AU Blogspot

 
                  Thanks to Beks for permission to use this Photo.

The following video features an interview with psychologist Carol Dweck, author of Mindset: The Psychology of Success. Carol specializes in analyzing students’ attitudes towards their own “intelligence” and how these attitudes influence whether students will perceive learning as an opportunity for growth or as a potential failure to be feared. The latter attitude negatively contributes to a “fixed” mindset in which students generally become complacent and frustrated with their own lack of performance. These students see their own minds in a static light and gradually end up devaluing their own abilities. The former “growth” oriented attitude, in which students recognize that mistakes are simply part of the learning process, and that one’s ability to learn from those mistakes is integral to achieving higher goals, should be seen by our Ashworth student community as key to advancing through your program studies with confidence.

This might be a good time to take a look at your mindset. Are you more growth than fixed or vice-versa? It’s ok if you presently see yourself as fixed. Remember, you are fully capable of changing your mindset at any time. You just have to be motivated to change. Take comfort in the fact that we’re here to help you reach your potential.  Stay focused.  Your hard work is going to pay off.

Ryan Rode
Ashworth University                

               Thanks to Alicia Yeah for permission to use this Photo.

I’m sure many of you, like me, may find yourself in front of the television watching everything under the sun from time to time.  I won’t speculate on why, but I tend to gravitate towards animal-nature programs when I’m visiting the family.  If the program centers around animal psychology, then I’m set for at least an afternoon of random thoughts.  The PBS Nature produced special I’m linking to today deals with animal intelligence, a topic that anyone interested in the mysteries of the human psyche will find fascinating.  I think you’ll draw some intriguing parallels as you progress through this video, which is rather long, so I recommend that you watch it in parts, processing your thoughts as you go along.  Click on the image above to watch this video and be sure to share your perspectives with the community.  Take care. 

Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University

 
                    Thanks to Steve for permission to use this Photo.

Most famous for his radical theories on language learning and evolutionary psychology, Steven Pinker is a thinker with a vision that tends to provoke strong emotional responses in anyone who will listen.  The reason may be rather simple.  Pinker analyzes human intelligence from a zero sum perspective in which he meticulously deconstructs the foundations of what’s been established as scientific fact.  The following video presentation was made at Google Headquarters.  The Google geniuses always seem to bring in other geniuses to make the room smarter.  Afterwards, please share your thoughts with the Ashworth Psychology community.  Click on the image above to watch this video.  It’s good.

Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University Psychology Program

 
Are we on this again?

“Study doubts the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs.”  Or, even better, as per The Independent: “Antidepressant drugs don’t work– official study.“

I don’t know what passes for official nowadays.  The data is the exact same data that has existed for 30 years.  Yes, these authors are acting like they FOIA-ed the second Zapruder film, but let me assure you it’s the same old data.  These authors did the exact same study in 2002.  So have twenty other groups.  This is not new. 

But it is news.  The question is why.

I have a side question.  Why is it that when an article says something works, people are suspicious of bias, but when an article says something doesn’t work, everyone thinks it’s objective science?   IT’S ALL BIAS.  

People are completely missing the point of this paper and all the other recent re-investigations, the true social and clinical consequences of them.  For example: they’re saying antidepressants are no good.  Ok.  What do you think doctors are going to use  instead?  Psychoanalysis?  Nothing?  They’re going to prescribe antipsychotics.  Are you listening to me?  I’m not even saying this is clinically wrong to do, but do you not see the setup?  Abre los ojos, man. (more…)

                             Image courtesy of storyspinn. 

Recently I was contacted by an associate producer from the Dr. Phil show. Are they seeing if I’d be a good guest? It certainly appears like that’s a possibility. So, in addition to getting some very desperately needed help from Dr. Phil and his team, I may one day soon be able to give my bastion of loyal readers a quasi-insider’s view of the show and its’ process. All I can say is, pray for me, and, for now, enjoy this correspondence, edited, of course, for privacy reasons: (more…)

                 Thanks to Robras for permission to use this Photo.

You may have recently seen reports on TV recently about a new wave of online dating sites that match people based on genetic traits.  Although clinical, this method seems preferable to the reality show formula of trapping 100 degenerate men and women in a rented mansion until a final rose, clock, or beat down is won.  There must be a better way to figure out what type of relationship is best for you, right?  The following online test takes only five minutes to complete and promises to provide you with a relationship profile suiting your romantic preferences.  The test was developed by two prominent psychologists and turns out to be rather accurate.  I took it myself before posting this blog.  Let’s just say I have some work to do before my black heart turns gold.  If anyone wants to share their results, we would love to hear from you in the comments section.  This test is fun and insightful.  Take it! 

Ryan Rode
Ashworth University Psychology Program

                          Thanks to Karen Geiger for permission to use this Photo.

I really enjoyed Seth Woolf’s response to Deb’s solid commentary on his previous post. Since we don’t yet have our comments section clearly displayed on this blog, I’ve posted this conversation as an original post for everyone to see and engage. What are your thoughts?

From Deb: 

Dear Sir — I believe you have missed the point of what Dr. Phil has been trying to achieve. As young people, typically all of us do not realize the consequences of actions. I can indicate to you that as a owner of a company, these kind of posting would stop me from hiring an individual, no so much as their right to participate in such activity, but in that the judgment of said individual is not who I want representing my company. In short…it is that simple and professionally said individuals are limiting their options later in life, as they age and realize that childhood was not meant for public display. 

From Seth: 

It is perhaps true that I have “missed the point of what Dr. Phil has been trying to achieve” but, if so, it is because I find his aims pointless. I simply feel the cause and effect of this situation has been confused. If employers look down on such technological behavior and confessionalism, I think it says more about their own bourgeoise biases, and less about the quality of the candidates. More importantly, I would also like to counter your claim that “As young people, typically all of us do not realize the consequences of our actions.” This is a sweeping statement about young people, one which I do not follow. For one, I don’t see “young people” as a definable, homogeneous group. I’m 22, am I a young person? What about a twelve year old in Auswitz? What about an eighty year old with the mental capacities of a person one tenth his or her age? Is it for individuals to decide, society, or who? Similarly, I don’t see how a person, regardless of age, could realize all the consequences of his or her actions. Everyone, again regardless of age, must simply act with what information they have at a given moment. (more…)

              Thanks to David Zellaby for permission to use this Photo.

I have believed this for the longest time, while I was in school that those dreaded essays topics used by English and Health teachers Junior High and High School are used for identifying potential problem student. 

These very personal essay topics: 

“What was the saddest day of your life?”

“Describe a family argument, and how it turned out.”

“Write fictional essay of why you would run away.” and other similar essays….

I have always wondered, why they would ask such personal questions?  This is not the type of question I would ask someone I barely know, so why would they ask the class?  My theory was to weed out those with psychology, emotional, and family problems.  I asked a Doctor of Education and his opinion was that it’s designed to find and identify potential problem students.  Another rationale is to bring-out the passion in a student’s writing. 

In 1991, first period Health Class, I refused to write one of those essays.  I just did not do it.   One student stated he did not wish to share that information.  The health teacher yelled at him.  I simply said “I forgot”, and left it at that.  I also got yelled at for not turning in an assignment.  The topic was  “Write a Fictional essay of why you would run away from home.”  My thought was, I am not going to run away, I have no intentions to, and I refuse to write such rubbish. (more…)

 
                  Thanks to Li Evans for permission to use this Photo.

A recent Dr. Phil episode was all about women posting “inappropriate” pictures of themselves (i.e. sexually provocative or evincing extensive drinking or illicit drug use) on facebook and myspace. Even more than usual, today’s episode exhibited Dr. Phil’s proclivity toward using sweeping generalizations and blatant logical fallacies as the foundation of his analyses, which might better be characterized as arguments, if not Philicies.

The good doctor was especially fond of:

Ad Hominem: “Okay, but you drink and you’re seventeen!”

Appeals to tradition: “You think most people see this as liberating?”

False dilemmas:  ”These girls either don’t know what they’re doing, or are making stupid decisions.”

Guilt by association: “You don’t post the pictures, but you do run the facebook group!”

Slippery slope: “You’re not gonna be able to get into any colleges, or get any jobs!”

Biased sampling: “So, you went into a coma after hitting your head from drinking?”

The straw man: “I don’t look at these pictures and see Susan B. Anthony.”

Beyond these simple, generally theory-less critiques, there are also deep, philosophically disturbing problems with Dr. Phil’s contentions. First of all, there is a large thematic and circumstantial problem with Phil’s approach. For one, though occasionally advised guests and viewers to refrain from participating in wild, compromising behavior, his focus was much more on simply restraining oneself from posting pictures of such behavior on popular internet forums. As such, his argument is not, in fact, about ethics, aesthetics, or everyday behavior as such, but rather the mouthings of a tragically unhip Luddite. A Marxist analysis of this strange parsing is very elucidating. If an individual of relatively simple means and power posts such a revealing picture or written omission, it is quite damaging to job prospects, the social order, and even the rituals of courtship. If, one the other, a major corporation or commercial power (i.e. Harpo productions, CBS, etc.) reveals selective information or negatively portrays someone it is not only said to be permissible, it is in fact lauded as being beneficial.

Consider this simple hypothetical: you are an employer combing through candidates to fill a position in your company. You have settled on two candidates. The first, Ms. A, had a strong interview, resume, and references, but she has a picture on facebook of her clearly intoxicated, and vomiting. The second, Mr. B, also had a strong interview, resume, and references, and though he has no facebook account, he did appear on the Dr. Phil show in an episode that focused on spousal abuse. If you had to choose one of these two candidates, you would probably choose Ms. A. Similarly, one could imagine a website where users can communicate with others, view pictures and even movies of dubious social behavior, and learn potentially sensitive information about a variety of people. Is this website facebook or myspace? Yes, quite possibly. On the other hand, it might just as easily be Dr. Phil’s website. (more…)

 
               Thanks to Duchamp for permission to use this Photo.

It’s becoming apparent that the future of psychological research will not resemble the past.  The psychologists of today analyze brain images, perceptual stimuli, and magnetic scans.  Even at the height of Freud’s psychoanalytic late 19^th and early 20^th century, the discipline was widely considered a “quack science” at best.  Like other traditional sciences such as chemistry and physics, advances in technology have allowed researchers to see inside the subject, whether it be cells or black holes, like never before.  With the introduction of sophisticated neurological testing methods, the psychology field is rapidly taking on the characteristics of a “hard science.”  The following article focuses on a study conducted at M.I.T. in which researchers aimed to determine if cultural differences directly effect how the brain perceives stimuli, performs memory functions, and everything else you can think of.  The conclusions are fascinating.  This is a deep topic, so help me understand it by sharing your perspectives.  I recommend that you read this study.  Check it out by clicking here. 

Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University