Saturday, September 5, 2015

TPQs:Chapter One

155 comments:

  1. TPQ-Thought-provoking question. These are written in a paragraph format. This will be blogged.

    Discuss the background reading and the page or pages where someone could find it in the book. This should be 3-4 sentences in length.

    Then pose a question that was not answered in the material. Be sure that the reader must “sit and think” about how to respond to it. The questions should be well developed and clearly stated. This may take 2-3 sentences to do so.

    Your thought-provoking question (TPQ) should be 5-9 sentences in length and include the page number(s) that reference the materials for which you are discussing.

    You must answer two thought-provoking questions created by your classmates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On page 5, it talks about global psychology and how it has expanded in the past centuries. It says that in 1985, China only had five psychology departments and then by the last century's end, they had 40. It also states that the psychology level of intelligence has raised dramatically since the past. Do you ever think that psychology will ever be all figured and they will have no questions anymore?

      Delete
    2. On page 8, it talks about different types of psychologists like counseling and clinical. Counseling psychologists help people cope with challenges and crises. Clinical psychologists assess and treat mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders. Do you believe without specified psychologist, there would be more events like crimes and killings, either murders or suicides from depression?

      Delete
    3. In reply to Brady's question bout page 5, I do not think we will ever be able to understand all of psychology. I say this because we also will never be able to know how the entire brain works and reacts to certain things. We might get really close to understanding, but a new question that needs to be answered will pop up.

      Delete
    4. On the bottom of page 17, the book describes an observation that people live at a faster pace in colder climates than places with warmer climates. It also hints that it can affect economic development. Does climate have a profound affect on a countries economy? For example, countries in southern Europe where the climate is warm like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal all have crippling debt and fall behind economically when compared to Germany, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands who live in a colder climate.

      Delete
    5. responding to Brady. I don't think that there will ever be a end psychology because they're always new questions that pop up or new experiments that could be studied.- Trent Ostby

      Delete
    6. In reply to Brady, I do not think that psychology will ever end, because the world is constantly changing and with that people are changing. So we need people to observe these changes and see how the brain copes and reacts to today's changes.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reading on page 5 about the concept of nature-nurture issue, I was wondering if a child grows up without ever personally knowing or getting a chance to meet one or both of their parents, or any of their family members, will they still have some of the same characteristics of their parents/familys personality? For example, today we see young children to resemble their mother, father, grandparents, aunt, uncle, ect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that as a child, even without knowing your parents you would still carry some of the same characteristics/traits. For example, I'm a firm believer that if the parent of the child is a calm person, the baby will be too. The child would still resemble the parent with or without the parent or parents in their life. However I think the child will act how it was raised, therefor it could lose aspects of their birth parents but part of them will always be in the child.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. In response to Lindsey's question, I think it all depends on how the child is raised and what kind of environment he or she is familiar with. The child may look like their biological parents, but I believe it comes from nurture and how they were raised.

      Delete
    4. In response to Lindsey's question, I believe that people can still have the same characteristics as family members they haven't met. I've heard an older teacher tell a student that they act just like their grandpa did when he was in school. So, I think that we can still resemble our relatives without having met them. I also believe that much of how we act is how we were raised.

      Delete
    5. In response to Lindsey's question, if someone never got to meet their parents, I don't think they will be as much like them as they would've been if they were raised by their parents. I think people tend to raise their children like they were raised. This causes the children to act and respond like the parents. Sometimes, people learn parenting from their own parents and I think this is why family members might behave the same way. I also think people learn how to interact with other people by watching their parents. This might be why a child will grow up and talk like their parents and socialize similar to the way their parents do.

      Delete
    6. This question is extremely interesting for me personally. I believe that there are many similar personality traits shared between a child and a parent/family member who isn't "there." I am told very often that I say things like my dad or have the same dry humor. I know of several people who have gone through similar life events and they all have at least one thing that people say they do like there un present family member. So in my personal experience there is a large correlation in personality traits.

      Delete
    7. In response to Lindsey's question, I believe a child will still share there parents/family members characteristic even if not raised by them. They may tend to interact differently among other people if not raised by there parents but yet will still have the same personality and traits from them. You don't have to know them in order to act like them because I think it runs in your genes. For example i never met my grandpa but my family members often tell me we have the same set of mind and we tend to act the same. I strongly and truly believe a child dosent have to grow up around there parents/family members in order to have the same characteristics.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. In response to Lindsey's question, I think that some children may have some mannerisms similar to those of their parents based upon genetics (even if they never have the chance to meet their parents). However, I do not think that the child will be as likely to adopt the beliefs and moral values of their parents as these traits are more likely learned through observation.

      Delete
    10. In response to Lindsey's question, I think that the child would resemble their birth parents and possibly their foster/step parents because some of the traits we receive our from our parents. But we do learn from watching other people interact with one another. It could possibly come down to a 50/50 on Nature vs Nuture.

      Delete
    11. In response to Lindsey's question, I believe that children get these mannerisms both genetically and adapt them from seeing there parents act a certain way.

      Delete
    12. I think that while a major part of children acting like their parents is due to them spending so much time with them and looking up to them through their childhood, the most crucial time for learning basic things, you can also look at things that are hereditary like bone structure that will cause people to have similar characteristics as their parents, like how someone walks.

      Delete
    13. I believe that the way parents raise their kids is very crucial and a big part to the way they act as adults. I also believe that some traits are genetically passed on. But, I believe their is a big advantage from growing up with two parents than just one.

      Delete
    14. I think that a large reason that children resemble or act like their parents is because they grow up with them and they always look up to them. Also they learn a lot of things from them including how to act or not act. So lets say a child never gets to meet their biological parents, I believe they will be raised to act like their foster parents or whoever it may be that raises them.

      Delete
  4. Reading on page 6 about the concept of the biopsychosocial approach. It has three levels, biological influences, psychological influences, and social-culture influences. They all link to how your behavior or mental process work. I was reading about each of the levels and I was wondering if every influence would, "come about" in every single situation. And if each situation had a more/less important level? Or would one level be greater implied than the other?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Lindsey's question, I don't believe the influences would come about in every situation. I think every situation would have its own reasoning and wouldn't be an every time deal. However, I also believe that the situation would be on a more or less important level. Some moments would be more sever than others however I think each situation is triggered differently. -Lexi

      Delete
    2. In response to Lindsey's question I believe every situation has a different impact, some leave a greater impact than others like Lexi said. Some moments will stand out more so each of the levels will vary.

      Delete
    3. Lindsey,
      Nice questions!! Impressed!

      Delete
  5. On page 18 in chapter one, the text describes what correlation is; observations that show that one trait or behavior is related to another. For example, tests scores can show a statistical measure: a display of improvement or lacking to obtain knowledge. There are two types of correlation: positive correlation and negative correlation. Positive indicates a direct relationship and negative indicates an inverse relationship, according to page 18. In the reading, it describes how if a child was raised in an abusive home that that could lead the child to be abusive as well to their future children (example of positive correlation). Leading on to page 19, there is a graph showing the causes and effects of depression and low self-esteem. There is also a quote from the text, "Adults have a powerful effect on their children..etc." In the reading, it says that a parent's actions can influence their children to do the same bad habits such as, drinking, smoking,drug use, and violence...but if a parent suffers from severe depression, does that influence their children based off of how they handle themselves and behave? Could a parent's behavior lead their children to become the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Caitlin's question, I believe that most people learn by observing others. As a child you look up to those who are older than you and you want to act, talk, and think just like they do. I think that how a parent carries themselves when they suffer from anything influences their children. I know that when my mom is sick or not feeling well she still gets everything done that she needs to do and she is still there for me if I need her. So, when I get sick I try not to let it affect what I do and how I act.

      Delete
    2. I agree that parents have a heavy impact on their children's behavior. My thoughts on how children perceive their parents' actions and how they weigh on their own are complex. I think that if a child sees their parents' actions as positive, they will be more likely to mirror them. If a child is impacted negatively, like having an abusive parent, I believe a child can grow up many different ways. Depending on the person, someone may grow up and be an abusive parent also, but another may grow up and understand how having an abusive parent harmed them and be that much more against parental abuse. I believe that it depends on the person themselves if they have a negative or positive correlation.

      Delete
    3. In response to Caitlyn's question, I believe that children will obtain the same habits or behaviors that their surroundings or environment continues to contain. These habits may be bad or good depending on how the child's parents may act. Because I believe that children look up to their parents, a child will want to do the same things that a parent may be doing. They may see their parent acting on bad habits and see their parent continuously do so.. Making the child believe that behavior is acceptable. When the behavior is actually undesirable.

      Delete
    4. In response to Caitlin's question I believe that parents have a huge impact on a child's behavior. I agree a lot with what Jared said on how if you have an abusive parents it could go either way. I also think just adults in general have a lot of influence on kids because if you are lacking a good influence at home a lot of kids can get that at school, they learn the rights and wrongs. It's not the ideal way for kids to learn behavior but it is sadly a way that some kids do. I do believe that parents have the biggest impact on their kid because many kids always say they want to be like there parents when they grow up. I think depression would be a hard one for kids to pick up on and actually get from there parents because when you see you parent sad like that its would be a hard behavior to mimic.

      Delete
    5. In response to Caitlin's question, I believe depression and addiction are genetic and are passed down hereditarily. We can see trends of suicide in many families. Addiction is also widely accepted to be a genetic trait as well. That, however, does not deplore the notion that how parents behave affects development. Many criminals commit crimes because they were never taught how to act in some situations.

      Delete
  6. These look great!! Thanks you guys!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. On page 25 it discusses the question "does behavior depend on one's culture and gender?" For example, many researchers believe that women carry on conversation more readily to build relationships, and that men talk more to give information and advice. Are men more often seen as leaders because that's the way it has always been or because of their gender? Is it somehow built into them that as men, they should take and are more comfortable in leadership positions? Or is it that way because in the past men were seen as more important than women? The United States still hasn't had a female president before. It that because of gender or something else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Nicole's question, I believe that the idea of gender roles still plays a part in our modern society, and may be the reason some people aspire to be certain things. However, I know plenty of men that would not want leadership roles just like I know women who work well in leadership positions. I think each person's ambition is decided on a personal level, depending on how they were raised, and from there they do whatever they want to do. I don't think it has anything to do with gender, personally.

      Delete
    2. In response to Nicole's question, I believe it's a mixture of both. When looking on the culture side you could argue that we do as we were brought up and that many of believe as our parents do. When looking at gender it's easy to look at how things have been in the past like women not receiving equal rights such as voting. However I feel that men and women are each given certain qualities that stereotypically are given like men being strong and women being good cooks. I think it's mostly based on we still think men and women are better at certain things because that's how it's been in the past.

      Delete
    3. In response to Nicole's question, I agree with a lot of what Lexi said how we learn by listening and watching what our parents do and they learned the same way. We often see women as cooking and men always doing the labor intensive jobs but in reality it could just as well be the other way around. I think it also has a lot to do with the media that we are brought up with these days. It really effects how people act and how the portray themselves. I don't think men and women will ever seem equal or be equal because of stereotyping and how we are raised to know certain things. In conclusion I don't think gender plays a huge role in leadership roles but there is a reason why men are more often selected to get them over women.

      Delete
    4. I believe that is because of the previous history. There have been women and others to try and change this but I believe there are too many people that stick to what they have been taught and they are unwilling to change. I believe men and women will never be equal because of the way things have been in the past.

      Delete
    5. In response to Nicole's question, I lean towards Lexi and Brady's responses. I agree with what Brady says about people being stuck to what they were taught and not be willing to change. We as humans try and learn from the past so I believe people still look back and see men being the leaders and not women. I also believe our up bringing plays a part in as Lexi stated previously.

      Delete
  8. On page 5 it discusses the nature-nurture issue. In the text, it says that Aristotle believed that everything in the mind comes through the senses. So if a child was born blind, what would their behavior be like? Would they ever learn to walk on their own if they aren't able to learn from example since they can't see people walking? If they grow up and their behaviors are very much like those of their family, would this help prove that humans are born with certain behavioral traits and that our genetics plays a bigger role than our environment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Ashley's question, I think that someone born blind would have a harder time learning basic motor skills such as walking or talking because they would not be able to see an example. However, I think that they would share some traits with their parents despite this. They may not see behaviors, but they could (assuming they are not deaf) be able to hear things and learn from that. It would be very interesting to test this theory, though.

      Delete
    2. I agree with what Jena's response was to Ashely's question. A child that may be born blind, I believe, can learn how to communicate and function through many different and useful hearing exercises compared to someone who has vision.

      Delete
    3. I'd have to say I agree as well with them! When a child is born blind yes it will be more difficult but but they will be able to learn through the other senses we have in our body! And I believe it would also prove that humans are also born with behavioral traits.

      Delete
    4. In response to Ashley's question I would have to also agree with Jena and Caitlin's comment about if a child was born blind, what would their behavior be like. I think the only way to learn for them would be grasping onto objects and hearing what they are or listening to others talk. I still think that they would share traits with their parents despite this also.

      Delete
    5. I feel like it would be very hard for children born blind to learn ways to live, but I do think they would be able to eventually walk. I don't believe they would be able to walk as soon as other children do that can see. I believe vision is one of the most important senses for kids because they learn a lot of things visually.

      Delete
    6. In response to Ashley's question, I also agree with the others in that this child could eventually learn to walk but by using his or hers other senses. I also believe that even though this child is blind they would still share traits with their parents, I do not believe being blind would affect that.

      Delete
    7. In response to Ashleys question, even though they may not be able to see people walking, i think they could still learn. It would just take training just like anything else. So if the parents or guardians continued to work with the child i have no doubt that they could walk as others would. Yes, it make take a little or maybe a lot longer to acquire this skill than a child that could observe other people. With this in mind i do not believe that traits or genes have hardly anything to do with a child's ability to walk.

      Delete
  9. While reading page 10 about the hindsight bias, also called the I-knew-it-all-along phenomenon, the reading explains how if a group of people are given scientific findings, like in the example given, "Psychologists have found that separation weakens romantic attraction. As the saying goes, 'Out of sight, out of mind,'" they will very easily be able to explain why this is true. On the other hand, if another group of people are given completely opposite findings, as in the example "Psychologists have found that separation strengthens romantic attraction. As the saying goes, 'Absence makes the heart grow fonder,'" they will agree with these findings. Why do humans do this? Is it because they trust the accuracy of a "scientific" finding, take it as genuine knowledge, and choose to spread the correct answer to the question? Is it that since there is now proof of an answer, we automatically dismiss the research and take it as general knowledge that has been known all along? Or is it another reason?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Jared's question, I think people believe what they read in articles because it says something about science being involved. We sometimes forget that science isn't always correct and that science is always changing. I think people believe scientific findings are true until something different is published that contradicts the original finding. I think people tend to believe the latest research and they believe something is true until something else comes out that shows it isn't true.

      Delete
    2. In response to Jared's question, I think that people will believe things they are told because they assume it's coming from a reliable source. And they will be more likely to believe a statistic if it states "from the results of research" because it's from research, of course it's correct. Lets say you know someone who has a reputation of lying or spreading rumors, and they tell you something very interesting, you want to believe them just because. But since you know they lie or spread rumors there is also questioning on the validity of their story or whatever.

      Delete
  10. This question is based off of Lindsey's original question. On page 5 the nature-nurture issue is one of psychology's biggest questions. Do our human traits develop through experience, or are we born with them? In my previous response to Lindsey's question I talked about how I have been told that I have the same type of humor as my dad and have been told I act "just like him" on occasion. I only knew my dad for five years so there my question lies. If I knew him for five years and I act like him; do you think this has to do with genetics or do you believe that I retained the information about my dad from when I was a small child?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Robert's question, I think that our genetics only account for a certain portion of our personality traits. They might be like a guideline. Maybe our environment and past memories enhance those traits? For example, you may (unconsciously) act on memories of your dad, because you learned from him as a small child, and because you share genetics with him. I don't think that our personality can be built on genetics or environment alone, if that makes sense.

      Delete
    2. In response to Robert's reply to my first question, I think that it goes both ways. I think that when you were younger and being with your dad you retained the information about him and his personality because you often look up to your parents and admire them, and want to be "just like them" as a child. But on the other hand you were also born with his genetics.

      Delete
    3. I would have to agree with Lindsey on this one. I believe some of the traits would have been inherited but I do think that some are also learned as a small child. I would say around the first five years of a child's life is most important for them on learning from their parents. As a child gets older, they become more independent and either learn from environments like school or on their own.

      Delete
    4. i believe that your genetic make up has a large portion to how you act during your life. But it is also a possibility that through those 5 years that you knew him you saw the way he acted and you mimicked him as you grew up. - Trent Ostby

      Delete
  11. On page 13, in the 'Critical Thinking' section, I read that those with brain damage may be able to learn new skills without realizing that they are actually learning. This got me thinking about how when we are learning to talk and preform motor skills, we probably don't realize it. Or do we? How do we learn something without consciously realizing that we are learning? Is it possible to take in information if we are not paying attention, or is the brain just constantly absorbing information, despite the relevance of the material?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that our brain is constantly absorbing information without us knowing it. Although we might not remember everything we hear, I think it's still in the back of our head and heard. These things might not always be an important answer to a test, but simpler. Take a softball game for example. Every time you're up to bat, your body learns a new way to adjust to every pitch and situation. Even though this isn't a huge learning moment that your conscious of, your body is still learning regardless.

      Delete
    2. In response to Jenna's question, I completely agree with Lexi. Our minds are constantly retaining information that may be new and old, every single day. As the saying goes, "You learn something new every day." The information we obtain may not all come at once, but I believe it is stored in our memory and held there until they day we may need it again.

      Delete
    3. In response to Jena's question, I don't think we always learn new information intentionally. For example, every time you practice a sport, you are building muscle memory. You may not know that you have learned anything until you show improvement when you are put in similar situations compared to those you have experienced in practice. Also, I think that we unintentionally learn a lot of information simply through observation. For example, it is likely for a child to already know basic traffic laws before having ever driven a vehicle just from being a passenger in a vehicle for many years.

      Delete
  12. On page 10 at the top of the page it talks about intuition and common sense. In the few paragraphs about intuition it talks about how we often make decisions based off of what our "gut" tells us to do. It even brings up a specific example of President George Bush deciding to go to war with Iraq was a decision he based off of his intuition. We could argue all day about if that was a good or bad decision in the end. However, my question is how often is our intuition correct? Also, what circumstances should we trust it and what specific situations should we avoid going with out "gut" and make sure to thoroughly think things through?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Robert question, I believe that people following their intuition is important to do. Sometimes, people who are indecisive, will be going back and forth between two decisions and sometimes it will take so long to make a decision, that the oportunity has already passed. I know that when I'm trying to decide between two different places to go eat, I usually go with my "intuition", and make the right decision. But when you're looking at something like the war in Iraq, you probably should not decide to go because "your gut told you to". No matter what you are deciding, you should always thoroughly think it through.

      Delete
    2. In response to Robert's question, I believe like Alyna that following your intuition is important. I think it depends on the person and how well you trust yourself, for you to determine how often it is correct. A person confidence has a lot to do with a persons use of intuition. For the bigger decisions in life it may be okay to go with your gut decision but think it through in a way that will affect everyone positively.

      Delete
    3. In response to Roberts question, I think our gut is right more often than we think. It seems that when i was younger in school on homework and tests, i would be told "listen to your gut." Often times my gut was/is correct. Now, would i use my gut to make a decision on going to war or solving the worlds problems, probably not. So to me there is a boundary between when it is helpful to use your gut versus when it could be very harmful.

      Delete
  13. On page 11 in the middle of the page it talks about human overconfidence and how people are most often more confident than correct. It also describes how we tend to be overconfident when we know the answers to questions. So my questions is do people who are overconfident believe themselves to be really smart people? An example being you give somebody questions to answer and they believe they will answer them all correctly. When in actuallity the person get maybe 80% correct instead of all 100%

    ReplyDelete
  14. On page 9, The book states how a child's mind grows, how we construct to our perception, how we remember our experience, how people across the world differ but yet your mind may never be the same. With all of these different concepts, how can ones individual mind completely change and never end up being how it once was?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Courtney's question,everyday we learn something new, whether it be conscious or unconscious. With new information being received into our mind daily, it would be rather difficult to go back and undo something that was hidden in the depths of our mind.

      Delete
    2. In response to Courtney's question, I agree a lot with what Jolene! New information and new experiences change our opinion on things. We can't rewind an experience, its completely out of our hands. With that being said we won't be the same after a dramatic experience, for example if your boyfriend cheats on you. The rest of your life you'll have trust issues.

      Delete
    3. In response to Courtney's question I think that we take in and learn new information everyday, while we still have old information kept in our brain. Adding onto Jolene's reply, it is hard to erase or undo anything from your past, so instead of dwelling on it we have to move on. Forgive but don't forget.

      Delete
  15. Page 5 briefly describes gender differences. My questions are if these gender differences are truly innate or do we as a society provoke certain characteristics? Are girls really more sensitive that guys? Think how we speak to babies. Little boys are often tough and strong. Girls are sweet and cute. Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noel Schieler:
      In response to Haley's question, I think that society does help to shape gender traits. I think that most humans have a desire to "fit in" and this desire drives you to act in accordance with the way your gender typically behaves. Perhaps girls seem to be more sensitive than guys because guys are taught that "caring too much" is not is not a strong representation of being "tough" or "cool".

      Delete
    2. In response to Haley's question, I agree with what Noel says about Society influencing boy and girl traits. But I also belive that the idea that of boys being "tough and strong" and girls being "sensitive", is mearly a common steriotype. While society does influence these steriotypes, I also know that when kids are growing up, they are expected to be a certain type of person because of the way their parents raised them. If parents were to stop using gender steritypes in their households, children might grow up into different people.

      Delete
    3. In response to Haley's question, I would have to agree with Noel and Alyna. I think society influences how people act including differences in behavior between genders. I think these influences take place when a child is old enough to make observations and understand them. The age can vary but it can happen at a young age. For example, when a baby is hurt, he/she will cry no matter the gender, but when the child gets older their behavior changes depending on how they process things and how those around them influence them. When a baby girl is born, the parents tend to dress her in pinks and purples and her room usually has some pink in it. So she grows up seeing this color and will probably end up liking it because she has grown up seeing it. This is the same for boys and the color blue. It seems like society has made a rule that pink is for girls and blue is for boys. Even at hospitals the blankets or hats used can determine the gender of the baby. So with colors, society plays a big role. I think society influences more than color preference and that their is some influence on behavior. When a child grows up it seems like we talk to them and interact with them differently. For a girl we may give them a baby doll and for a boy we would probably give them a toy truck. So I think these little things can impact children and how they behave.

      Delete
    4. In reply to Haley's question I believe girls are more sensitive then boys because girls have different personalities and are more emotional. I think society impacts girls and boys differently. Reading Alynas response, I agree with boys try to be "strong and tough" and girls being "sensitive" because its how society influence the different rates between a female and a male. When kids grow up, they are accepted to be raised a certain why by how parents teach them. If gender didn't matter in a household then I feel like kids would grow up not being who they really are and not be the same as other kids where society matters. More bulling would occur.

      Delete
    5. In terms of evolution, females and males have always had their own 'roles'. However, as we have advanced as a society, the need for roles has diminished. In primitive times, males had to protect the women and children. The mother had to take care of the children, which requires women to be more attentive to their feelings. Men, hence became stronger physically (which is why men have broader shoulders and build muscle faster). These differences led to a patriarchal society that has changed all the way up to now.

      Delete
    6. In response to haley's question i believe that girls are more sensitive than guys. Girls in the media are portrayed as more sweet/sensitive. i agree with noel when she says that lots of people would just want to fit in. an example being that the guys want to look tough and strong along with everyone else.

      Delete
  16. Page five discusses psychologists and how it is globalizing. It states that the occupation is "mushrooming" and growing rapidly. The idea psychology itself confuses me. My question is what if what the psychologists thinks is accurate information gathered from the human brain is nothing bu a guess? Is there information accurate or are their thoughts nothing bu different theories on how our brains work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Lexi's question, I think that at least some of psychologists information must be accurate just because many psychological ideas are linked to very thorough and professional medical research. However, science is always changing. For example, textbooks must frequently be updated in order to provide students with more accurate information as science disproves past information and/or discovers something new. Because of this fact, I do think that psychology must to subject to some error because it is a relatively new field of science.

      Delete
    2. I believe that with how quickly technology has advanced in the past few years and how much people have been able to gather about our brains and thoughts through neuroscience has to be accurate. They conduct very specific tests first with a control, and second with only one small thing changed. This can force accurate results, especially when the tests are repeated thousands of times.

      Delete
  17. Page five briefly brings up the topic whether intelligence and personality are influenced by heredity or environment. I find that both of these traits are hereditary, but why for example does one child receive one parents intelligence and the other child does not? It happens so often where siblings are complete opposites. How does that happen and what triggers it to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Lexi's question I think that a child's intelligence is mostly influenced by heredity and somewhat environment. And one's personality is mostly influenced by environment. For intelligence you have to have the genes in place, but also need the correct surroundings to get the most out of the genes. Personality I think is shaped from the time your born from the surroundings you are in.

      Delete
    2. In response to Lexi's question, I believe that siblings are a great example of heredity overpowering enviornment. Children can be raised exactly the same way, and still be polar opisites personality wise. However, everyone has different experiences throughout their life that are constantly changing who they are as a person. When you go to school, you usually will encounter different scenarios than anyone else.

      Delete
  18. On page 5 on the right side under the global psychology heading it states that psychologists are in many lands, roughly around 69. And that psychology is growing and globalizing. What does it mean when it says "We are moving rapidly toward a single world of psychological science?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Haley's question, I think that it might be suggesting that scientifically, we are learning more and more about the brain every day. This could be because of all the technology that is being created these days. When you know more about the barin, we kniow kore about what goes on inside of it.

      Delete
    2. In response to Haley's question, I think the phrase means that as we learn more and more about psychology around the world, psychologists are beginning share and agree with other psychologists' ideas. This, in turn, is making the ideas much more universal causing the field of psychology to become more similar globally.

      Delete
  19. On the lower right hand corner of page 25, it talks breifly about how there are powerful similarities between cultures across the world. My question is, what specific similarities do humans have that influence the way our cultures differieniate. Have these similarities always been there, or is it over time that we have been connected with one another, that we blended our cultures?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cultures around the world have been similar for quite a long time. One example that we are actually talking about in English is " a hero with 1,000 faces." This is where almost every celebrated hero in different cultures have similar characteristics. I think these similarities have always been there and have just spread with the people across each nation. However, I do believe that there is a certain amount of blending specific cultural ideas across different people.

      Delete
  20. On page 15, it talks about case studies, and I was thinking about Genie the Wild Child. I'm curious to know what the class thinks about the law suit saying that the scientists were pushing Genie too hard, and forcing her to contiue to be constantly learning. (An example being when she was doing an "excersize/game" and kept saying"its dark, its dark", maybe implying she wanted to be done.) Did the scientists push her too far too soon? How could her life been different if the learning was more gradual?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With that kind of situation, since there was little to no prior knowledge on the topic and how to deal with it, there was no "correct" way of caring for and researching Genie. In my opinion, I believe that they did well in researching her, while still caring for and treating Genie as a human. No matter the way they went about the whole situation, there will always be people that believe they acted incorrectly. Another example of this would be Pete Carroll, the coach of the Seahawks, in the Superbowl. Many people said he made a huge mistake throwing the ball instead of running it with Marshawn Lynch. This also often happens with big decisions made in politics, like George W. Bush making the decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom. These are both great examples of the hindsight bias explained on page 10.

      Delete
    2. In my opinion I don't believe that the scientists pushed Genie too far. The reason I believe this is because there was only one part of the video where it appeared that she may be unhappy about her tests. I also believe that the video of her saying "it's dark, it's dark" could be taking out of context. We do not know from the video how long she had actually been "working," or how long she had been doing various activities.

      Delete
    3. I believe that they did not push Genie at all because they were just trying to get her to be as normal as she could be. Meaning that she was robbed from a normal life.

      Delete
    4. In response to Alynas question, I also don't think that they pushed her to far. I also agree with Jared in the fact that they had little to no prior information in this situation which made it a lot tougher. It may have seemed like they were pushing her really far but I dont think it was harmful to her, to me the more they helped and worked with her the more results they got. By taking the situation more gradually, I wouldnt think the results would be as efficient and I feel like people would eventually get anxious or forget about it because no visible headway would be made.

      Delete
  21. On page 5, under the section of nature vs.nurture, its suggests that we inherit certain traits from our parents. We would like to think that one trait we inherit from our parents is being polite. Or would this trait be under the nurture section?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Jolene's question I would think that being polite would fit under the nurture section because our parents raise us to be polite and it doesn't seem like we would be born knowing this trait. I don't think we inherit this trait from our parents, but learn it from them either by watching them interact with others or by them specifically teaching us manners.

      Delete
    2. In response to Jolene's question I believe that traits such as being polite would fall under the nurture category. Being polite is a characteristic that is learned from parents or other role models in the child's life. It is possible that the child "inherits" this trait from their parents from watching and learning from them, but not from their genetics.

      Delete
  22. On page 10, the text states that George W. Bush said "I'm a gut player. I rely on my instincts" regarding his decision to launch a war against Iraq. The text also states that most of what we do is completed in an "autopilot" of sorts. So my question is, Why do we have gut feelings? Do you think that we should ever trust gut feelings/intuition? If we can trust intuition at times, should we then allow it to guide some of our decisions? Is there such a thing as "inner wisdom"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that we have gut feelings because of our instincts which we were born with. I do believe that we should trust our intuition to a point. When things are of great importance, I believe that we shouldn't just trust our gut and go with it. An example of when I believe this is a good idea would be a multiple choice problem on a test. If your gut tells you the answer is B, just go with it!

      Delete
    2. In response to Noel's question, I agree with what Robert said about being born with instincts. I think that we were born with gut feelings and it comes down to when do you trust them and when should you go against them. In a situation when your gut says one thing and your head says another and you go with what your head says and you were wrong, it is easy to say that you should have gone with your gut. I think that in a life or death situation, most people would go with their gut, because humans will do almost anything to survive.

      Delete
    3. In reply to Noel’s question, I think we have gut feelings so that we can respond faster in bad situations. We should trust them until reasoning provides a better response. But I don’t think we should go to war because someone had a gut feeling.

      Delete
  23. On page 16, the reading explains how the wording of a question can change the response given. People are much more likely to "not allow" something than to "censor" or to "forbid" it. One example the book gives is a national survey where "only 27 percent of Americans approved of 'government censorship' of media sex and violence, through 66 percent approved of 'more restrictions on what is shown on television' (Lacayo 1995)". How do you think this is used in the media or government? Should there be regulations on the wording of things such as laws being passed or other important decisions people have to make?

    ReplyDelete
  24. On page 19-20 it talks about illusory correlations and how something might be a random coincidence and we see it as correlated. We often admit that there is a relationship between two things because it has happened before and that's what makes us think its real. Illusory thinking explains why people believe that sugar makes kids hyperactive and getting wet and cold causes us to get sick. We perceive patterns whether they are there or not. So my question is how many patterns do we have in our lives that we don't even know? They could be just random occurrences that we think are correlated. How many things do we see or think is happening but we are just deceiving ourselves to whats actually not there?

    ReplyDelete
  25. On page 15 it talks about case studies and more specifically how a person had this dream that there friend's sister died in a car crash and the next day she was in a head on collision and died. This got me thinking how often to do things in our dreams happen in or around us and what do they mean? Most of the time are dreams don't have as extreme of a plot that actually happen but there is minor things. Do our dreams represent things happening around us? Dreams are a tricky thing because sometimes we have them and sometimes we don't but in an extreme case like this one how did this come about as a dream for this person and why did it actually happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Becca's question about our dreams, I think that some minor events that happen in our dreams do happen around us. I do not think that major events like you talked about happen to people very often. It could've just been a coincidence that his sister's friend got into an accident the very next day.

      Delete
    2. In response to Becca's question, I believe that most dreams do not play out in real life. Dreams are usually plays of the sub-conscious mind about events/feelings. However, in some cases people have said to have had dreams of something that's going to happen to them in the future. Well this hasn't been proven it may be responsible for the commonly known effect "deja bu"

      Delete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. On page 13 it mentions how within days newborn babies can recognize their mother's odor and voice. So do babies ever get confused about who their mother is if a nurse talks to the baby a lot or is around the baby a lot? What about if a grandmother has to take care of the newborn baby for some reason and talks to him/her? Can the baby get confused about who its' mother is? Or does a baby already know what the mother's voice sounds like before birth? If this is the case, how would scientists ever be able to test this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you can test this, unless it is a petri dish baby, which more then likely is not allowed. I believe it is highly unlikely that the baby would think anyone else would be its mother when it spends 9 months in the womb in normal cases. The baby may like other people more then her, but with the time spent in the womb it has heard its mother and her heart beat and it should feel safe with her.

      Delete
  28. On page 22 it is talking about placebos, and double-blind procedures. So I'm wondering why placebos actually work for some people? Do they actually believe that this "medicine" will work this much that their brain and body get better just because they think it should? Also the same affect happens with prices, if the medicine is more expensive we think it will work better even if it is the same thing. So I'm wondering why this happens and why people may have gotten this "ability", if it was something we always had or just acquired?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Nick's question, if you give a child a sugar pill and say itll make there tummy better, they'll believe it. The mind is a powerful thing and if you fully believe something, your body will react. Because early in chapter one, it says for every thought or emotion, there is biology response.

      Delete
    2. I believe that if someone believes in something strongly enough, anything is possible. when somebody is determined to believe medicine will make them better, the mind will persuade the body to believe the medicine is working. for the question on higher priced medicine, I think that multiple people believe that higher priced items tend to be of better/higher quality.

      Delete
    3. I believe that the placebo effect is not something that we have necessarily learned but is actually just how our brains work. For example if you tell yourself that you will lose a competetion enough times eventually your performance will reflect that fact that you believe you will lose. This is true for the placebo effect in the sense that if we tell ourselves this "medication" will help us that we start to feel as though it is helping.

      Delete
  29. On page 15, it talks about case studies and how it is supposed to reveal further knowledge for all us. But when they choose certain people or situations, do they take into account of all the different types of psychology? Such as the nature vs nurture and the social culture sides? Or do they just examine the case?

    ReplyDelete
  30. On the very first page in chapter 1, it talks about peoples different cultures. Do you believe people act different around the gender or race of a person?

    ReplyDelete
  31. On page 25, it talks about how people's behavior is shaped by a person's gender and culture. Often when doing studies, researchers use people that are white and from Europe or North America. This made me think about the results of the same studies, but if they used people from a different culture such as South America. would the results be the same or different?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They would be different for sure, I mean we are talking about a different culture, beliefs, and ideals. It would be strange if it wasn't, but I do believe a lot would be the same, we are all humans from the same source and at the base of the brain it should be relatively the same.

      Delete
    2. In reply to Taylor’s question, I think they would do similar things differently. An example of this would be, in North America soccer is only kinda popular with the exception of The World Cup, while in South America soccer is really popular.

      Delete
  32. On page 16, the textbook states that subtle changes in the way survey question are worded can have a major effect on peoples' responses to the questions. Do you think surveys are ever inaccurate because researchers are using careful wording in order to manipulate certain, favorable responses? Do you think that manipulative surveys are ever carefully crafted to serve as additional support or "evidence" when two parties are trying to make a decision (in politics for example)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Noel's question, I do believe that certain people who have something to gain from the responses from a survey would word things a specific way. But, if you were trying to get an unbiased survey completed you would want to word things in a way that would not sway anyone towards one answer or another.

      Delete
    2. In response to Noel's question I do believe people use careful wording to make people think a certain way about the question they are asking them. People read questions differently so I think the wording of a question is a huge deal. So for sure there are a lot of surveys out there that people use to say here are the facts we took a survey of so many people and this is what they said when in reality if you don't get all the information about the survey it could have been worded weird or the people that took the survey could have all had the same view point on that subject. Most people believe that oh its a survey so it has to be true when in reality it isn't.

      Delete
  33. On page 9 in the second paragraph, it states that knowledge transforms people. It says that "Learning about the solar system and the germ theory of disease alters the way people think and act." Do you think that people of the older generations would react the same way to knowledge? Most people think that the older generations of people are more set in their ways and stubborn. So would they let knowledge change their perception on things or would they stick to what they have always known?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Reply to Nicoles question, I think some older people will change and some people will because of my experiences with my grandparents, my grandpa will not change in his ways of technology but my grandma on the other hand loves to learn about it and wants to learn from me.

      Delete
    2. In reply to Nicole's question, I think it would change the perception of the oldster but they wouldn’t admit it, because my grandpa acts like he doesn’t know how to use a cellphone but he really does.

      Delete
  34. On page 22 it talks about the placebo effect which is the result created by the participant believing in a treatment healing power or the staff’s enthusiasm for it to work. It also said a fake pill that costs $2.50 works better than one costing $0.10. So I was wondering if any pharmacy has even been caught raising prices higher than necessary or has any pharmacy ever just gave someone one real pill and the rest of the bottle was fake pills that looked the same?

    ReplyDelete
  35. On page 5 it discusses nature vs. nurture. Throughout this passage it discusses if we are born with certain ideas or if we are born with nothing in mind and all things, (such as behaviors and habits), come from external experiences. my question is, is a mother is pregnant and is an alcoholic (continuously drinks) while the baby is still inside her, then would her child be more likely to become an alcoholic when they grew up as well? Would her child have a higher chance of being more prone to drink?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it depends on how the kid turns out because a lot of kids that come from alcoholic parents tend to have birth defects. I think it is more likely for a kid to get a birth defect than to become an alcoholic. Kids develop a lot of the parents behavior by watching them do it but there is always the reverse side where the kid isn't an alcoholic and even stays away from it because they saw what it did to there parents.

      Delete
    2. In reply to Madi, I think it depends on genetics because there have been some cases in which a mother can drink and the child will have no signs of it. If the baby does have fetal alcohol syndrome then no because the syndrome has no effect on the person's chance of being an alcoholic.

      Delete
  36. On page 19 the book talks about the correlation between low self-esteem and depression. It states that sometimes depression can be caused by low self-esteem or vice-versa. And also some hereditary factors or biological factors can cause both low self-esteem and depression. I know that low self-esteem and depression can be caused by other things and have other factors, but my question is how does one determine if depression was caused by low self-esteem or low self-esteem was caused by depression? Also if one or the other is caused biologically or by hereditary factors, how is that diagnosed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In reply to Andrews question, I think low self esteem and depression go hand-in-hand I think if you have one you may have the other, and I think for some one to diagnose it as one or the other it would harder to decide if it one or the other that started first or if they even have it at all.

      Delete
    2. In response to Andrew, I would say its just basic timing and that person would have to see someone and be diagnosed with one when they have on or the other (low self-esteem or depression) because once you have both it appears that you can't see which caused which unless that person knows which came first in their own experience

      Delete
  37. On page 5,at the bottom they are talking about studies between twin and nature vs nurture, and they find a lot of answers within these studies. DO you think they would find the same answers if they used brothers and sisters or sisters and sisters or brothers and brothers instead of the twins in the same study?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Lindsay's question: I think that siblings share many traits, both physical and mental. I know my sister and I often like similar songs or books, but that might just be how our parents raised us. I feel like if Mara and I were separated we would still have similar traits though, just like the twins do in the study. It would be interesting to see if the results of a study would be similar, though.

      Delete
  38. On page 16 in the random sampling paragraph, it talks about how these small groups are representing the whole group. They are also talking about how they choose these students by numbering off or "random sampling" but what if some people are say in a different class or gone the day they choose and they want to have a say in what happens, should the head person let them into this group or just keep them out of it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Lindsay's question, I don't think it would be necessary to wait and let certain people in. Basically no matter what you do, not everyone will be happy or get their own say. Also often times in these situations when they are doing a random sampling type deal, they use averages. So by taking a small group of students, the data they come up with will most times be the average situation for the whole group. Yes, maybe a person gets left out that has a say in one direction but there also could be another person that had the opposite say, who gets left out to.

      Delete
  39. In Chapter 1, the nature vs nurture debate is discussed. As shown in history there is a variety of class systems the world has established. These class systems whether created for the right or wrong reasons have seemed to have caused a difference of a sense of morality and ideals. Due to human nature and the concept of materialism, the higher class system may have created ideals that support only themselves. Because of this the lower class were forced to follow a different set of ideals for their own happiness and survival. So my question is does the class system support the nurture argument in that people are suppose to act a certain way if raised in a certain environment? or does it support the nature argument that the people born into a certain class system inherit the ideals of the faction of the society they are born in?

    ReplyDelete
  40. In Chapter 1 depression is discussed. It is described by being a biological effect that negatively affects one's thoughts and actions. People are diagnosed with depression everyday and doctors say that it is caused by either a genetic defect and/or some tragic event that occurred. What I'm wondering is if a doctors diagnosis is a genetic defect can we have prior knowledge of a persons likely hood to have the defect? Does the person need to have depression, to have the doctor notice the defect or can we know about it before the trigger to prevent future cases?

    ReplyDelete
  41. On page 27 it talks about experimenting on humans. It points out the ethical principles, they include things such as protecting people from harm, keeping info confidential, and obtaining participants’ consent. So I was wondering do all of these rules slow down research? Limit potential findings? Or limit practical applications?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Taylor, I would have to say yes and that these issues would become obstacles and maybe if case breakers. Like for instance, with the Genie case the observers thought the professors would using Genie for personal gain and that the doctor loved Genie and contemplated taking her away and did not approve of some of the study options because of these thoughts. So yes, these issues can cause much havoc and limit research greatly.

      Delete
    2. In response to Taylor, I think that these rules would most definitely slow down research and limit findings and applications greatly. I think the biggest reason for this is the fact that testing on humans is seen as very unorthodox and wrong in the eyes of society. Also finding people willing to participate would be extremely difficult and the processes that would normally be used to conduct an experiment would have to be greatly modified due to the fact that it is a human, limiting and altering the findings and applications substantially.

      Delete
  42. Okay on page 5 when it says that depression can be a thought disorder and a brain disorder. If a person gets both, are the affects twice as bad and can a person even get both or is a "one or the other" type thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In reply to Levin’s question, I think it always both because they go hand in hand. If your brain isn’t working it could cause you to have depressed thoughts. But if you’re having depressing thoughts your brain could have a chemical imbalance, It also could just be an illusory correlation.

      Delete
    2. I think that you could have both in a certain sense. For example a person could start out with the thought portion but then somehow trigger the the brain disorder portion, which would technically leave you with both. On the other hand i do not think you can have the thought portion if you already start out with the brain disorder. Also in regards to to the question of whether it would be worse if you had both, referring to the first situation where both would technically be there i do not think it would worsen the affects. The affects would be just that of the brain disorder being that it would be more dominant as it is not just a thought but an affliction of the brain itself.

      Delete
  43. On page 22 the placebo effect is discussed. The book mentions how results are created by giving participants what they believe to be a treatment. The placebo effect is said to lessen pain, depression and anxiety. If fake medication can help with illnesses, could positive thinking help with test scores? Or is does a placebo only work with a physical object, like a pill?

    ReplyDelete
  44. On page 11 it talks about hindsight bias and overconfidence. It talks about how as humans we tend to be very overconfident when asked questions about certain things. For example when asked how long it would take to unscramble certain words, most people said about ten seconds when in reality it took people an average of three minutes to unscramble them. Why do you think people have such overconfidence about such things?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Eric, I believe it has to do with that person's upbringing and how much the people in their life built their confidence from simple things like "good job you did that very fast" and just little rewards for doing things well and fast and making them believe they are good at most of the things they do and then when they are asked to do something as simple as unscrambling a word they assume they could do it very fast from this conditioning they have received their whole life.

      Delete
  45. On page 15 it talks about case studies. It talks about how a case study is a special situation to which they wouldn't do an actual experiment because it would often times be inhumane. Though case studies may be very helpful and answer questions about certain topics, it brings up the point that sometimes these studies mislead us. In some cases the subject may not be a typical person, which would lead to false statements or conclusions. With this in mind, is it worth doing a case study on a rare situation?

    ReplyDelete
  46. After learning about the case study on Genie the Wild Child, do you believe that Genie would have had a chance of anything remotely close to a "normal" life had her case not been closed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to Maddie, i believe that yes could have led a somewhat normal life if one the case had remained open, and second if they had focused less on the scientific side and more on actually rehabilitating her to the world and everything it encompasses. If she where to have been immersed with other children and had more intensive focus on learning to speak and function properly i believe her situation would have been much different.

      Delete
    2. In reply to Maddie, I dont think it could've hurt anything. I think they would've taught her more and she would've become more "normal". I dont think she would've ever been fully normal.

      Delete
  47. On page 5, it is discussed that one of the questions that psychologist commonly ask is if gender differences are genitically predisposed or socially constucted. Would you say that the differences in gender are due to nature or nurture? Or both?

    ReplyDelete
  48. On page 22 placebos are talked about and I was wondering how far you could push this effect and get the results you want. For instance could you cure an actual disease like cancer (very unlikely) but how far and how could someone push this effect to the limit and how would someone could about that and does the amount of belief in the "medicine" the person receives increase the placebo effect?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In response to levin i believe the placebo effect could be pushed to infinite levels. The reason for this is quite simple, as humans we will believe almost anything as long as we have been fully captivated and convinced or in a state of desperation. once we have reached any of these points, virtually any symptom, ailment, or what have you can be relieved simply due to the fact that we believe it to be a medication or remedy which of course in reality is not there. Perception is one of the strangest things that influence a persons actions and feelings, this being so the placebo affect can be stretched and stretched to no end simply because as humans we perceive that it is the work of something that is not truly there.

      Delete
  49. On page 8, it talks about different assortments of psychologists. It is know that this field has a lot of personal input into the psychologists practice. My question would be that is it possible that their personal belief could blind them from helping the person get better? -Trent Ostby

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete