Recently in Decision Making Category

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

I figured I would make my last post from ted.com, since I have really come to enjoy this site over the course of this semester. This video is of Michael Specter discussing the recent denial of scientific advances. Michael briefly discusses the progression of lifespans in his family from generation to generation. He mentioned that each generation has lived a decade longer than the last, and he plans to live till 90. Through the course of this video he discusses the ways in which we are able to engineer foods to make them more nutritious. We, as a community, have decided that foods that are not 100% natural should be shunned from our diet. However, we are willing to take pill after pill in hopes that it will help us feel better. We have virtually wiped out the threat of small pox in our country, so we no longer get the vaccine. What if small pox is reintroduced? We will all be susceptible once again. The discussion of what problems vaccines can cause has been brought down to the ground by science every time that it is brought up. Yet, people still believe that they are doing their children a favor by neglecting to give them their vaccinations. However, if an unvaccinated individual travels the world and contracts a disease outside of the protective bubble of the United States, not only would they run into a problem for themselves, but they could bring a problem for the rest of us.

What is it that motivates people to take such risky behaviors, but claim them to be safer? Is it the need for power? Reeve describes this as the need to be in control of situations. Could it be that people feel as though they have more control over situations if they eat food that is not genetically engineered or if they avoid vaccinations?

How did this video make you feel? Personally, it really got me thinking about what I felt to be health conscious. I always believed that vaccinations were necessary, and that it was rather ignorant to over look the research that has been done to prove it. This video just reiterated that point for me.

We discussed in class yesterday some examples of how characters in the movie (namely Robert DeNiro's character, Michael) lacked emotion in certain circumstances where we would have expected to see some. I think we referenced when Michael, Nick, and Steven were being held captive how Michael really didn't express fear like we saw from Nick and Steven (Michael remained calm and coached both of them on). I found a couple of articles that might explain (partially at least) what was going on with Michael.

Strange calm in a sea of danger
What's the scariest part of a frightening experience

The first link discusses how people sometimes fail to exhibit fear in extremely threatening situations (a bear attack is described). We hear many stories like this where people take control of the situation rather than being immobilized by fear. The article explains that this may be due to noradrenaline in our brains. Noradrenaline is believed to be linked to filtering out information that isn't relevant to the threat and decision making. Thus, when Michael explains to Nick that they are going to have to leave Steven behind, the fact that they were friends was filtered out of the situation and the decision was made based only on the threat.

The second article is related to fearful situations and discusses skydiving. It explains how novice skydivers will experience the peak of anxiety/fear right before they are about to jump out of the plane whereas experienced skydivers will experience their peak hours before the jump and it slowly decreases as the jump nears. It is possible that Michael had  more experience with Russian Roulette, which allowed him to be calm while in the situation, as he readied himself for it hours before.
I had a similar experience today. While going downstairs to take a shower this morning I ran into a squirrel in my house! I instantly yelled "Oh F***" and proceeded to return to my room. It was an intense startle moment (definitely a flight response-some adrenaline was flowing). After collecting myself I went downstairs to get the thing out of my house-it had crashed through some ceiling tiles in our bathroom. After successfully getting it out by leaving the doors open and chasing it, I had to clean up the mess. While cleaning up the mess, another squirrel runs by me!  This gave me another startle response, but this time I just opened the doors and chased it out without avoiding it and collecting myself. Not quite a life or death situation, but you can see how my prior experience decreased the reaction and allowed me to deal with the situation much more effectively. 

Anyone else live in a crappy house where animals break in? Have an experience that relates to one of these articles?

I was curious about the last part of our assignment: how self-efficacy, mastery beliefs, and hope relate.

When reading chapter 9, I was really interested in reactance theory, so I decided to research it some more. I found this great article online that was written by Jack Brehm, the person who came up with the reactance theory.  In the article he explains what reactance theory is:  reactance theory is "that people become motivationally aroused by a threat to or elimination of a behavioral freedom".  In the article he talks about how he was surprised that some people acted negatively even when influence attempts might be in the best interest of that person.  Jack Brehm goes on to tell us that there are two things that come about with reactance.  First, we may try to restore the freedom that has been put in jeapordy.  Second, there may be a perceived attractiveness to the lost or threatened freedom.

Jack Brehm also goes one step further and talks about the implication principle and how it interacts with reactance theory.   He talks about how there are two implications that come about to other freedoms when one freedom has been threatened.  The first implication applies the threat to the same freedom but for future actions.  Second, other freedoms that are similar to the original threat may also be threatened.  He illustrates that if a person believes that one freedom is in danger, what is to stop other freedoms from becoming threatened?  He also talks about how when many freedoms are threatened the person is likely to have a very strong response to stop those threats from taking place.

I really would recommend that everybody read this.  Jack Brehm uses great examples to help illustrate all of his points.  You can find this article at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=6883In

http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/search.php?p=qsearch&s_gender=1&s_copt=2&i_search=shane&filter_select=1&s_filter=14&=a

Check out the first link, and see what your name means. My name (Jordan) means descendant.

I found an article on personality characteristics or people's names. Let me know what you think.

http://www.articlealley.com/article_590182_27.html

The article talks about how parents actually decide on their child's name by the day of the week they are born.

There is a rhyme about choosing names for personality traits:

Monday's child is full of grace

Tuesday's child is fair of face

Wednesday's child is full of woe

 

Some cultures have a ceremony for the naming of a new baby, whereas other parents look at names or ones they have heard of and liked.

In Chapter 10 Reeve talks about personality characteristics. Do you think a person's name can make them have a certain personality, such as neuroticism, or how about parents who name their children Joy or June, will they have those type of characteristics just because it is their name? What's your opinion...

This post is dedicated to Ali and UNI for upsetting Kansas.  Ali has become nationally known for his two clutch shots at the end of the games of UNLV and especially Kansas.  Blogs and analysts are all amazed at this guy's incredible guts and confidence in himself to take a shot like he did at the end of the Kansas game with so much on the line. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMmBCHwqOM&feature=related

 In my chapter nine analysis, I looked at UNI's team self-efficacy:

"First, self-efficacy is the generative capacity in which an individual organizes his or her skills to cope with the demands and circumstances that arise. Thus, it's an important aspect of competent functioning as situations arise, especially within sporting events, which are stressful, ambiguous, and unpredictable. As the environment changes, one's self-efficacy is put to the test.

For UNI in their 2nd round game vs. Kansas, their team self-efficacy (belief whether or not they would advance in the tournament) was a judgment formed through multiple sources, specifically the following: personal history trying to execute that particular behavior, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological state.

First, their personal history affected their belief they could win. While this season they had won many games, UNI had never defeated the #1 team in the nation in the past and had never even advanced to the sweet sixteen. Next, vicarious experience; UNI has watched other teams defeat Kansas, yet they have also seen Kansas be victorious a great number of times. Also, past history of the NCAA tourney shows that 2nd round upsets of the #1 seed are possible, yet few and far in between. Also, the team could have looked at UNI's 1990 team which also pulled off a shocker against Mizzou in a 3 vs. 14 matchup. Verbal persuasion; Ben Jacobsen and the team knew they had a shot at knocking them off, yet much of the media had been telling them they had no shot at even competing with the best team in the nation. I think the coach's and individual's verbal persuasion on the team definitely outweighed the media's, providing them an efficacy boost, generating motivation. This led to a solid physiological state in which there appeared to be an absence of tension, fear, and anxiety about playing Kansas.

Overall, it seemed UNI had positive self-efficacy beliefs through their speech and their actions on the court as they shocked the nation defeating Kansas!"

 

In the video below, the sport psychologist describes self-confidence as the strength of your belief in your ability to execute.  He talks about a global self-confidence, which is the perceptive belief in your ability to win and your team can win.  Also, there is task specific confidence, the belief in which you can shoot the ball into the basket.  This confidence is fluid depending on the task and course of the game. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIIqxYJX_I4

Confidence is controllable, yet it can be destroyed from allowing outside sources like the media or within the course of the game, the opposing team.  In the UNI/Kansas game, Ali had a stable, longlasting confidence which many athletes desire.  While he started the game off hot, he was 0-6 in the second half before the 3-pointer in the final minute.  Kansas was making their big run, UNI was turning the ball over, and Ali was cold shooting the ball.  Yet, Ali knew his teammates had confidence in him and he maintained confidence in himself, giving him the guts to shoot the shot many players would not have taken.  This confidence, individually and as a team, gave UNI a strong outcome expectation, which is a judgment that a given action (playing the game), once performed, will cause a particular outcome (winning the game).  For Ali, his efficacy expecations (his judgment of his capacity to make the 3-pointer) were strong enough to allow him initiate his behavior of shooting the basketball during such a crucial point of the ballgame. Now on the sweet sixteen!!

 

 

 

In class the other day we were talking about how making lists is a great way to achieve goals, yet this could easily get out of hand. I was thinking recently about how if you don't set your goals right, then you won't be able to achieve them, for example lets talk about those New Years Resolutions, like the one you set stating you were going to go to the gym everyday? It almost seems as though with New Years resolutions, the goals we set for the year are far-fetched and don't seem to be reasonable, according to Why Setting Goals Don't Work!. This article continues to state that with New Years Resolutions, no real thought or planning is involved when setting these goals, so it is hard to follow through with them. In order to set proper goals you will need to take into consideration your beliefs and your values. After you understand these, then you will need to make a detailed goal and have a specific outcome. The article states that just saying something vague like "I want to be rich" is not good enough to be an actual goal. The article states that you should build from that and say something like "I want to earn $10,000 passive income per month from my online internet affiliate programs"

It is easy to see the difference between those two statements of goals. How you get from the first statement to the second is to ask yourself questions like "who, what, when, where, why and how?" One advice the article gives is that you should "Set a goal with end in mind." It is important to determine the outcome in order to figure out how you will get to the outcome. if you don't have an outcome, then you don't have anything to work towards.

I find that these things are quite easy to understand, for me at least. I am a big planner, and I do have goals for myself. For instance, right now my goal is to get this done before the deadline. I do have goals for my future, as in opening my own private practice, however there is many steps before I achieve that goal.

Overall just keep in mind that if you want your goals to work, know who you are, make sure you set your goal with the end in mind, and also prepare yourself that there will be challenges that will come along, its just apart of the goal.

What kind of goals do you have set for yourself? What kind of obstacles or challenges have you had to face in reaching your goal? Do you set well-defined goals, or very simplistic ones such as the New Years Resolution example?

It's a little scary to think about the future.  Most of us are going to be graduating this year, and will be actually living on your own.  Paying for your own bills, student loans, purchasing those expensive items- such as a house, and little things such as food and clothing.  Wouldn't it be nice to know mistakes that you don't need to make.  Well I came across an article that talked about three money mistakes that can actually cost you. 

The first mistake that most people make is ignoring your credit score.  Now I fall into that category of most people.  I do not know my credit score, and I always asked myself do I really need to know it right now that I am still in college?  And the answer is yes.  Like I said most of us are going to be buying a house down the road, well according to this article the credit score just went up for buying a house. Its better to know your credit score, and there are sites where you can obtain a credit report.

The second mistake is neglecting your home loan.  Now must of us don't own a home yet, but in the near future I'm sure it is on our to do list.  According to this article it says that you need to be in tune with your home loan to know when it is a good time to refinance, lower payments, and etc.  My boyfriend currently bought a house last year at the age of 21, he is constantly checking up on his home loan, and I always nagged him about it, but now after reading this article I will go home tonight and tell him its a good thing.

The third mistake is not preparing for a rainy day fund aka emergency savings fund.  It is always a good time to start saving now, because even though we are in college and you think your mommy and daddy can help you with an emergency, they might not be able to with the economy going on. 

These three mistakes that people make are definitely ones that I will not be making and hopefully they will come in handy down the road for us college kids that want to buy that perfect home.

 

Article:  http://www.stylecaster.com/news/7388/three-major-money-mistakes-that-can-cost-you

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9697

The article I found talks about identity and how everyone becomes their own identity. Identity is not just what you know; it is also how you know. We are not born into our identities; rather we develop who we want to be in this world. Some factors that can come into play with choosing our identity can be our family, friends and society. A young child may see her mother as a creature that exists solely to take care of her, but an older child will often start to appreciate that her mother has needs of her own, and start acting less selfishly towards her mother so as to take that knowledge into account. Personal beliefs have no bias on one's identity, for example if a group hates a certain religious group, doesn't need to affect another person. Young children have simple identities and see things in an overly simple, generally self-serving manner. As people grow older and wiser, they identify themselves with other people, places and things in increasingly sophisticated ways and start to grow out of this initial selfishness. Sometimes life events can interrupt one's identity and their identity stops growing. For example a death of a parent, may cause a child to grow up and take on the parent role for younger siblings, and not get to live their childhood identities. According to Reeve, once a person takes one role, the identity directs the person to pursue some behaviors (identity-confirming behaviors) and to avoid other behaviors (identity-disconfirming behaviors), (2009 p. 279). Other things that can affect a person's identity are low self-esteem and low self-efficacy.

What do you think about this article?

Do you know what your self-identity is like...has your identity changed a lot throughout your life?

 

 

Nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, psychomotor agitation, rambling flow of thoughts and speech...with all of these symptoms you would think you were looking at the definition for a disorder according to the DSM.  As a matter of fact you are...these are symptoms for the psychological disorder of Caffeine Intoxication. Caffeine intoxication sounds like a made up disorder but it is very real and does appear in the DSM. Surprisingly enough, Daniel Nobel is being evaluation to see if that is what caused him to hospitalize two University of Washington students last Monday when he hit them with his car that morning. Can it really be that something as simple as caffeine is altering our behavior so much that it is considered a psychiatric disorder that can alter how we operate a vehicle just as alcohol can? According to researchers this is exactly what happened to Nobel when he was charged with vehicular assault and a hit and run on the by the University of Washington's Police. Blood tests are not back from the lab yet but from my understanding of the article alcohol consumption was rule out therefore there is some underlying cause as to why Noble was acting in such disarray that morning. Investigators and researchers predicted that Noble consumed approximately 2g of caffeine which is 10 times the amount an average person consumes a day (200mg). Normally people develop a tolerance to this drug and do not see such drastic results; however, there are clinics and treatment centers designed to get people "clean" from the addiction of caffeine.  After reading this article I became very interesting is this concept. Never have I heard that someone was driving recklessly due to caffeine overdoes. I am currently in a course at UNI called Drugs and Individual Behavior. In this class when we talked about stimulants we discussed caffeine and the effects is has on our body and in turn on our behavior. This article makes me think...if I was evaluated this case would I deem that Caffeine intoxication was a severe enough diagnosis that I would accept this for the reason for this ridiculous behavior that place two people in the hospital? For some reason (even after learning about how caffeine is a drug and can alter how the brain functions) I can not seem to link it in the same category as anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and diseases such as alcoholism.

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/man-caffeinated-psychosis-defense-hit-run/story?id=9306666

In 1872, American physician George Huntington described a disease that can be traced back to the Middle Ages, when it was referred to as chorea.  Chorea is a term that describes the uncontrollable movements that are seen in individuals who are affected by the disease.  This disease was found to be hereditary and progressive.  Today this disease is called Huntington's disease (HD).  Currently more than 15,000 Americans are living with HD, with at least another 150,000 others who have a 50% chance of developing the disease.  This disease is passed from generation to generation, destroying families who have to watch their loved ones lose the ability to feel, think, and move (National Institutes of Health, 2009).

As stated above HD is a progressive disease that causes the loss of control over movement, behavioral changes, and memory loss over time.  The onset of HD is generally slow and insidious making it hard to distinguish when an individual transitions from being a risk for HD to having HD (Maio, 1992).  On average symptoms of HD begin around 40 years of age (Meiser & Dunn, 2000), although the disease has been seen in children as young as 2, and adults as old as 70 (Quaid et al., 2008).  After the onset, individuals with HD generally live for 10-15 years.  Currently there is no way to cure the disease or to slow the progression of the disease (Meiser & Dunn, 2000).  Patients suffering from HD commonly die from infection (such as pneumonia), injuries related to a fall, or other complications from HD (National Institutes of Health, 2009).

I ran across this article on the Psychology Today website and it seemed like an interesting topic
Why We Fear The Unknown

While doing my daily internet searching, I came across this article explaining the motivation behind assisting others with suicide.  This article doesn't say there is an open doorway now for assisted suicides, but it does say there may be a new framework as to how lawyers will choose who should be prosecuted and who shouldn't. 

"It made clear that someone acting out of compassion, to help a terminally ill patient with a "clear, settled and informed wish to die" is unlikely to face the courts. "

"But persuading or pressuring the victim to kill themselves, or benefiting from their death, would encourage prosecution. "

I found this extremely interesting, because as a student in this motivation class, I couldn't help but think what if there wasn't an extrinsic motivation, but an intrinsic one?  If someone helps another committ suicide and is not receiving any money from their will etc they may not be prosecuted, but what if someone just wishes for them to die because of dislike or revenge?  You know that, NOT in most cases, there is the potential for this type of situation to come along. 

Also, by allowing the person more choices, does that persuade them in a different direction than what they were originally thinking?  When giving someone autonomy, they can second guess initial decisions-- An example-- Person A was diagnosed with cancer and was given X amount of time to live.  Person A was motivated to stay alive as long as possible to try and beat the odds.  Person A was then given to option to be given a drug that woud ultimately kill them within an hour.  By giving someone the option alone is a form of persuasion .  INow there is a decision to be made, and dont you think the drug option would be in the back of their heads on a 'bad' day? 

I also understand the other side of this extremely controversal topic-- if someone is an immense amount of pain/on their death bed and the family no longer wants to have them suffering so they collaborately (with the patient if applicable) decide what would be best. 

I think deciding of whether or not to prosecute someone is a very complicated issues-- I believe there are more factors involved than just whether or not the person assisting is receiving some kind of benefits from the death. 

I hope no one takes offense to this article, I just thought it was extremely interesting-- both sides shown here.  I hope you guys thought it was as interesting as I did--

Recently I discovered a website that posts videos from "Ignite" events.  In these events speakers are given 20 slides and 5 minutes to make their point.  Their slogan is "Enlighten us, but make it quick."  There is a video posted the is titled "The Psychology of Incompetence"."  You can watch the video at:  http://igniteshow.com/videos/psychology-incompetence.  

I was recently reading an article abaout an olympian ice skater that still performed her routine after losing her mother to a heart attack only a few days prior. The mother had died of an unexpected heart attack two days before her daughter was scheduled to perform her much practiced short performance routine in front of 14, 000 people. The skater went on and preformed very well, getting the highest score of the short performances. Even though she was visablly upset, as anyone would be, she still decided that it was for the best to continue with her skating. I wondered if sometimes, a person's motivation can outweigh their emotions. I've tried to think of times when something terrible has happened to me and how I reacted. Usually I drop everything and focus all my energy and emotions on the bad event. I couldn't image doing something like ice skating when my mom had just passed away. But I think it was the fact that this girl had trained so hard for so long all for this day, that she didn't want it all to be for nothing. I think she thought her mother would have felt the same way. So I was wondering if her drive for achivement and recognition for her hard work and persistence at skating could help her overcome her sad emotions enough for her to go out there and skate. This is not to say that she wanted to compete more than she was sad for her mother's death, but just to ask the question, If you are highly motivated to do soemthing, can it temporarly overcome your emotions, enough to get the job done? Other situations could be that you really want to go out with your friends on a Thursday night, but you have a big test the next day you have to do well on so you skip the fun and study instead. It's not exactly the same, but you are still choosing your motivation over your emotions.

What do you guys think? Can you think of any circumstances that you have really wanted something even though your emotions were saying something different? If one is stronger, what usually makes you do something, your motivation or your emotions?

Here is the link...http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/24/olympics.rochette/index.html?hpt=C1

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/relationship-advice/secrets-women-keep-0308?click=pp

This article was about what girls should keep from their significant others.  I thought it was interesting because I work in a shoe department and a lot of women always tell me they are going to be in trouble when they get home.  Some will even tell me to throw away the boxes because it will make it easier to sneak in the new shoes.  I know that men get uptight about it but I don't quite understand it, especially if you aren't married and sharing an income.  Why do you care what shoes or things I buy?  Do you think about the future and that we will waste money on "unnecessary things" in your mind?  Although a lot of us women don't think a 60 inch TV is necessary.  Another question I have is, if you want us to like your gift, why must you get something we didn't ask for?  We don't always want jewelry!   
The top five things to keep from your sweetie were:
1. Past Hookups
2. How you spend your money
3. The way you feel about his family
4. Innocent Flirtations
5. What you really think of his gift

http://www.mtv.com/videos/16-and-pregnant-season-2-ep-1-jenelle/1631955/playlist.jhtml

I'm not much of a TV person, but when I find a show I like, I try to follow it.  One in particular has been 16 & Pregnant.  I find some of the stories compelling and extremely interesting to watch.  But why?  I have no desire to be pregnant any time soon nor do I like watching people suffer through hard decisions and break ups.  But I found myself recently being angry that I missed the premiere last night of the second season.  So I decided to watch it online.  Not only did this first episode make me feel embarrassed, but I couldnt help but wonder why these people put themselves out there to be seen by the whole world in these stressful situations.  There may be people out there who have a situational interest; maybe themselves or a close friend got pregnant at a young age, or even just pregnant in general.  For me, I had an individual interest to watch the second season because the first season had everything-- crazy moms, cute babies, boyfriend mishaps and love.  I had seen all of these things and expected something great. 

Her mothers actions made me uncomfortable just as I sat and watched by myself.  I wanted to yell at both her mother and her for how they were handling this situation.  I dont believe I would want my life videotaped through such a dramatic experience- I can only imagine how embarrassed I would be if it actually WERE me. 

Janelle and her mother both had the same goals in mind throughout her pregnancy; they wanted the best for her baby... at least I think that's what they both were.  Janelle's mother made it clear that the baby was most important, while Janelle made it clear she would not give up her social life.  Janelle's mother even suggested if she couldn't take care of the baby maybe she should give the child up for adoption.  Of course Janelle found this crazy and kept reassuring her mother that she could do it.  There are many hidden costs to having this little boy (the reward) that Janelle hasn't come to see yet.  Janelle is stuck in the world of a 16 year old, when in reality she has a child and needs to take on the role of a mother.  Janelle's mother, on the other hand, babysat the child as Janelle went out. 

IJanelle needs to realize what her life is now and see that she needs to take on these 'hidden costs' for having this child.  While still in school (which is great), she continuallly went out on the evenings leaving her mother to care for her baby.  Something needs to change in this mother-daughter relationship before "Grandma" becomes more of a mom than 'Mom' does. 

Upon my decision to become a psychology major, I found that I was constantly being told that I was "analyzing" people. Sound familiar to anyone else? Whether I was actually scrutinizing others or not I'm not sure, but I do recognize in myself a need to further evaluate my emotions and any problems that I may be experiencing. Could this behavior be causing me more harm than good?

This article originates from the blog Wired for Success by Ray B. Williams who has founded and co-founded organizations devoted to leadership, development, personal growth and executive coaching. Williams suggests that when we analyze our feelings in a third person perspective to prevent reliving the experience over and over again. We feel the need to process our emotions in order to cope with and understand their meanings before we are able to move forward. The best way to do this, however, is from a detached perspective that allows you to see the entire picture with no attachment to the situation.

This could be seen as a "no-brainer" concept to many who repeatedly find themselves drifting back to their old ways despite efforts to make a positive change in their lives. They may have made the decision to revert to a more lucrative approach that involves severance between their thoughts and their emotions.  On the other hand, the task may not be as easy for some to manage.

A study performed at the University of California put the concept to the test with 141 randomly assigned participants to two groups. In the "immersed-analysis" condition, participants were told to go back to the time and place of the experience and relive it as if it were happening again while trying to understand the feelings they were having at the time and what may have caused them. In the "detached-analysis" condition, participants were also told to go back to the time and place of the experience but to take a step back and move away from the immediate experience to watch it unfold as a bystander and try to learn the lessons of the behaviors they witnessed. Just after the study was performed, the detached-analysis group experienced lower levels of anxiety, depression and sadness than the other group. They felt the same when questioned one week later. This self-distancing perspective can have multiple health benefits as well including reductions in blood pressure. 

            This research supports the work of Dr. Steven Hayes who has written the book Getting Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life. As a "Third Wave Psychologist," Hayes has been doing what he can to change the focus of psychotherapy from manipulating thoughts to changing the context in which we have them.  Find out more about this topic by reading the article above or reading more about Dr. Steven Hayes in The Third Wave of Therapy presented in TIME magazine in 2006. Perhaps you will become more skeptical of the way we think about psychology after reading Hayes' account.

I figured there is no time better than the present to touch of the drive and story of an Olympic athlete. I think we all know by now, being an Olympian takes much more than an occasional practice. Being an Olympian takes commitment, determination, drive, and natural ability. These athletes practice for hours on end. Then, when they are done, they go to sleep and wake up to do it all over again. Training is nothing less that extreme. Anything other than being the best is not acceptable, because no one goes to the Olympic games with out the desire to bring home gold. Every athlete dreams of being an Olympian, and every Olympian dreams of being recognized as the best... to be positively reinforces with a gold circle draped from their neck. 

This article talks about how the "ability to influence the physical world merely by thought has been a dream of mankind for many years. Now researchers are making real progress in letting people control a PC simply by thinking, and the first crop of consumer Brain Control Interface (BCI) headsets has arrived. Right now these are being used only for simple games and applications to support the technology are scarce."  It includes an interview by the person leading the research for it.

I was a little shocked when I read this article mostly because I feel our world is so technologically advanced, but it's tweaking our activity levels, our society, especially the younger generation is lazy.  There are definite advantages, especially for people who are disabled, either from the beginning of their lives or from an accident.  Some can be so disabled and hurt that they can't even use sound software to communicate.

My question is how is this going to change society and how we use our brain to communicate?

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2359071,00.asp

For this post I wanted to find a really neat video to share. But instead I found a few and decided instead of sharing a video I wanted to share this whole site.  Maybe more people than I'm aware of know about TED but I just think it is a neat site to go to and learn and hear other opinions on various topics. So I want to encourage you all to go to this site and check out the different themes of videos and find one that is for YOU!

TED has the catch phrase "Ideas worth spreading".  They hold a few conferences each year where speakers will come and spread their idea.  They have some interesting topics that anyone could enjoy.  You should check it out!

I got carried away watching a few videos and decided to post one up anyway.  Do you remember the golden rule from when you were a kid?  "Treat others the way you want to be treated".  This stopped me in my tracks and made me really rethink how I was going about life now.  What would happen in this world if everyone started to live by that golden rule?  We should be sensitive to other's emotions by thinking of our own emotions.  I heard this analogy from someone else so I can't take all of the credit, (but just think about it).  Say you're driving and you realize you need to be over a lane, like NOW.  So you pull in front of someone and cut them off.  The way you react is most likely like, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to" and you just feel bad and apologetic.  But then on the other side of that coin, when someone pulls in front of you or cuts you off you might blow up, curse at them, call them names...make assumptions.  We should just be empathetic of others (just think what the world would be like if we did.)
   
http://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule.html

Here is the link to the website:
www.ted.com
From there you can explore, and please, post a comment with a video you watched or liked.

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1010030

This articles describes a millionaire that gave all of his money away. All of it. He was raised in a poor family and he was taught to work hard to earn what he wanted in life. He worked hard his whole life, thinking that a little more money and material possessions would finally make him happy, only to realize that it didn't. So, he gave it all away.

His story interests me for several reasons. His display of charitable behavior is one that many people applaud and see as highly altruistic. It's true that his action was extremely generous and will help many orphans gain a quality of life that they couldn't have without his help, but his actions are not altogether altruistic. The reason he gives his money away is because he is still seeking happiness. He first thought that making money and having stuff would make him happy, now he thinks that giving all of his money to people that need it more than him and living a very simple life will make him happy. While his latest search for happiness is definitely beneficial to many people, was his giving out of altruism and generosity alone, or was it motivated by seeking his own happiness?

I would argue that his generosity is still motivated by selfishness, making his giving not entirely altruistic. By no means am I saying that he shouldn't have done it, because I think it's wonderful that so many people in need will benefit from his action, but I think the most basic driving motivator in this case was still seeking his own satisfaction or happiness.

Do you think this decision will result in lasting happiness? Or will it, like the pursuit of money and material possessions, only last in the shorter-term scheme of a lifetime?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824115811.htm

 

 

According to this website, women judge men's faces for attractiveness on two parts: sexually and non-sexually.  

 

The first part determines if you have the characteristics of being a good mate.  They're looking for qualities that will help them determine if you have high levels of androgen (testosterone).  According to evolutionary psychology, this is a highly desirable trait to look for in a partner since testosterone is linked to aggression, which will lead to better protection and more food.  These traits will include strong cheekbones, a square jaw, full lips, and over all proportions of the overall face.

 

The second part is overall attractiveness of the face.  If these proportions of the face are symmetrical or not is one key point in determining the attractiveness.   

 

More on this topic can be seen during a short video on the next link.

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-attractive-facial-features.html

 

First of all, I love the discovery channel.

 

The video quickly explains that although as children, we all have very similar faces.  However, because of puberty, our faces will change and become more prominent for the men and finer for the women (generally).  According to the video, a strong does of these hormones will indicate good health and fertility.  Also, by saying that someone is attractive, you're saying that they have good genes and would make a good partner for reproduction.

(I shouldn't admit this) but in the little time between classes I find myself always frantically trying to finish a homework assignment for the next class.  I put stuff off until the last minute because I "thrive" under the pressure. I have done that with this weeks blog posts/comments and it gave me inspiration (for my post).

Procrastination - News Article

The link above is a news story that popped up after my google search of why I procrastinate. 
It turns out I am just not a perfectionist and I don't have a lot of faith in completing tasks I need to complete.  This is true [for me]...I will be honest that this internet blogging thing is so new to me and I always feel like I'm doing them wrong. So I put them off until Thursday when they are due...and I rush to get them done in a short amount of time.

Some facts that the news took out of the article state that perfectionists don't procrastinate, they just worry more about their final product. Are there any perfectionists out there? If so, is this true?  Also, how do you do it?
Some questions:
To fellow procrastinators, do you think this article is true for you or is it bologna?
Do you think that procrastinators can not procrastinate if they work at it, or will they always delay getting work done?  

I read some of the comments below the article and it seems that most people don't doubt their confidence level and self efficacy as being the problem.  They just do so much better when under stress.

Here is a link to the actual sited article in the news story:
The Nature of Procrastination - Steel

The recent down turn in the economy has placed a negative effect on many people's emotions, often causing anxiety and depression. Julie Cohen who is a licensed marriage and family therapist gives some helpful hints to overcome the some of the emotional problems that can arise due to the economy. Julie encourages you to think positively, remember the positive things in your life, thinking about what you value can be very comforting. She also realizes that just thinking positively is not always going to be enough to get you through these hard times. She also offers some small steps you can take to help ease the financial stress you may be feeling, such as clipping coupons, and she gives you a link to a coupon site, as well as just making more economically appreciate choices for the situation you are in. And last but not least she tells you to take an honest look at your own financial situation and to consider getting help or guidance if needed.

http://www.dailystrength.org/experts/julie-cohen/article/as-the-economy-suffers-so-do-our-emotions

 

http://tiny.cc/Z1L6O

This is a post from another blog but it caught my eye. When I hear about all of these easy ways to slim down, get rock hard abs, be healthy etc. it just makes me wonder why more people don't live healthier lifestyles.  Why don't I strive for that? I know personally I have created many excuses for not eating right and getting regular exercise.

Summed up, here are the 5 easy ways to stick to any exercise program out there:

1) Imagine your goal
2) Come up with a routine
3) Think of your past failures
4) Prepare yourself to feel like you are going no where
5) Change it up

So this will make you stick with any exercise program, do you think it will work with any person? (why or why not?)  What about these steps is going to make an exercise program stick?

Here is a short little article with several, and what seem like simple, steps to gain back your weight loss motivation (and there are hundreds more like it).

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/do-you-lack-weight-loss-motivation.html

Right now the internet and TV are full of weight loss advice and covered with adds to join this gym, or buy this piece of equipment and you will look like our model in no time. And just that can be motivation for some people, while others it takes something horrific to make the change in their life. What motivated me was my goal to fit into a wedding dress, and I did, I had reached my goal. But afterwards, I no longer worked hard and have since gained it all back, why? What keeps people motivated to stay on track after they have reached their weight loss goal? What are some things that have and have not worked for you?

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95949912

 

I found this NPR article on motivating school children to be rather interesting and perhaps somewhat controversial. It talks about paying children according to their attendance, quality of work, and behavior in class. My initial reaction to this story is that this type of program is a great experiment. We already spend tremendous amounts of money on education, but continue to get very poor results in many schools. I think money has sometimes been mindlessly thrown here and there, and we don't see any good come from that. It has sometimes been said that raising the teacher pay will bring in higher quality people or that bringing in various new classroom materials will help students learn, but the problem seems to be deeper than that.

As was mentioned earlier on our blog, one major problem is "stupid homework." By no means am I referring to all, or even most, homework, but in my educational experience I have had plenty of assignments that have just been downright meaningless. You waste a great amount of time, learn nothing, and feel like you've lost a few brain cells in the process. Another part of the problem is that the belief that homework/studying is unpleasant and to be avoided has been instilled in many of us from a very early age. There seems to be a negative connotation with learning, and I think we should work harder to change that, perhaps by doing more to support "science is fun" programs and others like it. If students perceive educational activities as fun, they will find greater energy to put into their learning.

I also think schools can put too much emphasis on grades, which can subsequently cause some children to focus only on letter grades and many others to become apathetic about the education system. Although I have generally got rather good grades throughout my academic career, and a certain amount of assessment is surely needed, putting so much of the emphasis on a few short (and sometimes poorly written) tests does not seem to be the best approach. Sometimes such tests tell you very little about the students except perhaps their abilities to discern/anticipate what information will be asked on the test and cram accordingly. I think many students feel this way, and they feel discouraged when think that they will not be fairly evaluated.

This may be more a problem in the high school and college environments, but I think another very serious problem with our education is an overwhelming lack of clarity in certain classroom environments. Sometimes students are required to read very old texts that are written in an English language that is very different from our own. It is unreasonable for students to be required to read these texts without any guidance from the instructor - the professor should be there for a reason. In college, I know of at least one professor who gets away with murder by having "discussion-based" classes in which the student is given no other instruction than to "read the textbook" - such professors contribute nothing yet get paid in full. When teachers do not present material in a clear, thought out, and interesting manner, the student can become very discouraged and the learning process is heavily impeded. It is a far from ideal outcome to cause some students to have anxiety attacks and others to give up entirely. More needs to be done to address this problem.

The controversy that arises from this Pay-To-Behave experiment also merits attention. A question that inevitably arises is, "Even if these financial incentives greatly increase academic performance, is teaching children to learn solely for money to be desired?" Some would probably argue that it is no different than receiving an allowance for doing chores or a paycheck for a job, but I am still not entirely sure how I would feel if I were one of the parents. I am not sure I would be comfortable sending a child through this program if I thought it would cause them to place money above everything else.