- Brain's DMN (default mode network)
- "DISEASE AND THE BRAIN'S DARK ENERGY" Dongyang Zhang and Marcus E. Raichle in /Nature Reviews Neurology/ Vol. 6 pages 15-18; January 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Delusions of Optimism
You're waltzing along, lip-synching to the beat of your favorite tune, appreciating how everything in your life is going great. You couldn't possibly be more happy or content when, all of a sudden, the floor gives way and you fall through and are impaled through the head in a pit of large spikes. That's what it's like when your optimism doesn't hold against reality. Maybe that's a metaphor, maybe it isn't.
There is nothing wrong with trying to put a positive spin on things. One could argue that maybe it's even helpful in certain situations - fighting for a lost friend (pessimism would say "it won't matter, they're gone forever") or even losing someone - "Hey, why not try to look on the bright side and focus on all the good memories?" Maybe, sometimes, it even leads to achievements, if you optimistically believe in yourself. It may even breed better feelings of self-worth. But this is purely situational. Optimism should be used sparingly; it should never be used when it is combined with naivete. Look where /that/'s lead us - "Oh, the housing market's greaaaaat! " Look where it is now. "Oh, those protocols and that battery will be fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine not being checked like they're supposed to be, especially since it's not like there's going to be any huge ramifications or anything." Take a gander at the horrible black gold spewing from the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico, destroying habitats and ecosystems for ages to come.
Something important to underline is that optimism and naivete are not always partners - you can be naive OR optimistic or a combination of both. The worst kind of optimism is that of a naive optimist - a person whose positivity has little base or standing in reality. This is the kind of person who will not consider the risks of a situation and will get hurt badly by people because they do not realize humanity's ability to harm, and are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. Leave the naivete behind and name a person you know who has never fallen for the optimism bias (falling due to overestimation of good occurrences and underestimation of bad ones). The answer? No one.
But pessimism is surely not the way to live, right? No, the real way to life is to be realistic. Being realistic, you keep your ideals and thoughts in check with reality (or your perception thereof) and maybe don't just give up (pessimism), or get unnaturally happy or have horrendously high expectations (optimism). It's simultaneously the middle ground and the most grounded of the three.
Reality must be more important than fantasy if we are to survive and grow. After all, isn't most of the progress we've ever made been due to our struggle to see the world for how it truly is?
There is nothing wrong with trying to put a positive spin on things. One could argue that maybe it's even helpful in certain situations - fighting for a lost friend (pessimism would say "it won't matter, they're gone forever") or even losing someone - "Hey, why not try to look on the bright side and focus on all the good memories?" Maybe, sometimes, it even leads to achievements, if you optimistically believe in yourself. It may even breed better feelings of self-worth. But this is purely situational. Optimism should be used sparingly; it should never be used when it is combined with naivete. Look where /that/'s lead us - "Oh, the housing market's greaaaaat! " Look where it is now. "Oh, those protocols and that battery will be fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine not being checked like they're supposed to be, especially since it's not like there's going to be any huge ramifications or anything." Take a gander at the horrible black gold spewing from the ocean floor in the Gulf of Mexico, destroying habitats and ecosystems for ages to come.
Something important to underline is that optimism and naivete are not always partners - you can be naive OR optimistic or a combination of both. The worst kind of optimism is that of a naive optimist - a person whose positivity has little base or standing in reality. This is the kind of person who will not consider the risks of a situation and will get hurt badly by people because they do not realize humanity's ability to harm, and are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. Leave the naivete behind and name a person you know who has never fallen for the optimism bias (falling due to overestimation of good occurrences and underestimation of bad ones). The answer? No one.
But pessimism is surely not the way to live, right? No, the real way to life is to be realistic. Being realistic, you keep your ideals and thoughts in check with reality (or your perception thereof) and maybe don't just give up (pessimism), or get unnaturally happy or have horrendously high expectations (optimism). It's simultaneously the middle ground and the most grounded of the three.
Reality must be more important than fantasy if we are to survive and grow. After all, isn't most of the progress we've ever made been due to our struggle to see the world for how it truly is?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Help a Puddle-Head!
I know I've posted before about how there isn't really any such thing as so-called "intrinsic motivation" (doing something just to do it). Now a rhyme and reason have been discovered as to why we do selfless things - dopamine. Our brains release shots of dopamine when we engage in selfless behavior.
Of course, this first requires a drive to do something selfless, doesn't it? Say you're walking to your local ice cream emporium and you stumble upon a puddle of someone. As in, a puddle of their head. It's not really a puddle... it's pretty much just their head, but it's kind of squishy. It/they is/are talking and asking for help. You'd possibly feel the urge (not in a group - diffusion of responsibility) to help - say, pull out the sponge you keep lodged between your ears and wipe them up or at least help them somehow. I'd argue that we have the urge to do that because we anticipate the incoming shot of feel-good, and we act on it, receiving the reward that is the good feeling. And yet, looking back, most people would probably say that they helped because they knew the puddlehead was in need of help. Denial. Justification.
Apparently, the dopamine reward lessens the longer you wait to do your act of "good samaritism". If it doesn't happen right away, you get much less of a reward.
I think that it'd probably be relatively easy to become addicted to volunteering because the rush of dopamine feels so darn good.
Now, why do you think we delight in things being faster and quicker and more streamlined? Because not only are things generally less cumbersome this way, but when we're doing good, we don't want to have to punch in a 36-digit credit card number to send money to The Red Cross. We want the dopamine NOW and as much of it as we possibly can.
[Idea from WIRED Magazine: May 2010. "Instant Karma".]
Of course, this first requires a drive to do something selfless, doesn't it? Say you're walking to your local ice cream emporium and you stumble upon a puddle of someone. As in, a puddle of their head. It's not really a puddle... it's pretty much just their head, but it's kind of squishy. It/they is/are talking and asking for help. You'd possibly feel the urge (not in a group - diffusion of responsibility) to help - say, pull out the sponge you keep lodged between your ears and wipe them up or at least help them somehow. I'd argue that we have the urge to do that because we anticipate the incoming shot of feel-good, and we act on it, receiving the reward that is the good feeling. And yet, looking back, most people would probably say that they helped because they knew the puddlehead was in need of help. Denial. Justification.
Apparently, the dopamine reward lessens the longer you wait to do your act of "good samaritism". If it doesn't happen right away, you get much less of a reward.
I think that it'd probably be relatively easy to become addicted to volunteering because the rush of dopamine feels so darn good.
Now, why do you think we delight in things being faster and quicker and more streamlined? Because not only are things generally less cumbersome this way, but when we're doing good, we don't want to have to punch in a 36-digit credit card number to send money to The Red Cross. We want the dopamine NOW and as much of it as we possibly can.
[Idea from WIRED Magazine: May 2010. "Instant Karma".]
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
My sin.
Is gluttony. Of books.
Today, I went to the library and picked up eight items. Three are books in a new series, two are Legend of Zelda manga, one is a collection of zombie stories, and two are recent issues of Scientific American. I was half-crazy when I got everything, but I got so many things because I've been depraved of physical reading material for around a half-week or so.
That may not seem like long to you, but to me, that's almost an eternity. A horrible, horrible eternity in which the only things I have to do are doodle, mindlessly grind in video games and... rot, I suppose. There are friends here and there, but they do not console my lack of books to devour! It's like having an appetite that cannot ever be satiated.
Anyway. The point of this blog is to reintroduce blogging to myself, because I will be doing it again. Not only as another way to shave away some of my free time (which, at the moment - I am jobless - I seem to have too much of), but as a way to put my thoughts out there.
Considering the two Americans I picked up (Italics for titles! I DID NOT PICK UP AMERICAN HOOKERS I SWEAR) have some pretty sex-- interesting issues in them, expect to see a blog on consciousness and "the multiverse".
AND THIS GOD-FORSAKEN OIL SPILL. Scroll down a little on this page. See the blogs from a few months ago - one with a red rage face and another with an exploding head? Combine those and multiply them by two hundred thousand and you'll see how I feel about it!
Today, I went to the library and picked up eight items. Three are books in a new series, two are Legend of Zelda manga, one is a collection of zombie stories, and two are recent issues of Scientific American. I was half-crazy when I got everything, but I got so many things because I've been depraved of physical reading material for around a half-week or so.
That may not seem like long to you, but to me, that's almost an eternity. A horrible, horrible eternity in which the only things I have to do are doodle, mindlessly grind in video games and... rot, I suppose. There are friends here and there, but they do not console my lack of books to devour! It's like having an appetite that cannot ever be satiated.
Anyway. The point of this blog is to reintroduce blogging to myself, because I will be doing it again. Not only as another way to shave away some of my free time (which, at the moment - I am jobless - I seem to have too much of), but as a way to put my thoughts out there.
Considering the two Americans I picked up (Italics for titles! I DID NOT PICK UP AMERICAN HOOKERS I SWEAR) have some pretty sex-- interesting issues in them, expect to see a blog on consciousness and "the multiverse".
AND THIS GOD-FORSAKEN OIL SPILL. Scroll down a little on this page. See the blogs from a few months ago - one with a red rage face and another with an exploding head? Combine those and multiply them by two hundred thousand and you'll see how I feel about it!
Saturday, June 5, 2010
To Blog or Not to Blog...
In the beginning of this semester, I was unsure how I felt about blogs. I hadn't really had much experience with them prior, aside from reading a few here and there. Now, though, I think I might just have to keep this blog running or start a new one.
I really like blogging, and it was a great idea to do it for AP Psychology!
It's absolutely beneficial! Here's how:
+ In this day and age, technology is becoming an ever more important part of our lives. It can absolutely be integrated into school and teaching to improve learning. Blogging helps break the ice - making students used to the idea that technology will soon be omnipresent - and lays out the skeleton for not only the rest of the years the class will be taught, but for integration of technology throughout our school (and, hopefully, everywhere else!)
+ It conserves paper.
+ In some cases, it promotes research and article-reading that wouldn't necessarily happen otherwise.
+ It stimulates and fosters learning - especially the weekly blogs in which we had to draw relations to what we were learning and our lives, personal experiences, or even other subjects. This is crucial and is, for me, the crux of using technology in school in the first place - it's NOT just to make things more convenient!
+ It fosters conversation, whether they are in-class or on blog posts themselves.
In short, I like blogging... and I feel that it should be kept in place as a part of AP Psychology for as long as possible. It would be even better if it spread into other subjects and classes, especially other AP ones!
I really like blogging, and it was a great idea to do it for AP Psychology!
It's absolutely beneficial! Here's how:
+ In this day and age, technology is becoming an ever more important part of our lives. It can absolutely be integrated into school and teaching to improve learning. Blogging helps break the ice - making students used to the idea that technology will soon be omnipresent - and lays out the skeleton for not only the rest of the years the class will be taught, but for integration of technology throughout our school (and, hopefully, everywhere else!)
+ It conserves paper.
+ In some cases, it promotes research and article-reading that wouldn't necessarily happen otherwise.
+ It stimulates and fosters learning - especially the weekly blogs in which we had to draw relations to what we were learning and our lives, personal experiences, or even other subjects. This is crucial and is, for me, the crux of using technology in school in the first place - it's NOT just to make things more convenient!
+ It fosters conversation, whether they are in-class or on blog posts themselves.
In short, I like blogging... and I feel that it should be kept in place as a part of AP Psychology for as long as possible. It would be even better if it spread into other subjects and classes, especially other AP ones!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Do I have a lack of selective attention or something? Damn it! I would much rather have a sub that DOESN'T talk (as opposed to one that talks on and on about banal crap!) when I'm trying to effing write AND read. I just can't tune it all out.
He keeps telling us to do our work (punctuated by being more off-topic), but he doesn't seem to realize that he's freaking enabling it! He was talking about how much Blink 182 "rocks" before. And now he's talking about how he'd name a puppy "Butcher".
Also, he seems to think he's an expert on history. Because he was totally alive when the Civil War happened, riiiiiiiiiiiiight!?
RAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEG
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Boom, baby.
How does consciousness caused/created/a product of/rise from neural and brain processes? How is that even possi--
Single-Neuron Theory of consciousness:
A contrasting model is outlined in the present paper that places the mind/brain interface not at the whole brain level but at the level of the single neuron.� Specifically, the model proposes that a single brain at any given moment harbors many separate conscious minds, each one assumed to be associated with the activity of a different individual neuron.� The model proposes, that is, that what is usually regarded as a person�s single conscious experience correlates not with an integrated neuronal network, but individually with single neurons that separately and redundantly encode the entire conscious content.� Consequently, at any given time, a multitude of conscious beings are assumed to be associated with a single person�s brain, all having identical or at least similar experiences.� Axonal outputs from multiple such neurons are then conjectured to summate, providing amplification of the message being emitted by any one of them.� The overall scheme is one in which conscious behavior, while appearing to be the product of a single macroscopic mind, is actually the result of the superposed output of a chorus of minds, each associated with a different individual neuron.
Electromagnetic Theories of Consciousness: The electromagnetic energy generated by the brain *is* the conscious experience.
TBE, still, mayun.
http://www.societyofrobots.com/robottheory/single-neuron_theory_of_consciousness.html
Single-Neuron Theory of consciousness:
A contrasting model is outlined in the present paper that places the mind/brain interface not at the whole brain level but at the level of the single neuron.� Specifically, the model proposes that a single brain at any given moment harbors many separate conscious minds, each one assumed to be associated with the activity of a different individual neuron.� The model proposes, that is, that what is usually regarded as a person�s single conscious experience correlates not with an integrated neuronal network, but individually with single neurons that separately and redundantly encode the entire conscious content.� Consequently, at any given time, a multitude of conscious beings are assumed to be associated with a single person�s brain, all having identical or at least similar experiences.� Axonal outputs from multiple such neurons are then conjectured to summate, providing amplification of the message being emitted by any one of them.� The overall scheme is one in which conscious behavior, while appearing to be the product of a single macroscopic mind, is actually the result of the superposed output of a chorus of minds, each associated with a different individual neuron.
Electromagnetic Theories of Consciousness: The electromagnetic energy generated by the brain *is* the conscious experience.
TBE, still, mayun.
http://www.societyofrobots.com/robottheory/single-neuron_theory_of_consciousness.html
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Mr. No-Name
This is absolutely not my weekly blog post, and it is definitely not number seven or something similar! It just looks, feels, smells, tastes, sounds, and sweats like it.
-
Mr. Myers discussed sexual orientation in the chapter on motivation. He said some interesting things and made me cringe at some others. One of the cringe-worthy things that he seemed to be assuming or implying is that "gay"/"lesbian" == "homosexual", which is simultaneously absolutely not true and a huuuuuge pet peeve of mine. Anywhat, that's beside the point.
He discussed how homosexuality may be caused or influenced by prenatal, in-utero activity. In a way that is neither a "choice" nor necessarily due to genes(kind of defeating both arguments, hmm?). I think it was pretty much the mother's body inhibiting the development of typical male brain-patters, I do believe, which happens more the more often the mother spurts out male babies. It sort of gave reason to the really weird "if you have older brothers you're more likely to be homosexual" thing, too - why would that have a genetic influence and/or why would a male with older brothers be more likely to "choose" to be homosexual? And, for the other wheel, it creates a predisposition that draws more lines for the coloring book that nurture fills in. Maybe.
Maybe is a baby until you throw in a T-Shit a T-shirt and sunglasses and call it a fact.
--
P.S. From Freudian perspective, is asexuality due to a fixation in the latency phase of psychosexual development?
-
Mr. Myers discussed sexual orientation in the chapter on motivation. He said some interesting things and made me cringe at some others. One of the cringe-worthy things that he seemed to be assuming or implying is that "gay"/"lesbian" == "homosexual", which is simultaneously absolutely not true and a huuuuuge pet peeve of mine. Anywhat, that's beside the point.
He discussed how homosexuality may be caused or influenced by prenatal, in-utero activity. In a way that is neither a "choice" nor necessarily due to genes(kind of defeating both arguments, hmm?). I think it was pretty much the mother's body inhibiting the development of typical male brain-patters, I do believe, which happens more the more often the mother spurts out male babies. It sort of gave reason to the really weird "if you have older brothers you're more likely to be homosexual" thing, too - why would that have a genetic influence and/or why would a male with older brothers be more likely to "choose" to be homosexual? And, for the other wheel, it creates a predisposition that draws more lines for the coloring book that nurture fills in. Maybe.
Maybe is a baby until you throw in a T-Shit a T-shirt and sunglasses and call it a fact.
--
P.S. From Freudian perspective, is asexuality due to a fixation in the latency phase of psychosexual development?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Mine Eyes art Morphing
How the crap did Barb's eyesight change with her personality!?
Eyes don't change shape like that... it must be in her mind, huh?
Eyes don't change shape like that... it must be in her mind, huh?
Friday, April 23, 2010
Your Mind is in My Fist - Bipolar, Part III.
You're late! Naughty.
Man, a person randomly falling through the rabbit hole and ending up on this blog might think I'm obsessed with bipolar, or something. Well, I'm not... I swear...
Something I've not really commented upon yet is how bipolar seems to be disgustingly overdiagnosed - people who have any kind of mood swings automatically assume (or are incorrectly diagnosed as being) bipolar, and this is simply a terrible, terrible thing. It's almost as if misdiagnosis or mis-assumption is becoming a fad - a baffling amount of people attribute their fickleness or mood variations to bipolar. A vast majority of these people need to get taken out back and shot with a moose, I say! The fad it's becoming is doing two things: One, it's maybe making it more common and less stigmatic; Two, it's giving people the wrong treatment, ideas, and excuses; Three, it proves that not every "mental health professional" or "mental health quiz" know what they're talking about.
I have proof (in some form) for the third point: It lies here. I'll finish my rambling later.
You've got a very important date!
Man, a person randomly falling through the rabbit hole and ending up on this blog might think I'm obsessed with bipolar, or something. Well, I'm not... I swear...
Something I've not really commented upon yet is how bipolar seems to be disgustingly overdiagnosed - people who have any kind of mood swings automatically assume (or are incorrectly diagnosed as being) bipolar, and this is simply a terrible, terrible thing. It's almost as if misdiagnosis or mis-assumption is becoming a fad - a baffling amount of people attribute their fickleness or mood variations to bipolar. A vast majority of these people need to get taken out back and shot with a moose, I say! The fad it's becoming is doing two things: One, it's maybe making it more common and less stigmatic; Two, it's giving people the wrong treatment, ideas, and excuses; Three, it proves that not every "mental health professional" or "mental health quiz" know what they're talking about.
I have proof (in some form) for the third point: It lies here. I'll finish my rambling later.
You've got a very important date!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
SUDDENLY-!!
*crash*
Excuse me, I was exploring the moon, and rabid dinosaurs (velociraptors, specifically) chased me off. I free-fell for about three days. I'm as bald as a baby, now. Great.
Anyway. Why am I posting when I already posted this week's blog!? BECAUSE I'M A DEVIANT, THAT'S WHY. Also, I'm feeling froggy at the mo'... OR SHOULD I SAY "BLOGGY"!? Yes. I'm feelin' bloggy at the moment.
For what, though.. I couldn't tell you. I'll edit this later. It'll morph to become this week's zoid.
Excuse me, I was exploring the moon, and rabid dinosaurs (velociraptors, specifically) chased me off. I free-fell for about three days. I'm as bald as a baby, now. Great.
Anyway. Why am I posting when I already posted this week's blog!? BECAUSE I'M A DEVIANT, THAT'S WHY. Also, I'm feeling froggy at the mo'... OR SHOULD I SAY "BLOGGY"!? Yes. I'm feelin' bloggy at the moment.
For what, though.. I couldn't tell you. I'll edit this later. It'll morph to become this week's zoid.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
If I were a hooker, I'd burgle my narcoleptic client.
Nikitha probably beat me to it, but I wonder what it'd be like to have narcolepsy and to TRY to have sex. I mean, you'd get excited and suddenly it's like "DAMMIT I PASSED RIGHT OUT". I think it would be terrifying to be a hooker in that case - I mean, your client just sort of falls asleep! - but it might be a convenient to rob them, then. If I were a hooker in this case and my client just happened to be a rich narcoleptic, I'd totally burgle the CRAP out of them (That is, I'd burgle their stuff, not th-- nevermind...). Is that bad to admi-- Yes. Yes, it absolutely is terrible. That's why I'm not a hooker.
Just kidding. No, no! I'm not a hooker! I mean I wouldn't burgle a client if I was. I don't think I would, anyway - I mean, I can't say I would or wouldn't, since I've never been in the situation. Alright. DONE WITH THAT, kthxbai.
Anyway. I have a connection with sleeping disorders and all that jazz. My dad doesn't get the best sleep, and I sometimes wonder if he's some sort of insomniac. He'll fall asleep for an hour, wake up, be totally alert, drift off again, all while in the living room Lay-Z-Boy (insert Flavor Flav picture here). Then he'll go lay on his bed for an hour, get up, do something else, and end up back in the living room. This is probably somewhat due to the schedule he had to run when he was still a truck driver, but it's weird. And kind of scary. Sometimes he seems visibly tired. I wonder how his brainwaves are, then? I mean, does he ever really get time to enter REM sleep?
Also, I think he had a night terror once. I was doing homework and I he started freaking out (while he was asleep). I tried to wake him up and he told me someone died and he was really upset. Fearful. It was terrifying. I couldn't get him to actually wake up.
Just kidding. No, no! I'm not a hooker! I mean I wouldn't burgle a client if I was. I don't think I would, anyway - I mean, I can't say I would or wouldn't, since I've never been in the situation. Alright. DONE WITH THAT, kthxbai.
Anyway. I have a connection with sleeping disorders and all that jazz. My dad doesn't get the best sleep, and I sometimes wonder if he's some sort of insomniac. He'll fall asleep for an hour, wake up, be totally alert, drift off again, all while in the living room Lay-Z-Boy (insert Flavor Flav picture here). Then he'll go lay on his bed for an hour, get up, do something else, and end up back in the living room. This is probably somewhat due to the schedule he had to run when he was still a truck driver, but it's weird. And kind of scary. Sometimes he seems visibly tired. I wonder how his brainwaves are, then? I mean, does he ever really get time to enter REM sleep?
Also, I think he had a night terror once. I was doing homework and I he started freaking out (while he was asleep). I tried to wake him up and he told me someone died and he was really upset. Fearful. It was terrifying. I couldn't get him to actually wake up.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Bipolar[ism] - Part II
It's been a good eight weeks or so since I discussed anything about bipolar, which I said I was gonna do a little bit of research about.
It's kind of funny, actually, because I totally did research, I just didn't post it.
I can't recall the exact specifics, but I learned that the amygdala in bipolar people have a smaller volume than those in people that aren't bipolar. The hippocampus is a little smaller, too.
And yes, actually, apparently, the onset of this disorder is congruent with menarche or the onset of puberty.
I figure women probably have bipolar more often than men, too. I have no case to back it up, but I'm hazarding a guess that it's because adolescent girls have pretty unstable hormones (more than boys of the same age?) due to puberty and their menstrual cycle. I have no idea if this is right or not, so I won't shoot myself in the face if it isn't.
The real reason for this blog post, however, is because of something that occurred today.
One of my friends said that she doesn't believe bipolar exists. That it's just people looking for an excuse to act erratically (but she said it in a way that was much, MUCH more ignorant than that). The likelihood that she's ever learned or researched anything about this disorder, or any mental disordar, is slimly slim to none-ly none.
I was sitting next to her, trying to hold my tongue, not wanting to argue, since she was REALLY pissing me off today, but I could feel the anger rising like a helium balloon released into the endless sky. Except this balloon of mine was expanding exponentially as it came up. Like a marshmallow in a microwave for too long. I've always had a bit of intolerance of people who have opinions they know nothing about, but this was just too much.
"I absolutely disagree. It's been proven." [I know that using the excuse or reasoning of 'it's been proven!' often to leads to fallacies or 'common sense', such as quoting bullshit or nonexistent research as proof that cats/dogs/marmosets/antelopes have cleaner mouths than humans {which is absolutely false}, but if it was truly nonexistent, wouldn't psychologists and bipolar-ologists know by now, and wouldn't it not, for the most part, affect people so strongly? I also didn't want to get into it too much, because I knew I would get angrier as I was telling her why she was so wrong, so I kept it vague. Excuses, excuses, right?]
I felt like I wanted to scream at her about how insolent and stupid it was of her to say things like that. I can understand maybe thinking that bipolar is sometimes a scapegoat (for people that use it as such), because it absolutely is, but I can't understand the complete dismissal of something that affects the lives of people with it so profoundly. Yes, it's in their mind (and their genes), but many "deviances" from personality and cultural "norms" are due to such things, things that aren't always physically evident. It's also because I feel empathy/sympathy (but not pity) for people with bipolar - they've told me how difficult it can be, how devastating it almost always is, and how it can ruin relationships in a blink.
Excuse, pardon, and allow my oncoming French.
People who know not a goddamned thing about something should not be allowed to ever fucking have an opinion about it. And the only reason they ever should be allowed to have one is if they're willing to learn things that contradict their hard-set beliefs. Maybe I'm just justifying my rage, but I can understand both points of view (to some extent about the "IT IS FAKE DURRHURR") and that's how I formed my opinions about it. I've always felt this way about politics and things like this, but my GOD, it is downright infuriating.
I completely understand Wollersheim's point of having us learn about both arguments about the death penalty ("for" and "against") in Sociology. I just wish I could... just... I don't know. I really don't know what I wish I could do.
It's kind of funny, actually, because I totally did research, I just didn't post it.
I can't recall the exact specifics, but I learned that the amygdala in bipolar people have a smaller volume than those in people that aren't bipolar. The hippocampus is a little smaller, too.
And yes, actually, apparently, the onset of this disorder is congruent with menarche or the onset of puberty.
I figure women probably have bipolar more often than men, too. I have no case to back it up, but I'm hazarding a guess that it's because adolescent girls have pretty unstable hormones (more than boys of the same age?) due to puberty and their menstrual cycle. I have no idea if this is right or not, so I won't shoot myself in the face if it isn't.
The real reason for this blog post, however, is because of something that occurred today.
One of my friends said that she doesn't believe bipolar exists. That it's just people looking for an excuse to act erratically (but she said it in a way that was much, MUCH more ignorant than that). The likelihood that she's ever learned or researched anything about this disorder, or any mental disordar, is slimly slim to none-ly none.
I was sitting next to her, trying to hold my tongue, not wanting to argue, since she was REALLY pissing me off today, but I could feel the anger rising like a helium balloon released into the endless sky. Except this balloon of mine was expanding exponentially as it came up. Like a marshmallow in a microwave for too long. I've always had a bit of intolerance of people who have opinions they know nothing about, but this was just too much.
"I absolutely disagree. It's been proven." [I know that using the excuse or reasoning of 'it's been proven!' often to leads to fallacies or 'common sense', such as quoting bullshit or nonexistent research as proof that cats/dogs/marmosets/antelopes have cleaner mouths than humans {which is absolutely false}, but if it was truly nonexistent, wouldn't psychologists and bipolar-ologists know by now, and wouldn't it not, for the most part, affect people so strongly? I also didn't want to get into it too much, because I knew I would get angrier as I was telling her why she was so wrong, so I kept it vague. Excuses, excuses, right?]
I felt like I wanted to scream at her about how insolent and stupid it was of her to say things like that. I can understand maybe thinking that bipolar is sometimes a scapegoat (for people that use it as such), because it absolutely is, but I can't understand the complete dismissal of something that affects the lives of people with it so profoundly. Yes, it's in their mind (and their genes), but many "deviances" from personality and cultural "norms" are due to such things, things that aren't always physically evident. It's also because I feel empathy/sympathy (but not pity) for people with bipolar - they've told me how difficult it can be, how devastating it almost always is, and how it can ruin relationships in a blink.
Excuse, pardon, and allow my oncoming French.
People who know not a goddamned thing about something should not be allowed to ever fucking have an opinion about it. And the only reason they ever should be allowed to have one is if they're willing to learn things that contradict their hard-set beliefs. Maybe I'm just justifying my rage, but I can understand both points of view (to some extent about the "IT IS FAKE DURRHURR") and that's how I formed my opinions about it. I've always felt this way about politics and things like this, but my GOD, it is downright infuriating.
I completely understand Wollersheim's point of having us learn about both arguments about the death penalty ("for" and "against") in Sociology. I just wish I could... just... I don't know. I really don't know what I wish I could do.
You're as random as...
IV
Wollershimmy (who happens to get at least one new nickname each time I write up a post) said something in class on Monday that caught my attention - that random thoughts aren't random. She said it in context, but maybe as a bit of an afterthought.
I sat it on it a few days (it hatched, surprisingly, even though I've had a cold for a while) and talked with her about it yesterday.
We discussed how people calling people "random" is a fallacy - retrieval cues underlie everything. Unconsciously. Some retrieval cue in your environment is activated, which fetches more cues, and the line goes down, but you're not aware of it. All you're aware of is the end result - a conscious thought, of something usually unrelated. To call oneself "random" is clearly false dichotomy, then; it's certainly a process, even though the result seems nowhere or "out of left field" (why is it "left" field and not "right" field?). And one cannot, therefore, act or think randomly... there is always a reason or process (conscious or unconscious). I may blurt out something about purple pudding (like I did in Ancient Civilizations second term), and you may be like, "That was completely random!" but it really wouldn't be. It would just be my filter between my unconscious "thoughts" and my spoken words being blurred.
One acquaintance in my [now previous] fourth hour said something about him having random thoughts. I countered and told him about retrieval cues and how he was surely unconsciously going down a list. He said I exploded him mind (and one of my friends said mockingly, "I'm Joey, and I'm the king of psychology!", which was maybe a little insulting, but I laughed it off, because it's true... my crown and scepter just haven't been polished with the souls of teenagers, yet).
You know what else is truly never random? Computers.
Wollersparkler also told me a wonderful anecdote about how she [TEXT DELETED FOR THE VICTIM'S SAFETY], and how it made her seem or feel rude, even though it wasn't something she had real control over. I felt bad ("bad" being "damn, that sucks") for her, because my mirror neurons were being stimulated, and because I knew exactly what it felt like to be in that position - it's not like I've never been there before.
All I have to say about that is that maybe it happens because sometimes, it offers a good distraction from some problem at hand. I'll also say that it's a very bad thing when you say the exact wrong thing without consciously regarding it... I made one of my dearest friends cry harder when she was dealing with something hard, and I will never forget it.
Wollershimmy (who happens to get at least one new nickname each time I write up a post) said something in class on Monday that caught my attention - that random thoughts aren't random. She said it in context, but maybe as a bit of an afterthought.
I sat it on it a few days (it hatched, surprisingly, even though I've had a cold for a while) and talked with her about it yesterday.
We discussed how people calling people "random" is a fallacy - retrieval cues underlie everything. Unconsciously. Some retrieval cue in your environment is activated, which fetches more cues, and the line goes down, but you're not aware of it. All you're aware of is the end result - a conscious thought, of something usually unrelated. To call oneself "random" is clearly false dichotomy, then; it's certainly a process, even though the result seems nowhere or "out of left field" (why is it "left" field and not "right" field?). And one cannot, therefore, act or think randomly... there is always a reason or process (conscious or unconscious). I may blurt out something about purple pudding (like I did in Ancient Civilizations second term), and you may be like, "That was completely random!" but it really wouldn't be. It would just be my filter between my unconscious "thoughts" and my spoken words being blurred.
One acquaintance in my [now previous] fourth hour said something about him having random thoughts. I countered and told him about retrieval cues and how he was surely unconsciously going down a list. He said I exploded him mind (and one of my friends said mockingly, "I'm Joey, and I'm the king of psychology!", which was maybe a little insulting, but I laughed it off, because it's true... my crown and scepter just haven't been polished with the souls of teenagers, yet).
You know what else is truly never random? Computers.
Wollersparkler also told me a wonderful anecdote about how she [TEXT DELETED FOR THE VICTIM'S SAFETY], and how it made her seem or feel rude, even though it wasn't something she had real control over. I felt bad ("bad" being "damn, that sucks") for her, because my mirror neurons were being stimulated, and because I knew exactly what it felt like to be in that position - it's not like I've never been there before.
All I have to say about that is that maybe it happens because sometimes, it offers a good distraction from some problem at hand. I'll also say that it's a very bad thing when you say the exact wrong thing without consciously regarding it... I made one of my dearest friends cry harder when she was dealing with something hard, and I will never forget it.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Sextet of Doom
I'm supposed to apply six concepts (in the reading or in the article) to our in-class experiments/activities. I suppose I'll do it... I mean, this is just such a pain! DOESN'T WOLLERSHEIM KNOW THAT I'M TERRIBLY, TERRIBLY UN-GRAMETICULLL AND THAT MY FINGERS ARE PROSTHETICS MADE OF WOOD (like George Washingtooooooooooooooon's teefs!?) GOD, YOU THINK YOU KNOW A PERSON, AND THEY JUST TURN AROUND AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY ASSIGN AN ASSIGNMENT THAT YOU CAN'T DO BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A BABY HIPPOPOTAMUS SITTING ON EACH OF YOUR HANDS, FORCING YOU TO type the rest f this entence with my nose. Yes, I really just did it, too. I am now realizing that these hippos are phantasms (phantom hippohands syndrome?), and that I'm only imagining them... and that I JUST PUT MY NOSE TO A KEYBOARD MULTIPLE TIMES, LIKE A WOODPECKER (keyboardpecker?). I'm going to go disinfect my nose, thanks... it smells like something's burning.
Okay, phew. Now that I'm back and okay with this silly, exacerbating, fantabulous assignment, let me begin by saying two things: One, I like applesauce; Two, I like the color purple; and $, I REALLY like applesauce.
For one of the thingies, we had to balance 10 nails on the head of only one. There were multiple ways to go about it (leaning them against the one, or, as Katie did, putting your nails on your cranium), but Wollersheim was totally intending only one way. Joonho totally took the cake and ate it, right in front of us. He managed to get, like, twenty-six on one nail! That's nuts!
Anyway. None of us knew what we were doing, really (I was really fuzzy today, and Katie and a few others were obsessed over figuring out that icky logic problem). So we just kind of farked around, the magical Wollersaurus Rex gave us a clue with her magical clue-y powers. That's when Joonho was like, "... oh." And he totally nailed it. Anywhere, this proved that my intuition was pretty not-right - my immediate idea wasn't feasible, at least, it wasn't the desired solution. Jared was seemingly overconfident all the time (it was sort of funny, in a grating sort of way). None of us had the correct mental sets, as none of us had done it previously.
We had to make an oldschool record play using some random materials - a pencil, a needle, tape, a piece o' paper, a rubber band, a band-aid, and a tootsie roll - which is a little less awesome than it sounds. It took us a while - we were mostly fixated (meaning "unable to see the problem in a new way") and unable to actually progress. Jared was fixated on wanting the cherry-flavored tootsie roll... that people in our group had touched not inappropriately, but not necessarily appropriately (!).
It took us a bit, but we got it. It was mostly a bout of insight (nudged by an extremely vague question that THE WOLLERSHEIM posed). We totally PWN'D everyone in that you could hear the person's voice and make out the words (Satan-style or chipmunk-style, to be exact), because the needle was sort of skimming the surface of the record, rather than trying to stab it in the face.
Also, SOMEONE (I won't name names... but The Amazing Dubulator totally knows who it was!) told ... Wollershizzle that she should know how they work and what they look like, because she grew up with them, didn't she? I just kind of... stared at the person who said it, unable to fathom that they thought that either she's older (C'mon! She looks young and sometimes like she could totally be a college student!)/that records were around in the late eighties.
Her response was three halves hilarious. I couldn't tell if she thought it was more funny or insulting, though.
Cognition was obviously used for all of these. We thought. Therefore, we were?
P.S. Blogger's examples for tags never change. I want to tag this as "scooters" (because, didn't you know, we rode little scooters around the room while we did this?), but I won't, because nonsense tags go into my sociology blog...
... BUT I'LL TAKE A COOKIE JUST THIS ONCE.
Okay, phew. Now that I'm back and okay with this silly, exacerbating, fantabulous assignment, let me begin by saying two things: One, I like applesauce; Two, I like the color purple; and $, I REALLY like applesauce.
For one of the thingies, we had to balance 10 nails on the head of only one. There were multiple ways to go about it (leaning them against the one, or, as Katie did, putting your nails on your cranium), but Wollersheim was totally intending only one way. Joonho totally took the cake and ate it, right in front of us. He managed to get, like, twenty-six on one nail! That's nuts!
Anyway. None of us knew what we were doing, really (I was really fuzzy today, and Katie and a few others were obsessed over figuring out that icky logic problem). So we just kind of farked around, the magical Wollersaurus Rex gave us a clue with her magical clue-y powers. That's when Joonho was like, "... oh." And he totally nailed it. Anywhere, this proved that my intuition was pretty not-right - my immediate idea wasn't feasible, at least, it wasn't the desired solution. Jared was seemingly overconfident all the time (it was sort of funny, in a grating sort of way). None of us had the correct mental sets, as none of us had done it previously.
We had to make an oldschool record play using some random materials - a pencil, a needle, tape, a piece o' paper, a rubber band, a band-aid, and a tootsie roll - which is a little less awesome than it sounds. It took us a while - we were mostly fixated (meaning "unable to see the problem in a new way") and unable to actually progress. Jared was fixated on wanting the cherry-flavored tootsie roll... that people in our group had touched not inappropriately, but not necessarily appropriately (!).
It took us a bit, but we got it. It was mostly a bout of insight (nudged by an extremely vague question that THE WOLLERSHEIM posed). We totally PWN'D everyone in that you could hear the person's voice and make out the words (Satan-style or chipmunk-style, to be exact), because the needle was sort of skimming the surface of the record, rather than trying to stab it in the face.
Also, SOMEONE (I won't name names... but The Amazing Dubulator totally knows who it was!) told ... Wollershizzle that she should know how they work and what they look like, because she grew up with them, didn't she? I just kind of... stared at the person who said it, unable to fathom that they thought that either she's older (C'mon! She looks young and sometimes like she could totally be a college student!)/that records were around in the late eighties.
Her response was three halves hilarious. I couldn't tell if she thought it was more funny or insulting, though.
Cognition was obviously used for all of these. We thought. Therefore, we were?
P.S. Blogger's examples for tags never change. I want to tag this as "scooters" (because, didn't you know, we rode little scooters around the room while we did this?), but I won't, because nonsense tags go into my sociology blog...
... BUT I'LL TAKE A COOKIE JUST THIS ONCE.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
If you reach into someone's mind, you can feel emotions.
I had a pretty nice debate with you today, Mrs. Wollersheim. You're a good person to bounce ideas off of and to talk to about interesting little nuggets I find lying around.
For all of you that have no idea what I'm talking about, we talked about motivation today in AP Psych. There are two (main) types of motivation - intrinsic and extrinsic. Basically, they break down into "doing it just for doing it" and "doing it to receive a tangible reward".
My argument was that the line between intrinsic and extrinsic is not clear-cut and defined. There's a lot of blur. My main point is while you can't exactly touch emotions, they are tangible, because they manifest themselves in physical ways - after all, aren't they just mostly mechanisms and chemicals?.
If a murder takes pleasure in killing someone, they may do it because they extrinsically get to witness their victim dying by their own hands, but I think they also do it because seeing that makes them feel good. But the "good feelings" are tangible - they feel the happiness inside of them, the "happiness" maybe even ... makes itself noticeable physically (you know exactly where this is headed, right?).
If you reach into someone's body and grab a fistfull of something and yank it out, you'll most likely get guts (or blood vessels, etc). Physical physical things. If you reach into their brain, you'll get neurons and gray matter and gunk. But if you reach into their mind (which in itself isn't strictly a tangible thing, now is it?), you'll pull out thoughts and feelings and emotions and maybe even personality traits.
As far as we know, emotions and thoughts don't exist on a physical plane the same way, say, we do (excluding the biological processes that make them, which means they're tangible, I'd say!), but I don't think that they don't serve as a source for motivation. Double negatives, baby!
What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that feelings can absolutely be extrinsic motivation. Maybe I like reading because I get benefits, rewards for doing it - an increased vocabulary, a growing ability to understand what I am made to read. I don't think we necessarily have to be aware of our motivation, however.
(Three.)
For all of you that have no idea what I'm talking about, we talked about motivation today in AP Psych. There are two (main) types of motivation - intrinsic and extrinsic. Basically, they break down into "doing it just for doing it" and "doing it to receive a tangible reward".
My argument was that the line between intrinsic and extrinsic is not clear-cut and defined. There's a lot of blur. My main point is while you can't exactly touch emotions, they are tangible, because they manifest themselves in physical ways - after all, aren't they just mostly mechanisms and chemicals?.
If a murder takes pleasure in killing someone, they may do it because they extrinsically get to witness their victim dying by their own hands, but I think they also do it because seeing that makes them feel good. But the "good feelings" are tangible - they feel the happiness inside of them, the "happiness" maybe even ... makes itself noticeable physically (you know exactly where this is headed, right?).
If you reach into someone's body and grab a fistfull of something and yank it out, you'll most likely get guts (or blood vessels, etc). Physical physical things. If you reach into their brain, you'll get neurons and gray matter and gunk. But if you reach into their mind (which in itself isn't strictly a tangible thing, now is it?), you'll pull out thoughts and feelings and emotions and maybe even personality traits.
As far as we know, emotions and thoughts don't exist on a physical plane the same way, say, we do (excluding the biological processes that make them, which means they're tangible, I'd say!), but I don't think that they don't serve as a source for motivation. Double negatives, baby!
What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that feelings can absolutely be extrinsic motivation. Maybe I like reading because I get benefits, rewards for doing it - an increased vocabulary, a growing ability to understand what I am made to read. I don't think we necessarily have to be aware of our motivation, however.
(Three.)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Strangedreams Numeros 1-3
I've decided to record my dreams again, but this time, they'll be on my blog. I have lazy hands and don't want to write, but my fingers are always rarin' to type out blog posts that are much too long.
3/16 I dreamed a series of related, connected dreams. Or maybe it was all part of one, I don't know. Maybe they were truly three parts of one giant, meaty tentacle; or maybe they were three tentacles on a huge, throbbing octopuuuuusssssssssssssssthhhhhhh. Anyway, they all had some friends in them. One of which is John (HIIII JOHN!), and another is Kelsey.
#1 I was in school, but in a room I've never seen before. I think it was probably made up. There was a gigantic circular table in the middle of the room, with a few desks scattered around it. I picked one of these desks, and I looked around to see if there was anyone I knew. Suddenly, I noticed Kelsey was sitting right next to me, already talking. We idly chatted until I noticed the teacher (an obese old man with a terrifying face) was staring at us with a snarl displayed on his face, much like a television displays a crowd of rabid babies. We quickly shut up and he handed out a test and told us, without words, to DO IT. I remember looking at the sheet and seeing mostly essay questions (but I don't remember what they actually said, of course). I read them and felt that there was no way I could do them. Then the rest of the class, including Kelsey, suddenly left, and the teacher told me I had five minutes to complete the test. My dream ended.
#2 I got a phone call from John to come to the mall. I felt really excited. I went into the connected ShopKo and by the bathrooms, where I found John with a pretty large circle of people. The few that I actually recognized were Ashley G. and Lindsey S. (I'm not entirely sure either of them are in John's immediate hanging-out group), and some girl was hanging all over John, who was acting with slight indifference to her. She removed her death grip from his waist and sauntered up to me and presented me with a box, and said, "If you're a good boy, you'll get a reward." John was frowning sadly. I took hold of the box and fumbled it, crashing into Lindsey and saying, "Sorry, Lindsey!", but she turned into Ashley and complained about being called Lindsey. I tried to tell her that she was Lindsey a second ago, but it fell upon un-hearing ears. Suddenly, everyone was at a really long table (still in ShopKo, mind you), and I opened the box. In it were strangely shaped glass goblets (their bases/"stems" were curved like a dragon's horn). I instantaneously knew it was my job to pass them out to everyone. The girl lead me to believe that I was only there because there was an extra goblet, and because they couldn't think of anyone else to be their servant. Everyone except John (who seemed to be rather subdued and sad or angry at the treatment I was getting, but not saying anything) echoed this sentiment as I laid the goblets on their plates. I took my seat (not even at the table) and frowned because I didn't want any wine - I felt so isolated.
#3 I was back at the school, but in some strange, grandiose hallway with a very high ceiling. I was standing absently by the middle of a wall, looking upset (which, of course, no one noticed). John walked by and started talking to me and asked what was wrong. I told him that it was nothing and he told me that he was terribly sorry, but that the girl wouldn't let him speak out (for reasons he didn't get in to), We walked to my class, idly chatting, and sat down in a few desks. We kept on talking until I noticed the teacher (the same setting and person as dream #1) was staring at us, seemingly waiting for us to talk. John was saying something, so I didn't want to cut him off. Suddenly, it cut to a scene at the back of the room... some guy was strangling a sad-looking teddy bear, which was bleeding profusely out of the mouth. The teacher ran back to the guy to ask him how he managed to do that (he seemed VERY excited!) and it was SUDDENLY REVEALED that the teddy bear was actually the teacher.
And that's where it ended and I woke up. Trust me, I was pretty confused.
3/16 I dreamed a series of related, connected dreams. Or maybe it was all part of one, I don't know. Maybe they were truly three parts of one giant, meaty tentacle; or maybe they were three tentacles on a huge, throbbing octopuuuuusssssssssssssssthhhhhhh. Anyway, they all had some friends in them. One of which is John (HIIII JOHN!), and another is Kelsey.
#1 I was in school, but in a room I've never seen before. I think it was probably made up. There was a gigantic circular table in the middle of the room, with a few desks scattered around it. I picked one of these desks, and I looked around to see if there was anyone I knew. Suddenly, I noticed Kelsey was sitting right next to me, already talking. We idly chatted until I noticed the teacher (an obese old man with a terrifying face) was staring at us with a snarl displayed on his face, much like a television displays a crowd of rabid babies. We quickly shut up and he handed out a test and told us, without words, to DO IT. I remember looking at the sheet and seeing mostly essay questions (but I don't remember what they actually said, of course). I read them and felt that there was no way I could do them. Then the rest of the class, including Kelsey, suddenly left, and the teacher told me I had five minutes to complete the test. My dream ended.
#2 I got a phone call from John to come to the mall. I felt really excited. I went into the connected ShopKo and by the bathrooms, where I found John with a pretty large circle of people. The few that I actually recognized were Ashley G. and Lindsey S. (I'm not entirely sure either of them are in John's immediate hanging-out group), and some girl was hanging all over John, who was acting with slight indifference to her. She removed her death grip from his waist and sauntered up to me and presented me with a box, and said, "If you're a good boy, you'll get a reward." John was frowning sadly. I took hold of the box and fumbled it, crashing into Lindsey and saying, "Sorry, Lindsey!", but she turned into Ashley and complained about being called Lindsey. I tried to tell her that she was Lindsey a second ago, but it fell upon un-hearing ears. Suddenly, everyone was at a really long table (still in ShopKo, mind you), and I opened the box. In it were strangely shaped glass goblets (their bases/"stems" were curved like a dragon's horn). I instantaneously knew it was my job to pass them out to everyone. The girl lead me to believe that I was only there because there was an extra goblet, and because they couldn't think of anyone else to be their servant. Everyone except John (who seemed to be rather subdued and sad or angry at the treatment I was getting, but not saying anything) echoed this sentiment as I laid the goblets on their plates. I took my seat (not even at the table) and frowned because I didn't want any wine - I felt so isolated.
#3 I was back at the school, but in some strange, grandiose hallway with a very high ceiling. I was standing absently by the middle of a wall, looking upset (which, of course, no one noticed). John walked by and started talking to me and asked what was wrong. I told him that it was nothing and he told me that he was terribly sorry, but that the girl wouldn't let him speak out (for reasons he didn't get in to), We walked to my class, idly chatting, and sat down in a few desks. We kept on talking until I noticed the teacher (the same setting and person as dream #1) was staring at us, seemingly waiting for us to talk. John was saying something, so I didn't want to cut him off. Suddenly, it cut to a scene at the back of the room... some guy was strangling a sad-looking teddy bear, which was bleeding profusely out of the mouth. The teacher ran back to the guy to ask him how he managed to do that (he seemed VERY excited!) and it was SUDDENLY REVEALED that the teddy bear was actually the teacher.
And that's where it ended and I woke up. Trust me, I was pretty confused.
World of Warconditioning
I found an article that talked about how conditioning is used to keep users subscribing to MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online) video games, such as World of Warcraft.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Perro es muy, muy ... muerde?
While I believe that, in most cases, simply posting about the most obvious relations to what we've learned in the week is somewhat lame, I am forced to do it. At least for now. Therefore, I am a part-time lame-o. Silly blog assignments! Trix are for children!
(Neither my pants, my shirt, nor the chair I am leaning upon have zig-zag patterns... why is that pattern stamped all across my knuckles?)
We're learning about learning this week. (I can't wait until we get to memory, finally...) Which is kind of funny, in retrospect, but in a completely unfunny way.
When I was NUMBER (I don't remember what age I was, but I was fairly young; therefore, NUMBER), I walked across the street to our mailbox, not to do anything crazy, but to get our mail. After I grab the mail and start to turn around to walk back, this HUGE dog, a giant golden retreiver, runs towards me, snarling and barking and scaring the bajesus (bejesus? bejeesus?) out of me. Naturally, I book it for our house, screaming my little head off, and the dog chases me. Conveniently, my dad was in the van at the time, and I ran onto the porch while he chased that stupid canine away.
Naturally, the k-9 belonged to the adjective man that lived on the corner of the street (I can't think of an adjective that was mean enough to describe him and his family.) I distinctly remember many encounters with him and his what-load of animals - he had a chicken, I think, and a bulldog (I accidentally typed "bulldozer") that always liked to dump in our front yard. I also remember his children being absolutely nuts - his little girl was running around on our half of the block in her skivvies and screaming like a loon. My dad and our cool-neighbor-to-the-left, Jerry, called the cops on him multiple times for his general shenanigans. I think he moved because no one liked him (and because my dad and Jerry weren't going to take disrespect sitting down), or because he got kicked out by the sasquatches or something.
Anyway, me getting the mail would definitely count as the neutral stimulus, which ended up becoming the conditioned stimulus. The dog galloping after me was absolutely the unconditioned stimulus, and my natural, unconditioned reaction was to be scared out of my skin (not my hair though, because my hair was nowhere near as impressive as it is today). My conditioned response was fear. This "incident" also most likely maybe a little bit hardened my fear of dogs.
Therefore, every time I go get the mail, I look around nervously or am acutely aware of my surroundings, just waiting for a dog to materialize outta nuthin' and try to moiduh me. I've generalized about being vaguely nervous about street-crossing in general. And dogs.
The street-crossing part has become partially extinct. I don't usually think about it anymore. BUT THE DOGS ARE ALWAYS THERE. If I'm walking down the street and I hear a dog barking, my heart starts to race and my fight-or-flight response kicks in. I've been known to scoot to the other side of the street or to start running away as fast as I can, even if it's a poodle, even if it's obviously chained up securely.
My friend Sig's mother, Peggy, has a little chihuahua. How do you think I feel anout the damned thing?
(Neither my pants, my shirt, nor the chair I am leaning upon have zig-zag patterns... why is that pattern stamped all across my knuckles?)
We're learning about learning this week. (I can't wait until we get to memory, finally...) Which is kind of funny, in retrospect, but in a completely unfunny way.
When I was NUMBER (I don't remember what age I was, but I was fairly young; therefore, NUMBER), I walked across the street to our mailbox, not to do anything crazy, but to get our mail. After I grab the mail and start to turn around to walk back, this HUGE dog, a giant golden retreiver, runs towards me, snarling and barking and scaring the bajesus (bejesus? bejeesus?) out of me. Naturally, I book it for our house, screaming my little head off, and the dog chases me. Conveniently, my dad was in the van at the time, and I ran onto the porch while he chased that stupid canine away.
Naturally, the k-9 belonged to the adjective man that lived on the corner of the street (I can't think of an adjective that was mean enough to describe him and his family.) I distinctly remember many encounters with him and his what-load of animals - he had a chicken, I think, and a bulldog (I accidentally typed "bulldozer") that always liked to dump in our front yard. I also remember his children being absolutely nuts - his little girl was running around on our half of the block in her skivvies and screaming like a loon. My dad and our cool-neighbor-to-the-left, Jerry, called the cops on him multiple times for his general shenanigans. I think he moved because no one liked him (and because my dad and Jerry weren't going to take disrespect sitting down), or because he got kicked out by the sasquatches or something.
Anyway, me getting the mail would definitely count as the neutral stimulus, which ended up becoming the conditioned stimulus. The dog galloping after me was absolutely the unconditioned stimulus, and my natural, unconditioned reaction was to be scared out of my skin (not my hair though, because my hair was nowhere near as impressive as it is today). My conditioned response was fear. This "incident" also most likely maybe a little bit hardened my fear of dogs.
Therefore, every time I go get the mail, I look around nervously or am acutely aware of my surroundings, just waiting for a dog to materialize outta nuthin' and try to moiduh me. I've generalized about being vaguely nervous about street-crossing in general. And dogs.
The street-crossing part has become partially extinct. I don't usually think about it anymore. BUT THE DOGS ARE ALWAYS THERE. If I'm walking down the street and I hear a dog barking, my heart starts to race and my fight-or-flight response kicks in. I've been known to scoot to the other side of the street or to start running away as fast as I can, even if it's a poodle, even if it's obviously chained up securely.
My friend Sig's mother, Peggy, has a little chihuahua. How do you think I feel anout the damned thing?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Colorize me to the moon, baby.
I was thinking this week about colors. Especially the ones our cones detect - red, blue, and green. There's nothing inherently interesting about them if you look at them only as three colors (out of millions, billions, trillions, quadrillions?), but combined, they have interesting properties.
It's pretty obvious that the light spectrum doesn't necessarily match up with the color wheel of art. According to the color wheel, blue and orange are opposing colors (while the book says that yellow and blue are, in fact, the complimentary color set). There are other obvious discrepancies between the systems.
Red and green makes yellow, at least, according to our sight/when mixing light. When you mix them physically, with any medium (color pencils, watercolors, pastels, paints), you get an icky, brownish color that results from mixing two opposing colors. But how does this work?
To the right is a depiction of the RGB color model. As you can see, colors
like oranges and purples are results of different primary color balances (orange has a higher red concentration, while purple is more blue).
This has a biological basis - this is how our eyes perceive color.
But the art-y RYB color model, pictured to the left, seems to be how most physical media works. If you mix equal amounts of red and green... you don't get yellow! SURPRISE! Did that startle you!? I hope it did! I understand how this theory came to be, though - it was "invented" long, lonnnng, lonnnnnnnnng before the structure of the eye and color sight were adequately understood.
But the big picture, the big point to this wad of colorful text, is this question:
Are these two color models related? That is, while physical media may mix according to RYB, do we see it thanks to RGB? * **
*The answer, I think, is "probably". But, at the same time, there are many other different types of color models and they're all probably somewhat correct.
** THIS POST IS SECRETLY THE SECOND EDITION OF "Weekly Blogging Assignment". Don't take off its mask, or the festering bodies will get'cha!
It's pretty obvious that the light spectrum doesn't necessarily match up with the color wheel of art. According to the color wheel, blue and orange
Red and green makes yellow, at least, according to our sight/when mixing light. When you mix them physically, with any medium (color pencils, watercolors, pastels, paints), you get an icky, brownish color that results from mixing two opposing colors. But how does this work?
To the right is a depiction of the RGB color model. As you can see, colors
like oranges and purples are results of different primary color balances (orange has a higher red concentration, while purple is more blue).
This has a biological basis - this is how our eyes perceive color.
But the art-y RYB color model, pictured to the left, seems to be how most physical media works. If you mix equal amounts of red and green... you don't get yellow! SURPRISE! Did that startle you!? I hope it did! I understand how this theory came to be, though - it was "invented" long, lonnnng, lonnnnnnnnng before the structure of the eye and color sight were adequately understood.But the big picture, the big point to this wad of colorful text, is this question:
Are these two color models related? That is, while physical media may mix according to RYB, do we see it thanks to RGB? * **
*The answer, I think, is "probably". But, at the same time, there are many other different types of color models and they're all probably somewhat correct.
** THIS POST IS SECRETLY THE SECOND EDITION OF "Weekly Blogging Assignment". Don't take off its mask, or the festering bodies will get'cha!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
PSA
http://www.youtube.com/user/appsychology1023
"Kelsey, Meghan, Allen PSA - Ashwaubenon"
http://www.youtube.com/user/appsychology1023#p/a/u/2/6I1L6LT_0NE
"Jared, Alicia, and Katie PSA"
http://www.youtube.com/user/appsychology1023#p/u/5/j0qoY_5ymOo
"Mariah, Katie, Patrick PSA"
The last one, by Mariah, Katie, and Patrick is by far my favorite PSA. The information is well put-together, incluing shots of the actual places they're talking about. The humor aspect is great, too - it keeps it really entertaining (and Mariah was probably really cold). The little song is amazing, too. They actually made it seem like a public service announcement! I really liked how they connected school to learning how to employ abstract thought.
Monday, March 1, 2010
This is where the title goes.
I'm feeling really interested in becoming a psychologist. I don't know what... kind, though.
Being an art therapist might be neat. Or a clinical psychologist.
But I don't know if I have enough self-confidence in order to do either of these things. Nor do I have money - I'd almost have to go to grad school to be able to actually work in my profession, wouldn't I?
I'd ask what you think, but I don't know if anyone really pays attention to my quaint, little blog. Hahaha...
Being an art therapist might be neat. Or a clinical psychologist.
But I don't know if I have enough self-confidence in order to do either of these things. Nor do I have money - I'd almost have to go to grad school to be able to actually work in my profession, wouldn't I?
I'd ask what you think, but I don't know if anyone really pays attention to my quaint, little blog. Hahaha...
Friday, February 26, 2010
Weekly Blogging Assignment No. I
We read an article that talked about how the median age of "puberty onset" in girls is movin' on up, and how very young, developed girls are more common these days. I remembered reading a while ago about that one Peruvian girl (Lina Medina, I believe?) showed signs of puberty at the tender age of three, and got pregnant at age five. This was a while back, too - maybe in the forties or fifties. Her father was arrested for incestual, statutory rape, but he was later acquitted of all charges.
It's absolutely terrifying, in my opinion. Especially the last part - girls don't just randomly get pregnant without any sexual contact (unless you're Mary... but how the crap does that work, anyway?), so that means that SOME man had some form of sex with her. Aside from that, it's kind of scary, anyway. I saw a picture of her when she was pregnant and she looked so... young. Completely unequipped to carry a baby at her age. She delivered by cesarean section, of course, or the baby probably would have split her open.
The family treated the baby like a "younger brother", and Lina preferred to play with toys more than she did her child. He was not told of his "sister's" actual relation to him until he was older.
This is probably, hopefully, a once-in-a-blue-Moon case, but relating to the article we read, what is the possible evolutionary benefit to entering puberty at such a young age? Correct me if I'm wrong, but, aren't most qualities attained through evolution somehow beneficial to the current people that have them (but not necessarily the later ones - I'm looking at you, fear of spiders!). I just can't muster the brainpower to even comprehend why this could possibly be due to actual evolution - with our life expectancies so high, why would we need to attain the ability to become pregnant so much more early?
It's absolutely terrifying, in my opinion. Especially the last part - girls don't just randomly get pregnant without any sexual contact (unless you're Mary... but how the crap does that work, anyway?), so that means that SOME man had some form of sex with her. Aside from that, it's kind of scary, anyway. I saw a picture of her when she was pregnant and she looked so... young. Completely unequipped to carry a baby at her age. She delivered by cesarean section, of course, or the baby probably would have split her open.
The family treated the baby like a "younger brother", and Lina preferred to play with toys more than she did her child. He was not told of his "sister's" actual relation to him until he was older.
This is probably, hopefully, a once-in-a-blue-Moon case, but relating to the article we read, what is the possible evolutionary benefit to entering puberty at such a young age? Correct me if I'm wrong, but, aren't most qualities attained through evolution somehow beneficial to the current people that have them (but not necessarily the later ones - I'm looking at you, fear of spiders!). I just can't muster the brainpower to even comprehend why this could possibly be due to actual evolution - with our life expectancies so high, why would we need to attain the ability to become pregnant so much more early?
Monday, February 22, 2010
Bipolar[ism?] - Part I
["Bipolar" sounds weird, since it's used as the disorder, the person that has the disorder, and the state of having the disorder. ENGLISH IS WEIRD... not that other languages aren't.]
The other day, I was talking to a dear friend of mine [Let's call her "K"!] about bipolar. She's a type II bipolar; she offered a lot of insight on what it's like to actually be bipolar. She gave it a human face.
I had some prior knowledge, such as the basics of what the symptoms are, and that while its origin is shrouded in mystery, it is thought to be a result of some form of chemical or hormone imbalance. It is also relatively universal knowledge that bipolar is heavily based on genetics.
I asked a lot of questions, and she told me about the mood swings, the rapid cycling, the difficulties, the feeling of nothingness. [I even asked if me being so inquisitive was annoying, and she told me it wasn't: I was asking the "right" questions, and she knew I was especially interested in how it could apply to my "learnings".]
I was thinking about what she told me last night when I was in the shower, and a thought shouted, "How is bipolar related to the amygdala?" Another thought stemming from this asked, "How is bipolar related to puberty and, in girls, the menstrual cycle?"
K told me that she was a relatively normal child, and that her first mood shift/rapid cycle happened when she was twelve. I made a connection - to what we're learning at the moment - in that the average age of first menstruation [menarche] is 12.5. Could this mean that there's some correlation between onset of menstruation or puberty - with release of new hormones or upped amounts of old hormones? The hole in this is that bipolar also is diagnosed in children and adults, but still, it's an idea, isn't it?
I did a little research in Ceramics today and found that, in people suffering from bipolar, the amygdala are significantly smaller, volume-wise. The hippocampi are also somewhat smaller than those of their "regular", "normal" counterparts.
I also learned that womens' bipolar/mood cycles may fluctuate along with their menstrual cycle. Hmm.
I'll do more "investigation" over the weekend, and I'll discuss them here, in "Part II".
The other day, I was talking to a dear friend of mine [Let's call her "K"!] about bipolar. She's a type II bipolar; she offered a lot of insight on what it's like to actually be bipolar. She gave it a human face.
I had some prior knowledge, such as the basics of what the symptoms are, and that while its origin is shrouded in mystery, it is thought to be a result of some form of chemical or hormone imbalance. It is also relatively universal knowledge that bipolar is heavily based on genetics.
I asked a lot of questions, and she told me about the mood swings, the rapid cycling, the difficulties, the feeling of nothingness. [I even asked if me being so inquisitive was annoying, and she told me it wasn't: I was asking the "right" questions, and she knew I was especially interested in how it could apply to my "learnings".]
I was thinking about what she told me last night when I was in the shower, and a thought shouted, "How is bipolar related to the amygdala?" Another thought stemming from this asked, "How is bipolar related to puberty and, in girls, the menstrual cycle?"
K told me that she was a relatively normal child, and that her first mood shift/rapid cycle happened when she was twelve. I made a connection - to what we're learning at the moment - in that the average age of first menstruation [menarche] is 12.5. Could this mean that there's some correlation between onset of menstruation or puberty - with release of new hormones or upped amounts of old hormones? The hole in this is that bipolar also is diagnosed in children and adults, but still, it's an idea, isn't it?
I did a little research in Ceramics today and found that, in people suffering from bipolar, the amygdala are significantly smaller, volume-wise. The hippocampi are also somewhat smaller than those of their "regular", "normal" counterparts.
I also learned that womens' bipolar/mood cycles may fluctuate along with their menstrual cycle. Hmm.
I'll do more "investigation" over the weekend, and I'll discuss them here, in "Part II".
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Color Sightongue
Technology is amazing, to be honest. Especially in the studies profiled in this article.
When the subject receives pricks or pulses on their tongue [based on sophisticated technology that changes the intensity of the pulses or pricks based on things such as contrast, in white or black, or in spatial positioning, in the form of balance], the sensory neurons *on* the tongue are activated. These neurons, feeling input, generate action potential and "fire" down the dendrites, through the cell body, down the axon, out the axon terminal, and across the synapse (with the use of neurotransmitters), where the message/impulse/action potential is sent to the next neuron. This process is repeated, in a startlingly short amount of time, until the message/impulse reaches an interneuron in the spinal cord. It ascends to the top of the spinal cord, into the thalamus.
The thalamus, being somewhat similar to a flight-director with bright orange batons, figures out where to send the sensory input. In the case of the blind-person-that-"sees"-with-his-tongue, the thalamus recognizes the input as optical input. The input is sent to the occipital lobes, the main house of vision.
The message is then read and interpreted. The more often the brain uses this pathway, the more strong it gets. Older, infrequently-used pathways are pruned and discarded. This illustrates the brain's ability to reassign and make new pathways at its best. The strength of the little powerhouse that is the brain is simply amazing.
When the subject receives pricks or pulses on their tongue [based on sophisticated technology that changes the intensity of the pulses or pricks based on things such as contrast, in white or black, or in spatial positioning, in the form of balance], the sensory neurons *on* the tongue are activated. These neurons, feeling input, generate action potential and "fire" down the dendrites, through the cell body, down the axon, out the axon terminal, and across the synapse (with the use of neurotransmitters), where the message/impulse/action potential is sent to the next neuron. This process is repeated, in a startlingly short amount of time, until the message/impulse reaches an interneuron in the spinal cord. It ascends to the top of the spinal cord, into the thalamus.
The thalamus, being somewhat similar to a flight-director with bright orange batons, figures out where to send the sensory input. In the case of the blind-person-that-"sees"-with-his-tongue, the thalamus recognizes the input as optical input. The input is sent to the occipital lobes, the main house of vision.
The message is then read and interpreted. The more often the brain uses this pathway, the more strong it gets. Older, infrequently-used pathways are pruned and discarded. This illustrates the brain's ability to reassign and make new pathways at its best. The strength of the little powerhouse that is the brain is simply amazing.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Mescaline - Agonist or Antagonist?
Mescaline is a type of hallucinogenic drug that is obtained from a type of spineless cactus (which is unintentionally hilarious - "Heeeey broooooo, I'm trippin' on some cactus riiiiight nowww... Why are you purple aaaand five-faaaaced?"). It is an agonist, which means it stimulates a type of receptor (a certain serotonin receptor, actually) and somehow causes hallucinations. It is unknown how exactly it activates the receptor to cause said hallucinations, however.
A trip on mescaline leads to intense colors, flattening of three-dimensional objects, kaleidoscopic patterns, and sympathetic arousal (like the side effects of the fight-or-flight process). It lasts up to twelve hours.
A trip on mescaline leads to intense colors, flattening of three-dimensional objects, kaleidoscopic patterns, and sympathetic arousal (like the side effects of the fight-or-flight process). It lasts up to twelve hours.
Monday, February 1, 2010
YouTube Video Assignment!
I liked the assignment, but I wish we had had more time to actually film it. Mine was sort of scrambled and hurried because I was having some major problems - I couldn't do what I actually wanted to do, which was to play both parts and do edits and cuts in Windows Movie Maker - my camera apparently doesn't record in the right freaking format for Windows to be able to read it (because Windows is about as smart as a bag of shoes, sometimes!), but John was gracious enough to let me use his camera and to film me himself, so that was really awesome, and watching some of the videos was pretty fun, too. Notable ones were Noah's video and Claire and Kelsey's video. The sockpuppets were nuts, but not in a bad way.
The idea of the assignment was good, and as always, some people broke through and rose to the top, making other people not look like they put very much effort into the assignment, which in some cases is absolutely not true. I felt that mine could have been so much better, but it was ruined, castrated by Windows and me being nervous on film, knowing that at least 24 sets of eyes would be secretly judging my performance. Oh well, though.
I think that the only thing the teachers could do to make the assignment better would to allow maybe just a little more time for it to be completed - if I had had the weekend to finish it, for example, it would have been a lot more consistent, entertaining, and put-together.
Sources for video:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/marycalkins.html
http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/CALKINS.html
The idea of the assignment was good, and as always, some people broke through and rose to the top, making other people not look like they put very much effort into the assignment, which in some cases is absolutely not true. I felt that mine could have been so much better, but it was ruined, castrated by Windows and me being nervous on film, knowing that at least 24 sets of eyes would be secretly judging my performance. Oh well, though.
I think that the only thing the teachers could do to make the assignment better would to allow maybe just a little more time for it to be completed - if I had had the weekend to finish it, for example, it would have been a lot more consistent, entertaining, and put-together.
Sources for video:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/marycalkins.html
http://www.astr.ua.edu/4000WS/CALKINS.html
Standard Deviation
Control (Comprehension):
Mean - 13
Median - 12
Mode - 12
SD - +/- 3.26
Experimental (Visualization)
Mean - 16.03
Median - 17.5
Mode - 20 and 19
SD - +/- 14.51
Experimental (Pronounciation)
Mean - 6.27
Median - 6
Mode - 6 and 8
SD - +/- 2.08
Mean - 13
Median - 12
Mode - 12
SD - +/- 3.26
Experimental (Visualization)
Mean - 16.03
Median - 17.5
Mode - 20 and 19
SD - +/- 14.51
Experimental (Pronounciation)
Mean - 6.27
Median - 6
Mode - 6 and 8
SD - +/- 2.08
Thursday, January 28, 2010
In-Class: One
We did an in-class experiment today: the tried-and-tested "Which is better for recalling sentences?" one. Since our classroom is sort of split into three, we had three groups. One of which, the "middle one", was the control group - this is the group that focused on understanding what the sentences were*. The other two, on opposite sides of the room, focused on visualizing the sentences and pronouncing them, respectively. This experiment was single-blind in its nature - the instructor knows what's going on, but the experiments are kept in the dark. Most of the students didn't act as if they knew what was going on, however; but, some of us, myself included, knew what to expect. The sentences were to be rated on how easy it was to understand the stated sentences, and students were later asked to recall all twenty of them. The independent variable of this experiment would certainly have to be the instructions on the papers - the three "sections" of the room had different instructions from one another - and the dependent variable was how well the students remembered the sentences based on the independent variable. The results were pretty cut-and-dry - the students that focused on the pronunciation got maybe half, at best, the scores of the other two groups. It showed that visualization of information can be a very nice little boost in learning.
* One may argue that the group that focused on pronunciation is not, in fact, an experimental group, that it is, rather, the control group. I disagree with this because not only does pronunciation play a huge part in remembering things [especially words - you don't randomly forget how to pronounce the word "orange"], but because without pronunciation, language as we know it would not exist. Someone can say a sentence and get the meaning wrong/completely misunderstand it, but in most cases, if previously exposed to the words, they will pronounce the words correctly.
I was a part of the pronunciation group, and I got the highest score. I think it was because, for me, I remembered the most ridiculous ones the easiest. Like the one about the lanky leprechaun [which doesn't even make sense!].
* One may argue that the group that focused on pronunciation is not, in fact, an experimental group, that it is, rather, the control group. I disagree with this because not only does pronunciation play a huge part in remembering things [especially words - you don't randomly forget how to pronounce the word "orange"], but because without pronunciation, language as we know it would not exist. Someone can say a sentence and get the meaning wrong/completely misunderstand it, but in most cases, if previously exposed to the words, they will pronounce the words correctly.
I was a part of the pronunciation group, and I got the highest score. I think it was because, for me, I remembered the most ridiculous ones the easiest. Like the one about the lanky leprechaun [which doesn't even make sense!].
Technology
I'm posting this blog from my assigned netbook. Number twelve, baby. This is SO weird! The keys are pretty little, and I don't like the trackpad (but I could always ask to bring a wireless mouse and plug it in or something, I hope?), though. There's a webcam installed and it's honestly sort of creepy, since I've heard horror stories about hackers hacking webcams and watching people... and I can't turn this one arounnnnd! But it's okay, because no hacker can hack the mysterious power of Afroman. Just kidding... I don't have an afro.
Even though I don't have an afro (yes, I'm implying that most tech-geeks have secret, invisible afros), I like technology. Sometimes. This netbook thing is a little frustraing, since I have somewhat big fingers, and because my hand-arm-things aren't used to this posture. I wonder how it would feel to surf the Internet while upside-down. Or in a tree.
I think that by the time I'm in college, things like netbooks will be even more common. I mean, a lot of college students have laptops as is, but these are a lot less expensive. And decently fast, especially when compared to the molasses-tastic computers in the labs. Those things are infuriating, especially when you have an assignment to do before school starts. It's like they spit in your face and scream, "I AM THE COMPUTER HERE, THANKS, AND I WILL DO WHAT I WANT. LIKE TAKE TEN MINUTES TO LOG YOU IN." This netbook, so far, is pretty much like, "La-la-la-la-laaaaaaalalala I'm your slave!" I hope The Revolution doesn't happen any time soon... since, I mean, I don't want to be a robot's slave.
Even though I don't have an afro (yes, I'm implying that most tech-geeks have secret, invisible afros), I like technology. Sometimes. This netbook thing is a little frustraing, since I have somewhat big fingers, and because my hand-arm-things aren't used to this posture. I wonder how it would feel to surf the Internet while upside-down. Or in a tree.
I think that by the time I'm in college, things like netbooks will be even more common. I mean, a lot of college students have laptops as is, but these are a lot less expensive. And decently fast, especially when compared to the molasses-tastic computers in the labs. Those things are infuriating, especially when you have an assignment to do before school starts. It's like they spit in your face and scream, "I AM THE COMPUTER HERE, THANKS, AND I WILL DO WHAT I WANT. LIKE TAKE TEN MINUTES TO LOG YOU IN." This netbook, so far, is pretty much like, "La-la-la-la-laaaaaaalalala I'm your slave!" I hope The Revolution doesn't happen any time soon... since, I mean, I don't want to be a robot's slave.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Oedipus/Electra Complex = Incest?
Wollersheim cleared me to post my ponderings on this blog, which is great. I didn't really want to start a separate blog for them, because it just seems so wasteful.
When Wollersheim mentioned Freud yesterday, I caught myself thinking about the Oedipus and Electra complexes. For those of you that don't know, the Oedipus complex is a complex that males reportedly have, in which they lust after their mothers and are jealous of their fathers. The Electra complex is the same thing for females, but they want their father sand are jealous of their mothers.
Is parent-child incest the ultimate manifestation of this? A sort of "ultimate fulfillment" of it? I think it definitely could be. Unless it's non-consensual, it wouldn't happen without consent (... obviously). Which means that both parties want it. Does the child want it because of the complex? Why does the parent want it? Is there some sort of complex that accounts for parents secretly wanting their children? What about cases where it's apparently non-consensual - if a father raped his daughter, would she secretly, maybe unconsciously want it?
What about in cases of homosexual/bisexual/whateversexual children? Do they "want" the parent of the same sex? Would a female child want the "manlier" one of two lesbian parents? Would a male child want the "feminine" of two gay parents? Would a female child want the "manlier" of two gay parents?
What about sibling incest? In a "normal" household, would a sibling grow up secretly wanting their sibling? What about situations in which the siblings are separated, and do not come into contact? What if, for example, a mother dies, and a boy's sister raises him and becomes a motherly figure? Will he want to do her, too?
Are the complexes truly just for parent-child incest cases? What about aunt/uncle-niece/nephew cases? Cousin-cousin? Grandparent-grandchild?
Goodness gracious. This is kind of weird. Also, there's the bell. Got to go. Bye for now!
When Wollersheim mentioned Freud yesterday, I caught myself thinking about the Oedipus and Electra complexes. For those of you that don't know, the Oedipus complex is a complex that males reportedly have, in which they lust after their mothers and are jealous of their fathers. The Electra complex is the same thing for females, but they want their father sand are jealous of their mothers.
Is parent-child incest the ultimate manifestation of this? A sort of "ultimate fulfillment" of it? I think it definitely could be. Unless it's non-consensual, it wouldn't happen without consent (... obviously). Which means that both parties want it. Does the child want it because of the complex? Why does the parent want it? Is there some sort of complex that accounts for parents secretly wanting their children? What about cases where it's apparently non-consensual - if a father raped his daughter, would she secretly, maybe unconsciously want it?
What about in cases of homosexual/bisexual/whateversexual children? Do they "want" the parent of the same sex? Would a female child want the "manlier" one of two lesbian parents? Would a male child want the "feminine" of two gay parents? Would a female child want the "manlier" of two gay parents?
What about sibling incest? In a "normal" household, would a sibling grow up secretly wanting their sibling? What about situations in which the siblings are separated, and do not come into contact? What if, for example, a mother dies, and a boy's sister raises him and becomes a motherly figure? Will he want to do her, too?
Are the complexes truly just for parent-child incest cases? What about aunt/uncle-niece/nephew cases? Cousin-cousin? Grandparent-grandchild?
Goodness gracious. This is kind of weird. Also, there's the bell. Got to go. Bye for now!
Writing Assignment #1 - Expectations
I went into this semester not quite sure what to expect - I'd never, before now, taken part of an AP course. The format of the class isn't quite what I expected, but that's to be expected, isn't? I like how "technologically" advanced this class is seeming to be, but I'm not sure if I like it quite yet. It's definitely something I'll have to be used to.
The class itself is good, so far. I really like the textbook - it has a lot of information, but it's stated and conveyed in a way that doesn't put me to sleep after the first page. The author seemed to include his own comments, which is actually pretty nice. It adds some wit to the book, I'd say. And the pictures and vocabulary sections in the margins are nice, too.
I felt rather strange about doing the quiz online like that. I'm used to shaving trees when I take tests. It's fine that it was online, though, since I'm running low on shaving cream. I didn't get the best score - 22 out of 30 - but now I have expectations as to how thorough tests will be. I read all the information, but I guess I didn't retain all of it. I have no doubt that actually taking notes helped, though.
I'm looking forward to the "Interview with a Corpse"... because I'm working on my own, and my subject is Mary Calkins. I'm not afraid to make a fool of myself, especially for a hopefully good grade. This will, however, be the only time I will ever wear a wig. I might be able to get a friend of mine to mess with "Mary"'s voice so it sounds more woman-ly [Feminine? Womanish? What adjective goes here?]. I'm planning on doing a lot of cuts.
I ponder about what we learn sometimes. If I come up with anything good, I'll post it. Or something.
The class itself is good, so far. I really like the textbook - it has a lot of information, but it's stated and conveyed in a way that doesn't put me to sleep after the first page. The author seemed to include his own comments, which is actually pretty nice. It adds some wit to the book, I'd say. And the pictures and vocabulary sections in the margins are nice, too.
I felt rather strange about doing the quiz online like that. I'm used to shaving trees when I take tests. It's fine that it was online, though, since I'm running low on shaving cream. I didn't get the best score - 22 out of 30 - but now I have expectations as to how thorough tests will be. I read all the information, but I guess I didn't retain all of it. I have no doubt that actually taking notes helped, though.
I'm looking forward to the "Interview with a Corpse"... because I'm working on my own, and my subject is Mary Calkins. I'm not afraid to make a fool of myself, especially for a hopefully good grade. This will, however, be the only time I will ever wear a wig. I might be able to get a friend of mine to mess with "Mary"'s voice so it sounds more woman-ly [Feminine? Womanish? What adjective goes here?]. I'm planning on doing a lot of cuts.
I ponder about what we learn sometimes. If I come up with anything good, I'll post it. Or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)