go now and punish. Do it immediately. This is what you HAVE to do!" That would be too much negative vibe and would be too assertive. No, instead I employ authoritative measures to get them to see sense. I ask, "can she be talking to you like that? Wouldn't it be good to teach her a lesson? I've heard that research suggests the best way to punish your child in this situation is to (insert latest research here)." It is important that I don't talk to them too condescendingly because otherwise they won't do it. It's also very important that I do speak to them, because otherwise they will think that behavior is just allowed and they won't know what to do in the future, when I'm not there to help them along.

At times, the position can be quite trying. Having to mentor your own parents on parenting can bea burden and there are times that I want escape. But that's what I push through; it's what I fight. Just like a parent can't leave their child until they're ready, I can't leave my parents until they're ready to be caring alone. Until they can give my other sister the independence that she needs to grow and send her to the school that I know would be best for her. It's up to me to care for them.

Humanistic Perspective

This theory for personality makes absolutely no sense. They would like to claim a person's perceived self and ideal self should be the same. Before continuing to learn the details of this perspective I believed there were already multiple flaws. First, as a high school student how on earth can we be in an ideal state? We have barely experienced life, there is no way anyone could make the claim that any one of us have been able to accomplished our ideal self. Secondly a person could always be improving themselves. In fact this is one of the fundamental ideas behind humanistic psychology. How could a person improve them-self if they are already in an ideal state? I think this could connect to an earlier blog post I had written about how Psychology is a new science that has many unanswered questions.

Reflexes

When learning the development of a human we discussed the development of a newborn baby. During these discussions we learned about the reflexes a baby is born with, tonic neck reflex, grasp reflex, step reflex, and crawl reflex. I found their ability to swim the most interesting. One can say this reflex comes from their time spent in the womb. If this is true are you able to act on this reflex so extend it into a long term skill. If you throw a baby in water on a regular basis would they learn how to swim? Acting on a persons reflex and trying to develop it into a skill could possibly change the way we raise our children. We have learned in the past that a baby is born with the ability to understand all languages than couldn't parents use todays technology to ensure they continue to be exposed to multiple languages as they grow up? Having the next generation understand dozens of languages could change the way we think of the globalized world.

Perspective on the Trait Perspective

In life, people are often quick to think that bigger and more wide ranging is better. This does not apply to technology because it is apparent that slimmer and less-weight is often better, like for iPhones. But in terms of knowledge, the farther an answer spans, the more accurate it is, right?

I don't think so.

The trait perspective believes that personality is determined by one's traits. However, there are arguments within the trait perspective over which  traits specifically influence personality. It seemed to me from class that the most accepted Trait Perspective theory is the OCEAN (or CANOE) Theory. In this theory, you measure a person based on 5 scales to determine their personality. The 5 scales are as follows. 1. Openness to Experience (e.g. - liberal, conservative) 2. Conscientiousness (e.g. - stoic, methodical, gullible) 3. Extroversion/Introversion (e.g. - be with others, keep to yourself) 4. Agreeableness (e.g. - stubborn, easy going) and 5. Neuroticism (e.g. - emotional stability or instability).

I think the OCEAN perspective has too many scales. I think simplicity is paramount in determining one's personality. If you want to classify someone, you want to do so on an easy level. Or else it causes too much thinking and it is much harder to identify someone and know the essence of them. I believe a person can be summed up by the Hans Eysenck Theory. This theory only uses 2 scales: introverted vs. extroverted & emotionally stable vs. emotionally unstable. Furthermore, your personality can be a combination of the 2 scales to result in a overall (though not ALL encompassing) personality label. For example, one with majority extroverted while simultaneously being mostly emotionally unstable could be classified as having an excitable personality.

The Hans-Eysenck Theory makes things simple. Simple is good. The Hans-Eysenck Theory is good.

Psychology, a new science

Psychology is a incredibly new science and this can be seen when studying the subject. Every topic follows the same process and I think this is due to the lack of concrete evidence. First one theory is released then a second contradictory theory is released that disproves the original theory and finally after the second theory is disproved a third theory comes out combining the first two theories. Take emotion for example. First we learned about the James-Lange theory which says first something is sensed, then arousal occurs and finally the emotion is felt. After issues were brought up with this theory, we learned about the Cannon-Bard theory which says, after experiencing an event the arousal and emotion are felt simultaneously. Finally we learned about a third theory which combines both of these. The Schachter-Singer theory states that a stimulus is perceived, then an arousal is felt as this arousal is cognitively labeled as an emotion and finally a emotion is experienced. This system gives me as a student a feeling of uncertainty in the information I am learning. How do we know that in 5 years a new theory will not be released disproving everything we have learned in the past?

Speech

I have really enjoyed learning about the speech development process. It has been even more interesting watching my 16 month old cousin go through this process. We discussed how a baby begins babbling, then speaking in one word, eventually expanding to two words and finally speaking in full sentences. My cousin was taught sign language and was able to begin signing words, such as hungry, more, full. and please. She was able to sign these words before she was able to speak them. She has also very recently begun signing two word phrases such as more please. She is  abel to sign this before she speaks at this level since she is barely in the one word speaking stage. Could she and other babies who are able to sign before they speak a question against those who believe stage development is all cognitive and not because of the need for the muscles to develop.

Defense Mechanisms

     When we get nervous, we tend to try to ease the conflict between our id and our superego. For example, when I am in the Phallic Stage, according to Freud's stupidity, I will want to marry my mother. So, my id wants to marry my mother, and my superego tells it that it is not a reality and not accepted in today's society. There is a conflict here between the id and the superego. To help ease this conflict, we tend to use different types of defense mechanisms.

      One mechanism we use is denial when you completely deny something. If you get hurt, you sometimes would tell people it is no big deal, even though it hurts a ton. Displacement is when you take out your anger on a less threatening target instead of reacting to the person who got you mad if they are a threatening target. For example, if an employee gets mad at his boss, he may come home and yell at his kid. Intellectualization is when we sometimes focus on the intellectual components of sad things. For example, if I am watching a sad movie, I may focus on the backgrounds and the directing of the film instead of the content. Projection is when we know something is negative about us so we tell other people that they have that negative quality. For example, if someone has no friends, they may tell many people, "you have no friends." Rationalization is when we explain things in a logical manner instead of explaining them the way they actually happened. It is like making excuses. For example, you may tell someone your girlfriend broke up with you because you didn't take out the trash, when really it is because you just suck. Reaction formation is when unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency. For example, if you are gay, you may openly oppose gays a lot to relieve anxiety. Regression is a defense mechanism leading to the temporary or long-term reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development rather than handling unacceptable impulses in a more adult way. For example, if it is my first day of school, I may get scared and suck my thumb. Repression is when we unconsciously throw things behind us. If someone got raped, they may repress that event. Sublimation is a defense mechanism where socially unacceptable impulses or idealizations are consciously transformed into socially acceptable actions or behavior, possibly converting the initial impulse in the long term. For example, I may become a firework specialist because I am secretly a pyromaniac. The last defense mechanism is suppression when you consciously try to throw things behind you. For example, if you saw your dad die, you will constantly try to suppress that memory.

My Theory about Freud

Due to the outrage in our class over the stupidity of Freud's theory of personality, I thought I would come up with a few theories of my own about Freud himself that led him to come up with this ridiculous perspective.

Note: None of these theories are based off of any evidence, and I have absolutely no means or backing to any of my points, but that is fine, because that is how Freud came up with his theories as well.

• He was a cocaine addict - This theory actually has some sources and evidence to it so I do not feel so bad when I say it. This can very well be true, and the reason why Freud had these theories that just made no sense, but when he was high on cocaine, they made perfect sense to him.
• He was dropped as a child - This theory could very well be true. Mr. and Mrs. Freud were at a park and they were walking, and they droppped Baby Sigmund who hit his head very hard on the pavement. When he grew up and had serious dane bramage he came up with the most exotic and perplexing theories because he was not thinking properly.
• He was mad that his parents named him Sigmund - The name Sigmund is just a sign of terrible things to come. (Note to self and all to read it: Do not name your kid Sigmund because nothing good can come out of it). So, when Lil' Sigmund was in school and all of the kids made fun of his name due to the fact that it is utterly pathetic, he became a very angry person for the rest of his life, wanted to avenge his name, and came up with the Oedipus Complex as a result. 
• He was walking down the street one day and someone told him to tie his shoe because he learned in psychology that if someone does not tie their shoes than it can be a bad omen. He got incredibly angry that someone would have the audacity to say this to him and responded, "Do not tell me what to do." From then on his mission in life was to ruin the lives of all people who may enroll in a Psychology class. He came up with his ludicrous theory, which he specifically tailored to not make any sense and for the terms to be impossible to remember (id, ego) and laughed it off the rest of his life.
• He is crazy, stupid, and pathetic

Notice how I bolded the last theory showing that it is the one that has the best chance to be correct, and probably is correct. There is no other way to explain his theories. Sorry I can not write any more, I got to go act like I was when I was 4, call people what I am, and take my anger out on my younger brother. What a puerile dunderhead.

The Oedipus Complex

Freud is a moron. Honestly, I can't put it any other way. He may have been a revolutionary, maybe he made some innovations in psychology, but the dude was a complete moron! Freud claims that when we are children we are sexually attracted to our mothers. Because of this attraction, we develop a hatred for our fathers because they are sexually involved with our mothers. Freud goes on to explain that the reason we eventually become close to our fathers is because we realize that hating them won't do anything, so we figure that if we can't beat them, we should join them. So, to sum it up, Freud says that we want to have sex with our mothers, but since our dads are already doing just that we must find a way to either hate them or become closer with them as a means of coping. Honestly, what is this theory? Where is Freud getting this from? Why does he assume that babies are attracted to their mothers? Some of his ideas are acceptable, but this one is simply outrageous!

The Yeitzer Superego and the Yeitzer Id

We began discussing Sigmund Freud and his findings in class this week. And though we can debate over and over again about whether he was a genius or an idiot, and we can find ways to use his defense mechanisms to attack other people, there's no denying that he's had a significant influence on the world. A classic inspiration from Freud is the cliche image of a dude about to do something evil while devil and angel versions of him stand on his shoulders and tell him what to do. How was this taken from Freud, you ask? Well, let's take a look at Freud's personality structure. Freud believed that there were three parts to the mind: the ego, the superego, and the id. The id is the part of your unconscious that demands you to fulfill its pleasure needs. The superego is a part of the preconscious that tries to repress those thoughts about pleasure, because they could actually be immoral. The ego is you, the conscious mind being influenced by the id and the superego to act in a certain way. So in case you haven't figured out, the id is the devil, the superego is the angel, and the ego is you. Personally, though I've heard others disagree, I've always imagined the Yeitzer Hara and the Yeitzer Tov in Judaism to be our versions of the devil and the angel, or the id and the superego. It's a stretch, but it's also cool to see some kind of "scientific" (Freud would be proud) or psychological perspective to this classic concept.

"Side Effects"

I saw a crazy movie Saturday night. The name of it is "Side Effects." It features Rooney Mara and Channing Tatum. It was a thinker. Really, it was a pretty intense/REALLY intense movie, and a lot of it had to do with psychology.
The movie revolved around a girl, named Emily, and her problems with depression. It goes into all the crazy things she does and the medications she takes to try to control her depression.
I could relate these medications back to our psych class. A lot of them were referred to as SRIs (serotonin reuptake inhibitors). When they said that, I turned to my sister, thrilled that i actually knew something, and told her how we learned that in psych class. Basically, SRIs stop serotonin from being reabsorbed by the sending neurotransmitter. As a result, the serotonin stays in your system longer, and you feel the positive effects for a longer period of time.
Throughout the movie, Dr. Banks was trying to prescribe Emily these SRIs among other drugs to stop her sadness from coming on.
It's interesting too how this all plays in with the law. You can commit certain actions while under influence of medicine, and as bad as they may be, it could end up being your fault, or a drug's fault, or even the doctor's fault.
Plus Channing Tatum is a hunk, so that makes the movie more interesting for everyone. I know, I'm a dude, but everyone knows how good looking Channing Tatum is.
I would suggest seeing "Side Effects." It's a bit intense and kind of sad, but it's pretty cool.

Twisted (or not) Role Models

Kohlberg researched the subject of morality. Although her research may have been flawed, her findings were certainly not. Morality is without a doubt subjective. It all depends on where one is standing; which side of the fence you are on. Evil is all a matter of personal perspective, object to one's own definitions. The man who wages war is declared evil by those he oppresses; to his citizens, it is the other side that have sided with the devil.

I have a friend who has asked to not be named, who very strongly feels that it is important to keep in mind which side of the fence you are on. Some of her top role models many people would find offending, possibly downright wrong. She maintains however that it is not important what they did, but how they did it. She admires not their acts, but their intelligence. To her, she ignores the crimes they committed since they do not matter from her viewpoint.

Her first role model is Adolf Hitler, the founder of the Nazi Fascist party and the orchestrator of World War II. Billions of people worldwide would say that Hitler was evil, a monster reincarnate. But to her, that does not matter. She admires him for his military prowess, for his tenacity. She is in awe of his tactical genius and his brilliant takeover of much of Europe. Her morals are not in conflict because she does not consider these attributes to be evil. What he used them for may be, but they themselves are not. She says though, "He stops being my role model when he invades Russia. He should've been smarter than that."

Another one of her role models is Bernie Madoff. Like Hitler, quite a number of people consider him to be a bad guy. But like with Hitler, my friend does not see the wrongs that Madoff has committed. She only sees his marketing brilliance. She admires him for the scheme that he pulled off, the intelligence that it must have taken. But her admiration only goes so far. "When he gets caught, that's when I stop admiring him."

These are not role models that most people would have. Yet both of them really did have tremendous potential and capabilities. My friend recognizes those talents and admires them for what they have. Although Kohlberg would not have experimented on my friend, she would most definitely understand how my friend has different moral values than most. We each make our own morals.

love

Love has been talked about for centuries. From philosophers, historians, poets and even scientists everyone is curious about love. Many of these people have felt the rush of falling in love. Or the deep feeling of love for a close friend or family member. But what is love? It plays a big role in evolution. Many pairs of people have fallen in love so that you can be here today reading this post. For some reason the heart has been a symbol of love even though we have proven that all the magic happens in the brain. The brain of someone in love looks oddly similar to someone on cocaine. Both of these stimuli lower the threshold on the pleasure centers on the brain causing them to fire more frequently. This causes you to not only fall in love with the person but also gives you a romanticized view of the world around you. Everything seems happy to you because everything sets off your pleasure centers. What is really cool is that pain and aversion centers also fire less. But what causes all of this to happen on a biological level. During an orgasm or even just looking at a picture of your loved one, a person will produce extra dopamine and norepinephrine in a certain area of your brain, the ventral tegmental area (VTA). This causes arousal and the desire to be with the person you love. Romantic love is not simply an emotion; it is also a desire. This desire bring about energy, happiness and the ability to concentrate. The pleasure centers I mentioned before a part of the mesolimbic dopamine system. If you stimulate this system while learning than the learning becomes much easier.  When the VTA is stimulated the brain releases oxytocin as well. Oxytocin helps reenforce bonding and/or attachment.

<3

Parenting Methods

I noticed in class that a lot of people said that their parents have a different parenting style now than when they were younger. Some said their parents are more permissive now, and some said their parents are more authoritarian now. Personally, my mother was more permissive when I was a kid, and my father was more authoritarian. Now, it's the opposite. My mother is more authoritarian (but not so much), and my father is more permissive. I was just wondering why parents change their parenting method. Do they even actually change, or do we just think they change as we get older and go through different stages of life? Anyway, I feel that since one of my parents is permissive and the other is authoritarian, I get an overall sense of authoritative parenting from my parents. It usually seems bad to have an authoritarian parent, but in this case I get the better and correct balance of parenting.

Parenting

People always talk about how parenting is the most important thing in the development of a child, but I would like to contend that is not the case. Rather, when we sit in school all day with our friends, that is where the real development comes from.
Take my life, for example. I wake up at 6:40, take a shower and get ready, by the time I get downstairs, I see my mother once (my dad is at shuld) and akiva is at my house and I am off to school. Depending on the day, I'll get home anytime from 5:35 to 7 oclock at night. I eat, go upstairs, do some borign work for Mrs. Perl, if there is a good sporting event on TV then I will watch that, and then I go to sleep. At what time during that day are my parents influencing me with there personality. No! My peers at school are the ones who influence me more.
Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that parents have absolutely no infuence or effect on their kids because that would be simply ludicrous. But, I do think that the amount of stress that psychologists and David Myers put on the effect that parents have is partially overblown.
Obviously, my parents do have an effect on me, but not anywhere close to the effect that most people say.

John Johnson... I mean Jeffrey Jeffreyson... I mean Erik Erikson

I'd like to reflect on the assignment we did in class a few days ago. The class where we all wrote down the 20 most significant events in our life (10 from past, 10 in future), we came to some unique results and some not so unique results.
I think these results can be explained based on Erik Erikson's stages. First and foremost, check out his name. A guy with a name like that knows what he's talking about. But seriously, there was a reason why our 10 events that had already happened were so much different from each other's responses than were our 10 events that would happen in the future.
Erik Erikson's stage chart explains how we go through different stages in different parts of life, and a lot of the way we turn out depends on those around us, and upon ourselves. So what I derived is that the reason our first ten events were so different from each others' was because we were all already raised in different ways up to this point. For example, perhaps Gabe was more adventurous in his "Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt" stage from age 1-3. Perhaps Gabe was in an environment where he could explore wherever he wanted, and hence learned to trust himself a lot. That could explain why Gabe's highlight event from age 5 was his first kiss, while mine was a more reserved event: my kindergarten graduation.
And the reason why our future events were all so similar (like marriage, college graduation, retirement) was because we have not yet experienced those ages, and our experiences have not been able to shape us into unique human beings yet.
So Erik Erikson knew what he was talking about. (So does Phillip Phillips, but that is a different story.) The way we experience different stages of life impacts the rest of our lives.

John Piaget's four stages

            Though Piaget's observations were quite obvious, he still somehow managed to make it into the book. He declared that there are four stages of childhood: sensorimotor stage, pre-operational stage, concrete operational stage, and formal operational stage.
           
            The sensorimotor stage usually runs from about age 0-2. It is when you learn through sensing and moving, hence the name. Object permanence is common in children in this stage. It is the notion that things cease to exist when they are not visible at that moment-just one more example why babies are not the brightest beings on earth.
         
            The pre-operational stage usually is from age 2-6 in the late toddler/early childhood years like the pre-k/kindergarten kids in our school. They cannot see the world conceptually like we can when we are older. One of their limitations is object conservation, which is when they believe that the amount of liquid changes when the shape of the container changes. Another limitation in the pre-operational stage is egocentricism: kids in this stage cannot see another's point of view at all. If I am facing a kid in this stage, he will think I see what is in front of him even though it is in back of me, and he will not be able to say what I see.

          The concrete operational stage is when the kid develops the theory of mind. It usually goes from age 6-11 when the child can do so much. They lose their egocentricism and can think concretely. Their one limitation is that they are not able to think abstractly.

          Finally, when you reach the age of 12, you are finished developing cognitively. In the formal operational stage, you can finally think abstractly. You develop formal thought and judgment based on moral values.

          As obvious as these stages may seem, Piaget did manage to get his name in the book and in many more places somehow.

Man, some of these blogs are boring...

I'm in adolescence. I'm supposed to be struggling to find my identity. I'm supposed to be a teenager with low self-esteem, with insecurities. But, I don't have any of those things! I'm fairly confident in what I want to be in my life. So, what does that say about these theories? Who knows.

Another thing I found interesting when reading this chapter was the fact that when we enter the adulthood stage, we cognitively think of ourselves as peers to our parents. I see my dad and my oldest brother, Ben, interacting in a dramatically different manner than I do with my dad. It's pretty amazing how true it is that with age and independence your parents because more of best friends than care takers.

A harsh reality to living is that we all die. I hope I don't know a slow and painful death, one in which my brain gradually deteriorates and I go nanners. Hopefully by the time I'm older there will be medicine that keeps me alive for as long as I want.

Well, those were my abstract thoughts on life. I'll be back next week.

Insane reflexes

         Besides the few exceptions, babies are in my opinion stupid as I said in class and consequently, I got laughed at. If I take a cup of water and pour it into a different cup of water that is shorter but has a bigger diameter, they will think there is all of the sudden less water due to the concept of object conservation. Seriously?! If I pour the cup of water into a different cup of water right in front of their eyes, how do they not realize that it is the same amount?! Besides their stupidity, they do have some very interesting reflexes when they are newborns. The grasp reflex is when you put your finger in a newborn's hand, they will grasp it really tight. The tonic neck reflex is when they are turned to their side and they look like they are fencing. The step reflex is if you put the baby on the ground, they will take a step even though they cannot actually walk. The moro reflex is if you bang your fist right next to the baby, they will startle. Haha, I should try that some day. The rooting reflex is if you touch the baby's cheek, they will turn to you because they want food. The sucking reflex is if you put your finger in their mouth, they suck on it hard. The babinski reflex is if you touch their foot, they will curl their toes. The coolest reflex of all is that if you put the newborn baby in the water, they will start to swim. I seriously need to try that one! Despite their obvious stupidity, they do in fact have some very cool aspects as well.

Lifelong Studies of Cognitive Development= A Horror Movie

This week, we learned about the three strategies that researchers can utilize to study cognitive development across the lifespan of a human being. Those three strategies are longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, and cross-sequential studies. Longitudinal studies follow one person throughout the entire lifespan. It's basically a lifelong case study, where you study very specific elements of cognitive development. Though they help you see and learn a lot about the lifespan, longitudinal studies are very expensive, and your case study can "drop out" and your data becomes skewed ("drop out" basically means to die--sad times). Cross-sectional studies follow different age groups in a short period of time, usually around a year. Through this, you actually see the entire lifespan at once, and it's much cheaper than following a single person across an entire lifetime. However, your results can still be skewed, since you're studying different generations, not just different people and age groups. For example, 90-year-olds will have had, say, a worse education when they were 20 than 20-year-olds do now, and so the lifespan that you're studying could have differing results. Cross-sequential studies are sort of a blend between longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. Basically, you study a group of people with a similar characteristic (i.e. age group)for a few years, and then study a different group of people for a few years, and so on and so forth. This tries to combine the two studies while eliminating many of the inherent cons of the studies. But researchers don't realize one thing: by utilizing these strategies, they are creating a horror movie for these "participants," and the researcher is the bad guy. Imagine if you participated in one of these studies. Some random dude in a mysterious white coat follows you everywhere you go, and you just can't seem to get away from him. You're being stalked, and you can't escape. Sounds like a horror movie to me. What I'm trying to say is, these studies seem a bit unethical to me, and I would never try to organize one, let alone participate in one.

Mirror Neurons and the Facial Feedback Hypothesis

     When we were previously discussing observational learning, we learned that we observe and imitate others. What was perhaps the coolest element, at least to me, is that we have mirror neurons, located in the brain's frontal lobes, that demonstrates a neural basis for observational learning. Essentially these mirror neurons explain the element of how humans have empathy for others. The mirror neurons fire when we perform certain actions, such as responding to pain or moving our mouth to form words, or when we observe someone else performing those actions.
    A similar concept is the facial feedback hypothesis, which proposes that expressions amplify our emotions by activating muscles associated with specific states, and the muscles signal the body to respond as though we were experiencing those states. While it differs from mirror neurons, it is similar in that it explain that when we mimic other's actions, a similar neural and emotional reaction occurs within our body. In the facial feedback hypothesis, when we simulate the facial expressions normally associated with happiness, we may feel happier. Similarly, the behavior feedback hypothesis assumes that if we move our body as we would when experiencing some emotion, we are likely to feel that emotion to some degree. The human brain is absolutely incredible in that it can mimic others reactions and literally feel empathy for others. 

Overconfidence and Its Effects

    I am typically a confident kid. I am on a mission and life and rolling with friends. Unfortunately, this translates into my tendency to be overconfident, or the idea of one being more confident than correct, and to over-estimate the accuracy of one's beliefs and judgements. I will provide a sports example that can relay a plethora of ideas, as sports can explain all of life's problems: Chris Johnson, the running back of the Tennessee Titans, had a terrible year two years ago. After a season that was considered one of the greatest the position of running back history, he started to decline a bit, but still remained solid. The next year, he was just horrendous. He couldn't seem to find a hole and pick up big yardage. Immediately, I, along with numerous Titans fans, began to put blame on Chris Johnson. What I failed to realize was that the Tennessee Titans had probably the worst offensive line in the NFL. The Offensive Line in responsible for blocking for the running back, and they were failing to do their job. Instead of realizing that it was their fault, I was simply upset at Chris Johnson and couldn't find a reason why he was playing so poorly. This story reflects functional fixedness, or the tendency to think of things only in terms of their usual functions. I failed to find that alterante blame in a source other than Chris Johnson. Additionally, I came to the initial conclusion that he just lost his skills, and after a poor game I would confirm my opinion. I failed to look at his better games and take note of those. This idea is known as the confirmation bias, which is when our search for information supports our preconceptions and ignores contradictory evidence. In general, it is important to look at all perspectives, as sometimes the fault is elsewhere.

Wonder of Babies

I love babies. My baby sister, Noa, is the only person in my family who I can genuinely say I have always liked. When she first came home, my mom would nurse her to sleep, and then I'd take her and lie on my chest and we'd both sleep on the couch. It always amazed me how such a thing, a human, could come from a mother's stomach. Learning about the different phases, from the embryonic to the fetal, really made me appreciate the life that we have. But more than that, it only made me more wondered (doesn't exactly make sense but it's point I wanted to get across) by babies. To think what they go through to get here, it really is a natural miracle. So it was with anger that I learned about FAS and the other harmful things a mother could do to her child. I cannot imagine how someone would hurt their baby.

Despite my love for babies I can hardly say that I would want to have children, at least for now. I truly do enjoy playing with children and holding babies, but I believe that kids are more trouble than worth having. I would hate to have me as my child. Children just take, take, take from parents. As for my legacy, I hope to leave a foundation in my name that will help others heal and fund research.

monogomy

our book says that humans are monogamous and it says that it has many evolutionary advantages. It is interesting to e because many geneticists have found that humans used to be polygamous. To be more specific they were polygyny because they had many wives. Women who have many husbands are called polyandry and when its both it is called polygynandry. in order to evaluate if we are monogamous today we need to define monogamy. monogamy is a breeding strategy in which two animals mate only with each other during a given period of time (notice it does not say for life, it could be for just one mating season or perhaps even shorter). Now if it were advantageous we would probably find other animals who are monogamous as well (to help prove that its advantageous finding monogamous mammals would be especially helpful). The most monogamous type of specie are birds: 90 percent of birds are monogamous. only about three percent of mammals are. With a lot of analyzation scientists have realized that many of these birds appear to be monogamous but really the females cheat on their husbands and acquire a second partner. This new phenomena is now called social monogamy. Social monogamous animals can be more directly defined as a pair of animals who live together, reproduce together and cooperate in nailing down the basic necessities of life. This does not say that they are sexually exclusive. now what are humans? to me is seems as though we are mildly polygamous and for sure more socially monogamous than monogamous.

Which Type are you?

While learning about different emotions, we came across the different aspects of stress--stuff like causes, function, consequences, etc. Under the subject of stress, we learned about the impact of appraisal, mainly the transactional theory (the three steps to appraising a situation). But there's another way of appraising a situation. Based on an experiment, there are two types of personalities that affect how one appraises a situation. There's the Type A personality, who is rigid and stressed, and then there's the Type B personality, who is more laid back. A great example given in the book and the packet given out in class is the comic strip that shows the Type A personality scaling a mountain "Because it's there!" and the Type B personality using the mountain as support to rest "Because it's there!" Which type of personality are you? Though I sometimes feel stressed after the pressure of schoolwork makes me crack, I've always considered myself the Type B personality. Sure, I can act aggressive sometimes, but in general nothing seems to really anger me, even if it annoys me. I'm generally happy, and nothing seems to curb that, which just makes me happier.

Emotional Breakdown: Super Bowl Style

I was watching the Super Bowl, like Isaac, and, unlike Isaac, I was rooting for the Ravens for a multitude of reasons. But those are not for now, if you would like to know my reasons, please see me privately. Let's get to the game, shall we!

So, it is 4th and goal from the BAL 5, and the 49ers have the ball. This play is the Super Bowl. If the Ravens stop them, they win. If they don't, they have 1:46 to string together the game winning drive. This is for all the marbles. 

Kaepernick drops back, the Ravens go all out blitz, lofts it into the end zone, NO! NO! INCOMPLETE PASS! THE RAVENS HAVE WON THE SUPER BOWL! 

I see the football hit the turf, and my heart starts beating, I get really happy, but what is really happening inside me that causes me to feel this happiness:

According to James-Lange, I see the football hit the turf, then my heart beats and what not, and, finally, I am happy and relieved. 

According to Cannon-Bard, I see the football hit the turf and, simultaneously, I am hapy and my heart stats beating. 

According to Schacter-Singer, I see the football hit the turf, my heart starts beating, I give that a label (in this case, happiness and joy), and then I feel that I am happy and joyous. 

These are all plausible theories, but, personally, I like the Schacter-Singer theory the best due to the cognitive aspect. 

Whatever the case may be, I was happy to see that the Ravens are Super Bowl Champions, but, at the same time, I am sad to see one of the greatest football players of all time leave the game, albeit in such a glorious fashion.

The Super Bowl

Quite the game tonight. I have to say I was a little disappointed with the result, but it was a good game nonetheless. There were some major psych concepts brought out, especially in regards to risks for error that led me and others to draw wrong conclusions at times.

First, I see a picture of Ed Reed in a nice suit. Now, had I seen a picture of Ed Reed back in the day in this suit, the representative heuristic would have thrown me off. He is a muscly man with one of the meanest faces you've ever seen. Had I not known who he was, I would have guessed that he was a multi-millionaire bank robber. Any guy that rough would "have to be" a bank robber. But in truth, there are many more football players than multi-millionaire bank robbers, so the prototype of a bank robber in my mind threw me off and led me to ignore other relevant info.

Later on, there are four seconds left in the game, and Baltimore is punting to give the 49ers one last shot. The availability heuristic threw me off. I kept picturing the Giants game a couple years ago where Desean Jackson returned a last second punt for a touchdown. But that was only an available memory in my mind. The odds were much more likely that the 49ers did not return it for a touchdown, which was the result. Just look at the history books. You can also blame my overconfidence there, as I was certain Ted Ginn Jr. would be able to pull of something amazing for the 49ers. But he didn't.

Also during the game, one of the facts they flashed on the TV led me to have a certain belief. CBS bragged that they had broadcasted the Superbowl 18 out of the 47 games ever played. But had they said they had not been the broadcasters for over 25 of the games ever played, I would have seen them as much less impressive. Oh the power of words.

And then my belief perseverance turned to be futile as well. I was under the impression the entire game that the NFL would decide they had made a mistake and the Falcons were supposed to be in the Superbowl. And even when people told me that that was impossible, and it had never happened before, I kept on believing. Long story short, the Falcons were chilling at home and they didn't end up playing. Blame me and my stubborn belief perseverance.

Twas a good game tonight, but the psychology involved was mind blowing if you dig deep.

The Sadness of Getting Older

Getting older means you made it far enough to call yourself old. You've lived your life, seen a few beautiful places in the world, and hopefully gained a good amount of memories in your lifetime. But, as you get older you're at risk of losing all of those memories. As you get older, your brain begins to deteriorate. You get older, you get dumber. You may lose everything you learned. You may become a psychopath. Living a long and healthy life is a beautiful thing. Living a long and disease filled life is just miserable. This cognitive regression is something that, if not cured, needs to forcefully be stopped before more old people and their families suffer. I am recommending a program that (humanely) executes anybody that is experiencing this kind of severe cognitive regression. When the old people reach a certain point where they get their license taken away by the government, they forget their pants at home, or they mistake their dog for their wife, that's when you have to end those suckers lives. I'm not trying to sound mean, but ending someone living in a miserable and impossible situation is better than making them suffer any longer than they have to. You have to consider their families. They have to deal with the cognitive regression. They have to deal with changing the diapers and being called the wrong name. It's all just a depressing situation. A solution must come quick, and I think I have one.

#endtheoldpeople