Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Schemas and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies. And God. Don't forget bringing him up in order to be extra controversial with long headlines.

Explain the relation between schemas and the self-fulfilling prophecy. Provide a concrete example.
A schema is simply a conception or belief regarding a given scenario. They are inescapably standardized and invariably oversimplified preconceptions grounded in previous understandings of the world and our relation to it. They are inescapable because they dictate how we assume most of the world works. In most cases, we are right. To have to painstakingly take the time to relearn everything from every angle possible is not practical or possible. This is why prejudice comes so naturally to humans, and why I would argue is a one of our greatest gifts.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is much more interesting topic. Robert Merton defines it as "a false definition of a situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true." Further, “this specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error.” From Robert Merton’s book Social Theory and Social Structure. Examples can be seen readily; from the New Age and relatively groundless ‘Law of Attraction’, to cherry picking and applying biblical fiction to our every day lives after the fact. The reason why this phenomena plagues our otherwise eroding minds is because it is an immensely seductive prospect for us to not have to take full responsibility for our actions, and feeling that we have a ‘personal relationship with a higher being’ increases our perceived significance. What’s really great about self-fulfilling prophecies is that you are rarely ever wrong, and if you are, you probably won’t remember it.
An example would be that positive beliefs predict positive behavior, or vice versa. Put more extensively; ‘your expectations shape your behavior’, which in turn not only influences the way others react to you, but the way that you interpret the world.
“Perception is reality.” Is perhaps the best reconciliation between the two concepts. It is applicable for a couple reasons:
1. Reality is what we perceive it to be, and all we will ever have to go off of. This is a schema.
2. Self fulfilling prophecies occur because of how we choose to predispose ourselves to perceive the world.
What both of these have in common is that the human mind only has so much bandwidth, and by selectively focusing on certain stimuli in the real world, we can come to some outlandish conclusions, especially if we are immature enough to still be afraid of being wrong.
A concrete example of a schema is where Alice believes that praying to God will decrease the chances of her husband getting in a car accident and dying. Thus far, it has perceptibly proven successful given that he has not yet crashed. When he does, she attributes it to her not praying hard enough, it was clearly the work of the devil, or she thinks it is a lesson in some mysterious and indirect way. After all, this is what anyone would have to think in order to maintain what's left of his or her sanity. (See Cognitive Dissonance link above)
A concrete example of a self-fulfilling prophecy is where Alice believes that praying to God will decrease the chances of her second husband getting into a car accident and dying, and consequently feels ‘divinely inspired’ to research the safest cars, minimum traffic hours, enrolls them in a defensive driving course, and compels her husband to wear a helmet while driving at the threat of leaving him. After these precautions are relatively habitual, statistically the chances of Alice’s husband dying in a crash now are less likely than before and survives a their marriage. Alice consequently attributes all this preparation to God’s grace and inspiration rather than the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy since she hasn’t graduated highschool.
For more, much better examples:

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Media violence and aggression? Absolutely.


Do you suppose a relationship exists between viewing violent television and behaving aggressively? In addition, discuss a few other variables to consider when exploring this topic. Please briefly explain your answer.

Assuming that relationship is defined as a direct relationship, causal relationship, and correlational relationship; Absolutely, it is quite clear that a relationship exists between viewing violent television and behaving aggressively. A simple understanding of the evolutionary psychology and the human brain will quickly allow one to discern the importance of mirror neurons and how humans from an early age are programmed to be predisposed to learn through imitation of other humans they observe.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230


Certainly, we can believe to establish ‘morals’ that would have us look down on such actions or when we perceive violence, but I would posit that the human mind is incapable of distinguishing this early on. Anything that has been learned can be unlearned, sure, and maybe the society that we live in looks down on violence. Because of this overwhelming majority that discourages violent acts from being perpetrated without condemnation, we are apt to suppress it, and this unspoken understanding frequently overpowers our potential impulses (but of course, not always). So I believe that exposure to violence or any human behavior repeated to great extent for that matter will increase the likelihood of the viewer in doing something similar themselves. This is why brainwashing is so effective, because everything is relative. If one has little relativity to compare his or her life experiences too, he or she can be controlled by nearly anyone.

http://www.amazon.com/Murderer-Next-Door-Mind-Designed/dp/1594200432


Due to this question being rather open-ended and unstructured, I’ll explain what this means in the real world: if you expose someone often enough to anything, they will become used to it through desensitization, a repeatable and scientifically proven phenomena.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJB-4KF1J03-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fe4fa4d17e55ecc02348b7af4cc732a1



All this talk about how correlation does not equal causation seems to come as a truism - it doesn’t really get us anywhere either, it’s just a way of being indecisive. If we honestly took a look at the data we have available to us and think it through, it seems quite clear that we are evolutionarily predisposed to acting more readily in accordance with what we see.



I would go so far as to say that people will also become more inclined to engage in whatever behavior being exuded at a biological level the more they see it, and many times more likely, the less relativity they have in life. This is likely why younger people are seen as more naive and impressionable, while older people are perceived as obstinate and stubborn in their beliefs.


“The longer you live believing or acting a certain way, the harder it is to begin believing or acting in another.”