Page 455 tells a story about ADHD. My question is how does one get diagnosed with ADHD? How do specialist distuinguish the different of having a lot of energy or having an actual disorder? Also, are children born with it or do they develop it over over years?
In response to Lexi's question, I believe the main way they get diagnosed with the disorder is from a teacher at school telling the child's parent to have there kid checked for ADHD. The doctor then realizes the short attention span and other observations and can consider them a child with ADHD. I also believe a child develops ADHD and is not born with it. I say this because in the article, it stated that kids that watch more TV at a young age have a higher chance than kids that don't.
In response to Lexi's question, I agree with Brady's reply because the parents aren't with their children during the day as much as their teacher. So if the teacher notices the child has a hard time focusing more than the other students, usually they have a talk with the parents. I think that a child develops ADHD as time goes on, because maybe one sibling has it and all of the others don't.
A doctor goes to medical school for many reasons, one of them being learning how to distinguish between an actual illness and someone who is faking an illness or who just have a different personality, like in this case, just hyper. This is another reason why only doctors are able to officially diagnose someone and give them treatment.
In response to Lexi's question I agree with Lindsey and Brady! A lot of the time the teacher may notice ADHD symtoms and request for them to be tested by a specialist.
In response to Lexi's question I think that signs help distinguish actually having the disorder. Some signs that reveal ADHD/ ADD include "zoning out" during conversations and not knowing it, forgetting everyday life activites, and struggling with finishing tasks. I think if you notice a child act these ways everyday or continuosly, then you have a child that has ADHD or ADD. If they only appear to act with these behaviors in only a few situations, then there isn't a high chance of them having the disorder.
In response to Lexi's question, kids are usually referred by a teacher and I think the kids are born with ADHD. But something things can trigger ADHD as they grow older.
On page 455, it talks about ADHD and how it should be treated. The article states that it is more common in males than in females. It also makes a comment that if a young child watches a lot of TV as a kid then they are more likely to develop ADHD. My question is, are there extreme long term effects on the medications kids are given with ADHD such as Ritalin and Adderall?
In response to Brady's question I think that with no matter what medication a person is taking there can always be a chance of long term affects on the person. Also depending on what age a person is diagnosed they could easily grow out of the disorder and with that depending on what medication they are taking they could have more severe or less serve long term effects. However with Adderall most often it is a drug that wont stay in your system long. You could take is 3 times a day and wake up in the morning and it would no longer be working.
In response to Brady's question, I believe that most medicines are made to not have long term effects. Most medicines however do give long term effects even if they were tested and said that they don't. Often the drugs used to treat ADHD are commonly misused by people to focus during a test. If they are abused, then they will for sure give long term effects.
In response to Brady's question, I believe the medication will cause some long-term affects to a kids brain from there medication. It can also depend on how bad there ADHD is. Kids with a low dose of medication may not experience has much long term affects as kids who have a high dose of medication. Kids may also grow out of there affects to. It also depends how long the medication stays in the body. Some medication kids take only stays in your body for a solid day making it less affected on having long term affects on the brain.
In response to Brady's question many factors come into play. Just some of those factors are the dosage of Adderall or Ritalin, how severe the ADHD is, and how many the child is taking it. Another factor is just that people react to medication differently.
In response to Brady's question, I think all medications have the possibility of side effects. If a child stops taking a medication then the effects will wear off, but it also works the other way around. The more the individual takes the medication the more often you will see the effects.
On page 456 its discusses psychological disorders and how we understand them. It discusses how back in the Middle Ages people assumed if you were mentally ill it had to do with the person being a mad man, or that the devil made them that way. There's a couple of different ways we can try and understand these disorders but there is quite a debate on how these disorders should be treated. Whether people use the brutal approach of pulling teeth, being beat, and etc. Or the medical approach by putting people in hospitals and getting them diagnosed and treated. The last way is whether or not they can be helped by changing their environment to with their disorder. My question is which way do you think would best help a person? Do you think it could vary by the person or will one way work for all people?
In response to Brooke's question I think that it could vary greatly for every person. Each individual has their own needs and their own niches. So I think that it may be different for every case and sometimes you'd use a combination of some of the methods. Although for the greater population I think that the medical approach would work best.
In response to Brooke's question, I think that the treatment will vary depending on the mental disorder. If a person has OCD then hey should be put into a clean and organized facility if it is an extreme case. It all depends on the case and how severe the case is
In response to Brooke's question I believe like Andrew that it defiantly varies among people. Everybody's different so people just need to find out what works best for them. Research shows us that all methods have worked for someone so like I said before I don't believe one method is better than another because everyone reacts differently.
In response to Brooke's question, I think it varies on what the patient has and the severity of the case. But it still doesn't mean that doctors or nurses should treat them with brutality.
In response to Brooke's question, I also agree that the answer is totally dependent on the person. However, I feel that hospitalizing the person would be most beneficial. After that, the use of medications may be necessary depending on the patients condition. Again, every person is different so it depends on what the health professionals see as the right decision.
Reading on page 460 on the left side talking about OCD advocate. Howie Mandel knows the reality and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It also says he uses humor to deal with his own challenges, and to help others understand the disorder. Why do you think he uses humor for his challenges? It states that people with psychological disorders are not violent, those who are create a moral dilemma for society. Do you think Howie Mandel would ever end up "violent"?
I think he uses humor to help cope with his OCD. Many comedians use their personal struggles as their act in front of an audience, and I believe that is what helps him to communicate about his disorder to the world to other people. I believe that there is a low probability that Howie could eventually become violent because of his OCD, because he has been dealing with his problem for many years through the public eye.
In response to Lindsey's question, sometimes people use the method of "laughing it off" to show people it doesn't bug them so that can stop. I think that if Howie was really pushed, I think he could turn violent.
Some things in life you have to either laugh or cry about. I think Howie Mandel chooses to laugh about his challenges instead of becoming depressed about his struggles. I don't think that he would ever end up violent because like Caitlin said, he is in the public eye. In the video we watched in class, it showed him handling his OCD smoothly and without much trouble after having it for so long. I think he is used to dealing with the stress that comes with OCD so he won't become violent.
In response to Lindsey's question I believe Howie chooses to laugh and joke about his problems not to make fun of him or anyone else with that disorder but to show that you can live with it and still have a fun, happy life. For him it is probably easier for him to cope with his OCD by laughing it off. I do not believe that he would ever become violent, because he seems to know how to deal with his OCD very well.
On page 453, it says that roughly 450 million people worldwide have a psychological disorder. It says that 15.4% of years lost from life by death or disability is caused by psychological disorders. Is this number of people suffering just patients who have been diagnosed and there's still more that are suffering but haven't sought help? Or is that number an estimate of everyone that has a psychological disorder, even if it hasn't been diagnosed?
I believe that this number is the number of only people that have sought help and have been diagnosed with a disorder. I'm sure there are many more people that have not sought for help either because they are embarrassed or scared or they just don't know they have a disorder. If everyone with a disorder would get help, I believe that number would rise dramatically.
I response to Denner's question, I think that the statistics presented in the text are likely rough estimates. However, I'm sure that there are many people worldwide who have a psychological disorder, but have not sought help because they don't have access to treatment, their close friends and family haven't pressured them to seek help, or they are embarrassed of their disorder and attempt to mask it.
In response to Denner's question, I believe that there aren't a enough people that seek help. So many people are suffering from depression or other disorder that we don't know about it. People are scared to get help because they feel like they're weird or something is wrong with them. The people that do end up getting help are often too late. They should have started way sooner to avoid the extreme.
In reply to Denner’s question, I think it’s the number of people diagnosed and not the the overall number of people with psychological disorders. I think the lost of life number would go up if more people with a psychological disorder got diagnosed.
Page 445 it talks about kids who have bad behavior may deal with a disorder. My question is, Do the kids with bad behavior have some type of a disorder or does it come from how they are raised in there household that makes them who they are?
In response to Courtney's question I think it depends on the child. Kids could get tested to see if they have an actual disorder but I also feel that a majority of bad behavior can be developed in a house hold. If a child who has parents that do not tolerate bad behavior will be well behaved however some children who may have a disorder maybe even if their parents didn't tolerate bad behavior that would maybe be a way to tell that they should get checked out for a disorder.
In response to Courtney, I think this question goes back to the whole "nuture vs nature" and no one can for sure know, unless a case study watches a specific child and observes the outcome.
I believe a lot of how children act is how they are raised. I don't believe this in all cases, but kids often rebel as well, however more often then none kids that act in a certain repulsive way were never taught better at home. This doesn't mean hey made one or two mistakes, this is when kids are repetitively making the same mistakes over and over and not realizing hat they're doing is wrong because they have never been told otherwise.
In response to Courtney's question, I think that both psychological disorders, home environment, or both factors acting at once can spark a child's bad behavior. Both disorders and a child's home environment can shroud a child's perception of right and wrong. Also, in Genie's case, for example, she developed psychological impairments as a result of her home environment, which affected her behavior and perception for the rest of her life.
In response to Corndogs question, I think that behavior is acquired through an individuals environment. Habits, good or bad, are influenced by a person's surrounding. How somebody is raised will effect the way they act throughout their entire life. for example, If you spoil a child right off from the start and let them whine about everything and never say no,then they will think they should always get their way. Then you will have a naughty kid.
As I was reading page 454, near the bottom it mentions attention deficit hyperactive disorder or ADHD. It goes on to say that years ago someone who would have had ADHD would have just been called fidgety or wild. And now days more and more children and even teenagers are diagnosed with ADHD. That being said we all know at least one person who says that they are positive they have ADHD and nothing was done about it. So my question is what percent of people who have ADHD are not diagnosed with it? And what happens that they aren't?
I think that whether or not you get diagnosed has something to do with your environment. If your parents are against hospitals or don't believe in psychological disorders than you probably won't go and get checked out for ADHD. If you aren't aware of the disorder or don't know the symptoms than you may claim you have it or maybe you aren't aware you do have it. I imagine that if you don't get diagnosed than it could just keep getting worse. It might depend on how you handle situations. If you are used to dealing with it than you might not need medications.
On Page 545 (Chapter 15) it talks about social inequalities, divisions and emotional scapegoating. Specifically a main topic of the page is the just-world phenomenon. This idea is that when we discriminate or punish a person or group of people, that we use reasoning to feel okay about it. We say that people are not worthy of being treated better and deserve what they are getting. My question is when this occurs do you believe it is a part of society that tells us this? Or is it possible that we look for more of an inner acceptance to do things like this? What part of our being makes us think that discriminating is justified?
On page 455, the textbook discusses attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The text states that toddlers who watch a lot of television are more likely than average to display ADHD symptoms at age 7. Why do you think watching more television correlates with how likely a child is to display ADHD symptoms? Could it be that the child is not spending enough engaging in other activities such as reading? If a child doesn't read often while they are developing, do you think it could affect the child's ability to focus and learn?
In response to Noel's question I believe that kids that spend to much time watching tv when they are little will probably have a learning disability if not just a slow learner. Learning the basics when you are younger is a huge thing that helps you develop as a person and how well you do in school. Especially learning to read when you are younger will really help you comprehend and focus in school and in the community. It is all about development when you are younger we are still developing today but if we didn't learn it when we were younger we would have a harder time now. So yes I think if you don't engage in enough learning activities and such when your younger it could affect ADHD or just focusing in general.
In response to Noel's question, I believe that kids who spend a majority of free time watching TV are more likely to develop ADHD or symptoms of ADHD. Although the child may be content while watching TV, they most likely won't be able to tolerate sitting still for extended periods of time, causing them to become fidgety and constantly needing to be watching or playing with something. Reading is a huge key to better abilities as far as school and being able to focus in school. I think that if the child is exposed to reading during development they are more likely to enjoy it as the grow up, increasing the chances they will be more focused as they learn in school. So yes I think that engaging in learning activities during development are so important to creating a more focused individual in the future.
On page 445, it briefly talks about neuroimaging and how it can help in determining if someone has ADHD. Are there any tests that give a for sure diagnosis or is it always slightly subjective and someone has to make the call?
There is no definitive diagnostic test for ADHD. Also physicians vary in their ability to recognize,diagnose, and treat ADHD. However there are several symptoms associated with the disorder such as extreme inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. The possibility of a child having ADHD is often recognized by a teacher and brought to the attention of the child's parents.
On page 481 it says that men are struck with schizophrenia at an early age and more often then females. It also goes on to say that men that are not breast fed are more likely to be effected by it. Why does something at such a young age effect something that happens to a person when they get older?
In response to Taylor's question I think that young age affects a person when they get older because it is what they are born with. Many genetics and personality traits we develop as a young child and we grow and change base off those traits. We may grow out of some things but most of what we are born with as a child can stay with us forever because it makes us who we are.
In response to Taylor's question I think that often times schizophrenia is linked through genetics and so since we are still growing until we get old it doesn't effect them until they are completely full grown.
In response to Taylor Staples question, I believe that as each individual grows or develops, they change as well as keep certain abilities. I know a mothers milk is full of nutrients that are more beneficial to a baby than formula milk, so that also puts the individual at a disadvantage if they don't receive those nutrients right off the bat. I also think that the mind and the body change but characteristics stay rooted within an individual as well. Past experiences effect or form future attitudes.
"My brain..my genes..my bad upbringing made me do it." This was stated on page 461 and I question if this has any truth in it? So often you see that children with a difficult home life also end up making a lot of the same mistakes as their guardians. However, you also see the complete opposite where children almost learn from their guardians mistakes. What triggers the difference? What makes kids realize that what they grew up with was wrong?
In response to lexis question, I personally feel it depends on the child and who they are. Some kids are just naturally smart at such young age and know right from wrong. Those kids who can tell that at a young age can easily learn from there own mistakes than the other kids whose brains are more slower an less developed. These kids then look up to there parents and feed off from them to know what is right and what is wrong. i like the quote lexi stated. "My brain..my genes.. my bad upbringing made me do it". I think this quote is accurate and i strongly agree with it.
In response to Lexi's question I think it has a lot to do with the adults the kid is surrounded with. I think teachers also have a lot of influence on kids like them to help them make life decisions and to teach them the right from the wrong. So this kid has a hard upbringing and parents aren't around much so its hard for him to get school work done and essentially have a meaning of life. At this point the kid just needs a mentor or anyone to just tell him whats out there and how good of a person he is. I think it has a lot to do with age as well, when your younger you think its normal but as you get older and you see what kid of life your friends or peers have you start to realize it wasn't normal and you either try to change it or you get mad and it goes the opposite way.
In response to Lexi's question, I feel like it has to do largely with the kids brain and mindset. To me, a kid in a situation of a bad up bringing or bad parents, can make a choice on how they want to turn out. They can either fall into the trap and grow up being just like their parents or they can decide to never make the mistakes they did and be the exact opposite of them. Eventually, I would hope that the kid would be able to see people outside the realm of their parents and realize what behavior is acceptable or not. So I agree with some of the quote Lexi posted in the question, the part i don't agree with is the "my genes made me do it" to me genes have nothing to do with this topic.
On page 464 the book describes post traumatic stress disorder. As I was reading it, I began to wonder if PTSD has evolutionary benefits. In primitive times, PTSD would most likely encourage humans to avoid the same stressful situations. Memories serve to improve survival in the future, so PTSD must have had an evolutionary impact on the evolution of humans.
In reply to Jacob’s question, I agree PTSD probably had an evolutionary benefit. Possibly some humans in the past had a very weak form of PTSD and through evolution it became too strong and now it’s a disorder.
On page 537-538 it talks about individual behavior in the presence of others. Norman Triplett hypothesized that the presence of others boosts performance. Testing the hypothesis, he had adolescents wind a fishing reel as rapidly as possible. He discovered that they wound the reel faster in the presence of someone doing the same thing. Or when you have a home sports game, you have more people watching you on cheering for you vs away games. The book says you get "aroused" when others observe us. How, in your opinion, is our behavior affected by the presence of others or by being apart of a group?
In response to Lindsey's question I think being in the presence of a group or other people makes you want to do better, you want to impress them or show them you know what you're doing. I believe that most of the time it is a good thing for humans to want to do better and one up the last person. Except for in a situation like a fight, the crowd exhilarates both parties to want to out do the other. A time like that would be negative for example.
In response to Lindsey's question, I completely agree with the idea of getting excited or more jacked up when you either have competition or theres people watching you. The idea of winning and pleasing others gives you drive. The world is very competitive so if you're doing something against someone else, of course you'l work that much harder to make sure you win.
In response to Lindsey's question, I believe that having people watch you, makes you more nervous. Nobody wants to fail in front of their peers , so having them there makes you more excited and it really gets you focused on doing your best.
In response to Lindsey's question, I think that in some occasions the presence of others can boost your performance. I know that if someone is doing the same activity as I am, I get competitive and try to beat them. That is when my performance gets better. But, during home sports games I usually get nervous because of the home crowd. You never want to screw up in front of people you know.
In chapter 13 on page 471, depression is discussed. It mentions how depression is actually our body taking protective measures to put us in a "psychic hibernation," slowing us down, defusing our aggression, and restraining our risk taking. This is due to mankind's biological's purpose originally being to survive and reproduce, rather than be happy, successful, and get the most out of life, like it is in a tremendously developed, extraordinarily advanced country, that we have many of throughout the world today. What I find odd is that if depression is scientifically just our bodies trying to help us survive, why does the percent of people with depression become exponentially higher the more developed a country becomes?
I believe that the reason for higher depression rates in more developed countries can be described using Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When you think about the triangle we learned about in history and health, the higher you go up on it, the more sophisticated it gets. My theory is that it becomes more like to fall off the top of the hierarchy and fall to this state of "hibernation" than it is to fall into it at a lower point. As we climb up the hierarchy in our developed country it becomes easier to be overwhelmed with the world and fall back to the basic state of needing to survive.
On page 464 the book describes post traumatic stress disorder. As I was reading it, I began to wonder if PTSD has evolutionary benefits. In primitive times, PTSD would most likely encourage humans to avoid the same stressful situations. Memories serve to improve survival in the future, so PTSD must have had an evolutionary impact on the evolution of humans.
On page 460 it talks about media stereotypes of people with mental disorder. It goes on to say some portrayals are sympathetic, but most are for humor or ridicule. So I was wondering what is your favorite portrayal of a person with a mental disorder? How did the portrayal influence your opinion of people with a mental disorder?
On page 533 it discusses group pressure and conformity. Stating that often times in a group setting we can be asked a question, and if we allow other people to answer before us we can end up doubting our answer even if the answer is correct. My question is do you think that most people get effected in group settings like that? Do you think that most people end up doubting themselves based on what other people in a group may say?
In response to Brooke: I feel as though people usually want to fit into a group, and to feel like they belong in a group. When someone is asked a question and their answer does not match up with the majority, they would probably feel uncomfortable. This feeling could probably lead the person to not say what they thought, because it could be wrong. So, yes, I think people get affected in situations like that because the chance of them being wrong could be greater than their chance of being right.
I believe that people of all ages have this happen to them. When this situation happens I believe that people not only want to fit in and "conform" to a group but also it scares us to be wrong. When people around you think something it makes you feel wary of voicing your own opinion. It is the worldly thing to do to want to fit in whether it is right or wrong thing to do.
In response to Brooke's question I believe that for sure people want to fit into groups by agreeing with someones answer or doing what someone does. I also believe that there is certain people that always speak their mind and always think they are right so they wouldn't be as sop willing to conform with a group. There also is a gut feeling everyone has that kinda tells them what they know to be wrong or right that might persuade them to not agree with the group. Overall yes I believe people are easily persuaded in group settings and doubt themselves.
On page 465 it talks about anxiety disorders. Do you believe we are naturally born with anxiety or does it attack us individually when in a situation where anxious feelings occur?
In response to Courtney's question I think some people may be born with it if it was a trait that one of their parents may have had. Also though I feel like it is something that can be developed when different situations occur. People are often put in stressful situations that can cause an anxious feeling and from there it all depends on how that person handles that anxious feeling. Some people may be able to handle it well where as others might feel overwhelmed and it could cause them an anxiety attack.
In reply to Courtney's question, I think that anxiety gradually progresses throughout time and attacks us individually if we are in a situation that our anxious feelings occur. I don't think you are born with it.
In response to Courtney's question I agree a lot with what Brooke said, I think you are able to get anxiety genetically and also able to develop through different situations. And with that being said each situation affects us differently so some situations might cause more anxiety than others.
In reply to Courtney’s question, I think it can be both ways. Because genetically you could be born with OCD or another disorder. But I think it is more likely that a situation occurs and it makes you more anxious for a similar situation to occur again.
In reponse to Courtney's question, many phobias are naturally passed down through genes. Humans have evolved to be scared of snakes, spiders, and heights because throughout human evolution people with phobias of those things survived to pass genes.
In chapter 13, on page 465, the book discusses post traumatic stress and how it affects people differently. After 9/11 1 out of 10 people in New York were said to experience PTSD. That means 9 out of 10 people did not respond pathologically. Why is this, when 1 in 6 soldiers coming home from Iraq experience it? Does the environment one grows up in affect the likelihood that they will develop a disorder such as PTSD? Or is it solely the severity of the event that determines whether or not someone will have a disorder?
I believe that post traumatic stress disorder can be triggered by both an event or an environment, based on what a person has experienced. Each reason can provide a scarring memory to a person, whether it's witnessing a traumatic situation. I think it all depends on what a certain person endured during a traumatic period in time, it can be very personally different for everyone.
The environment that a person grows up in could very easily affect the probability of that person getting PTDS. However, I do not believe there is a direct correlation between them at this point. I believe that a large part of the lasting effect on a person is how afraid a person is of something like this happening again. After 9/11 there were many people preparing for another wave of attacks on America that never came. This most likely added to the anxiety of people in places like New York.
In response to Jena's question, I think more people experience PTSD after war than after the 9/11 attack because the soldiers can spend a lot of time in dangerous situations where as the 9/11 attack was much shorter than war. So I think the amount of time spent in dangerous or life threatening situations affects how a person reacts. With PTSD, some people will react to loud or sudden noises because of the noises they heard during war. So I think there are a lot of things that can trigger PTSD in veterans. I think the severity of the event definitely affects the likelihood of someone developing PTSD.
On Page 549-550 (chapter 15) It talks about psychological and social factors in aggression. Specifically it is explaining the different averse events that cause a rise in aggression. One of these events was a rise in temperature. There is a graph on page 550 that presents a good description of this case. This immediately made me think about the end of the school year and how grumpy everyone is. My question is after reading this paragraph, do you think that the temperature is a core reason for people being mad at the end of the year? If so, how much of the anger do you believe is due to this phenomenon?
On the bottom of page 470, it discusses mood disorders. It states that there are two main principle forms of the disorder. One is the major depression disorder which is prolonged hopelessness and lethargy. The second one is the bipolar disorder which the person alternates from depression and mania. My question is, how do individuals get a worse mood disorder than others? How does one have a mood disorder that is extreme and one can have a disorder that is not as extreme?
In response to Brady's question, I think that people can experience varying severity when it comes to psychological disorders simply based upon genetics. I also think that a psychological disorder's severity can vary from person to person based upon an individual's life experiences that could potentially contribute to the disorder.
On page 467, it brings up post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) how does this get triggered? Where is the line from you will have nightmares and be traumatized from this to you won't be affected much at all?
In reply to Levin’s question, PTSD gets triggered in many ways such as smells, sounds, sights, tastes, or by an objects texture. Any of these ways could trigger PTSD. The difference between a nightmare and PTSD is PTSD goes on longer.
On page 480, it says Schizophrenia means "split mind', a split from reality not a true personality split. If this is true, can multiple personality be part of schizophrenia? If Gollum from the Lord of the Rings would seek professional help in Middle Earth, what would he be diagnosed with?
I would first like to say that I appreciate the Lord of the Rings reference. Very classy. The answer to your question is no, schizophrenia is a mental disorder while multiple personality disorder is a personality disorder. However, I believe that Gollum could be diagnosed with either but is pretty healthy considering he is almost 600 years old.
On page 539 it talks about deindividuation. It’s defined as the loss of self-awareness and self - restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity. So I was wondering is this the reason why some people are band groupies, believe in scientology, or drink the Kool-Aid and commit mass suicide? Is deindividuation really that powerful?
On page 539 it talks about deindividuation. It’s defined as the loss of self-awareness and self - restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity. So I was wondering is this the reason why some people are band groupies, believe in scientology, or drink the Kool-Aid and commit mass suicide? Is deindividuation really that powerful?
The people who suffer from deindividuation are people who don't like them selves, they feel useless and pointless so they do something with a collective and it makes them feel better, even if they weren't noticed. They lose them selves thinking more about the group and less about them selves, till the point that they think there is nothing but the group.
In response to Taylor's question, I believe that this plays a huge roll in all of those situations and yes it is that powerful. As humans we want to belong to a group of some kind and once we have a group we will do almost anything to stay in it even if it dose include mass suicide, simply because we get so sucked up by the 'vibe' of the group.
On the bottom of page 462 it brings up phobias. Many people around the world suffer from phobias. A phobia is a extreme or irrational fear of something. A agoraphobia is a fear in advance of a situation in which it may be difficult to escape when panic strikes. Im wondering if this is a mind thing? Are people able to decide not to be scared anymore? Also, are they able to decide what there phobia is?
In response to Haley's question, I don't think someone with a phobia can have the control to decide their kind of phobia, or even have the control to suddenly not be afraid of a certain type of situation or thing. I believe it just all depends on who a person is, and if they had experienced or thought something that may be linked to their phobia when they were young. But, in conclusion, I do believe that someone can overcome their intense fear through comprehensive counseling and therapy.
In response to Haley's question, I don't think people consciously decide what their phobia is. I think it develops overtime, maybe from bad experiences with it. I think people even develop phobias from hearing about an incident. For example, I think after the bridge collapsed in the cities, more people developed a fear of bridges because they remembered that incident whenever crossing one. I think people can work to overcome their phobias and train themselves to overcome their fear.
In the middle of page 542 it discusses prejudice. The definition of prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based off of an experience or in other words prejudgement which is usually negative towards a gender, cultural, or ethnic group. Around the world there are still racial issues happening. My TPQ is do we form these opinions ourselves or does society push them on us?
In response to Haley's question: I think that we learn prejudice from others instead of creating them ourselves. We take in everything that we hear as we grow up, and that will probably include some nasty stereotypes. However, if someone had a bad experience with a specific gender or ethnic group, they could hold that to everyone else they meet in that gender or group.
In response to Haley's question I believe society and the environment we live in pushes it on us. Media has a big influence on us as well. When you see in the news Islamic terrorist and then you think all Islams are terrorists. When make judgments based on what we are seeing and hearing and basically stereotyping the whole group. I think the environment we live in especially is more racist then some other places because we are not very ethnically diverse. I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people that lived in the civil right time and when America was really against the blacks are still here and aren't going to change, and they teach their son or daughter to believe that to.
In response to Haley's question, I believe society plays a big role in how others act. Starting as a young child, kids see and hear racial slurs and figures all of the time. Not only from other people, but the media plays a big role itself. The media tends to be bias and can more than likely be bias towards an ethnic group.
On the bottom of page 471, it talks about Bipolar Disorder, and how a person who as it can experience episodes of major depression and a hyperactive state. Alternate levels of these stages causes Bipolar Disorder. After reading about it, it made me wonder...how is Bipolar Disorder diagnosed exactly? Are there different types of the disorder?
Bipolar disorder is diagnosed when a person is experiencing depressive states but will also have states of mania or the opposite of depression. I think being diagnosed with Bipolar disorder can be a little trickier than being diagnosed with depression. When you go to the doctor for depression they ask you 9 questions, but none of them have anything to do with experiencing episodes of mania. I think it is something you would have to tell the doctor to get an accurate diagnosis. For the other part of the question, yes, there are different types of Bipolar disorder including: Bipolar I disorder, Bipolar II disorder, Cyclothymic disorder, and others.
On page 464 the middle of the page discusses post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The passage continues by describing how people obtain ptsd and what triggers it. My question is , does ptsd effect younger individuals more than it would effect older people? Does ptsd have a greater impact on the young or the old?
In response to Madi's question, I believe the age does not have an effect on PTSD. Instead, I think it comes from the experiences the person goes through and how each individual will respond to that situation. The age could matter on how severe the disorder is because if a man is older, they could have experienced more and could be suffering from more events.
I think that how people react to a very traumatic event is different with every person. This is also true with how people handle and cope with the event, and some people could develop PTSD in the same situation where some people wouldn't. I don't think this depends on age as much as prior experiences and how the individual him or herself is affected by it.
On page 462 the book discusses generalized anxiety disorder. The passage states that generalized anxiety disorder is when an individuals feelings are out-of-control, unfocused, and negative. After reading about generalized anxiety disorder, my question is do teenagers get anxiety from going to school? Does anxiety effect on a students learning as well?
In response to Madi's question, I think that teens can experience anxiety as a result of going to school. School may be a place where teens experience social anxiety and perhaps fear if they are severely bullied at school. Some teens may experience anxiety when they are taking a test or have to speak in front of their classmates. I think that these anxiety's can negatively effect a student's ability to learn at school because if a student focuses mainly on what is causing them anxiety, they will not be able to focus on much else.
In response to Madi and agreement with Noel, I believe that many teens can experience anxiety in a school environment, and I believe that the ability to fully understand and learn can be very apprehensive for a teen who has severe anxiety or for someone who is experiencing a difficult time in their life. Worrying can be a huge obstacle to overcome.
In response to Madi's question, I agree with Noel and Caitlin, that school affects the level of anxiety in students. I also think it depends on the student. If you care a lot about your grades and how well you do in school, you may be more anxious before a test than someone who doesn't really care. In the summer, I think most students experience less anxiety because they aren't worried about tests, getting homework completed, and don't have as many extra curricular events going on.
In response to Madi's question I think that if a child gets anxiety when they go to school is because of the conditions around them. I think that students that get overwhelmed with school get anxiety's, but not a true disorder. and yes I think that if a child has an anxiety disorder it will affect their concentration and mind focus in school.
I believe school is the main cause of anxiety in younger people. There is so much pressure to get good grades or wear the right clothes that it takes away from school. Kids get to a point where they are so concerned with being perfect that they can't concentrate or choose no to come to school.
In response to Madi's question I believe that school is one of the main causes of anxiety in teens. Academics could cause anxiety for some, or it may be the fear of not fitting in for others. Not being what you think is "good enough" for sports could also cause anxiety in teens. I agree with others who responded when they said they defiantly think it affects how the teen learns. If a teen is distracted by these thing that give them anxiety it would be very hard to focus at the task at hand.
On page 458, the textbook states that the number of disorder categories has swelled and so has the number of adults and children who meet the criteria for at least one of them. My question is, Are we just discovering more disorders as the field of science advances or are more people developing psychological disorders than humans in the past? If so, why are humans today seemingly more prone to psychological disorders?
In response to Noel's question, I believe that the reason more people are getting diagnosed with disorders is because of the sheer amount of them. We are discovering more and more disorders. I also think that in this time period, there is more stress. We have the urge to be perfect and to work a lot more than is probably healthy. I think that humans in the U.S. are obsessed with time. All the stress that our lives is causing us is probably a factor in the development of psychological disorders.
I think that in today's culture, it is more acceptable to have a mental illness because so many others do too. It would definitely make it easier to get help if you looked around and saw 100 other people suffering with the same problem. There is also so much stress caused by every little thing in life now, that you can hardly ever escape it.
On page 528 it talks about the "Foot-in-the-Door" phenomenon. This is when people get other people to agree to do large tasks for them but they start with small tasks first. This was first noticed back in the Korean War when the U.S. captured soldiers were coaxed by the Chinese to do tasks for them. My question is how do you tell when someone is doing this to you? Say you have this role model or this person you really look up to and they ask you to do something for them and you trust them because how could they do anything wrong and then it escalates but you don't realize it because you just think your doing them another favor. How do you recognize it in that type of situation, and how would you get out of it?
I think that this is often used when people want someone to do a task that person wouldn't normally do for them. They intentionally use this to manipulate the person, and, depending on the person requesting the tasks, it can be very hard to not only recognize, but then also refuse, especially when, like you stated, the person is a roll model or someone you look up to. I think the best way to recognize this would be to take time to review everything people ask of you and then let them know that you will not be able to do the task. This would be a hard thing to do, but with practice would get easier, in my personal opinion.
On page 552 in Chapter 15, it talks about video games and if they can have have an effect on a person's actions in the real world. Only 38% of kids that play violent video games get into fights, but can video games be one of the reasons why our aggressive side as human beings come out? How influential do you think they are to younger generations?
In response to Caitlin's question, I think video games do affect the level of aggression in people. When people see a lot of violence, it's almost like they become more immune to it the more they see it. If you watch a violent movie for the first time, you may have stronger reactions to it then someone who frequently watches violence. So I think it somewhat depends on how much time is spent playing the violent video games. I think violent video games have a strong influence on younger generations because they are becoming more exposed to violence at a young age.
In response to Caitlin's question, I personally believe that video games do have an effect on kids. I believe this because in certain games, players can receive points for killing someone on the street. I don't pay or know much about video games but one of my friends started playing a video game and he started becoming more aggressive with how he talked and acted. Is there a correlation? Maybe, maybe not but there needs to be more testing down on it.
In response to Caitlin's question, yes I believe that video games do have a impact on peoples aggression. I think that playing certain video games allows them to say and do things that they wouldn't or shouldn't do. This gives them a greater chance of performing these actions in the real world and i think we are starting to see that more and more. I think this ties in well with the topic of putting good people in an evil environment. Eventually, the video game, enough evil, will incorporate itself into that persons personality.
Children that play a lot of violent video games are probably more likely to not spend as much time with their parents learning about life and how not to be a murderer or other violent person shown in video games. It's almost like the children are being taught that violence is ok. I think video games only play a role if the kids don't know that the violent actions shown are bad. If a parent sits down to tell them how wrong it is to hurt others, I don't think it would be as big of a problem.
In response to Caitlin, I believe video games can increase aggressiveness in children, especially if they grow up in an aggressive neighborhood. However, it is important to note that not all video games are violent, and I believe the affect video games have on aggressiveness on people as they go through adolescence decreases.
On page 464 it talks about PTSD and all of its effects. PTSD can cause blackouts and for people not to remember things. So say a person with PTSD is taking medicine but they forget to take it one day and they have this blackout where they don't know what is going on and they murder someone. Now when this person is caught do they go to jail or would they get put in a psych ward because they have a mental illness and they don't believe that they killed a person? How bad can PTSD get before they are a danger to society? If PTSD takes over a person's life completely are they essentially a whole different person?
In response to Becca's question: I feel like that is one of the main questions in the judicial system. It is hard to know if someone is experiencing a disorder or not when something, like murder, happens so quickly. I think sometimes people are sent to jail and sometimes they are sent to hospitals. Whether or not they have a known history of a disorder, such as PTSD may determine their fate. I'm not sure though; disorders seem to have different effects on different people, so it is hard to know what they will do if they do not take their medication.
In response to Becca's question- I think that this is something that can be split in the middle, simply based on who you talk to. Some may have no sympathy to those who commit murder or serious crimes when suffering from a serious mental disorder. Others may sympathize for those who commit these crimes when suffering these serious mental disorders. This is usually why many of these cases are brought back to the surface and the verdict may change. Say that the someone who had an episode of PTSD and committed a murder was sent to prison, they may get the chance to get their case reopened and may be sent to a hospital because it was found that they really were suffering from this disorder during the time of the murder. It is really all based on who you get in the jury and their personal beliefs.
On page 458, it talks about how more and more people are meeting the criteria for psychological disorders. They also mention how there have been more disorders discovered and put in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: 60 in the 1950s and 400 today. So my question is, will just about everyone be diagnosed with some sort of psychological disorder in the future? When people know there is something wrong with them, do they behave differently? Do they act like they think they should act based on what disorder they have been diagnosed with? Is it possible that someone may act depressed because they've convinced themselves they are?
On page 467, it is talking about genes and phobias. It says that vulnerability to anxiety disorders rises when an afflicted relative is an identical twin. It goes on to explain how two identical twins independently formed a phobia of water. So if identical twins can dislike the same things, is it fair to conclude that they may like the same things? Would they have the same taste in food, clothing, and music? I know in my personal experience, Nicole and I share a lot of common interests but we do like different foods and music. Could it be different depending on whether the twins are fraternal or identical?
In the section of ADHD, it talks about how the numbers are increasing the more information we learn about it, which is going to happen. But it also mentions that there is a lot of skeptics in the numbers. Why would that be? It also mentions in this section that teachers are the ones to refer children to the doctor for ADHD testing. Why is that the teachers are the ones to make that refer and not the parent?
In response to Jolene's question: I think that teachers may be more likely to say that a child has ADHD because they interact with them for seven hours out of the day. Now, the parent is just as involved in the child's life, but they may not see the child's behavior as a disorder. They may think their son or daughter is simply "rambunctious", while a teacher may know more about the subject. They would also see how that particular child acts compared to the rest of the class, which could lead them to suspect the child has ADHD.
At the beginning of chapter 15, it explains the attribution theory and fundamental attribution error. It is no secrete that first impressions set the tone to any situation and sometimes those first impressions can be wrong. With that being said, how is that in one situation someone can be seem very out going and if you put them in another situation you don't the same vibes from them?
In response to Jolene's question, I think that first impressions are very important, but I also think that your first impression doesn't define who you are necessarily. In every situation you aren't going to act the exact same. Depending on the circumstances, condition, and people even around you affect how you respond.
On page 525 of chapter 15, it talks about 9/11. It asks, "What drives people to feel such hatred that they would destroy thousands of innocent lives? And what motivates the heroic altruism of those who died trying to save others and of the many more who reached out- with gifts of money, food, clothing, shelter, and love- to those coping with loss?" Why does it take a horrific event for people to reach out and offer compassion to those who are suffering? Why does it take a crisis to trigger the generosity of people?
In response to Nicole's question, I believe its just the severity of the situations that plays a big role in the differences. To me people need to be in a life or death situation to actually take action and do something. There is a big difference between a homeless person who asks for money and a person laying on the ground about to be engulfed in flames. Taking a homeless person for example i feel like people are willing to just kind of ignore them because they think they will be fine or someone else will give them money, however if someone is literally going to die unless you save them, people will tend to take more action.
On page 529 in chapter 15, it talks about role-playing and the Stanford Prison experiment. It says that at first your behaviors may feel phony but eventually your role becomes you. In the Stanford Prison experiment, the guards may have felt awkward at first acting as guards, but they quickly began to hold their "authority" over the prisoners. They forced the prisoners to perform degrading actions. What makes people "become" the role they play? How did they let themselves forget that everyone in that experiment were real people?
It is like the foot in the door phenomenon where they had to start small with acting, then it got a bit bigger and more intense with less thought in the act, to finally it going to far where they didn't even realize that it was an act, it just got worse and worse until it seemed this "act" had over taken them.
On page 532 in chapter 15 the book discusses conformity and obedience. It says that people are natural mimics and often act similar to each other. These actions can go from mood changes to school violence. People also dress similarly to each other when new trends come about. Why is this? Why do people want to conform while asserting their individuality at the same time? Can you be your own person while giving into society?
On pages 484 and 485, it talks about schizophrenia in twins. It states statistics like 1 in 10 become the odds of having the disease if a sibling or parent has the disease. Also that the odds become 1 in 2 if it is an identical twin. The other odds of getting schizophrenia are 1 in 10 if the twins have separate placentas, but increases to 6 in 10 if they share the placenta. It seems that they are always doing testing on ways to treat this disease. Do you think it will ever get to the point of mothers having abortions in this rare case to try and prevent this?
In response to Eric's question, I think lots of women believe in many different ideas, but I believe that a woman is more likely to want an abortion if she is unmarried, and really is not religious or a non-believer. So that would think woman it is not wrong to have an abortion and will cause no harm in the long run. A woman that is very religious and is conservative will think it is a bad sin that will always harm them to have an abortion even if there is a high chance of disease. So I think those type of women would choose to have no abortion.
On page 538 and 539, it talks about the term social loafing. The book talks about a couple different experiments that we also covered in class, about how a person will exert a lot more strength when they are by themselves rather than with multiple others. Also how much louder people clap with other people rather than just by themselves. We are told more and more as young people, be yourself and don't let what others say or think matter. With so much on self individuality these days, do you think social loafing will continue to be a trend or will the number of social loafers decrease in later generations?
In response to Eric's question, I think that people trend to wait for the first person to do something because it talks about how people clap louder while blindfolded but don't know there are people around them, so they figure to clap louder. When they know people are in their group, they want to wait for the first person to clap. So I believe social loafing will keep on being a trend because of that study.
I think that the social loafing group of people will become bigger as more people enter this world and it becomes a more densely populated planet. People who would not normally socially loaf will later become social loafers. This would be due to there being more opportunities to be loafing socially than to loaf individually. Although this may create people desiring to be by themselves, with a more common surrounding have people around, the historically socially loafed people will be able to excel their now common environment, whereas the individually loafed people will be drowned out and become a social loafer.
When people are in environments like the Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib, or any other time where someone has power over someone and is not strictly told on how to treat the person, or even indirectly told to "rough them up", they often create their power from not only physical abuse, but also emotional and sometimes sexual abuse. This made me think about why people, even when they are not in danger and easily have the power in their hands, not only show their power through abuse, but degrade them by forcing them into doing things that are sexually or emotionally degrading. Why do people turn to this form of abuse when physical abuse would alone be far too much?
In reply to Jared's question, I believe that the people with power use all forms of abuse without knowing that it is wrong. Nobody is there to tell them that what they are doing is wrong and they shouldn't do it anymore. If they were able to recognize that it was wrong they would stop
In response to Jared, I agree with Taylor because in life people usually have lines that they can and cannot cross like laws or simple life manners so when someone is given such freedom they are just astounded with the fact they can make the rules and lines and they can blow it out of proportion and do such cruel things.
On page 541 it talks about the power of individuals, what I don't get is what makes them go against the norm when no one else will, what is special about them that they can go and make a difference by them selves, when the rest want to be like everyone else? These individuals have done great things for the world, many were in Civil Rights movements and some scientists and philosophers. These people have to go against the majority, the government, or friends and family, what give them the strength?
On page 459, it is discussed that use of labels are sometimes criticized when used in classifying mental disorders due to the chance of misdiagnosis and the stigmas attached to these labels. Is the chance of misdiagnosis worth not specifically diagnosing these disorders? How could the disorders possibly be treated without the use of labels?
No, because instead of being concerned with the specific illness, not telling them would cause them to panic making them even worse and they may think it can't be treated or they may have multiple. The people in charge could possibly assign a letter or number to an illness to verify what the problem is. The same stuff could happen though, they may find out what they have and freak out over it, or they may not know what they have and diagnose them selves, making them think it could be something else. So you can't treat a disorder without telling them, because it could be bad either way, so you just have to hope the person is ready for it.
As the world has progressed more illnesses have been able to be diagnosed, treated and cured. The medical model described on page 456 provides a way that mental illnesses should be handled. However, Not every illness mental or otherwise is treatable. So my question is can the medical model hold true every time, or is it only a guideline.
They may not be able to treat it, but they could study it and diagnose a new disease or one that has no cure yet. The medical model would also help doctors and scientists come up with a basic ways to start a healing process.
In response to Correy's question, i think that in the case of severe disorders such as schizophrenia and others it is no more than a guideline. This being simply because these disorders are extremely complex and there isn't enough advancement in the medical field to fully treat them.
On page 480 schizophrenia is discussed. More and more people are being diagnosed with schizophrenia everyday. 1-100 people will develop the illness in their lifetime. After reading about this disorder my question is, do you believe that someday schizophrenia will be able to be diagnosed, or we will be able to predetermine if you will get schizophrenia? Will technology be advanced enough? & do you think scientist are doing enough research about this specific disorder?
In response to Correy's question, it says in the book that depression is the common cold of psychological disorders, then chronic schizophrenia is the cancer of depression. So I believe that may be treatable over a period of time but it will still happen to people since they can't help getting depression. I am also sure that scientists have been doing research about for a very long time and it could take years to get something to treat it in very quick amount of time.
Based on the videos watched for the media assignment on exposure therapy, do you believe that exposure therapy is an effective way to treat PTSD? It could create an unsafe environment or potentially make things worse for those suffering from PTSD, but it could also help cure the disorder. Is this risk worth the possible reward?
In reply to maddie's question, I believe it is worth the risk. Anything we can do to help the people suffering to not suffer is worth the risk. The people giving the treatment just needs to be careful with how much exposure they give to the patient
On page 538, it talks about social facilitation. Do athletes perform better because of the increased pressure to do good, or is it just something that happens without them knowing?
In response to Taylor's question, I think it is your own self that is performing better because it states that when there is a crowd cheering you on, they make you perform better. For example, when Eric was almost to 1,000 points, I think he was performing better because he had the crowd cheering him on until it happened and played good after that.
On page 539 it talks about deindividuation, what can make a person give up their life for a group? Do they truly feel that useless by them selves that much, that they give up on being an individual all together and just be part of the collective. Can they feel helpful in the group, does it let them work harder, because when they are alone they didn't feel use full, what changed in them?
In response to nick I feel that most people don't even notice that they are losing their own beliefs and just slowly transgress into the others beliefs and actions. This being said they gain a purpose (feel helpful) and add to the group or atleast try to add.
On page 471 it talks about depression and how it has been called the "common cold" of psychological disorders. This is thought of by many to be an overgeneralized statement and that it is much more serious than that. Do you think that this concept takes away from the real severity of the disorder and leads people to have a very closed mind when it comes to depression?
In response to Markus, yes I believe it does not only do people see it as a common thing and that alot of people have it I feel like they think there are not levels of depression but as a yes or no and that most people use it as a scapegoat.
Page 455 tells a story about ADHD. My question is how does one get diagnosed with ADHD? How do specialist distuinguish the different of having a lot of energy or having an actual disorder? Also, are children born with it or do they develop it over over years?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lexi's question, I believe the main way they get diagnosed with the disorder is from a teacher at school telling the child's parent to have there kid checked for ADHD. The doctor then realizes the short attention span and other observations and can consider them a child with ADHD. I also believe a child develops ADHD and is not born with it. I say this because in the article, it stated that kids that watch more TV at a young age have a higher chance than kids that don't.
DeleteIn response to Lexi's question, I agree with Brady's reply because the parents aren't with their children during the day as much as their teacher. So if the teacher notices the child has a hard time focusing more than the other students, usually they have a talk with the parents. I think that a child develops ADHD as time goes on, because maybe one sibling has it and all of the others don't.
DeleteA doctor goes to medical school for many reasons, one of them being learning how to distinguish between an actual illness and someone who is faking an illness or who just have a different personality, like in this case, just hyper. This is another reason why only doctors are able to officially diagnose someone and give them treatment.
DeleteIn response to Lexi's question I agree with Lindsey and Brady! A lot of the time the teacher may notice ADHD symtoms and request for them to be tested by a specialist.
DeleteIn response to Lexi's question I think that signs help distinguish actually having the disorder. Some signs that reveal ADHD/ ADD include "zoning out" during conversations and not knowing it, forgetting everyday life activites, and struggling with finishing tasks. I think if you notice a child act these ways everyday or continuosly, then you have a child that has ADHD or ADD. If they only appear to act with these behaviors in only a few situations, then there isn't a high chance of them having the disorder.
DeleteIn response to Lexi's question, kids are usually referred by a teacher and I think the kids are born with ADHD. But something things can trigger ADHD as they grow older.
DeleteOn page 455, it talks about ADHD and how it should be treated. The article states that it is more common in males than in females. It also makes a comment that if a young child watches a lot of TV as a kid then they are more likely to develop ADHD. My question is, are there extreme long term effects on the medications kids are given with ADHD such as Ritalin and Adderall?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brady's question I think that with no matter what medication a person is taking there can always be a chance of long term affects on the person. Also depending on what age a person is diagnosed they could easily grow out of the disorder and with that depending on what medication they are taking they could have more severe or less serve long term effects. However with Adderall most often it is a drug that wont stay in your system long. You could take is 3 times a day and wake up in the morning and it would no longer be working.
DeleteIn response to Brady's question, I believe that most medicines are made to not have long term effects. Most medicines however do give long term effects even if they were tested and said that they don't. Often the drugs used to treat ADHD are commonly misused by people to focus during a test. If they are abused, then they will for sure give long term effects.
DeleteIn response to Brady's question, I believe the medication will cause some long-term affects to a kids brain from there medication. It can also depend on how bad there ADHD is. Kids with a low dose of medication may not experience has much long term affects as kids who have a high dose of medication. Kids may also grow out of there affects to. It also depends how long the medication stays in the body. Some medication kids take only stays in your body for a solid day making it less affected on having long term affects on the brain.
DeleteIn response to Brady's question many factors come into play. Just some of those factors are the dosage of Adderall or Ritalin, how severe the ADHD is, and how many the child is taking it. Another factor is just that people react to medication differently.
DeleteIn response to Brady's question, I think all medications have the possibility of side effects. If a child stops taking a medication then the effects will wear off, but it also works the other way around. The more the individual takes the medication the more often you will see the effects.
DeleteOn page 456 its discusses psychological disorders and how we understand them. It discusses how back in the Middle Ages people assumed if you were mentally ill it had to do with the person being a mad man, or that the devil made them that way. There's a couple of different ways we can try and understand these disorders but there is quite a debate on how these disorders should be treated. Whether people use the brutal approach of pulling teeth, being beat, and etc. Or the medical approach by putting people in hospitals and getting them diagnosed and treated. The last way is whether or not they can be helped by changing their environment to with their disorder. My question is which way do you think would best help a person? Do you think it could vary by the person or will one way work for all people?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brooke's question I think that it could vary greatly for every person. Each individual has their own needs and their own niches. So I think that it may be different for every case and sometimes you'd use a combination of some of the methods. Although for the greater population I think that the medical approach would work best.
DeleteIn response to Brooke's question, I think that the treatment will vary depending on the mental disorder. If a person has OCD then hey should be put into a clean and organized facility if it is an extreme case. It all depends on the case and how severe the case is
DeleteIn response to Brooke's question I believe like Andrew that it defiantly varies among people. Everybody's different so people just need to find out what works best for them. Research shows us that all methods have worked for someone so like I said before I don't believe one method is better than another because everyone reacts differently.
DeleteIn response to Brooke's question, I think it varies on what the patient has and the severity of the case. But it still doesn't mean that doctors or nurses should treat them with brutality.
DeleteIn response to Brooke's question, I also agree that the answer is totally dependent on the person. However, I feel that hospitalizing the person would be most beneficial. After that, the use of medications may be necessary depending on the patients condition. Again, every person is different so it depends on what the health professionals see as the right decision.
DeleteReading on page 460 on the left side talking about OCD advocate. Howie Mandel knows the reality and obsessive-compulsive disorder. It also says he uses humor to deal with his own challenges, and to help others understand the disorder. Why do you think he uses humor for his challenges? It states that people with psychological disorders are not violent, those who are create a moral dilemma for society. Do you think Howie Mandel would ever end up "violent"?
ReplyDeleteI think he uses humor to help cope with his OCD. Many comedians use their personal struggles as their act in front of an audience, and I believe that is what helps him to communicate about his disorder to the world to other people. I believe that there is a low probability that Howie could eventually become violent because of his OCD, because he has been dealing with his problem for many years through the public eye.
DeleteIn response to Lindsey's question, sometimes people use the method of "laughing it off" to show people it doesn't bug them so that can stop. I think that if Howie was really pushed, I think he could turn violent.
DeleteSome things in life you have to either laugh or cry about. I think Howie Mandel chooses to laugh about his challenges instead of becoming depressed about his struggles. I don't think that he would ever end up violent because like Caitlin said, he is in the public eye. In the video we watched in class, it showed him handling his OCD smoothly and without much trouble after having it for so long. I think he is used to dealing with the stress that comes with OCD so he won't become violent.
DeleteIn response to Lindsey's question I believe Howie chooses to laugh and joke about his problems not to make fun of him or anyone else with that disorder but to show that you can live with it and still have a fun, happy life. For him it is probably easier for him to cope with his OCD by laughing it off. I do not believe that he would ever become violent, because he seems to know how to deal with his OCD very well.
DeleteOn page 453, it says that roughly 450 million people worldwide have a psychological disorder. It says that 15.4% of years lost from life by death or disability is caused by psychological disorders. Is this number of people suffering just patients who have been diagnosed and there's still more that are suffering but haven't sought help? Or is that number an estimate of everyone that has a psychological disorder, even if it hasn't been diagnosed?
ReplyDeleteI believe that this number is the number of only people that have sought help and have been diagnosed with a disorder. I'm sure there are many more people that have not sought for help either because they are embarrassed or scared or they just don't know they have a disorder. If everyone with a disorder would get help, I believe that number would rise dramatically.
DeleteI response to Denner's question, I think that the statistics presented in the text are likely rough estimates. However, I'm sure that there are many people worldwide who have a psychological disorder, but have not sought help because they don't have access to treatment, their close friends and family haven't pressured them to seek help, or they are embarrassed of their disorder and attempt to mask it.
DeleteIn response to Denner's question, I believe that there aren't a enough people that seek help. So many people are suffering from depression or other disorder that we don't know about it. People are scared to get help because they feel like they're weird or something is wrong with them. The people that do end up getting help are often too late. They should have started way sooner to avoid the extreme.
DeleteIn reply to Denner’s question, I think it’s the number of people diagnosed and not the the overall number of people with psychological disorders. I think the lost of life number would go up if more people with a psychological disorder got diagnosed.
DeletePage 445 it talks about kids who have bad behavior may deal with a disorder. My question is, Do the kids with bad behavior have some type of a disorder or does it come from how they are raised in there household that makes them who they are?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Courtney's question I think it depends on the child. Kids could get tested to see if they have an actual disorder but I also feel that a majority of bad behavior can be developed in a house hold. If a child who has parents that do not tolerate bad behavior will be well behaved however some children who may have a disorder maybe even if their parents didn't tolerate bad behavior that would maybe be a way to tell that they should get checked out for a disorder.
DeleteIn response to Courtney, I think this question goes back to the whole "nuture vs nature" and no one can for sure know, unless a case study watches a specific child and observes the outcome.
DeleteI believe a lot of how children act is how they are raised. I don't believe this in all cases, but kids often rebel as well, however more often then none kids that act in a certain repulsive way were never taught better at home. This doesn't mean hey made one or two mistakes, this is when kids are repetitively making the same mistakes over and over and not realizing hat they're doing is wrong because they have never been told otherwise.
DeleteIn response to Courtney's question, I think that both psychological disorders, home environment, or both factors acting at once can spark a child's bad behavior. Both disorders and a child's home environment can shroud a child's perception of right and wrong. Also, in Genie's case, for example, she developed psychological impairments as a result of her home environment, which affected her behavior and perception for the rest of her life.
DeleteIn response to Corndogs question, I think that behavior is acquired through an individuals environment. Habits, good or bad, are influenced by a person's surrounding. How somebody is raised will effect the way they act throughout their entire life. for example, If you spoil a child right off from the start and let them whine about everything and never say no,then they will think they should always get their way. Then you will have a naughty kid.
DeleteAs I was reading page 454, near the bottom it mentions attention deficit hyperactive disorder or ADHD. It goes on to say that years ago someone who would have had ADHD would have just been called fidgety or wild. And now days more and more children and even teenagers are diagnosed with ADHD. That being said we all know at least one person who says that they are positive they have ADHD and nothing was done about it. So my question is what percent of people who have ADHD are not diagnosed with it? And what happens that they aren't?
ReplyDeleteI think that whether or not you get diagnosed has something to do with your environment. If your parents are against hospitals or don't believe in psychological disorders than you probably won't go and get checked out for ADHD. If you aren't aware of the disorder or don't know the symptoms than you may claim you have it or maybe you aren't aware you do have it. I imagine that if you don't get diagnosed than it could just keep getting worse. It might depend on how you handle situations. If you are used to dealing with it than you might not need medications.
DeleteOn Page 545 (Chapter 15) it talks about social inequalities, divisions and emotional scapegoating. Specifically a main topic of the page is the just-world phenomenon. This idea is that when we discriminate or punish a person or group of people, that we use reasoning to feel okay about it. We say that people are not worthy of being treated better and deserve what they are getting. My question is when this occurs do you believe it is a part of society that tells us this? Or is it possible that we look for more of an inner acceptance to do things like this? What part of our being makes us think that discriminating is justified?
ReplyDeleteOn page 455, the textbook discusses attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The text states that toddlers who watch a lot of television are more likely than average to display ADHD symptoms at age 7. Why do you think watching more television correlates with how likely a child is to display ADHD symptoms? Could it be that the child is not spending enough engaging in other activities such as reading? If a child doesn't read often while they are developing, do you think it could affect the child's ability to focus and learn?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Noel's question I believe that kids that spend to much time watching tv when they are little will probably have a learning disability if not just a slow learner. Learning the basics when you are younger is a huge thing that helps you develop as a person and how well you do in school. Especially learning to read when you are younger will really help you comprehend and focus in school and in the community. It is all about development when you are younger we are still developing today but if we didn't learn it when we were younger we would have a harder time now. So yes I think if you don't engage in enough learning activities and such when your younger it could affect ADHD or just focusing in general.
DeleteIn response to Noel's question, I believe that kids who spend a majority of free time watching TV are more likely to develop ADHD or symptoms of ADHD. Although the child may be content while watching TV, they most likely won't be able to tolerate sitting still for extended periods of time, causing them to become fidgety and constantly needing to be watching or playing with something. Reading is a huge key to better abilities as far as school and being able to focus in school. I think that if the child is exposed to reading during development they are more likely to enjoy it as the grow up, increasing the chances they will be more focused as they learn in school. So yes I think that engaging in learning activities during development are so important to creating a more focused individual in the future.
DeleteOn page 445, it briefly talks about neuroimaging and how it can help in determining if someone has ADHD. Are there any tests that give a for sure diagnosis or is it always slightly subjective and someone has to make the call?
ReplyDeleteThere is no definitive diagnostic test for ADHD. Also physicians vary in their ability to recognize,diagnose, and treat ADHD. However there are several symptoms associated with the disorder such as extreme inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. The possibility of a child having ADHD is often recognized by a teacher and brought to the attention of the child's parents.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn page 481 it says that men are struck with schizophrenia at an early age and more often then females. It also goes on to say that men that are not breast fed are more likely to be effected by it. Why does something at such a young age effect something that happens to a person when they get older?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Taylor's question I think that young age affects a person when they get older because it is what they are born with. Many genetics and personality traits we develop as a young child and we grow and change base off those traits. We may grow out of some things but most of what we are born with as a child can stay with us forever because it makes us who we are.
DeleteIn response to Taylor's question I think that often times schizophrenia is linked through genetics and so since we are still growing until we get old it doesn't effect them until they are completely full grown.
DeleteIn response to Taylor Staples question, I believe that as each individual grows or develops, they change as well as keep certain abilities. I know a mothers milk is full of nutrients that are more beneficial to a baby than formula milk, so that also puts the individual at a disadvantage if they don't receive those nutrients right off the bat. I also think that the mind and the body change but characteristics stay rooted within an individual as well. Past experiences effect or form future attitudes.
Delete"My brain..my genes..my bad upbringing made me do it." This was stated on page 461 and I question if this has any truth in it? So often you see that children with a difficult home life also end up making a lot of the same mistakes as their guardians. However, you also see the complete opposite where children almost learn from their guardians mistakes. What triggers the difference? What makes kids realize that what they grew up with was wrong?
ReplyDeleteIn response to lexis question, I personally feel it depends on the child and who they are. Some kids are just naturally smart at such young age and know right from wrong. Those kids who can tell that at a young age can easily learn from there own mistakes than the other kids whose brains are more slower an less developed. These kids then look up to there parents and feed off from them to know what is right and what is wrong. i like the quote lexi stated. "My brain..my genes.. my bad upbringing made me do it". I think this quote is accurate and i strongly agree with it.
DeleteIn response to Lexi's question I think it has a lot to do with the adults the kid is surrounded with. I think teachers also have a lot of influence on kids like them to help them make life decisions and to teach them the right from the wrong. So this kid has a hard upbringing and parents aren't around much so its hard for him to get school work done and essentially have a meaning of life. At this point the kid just needs a mentor or anyone to just tell him whats out there and how good of a person he is. I think it has a lot to do with age as well, when your younger you think its normal but as you get older and you see what kid of life your friends or peers have you start to realize it wasn't normal and you either try to change it or you get mad and it goes the opposite way.
DeleteIn response to Lexi's question, I feel like it has to do largely with the kids brain and mindset. To me, a kid in a situation of a bad up bringing or bad parents, can make a choice on how they want to turn out. They can either fall into the trap and grow up being just like their parents or they can decide to never make the mistakes they did and be the exact opposite of them. Eventually, I would hope that the kid would be able to see people outside the realm of their parents and realize what behavior is acceptable or not. So I agree with some of the quote Lexi posted in the question, the part i don't agree with is the "my genes made me do it" to me genes have nothing to do with this topic.
DeleteOn page 464 the book describes post traumatic stress disorder. As I was reading it, I began to wonder if PTSD has evolutionary benefits. In primitive times, PTSD would most likely encourage humans to avoid the same stressful situations. Memories serve to improve survival in the future, so PTSD must have had an evolutionary impact on the evolution of humans.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Jacob’s question, I agree PTSD probably had an evolutionary benefit. Possibly some humans in the past had a very weak form of PTSD and through evolution it became too strong and now it’s a disorder.
DeleteOn page 537-538 it talks about individual behavior in the presence of others. Norman Triplett hypothesized that the presence of others boosts performance. Testing the hypothesis, he had adolescents wind a fishing reel as rapidly as possible. He discovered that they wound the reel faster in the presence of someone doing the same thing. Or when you have a home sports game, you have more people watching you on cheering for you vs away games. The book says you get "aroused" when others observe us. How, in your opinion, is our behavior affected by the presence of others or by being apart of a group?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lindsey's question I think being in the presence of a group or other people makes you want to do better, you want to impress them or show them you know what you're doing. I believe that most of the time it is a good thing for humans to want to do better and one up the last person. Except for in a situation like a fight, the crowd exhilarates both parties to want to out do the other. A time like that would be negative for example.
DeleteIn response to Lindsey's question, I completely agree with the idea of getting excited or more jacked up when you either have competition or theres people watching you. The idea of winning and pleasing others gives you drive. The world is very competitive so if you're doing something against someone else, of course you'l work that much harder to make sure you win.
DeleteIn response to Lindsey's question, I believe that having people watch you, makes you more nervous. Nobody wants to fail in front of their peers , so having them there makes you more excited and it really gets you focused on doing your best.
DeleteIn response to Lindsey's question, I think that in some occasions the presence of others can boost your performance. I know that if someone is doing the same activity as I am, I get competitive and try to beat them. That is when my performance gets better. But, during home sports games I usually get nervous because of the home crowd. You never want to screw up in front of people you know.
DeleteIn chapter 13 on page 471, depression is discussed. It mentions how depression is actually our body taking protective measures to put us in a "psychic hibernation," slowing us down, defusing our aggression, and restraining our risk taking. This is due to mankind's biological's purpose originally being to survive and reproduce, rather than be happy, successful, and get the most out of life, like it is in a tremendously developed, extraordinarily advanced country, that we have many of throughout the world today. What I find odd is that if depression is scientifically just our bodies trying to help us survive, why does the percent of people with depression become exponentially higher the more developed a country becomes?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the reason for higher depression rates in more developed countries can be described using Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When you think about the triangle we learned about in history and health, the higher you go up on it, the more sophisticated it gets. My theory is that it becomes more like to fall off the top of the hierarchy and fall to this state of "hibernation" than it is to fall into it at a lower point. As we climb up the hierarchy in our developed country it becomes easier to be overwhelmed with the world and fall back to the basic state of needing to survive.
DeleteOn page 464 the book describes post traumatic stress disorder. As I was reading it, I began to wonder if PTSD has evolutionary benefits. In primitive times, PTSD would most likely encourage humans to avoid the same stressful situations. Memories serve to improve survival in the future, so PTSD must have had an evolutionary impact on the evolution of humans.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn page 460 it talks about media stereotypes of people with mental disorder. It goes on to say some portrayals are sympathetic, but most are for humor or ridicule. So I was wondering what is your favorite portrayal of a person with a mental disorder? How did the portrayal influence your opinion of people with a mental disorder?
ReplyDeleteOn page 533 it discusses group pressure and conformity. Stating that often times in a group setting we can be asked a question, and if we allow other people to answer before us we can end up doubting our answer even if the answer is correct. My question is do you think that most people get effected in group settings like that? Do you think that most people end up doubting themselves based on what other people in a group may say?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brooke: I feel as though people usually want to fit into a group, and to feel like they belong in a group. When someone is asked a question and their answer does not match up with the majority, they would probably feel uncomfortable. This feeling could probably lead the person to not say what they thought, because it could be wrong. So, yes, I think people get affected in situations like that because the chance of them being wrong could be greater than their chance of being right.
DeleteI believe that people of all ages have this happen to them. When this situation happens I believe that people not only want to fit in and "conform" to a group but also it scares us to be wrong. When people around you think something it makes you feel wary of voicing your own opinion. It is the worldly thing to do to want to fit in whether it is right or wrong thing to do.
DeleteIn response to Brooke's question I believe that for sure people want to fit into groups by agreeing with someones answer or doing what someone does. I also believe that there is certain people that always speak their mind and always think they are right so they wouldn't be as sop willing to conform with a group. There also is a gut feeling everyone has that kinda tells them what they know to be wrong or right that might persuade them to not agree with the group. Overall yes I believe people are easily persuaded in group settings and doubt themselves.
DeleteOn page 465 it talks about anxiety disorders. Do you believe we are naturally born with anxiety or does it attack us individually when in a situation where anxious feelings occur?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Courtney's question I think some people may be born with it if it was a trait that one of their parents may have had. Also though I feel like it is something that can be developed when different situations occur. People are often put in stressful situations that can cause an anxious feeling and from there it all depends on how that person handles that anxious feeling. Some people may be able to handle it well where as others might feel overwhelmed and it could cause them an anxiety attack.
DeleteIn reply to Courtney's question, I think that anxiety gradually progresses throughout time and attacks us individually if we are in a situation that our anxious feelings occur. I don't think you are born with it.
DeleteIn response to Courtney's question I agree a lot with what Brooke said, I think you are able to get anxiety genetically and also able to develop through different situations. And with that being said each situation affects us differently so some situations might cause more anxiety than others.
Delete
DeleteIn reply to Courtney’s question, I think it can be both ways. Because genetically you could be born with OCD or another disorder. But I think it is more likely that a situation occurs and it makes you more anxious for a similar situation to occur again.
In reponse to Courtney's question, many phobias are naturally passed down through genes. Humans have evolved to be scared of snakes, spiders, and heights because throughout human evolution people with phobias of those things survived to pass genes.
DeleteIn chapter 13, on page 465, the book discusses post traumatic stress and how it affects people differently. After 9/11 1 out of 10 people in New York were said to experience PTSD. That means 9 out of 10 people did not respond pathologically. Why is this, when 1 in 6 soldiers coming home from Iraq experience it? Does the environment one grows up in affect the likelihood that they will develop a disorder such as PTSD? Or is it solely the severity of the event that determines whether or not someone will have a disorder?
ReplyDeleteI believe that post traumatic stress disorder can be triggered by both an event or an environment, based on what a person has experienced. Each reason can provide a scarring memory to a person, whether it's witnessing a traumatic situation. I think it all depends on what a certain person endured during a traumatic period in time, it can be very personally different for everyone.
DeleteThe environment that a person grows up in could very easily affect the probability of that person getting PTDS. However, I do not believe there is a direct correlation between them at this point. I believe that a large part of the lasting effect on a person is how afraid a person is of something like this happening again. After 9/11 there were many people preparing for another wave of attacks on America that never came. This most likely added to the anxiety of people in places like New York.
DeleteIn response to Jena's question, I think more people experience PTSD after war than after the 9/11 attack because the soldiers can spend a lot of time in dangerous situations where as the 9/11 attack was much shorter than war. So I think the amount of time spent in dangerous or life threatening situations affects how a person reacts. With PTSD, some people will react to loud or sudden noises because of the noises they heard during war. So I think there are a lot of things that can trigger PTSD in veterans. I think the severity of the event definitely affects the likelihood of someone developing PTSD.
DeleteOn Page 549-550 (chapter 15) It talks about psychological and social factors in aggression. Specifically it is explaining the different averse events that cause a rise in aggression. One of these events was a rise in temperature. There is a graph on page 550 that presents a good description of this case. This immediately made me think about the end of the school year and how grumpy everyone is. My question is after reading this paragraph, do you think that the temperature is a core reason for people being mad at the end of the year? If so, how much of the anger do you believe is due to this phenomenon?
ReplyDeleteOn the bottom of page 470, it discusses mood disorders. It states that there are two main principle forms of the disorder. One is the major depression disorder which is prolonged hopelessness and lethargy. The second one is the bipolar disorder which the person alternates from depression and mania. My question is, how do individuals get a worse mood disorder than others? How does one have a mood disorder that is extreme and one can have a disorder that is not as extreme?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brady's question, I think that people can experience varying severity when it comes to psychological disorders simply based upon genetics. I also think that a psychological disorder's severity can vary from person to person based upon an individual's life experiences that could potentially contribute to the disorder.
DeleteOn page 467, it brings up post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) how does this get triggered? Where is the line from you will have nightmares and be traumatized from this to you won't be affected much at all?
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Levin’s question, PTSD gets triggered in many ways such as smells, sounds, sights, tastes, or by an objects texture. Any of these ways could trigger PTSD. The difference between a nightmare and PTSD is PTSD goes on longer.
DeleteOn page 480, it says Schizophrenia means "split mind', a split from reality not a true personality split. If this is true, can multiple personality be part of schizophrenia? If Gollum from the Lord of the Rings would seek professional help in Middle Earth, what would he be diagnosed with?
ReplyDeleteI would first like to say that I appreciate the Lord of the Rings reference. Very classy. The answer to your question is no, schizophrenia is a mental disorder while multiple personality disorder is a personality disorder. However, I believe that Gollum could be diagnosed with either but is pretty healthy considering he is almost 600 years old.
Delete
ReplyDeleteOn page 539 it talks about deindividuation. It’s defined as the loss of self-awareness and self - restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity. So I was wondering is this the reason why some people are band groupies, believe in scientology, or drink the Kool-Aid and commit mass suicide? Is deindividuation really that powerful?
ReplyDeleteOn page 539 it talks about deindividuation. It’s defined as the loss of self-awareness and self - restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity. So I was wondering is this the reason why some people are band groupies, believe in scientology, or drink the Kool-Aid and commit mass suicide? Is deindividuation really that powerful?
The people who suffer from deindividuation are people who don't like them selves, they feel useless and pointless so they do something with a collective and it makes them feel better, even if they weren't noticed. They lose them selves thinking more about the group and less about them selves, till the point that they think there is nothing but the group.
DeleteIn response to Taylor's question, I believe that this plays a huge roll in all of those situations and yes it is that powerful. As humans we want to belong to a group of some kind and once we have a group we will do almost anything to stay in it even if it dose include mass suicide, simply because we get so sucked up by the 'vibe' of the group.
DeleteOn the bottom of page 462 it brings up phobias. Many people around the world suffer from phobias. A phobia is a extreme or irrational fear of something. A agoraphobia is a fear in advance of a situation in which it may be difficult to escape when panic strikes. Im wondering if this is a mind thing? Are people able to decide not to be scared anymore? Also, are they able to decide what there phobia is?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Haley's question, I don't think someone with a phobia can have the control to decide their kind of phobia, or even have the control to suddenly not be afraid of a certain type of situation or thing. I believe it just all depends on who a person is, and if they had experienced or thought something that may be linked to their phobia when they were young. But, in conclusion, I do believe that someone can overcome their intense fear through comprehensive counseling and therapy.
DeleteIn response to Haley's question, I don't think people consciously decide what their phobia is. I think it develops overtime, maybe from bad experiences with it. I think people even develop phobias from hearing about an incident. For example, I think after the bridge collapsed in the cities, more people developed a fear of bridges because they remembered that incident whenever crossing one. I think people can work to overcome their phobias and train themselves to overcome their fear.
DeleteIn the middle of page 542 it discusses prejudice. The definition of prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based off of an experience or in other words prejudgement which is usually negative towards a gender, cultural, or ethnic group. Around the world there are still racial issues happening. My TPQ is do we form these opinions ourselves or does society push them on us?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Haley's question: I think that we learn prejudice from others instead of creating them ourselves. We take in everything that we hear as we grow up, and that will probably include some nasty stereotypes. However, if someone had a bad experience with a specific gender or ethnic group, they could hold that to everyone else they meet in that gender or group.
DeleteIn response to Haley's question I believe society and the environment we live in pushes it on us. Media has a big influence on us as well. When you see in the news Islamic terrorist and then you think all Islams are terrorists. When make judgments based on what we are seeing and hearing and basically stereotyping the whole group. I think the environment we live in especially is more racist then some other places because we are not very ethnically diverse. I think it also has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of people that lived in the civil right time and when America was really against the blacks are still here and aren't going to change, and they teach their son or daughter to believe that to.
DeleteIn response to Haley's question, I believe society plays a big role in how others act. Starting as a young child, kids see and hear racial slurs and figures all of the time. Not only from other people, but the media plays a big role itself. The media tends to be bias and can more than likely be bias towards an ethnic group.
DeleteOn the bottom of page 471, it talks about Bipolar Disorder, and how a person who as it can experience episodes of major depression and a hyperactive state. Alternate levels of these stages causes Bipolar Disorder. After reading about it, it made me wonder...how is Bipolar Disorder diagnosed exactly? Are there different types of the disorder?
ReplyDeleteBipolar disorder is diagnosed when a person is experiencing depressive states but will also have states of mania or the opposite of depression. I think being diagnosed with Bipolar disorder can be a little trickier than being diagnosed with depression. When you go to the doctor for depression they ask you 9 questions, but none of them have anything to do with experiencing episodes of mania. I think it is something you would have to tell the doctor to get an accurate diagnosis. For the other part of the question, yes, there are different types of Bipolar disorder including: Bipolar I disorder, Bipolar II disorder, Cyclothymic disorder, and others.
DeleteOn page 464 the middle of the page discusses post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The passage continues by describing how people obtain ptsd and what triggers it. My question is , does ptsd effect younger individuals more than it would effect older people? Does ptsd have a greater impact on the young or the old?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Madi's question, I believe the age does not have an effect on PTSD. Instead, I think it comes from the experiences the person goes through and how each individual will respond to that situation. The age could matter on how severe the disorder is because if a man is older, they could have experienced more and could be suffering from more events.
DeleteI think that how people react to a very traumatic event is different with every person. This is also true with how people handle and cope with the event, and some people could develop PTSD in the same situation where some people wouldn't. I don't think this depends on age as much as prior experiences and how the individual him or herself is affected by it.
DeleteOn page 462 the book discusses generalized anxiety disorder. The passage states that generalized anxiety disorder is when an individuals feelings are out-of-control, unfocused, and negative. After reading about generalized anxiety disorder, my question is do teenagers get anxiety from going to school? Does anxiety effect on a students learning as well?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Madi's question, I think that teens can experience anxiety as a result of going to school. School may be a place where teens experience social anxiety and perhaps fear if they are severely bullied at school. Some teens may experience anxiety when they are taking a test or have to speak in front of their classmates. I think that these anxiety's can negatively effect a student's ability to learn at school because if a student focuses mainly on what is causing them anxiety, they will not be able to focus on much else.
DeleteIn response to Madi and agreement with Noel, I believe that many teens can experience anxiety in a school environment, and I believe that the ability to fully understand and learn can be very apprehensive for a teen who has severe anxiety or for someone who is experiencing a difficult time in their life. Worrying can be a huge obstacle to overcome.
DeleteIn response to Madi's question, I agree with Noel and Caitlin, that school affects the level of anxiety in students. I also think it depends on the student. If you care a lot about your grades and how well you do in school, you may be more anxious before a test than someone who doesn't really care. In the summer, I think most students experience less anxiety because they aren't worried about tests, getting homework completed, and don't have as many extra curricular events going on.
DeleteIn response to Madi's question I think that if a child gets anxiety when they go to school is because of the conditions around them. I think that students that get overwhelmed with school get anxiety's, but not a true disorder. and yes I think that if a child has an anxiety disorder it will affect their concentration and mind focus in school.
DeleteI believe school is the main cause of anxiety in younger people. There is so much pressure to get good grades or wear the right clothes that it takes away from school. Kids get to a point where they are so concerned with being perfect that they can't concentrate or choose no to come to school.
DeleteIn response to Madi's question I believe that school is one of the main causes of anxiety in teens. Academics could cause anxiety for some, or it may be the fear of not fitting in for others. Not being what you think is "good enough" for sports could also cause anxiety in teens. I agree with others who responded when they said they defiantly think it affects how the teen learns. If a teen is distracted by these thing that give them anxiety it would be very hard to focus at the task at hand.
DeleteOn page 458, the textbook states that the number of disorder categories has swelled and so has the number of adults and children who meet the criteria for at least one of them. My question is, Are we just discovering more disorders as the field of science advances or are more people developing psychological disorders than humans in the past? If so, why are humans today seemingly more prone to psychological disorders?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Noel's question, I believe that the reason more people are getting diagnosed with disorders is because of the sheer amount of them. We are discovering more and more disorders. I also think that in this time period, there is more stress. We have the urge to be perfect and to work a lot more than is probably healthy. I think that humans in the U.S. are obsessed with time. All the stress that our lives is causing us is probably a factor in the development of psychological disorders.
DeleteI think that in today's culture, it is more acceptable to have a mental illness because so many others do too. It would definitely make it easier to get help if you looked around and saw 100 other people suffering with the same problem. There is also so much stress caused by every little thing in life now, that you can hardly ever escape it.
DeleteOn page 528 it talks about the "Foot-in-the-Door" phenomenon. This is when people get other people to agree to do large tasks for them but they start with small tasks first. This was first noticed back in the Korean War when the U.S. captured soldiers were coaxed by the Chinese to do tasks for them. My question is how do you tell when someone is doing this to you? Say you have this role model or this person you really look up to and they ask you to do something for them and you trust them because how could they do anything wrong and then it escalates but you don't realize it because you just think your doing them another favor. How do you recognize it in that type of situation, and how would you get out of it?
ReplyDeleteI think that this is often used when people want someone to do a task that person wouldn't normally do for them. They intentionally use this to manipulate the person, and, depending on the person requesting the tasks, it can be very hard to not only recognize, but then also refuse, especially when, like you stated, the person is a roll model or someone you look up to. I think the best way to recognize this would be to take time to review everything people ask of you and then let them know that you will not be able to do the task. This would be a hard thing to do, but with practice would get easier, in my personal opinion.
DeleteOn page 552 in Chapter 15, it talks about video games and if they can have have an effect on a person's actions in the real world. Only 38% of kids that play violent video games get into fights, but can video games be one of the reasons why our aggressive side as human beings come out? How influential do you think they are to younger generations?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Caitlin's question, I think video games do affect the level of aggression in people. When people see a lot of violence, it's almost like they become more immune to it the more they see it. If you watch a violent movie for the first time, you may have stronger reactions to it then someone who frequently watches violence. So I think it somewhat depends on how much time is spent playing the violent video games. I think violent video games have a strong influence on younger generations because they are becoming more exposed to violence at a young age.
DeleteIn response to Caitlin's question, I personally believe that video games do have an effect on kids. I believe this because in certain games, players can receive points for killing someone on the street. I don't pay or know much about video games but one of my friends started playing a video game and he started becoming more aggressive with how he talked and acted. Is there a correlation? Maybe, maybe not but there needs to be more testing down on it.
DeleteIn response to Caitlin's question, yes I believe that video games do have a impact on peoples aggression. I think that playing certain video games allows them to say and do things that they wouldn't or shouldn't do. This gives them a greater chance of performing these actions in the real world and i think we are starting to see that more and more. I think this ties in well with the topic of putting good people in an evil environment. Eventually, the video game, enough evil, will incorporate itself into that persons personality.
DeleteChildren that play a lot of violent video games are probably more likely to not spend as much time with their parents learning about life and how not to be a murderer or other violent person shown in video games. It's almost like the children are being taught that violence is ok. I think video games only play a role if the kids don't know that the violent actions shown are bad. If a parent sits down to tell them how wrong it is to hurt others, I don't think it would be as big of a problem.
DeleteIn response to Caitlin, I believe video games can increase aggressiveness in children, especially if they grow up in an aggressive neighborhood. However, it is important to note that not all video games are violent, and I believe the affect video games have on aggressiveness on people as they go through adolescence decreases.
DeleteOn page 464 it talks about PTSD and all of its effects. PTSD can cause blackouts and for people not to remember things. So say a person with PTSD is taking medicine but they forget to take it one day and they have this blackout where they don't know what is going on and they murder someone. Now when this person is caught do they go to jail or would they get put in a psych ward because they have a mental illness and they don't believe that they killed a person? How bad can PTSD get before they are a danger to society? If PTSD takes over a person's life completely are they essentially a whole different person?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Becca's question: I feel like that is one of the main questions in the judicial system. It is hard to know if someone is experiencing a disorder or not when something, like murder, happens so quickly. I think sometimes people are sent to jail and sometimes they are sent to hospitals. Whether or not they have a known history of a disorder, such as PTSD may determine their fate. I'm not sure though; disorders seem to have different effects on different people, so it is hard to know what they will do if they do not take their medication.
DeleteIn response to Becca's question- I think that this is something that can be split in the middle, simply based on who you talk to. Some may have no sympathy to those who commit murder or serious crimes when suffering from a serious mental disorder. Others may sympathize for those who commit these crimes when suffering these serious mental disorders. This is usually why many of these cases are brought back to the surface and the verdict may change. Say that the someone who had an episode of PTSD and committed a murder was sent to prison, they may get the chance to get their case reopened and may be sent to a hospital because it was found that they really were suffering from this disorder during the time of the murder. It is really all based on who you get in the jury and their personal beliefs.
DeleteOn page 458, it talks about how more and more people are meeting the criteria for psychological disorders. They also mention how there have been more disorders discovered and put in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: 60 in the 1950s and 400 today. So my question is, will just about everyone be diagnosed with some sort of psychological disorder in the future? When people know there is something wrong with them, do they behave differently? Do they act like they think they should act based on what disorder they have been diagnosed with? Is it possible that someone may act depressed because they've convinced themselves they are?
ReplyDeleteOn page 467, it is talking about genes and phobias. It says that vulnerability to anxiety disorders rises when an afflicted relative is an identical twin. It goes on to explain how two identical twins independently formed a phobia of water. So if identical twins can dislike the same things, is it fair to conclude that they may like the same things? Would they have the same taste in food, clothing, and music? I know in my personal experience, Nicole and I share a lot of common interests but we do like different foods and music. Could it be different depending on whether the twins are fraternal or identical?
ReplyDeleteIn the section of ADHD, it talks about how the numbers are increasing the more information we learn about it, which is going to happen. But it also mentions that there is a lot of skeptics in the numbers. Why would that be? It also mentions in this section that teachers are the ones to refer children to the doctor for ADHD testing. Why is that the teachers are the ones to make that refer and not the parent?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jolene's question: I think that teachers may be more likely to say that a child has ADHD because they interact with them for seven hours out of the day. Now, the parent is just as involved in the child's life, but they may not see the child's behavior as a disorder. They may think their son or daughter is simply "rambunctious", while a teacher may know more about the subject. They would also see how that particular child acts compared to the rest of the class, which could lead them to suspect the child has ADHD.
DeleteAt the beginning of chapter 15, it explains the attribution theory and fundamental attribution error. It is no secrete that first impressions set the tone to any situation and sometimes those first impressions can be wrong. With that being said, how is that in one situation someone can be seem very out going and if you put them in another situation you don't the same vibes from them?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jolene's question, I think that first impressions are very important, but I also think that your first impression doesn't define who you are necessarily. In every situation you aren't going to act the exact same. Depending on the circumstances, condition, and people even around you affect how you respond.
DeleteOn page 525 of chapter 15, it talks about 9/11. It asks, "What drives people to feel such hatred that they would destroy thousands of innocent lives? And what motivates the heroic altruism of those who died trying to save others and of the many more who reached out- with gifts of money, food, clothing, shelter, and love- to those coping with loss?" Why does it take a horrific event for people to reach out and offer compassion to those who are suffering? Why does it take a crisis to trigger the generosity of people?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nicole's question, I believe its just the severity of the situations that plays a big role in the differences. To me people need to be in a life or death situation to actually take action and do something. There is a big difference between a homeless person who asks for money and a person laying on the ground about to be engulfed in flames. Taking a homeless person for example i feel like people are willing to just kind of ignore them because they think they will be fine or someone else will give them money, however if someone is literally going to die unless you save them, people will tend to take more action.
DeleteOn page 529 in chapter 15, it talks about role-playing and the Stanford Prison experiment. It says that at first your behaviors may feel phony but eventually your role becomes you. In the Stanford Prison experiment, the guards may have felt awkward at first acting as guards, but they quickly began to hold their "authority" over the prisoners. They forced the prisoners to perform degrading actions. What makes people "become" the role they play? How did they let themselves forget that everyone in that experiment were real people?
ReplyDeleteIt is like the foot in the door phenomenon where they had to start small with acting, then it got a bit bigger and more intense with less thought in the act, to finally it going to far where they didn't even realize that it was an act, it just got worse and worse until it seemed this "act" had over taken them.
DeleteOn page 532 in chapter 15 the book discusses conformity and obedience. It says that people are natural mimics and often act similar to each other. These actions can go from mood changes to school violence. People also dress similarly to each other when new trends come about. Why is this? Why do people want to conform while asserting their individuality at the same time? Can you be your own person while giving into society?
ReplyDeleteOn pages 484 and 485, it talks about schizophrenia in twins. It states statistics like 1 in 10 become the odds of having the disease if a sibling or parent has the disease. Also that the odds become 1 in 2 if it is an identical twin. The other odds of getting schizophrenia are 1 in 10 if the twins have separate placentas, but increases to 6 in 10 if they share the placenta. It seems that they are always doing testing on ways to treat this disease. Do you think it will ever get to the point of mothers having abortions in this rare case to try and prevent this?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Eric's question, I think lots of women believe in many different ideas, but I believe that a woman is more likely to want an abortion if she is unmarried, and really is not religious or a non-believer. So that would think woman it is not wrong to have an abortion and will cause no harm in the long run. A woman that is very religious and is conservative will think it is a bad sin that will always harm them to have an abortion even if there is a high chance of disease. So I think those type of women would choose to have no abortion.
DeleteOn page 538 and 539, it talks about the term social loafing. The book talks about a couple different experiments that we also covered in class, about how a person will exert a lot more strength when they are by themselves rather than with multiple others. Also how much louder people clap with other people rather than just by themselves. We are told more and more as young people, be yourself and don't let what others say or think matter. With so much on self individuality these days, do you think social loafing will continue to be a trend or will the number of social loafers decrease in later generations?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Eric's question, I think that people trend to wait for the first person to do something because it talks about how people clap louder while blindfolded but don't know there are people around them, so they figure to clap louder. When they know people are in their group, they want to wait for the first person to clap. So I believe social loafing will keep on being a trend because of that study.
DeleteI think that the social loafing group of people will become bigger as more people enter this world and it becomes a more densely populated planet. People who would not normally socially loaf will later become social loafers. This would be due to there being more opportunities to be loafing socially than to loaf individually. Although this may create people desiring to be by themselves, with a more common surrounding have people around, the historically socially loafed people will be able to excel their now common environment, whereas the individually loafed people will be drowned out and become a social loafer.
ReplyDeleteWhen people are in environments like the Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib, or any other time where someone has power over someone and is not strictly told on how to treat the person, or even indirectly told to "rough them up", they often create their power from not only physical abuse, but also emotional and sometimes sexual abuse. This made me think about why people, even when they are not in danger and easily have the power in their hands, not only show their power through abuse, but degrade them by forcing them into doing things that are sexually or emotionally degrading. Why do people turn to this form of abuse when physical abuse would alone be far too much?
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Jared's question, I believe that the people with power use all forms of abuse without knowing that it is wrong. Nobody is there to tell them that what they are doing is wrong and they shouldn't do it anymore. If they were able to recognize that it was wrong they would stop
DeleteIn response to Jared, I agree with Taylor because in life people usually have lines that they can and cannot cross like laws or simple life manners so when someone is given such freedom they are just astounded with the fact they can make the rules and lines and they can blow it out of proportion and do such cruel things.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn page 541 it talks about the power of individuals, what I don't get is what makes them go against the norm when no one else will, what is special about them that they can go and make a difference by them selves, when the rest want to be like everyone else? These individuals have done great things for the world, many were in Civil Rights movements and some scientists and philosophers. These people have to go against the majority, the government, or friends and family, what give them the strength?
ReplyDeleteOn page 459, it is discussed that use of labels are sometimes criticized when used in classifying mental disorders due to the chance of misdiagnosis and the stigmas attached to these labels. Is the chance of misdiagnosis worth not specifically diagnosing these disorders? How could the disorders possibly be treated without the use of labels?
ReplyDeleteNo, because instead of being concerned with the specific illness, not telling them would cause them to panic making them even worse and they may think it can't be treated or they may have multiple. The people in charge could possibly assign a letter or number to an illness to verify what the problem is. The same stuff could happen though, they may find out what they have and freak out over it, or they may not know what they have and diagnose them selves, making them think it could be something else. So you can't treat a disorder without telling them, because it could be bad either way, so you just have to hope the person is ready for it.
DeleteAs the world has progressed more illnesses have been able to be diagnosed, treated and cured. The medical model described on page 456 provides a way that mental illnesses should be handled. However, Not every illness mental or otherwise is treatable. So my question is can the medical model hold true every time, or is it only a guideline.
ReplyDeleteThey may not be able to treat it, but they could study it and diagnose a new disease or one that has no cure yet. The medical model would also help doctors and scientists come up with a basic ways to start a healing process.
DeleteIn response to Correy's question, i think that in the case of severe disorders such as schizophrenia and others it is no more than a guideline. This being simply because these disorders are extremely complex and there isn't enough advancement in the medical field to fully treat them.
DeleteOn page 480 schizophrenia is discussed. More and more people are being diagnosed with schizophrenia everyday. 1-100 people will develop the illness in their lifetime. After reading about this disorder my question is, do you believe that someday schizophrenia will be able to be diagnosed, or we will be able to predetermine if you will get schizophrenia? Will technology be advanced enough? & do you think scientist are doing enough research about this specific disorder?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Correy's question, it says in the book that depression is the common cold of psychological disorders, then chronic schizophrenia is the cancer of depression. So I believe that may be treatable over a period of time but it will still happen to people since they can't help getting depression. I am also sure that scientists have been doing research about for a very long time and it could take years to get something to treat it in very quick amount of time.
DeleteBased on the videos watched for the media assignment on exposure therapy, do you believe that exposure therapy is an effective way to treat PTSD? It could create an unsafe environment or potentially make things worse for those suffering from PTSD, but it could also help cure the disorder. Is this risk worth the possible reward?
ReplyDeleteIn reply to maddie's question, I believe it is worth the risk. Anything we can do to help the people suffering to not suffer is worth the risk. The people giving the treatment just needs to be careful with how much exposure they give to the patient
DeleteOn page 538, it talks about social facilitation. Do athletes perform better because of the increased pressure to do good, or is it just something that happens without them knowing?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Taylor's question, I think it is your own self that is performing better because it states that when there is a crowd cheering you on, they make you perform better. For example, when Eric was almost to 1,000 points, I think he was performing better because he had the crowd cheering him on until it happened and played good after that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn page 539 it talks about deindividuation, what can make a person give up their life for a group? Do they truly feel that useless by them selves that much, that they give up on being an individual all together and just be part of the collective. Can they feel helpful in the group, does it let them work harder, because when they are alone they didn't feel use full, what changed in them?
ReplyDeleteIn response to nick I feel that most people don't even notice that they are losing their own beliefs and just slowly transgress into the others beliefs and actions. This being said they gain a purpose (feel helpful) and add to the group or atleast try to add.
DeleteOn page 471 it talks about depression and how it has been called the "common cold" of psychological disorders. This is thought of by many to be an overgeneralized statement and that it is much more serious than that. Do you think that this concept takes away from the real severity of the disorder and leads people to have a very closed mind when it comes to depression?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Markus, yes I believe it does not only do people see it as a common thing and that alot of people have it I feel like they think there are not levels of depression but as a yes or no and that most people use it as a scapegoat.
Delete