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