[two mosquitoes fly near a bug zapper; one flies towards it, as if in a trance]
Bug zapper mosquito #1: Harry, no! Don't look at the light!
Harry the Mosquito: [entranced] I-can't-help-it. It's-so-beautiful.
[Harry gets zapped, falls]
Hey all! Hopefully everyone's enjoying this crazy summer weather, especially for those already on summer. Sigh, three more weeks until freedom...
Anyways, the quote I listed above is from the movie A Bug's Life, for those who don't recall. It's random, I know, but it was one of my favorite scenes in the movies, just because it seemed to explain something that commonly happened.
In fact, it does relate to this post, so bear with me for a second. One of the odder experiments we learned about was one that involved the A not B error, as so labelled by renowned psychologist Piaget. You see, Piaget was a developmental psychology, and like this experiment, he did a lot of experiments on infants. The procedure for this one involved a parent figure holding an infant while an experimenter takes a toy and hides it under one of two cloths, which they labelled well A. The infant was then let go so they could go find the toy. Of course, the infant lifts up the cloth for well A and gets the toy. The infant is then congratulated, and then the process starts over. The experimenters do the process of hiding the toy and reinforcing the infant about three or so times.
Yet, on the fourth time (assuming I'm remembering the number correctly), the experimenter hides the toy under the cloth for well B instead of well A. Naturally, one would think the infant would go for well B to get the toy. Instead, the infant goes for well A, lifts up the cloth, and finds nothing... Yet, one of the strangest parts of the experiment is that the whole time the infant is reaching for the cloth in well B, he/she is starting at the cloth in well A. What's going on?
Piaget proposed that the infant knows that the toy is in well A, as witnessed by the starting, yet he/she cannot help but reaching for well A. As you can probably infer from the design, the researchers reinforced the infants' behavior by repeating the same process over and over. Thus, the infants received reinforcement to go for well A, while the option of well B was not reinforced at all. In fact, other experiments have been done where searching in well A has been only reinforced once and then the toy is put in well B. If this is the case, infants will reach for well B in the majority of the cases. Thus, the infants' behavior needs to be reinforced multiple times for this result to occur.
One of the developmental differences between infants and adults is that an infant does not have their prefrontal cortex fully developed. To over-simplify things, the prefrontal cortex is responsible for controlling certain behaviors. This is ambiguous, I know, but it's hard to simplify such complex functioning. For example, let's say that taking recreational drugs has been reinforced for an individual, and thus they are tempted to take the drugs. Yet, they also know that taking such drugs have possible negative side effects. So, how does the person decide between doing it or not doing it? Simply put, it depends on the strength of one's prefrontal cortex. If the person has a fully developed prefrontal cortex, they are more likely to inhibit simply the idea of reinforcement due to noting the drawbacks. So, essentially, the prefrontal cortex may prevent people from engaging in behaviors that have been reinforced.
Seeing the connection? Like previously mentioned, infants don't really have much of a prefrontal cortex since it hasn't really developed at that point in their life. Thus, it's hard to regulate rewards and behaviors that lead to those rewards. As seen in the case of the infants, they seem to know that the toy is hidden in well B. Yet, due to the reinforcement of looking in well A and lack of prefrontal cortex development, the infant can't really help him/herself but look in well A, even if they know otherwise. Interesting, no?
I don't know of research that connects any of it to a bigger picture, such as an adult, so I'm just going to be speculating at this point. But, the prefrontal cortex is something that doesn't fully develop in the average adult until adulthood (the age of 25, if I remember correctly...). Thus, the ability to regulate behavior is something that emerges developmentally. Yet, the options of drugs and alcohol are available to people before then (obviously). This may mean that teenagers may not be able to properly weigh costs/benefits and thus may be more inclined to participate in such activities, even if they wouldn't later in life. But, alcohol and drugs in large amounts also affects the development of the prefrontal cortex, meaning it may be harder to inhibit any actions that can be reinforcing.
This makes me wonder how hard it must be for those that get addicted to something at a younger age to stay off whatever they're so reinforced by... Even though we tend to view most behaviors such as addictions as being brought upon by one's self, perhaps an earlier life mistake is something that is quite hard to resist once they've aged... Just having a little more sympathy for others might not be a bad thing, yah? Anyways, my mind is going. Time to call it quits for now!
Friday, May 25, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
It's So Traumatizing, I Don't Even Remember It!
Hey all! Hopefully everyone is enjoying this week and what not. I know lots of semester schools students are on vacation, so congrats to y'all! If you're stuck in the quarter system (like me), hopefully you've made it through midterms!
Anyways, the other day I was thinking about the whole nature vs. nurture argument prevalent between psychology and biology. Of course, the simple answer is that both nature (to simplify, think genetics for humans) and nurture (think societal influences and anything not genetic) both play a role in how one develops. Yet, the real question lies in how much of a role each factor plays its part. To summarize and simplify huge bodies of literature and twin studies and what not, societal factors are rated at 52% and genetic factors are rated at 48% (according to my teacher of LS 15, Dr. Phelan, and my teacher of PSYCH 115, Dr. Jentsch). Studies disagree here and there, but the main idea is that there is about a 50% influence from each factor. Thus, teachers argue that no matter what genes you may receive, you can still fight against it.
Of course, this is not true for things that rely only on genetic information, such as Huntington's Disease. No matter what you do, Huntington's Disease will be present as long as you have the genetic requirements. In that case, the situation is entirely dependent upon your genetics and not your environment. It's a question of what other things are inheritable or not, but practically anything that isn't for sure genetically determined raises the idea of a balance between nature and nurture (somewhat circular, I know, but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say).
Well, the question I raise for tonight is what if initially the balance between the environment is 50/50, but events out of your control lead to the odds being against your favor (my goodness, an indirect Hunger Games reference. Blarghhh...)? To better explain this, it's best to look at an example...
Back in Developmental Psychology, we learned of a study in which experimenters (Tottenham, Hare, Quinn et al, 2010) looked at records of when children were adopted out of orphanages. The researchers were examining reported anxiety and amygdala volume, which is essentially a part of the brain that reacts to intense emotions like fear. The researchers found a positive correlation between the later the children were adopted out of the orphanage and anxiety and amygdala volume. This may not come as a surprise to you, but the real kicker is that all these children were adopted when they were infants. In other words, all these children have no recollection of the orphanage itself or the poor conditions present. Yet, the effects of such an environment were present even to the day of measurement.
Of course, before anyone points out that correlation does not equal causation (which it doesn't!), this was a quasi-experiment, where a control/comparison group was used to help clarify the effects (for more info on quasi-experiments, go read wiki or something...). In other words, they're a little bit more sure than just a pure correlation study of their results.
Anyways! With methodological concerns out of the way, what's really the significance? When we think of the balance between nature and nurture, like I mentioned, it's usually qualified as a 50/50 balance. Yet, if there are effects out of your control (such as being raised in an orphanage before you can even remember, let alone take care of yourself), how does that affect the balance? Technically, being raised in an orphanage is not something genetic; how much it affects you may have some genetic component, but the effects themselves are part of the nurturing aspect. The big question that arises is if you're somehow genetically inclined to be very fearful (or nature has its 50% effect), and your environment affects you in someway before you can even remember or properly comprehend, does this mean that there is nothing you can do but be fearful, since the scales are weighted against you?
Honestly, I'm not really sure what to think. Even if the odds are against you somehow, and you have a nature that is quite fearful and your environment leads to fearfulness as well, I would like to believe that you can still fight back somehow in the present and thus balance out the effects. In other words, some aspect of your nurturing still allows you to fight back and thus possibly control anxiety/fear. Perhaps it may not be fully controllable, but it's manageable somehow. Also, it is hard to believe that one would have genetics that are completely inclined to being fearful, meaning that one's genetics may have a buffering component against being fearful as well. But, in the absolute worst case scenario, it would be horrible to imagine that one is prone to be fearful both genetically and environmentally with no real hope of fighting back or control. It would be a factor that one could not do anything about, and that in itself might lead to hopelessness... Anyways, I think that's enough for now, and perhaps gives you something to think about. Hopefully my posts are starting to get shorter so that people actually make it to this final sentence without skipping ahead, eh? Oh well, until next time!
Anyways, the other day I was thinking about the whole nature vs. nurture argument prevalent between psychology and biology. Of course, the simple answer is that both nature (to simplify, think genetics for humans) and nurture (think societal influences and anything not genetic) both play a role in how one develops. Yet, the real question lies in how much of a role each factor plays its part. To summarize and simplify huge bodies of literature and twin studies and what not, societal factors are rated at 52% and genetic factors are rated at 48% (according to my teacher of LS 15, Dr. Phelan, and my teacher of PSYCH 115, Dr. Jentsch). Studies disagree here and there, but the main idea is that there is about a 50% influence from each factor. Thus, teachers argue that no matter what genes you may receive, you can still fight against it.
Of course, this is not true for things that rely only on genetic information, such as Huntington's Disease. No matter what you do, Huntington's Disease will be present as long as you have the genetic requirements. In that case, the situation is entirely dependent upon your genetics and not your environment. It's a question of what other things are inheritable or not, but practically anything that isn't for sure genetically determined raises the idea of a balance between nature and nurture (somewhat circular, I know, but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say).
Well, the question I raise for tonight is what if initially the balance between the environment is 50/50, but events out of your control lead to the odds being against your favor (my goodness, an indirect Hunger Games reference. Blarghhh...)? To better explain this, it's best to look at an example...
Back in Developmental Psychology, we learned of a study in which experimenters (Tottenham, Hare, Quinn et al, 2010) looked at records of when children were adopted out of orphanages. The researchers were examining reported anxiety and amygdala volume, which is essentially a part of the brain that reacts to intense emotions like fear. The researchers found a positive correlation between the later the children were adopted out of the orphanage and anxiety and amygdala volume. This may not come as a surprise to you, but the real kicker is that all these children were adopted when they were infants. In other words, all these children have no recollection of the orphanage itself or the poor conditions present. Yet, the effects of such an environment were present even to the day of measurement.
Of course, before anyone points out that correlation does not equal causation (which it doesn't!), this was a quasi-experiment, where a control/comparison group was used to help clarify the effects (for more info on quasi-experiments, go read wiki or something...). In other words, they're a little bit more sure than just a pure correlation study of their results.
Anyways! With methodological concerns out of the way, what's really the significance? When we think of the balance between nature and nurture, like I mentioned, it's usually qualified as a 50/50 balance. Yet, if there are effects out of your control (such as being raised in an orphanage before you can even remember, let alone take care of yourself), how does that affect the balance? Technically, being raised in an orphanage is not something genetic; how much it affects you may have some genetic component, but the effects themselves are part of the nurturing aspect. The big question that arises is if you're somehow genetically inclined to be very fearful (or nature has its 50% effect), and your environment affects you in someway before you can even remember or properly comprehend, does this mean that there is nothing you can do but be fearful, since the scales are weighted against you?
Honestly, I'm not really sure what to think. Even if the odds are against you somehow, and you have a nature that is quite fearful and your environment leads to fearfulness as well, I would like to believe that you can still fight back somehow in the present and thus balance out the effects. In other words, some aspect of your nurturing still allows you to fight back and thus possibly control anxiety/fear. Perhaps it may not be fully controllable, but it's manageable somehow. Also, it is hard to believe that one would have genetics that are completely inclined to being fearful, meaning that one's genetics may have a buffering component against being fearful as well. But, in the absolute worst case scenario, it would be horrible to imagine that one is prone to be fearful both genetically and environmentally with no real hope of fighting back or control. It would be a factor that one could not do anything about, and that in itself might lead to hopelessness... Anyways, I think that's enough for now, and perhaps gives you something to think about. Hopefully my posts are starting to get shorter so that people actually make it to this final sentence without skipping ahead, eh? Oh well, until next time!
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The Powers of (Mis)Attribution...
Hey all! It's quite surprising, but I may actually be getting a post down for every week. Well, for two weeks at least... You gotta start somewhere, right?
Anyways, it's best to introduce today's topic with a story. Perhaps you've heard of Monk, but for those who haven't, it's a detective show about a man (Adrian Monk) who has multiple forms of OCD. One of the things he obsesses about is cleanliness. He prefers not to shake hands with anyone, and if he does, he likes to use a moist towelette afterwards to clean his hands.
In one of the episodes, Monk meets with a group responsible for putting on a marathon. As with proper introductions, he realizes that he is going to have to shake multiple people's hands, so he decides to wait until the end before he cleans. Well, he shakes hands with about four people, all of whom are white, and he ends by shaking hands with a man who happens to be black. Afterwards, since he's done shaking hands, he uses a moist towelette. Yet, he's instantly called out by everyone there for being racist, since he only used the towelette after shaking the black person's hand. Monk tries to explain the situation, but to no avail...
For those who had known Monk previously, it would just appear that Monk was cleaning his hands after meeting so many new people. Yet, to those who had never met Monk before, he instantly appeared racist... This example shows how powerful causal attributions can be, or the reasons we have for why someone does what they do. Interestingly enough, people like to know causal attributions for almost everything that happens. How many instances or phenomena are there that you know of that you readily accept that there's no cause or reasoning to them? Yet, even with these attributions, we are cognitive misers, which means that we try to expend as little as cognitive energy/action as possible. The result is that we can place a cause or a reason on just about everything that happens, but we tend not to care to check if our results are truly accurate or not.
Of course, it wouldn't really make sense (nor would it exactly be healthy) to question our reasons for everything. It would be a waste of time and mental energy to try and ensure everything that we know is correct. Of course, I'm not saying that it's not good to question anything, but that it's not practical to question everything. Again, a situation of balance with questioning and knowing is probably for the best, a theme that seems to be quite common in these writings...
Anyways, part of the danger of causal attributions involves what characteristic the attribution is made to. Let's go back to the example with Monk and the last person... If the person attributed Monk using the moist towelette simply to Monk wanting to keep his hands clean, the person probably wouldn't have done more than just give Monk a funny look for being a clean freak. Yet, the danger lies in the fact that the person attributed it to his race. You see, you can wash dirty hands, but race is not something changed. Knowing that people are acting against you due to an unchangeable, stable factor can be hugely daunting and anger-provoking, among other things. When interactions depend entirely on someone else's perception of you, it's easy to get frustrated when someone does something negative (due to you seeing them acting that way due to a factor you can't change). The only factor that can be changed in this situation is why you think others did what they did.
Please don't get me wrong and think I'm saying that people jump to conclusions when they think others are acting in a discriminatory manner. There are some cases where it may be more obvious than not, and in the example with Monk, assuming nobody knows who he is, it would be natural to think he is racist. What I wonder is if having a naivety when making causal attributions could somehow be mentally defensive, whereas possibly attributing others' actions as racism could have a negative impact on how one sees the world. In other words, if you believe that others act negatively around you due to your race, you may start to act negatively around them. If so, they may return your hostility, creating a tension and supporting your idea of how so many others are racist (this is somewhat of an extreme example, but you get the point). Of course, seeing the world for how it actually is may be better than naively believing the world is hunky-dory, but perhaps it would depend on the situation... Unfortunately, it's not something that I have the answer to, but is more just a passing thought I shall leave to you to ponder as well. Oh well, thanks if you've made it this far, and hopefully I shall be back at this again come next week!
Anyways, it's best to introduce today's topic with a story. Perhaps you've heard of Monk, but for those who haven't, it's a detective show about a man (Adrian Monk) who has multiple forms of OCD. One of the things he obsesses about is cleanliness. He prefers not to shake hands with anyone, and if he does, he likes to use a moist towelette afterwards to clean his hands.
In one of the episodes, Monk meets with a group responsible for putting on a marathon. As with proper introductions, he realizes that he is going to have to shake multiple people's hands, so he decides to wait until the end before he cleans. Well, he shakes hands with about four people, all of whom are white, and he ends by shaking hands with a man who happens to be black. Afterwards, since he's done shaking hands, he uses a moist towelette. Yet, he's instantly called out by everyone there for being racist, since he only used the towelette after shaking the black person's hand. Monk tries to explain the situation, but to no avail...
For those who had known Monk previously, it would just appear that Monk was cleaning his hands after meeting so many new people. Yet, to those who had never met Monk before, he instantly appeared racist... This example shows how powerful causal attributions can be, or the reasons we have for why someone does what they do. Interestingly enough, people like to know causal attributions for almost everything that happens. How many instances or phenomena are there that you know of that you readily accept that there's no cause or reasoning to them? Yet, even with these attributions, we are cognitive misers, which means that we try to expend as little as cognitive energy/action as possible. The result is that we can place a cause or a reason on just about everything that happens, but we tend not to care to check if our results are truly accurate or not.
Of course, it wouldn't really make sense (nor would it exactly be healthy) to question our reasons for everything. It would be a waste of time and mental energy to try and ensure everything that we know is correct. Of course, I'm not saying that it's not good to question anything, but that it's not practical to question everything. Again, a situation of balance with questioning and knowing is probably for the best, a theme that seems to be quite common in these writings...
Anyways, part of the danger of causal attributions involves what characteristic the attribution is made to. Let's go back to the example with Monk and the last person... If the person attributed Monk using the moist towelette simply to Monk wanting to keep his hands clean, the person probably wouldn't have done more than just give Monk a funny look for being a clean freak. Yet, the danger lies in the fact that the person attributed it to his race. You see, you can wash dirty hands, but race is not something changed. Knowing that people are acting against you due to an unchangeable, stable factor can be hugely daunting and anger-provoking, among other things. When interactions depend entirely on someone else's perception of you, it's easy to get frustrated when someone does something negative (due to you seeing them acting that way due to a factor you can't change). The only factor that can be changed in this situation is why you think others did what they did.
Please don't get me wrong and think I'm saying that people jump to conclusions when they think others are acting in a discriminatory manner. There are some cases where it may be more obvious than not, and in the example with Monk, assuming nobody knows who he is, it would be natural to think he is racist. What I wonder is if having a naivety when making causal attributions could somehow be mentally defensive, whereas possibly attributing others' actions as racism could have a negative impact on how one sees the world. In other words, if you believe that others act negatively around you due to your race, you may start to act negatively around them. If so, they may return your hostility, creating a tension and supporting your idea of how so many others are racist (this is somewhat of an extreme example, but you get the point). Of course, seeing the world for how it actually is may be better than naively believing the world is hunky-dory, but perhaps it would depend on the situation... Unfortunately, it's not something that I have the answer to, but is more just a passing thought I shall leave to you to ponder as well. Oh well, thanks if you've made it this far, and hopefully I shall be back at this again come next week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
