post 7 : memory

 

On the short term memory test, I scored 7/12. I was able to do this by combining the words: like imagining a vase with a tiger on it and an orange house. I think this test is pretty valid because I think I have an about average memory and the results reflected that. 

On the STM picture test, I remembered eight items. I used the same strategy, but this time I focused on remembering one familiar object and the connections it had to other items. Like I connected the globe and computer to be the worldwide web, and the ice cream and rainbow to be childish things. Grouping the images really helped. I do think this test has a little more problems with validity because results are self reported and it doesn't tell you how long you have to look at them or how to move on, so it might be distracting to people who are thinking about that and not the test so it's actually just testing your focus.

On the problem-solving test, I scored a 58, or the hit-or-miss score range. I think this is pretty accurate, though I dislike tests with the checkboxes from rarely to often because I don't get how much qualifies as often and a lot of times I want to elaborate on what I mean by my answer. This might mess up the validity as the test isn't really standardized. But if the test is valid, I guess it makes sense. My approach to problem solving is not very organized and more of a tossing ideas in the air and bouncing them off other people, but I think at the end of the day this strategy works for the problems I have. 

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-04-key-protein-production-neurons-memory.html I found this cool article about a specific protein a researcher identified that's linked with memory and learning in adults. Pretty cool. I wonder if we could figure out how to boost the production of this protein to make people smarter and improve their memory?

post 6 : social psych

 for my social psych irl theme, i chose the pokémon games.

compliance: it is a norm to train your starter pokémon to its max evolution and keep it on your team, and most people comply to this norm even though you’re allowed to take your starter off your team. people keep their starters because they’re expected to and everyone else does, which shows compliance.

obedience: throughout the games, there are pokémon professors who give you orders. since these npc’s are authority figures, players are inclined to follow their instructions even if it goes against the norms they know because of obedience. 

social facilitation: you gain more xp from battling with other trainers than you do from battling wild pokémon or npcs. this shows that other people watching you battle increases your performance 

group polarization: when a game comes out with new starters, each player forms an opinion about their favorite but the group as a whole tends to be very harsh on the starters, more so than each player is individually 

reciprocity norms: when trading, players avoid giving bad pokémon and give good pokémon instead with the expectation that the other player will return the favor and they will benefit.

here’s an interesting article about the sociology of pokémon: https://sociologyofvideogames.com/2013/05/23/lessons-on-the-social-world-pokemon/

post 5 : the anything blog

 hello !! for this week, i found an interesting article called "why the 'victim mentality' argument upholds inequality" (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pulling-through/202304/why-the-victim-mentality-argument-upholds-inequality). this article describes and debunks the argument that poor people are poor because of their own choices and systemic barriers are just excuses for being lazy. this idea has always been present, but it really took off under the reagan administration; reagan replaced the "war on poverty" with the "war on drugs" and popularized the idea of "spillover economics" (when the rich get richer the poor also benefit) and the "welfare queen"; a black single mother who, according to reagan, would spend welfare money on frivolous things instead of providing for their children. this idea is rooted in racism and was just a way for reagan to further strip welfare from marginalized groups, but unfortunately, it is still prevalent as an argument against welfare. 

the "victim mentality" is similar to this idea; it states that when people believe that their poverty is due to systemic factors like racism, they don't work as hard because they have an external locus of control. the argument is that poor people will suffer from learned helplessness. however, this article explains that this argument is simply false. the idea of learned helplessness results from when someone actually TRIES to succeed and can't, proving that if poor people suffer from it there clearly is some sort of barrier to economic mobility. the article also points out that while the negative potential of welfare is still in question, its positive effects are undeniable; the article includes the quote: 

"I was a free lunch kid...I do not know whether free lunch made me work harder. I do not know whether free lunch improved my grades. I do not know whether free lunch improved my classroom behavior. What I know is that I was a hungry child and I was fed. —Veronica Peritte"

another answer to complaints of systemic inequality is "but what about the rags to riches stories!!" but these examples are the exception, not the rule. for every one person lifted out of poverty, dozens remain. rather than tell poor people they should try for a statistical unprobability, we should give support to make sure every person in poverty is able to succeed, not just a chosen few. the psychology of the victim mentality and locus of control is simply untrue, and psychology supports that people are happier when their needs are met.