First Impression Post- Personality

This week in psychology we are studying personality, so I was assigned to do 4 personality tests and compare them to what I think of myself.

Jung Personality Test: I got INFP (Introvert 6% , Intuitive 3%, Feeling 31% , and Perceiving 9%), which basically means I’m more in the middle of everything except that I feel more than I judge. I feel like this fits me fairly well, because all of these are factored on my mood, like sometimes I want to be around others and sometimes I don’t, as well as the top job was nurse, so for me this test was pretty right. However, I feel like this test could easily be manipulated by the state of mind the person taking it is in, so it’s not a good indicator of personality.

Personality Test Center: Result- ESFJ- At first seeing extroverted bothered me because I’m usually introverted, but after reading the description I realized it fits me perfectly. This is because I like to feel accepted by people, which is a major part of this personality type. Also, the top job for this type is a nurse, which is what I want to do. I still feel like this test could easily be influenced by mood.

Big 5 test: Results- Extroversion~67%, Emotional Stability~ 2%, Agreeableness~ 62%, Conscientiousness~ 62%, Intelligence/Imagination 80%. Again, on this one I thought the extraversion was high, but I might just not see this in myself. Honestly, the rest of this didn’t surprise me, but again state of mind is a big part of this, and we might try to conform our thoughts about ourselves to this idea to make it seem like it worked.

Color Quiz: The long list of results on the color quiz didn’t fit me really because even though I do like to stand out, it’s not for the reasons stated. This test is very inaccurate because even though colors are important, these colors were very muted, and they didn’t really click with me in the first place.


Personality Test Results

The results I got for the Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test revealed my type to be INFJ (Introvert, iNtuitive, Feeling, Judging). These results only indicated slight preferences; for example, I got a 9% preference for introversion over extroversion. Upon obtaining this result, I immediately had to acknowledge the credibility of this test because I obtained the exact same result about 4 years ago when I took it for my sophomore English class. I do agree with this assessment of my personality; I agreed with it even back then. I also agree with the fact that all of my preferences are small, which shows I can be flexible with my personality at certain times. For example, I am an introverted person, but I do not let this influence my relationships with others and I can become extroverted quite easily (usually when I am in a really good mood). People are often surprised if I raise my voice or socialize with everyone in a room. The INFJ type description even stated that we tend to be mistaken for extroverts. I actually agree and acknowledge that my personality fits all aspects of the description. I will often times withdraw myself from others around me, especially the people I am closer to when I am upset, stressed, or physically/emotionally depleted. I have had so many people get upset with me for this, but I personally do not believe getting upset with someone for needing time alone due to  being stressed or emotionally unstable is the right way to handle it. This also supports the idea that only people who have extensive experience with others of this personality type are best at interacting with us. The second “Jungian Personality Type” I obtained was ISFJ. I am not surprised by this, as I was only 6% intuitive on the first test. I would say I am more of a sensor, as I prefer to stick to an exact time schedule and find it hard to look beyond facts. The “Open Source Psychometrics Project” revealed percentile scores of: 33 for extroversion, 16 for emotional stability, 30 for agreeableness, 92 for conscientious, and 46 for intellect/imagination. I was most surprised by the percentiles regarding emotional stability and conscientiousness, as they were quite extreme values. The percentiles were derived by comparing my individual score with the scores of others. It is not so much that I disagree with these two extreme results, but am just surprised by them. It described conscientious people as being more careful and diligent, which describes me pretty well. I am unsure if I am more surprised at the fact I am so much more conscientious and emotionally unstable than so many others or the fact so many others appear to be so unlike myself. I think my strict carefulness and emotional instability stem from past events and learning about what I should and should not do from them. The Color Test was interesting in that it tried to prevent the test-taker’s working memory from storing the first order in which colors were chosen from the second order; basically, it tried to prevent the test-taker from turning the personality test into a memory test. The creators claimed their test to be quite an accurate one, as it is used by doctors and psychologists in facilitating patient diagnoses. They also mentioned the results one obtains from the test are not a conclusive diagnosis and that one should see a doctor or psychiatrist for proper diagnosis. I thought this disclaimer was important and caused the test to not mislead others into assuming the test results are the final say. On the other hand, I thought my personal results were pretty broad and not very useful. For example, the results indicated I appear to be seeking my own identity, along with nurturing relationships and a desire to protect my emotions. I honestly believe this to be the case for the majority of young adults. Even though I was not asked about my age, I still feel this to be the case. The results were pretty accurate in describing my desire to avoid conflict and reduce stress. This particular result actually reinforces the result I obtained from the first personality test with regards to how INFJ types withdraw themselves from others to reduce their own stress.


Divorce- Spotlight Post

In the last few generations, divorce has become more normalized, which many will argue is hurting the family unit, which in turn hurts the children as well. Yes, divorce does hurt the kids at first, because many will think it’s their fault, or will feel like they aren’t loved by one or both parents. But, what many don’t consider is the fact that divorce can hurt kids more than the parents staying together; what decides how well off the children will be is how the divorce is handled by everyone involved.

If the divorce is done in an angry, bitter, drawn-out cloud of arguing and problems, then of course the children will be affected. In a paper written by Jann Gumbiner, this idea of a bad divorce is played out, but she argues that there is no idea of a good divorce; the problem with her argument is that the divorce described was a bad divorce in a time where divorce was still not normal, so had her situation been different, then maybe she would think different. Dr. Shoshana Bennett highlights the benefits of a good divorce in her article in the Huffington Post, where she points out many things, like shared custody and supportive relationships, neither of which Gumbiner had, which shows how a good divorce can change how the kids are affected by the divorce. Susan Pease Gadoua also argues in support of divorce, by saying that kids are resilient, and that it is important to test the waters to fully prepare the children for divorce.

There have been many studies done about this topic, but the one that argues in favor of the parents staying together the most was posted in Daily Mail. Going through the study, it seems like a good study, which actually shows how kids are affected, but what it doesn’t show is how the children act if the parents stay together. This comparison is important because it compares what would happen if the kids were allowed to stay in the darkness, versus they were given more room with the divorce.

Overall, it’s best to have a happy set of married parents, but life isn’t perfect, so if the marriage isn’t going great, it’s better to settle things amicably, and make sure the kids are happy, rather than to give a false sense of happiness to kids who know better.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/divorce-and-kids-5-ways-d_n_1519485.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201110/divorce-hurts-children-even-grown-ones

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/contemplating-divorce/200911/divorce-doesnt-harm-children-parents-fighting-harms-child

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095181/A-divorce-good-children-matter-amicable-says-study.html


Week 10 First Impression Post – Personality

Hand writing on a notebook

We all want to know more about our ourselves, and psychological tests are one way to explore our personalities. While the full psychological tests are often long and require a fee to take, there are an abundance of free versions online. Take the four personality tests linked below, discuss how accurately they describe your perception of your personality, and discuss the credibility of each test. Make sure to use the tag “Personality” on your post.

I look forward to seeing what you write!

Header image: CC by Flickr user Caitlinator
Share Via: Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Divorce: Spotlight Post #1

o-DIVORCE-KIDS-facebook

In the Article, Divorce Not Always Bad for Kids, the author, Rachael Rettner, discusses how children are better off with divorced parents than living with parents who fight often. She stated, “Constant exposure to their parents’ strife is likely what causes children’s future relationships to suffer”(Rettner). This sounds sensible because it is a known fact that children are impressionable. To see their parents exemplify volatile behavior can lead to future volatile behavior in their personal relationships. In a similar article titled, Divorce Doesn’t Harm Children – Parents Fighting Harms Child, the author, Susan Gadoua, expresses how staying married for the sake of the children does not benefit them at all. Gadoua asserts, “Children are resilient and when you are happy, they are much more likely to be happy”(Gadoua). While additionally stating, “Regardless of whether parents stay together or split, if there is fighting going on between them, the children will suffer”(Gadoua). I agree that any form of conflict coming from the parents will later affect the children. It does not matter if the parents choose to stay together or not, if conflicts continue to arise, the children will likely be harmed mentally and emotionally.

On the contrary, some researchers have argued that the separation of parents will hurt their children in the long-run. With divorce rates soaring in the United States, the number of potentially scarred children increases as well. In the short article, Divorce ‘permanently harms learning and affects their ability to make friends’, Jenny Hope, discusses one interesting finding that entails how children with divorced parents tend to struggle in the educational environment. She states, “By following 3,585 children from around the age of four — Children of divorce experience setbacks in maths test scores and show problems with interpersonal skills and internalizing behavior”(Hope). This is a reasonable finding because divorce forces children to deal with personal matters that can consume them to the point of losing interest in their academics. Children can also become so consumed with their feelings and no longer have the ability to be attentive in the educational/social setting. Additionally, the article, Divorce Hurts: Three Ways Divorce Harms Children, the author discusses how children need a sense of stability to feel comfortable with their everyday lives. Parents who divorce are interrupting the “routine” that children have and wish to stick to. Later in the article the author discusses how the loss of a parent leads to the loss of material things. By the parents splitting “the child may still feel a sense of loss because that parent is no longer present in the household” and children lose out on material things because “it costs more to operate two households than it costs to operate one”.

In my opinion, the divorce process should be depicted as a peaceful one. This is an emotionally challenging event in a child’s life and to see their parents in conflict, only adds to the trauma. If a married couple is unhappy with one another, they should split. Staying in a marriage for the sake of the children will not make the children turn out to be better individuals. Experiencing consistent conflict will cause them to have behavioral issues themselves later in life. What’s important is what’s being depicted in front of the children.

Sources:

“Divorce Hurts: Three Ways Divorce Harms Children.” Meriwether & Tharp, LLC. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.
Hope, Jenny. “Divorce ‘permanently Harms Learning and Affects Their Ability to Make Friends’.” Daily Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 02 June 2011. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.
Rettner, Rachael. “Divorce Not Always Bad for Kids.” LiveScience. Purch, 30 June 2010. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.

Gadoua, Susan Pease. “Divorce Doesn’t Harm Children – Parents Fighting Harms Child.” Psychology Today. N.p., 15 Nov. 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.


It’s the Little Things that make the BIG Difference

In your blog post, react to what you saw in the videos, reflect on your own interactions with educators throughout your school career, and discuss what, if any, changes to the school system based on the concepts in these videos could improve students’ performance in the classroom.

Were we born smart? Or do we learn and develop intelligence, constantly being shaped and supported by our environment and the people around us? In the three videos shown above, different aspects of effects are explored- showing how children can be impacted and grow according to how others interact and treat them.

In the first video called Pygmalion Effect and the Power of Positive Expectations, there was a study done where a test was done with school teachers- a list of students that were labeled “late bloomers” that they were treated differently and were transformed by teacher’s positive expectations. The Pygmalion Effect is the concept of a person having the potential to be transformed into something great. Teachers expectations actually had a huge impact on pupil’s intellectual performances. 4 factors of self fulfilling- teachers do these differently if they have favorable expectations: 1) warmer climate- nicer to them, 2) input factor- teachers teach more material to kids who they have better expectations for, 3) opportunity factor- call on those students more and allow to let them talk more and lastly, 4) feedback factor- favored kid is praised more and gets more positive reinforcement and also differentiated feedback when they get a wrong answer. If a “bad” answer is ignored then they might not favor those kids. I could really relate to this first video. Often, more than not, I have felt inferior to some of my peers and could feel differences in behaviors toward me by my school teachers. I envied students who got what I felt like was special treatment. Those kids were treated better, were taught more with more eye contact, (almost as if I was not there), were called to answer questions more often, and got the most praise and adulation. When I didn’t get called on even after raising my hand up, or when my answers didn’t get much feedback, positive or negative, I felt neglected and a little less confident in my abilities and I believe that this feeling has been carried down with me throughout high school and even up to now. It is great to see what these micro actions can do to a kid in a positive manner. At the same time, it is disheartening to know the kids who are left out of this potential growth and nourishment.

In the second video called Stereotype Threat – social psychology in action, threats of stereotypes are explored. An experiment of black and white students were told to be tested of athletic aptitude. When told one test was one of athletic ability, African Americans did better on scores than white students. When told that the test was of sport strategy, White American subjects did better on scores. Stereotypes here seem to have subconsciously got to the students, making them believe that they were less apt at either strategy or athleticism. This intimidating society made construct is regularly present in every day life and it is eye opening to see how even if we say we don’t believe in the stereotypes, we actually do.

My favorite video by far was the Jane Elliott Brown Eyes vs Blue Eyes. This video told of a study Jane Elliot, an elementary school teacher, who did a demonstration showing what discrimination was and really felt like. It showed that negative expectations could really shape students’ realities. Prejudice is easy to create and a new reality could be easily made on differences between students. The teacher Jane Elliot said that the blue eyed people were “better” and “smarter” than brown eyed people. She told of people in history and said that those with blue eyed people were better. She told the blue eyed people not to play with brown eyed people. The brown eyed students talked about not feeling like they belonged  and how they didn’t wish to participate in anything. Fighting actually occurred as a name that was used to call the kids in a derogatory manner was “brown eyes.” Children turned nasty, viscious and discriminating in just 15 minutes. When asked about the experience afterwards, the blue eyed said that they felt better than the brown eyed people. This was crazy to me. The lesson was that any cues of facial features could be basis of demonstrating and values could be added. 1- Any difference that is visible can be used by others to make people make worthless. 2- The brown eyed people when this flipped, kids didn’t learn compassion but learned about power and used it on the people who once tormented them. Revenge was more powerful than reconciliation. 3- inferior position set grades went down and superior position grades went up. Your intellect and performance is actually influenced by your attitude toward yourself. 4- All this can make people feel worthless. This was reminiscent to what I felt like was the German treatment of Jewish people in the Holocaust as well as pre- civil rights movement era.

With all this being said, I believe that schools should really take these factors into consideration and see how the way teachers treat their students really affect them. Also, for schools to note how stereotypes are very harmful and should be avoided being used in negative ways. Differences should be celebrated and appreciated. Lastly, telling kids that one was better than the other is never the right way to go as the kids may start to truly believe that they are worth “less” than others.

 

 


Week 9: Intelligence

When we talk about intelligence my brain instantly triggers me to think of someone who is not “naturally smart”, to me intelligence represents someone who has been shaped by their experiences and has gained knowledge through their failure. I personally think that social experiences and our surroundings play a greater role in our intelligence than our genetics do. I have always thought that everyone has the ability to be intelligent if they work hard enough to achieve what they want. Some people become disappointed when they do not receive a high score on an exam even though they did not put in the effort to achieve a high score. I think that perception is very important because like the Pygmalion effect demonstrated, if others have high expectations of ourselves then that will influence how we also perceive ourselves, and it will trigger us to do what it takes to meet those standards. I think that this applies to me because I am a pre-med student. Even though, I chose my own career path I still work harder each day in order to “make my parents proud”, as a pre-med student they have really high expectations for me. At times these high standards do become overwhelming because when I get a low score on an exam it makes me question what they will think of my intelligence and it triggers me to reconsider if I am truly smart enough to be on this path.

Another way that social experiences shape our intelligence is through stereotypes and discrimination. In my point-of-view I think that the brown eye vs. blue eye experiment that Jane Elliot did with her students was highly unethical. In my point she did not have the need to put those children through all that hatred against one another, but her study did show that power is what drives discrimination. That need to feel superior and more intelligent is what has driven our country to be facing issues related to discrimination even now in 2017. feeling inferior can definitely take a toll on how we perceive ourselves. If others consider us to be inferior that can start causing us to worry less of our performance because there are no standards to be met. This also ties in with the stereotype threat. Sometimes people’s fear of failure and discrimination is what causes them to perform badly on a given task. I can relate to this because many times I am scared to answer out-loud in class when I am hesitant of an answer because I am scared of people laughing or making correlations between my ethnicity and my level of intelligence.

Even though genetics can play a role on how intelligent we are I think that humans are more widely defined/shaped by their social experiences and their interactions with their environment. In a way being seen as more intelligent will make us feel that way which in the long run can cause us to be more adapted to our surroundings.


Conditioning Performance

In Jane Elliot’s classic brown eyes/blue eyes experiment, a third grade teacher convinced her class that people with blue eyes were superior to people with brown eyes. Soon enough, the children began teasing each other, and the children that were deemed superior discriminated against the children that were deemed inferior. After enough time had passed, the children’s test scores reflected what group they were placed in. The “inferior” children scored lower than the “superior” children. One can quickly see how this experiment ties into issues, like socioeconomic status.

The stereotype threat is the idea that the pressure negative stereotypes place on individuals is so great that it adversely affects their performance. The main fear is that one will fulfill, or be reduced to, a negative stereotype. This relates back to Jane Elliot’s idea of “if you are told you will perform poorly, you will believe in that statement and perform poorly”. This can even apply to good stereotypes too. Many times Asian Americans are expected to be gifted in STEM fields and classically trained in piano. Their hard work to attain a high level of achievement in these fields is often overlooked. These achievements are often attributed to their race, rather than their work ethic or goal-oriented mindset.

Finally, the Pygmalion effect describes a predictable pattern: students that are told by teachers that they will perform well often times do. Teachers allocate more time and energy to the students they feel are the most deserving of it. This can cause other students to feel as if they are of less value, ultimately hurting their performance.

I thought the videos all displayed the same general idea: your performance can be controlled by the expectations of others. Although we can teach students to talk kindly to one another, and we can educate teachers to not discriminate, we are only ignoring the root cause of the problem. We need to acknowledge that differences naturally exist between individuals, and many of them are arbitrary; they are not an indication of character or intelligence. Although I believe in this cause, there are few times where the Pygmalion effect and historical discrimination have negatively impacted how others have perceived me. As I’m sure with many other people at Austin College, I was told I was going to college from an early age. The idea of not going to college never crossed my mind. I had teachers and family members cheer me on as I worked to fulfill their expectations of me. I couldn’t imagine getting to where I am today without the help of a lot of people. It can be exhausting to be the only one that believes in yourself, which is why many people tire out and quit. Within the last century, America has made incredible amounts of progress, as far as tolerance of other people is concerned. No where else in the world can we find so many different people getting along so well. Change came quickly at first, but now it seems to be plateauing. We have to constantly feed the fire of change or else it dies out. We can’t become complacent with the progress we’ve made so far.


Intelligence

In the video for Brown Eyes vs Blue Eyes, Jane Elliot conducted an experiment dealing with the discrimination and how it affects others in society.For example, in the video she divided the class in two separate sections.One with brown eyes and the other with blue eyes. She told the kids that the children with blue eyes are more superior than the children with brown eyes. This caused a conflict with how the kids behaved in recess causing one of the kids to hurt another kid because he felt offended. The kids with brown eyes did not like the discrimination and when the kids grew up, they came to a reunion with their 3rd grade teacher. One of the students at the reunion felt hatred towards Jane Elliot because she did not like the idea of using discrimination for learning purposes. This experiment led for the student’s learning experience to be affected by how they are treated. When they are treated badly or hated by others it can cause low results in school grades but if they are treated as they are part of society they will have better grades. The self esteem affects the student’s behavior and learning abilities.I have not had that experience in school but if it did happen to me I would be disgusted. The students should learn in an environment where its not as discriminatory or full of hatred so they feel comfortable to focus in their education.

The Stereotype Threat video was about how stereotypes are used to show what advantages and disadvantages the people have. In the video it showed that the instructor of the test was going to test the athletes in their athletic abilities and the second test was about using strategy for sports. The African Americans did better in the athletic ability test than the white athletes but the white athletes did better in the second test dealing with strategies in sports. This stereotyped test showed intimidation on a person’s weakness making the test takers do bad on the test or good depending on their weaknesses. I believe stereotype threats are not a good idea because it can cause negative effects. The school can improve by mixing topics into one whole lecture.

The Pygmalion Effect and the Power of Expectations video explains the reason why children who have potential in learning do much better than those who don’t have the same potential.Children who are more knowledgeable receive more attention from the teachers because he or she is willing to learn the material.A kid with a low effort of learning doesn’t receive the same amount of attention than the kids who do learn more.In schools there are kids willing to learn and others that don’t want to learn. This could be improved by having tutorials and paying more attention in class when having trouble with a subject in class and motivating them to do better instead of putting them down.

 


Intelligence

 

In Jane Elliott’s classic blue eyes/brown eyes experiment, Elliot assigned students in her class to “superior” and “inferior” groups based on their eye color. Having blue eyes placed the student in the superior group and having brown eyes placed the student in the inferior group. Elliot was trying to explain to her all white classroom what racism feels like after Martin Luther King’s assassination. The blue-eyed students even had the opportunity to place a collar on the brown eyed students, so the students could tell what color eyes the students had from far away. Two students got in a fight after a student called another student “brown eyes”. I thought this was the saddest part of the video because in the short time of the experiment, the students could recognize a part of their physical complexion as negative. Elliot remarked that she learned more from the cruelty of the blue-eyed children as soon as they were told they were superior than from the brown-eyed children. Zimbardo noted that minimal cues can become the basis of discrimination when an authority imposes a negative attribute with the trait, that when brown-eyed students were placed in superior, they treated the blue-eyed students with the same cruelty, and that when in the inferior group, the math and spelling scores of the students went down. I think its incredibly sad that these students could foster discrimination so quickly and that the students were willing to turn on their friends for something like eye color. I think it is incredibly telling that students performed worse on tests after being told that they were more likely to perform poorly than other students.

 

The video of Claude Steele explaining stereotype threat asserts that the anxiety of possibly being seen as fitting a negative stereotype when taking a performance test. In a test of that was labeled as testing “athletic ability”, African American athletes performed better than white athletes, but in a test labeled as testing “sports strategy”, the white athletes performed better than the African American athletes. This shows how stereotypes impact performance based tests. It makes sense to me that stereotypes influence these tests, and I think it is upsetting that people underperform because of societal pressure. The Rosenthal & Jacobson’s discovery of the Pygmalion effect video showed how students can be transformed by a teacher’s positive perception of them. Rosenthal and Jacobson told teachers that randomly chosen students were going to increase their intelligence levels, and the kids who were chosen actually did show intellectual gains. The four factors that lead to this were climate, input, response opportunity, and feedback. I think it is very clear that teachers have favorites or students that they perceive as better, and it makes sense that these students would perform better. Personally, I have always done better in classes where I like the teacher and feel that the teacher likes me, so this form of self-fulfilling prophecy is very accurate.

 

I definitely was treated as a “gifted student” in elementary and middle school, and I completely believe that this expectation positively influenced me throughout my education. I think the way a teacher treats a student highly influences a student’s performance. In regard to changing the school system because of these videos, I would suggest a very strong anti-discrimination stance and an emphasis on teachers using positive encouragement to all students on a more equalized basis. If there was a way to decrease class sizes, it would help teachers give each student positive and individual attention. At the moment, I think the school system does have systemic issues that lead to discrimination influencing performance.