ethics

i'm sure anyone who has ever taken any kind of psych class knows about the little albert case study, done by John Watson. it is one of the most well known studies for behaviorism. many people say that it was a horrible thing to put a child through. the most common term is 'unethical'. how is it that looking back on it today, we can say that it was unethical, but back then they were still allowed to go through with the experiment? what determines something to be unethical? as we all know, case studies and experiments and trial runs are not allowed to be performed if there is any question at all about it being morally wrong. what i want to know is, why wasnt it like that 50 years ago? how did we all of a sudden, know, that certain things were wrong and certain things were right? why wasnt there already a rule in place about putting someone is some type of harmful situation? it almost seems like it wasnt important back then, like a person's well-being wasnt first and formost. we question a lot of things today. why werent we questioning them back then?

watch this to find out more about little albert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FKZAYt77ZM&feature=related

subliminal messaging??

i've heard some of the songs that people play backwards and claim that the artist is singing a totally different song, ususally inappropriate or crude in nature. there are also supposedly subliminal messages in disney channel movies. subliminal messaging is referred to as a non-lasting dectection occuring below your absolute threshold for conscious awareness. if you have to do so much work to find them and point them out, then how are they there in the first place? and how do people know that you're not altering the lyrics or the animation to make it look and sound the way you want it to? my personal belief is that people not only have active imaginations, but too much time on their hands to play into that imagination. i feel that if there were actual messages in things like movies and songs then more than a few people would be able to spot them. also, songs are meant to be listened to forwards, not backwards, so the messages wouldnt even get through in the first place.

check these out to see how you feel about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttkvaJ_GRGk

be my eyes...and my ears.

today in my psychology class, we had to go on a walk around campus with people in our group. the catch? someone had to be deaf, someone had to be blind, and someone else wasnt allowed to touch anything with their hands. there were two of us left to help the rest of our group when they needed it. not only did we observe how difficult it would be to lose one of our senses rather than being born without it, but we also saw how much patience the caregiver has to have. we had to make sure our communication was clear and our directions were simple, so as not to confuse the blind person. the person in our group with the hearing handicap seemed to be in her own little world, and didnt really say anything. afterwards, she said that it was very difficult not to answer to the few things she did hear. i cant imagine not knowing what other people are saying or what is going on. it was very interesting to see the way people with those disabilities would view things like a walk to the local coffee shop. i am very tempted to try it on my own to see if i could handle it!

try these out!

Check out these illusions, see which ones your best at figuring out!


http://www.123opticalillusions.com/

blind in one eye

kind of going back to what i was talking about the other day...if someone is lacking a sense, they view the world differently than we do. literally, in this case. if someone was blind, but only in one eye, then their monocular and binocular cues would be affected. your monocular cues say that each eye recives slightly different images. your binocular cues include the retinal disparity, or the difference in images, which allows your brain to create 3-dimensional images. this is all under the deoth perception aspect of perceptual organization. i wonder then, how a person who is blind in only one eye would interpret an optical illusion. would it seem to be just another drawing or picture? or would they still receive the stimuli from it to know that it was an illusion, but see a completely different illusion than what i see? how would i know that their view wasn't the right view?

living without a sense

i've sometimes wondered what it would be like to be deaf or blind, or maybe even both. i couldnt imagine having to go through life without one of my sense, but people around me are doing it every single day. i learned today that if you are born without or lose one of your senses, the other 4 you have will become very strong, and will take over the place of the one you are missing. if you were deaf, you wouldnt be able to judge peoples moods based on the volume of their voice, but your sight would let you understand and interpret their facial expressions. if you were blind, you would be able to do the opposite. but imagine if you couldnt smell anything, how would you know if something was burning, or what exactly it was that you were eating? or what if your taste buds werent functional, how would you view food and decide what you wanted to eat? or would you have to live by a strict diet? or what if you couldnt even feel things through touch? what if you laid your hand on a hot stove, but you didnt know your skin was being burned? how do they adapt with handicaps like this? are there ways that doctors and families can help, or can come up with some sort of plan for how these individuals could be able to live as independently as possible?

gaining knowldege

have you ever heard of the 'rules for taking tests', like eat a big breakfast, get eight hours of sleep, etc. no where in those rules does it define how you should dtufy, how often, and for what incriments of time. i recently was introuduced to the idea that you if you eat while you study, you should eat while testing. i wonder why this is, and how many other factors could contirbute to your overall test-taking ability? i hope to gain this knowledge through these next few classes, and will definately share it.

follow your gut

we are beginning to learn about cognitive psychology in my gen psych class. one of our new topics is 'intuition'. how often do you follow your gut feeling? i usually dont, and i believe that this partly has to do with my algorithmic thinking. i have to take the long way out by making a list of the consequences of choosing a burger over a salad, or a new pair of shoes over a new pair of jeans. i wish i would follow my intuition, no questions asked. i wish i could take a risk and enjoy it, rather than spend the entire time thinking about all the things that could go wrong. just something to think about. would you jump off an airplane tomorrow if your gut told you to?

alrgoithmic equations

in my psychology class today, i found out that i think using algorithum. basically, i overthink things all the time and find it very difficult to make a quick decision. the positive to this is that i have a higher success rate, but it also means that i use way to much time to come to my conclusion. example: i could spend my entire lunch break debating on what i'm in the mood for, which restaurants have those food items, and how far away they are rather than going out and actually being able to get something on my break. while i was thinking about how anal i am, i thought about people that i know who are impulse decision makers, like my sister. she thinks heuristically. she can go into a store and not have the slightest clue what she's looking for, but can find an entire outfit within a matter of minutes. this also allows her to be more open to new insight, whereas i would have a harder time finding a new way to look at or do things. i find this interesting, and it makes me want to challenge my way of thinking and force myself to be put in more impulse situations.

question. everything.

this past week in my psychology class, we watched a video over children with certain disorders, such as ADHD and bipolar disorder, and the different types of medications that they are put on. the video showed clips from a few different families who had a child diagnosed with one of these and the trips to the doctor, the different pills that are part of their daily routine, how school and the social scene affected them. there was a certain scene that struck me as odd, and it got me to thinking. one of the families went in to see their young son's doctor. the mother inquired about some type of therapy or other hands on approach that might be beneficial for her child, rather than adding another medication or uping a dosage. the doctor immediately responded with 'no, there is no other way.' I was certainly confused. first and formost, the patient should be the main concern of their doctor, and their fmaily doesn't think that their current treatment is working, then their doctor should right away assure them that he will find another option or look into other possibilities of he is unsure. there should be discussion, not an answer that completely throws something off the table. it got me to thinking about my own teenage cousin, who was diagnosed with ADHD early on. he is on at least three different medications, and we are under the impression that if he does not take them, he will be completely out of control. this video, however, made me wonder how his doctor appointments go. is there room for discussion? or is he on all of these meds just because his doctor told him that's what he had to do? this begins my questioning of all doctors, and whether or not their are providing client-based catre, or their own form of treatment?