The Lucifer Effect: Deindividuation

In Chapter 13 of the Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo discusses the topic of deindividuation.  I found it interesting that as soon as a person becomes anonymous, they are so much more likely to commit crimes they never would have if they were identifiable.  This is seen originally in the Stanford Prison experiment, when the guards' eyes (and identities) were concealed by reflective sunglasses.  Zimbardo drew the conclusion from their actions that anything that makes a person feel or seem anonymous decreases their sense of personal accountability.  Without holding themselves accountable for their actions, they are more likely to commit evil actions.  And, when put into a situation where it is socially acceptable to be violent or rude to others, people are ready to do things they never would have normally.

In daily life, these conclusions can also be seen.  When people treat you as just a person rather than a unique individual, a feeling of anonymity is achieved.  In a study where some college students were treated kindly and some treated as "guinea pigs", those who felt anonymous were more likely to steal from the professor when left alone in his office.  The lack of identifiability can result in "evil" behaviour a person would not likely engage in normally.

Psychology 2016

With this last post I want to conclude my experience on taking Psychology this semester. I think it has been a great opportunity for me to understand people's behaviors. Now that I learned a lot of scenarios where social influence can manage my behaviors (diffusion of responsibility), I feel more conscious of my decision-making. My favorite unit was by far "The transformations of Human Character". It amazes me how good people can end up showing their "evil side", like the guards of The Stanford Prison Experiment.
This class has helped me a lot to avoid social influence and take decisions by myself. Are you satisfied with what we learned in this class? Which was your favorite chapter? Would you like to learn something else about psychology before the year ends? Share your thoughts and maybe we can let Mr. Steward know!

Diffusion of responsibilty

In this blog I wanted to talk about Latane and Darley’s experiment of diffusion of responsibility. This last couple weeks I have been paying attention and I realized that this human behavior is really common in our society. Diffusion of responsibility is a social-psychological phenomenon by which a person is less likely to take responsibility for action when others are in present. The clearest example I saw about this circumstance was I while ago, during spring break.  I was taking a break from my ski day. I could see the entire slope from the bench which I was sitting. A man probably about 20 years old was going down with his snowboard really fast. He seemed to handle it pretty well, but suddenly he tripped on something and fell down in a rough way. He looked like he was in pain. Me and my friends saw the action perfectly and were worried about him, but it seemed like we were the only ones who cared. The people that were going down the same slope just looked at him and continued skiing like if nothing happened. After about 5 minutes the guy was still on the ground. Finally, a woman stopped and called the ski patrol. I was really surprised; Why didn’t anyone else stop before? I’m sure it was not because no one cared about him. It was just a matter of diffusion of responsibility. Responsibility is diffused when there are other people that could help. Everyone thought that someone else would help him, but because of that no one actually did. I was kind of upset after what happened and started thinking that everyone had been selfish. So, based on this last case, could diffusion of responsibility be compared to the human’s ego-centrism or is it just a matter of social influence?

Stereotypes as an Identity

In order for racism to not exist anymore, stereotypes have to be forgotten. So why is it so difficult to get rid of strongly ingrained racial stereotypes? Often I notice people can strongly believe in these stereotypes, and can often express them too, but people start to adhere to them. It seems to me that stereotypes are false, but are slowly becoming true again because people hear it constantly and start to subconsciously act in identical ways, almost like the 3rd graders who started to perform badly if they felt they were inferior - although the study was carried out in an odd way. I don't believe in stereotypes but hearing them constantly, whether as a joke or as an insult, definitely makes me feel as if adhering to it is the easy way to go.

Denying the Obvious

How can someone blatantly deny something they know is true? Do they maybe believe that if they hold their ground on the topic their opposition will change the subject or accept their view as correct? It amazes me how many people can simply stand there and say no, when the question is something simple like "Is 2+2=4?" What could possibly be going through their heads to the point where they will actually say that the sun orbits the earth, or god forbid they say the earth is flat. Is it just maybe they get overwhelmed and find it easier to stand their ground?

Scapegoating Races

Nowadays, there is a lot of controversy in the media talking about racism and privilege, specifically white privilege. You can actually meet people who are totally convinced white privilege is the cause of all their problems, and can become a part of exclusive groups who believe the same. I understand ending white privilege and stuff like that, but using all white people as scapegoats for personal problems is not a healthy way to approach a situation. I think it has turned into more of a hobby nowadays, because it is so common for so many people.

Projecting Anger

I find it interesting hearing about people projecting their anger and emotions towards someone, when they were given it by someone else. I can understand being frustrated, but why hurt someone else when you can hurt the main cause of your distress and anger? Personally, if someone wrongs me I just remember that they wronged me, and exact revenge either at the time or much later. I can understand projection but I don't see how it can become sustained projection, rather than just an outburst.

Anonymity in Stanford Prison Experiment

The guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment did things that got worse and worse as the experiment went on, but I cannot determine if the cause for all of these terrible things is mainly due to the fact that they could remain completely anonymous when doing these crimes by wearing their sunglasses, or just because what they were doing they perceived as being right, because they had no reference point for how prison guards were supposed to act. I think it is mainly due to the fact that this is an isolated experiment, and the guards thought they were doing the right thing, much like the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking. Thoughts?

Serial Killers

I found it interesting that while studying serial killers and psychopaths, they all blamed someone else. Not a single one of them ever managed to take responsibility for their crimes. I found this odd, because I remember learning about how they feel good when killing people, so it surprises me that they would not take the credit when offered, even when they knew they would be in prison for the rest of their life. Was it a spur of the moment thing for them to take credit? Or did they actually believe that being taunted by a girl in the 4th grade was the reason they had murdered and raped 50 women?

Suicide

After reading about the suicide clusters at Palo Alto, it got me thinking. Did the positive response by the students at Palo Alto make people realize that having all those students focused on them would finally provide them with the attention they needed? Do you think some students may have ended their lives AFTER the initial suicides because they wanted the same attention? I think it would make sense for lonely kids who seek attention to take their own lives in the face of such a positive response. Thoughts?

The Lucifer Effect: Dehumanization

While reading about dehumanization in “The Lucifer Effect,” I began questioning why history always seems to repeat itself. In the dehumanization section there were various examples of how people severely mistreated others and saw them as objects rather than people. Time and time again humans have seen the effects of dehumanization, however it seems like there is always some form of it existing in society. Nations criticize other nations for their history, but the truth is that every society has either been dehumanized or has dehumanized another group. It is hard for me to grasp why dehumanization keeps occurring; I’d like to believe that people are generally good, however it is hard to believe that when there is always a group of people who feel superior, which is exactly what fuels discrimination, prejudice and inequality in all societies. I do not think there is a viable solution to prevent dehumanization from reappearing, however I think that reflecting about our own prejudices and biases can contribute to a better future for humanity.  

Good People Still Commit Crimes

In class Mr. Stewart was saying how people who believe that they are good are more susceptible to doing bad things, because ultimately they believe they have good values and good judgement, making them feel less guilt or culpability when committing an action that is considered wrong. This idea really intrigued me, because well I do believe I am a good person and I would never expect to do something I morally disagree with, so consequently I began questioning how that could be possible. Throughout history, humanity has experienced the malice of people, most of the time people who seem normal. Psychopaths make up only 1% of society, however there have been multiple times in history where countless groups of people have committed atrocious acts, therefore there is something else that drives what are seemingly ordinary people to commit acts of low moral standards. I think this idea has a lot to do with the theory of obedience to authority; through Milgrim’s experiment this theory is proven. People who have an overall morally correct judgement still commit crimes, especially when under pressure from an authority, this is because it is human nature, or instinct, to be obedient to those who are superior or those who are considered of higher power.

Being Valedictorian Doesn’t Always Equal Happiness

A few weeks ago when we were reading through the “The Silicon Valley Suicides” article, there was a particular idea in the article that left me confused and in disbelief; the article stated that a lot of these parents which pressured their children into being the top of their class, compromised the happiness of their children. Immediately what came to my mind was that that was ridiculous, I could not believe that parents would not value their child’s happiness enough to even begin empathizing for them. It makes me really sad to know that numerous parents exist who are like that, especially in this area. Personally, I do feel pressure from my parents to do well in school, but nothing overwhelming, they’ve always told me to put my happiness first. These parents do not understand that the pressure they put on their kids has a huge impact on how they view themselves and their goals. I would think that as a parent you would want the best for your child, however that does not only mean having your child be the best in school, but that also comes with emotional health. I do not see much point in life when you are unhappy. I understand that these parents worry for the future of their children, however they really need to step back and reflect how their actions affect their kids’ decisions, because most of the time these students are trying to conform to their parents standards, despite feeling completely overwhelmed.

Throwback to Cognitive Dissonance Theory

1959 experiment, psychologist Leon Festinger asked participants to preform a series of dull tasks, like turning pegs in a wooden knob, for an hour. They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a "waiting participant" (aka a researcher) that the task was very interesting. Those who were paid $1 to lie rated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20. Those who were paid more felt that they had sufficient justification for having preformed the rate task for an hour, but those who were only paid $1 felt the need to justify the time spent (and reduce the level of dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior) by saying that the activity was fun. We commonly tell ourselves lies to make the world appear a more reasonable place.

For example, when my friends and I were talking about work and how much we get pain an hour, I didn't feel the need to contribute as much input or information because I was making the most an hour out of all my friends (not to sound snobby). Almost all of my friends make $10 an hour, but since I get paid $13 an hour (bare with me) I felt justified for all the work I had to do for that one hour. While my friends explain how laid back and chill it is to not have to do much for $10 an hour.

Examples / experiences? Thought?

http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

Robbers Cave Experiment

Muzafer Sherif (Turkish-American social psychologist) took two groups of 11 boys (all age 11) to Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma for "summer camp." The groups (named the "Eagles" and the "Rattles") spent a week apart, having fun together and bonding, with no knowledge of the existence of the other group. When the two groups finally got together, the boys started calling each other names, and when they started competing in various games, more conflicts began and eventually the groups refused to eat together. In the next phase of the research, Sherif designed experiments to try to balance the boys by having them enjoy leisure activities together (which was not successful) and then having them solve a problem together, which finally eased the conflict.

This explains many social behaviors we see today, mainly in school. Children come from all sorts of different backgrounds, which illustrates why they have a difficult time adjusting at a younger age because they don't try to relate to those who don't have the same similarities / interests. Thinking back to my elementary and middle school days, I can remember witnessing this a few times. Experiences? Thoughts?

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html

The Cookie Experiment, 2003

A 2003 study put students into groups of three to write a short paper together. Two students were instructed to write the paper, while the other was told to evaluate the paper and determine how much each student would be paid. In the middle of their work, a researcher brought in a plate of five cookies. Although generally the last cookie was never eaten, the "boss" almost always ate the fourth cookie. 

Based on the experiment, researchers gathered that when people are given power in scientific experiments, they are more likely to make risky choices and gambles, to make offers into negotiations, and to speak their mind about their needs. 

I never really thought about the psychology behind eating a cookie, but it does make sense. There is something about having a simple job title that, in a weird way, makes you feel powerful and significant. Can anyone think of an example of this type of human behavior?

http://southworks.com/blog/2009/06/21/the-cookie-experiment/

The Shock Experiment

A famous 1961 study by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram tested how far people would go to obey authority figure when asked to harm others, and the intense internal conflict between personal morals and the obligation to obey authority figures. Milgram tested a pair of participants, one deemed the "teacher" and the other deemed the "learner." The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner (who was supposedly sitting in another room, but in reality was not being shocked) each time they got questions wrong. He instead played recordings which made it sound like the learner was in pain, and if the "teacher" subject expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter prodded him to go on. During the first experiment, 65% of the participants administered a painful although many were uncomfortable about doing so.

Does this experiment lean more towards blind obedience to authority? Or more towards conflicting moral tendencies that lie within? Any other additional thoughts on this experiment.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

Community vs Competition

I’ve been working with a few other marching band members recently regarding a presentation aimed towards incoming freshman. Our goal is to recruit as many new people as possible, but the main focus of our speech has brought up an interesting debate within our group: is it more important to focus on community or competition? While my vote was for community, others did not have the same ideas as I did. They believed that in order to motivate the freshman, we needed to show that we were a high-accomplishing and very intense community. We did have a very successful previous season, but that is not who we are at the heart of it. Anyone is welcome in our community, and that should be the main motivator for what we have to offer. 

This doesn’t just apply to band- I’ve seen many instances where people value the game over the players, and I am often on the other side of the discussion. However, for a team to be truly successful, it is necessary to have a balance, and to make sure that everyone is aware of that balance.

Change Blindness

In 1998, researchers from Harvard and Kentucky State University targeted pedestrians on a college campus to determine how much people notice about their immediate environment. In the experiment, an actor came up to a pedestrian and asked for directions. While the pedestrian was giving the directions, two men carrying a large wooden door walked between the actor and the pedestrian, completely blocking their view of each other for several seconds. During that time, the actor was replaced by another actor, one of the different height and build, and with a different outfit, haircut and voice. A full half of the participants didn't notice the substitution.

This experiment was one of the first to illustrate the occurrence of "change blindness," which shows just how selective we are about what we take in from any given visual scene and it seems that we rely on memory and patterns significantly more than we might think. Agree or disagree?

https://public.wsu.edu/~fournier/Teaching/psych198/simons&levin1998.pdf

Are the Symptoms of OCD Usually Exaggerated?

A few weeks back, Mr. Stewart gave a lecture on psychological disorders and some therapies that can be used to treat them.  He also gave us a link to the page for the National Insititute of Mental Health.  I have been interested in OCD since reading this article and because of how often it shows up in the media and everyday life.  This is one of those terms, like crazy or ADHD that is tossed around and used casually regardless of whether or not a person is affected by it or not.  On the NIMH website, it says that OCD is a disorder in which a person affected has "uncontrollable, reoccuring thoughts and behaviors that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over."  Ever since the beginning of this school year, I have been experiencing minor symptoms of this disorder, but I thought nothing of it because I thought that it was normal for everyone to experience symptoms that are out of the ordinary every once in a while.  But some of these practices have gotten to the point where they are interrupting my daily life.  For example, I'll be reading a book and I'll know that I have already read the first section of a page, but I have to go back and read it just be sure.  Also, when I lock my car, I have to make sure that I hear it beep twice to make sure that it is locked, and I am often paranoid of it being unlocked even if I know that I locked it.  I have to read and reread assignments multiple times because I'm not quite sure if I got it the first time around even if I am positive that I did.  I experience many other little compulsions that I have to carry out everyday.  Also, as per the symptoms, I have certain actions that I repeat everyday (i.e. whistling the same song all day, unnecessarily clearing my throat, etc.)  Also, I am generally a person who likes things to be neat and tidy.  I'm not looking for any medical help; I just want people to give their opinions based on what we have learned this year (psychological terms, using the NIMH website, etc).  What I'm wondering is this: Are these actual symptoms or is it just me being overly paranoid?  Could stress be a factor?  Does anyone have any other general thoughts on OCD?  On mental illness?

Bad Coaching

Hearing about coaches saying things like, "Hit his bad knee" or "Take him out of the game" makes me wonder if maybe the coaches are influencing the way we play the game, and how competitive we are. Does following the coaches orders make us fell proud - as if we can accomplish what others cannot? It makes me think about things that coaches have said to me, and how I have responded. Can hearing and doing things like this leave a lasting impact on the way you think about competitions and opponents? Can people be permanently scarred by this practice, and put way too much effort into little things that don't matter? Share your thoughts.

Revisiting Topic: Dreaming

Earlier in the semester, we learned about dreaming and analyzed some of our dreams in class. Ever since we discussed this topic, I became very interested and started analyzing all my dreams, thinking about reasons why they occurred. I have noticed that often times my dreams consist of my worries or things I am anxious about. For example, I recently had a dream about my upcoming finals. In this dream, my teacher, Mr. Dressen was handing back our finals. When I looked down at my test, I saw that I had failed. Suddenly, when I looked up, I realized I was now alone in my Chemistry classroom. I ran towards the door, but they were all locked. I woke up right after this, but I believe this dream shows the nervousness I am feeling for finals. However, these are not the only things I have had dreams about. A lot of times when I am excited or happy about something, it will appear in my dreams consistently. In my opinion, dreaming is a fascinating topic, and I am glad we learned about it this semester.

Suppressing Moral Instinct

In the "Good or Evil" documentary that we watched a few weeks ago, there was a section that talked about how marine recruits are trained to kill in a time of war.  The challenge in this issue is how to train someone so that their adjustment back to civilian life after a time of war is a smooth transition.  Old ways of training involved using hate and a subhuman approach that caused the recruits to view the enemy as crude and animal-like.  This was meant to make killing easier.  But this causes all ethical rules to be ignored and makes life after war very hard because this is something that works directly against moral instinct.  The new method that they talked about tried to work with moral instinct.  For humans, this instinct is to protect.  The new mentality that was formed as result of this is that killing the enemy is protecting and defending life.  The also talked about training being very repetitive so that killing motions become ingrained into muscle memory.  I understand the motivation behind wanting to have ex-marines be able to function in society after a time of war and I get why they would use this type of approach, but I just don't think it would work.  I think that especially in a one on one situation this mindset of protecting life wouldn't work because it would just be considered self defense since there is only oneself to protect.  Bottom line, killing is killing and it takes a little bit of moral instinct out of people when they kill.  So would these "ethical warriors" be more effective killers and ultimately stay human after a time of war, or is this just another failed approach?  Any other thoughts?

Football Players and Deindividualization

    After reading about deindividuation in The Lucifer Effect, I began to wonder where we see this principle in our lives, and then realized that it applies perfectly to football players. In football, players often put a streak of black grease or face-paint underneath their eyes. I had previously thought that it was applied to help with glare, but after some research, I found that there is almost no difference between having the paint or not in terms of glare. Football players are, for the most part, relatively ordinary people in terms of kindness and aggressiveness. However, when they get on the field, they become some of the most aggressive athletes in the country. What causes this change? If we look at the Halloween example in The Lucifer effect, we can see many of the same results at work, where ordinary children become significantly more aggressive after donning a costume. If we look at this example in comparison to the football players' aggressiveness on the field, we can see that the black paint is likely a "transformative mask" for these football players, much like tribal war paint or a soldier's uniform. What do you guys think: does football players' black streaks transform them psychologically, or are they actually just glare protectors?

Revisiting Topic: Columbine - Dylan Klebold

Although it is not a very uplifting statement, it is very unlikely, even without meeting Eric, that Dylan would have been able to improve his mental health for quite some time. While his parents were concerned, they had done very little in terms of offering help, and it would have been difficult for them to know the full extent of the issues. Because of this, Dylan would most likely keep how he felt to himself, which, in time, can prove to be fatal to someone. After a while, the typical forms of treatment would not be beneficial, and it would become increasingly likely for him to simply give up. Hopefully, if he had not met Eric, things would have not panned out in this way, but based on previous knowledge, it is often very difficult to catch mental issues like this early enough for treatment to be effective.

What Causes Someone to Behave "Badly"?

There is a lot of situational attribution and situated identity that causes people to behave in ways they would never think that they would. But what does that mean? These terms mean that people's behavior changes in different environments like what kind of power they hold, and who they are with. Their behavior changes so much, that they might think they would never do something but the power of the situational attribution causes them to do it. For example, someone might go against their morals if it meant being part of the group, or conforming. Another reason is because of the pressure from authority to obey. People do not want to go against authority, so they will carry out immoral acts especially because they feel the authority has more responsibility than they do. This is another cause, diffusion of responsibility. When there are others present to take the blame, doing immoral acts isn't as bad. The guilt is also reduced when victims are deindividualized and dehumanized. When put in the situation, it is so easy to reaffirm our actions that dehumanizing the victim is as easy as just describing them badly. People will feel pressured to act immorally, but they know they will not be able to carry out or continue the act unless they can convince themselves in some way that their guilt can be lessened. How would you explain "normal" people's "bad" behavior?

Revisiting Intervention Kaila

The Intervention episode focusing on Gina and Kaila was the perfect opportunity to showcase how positive reinforcement can turn around and end up harming someone. Kaila’s main motivation for the weight loss was due to the people around her not approving of her old body type, and she had wanted a way out of the bullying. When she did lose the weight, she was showered with compliments and encouragement, and after a while, someone could easily grow used to that kind of affection. When people had grown used to her new appearance, that special form of attention faded away, but Kaila had already become accustomed to this. Rather than being able to cope with this in a healthy way, she resorted to extreme weight loss, eventually going as far as to “play god with her own body”. While positive reinforcement is in no way a negative thing, sometimes, when mixed with the wrong personality type, it can become more detrimental than expected.

Situational Attribution

In class, we talked about how some people may exhibit violence tendencies that only appear in when they are put in a situation that may call for it. For example: the Stanford Prison Experiment. Because they are not put in theses situations, they tend to forget about it. Although it may seem like it is for the better, it very well may be the opposite, because if a person has this quality and is unable to realize it, their constant state of denial could result in more destructive actions. The best course of action would be for the person to be able to understand their tendencies and be able to "treat it" through other means such as therapy.

Halloween Candy

In The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo tells about his experiment in which researchers put out bowls of candy and money labeled "Take one." Through their study, they found out that people were more likely to "steal" them if their identity remained anonymous. However, this "candy stealing" drastically declined when alone and identifiable. This shows how the mask that they hide behind can give them an extra push to do things they would not normally do. Once when I went trick-or-treating with my friend, we were in a very similar situation. Hiding behind his Egyptian mask, he dashed out and took not only all the candy, but the bowl as well. This example attests to Zimbardo's theory and clearly demonstrates his idea.

Human Behavior?

After reading all the articles about the transformations of the human character, I'm really surprised and scared of the results. Before knowing about Stanford Prison Experiment, I would definitely say that I would never harm and treat innocent people like that. But, after thinking about it... What's the difference between those ordinary people and me? None. They were normal students, like you and me. It amazes me how people can be seduced into things they never though they would do and how institutional environments can create pressures on people to move to the dark side and show the worst of them. Like Phillip Zimbardo states, "Unless you are put in the situation you don't know what you would do". Psychologists classify this last theory as a "Human Behavior", something we can't change. Do you agree with them or do you think there's a solution to this problem?

They're My Friend, But Are They?

They're My Friend, But Are They?

I am sure many of you can relate to this. You are eating a cookie and a person in your class notices. She walks up to you and says, "Can I please have a piece?" You think about it, really wanting that cookie and she says, "Please, please, please. I'll be your best friend". Unfortunately, for you, you give in. Then how about this. Someone asks you for money and promises to pay you back. However, it was never a promise to begin with. I have learned this: Do not give what you don't have. If have enough, will it hurt you to give it away? Friends are great, they really are, but be careful. Are they your friend, or do they see you as their wallet?

Revisiting Topic: Columbine - Black Swan Theory

We’ve all heard how the Columbine killings could have been easily prevented, but I feel like the black swan theory heavily applies here. Yes, the tragedy might have been lessened, but it is unlikely that it would have been caught in time. People are thinking back on what happened with more information than they had in the past, making certain choices seem more obviously beneficial than before, where they may have been avoided due to an unknown outcome. In addition to this, the mental state of Dylan and Eric is so clearly defined nowadays because of the journals and witness accounts, and it is unlikely that the diary entries would have ever been seen by outsiders before the shootings. Once again, I agree with the fact that there were signs people missed at the time, but it is important to not forget that based on their social status in school and their relationship with their parents, it is understandable how information slipped through. It is unfair to blame those in the past for not stopping these events, and we must learn from that day in order to prevent this from happening again.

Psychopaths to Family Discussion

While this isn’t directly related to a discussion we had in the class, it was interesting to see how the topics we cover can lead to later conversations between family members. I had brought up the difference between sociopath and psychopath to my mom one day before dinner, and that began a conversation which would continue through the following week. She had been curious to know the concrete differences, and had begun to apply some traits to people she knew. While there was no one who matched the exact description, it did give her insight into why people might have made the decisions that they did.  As I had found out, my mother’s side of my family has a very dark, yet interesting past, and we continued the search on Ancestry.com, where she had found connections between people she had not thought of in quite a while. Once again, while not completely related to something in class, it was interesting to see how what we learn can be easily applied in everyday life, and how it can lead to many interesting discussions.

2 Competitiors But 1 Prize

2 Competitors and 1 Prize

Let's say you and a friend are competing in a race and the winner receives a gold metal and recognition. What if the competition, regardless of the prize, is what is bothering you? Would you be more obligated to take them out than win the race? I have read several articles suggesting that people are a lot more aggressive towards their competitors than having the motivation to get that prize. If 2 maniacs were to have a mission to kill a person and only one would receive a prize, would you think that the possibility of one of them winning would be to have no competition at all? Perhaps.

Revisiting Topic: Dreams

A while back, during our dreams unit, one of the TED presentation mentioned keeping a record of your dreams in order to increase the frequency of lucid dreaming. I had started one, kept it up for a couple months, and decided to see how the months of recording compared to those where I was not. During the recording stage, while I had only experienced one lucid dream in those months, my dreams had become more logical, and I often had some level of awareness within them. While the first week had seemed a bit rough, after a while it was much easier to remember the dreams I had when I woke up each morning, and quickly fell into a rhythm. In addition to this, I began to see parallels between my dreams, such as reoccurring people, ideas, or places. However, when I had stopped recording, most of this had disappeared. While I was often aware that I had dreamed when I woke up, I could very rarely remember what of, or if it was anything I had seen before. Also, the awareness that I had in dreams in much rarer now, and they seem to be more disconnected than before. While this does vary from person to person, it was interesting to see how it had changed my dream cycle, and how quickly my mind had reverted back to old ways once I had put a pause on the record.

Gunn AP Test

It was ruled yesterday that Gunn High School in Palo Alto had violated the requirements for AP testing and will have a majority of the students retake their AP test.  It was ruled that the high school allowed the students to sit to close together and did not provide the 5 foot rule between students.  All scores on the test will be removed and the new score will completely overwrite the old one.  Students and parents are outraged and feel finals should be removed as a result because of more studying for AP testing.  Do you think the students should get finals removed?

The Lucifer Effect - The 29%

In The Lucifer Effect, specifically the Hawaiian Final Solution chapter, it was said that, “a surprising 29 percent supported this "final solution" even if it had to be applied to their own families.” This brings up the question- is this 29% a group of young psychopaths, or is this the result of something else? Based on what we have covered in class, it is highly unlikely that they are all psychopaths, and must be an after effect of being included in this superior group. Because of the new title, the people in the group are likely to think that they are doing the world a favor by getting rid of those less mentally fit. As this continues, the group would likely need more justification for their actions, and accepting their family members as part of this ‘purge’ may lead them to believe that they are unbiased, and their actions are simply benefiting humanity.

Is It Really Just Black and White?

Is It Really Just Black and White?

Is it really just black and white to you? Well, I guess so. What I mean by this, when we make careless decisions without thinking before the act, and then make an excuse, is it really just that bland? I mean, I am sure we make excuses all the time, but what I am wondering: Why? What are we so afraid of to just tell the truth? It seems like our generation has been taught that excuses are just apart of everyday life. But can't you see the harm that this brings? We make a white decision and are oblivious of the black consequence to come, if it is physical or mental. Try this. Spend a day making so excuses. If you didn't do your homework, don't just say that you didn't have time when all you did at home was play video games for 5 hours straight, and blame yourself for getting tired so fast. What is the worst that can happen? Maybe it would teach us that telling the truth and not making excuses is alright. We could possibly become better individuals. Thoughts on this?

Normal

 

What is Normal?

So what the heck? What does being normal even mean exactly? Well by definition, normal means conforming to a standard; usual, typical, expected, etc. I read another definition online that suggest that normal also means (of a person) free from physical or mental disorders. Well that's not fair. Let's say you were born with a deformity that you never asked for. You didn't ask to be non-normal, but because that flaw is apart of who you are, you will NEVER be normal. And then there's meeting a standard. So if everyone in my family uses chopsticks and I couldn't, would that be a complete disgrace and I would be considered strange? Well. that really sucks. Think about it. Are we all normal? Being ourselves in this society isn't normal. It's the same as being perfect. Who's perfect? Yeah... that's what I thought. Don't worry. Normal is completely boring anyways. If we were all perfect, there would be little fun and room for error and forgiveness. There would be no forgiveness because it wouldn't exist. Ask yourself this: What would you consider being normal?

Dehumanization

In chapter thirteen of the Lucifer Effect, many examples of dehumanization are shown. Some include the Rape of Nanking, the Nazi genocide of Jews, slavery, and when the Japanese brutally massacred Chinese civilians. In all of these situations, the victims were viewed as animals such as insects, cockroaches, and rats. Sergeant Mejia stated, "You just sort of try to block out the fact that they are human beings and view them as enemies." I believe that dehumanization can relate to situated identity. Do you think that anyone can become like the people who were able to kill innocent civilians, Jews, and slaves? I believe that if put in the correct situation, anyone can be vulnerable to act out of character due to their surrounding environment. What are your thoughts on this topic?

Interactions with a Psychopath

Today in class we briefly talked about the San Bernardino shooting that happened a few months ago and how the couple who committed the shooting were labeled as psychopaths because they committed this mass shooting. Many people disagreed because of the fact that everyone that knew them said that they were nice, normal people. Psychopaths can fake being a good person for a while, but being their neighbor or close friends you'll soon be able to see that something is off. This made me think about my neighbors and how I would have no idea if they were psychopaths because I rarely talk to them. It brings up an important point, how many people do you surpass everyday that could be psychopaths and you wouldn't know because you never talk to them. Thoughts?

Right or Wrong?

 

Right or Wrong?

I've experienced this all my life. What is right and wrong? By the role models of your parents, every child should know the difference between right or wrong at an early age. According to NPR, children at ages 3-4 should be able to "recognize  certain behaviors - such as hitting - as wrong, even when so one is watching" (Smetana). There's no such thing as right or wrong, more like what someone feels is the best thing to do. There is no machine or technology that measures right from wrong. This would be hard for a 16 year old teen who never understood the difference. For example, let's say a 12 year old was taken out of a household filled with his/her mother lying, cheating, and stealing. The child knows that the actions are wrong. Once they reach 16, he/she begins demonstrating similar tendencies learned from /his mother. Let's say the 16 year old commits a crime for the first time and uses lying and stealing. If the teen is pressed with charges, would it be their fault? Or would it be the parent's fault? Who should be the one to take true responsibility? And what if charges are pressed but the teen can't determine what is right or wrong? Is it pointless to punish them, when they don't understand what is right or wrong? Let me know what you think.

The media and stress

We have been talking a lot about pressure and stress among students these last weeks. I realized I liked this topic and wanted to learn more about it, so I started doing some research. Lately, I’ve been feeling more stressed than I was before. I’m sure it’s because the end of the school year is coming and we have final tests in two weeks. But, could it also be Availability Cascade? I feel like since everyone talks about how stressed kids from the bay area are, some students hear and read in the media so much about it that they accept it as a reality. I noticed this because in Spain (where I’m from) we also have a lot of pressure to get good grades and succeed, but the extreme amount of stress in students is not a big issue as it is here. Back there I have the same expectations as I do here, but since I read that the level of stress among kids here is really high, I applied it to myself and accepted it as a reality. What do you guys think about this? Do you think that the media is making us believe that we are more stressed than we actually are?

The Lucifer Effect: Palo Alto Highschool

In chapter 12 of The Lucifer Effect there was an experiment held by a history teacher named Ron Jones who wanted his class to experience the inhumanity of the Holocaust by simulating it. The experiment took place in five days and did not go as the teachers and school official planed. The simulation started off slow in only one history class where rules had to be obeyed everything the teacher says without question, they also made a rule where students could only answer questions in three words or less making it harder for the more intelligent students to show their dominance in the class. The class even made their own solute and slogan just as Hitler did. At this point things started to get more intense, students hung banners throughout the school to recruit new members, authoritarian members of the class started to kick the more intelligent students out of the class abusing them as they left, and soon enough the so called "Third Wave" class experiment became a school wide movement. Soon after a Third Wave Youth rally was announced, more than two hundred students who were so called the "true believers" waited for the announcement of the new presidential election for the third wave leader and soon they saw who they were all admiring and following, the former German Nazi leader Hitler. Out of all the experiments in The Lucifer Effect I personally find this the most disturbing, seeing how students like us were so easily manipulated to follow a former Nazi dictator sends a message that we shouldn't let our own desires overcome us. This shows us how as single powerful authority can turn us against our morals and beliefs and lead us astray,

The Lucifer Effect: Nurses

In chapter twelve, an experiment was performed with nurses and their patients. Twenty-two nurses received a phone call from a staff doctor. The doctor ordered these nurses to give the patients twenty milligrams of the drug "Astrogen", even though five milligrams was the norm, and ten was considered the maximum dose. When this scenario was explained to twelve nurses, ten insisted they would disobey the doctor's orders. However, during the real experiment, twenty-one of the twenty-two nurses listened to the doctor and were ready to give their patient twenty milligrams even though the bottle clearly stated against that. This experiment is a great example of how people respond to authority. I believe this relates to the strip search experiment. In both situations, people do things they know are not right just because a person possessing power told them to. What are your thoughts on this experiment?

The Lucifer Effect: Jim Jones

In The Lucifer Effect, we read about a man named Jim Jones who was able to influence more than 900 of his followers to either kill their friends and family or commit suicide in masses. What was interesting about this was the fact that this man was able to have power over so many people who had minds of their own, but still bent to his will. How was this man able to have such a huge influence on these peoples' lives?

What allows someone to have a wide range of control over a large amount of people at once? It is said that his methods of inducing obedience in his followers included warping reality, created lies, false analogies and ideas that appealed to the people whom he was talking to in his speeches. Additionally, there were reports of his followers referring to Jones as "Dad", which would mean that he had made a sense of family between him and his followers, contributing to their obedience factor to him. Jones' ability to influence people through twisting words and creating false senses of reality definitely ensured that his followers would abide to his will, similar to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. What really allows people to have full control over large masses of others?

The Lucifer Effect: Elementary School Nazis

    In the Luicifer Effect readings, we learned about a scenario where an elementary school teacher convinced her students that blue-eyed children were better than brown eyed ones, leading to a huge change in behavior, including name-calling and a new divide in academic results between brown and blue-eyed kids. After this, she reversed the roles, telling the students that brown-eyed people were actually superior. After reading this section, I began to wonder: to what extent does age matter in these experiments? From the readings, it seemed that the older people had to be gently prodded more to get to a state of furor, with the college students being asked a series of questions with increasing severity. The high schoolers also had to be given a series on increasing difficulty of instructions to reach their state of frenzy, whereas the elementary schoolers only had to be told a few "facts" about eye color to become hateful. Furthermore, I did some further research and stumbled on this (https://books.google.com/books?id=WXGUxpv9aSwC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA270#v=onepage&q&f=false) online textbook, which says that, in the Milgrim experiments, the old and young subjects had negligible differences in obedience to women. However, when instructed by a man, the younger people were much more obedient, and the older subjects were significantly more disobedient than when asked by a woman. Although this is beyond the material that we have covered in class, and I was unable to find much information on the topic, I can theorize that the subjects of this one of Milgrim's test, who were all men, subconsciously saw an older man as an almost fatherly figure, accepting his authority in the experiment, while they saw younger men as challengers and rejected their instruction. This would also explain why, when the instructor was a woman, the obedience was roughly baseline, as this subconscious paternal vs challenger was never put into play. What are your guys' thoughts on what caused this discrepancy in obedience between people who were asked by women and men, as well as the obedience change between the ages.

The Lucifer Effect: Halloween Experiment

In the Halloween Experiment explained in Chapter 13 of the Lucifer Effect, kids were given games to play against each other at a Halloween party. At first, the kids played without costumes. However, in the second phase, the students wore costumes, keeping their identities secret from their peers. This second phase resulted in an increase of aggression while playing. Then for the third phase, the students took off the costumes and continued to play. This third phase showed that there was no carryover of the aggressive behavior displayed in phase two. These results show the power of anonymity. I also believe this is similar to diffusion of responsibility. Since the children are in costume and no one knows who they are, they feel less responsible for their actions. This causes them to do things uncharacteristic to their normal behavior. What are your thoughts on this experiment?

The Lucifer Effect: Milgram's Shock Experiment

In a similar experiment to the original shock experiment, Milgram conducted one that included puppies and student volunteers conditioning the puppy's behavior using electric shocks. The students could clearly see that the puppy was in distress, and some of the females even cried during the experiment. However, seeing that did not stop them from continuing as 54% of the men went all the way to 450 volts, and a shocking 100% of female students went to 450 volts despite their obvious discomfort. While it may seem like these participants are terrible people, they really are just "normal" people with no psychopathic characteristics. Their blind obedience was towards the college professor that ordered them to do such actions. This experiment further proves Zimbardo's theory that "it is difficult for people to appreciate fully the power of situational forces acting on individual behavior when they are viewed outside the behavioral context." Do you agree or disagree?

The Lucifer Effect: The Palo Alto "Holocaust"

In my opinion, the Palo Alto "Holocaust" was one of the most frightening experiments described in The Lucifer Effect.  It happened so close to us, and with students generally regarded as smart and intelligent.  The students adopted the Nazi-esque rules so quickly that it is scary to think what someone with a little authority could do when people so easily bend to their will.  In the experiment, strict classroom rules were enforced to "level the playing field" for all students.  Intelligent and well-worded students no longer had the upper hand in class discussion, and were overtaken by physical and less verbal students.  An "in-group" was formed, and the brightest students were ridiculed and outcasted.  What was most surprising to me was how quickly students conformed to the new standards, and how quick they were to turn on their classmates.  The students seemed to have completely forgotten their personal beliefs and morals and instead put their complete faith/trust in an authoritative figure's hands.  Do you think it would be possible for something similar to happen at Los Altos High?

The Lucifer Effect: Blind Obedience

In Chapter 12 of The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo describes the test in which a team of doctors and nurses tested obedience in their authority system. They did so by having an anonymous "physician" call each of the twenty-two nurses and tell her to give medication to the patient so that it would be in effect by the time he reached the hospital. The medication was 20 mg of Astrogen although on the bottle, it warned that 10+ mL was the max dosage. The results were terrifying: all but one of the nurses obediently complied. After further investigation, a survey revealed that 46% of nurses "reported that they could recall a time when they had in fact 'carried out a physician's order that you felt could have had harmful consequences to the patient.'"They did so because they felt less responsibility on themselves than on the physician if something went wrong. This is really problematic in hospitals which contain many life-or-death situations. As stated in the chapter, "Thousands of hospitalized patients die needlessly each year due to a variety of staff mistakes..." some which can be attributed to situations similar to the ones demonstrated in the experiment.

Self-Perception Through Sketches

Last week, forensic sketch artist Gil Zamora visited my youth group to talk about self-confidence and how people see themselves.  Some of you may have seen this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrHoDJinMQI) sponsored by Dove, in which he draws several women by their own descriptions and then by another person's description.  In all of the sketches, the sketch drawn by the person describing themselves always highlights their physical flaws that they see in themselves.  The sketch drawn from another person describing them always shows them as much warmer and beautiful person.  This raises questions like: Why are we so critical of ourselves?  and What causes us to see ourselves as so much worse than another person would see?  How does media play a role in this?  If it is a negative one how can it be diminished? In my personal opinion, I think that this is because we have to live with ourselves our whole lives and we are always finding little imperfections about ourselves.  Also, I think it could be a little bit of an audience effect.  We generally say that we aren't that great around other people in fear of being judged or just because they are around and it is the popular thing to do.  It could also be learned helplessness.  A few of the people in the video talked about physical traits that they had and they would say "my mother always told me I had (insert negative trait)" or "my sister always told me I had (negative trait)".  Because they heard it so much, it just became a normal response to agree with what these people had to say.  What do you guys think?  Why are we so critical of ourselves?  What is the role of the media here?  Any relevant terms you can apply to this situation?  Any other thoughts?  

Are you a good driver?

 Ever since I started driving, I quickly started thinking that I was a pretty good driver. After learning about Self Serving Bias, I applied it to my thoughts on not only my driving, but everyone's driving. If you ask yourself, "Am I a good driver?" you would probably say yes. Nobody would want to believe they are a bad driver. However, you would blame a many other drivers as being bad drivers. So what makes you better than every other driver on the road? Is everyone equally mediocre at driving, but their self serving bias influences them believe that they are above average ? Or is the average driver good?

Jane Elliott's Experiment

In The Lucifer Effect, we read about an Iowa schoolteacher who taught her third-grade students, who had never experienced racism, what it feels like to be a minority and to be a victim of discrimination. In addition, some students learned what it feels like to be "superior" for superficial reasons. She divided her class based upon eye color, with the blue-eyed students being "superior" and the brown-eyed students being "inferior. The next day, she switched the two categories. She found that the students who were "inferior" quickly developed low self-esteem and began to see themselves in a negative light; they also became victimized by the "superior" group of children.

I looked into this experiment, and read about a documentary created about it called A Class Divided. The experiment took place the day after Martin Luther King, Jr.'s death, and Jane Elliott was inspired by this event to teach her students about racism and prejudice. The documentary follows the children from the experiment into their adulthood. Apparently, in the documentary, all of students felt that it was wrong to place prejudice upon others for superficial reasons and to exhibit racism. In addition, they all said that the experiment changed their lives profoundly.

I infer that this made the students more accepting of others' differences, given how they all experienced a form of prejudice in the classroom experiment. Given that third-graders are very impressionable, they probably very quickly began to believe that they actually were "superior" or "inferior." Then, I started to wonder how the same experiment would work with older students or adults, who are less impressionable than young children. Would it have the same profound effects? Would it teach its participants about how it feels to be unfairly judged, and would it change their perspectives? Thoughts?

Intervention: Laney

The most relevant concept is for Laney is learned helplessness because it is what keeps her addiction going. Her family also shows learned helplessness by not helping her or being around her because they believe there is no use in trying to make her change. Laney believes that she can't turn her life around, so she continues her alcoholic tendencies instead. If her family tried to help, and she was willing to help herself, she could overcome her issues with alcoholism. Another relevant concept is illusory correlation because Laney makes a connection between her relationship with her ex-husband and her relationship with her stepfather. Even though they are not alike, Laney sees similar tendencies between the two. This caused her to push her husband away, and ultimately lead to their divorce. What are your thoughts about Laney?

Gunn Suicides

We recently learned about the suicide clusters that occurred at Gunn high school. These suicides caused some questions to arise, one of them being, what is it about Palo Alto that causes these suicides? The article we read by The Atlantic suggested that parental pressure is a contributing factor to the depression and suicide rate. While I agree with this, I also believe that self-pressure plays a huge role. Since we live in a very successful area, many students feel as if they must accomplish as much or even more than their parents have. This causes students to take many advanced courses, which leads to heavy workloads, and lots of stress. What are your thoughts on this topic?

The "missing child" experiment

Last night I watched a video about a social experiment and it certainly called my attention. The experiment was called “the missing child”. After watching the video I did some research and I noticed that a lot of people had tried it before. The idea of the experiment was to observe how often people fail to notice their surroundings and, when they don’t, what is their fear to get involved in the situation. The experimenters hanged posters with information and a picture of a “missing child” on all the trees in a park. Some people stopped to read the poster while others didn’t look at all.  At first, no one noticed that the “missing child” was sitting in one of the benches in the park. After a few hours they moved the child next to one of the posters so he could be easily seen. Some people recognized him but they didn’t say anything, they didn’t get involved. They just stared at him for a few seconds and continued walking. I realized that this human behavior could be a consequence of the bystander effect. This social phenomenon happens when individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. People don’t like to get involved in a potentially uncomfortable situation specially if no one else seems to be doing so. What do you guys think about the results of this experiment? Did they surprise you?     

Wealth = Expectations

One of the main things I took away from the article on the Gunn suicides was the expectations that come with wealth.  It was mentioned that when a child's parents have done everything-- gone to an amazing university, held an amazing job, maintained a family, and secured a spot for their child in a place where they are exposed to so many opportunities, the child feels like they need to achieve that and more.  This idea only appears in elite families, and brings many responsibilities and expectations of the child to essentially uphold the family name/honour.  Most of the time, I don't think this is something that is ever verbalized, but the students definitely feel it.  My parents have never told me that I need to do x, y, and z, but there has always been a push to take advantage of my situation and go above and beyond the average.  Whether that's shown in the APs they encourage me to take, or the planning of my future they want me to start, the point is that there has always been an expectation that I will use the resources and chances I have that they didn't and become more successful in my life than them.  I think this expectation is what weighs on students in our area and brings these negative outcomes like stress, suicide, depression, etc.

Gunn Suicide Article

After talking about the "suicide clusters" at Gunn and Palo Alto High School, many view points that we mentioned during class made me think about what other people are really going through when it comes to school. Before reading this article, I would just go with the accusation that the homework load, tests, and quizzes was the main stress factor that contributed to the suicides. When we read about Cameron's situation, he was not your stereotypical antisocial student who would be contemplating suicide. Cameron "was a great student, all A's. He didn't really worry about school, it came easy for him," along with his "good time management." As we discussed what the possible causes of this huge issue could be, I learned a number of factors that could contribute to this essential issue. I do realize that there is no single answer that gives everyone a reasonable solution, but there are some aspects of school that can contribute to the student's stress in our overall area. Which of the possibilities mentioned in the article do you think is the most inflicted on students?

School and Stress

   After our in-class lesson, I decided to do a little more research on schools and stress. According to this article, the rate of depression is four times higher in people who do three or more hours of homework. While the article talks about how parents often compound this stress by pushing their students to succeed in school, it also notes that this is certainty not the only cause of stress. In class, we briefly talked about how the school environment greatly builds stress in students. We talked about the pressure to take high-level courses and do extra-curricular activities in class, but I think there is more to the issue. A number of sophomores that I know took MEHAP because they didn't know what they were getting into, and have been very stressed out these past two weeks, as well as somewhat stressed out for the entire year because of the course load. If schools had a way for students to judge and know about homework load other than by asking upperclassmen, a huge amount of this stress could be eliminated, resulting in a healthier and happier school. While there is no perfect solution, what do you guys think could help solve this issue of high stress in school?

Can Colleges Really Judge Well Based on Numbers?

This is kind of going back to our discussion about the SAT a few months back, but I feel is applicable now that we're talking about pressure from school in the suicide article.  In the documentary from a few months ago, it was revealed that college admissions mostly take into consideration test scores and GPA when accepting students.  We already talked about test scores not being fair because of the availability of different test preparation resources that are available to some high school students and aren't available to others.  But what about GPA?  This is something that varies completely from school to school.  Even if two students at different schools take the same class, they may experience a difference in the rigor of the course, how lenient their teacher is with grading, the work load, and many other factors.  In other words, when one student gets an A in one class at one school it likely doesn't mean the same thing at another school.  Even between Mountain View and Los Altos high schools there are differences in classes that I and my friends are both taking.  And these two schools are in the same district!  Because grading is a very subjective process, I don't think that colleges should be allowed to consider GPA and should put more of a stress on their essays and extracurriculars when considering future students.  Looking at a person for who they are rather than what test scores they are made up of will better reflect how they will fare in college courses and what kind of person that they will develop into.  Personally, I think that this information is much more helpful and good to know about a future student for college admissions.  What do others think?

Cameron Lee's Suicide

Cameron Lee is one of many victims of suicide in Gunn High School. What hit me about this student is the question: Why did he commit suicide? Some people will say that usually the kids who commit suicide are the ones who are considered to be the "outcasts" in school, and are unsuccessful. Cameron was a high achieving student, and was very sociable from what people have reported in the article. If this was the case, then what provoked him to kill himself? Shouldn't he have been content with his life if he had all these available to him?

Depression is a mental illness that ignores social status. Cameron could have been affected by this while he was alive, which would explain why he "never seemed to sleep". Sleep deprivation is linked to depression, which could suggest that he was suffering from this and lied to his friends about his reasons for being awake so late.

It is said that Cameron's reasons for committing suicide were unclear, but it was unrelated to school, family, or friends. If so, then what could his real reason be? Why do you think Cameron left a note like this instead of explaining why he killed himself?

Sleepless in America

Wednesday, I was watching the news as I was eating breakfast, and I saw this one story that was particularly interesting.  Here is the link to an article and the TV clip (which is ironically named "Wake-up Call for Insomniacs"): http://www.today.com/health/insomnia-try-therapy-pills-new-guidelines-say-t90136.
It talked about something that is pretty common in the United States: chronic insomnia.  According to their sources, between 6 and 10 percent of American adults have insomnia so bad that it can be classified as a clinical disorder.    Many of these affected adults are quick to pop a pill to get the rest that they so desperately want but have trouble finding.  But the story said that this is not the right way to go about overcoming insomnia.  Instead, it said that there is a promising future in cognitive behavioral therapy to help insomniacs get to sleep and stay asleep.  According to the presentation from class on these therapies, the definition should be: a therapy that both modifies behavior and trains a person's mind to think a certain way.  Based on Mayoclinic's definition of cognitive behavioral therapy, I was correct in assuming that it is a combination of cognitive and behavioral therapy.  It is also a therapy that is limited to a certain number of sessions and helps people realize their negative mindset and how to overcome it.  If you watch the video, it does end up explaining cognitive behavioral therapy as a structured process that involves three steps: addressing and changing negative thoughts that might interrupt normal sleep, trying to change behaviors that interrupt sleep and maintaining a normal sleep pattern, and enforcing healthy sleep practices.  Now, when I heard this, I remember thinking to myself that this is nothing new.  Addressing the problem at its heart generally is better than dousing it with medication.  But then I realized, maybe people might be reluctant to join the therapy because they are still stuck in the mindset that they don't want to admit that they have something wrong with them.  The pills or medication is something that has grown normal for people having sleeping difficulties.  I think it is an example of normative influence and also, possibly, learned helplessness.  This is very similar to the situation with the article about suicide we were reading in class.  In that case, the children are complaining about the school system being too stressful, but they don't do anything to get out of the school system or seek alternative schooling.  It's all they've known and all they think can help them to succeed later in life.  They don't want to take a risk even if the stress level is so large.  It's a similar issue here.  On the other hand, it could just be the rigor of the therapy: 6-8 weeks of structure involving no naps and basically forcing oneself into sleep-deprivation.  The video promises positive results after the sleep-deprivation.  But in the end, I'm skeptical that people will want to stick with the therapy rather than get the instant result they want from pills (even with the health issues associated with prolonged use).  Do others agree?  Do you think that this type of therapy would work?  Or do you think another type would work better?  Any other thoughts?

Education System

In this higher class area, we have seen that our schools are just as dysfunctional as those in poverty. I, just like many others, believe there are a lot of things that could be better with our education system, like better preparation for the situations we will face as adults as well as less homework. But if we feel that the school system is so flawed, why do we still participate in it? It goes along with the truth that we have been taught - by our parents, peers, teachers, etc - that there is only one path to be successful in life, and this is the most important step of that process. And while it's true that school does not have to be insanely stressful and overwhelming due to choosing your classes, students are extremely pressured to "challenge themselves" which can be a good thing, but not to the extent that we in our high-expectations society expect a challenge to be. Students find it nearly impossible to balance school with all of the aspects of their life, like their social life, family, their hobbies/passions, and the extracurriculars they have signed up for just for the sake of "success." So, I believe it is not actually the school system itself that causes stress, but the pressure to follow the supposed single path to success that causes students to turn school and other things into stressors by overwhelming themselves.

What do you think?

Stars can't shine without darkness

Today I would like to talk about the article on the Suicide Clusters at Palo Alto High Schools. Some people are surprised about the higher amounts of distress and pressure that kids suffer from in this area. While reading the article, I realized that a lot of the main aspects are also noticeable in Barcelona (where I’m from). People may think “How can they be stressed when they have everything they need? It does not make sense! They provide them everything they could ask for, so why should they be upset?”. The facts of having a very good environment and being surrounded by wealthy people creates a very high standard of living. Furthermore, knowing that your parents and your family succeeded automatically makes you want to succeed too. Being raised around people who achieved their goals and earned a decent amount of money makes you think that their situation is usual. However when you get to high school you realize that life is not all about shining stars. On the contrary, now you have to work hard to achieve your “social status requirements”. This is when pressure comes into play. The kids are so used to have everything they want that when they have to work hard to continue having them they find themselves overwhelmed. Some of them get stuck on the situation and identify themselves as failure. They think they are not obtaining what their social status requires, although they are probably in a better position than kids with lower academic expectations.

So, in response to those people who don’t understand why sometimes wealthy kids can also be upset and distressed: Sometimes as better is your social status, higher are your expectations. Everyone suffers from some type of pressure and mostly during adolescence, because it’s when you start depending on yourself. But although the pressure, the stress and the pain something can cause, it does not mean that you have “failed” and even less that you have to kill yourself, like those kids in the Silicon Valley. As the quote says: “Stars can’t shine without darkness”, right?

Pressure from Parents in School

    Today Mr. Stewart asked the class if they have ever been pressured by their parent’s to be a certain way and if they thought if their parents knew that they were pressuring them this much. He then asked if anyone felt like “Hell yeah I’m going to put pressure on my kid, have you seen the kids who don’t get pressured from their parents?!” and that made me think. 

    Growing up, I was never really pressured by my grandma, who raised me, because all I knew was that I didn’t want to be like my mom and I wanted to be in a way better than her. I then started to think about how my kids aren’t going to have that bad example in their lives since I’m an only child and didn’t make the mistakes my mom made, they’re not going to have a personal connection with someone who messed up for them. I mean, yeah, I’m going to be able to tell them all of the bad things I did and why I didn’t do the things my mom did, but what if they think “Well you did blank and you ended up in a good position in life, so if I do blank I’ll be able to get by too”?

Suicide

Today we learned about many common misconceptions regarding suicide. One common myth is that people who talk about committing suicide will not actually do it. Truthfully, when someone speaks about death or killing themselves,  it could very likely be a cry for help, and should always be taken seriously. Another common misconception is that someone who tries to commit suicide but fails will not make any other attempts. This is false because if someone tries to take their life, even though they were unsuccessful, the idea of suicide still exists in their mind.

It is also important to be aware and watch for any warning signs a suicidal person may show. Some include an increase in the use of drugs or alcohol, talking about death or killing oneself, talking about feeling hopeless or trapped, and many other things. If someone shows any signs of being suicidal, it is extremely important to help in any way. Many things can be done to help such as seeking out a doctor or a mental health professional, or even just talking to the person to show that you care about them and want them in your life.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

NIH Statistics and Royce White

    In the NIH statistics page, it says that 18.1% of Americans have a non-serious mental illness, and that 4.2% have a serious mental illness. This puts Royce White's situation in a new light. If one in every 24 people (1/24 ≈ .042) has a serious mental illness, it seems fairly reasonable that the basketball coaches or at least the team doctor would have experience and be alright with helping basketball players with mental illnesses. However, this is obviously not the case. White didn't feel comfortable with the coach, and was not okay with the team doctor treating him. After we watched the video on Royce White, there was a lot of discussion in the class that Royce White had overstepped and was at fault, and this was reflected in the blog posts. However, after looking at the statistics for serious mental illnesses (which is defined as substantially interfering in major life activities), I can see that Royce White's situation is a lot more common than I had previously thought, making me much more open to his point of view. What do you guys think; given the statistics on mental illnesses, should the coach of the Rockets been more forgiving, or was Royce White being too demanding regardless?

Behind Parenting: When Too Much Is Not Enough

Behind Parenting: 

When Too Much Is Not Enough

  

   "7 Signs Your Over Parenting", "Are Kids Too Coddled?", "The Dangers of Over Parenting"... 

So what is all this? These are just a few articles I have read about over parenting. Yes everyone, I'm sure many of you have experienced this, where your parents are constantly repeating themselves, lectures you until headaches emerge, worrying about every move you make, maybe doing everything and anything for you, and pushing you to do your best, until you start crying... Don't get me wrong, it's out of love. However, let me go into depth about the downfall, and yes, there is a downfall.

  

   Think about these questions throughout this post: When is too much not enough? Here are some examples.

      

     How many of you are familiar with McDonalds?  And the expressions that "Bigger is better", "More is better". Well think if this. If everyone would eat 30 McMuffins everyday for years, heath problems would emerge because of 1) The portion size, 2) The lack of Nutrition, and 3), it just doesn't work. 

     In parenting, articles and collected data has shown that obsessive parenting lacks what kids need most: Support. Without the support from a parent, the child is constantly stressed. When all there is in a relationship in lectures, where is the companionship? Every person, from infancy to the age of 18, need guidance. 

      However, there is also the downfall to that. Then there is too much guidance, where the child becomes reliant on the parent for everything. Their whole world becomes dependent on their parents, and thus, makes becoming independent a brutal process. 

      In conclusion, don't get me wrong, parents do what they to raise their children the best they can. And so observers infer that there are parental techniques that work well and others that don't. We look up to our parents for everything, but sometimes their intentions don't work as well as planned.