Lucid Dreaming

Today in class we read an article called "A Dream Interpretation: Tuneups for the Brain," which mentioned lucid dreaming and how it occurs during a mixed state of consciousness, "a heavy dose of REM with a sprinkling of waking awareness." Ever since I experienced a lucid dream, I've been curious about lucid dreaming and why they occur, as well as what differentiates them from normal dreaming. I have only experienced lucid dreaming once, a few years ago, and it is the only dream that I can still remember vividly despite that it occurred a long time ago.
I also think it is very interesting that the article said that you could train yourself to lucid dream, which was an idea also talked about in the TED talk we saw. This idea made me very curious as to whether it is true for everyone or not, and if lucid dreaming is as beneficial as the man in the TED talk said it was.
There are numerous theories out there as to what causes lucid dreaming, so I am not sure what is true and what to believe, if it is something that occurs when you are closer to waking up or when you are in deeper sleep. I would like to experiment with this "training" for the brain to help lucid dream more, I think it would be a very interesting experience to see whether it makes a difference or not, and to test out some of the theories from the TED talk.

Sleep Paralysis vs Lucid Dreaming

While we were in class discussing lucid dreaming, I had the question: what's the difference between sleep paralysis and lucid dreaming? People who have had a sleep paralysis experience say it is extremely scary and disorienting.   But, in the TEDx talk we watched in class, the speaker discussed lucid dreaming as being something pleasant and empowering.  There's obviously a difference between the two, but what exactly is it?

Sleep paralysis is where a person, during the act of falling asleep or waking up, temporarily experience an inability to move or speak.  This transition stage goes hand in hand with muscle weakness and terrifying hallucinations.  Relating to what we talked about in class-- sleep paralysis is speculated to result from disrupted REM sleep.  The body activated a temporary muscle weakness to stop you from immediately acting on your dreams.  When sleep paralysis occurs when a person is falling asleep, what happens is their mind is still awake while their body is shut down for REM sleep.  Think of it like being trapped in a dead body.  When it occurs as a person is waking up, they are aware before the REM cycle ends.  What makes sleep paralysis so scary is the vivid visions that accompany it.  Most of the time, individuals sense a menacing figure (an intruder of some sort) and on top that, are paralyzed and feel extremely vulnerable.  The figure is automatically assumed to be "evil" because during sleep paralysis, pathways in the brain become over-excited, and the mind perceives every stimuli as a threat in an act of protection.  Another possibility of a vision is an unearthly being attempting to suffocate the individual.  This happens because during sleep paralysis, the person is unable to breath voluntarily-- most because of characteristics of REM sleep that limit normal breathing.  This inability to take a deep breath is perceived as some sort of demon pressing down on the individual's chest or trying to strangle them.  

So, basically, lucid dreaming is when you are in control of your dream and have power over the outcome and content.  Sleep paralysis is when you are caught in your dream and loose control completely.

Meaning of Erik Skovs Dream

My partner was Erik Skov and he described to me a bizarre dream, but then again it was a dream so it was actually kind of a very typical dream one would think to have. He told me that he dreamt that he was riding a dolphin and at one point he reached the clouds and it just seemed to go on endlessly. My explanation to this was that it meant that he was very joyful at the moment. I came to this conclusion because all these things are usually related to someone being in this state of being happy and dreaming of being in the clouds could mean he was relaxed and stress free. If he were riding a shark it might have been different but because he was riding a dolphin I thought it meant he was simply happy.

Experimenting With Dream Analysis

Today in class, we began experimenting with dream analysis. My partner had a dream, where he saw his old friends who've never been to Los Altos, hanging out in the library and around the quad. The strange thing was, his friends were going crazy, saying random things and running away from him. In the dream, he was chasing one of them although he did not understand why. He sprinted after him, but was unable to catch him. The obvious meaning is that he misses his friends, and wants to spend more time with them. However, it could also mean that he thinks that his friends are having some problems and he wants to help them. Thoughts?

What my partners dream meant

While listening to others peoples dreams, I was surprised by how meaningful everyone's dream was. One that stood out to me the most was Alex's dream. He was looking up at the golden gate bridge while Frank Sinatra music was playing. I feel like this meant that he has an obstacle to surpass or a bond that he wants to connect. I think the music was the relaxation that he would feel after he finished the task. What do you think?

What my partners dream meant

So my partner had a dream where she physically fought one her old friends. She said that me her and another friend were sitting at the bench where we normally hang out and break and the former friend through water at her. It started as a verbal argument and then it suddenly turned physical. "I won because it's my dream." she said. I think this dream means that she still has built up anger towards the ex-friend she fought and her dreams were a way of telling her that she still has that anger against her.

Dream Analysis

As Mr. Stewart was talking about, last night I tried to actually process and remember my dream, I was successful. Although I'm not going to express my dream, it makes me want to learn more about the dream process. As it's said that there is 2 stages to dreaming, the stage were barely anything happens and the REM stage. This makes a big question come up in my mind about dreaming. Usually in my dreams, if it's a nightmare, the bad things happen at the end and you wake up right before something bad happens to you. Considering the REM stage is after the slow EEG stage, is that why we wake up? Or what causes us to wake up right before the bad things happen? Although the world may never know, I would really like to find out. I believe that the REM stage causes us to wake up before we reach the climax of our dream. What do you guys think?

Meaning behind dreams

The subject of dreams and what they could mean in the real world was intriguing. In the TEDx Talk video, one example was of a couple, and one of the members of that relationship dreamed they were getting cheated on. I could see where the TEDx talker could be going when he said that this could, later on, cause problems between the couple because the one with the dream might think of the dream as fact and take it out on the other member. Another side to this was the positive effects of dreaming of your ex. At the time, I thought he was making the positive effects up because in my mind nothing good could come out thinking of someone who might have hurt you emotionally and there is a reason why you aren't together. However as I thought about it more and Mr.Stewart's question about what if it were drugs made me reconsider. I could see why someone who were to dream of taking drugs would see no point in taking them because to me it makes sense if someone was already taking drugs in dreams, why take drugs in real life? This relates to dreaming of your ex because if you dream of your ex you might not feel as if they ever left because when you go to sleep and dream they are there.

There was a point in the video where the host asked "how do you know if you are awake right now?" My answer was that you don't. To me, the only reason I know I am awake is because after I wake up from a dream I am in my bed and my phone is to the right of me. However if I were to dream about me sitting on my bed or something, there wouldn't be a clear difference between the dream and real life. At the same time, I thought the guy was going off track and into inception type of things but it was a good question.

Subjectivity of Dream Analysis

Today in class, we watched a TED talk by Dylan Selterman about what our dreams can mean, and how they affect our daily lives. In the TED talk, he discussed how having a dream about jealousy could lead to conflicts with that person the next day, and how having a dream about infidelity could cause a rift in a relationship. In addition, he talked about how when a recent divorcee has a dream about her ex-partner, it eventually makes her happier and get over him. The same goes for smokers trying not to relapse, Selterman also said.

While I do think that dream analysis can be very effective and indeed affect how we think, overall, one may find that dream analysis is very subjective. What if a person remembers only small fragments of a dream, causing it to be interpreted the wrong way? What if someone only focuses on a single aspect of a dream, perhaps missing the entire "plotline" of the dream? Most importantly, people can easily make false connections between dreams and reality, and thus possibly lead to problems and conflicts in their everyday lives. Although Selterman's evidence does make sense, it still seems that it would be very subjective to gather findings from dreams and relate them to a person's life.

Trophy Kids

I was watching this show on Netflix and it made me think about or Psychology Class. Basically, it is about kids around California that have been worked to be the best athlete they can be and it somehow ends up working for them or doesn't. They have received all the private training in the world, but some of them max out way too early. I think this also brings up a parenting aspect and how far can you really push your kid? Every kid thinks different and has different thinking processes to certain situations. One thing I noticed in the show is that the kids seemed to lose the fire and passion behind sports. It seemed as if the parents wanted it more. It's a very interesting show, check it out. It is called Trophy Kids and makes you really think about the psychological aspects of relationships between parents and their kids.

Jill's Intervention

Over the last three days, we have watched an episode of "Intervention" that documents the struggle that was Jill's life and her path to becoming sober.  Shortly before watching this episode, we had filled out a chart with many common psychological terms.  While watching this episode, we were given the task of becoming "amateur psychologists" and analyze Jill's behavior and the behavior of her family based on these terms.  I thought it was a very enlightening experience to take a reality TV show and be able to learn from it.  Throughout the program, people brought up valid points concerning the terms.  The most common included cognitive dissonance, diffusion of responsibility, and psychological projection.  We discussed how both Jill, her mom, and other family members exhibited cognitive dissonance: Jill by understanding that her extreme alcoholism was harming her health but continuing her lifestyle of an alcoholic; and Jill's mom by acting as an enabler to Jill's alcohol issues, and understanding the severity of these actions but still doing them anyways.  Additionally, Jill pushes the responsibility of her problem on external factors like her parents divorce and her mom's emotional disconnect.  Finally, her mother projects her problems with expressing her love for her children on Jill and her siblings by refusing to say the words "I love you."  Does anyone have any other valid points to bring up?  Do you think that behavioral psychologists use a similar approach to what we did in analyzing Jill and her family?  Any other thoughts?

Jill and the Intervention

Today in class we watched a video from a show called Intervention which featured an alcoholic named Jill. It was interesting to see how from the very start of the video it was established that Jill knew what excessive drinking had done to her, yet she still kept on drinking. A good point was brought up that she was doing that as a way out but also to justify her actions. In Jill's head, she was thinking that if someone really cared for her they would stop her and "save" her.

Despite all that, the part that made me think a lot was seeing how Jill did not wake up one day being an alcoholic, but instead the chain of events that took place for her to get to that point. The divorce had a huge impact on her because she grew up without a dad and consequently she would seek the attention from boys. However, I think the most impactful moment would be her ex-boyfriend leaking her sex tape.The reason for that, is because I believe that in her mind she might have thought "A lot of people already saw me naked, no point in trying to act 'decent'".What made matters worse was the fact she was in a place where 90% of the population was Mormon. Now not only was she ashamed in her school, but her entire community looked down on her which I think contributed to her falling addicted to alcohol.

The Fine Line in the Middle

This weekend, I was watching a show called Friday Night Tykes which is about Pop Warner Football in San Antonio, Texas. There are hundreds of kids in the league and in the league, not everyone is required to play. In the show, kids began to give up and want to quit at the age of 8 years old!! The kids worked hard all summer to receive no play time and lose hope to play in the future.  There are about 30 kids on a team and only 11 on the field at once. Contrasting this league you have the trophy leagues, everyone plays and everyone gets a trophy. In this league, everyone seems to be satisfied and every kid talks about how they are the best. The thing about this league is that you aren't preparing kids for the future of being put down. Why cant there be a league where everyone is required to play a certain amount of plays but also the best players will be on the field most of the game. I feel that this will make kids work harder towards their goals but also have some positive reinforcement. That would be a perfect middle.

Negative Effects Disguised Beneath a Shiny, Metal Trophy

Last week, in class, we viewed a video about the "Trophy Culture" in America, in which it showed how children, as well as the current generation of college students, are being affected by it. This "Trophy Culture" surged due to how psychologists, decades ago, believed it was important to inflate the self esteem of children, however in present day, psychologists disagree, and believe this "self esteem movement" has backfired.

I think that giving every child a trophy or an award, even though they lost, and came in 18th place, or for merely showing up, has effects a lot more complex, than what would just seem an innocent award. By allowing this to continue, we are creating generations of non-motivated and conceited people and students. This may start out seeming small, however it later turns into the inflation of a generation's ego. This is causing them to believe that they are a lot smarter than they actually are, causing some college students to believe they should relieve at least a B in a class for simply attending the course.  "Trophy Culture" is not only promoting characteristics such as laziness and a lack of motivation, but is also changing youth's perception of success. By falsely inflating their self-esteems, we are depriving current and future generations of understanding failure, meaning they will never come to terms with what failure is and how to deal with it. Failure is a natural part of life and the road to success. If one does not learn how to cope with failure, it could potentially lead to never reaching success, because true success takes trial and error. Therefore, this "Trophy Culture" must be dissolved, as it is causing dramatically negative effects, all disguised under a shiny, metal trophy.

Trophy Culture

In class, we watched a video on how awarding everyone in a competitive environment is actually hurting more than it is awarding . In the video, it showed in youth sports, all teams will get a trophy for their efforts. They can win first place or finish last, and they are all rewarded. This "trophy culture" is affecting youth sports everywhere. Not only is it letting children have the mindset of they can perform however they want and still get a reward, it is actually lowering standards of how they perform. In other words, effort.

It is definitely true that it is important to make every child that played on the team feel special; however, there must be another way that encourages effort to gain more of a reward. Without a reward, there is no point in playing. With a reward for however they preform, it discourages effort. If they would implement a system to both award and encourage effort, it would be crucial for the growth of the child

The Trophy Culture Needs to Change

In the film "Trophy Nation", the host tries to introduce us to the idea that not everyone is a "Winner". Later we are introduced to the one of the leading directors of AYSO. She mentions that EVERYONE gets a trophy, no matter if you are in first place or in one hundredth place. Personally I wouldn't mind that, but if everyone is going to "earn" a trophy they should at least make the top three trophies unique compared to the rest.Personally this would be really annoying to me because after putting in all the work and contributing all my time into the team, no one would see how much better we are compared to the others. And in a response to the film by Chicago Tribune, the reporter John Kass says ,"We are making happy losers". When I read that I thought to my self, if they are being a part of a losing society, than when they grow up in their eyes they will see failure as success when in reality everyone else knows it's failure.

The AYSO organization argues that it is for them so that they can know what it feels like to earn a trophy and be apart of something bigger. I say that if they really do want to be a part of something bigger, they would go join a school sport or join another organization more competitive like MVLA for example. This would teach them that their hard work really does pay off only if they take the initiative to become the best player they possibly can. When their parents are finally open to the idea, that is when they will be able to accept the fact that not everything in this world will be given to you and you have to work for it.

Trophy Culture: Everyone Gets A Trophy

Today in class it was brought to my attention something that I had never thought and to me seemed to make a lot of sense, and that was the "Trophy Culture." At first, it seems like a harmless thing to do, give every kid who is in some sort of youth group/team a trophy for participation, even though that team may have had a terrible season. I was part of a youth team organization and just like the kids in the video I, as well as my team members, received what was basically a participation trophy. At that moment, I thought to myself why we received a trophy, we didn't win a championship and everyone was getting the exact same one. It was interesting to see how the mothers fully approved to this idea and some moms argued that it was good to give all the kids trophies because it would make them feel special and it would boost their self- esteem.

I disagree with this idea because I think that by the adults trying to make every kid feel special by giving all of them trophies, they are actually doing the opposite because every single child is getting the exact same trophy. This could also lead to the kid thinking that even though they do bad, in a certain thing they should be awarded something that is the way they have been raised. I think this could lead to the kid growing up and think that doing mediocre work or think failure is okay in the real world when in reality they have to face a highly-competitive world where okay is not good enough to get the trophy, job, or school they want.

Trophy Culture: How It Affects Children Later On

Today, we watched a video in class about America's "Trophy Culture" in youth sports. This involves giving all teams -- regardless of whether or not they got first or last place -- a trophy for their efforts. The purpose of this is meant to make every child feel "special", but psychologists argue that this just hurts them more than help them. This trophy culture that has been adopted by youth sports all around has ultimately lowered the standards of the effort that children should be putting into their sport so that they get a trophy even for just being there.

This is similar to the reward system that many children experience in school. When a child who does the bare minimum in their work is rewarded the same thing as another child who goes beyond the initial expectations, that first child's perception of what is good enough to get through life is affected. By rewarding a child for doing the bare minimum, they will continue to do just that, settling for a B in their classes because they're "special" just like everyone else who goes the extra mile to try harder. Some students in college have even developed the mentality that by just being present, they should be getting a B in a class like anyone else. Following this comes job interviews and that same mentality that an applicant should be given the job because they came to the interview. Ultimately, trophy culture has backfired, and causes people to lose their motivation to put in more effort because they are "special" and are now on the same playing field as those who do exceptional work.

Youth Sports: Can Everyone Be Special?

In class today, we watched a video clip about today's youth sports, and how everyone is treated as a "winner" and given a trophy, to make every child feel special. While this is meant to increase children's self-esteem, psychologists say that it simply lowers standards, as these children can receive a trophy simply for showing up, not for putting in effort or improving skills. These children learn that they can and should receive a reward for this incredibly minimal amount of effort, and lose the incentive to work hard. Later in life, these are the college students who believe that they should get a B just for going to class, and the job applicants who believe that they deserve the job solely because they came to the interview.

While this has made children lose their incentive to work and has essentially backfired, one can say that it simply didn't work. If the plan is to make everyone feel special, and everyone receives the same reward, then no one is really special. It defeats its own purpose and does not really make anyone special. Part of the meaning of being "special" is being different, and by giving trophies to everyone, this method cannot ever attain this goal.

Children's false sense of success

Today, in class we discussed how children in recent years have been told how great they are. Psychologists suspected that telling these children they are great, when they did not accomplish anything out of the ordinary, was only causing children to have a false sense of success. Instead of creating confident achievers they created entitled and overconfident children. This made me wonder: At what age to does telling children that they are special start to backfire? Take for instance, toddlers, will telling a toddler that he/she is special cause them problems in the future? How long do you have to tell a child that they are special for it to have a significant effect on them? I think that at a very young age children need encouragement, but encouragement does not need to be: "You are the most special child ever!" I think that children should be taught that they have the potential to be great if they work hard.

Freud's Psychodynamic Theory

In class and in the reading, we learned about Sigmund Freud's psychodynamic theory, which essentially dictates that we are not controlled by "ourselves" and our conscious thoughts, but rather unconscious and/or repressed urges. Freud believed that these true thoughts would come through in dreams, and that they would subtly appear in one's actions or creations. During his lifetime, he would ask his patients to lie down and recount his or her dreams as a way to see their subconscious, and connect it to their lives. Put simply, he believed that everything we do is caused by our unconscious thoughts

While our unconscious instincts may try to drive us from time to time, this does not mean that we are under autocratic control of them. It would essentially impossible to prove that dreams are a window to the unconscious, as all data collection would be subjective, and connections would have to be made before even analyzing one's mind. In contrast, almost all other theories analyze data and then make connections, but this does not work for Freud's theory. If a person has a dream that contradicts what he or she normally thinks, it does not necessarily mean that this person secretly believes in what he or she saw in the dream. Most likely, trying to find common unconscious thoughts driving everyday actions would result in only loose, strenuous connections. Loose and strenuous connections do not dictate truth and facts, but really only someone's opinion. Subjectivity does not lead to true conclusions in science.

Middle Ground in Psychology

As I was doing the reading for homework, it mainly focused around neurons and the Nervous System. It talked about how neurons function and how they cross the synapses sending signals to different muscles around the body. It also brought up many interesting points about how different medicines can affect the nervous system in the body. I was so surprised to see how different drugs can become so needed in the body and become an addiction to many people. However, I believe that there is some middle ground where the biology and theories meet to form a stronger sense of psychology. The biology definitely makes an impact on how we act as people, but we have to consider everyone is different. People all have different interest and situations that can also influence the way they act. This has formed my idea behind that there is a mix of the science of psychology but also life experiences that make you act the way you do. I could always be wrong, thoughts?

January 11-13: What We Did in Class

From January 11th to January 13th, we have been discussing the different types of psychology and how psychology has developed over time. First, we learned that there are over 60 different divisions of psychology that are recognized, but there are only seven specific fields of psychology. These fields include Developmental Psychology, Physiological Psychology, Personality Psychology, Clinical/Counseling Psychology, Social Psychology, and Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Each of these fields have a specific purpose and reach all bases in terms of research and helping people and businesses that need psychological help. In addition, we learned about the development of psychology over the years. Psychology emerged in the late 19th century when people first began to apply science to the thoughts and actions of humans. The first form of psychology to arise was structuralism, which focused on physical sensations, feelings, and memories and how these sensations evoked "structures" in the mind. Many people disagreed with the ideas and structuralism, and believed that rather than focusing on sensations, psychologists should focus on people's experiences. A new form of psychology arose called Functionalism, which main ideas were that organisms use their experiences to function effectively in their environment. Later, Sigmund Freud created Psychodynamic Psychology, which tapped in on the unconsciousness through dreams and lucid expression, believing that a person's true desires are expressed through the unconscious mind. In the early 20th century, Behaviorism emerged that taught sensitizing and desensitizing the human mind through reinforcement. Finally, Cognitive Psychology was developed, which focused on research methods and emphasized the metal process of how a person thinks or makes decisions.

Psychodynamic Psychology: Valid?

Psychodynamic psychology, a then newer form of human analysis developed by Freud, reasons that choices and actions made by a person are not actually an active decision by the person.  Rather, these choices come from an urge or desire that rests deeper in our mind-- a part of our brain inaccessible to us.  These desires show themselves to us only in our dreams, mannerisms, and forms of expression (including art and writing).  If this thinking is to be believed, then it is reasonable to assume that we do not have entire control over our actions, reactions, and choices.  This essentially means that free will is an illusion, and no matter what control we think we have, our primitive instincts ultimately override our conscious decisions.  All of our choices are pre-determined by the simplistic urges of our unconscious mind.  This is effectively illustrated in our body's inability to commit certain actions that will inevitably cause pain.  However, if we believe this theory, then conditioning a person to behave in a different manner than what is dictated by their instincts is theoretically impossible.  If we are fundamentally unable to control our choices and are unaware of our true motives, how are we able to change the way we make decisions or react to a certain situation? If Freudian psychology is to be believed, than behaviourism is impossible.

Further, critics of psychodynamic psychology stress that any evidence gathered by a psychologist practicing psychodynamic psychology is completely biased.  There is no proof of an ulterior motive behind a person's decision-- especially if the person themself are unaware of this motive.  Also, this form of psychology assumes that reasonless behaviour does not exist, and that there is always a hidden meaning behind decisions; meaning dictated by those desires that we are not aware of.

So, think about this: 

According to psychodynamic psychology, you do not have entire control over the decisions you make, and any conscious choices or actions you make can be overridden by primitive desires and true motives you don't know you have.  Essentially, there is "someone" "living" in your mind, making your decisions for you, and determining the way you will react in certain situations.  How's that for free will?

The new Marshmallow test?

If this “test” was to retrieve data about “decision fatigue” and if the kids who took the marshmallow are tired of being controlled imagine the difference if the person who directed the experiment was different. Especially in little kids, if they were just put on a 10 minute time out by their mom earlier that day and they were still kind of mad at them, imagine if their mom told them to wait to eat the marshmallow. Maybe the kids who withheld from eating the marshmallow waited because they had no reason to “disobey” the director, but if they were in that situation with their mom or whoever upset them previous to the experiment, they may have responded differently.

Functionalism vs. Structuralism in Psychology

Today in class we talked about the different types of psychology and the process of thinking behind them. Mr. Stewart said that in the 19th century, people thought people's psychological health or thoughts were determined by the evolution process and people's experiences, this is known as "Functionalism". However, people also argued that psychology was mainly based on feelings and images, also known as "Structuralism". I started to think and as I feel both are valid, I tried to consider both from a scientific standpoint. From my limited research, it was shown that when listening to music you enjoy, dopamine is released in your body which helps you remember the lyrics. I believe this goes along with the feelings and emotions in psychology affecting your memory, I believe this would fall under structuralism. Also, Mr. Stewart also brought up an interesting point about if you were bit by a dog when you were young, this might be the reason you will always be scared of dogs, this would fall under functionalism. Which idea do you think is more reliable or credible?

Is the Marshmallow Experiment relevant?

Today we talked about the Marshmallow experiment and the correlation that comes along with it. The experiment they did was put a marshmallow in front of a little kid and he was told if he could wait 20 minutes, he would receive another one. They accounted for 94 percent of the kids later in their life and gathered data on their BMI and SAT. It was shown that the kids that waited had a higher SAT and a lower BMI. However, I question if this is even relevant. How can we determine whether a little boy's patience determines his success later in life. I feel that this test may determine something about the kid in their early stages, however, I believe people all mature at different rates. The question also comes up what does an SAT determine? Many people believe it is a test that determines very little about intelligence. This experiment is very interesting, however, I don't believe we can consider this experiment extremely relevant. Thoughts?

Welcome!

Looking forward to your posts! Once we get the class up and running we hopefully can use this as a resource to help our growth as a class! As always remember the context of our blog...this is an educational resource. Please act like you are in class as this is a blog that will be viewed by the Los Altos Administration and the wider community.

Make sure any posts are by your first name and last name so that you are clearly identified. Any posts that violate procedures will be removed and will result in penalties related to the class. Report any violations you observe. Always keep in mind you are representing you, the class, your family and the LAHS community. Hopefully it will not only be educational but somewhat entertaining as well.