The Implicit Association Test

I decided to take these test because I have never done one and wanted to see what they were like and how they worked. After taking a few of these tests, I can understand why people use them and how someone might see them as an accurate way to see someone’s deeper thoughts and interactions but I can also see some flaws with these tests based off of my own results.One test I participated in was about race preference and the other test was comparing my feeling toward flowers and insects. For both of the tests I took, there was one repeated format that I had to do. On each test I was given words which I had to separate into two different categories by clicking on which category that word belonged to when it popped up on the screen. Throughout the 7 different parts of each test they added two additional categories, either “good words” or “bad words,” on top of the old ones and mixed and switched them up but my instructions stayed the same. Altogether each test took about 3 to 4 minutes to complete.  
The first test I took was the “race test” where they would identify whether I preferred white or black people more. In this test, I did a trial where one side’s category side was “black people” or “good words” and the other side was “white people” or “bad words” and when either a picture or a word popped up I had to put them in the corresponding left or right categories. After a few tests of switching side of the categories and mixing up the terms, my results finally came out. On my results page it said, “Your data suggests a weak automatic preference for White people over Black people.” I was surprised and amused by this result to be honest, considering that I happen to be black. In further explanation, the test told me that I had a preference for white people based off of my ability to match up the “good words” and the white people’s pictures easier and faster than I was able to do with the black pictures. I can understand the results from that viewpoint but I feel that the results might have been slightly different with different word choice. Some of the words like agony, hurt, and failure can easily be interpreted as words associated with the history of African American struggle in our country instead of “bad words.” I can’t say that those words alone would have made the difference on my results specifically but I do definitely think that there is at least some possibility for that.

My second test was the “insect-flower” test which was extremely similar to the previous test. For this test I was given “pleasant” and “unpleasant” words and a list of different flowers and insects. Then I was asked to move specific words and objects into the different categories just like the first test. My results for this test said, “Your data suggests a strong automatic preference for FLOWERS compared to INSECTS.” According to the test, how easy it was for me to categorize words when flowers and pleasant words were paired together compared to when flowers and unpleasant words were paired showed that I preferred flowers over insects. The big problem I had with this test is that I have always loved playing with bugs and never been scared or grossed out by them. Another fact about me leading to my concern about these results is that I’ve always had really bad allergies and have always been told not to play with grass and flowers because of how itchy and allergic I would get. The only thing I can think might have caused my results is the way society views these two categories. Naturally I think that most people would say that flowers are seen as beautiful, romantic, and peaceful. Insects on the other hands would probably be described as gross, creepy, or even scary. Knowing that society has always seen these two categories as opposites most likely made it much easier to pair things up that way, but I wouldn’t say that I, personally, have a preference for flowers over insects.

Considering how I didn’t really agree with either of the tests I took, I couldn’t see myself promoting, recommending, or participating in these type of tests in the future. They could possibly work for other people but I didn’t feel that it was enough to determine the personal results that it came up with. Each person has different factors that play a part in different test subjects and those things should be analyzed when considering the results for tests such as these.

Sleep Deprivation Connecting to False Memories

Sleep Deprivation has been used in interrogation rooms for decades now, but could the confessions we get from these sleep deprived suspects being interrogated be completely false without them even knowing about it? A study over sleep deprivation by Steven Frenda and his team show that this might not be the best way to go about interrogations after all.  

False memories are when people can take in false information and mistakenly encode it into their memory instead of the original information. Sleep Deprivation has been shown to impair cognitive performance, decrease working memory capacity and interfere with normal learning experiences. 

In one test performed on students chosen randomly from a college in California, participants were asked to confirm and describe the video from the Pennsylvania plane crash on September 11th. Even though there are many pictures following the crash, the is no actual footage of the crash. The study separated the group into two halves randomly. Half were sleep deprived and the other half were well rested, both groups were carefully monitored. The next day when asked about the non-existent plane crash video, the sleep deprived group showed a significant amount of more people that had false memory of seeing this video. Another test Frenda’s team was structured by the first false memory test they did. They found enough information from the previous results that made them believe a few changes and additions could lead them to a serious breakthrough. After several alterations were made, the results once again gave data supporting sleep deprivation correlating with false memories. 

Considering the entire research, however, there were more tests results that showed sleep deprivation might not have too much to do with false memories at all. Other tests done came up with results that weren’t good enough to be deemed significant. Frenda’s and his associates performed a number of different tests but only a few came up as significant data showing that sleep deprivation connects to false memories. Does this mean that we should just back off and let sleep depriving tactics continue? 

Because of how close to “significant” results were from other tests similar to this one, it would make sense for everyone to start taking a closer look at a problem with such a terrible outcome like this one. In the whole experiment about eight different test results came through and only two of them showed connection between deprivation and false memory; that’s one out of four or 25% showing connection. That’s enough data pointed toward a need for more research in this subject. It would be wrong to say that if the majority of the data shows no correlation that the entire project is a bust. Consider how we use sleep deprivation during the questioning process in some very serious crime cases that determine weather a person will live freely or in prison for the rest of his or her life for example. In that situation, knowing that there is significant data out there showing correlation with false memories being formed, would you feel that you could count on a sleep deprived confession to tell you the truth? Is it safe to think that anything someone says or confesses to after a night or even a full day without sleep is valid for certain?  

With the small amount of information we have about sleep deprivation, it is much too early to declare a stance for or against sleep deprivation. What should be encouraged, however, is more research to be done and publicized like Steven Frenda and his team did. With answered questions, results with little to no doubt, and a large supply of test subjects and significant results, the connection between sleep deprivation and false memory can truly be identified, understood, and worked on if need be.

News article:

Scholarly article:


 Writing this article definitely ended up being a little tougher than I originally thought and planned for. I feel like I now have a further understanding and more sympathy for those who do this as a career. Considering that the full research was 2 different experiment with 3 or 4 tests per experiment, I found it rather challenging to compress all the necessary information down into my 1,000-word maximum. It was somewhat stressful trying to pick and choose which large pieces of information I could and couldn’t include. Naturally I felt the need to get all the necessary information out before I started explaining and stating my claim or opinion, but I ended up being over 650 word in at the end of my “necessary information” portion. I had to stop, delete my work, and start over. I was slightly devastated, but the show must go on. I basically had to rewrite and reformat my entire article using the smallest amount of facts as possible. I had to leave out explanations of most of the experiment they performed as well as some of the definitions, terms, and reasons for different parts of these two experiments they performed. After doing this paper I give credit to any writer who is able to successfully get everything they planned for in such a tight gap of space.

 Over the duration of this project, not only did I develop a new respect for these journalists, but I also found some admiration for people who can handle the criticism and rough feedback that they receive and still want to do that job. I know that the first part of the project I thought, “This article tells me what the author is thinking but I don’t really know too much about what’s going on.” And then I got to the scholarly article portion and thought, “Wow, they left a lot of things out that are very essential to the research.” And finally there was the media production portion, this was where the moment of realization hit me. This is when I realize that everything that I’ve been saying and criticizing are the exact same problems I was having on my project but worse. It is truly an experience where you have to stop and say “Alright, now I get it.”

Motivated Till the End

 Motivation has always been something that I feel I have managed fairly well. Growing up, my mom gave me a lot of freedom and let me make a lot of my own decisions at a young age. At age sixteen, I got a job, then a car, and it seemed like I was on my own at this point. My mom says my motivation to achieve the next level in whatever I was doing has been the reason why she felt there wasn’t much need for her to help me at most times. My current restaurant job at home is probably a good example of this. I started at California Pizza Kitchen as a part time host and I hated hosting because it didn’t pay much, but I knew upgrading to the server position and making my own “real” tips would be worth it. I used extrinsic motivation, like we talked about in class, to get me through a full year of hosting without just giving up and quitting. I knew the how to save the bit of money I was making and once I finally became a server it seemed like I had more money than I knew what to do with. 

Coming to Austin College was a very big decision for me, considering that my dream was always to go to the University of Oklahoma, like my mom and older brother. Coming from a huge high school and hoping for a larger public University, Austin College definitely wasn’t a school at the top of my list, at first. There were, however a few different motivation factors at work that led to my decision to become a kangaroo. The incentive theory was probably the biggest theory working on me in this decision. By coming to Austin College, I was going to get to play four more years of my favorite hobby in existence, football. Coach Dawson, head football coach of Austin College, called me and introduced me to the idea of playing for him and told me about this private school that I had no knowledge of. He told me how I could come in and actually get to play, no practice dummy scam or sideline soldier trick involved. That fact alone, put Austin College at the top of my list, in the number one spot. Another motivation I give credit to for my decision to attend Austin College is the arousal theory. I realized in class, when we went over the Yerkes-Dodson Law that I knew Austin College was going to be a challenge for me academically, but that was a big reason why I chose it. My job at California Pizza Kitchen has shown me that I perform much better when I am keeping myself busy and running around doing something than when I’m not very busy or being lazy. Without even realizing it, I knew that I would most likely do better at a school that challenged me and stressed me out a little bit compared to a school were I could get lazy and get by easily.

 These next three remaining years of undergraduate school and then three years of physical therapy school after that will be the toughest years of my academic life. I plan to use the motivation of the future I’ve pictured for my family and I to get through it all. I know that failing a class, not getting all my prerequisites done in time, dropping out, having kids early, or simply losing focus will all result in me not being able to achieve the future I have pictured in my head right now. It really is a “work now, play later” type of mentality but much more long term than that phrase is usually used for. I guess I just understand that it will all be worth it in the end and that’s all I’m going to need to push me through these next several years.

Environmental & Social Pressure Connecting to Intelligence

The three videos I watched were interesting in their ow ways. All 3 were different but related to how environment and social pressure plays a large role in intelligence. The first video talked about an experiment a teacher from Riceville, Iowa named Jane Elliot did on her elementary students. To give the kids a real life example of how discrimination and inequality works, Jane divided the class into two groups: the superior blue-eyed kids and the inferior brown-eyed kids. With all seriousness, she stressed to kids that brown eyed people were not as good or as special as those who are blue-eyed and were not to be talked to or played with. Throughout the day the blue-eyed kids really showed discrimination, mistreatment and unearned power over the kids with brown eyes; there was a lot of name calling, fighting, and hurt feelings over the duration of the school day. When evaluated and the end of the day, the blue-eyed kids expressed that they loved the powerful feeling they had and the brown-eyed kids stressed how hard it was to be someone with brown eyes. They talked about how they had to fight and stand up to people just because their eyes were different than someone else’s, something they had no control of. One child even made the connection “it’s like calling black people niggers.” Another big part of the experiment was the test scores of these two different groups. The superior, better treated group showed to have much higher test results than those of the inferior position. In my elementary schools growing up, we never did anything quite like this, but I wish we did. How much this test effected these kids and made them think about discrimination from a personal experience level is amazing to me. I think it’s great that Jane Elliot went around the country demonstrating this to kids everywhere. Another big aspect of this test is that it does show discrimination effecting intelligence and a child’s performance in the classroom, something to be very concerned about as a teacher or parent.
The second video was about the famous stereotype threat, something that everybody has experienced. This is something that anybody belonging to a certain group (race, club, religion, gender, etc.) can relate to in some kind of way. The man in the video says “when facing a negative stereotype, ones performance will confirm that it’s true. The test they did involved a class room full of men, some black and some white, asked to complete a test about golf. When a group was told it was about “athletic ability” the black men did much better, but when told it was all based on “strategy” the white men did much better. Given the exact same tasks and questions but with a different way of introducing and instructing them based off stereotypes resulted in very different results. As the video says, this is one thing we have all experienced or seen, including myself. As a black person, I have always been expected to struggle in swimming, and without realizing it, that effected my mind into actually thinking I was a bad swimmer. It wasn’t until a year or two ago that I realized and told myself that I’m actually a fairly decent swimmer. I think that stereotype threat is something that schools must take a look at very closely. Once again, it has proven to effect the intelligence and classroom performance of individuals, but this time with more than just race. On this experiment alone, teachers can see that the way things are presented to students can have very large effects on them, therefore they should take precautions to avoid these situation. Presenting work to students that intimidates no one or appeals to everyone could be a great solution to the problem presented by this video.

The third and last video discusses the in-school problem of individual treatment effecting how children do in school. In this test, teachers were given a handful of random names of children in their class whose test results supposedly showed that their future intelligence stood out among the others. One year later test results showed that the specific, random kids that the teacher was told about, actually improved on their scores and got smarter. The test showed that teachers expectations actually did effect children’s intelligence. The children that were supposed to do better in school, according to certain tests on intelligence, the teachers spent more time on and gave more attention to. This video was a well thought out experiment and I can see how the results helped and brought forth new information about teaching, however, I don’t think I experienced anything like this at all. If anything, I went through the exact opposite of this, our smarter and more intelligent kids were allowed to be more independent while the kids who did worse on our big tests and struggled the most were focussed on by the teachers. In my school it was almost like the only way the teacher was going to spend more time on you and give extra help was if you showed that you needed it more than the other kids. It was almost as if the reward for being more intelligent was teachers letting you be free more than other children. This way proved to work great for us, and I think it’s the best way to do things. Teachers helping get the struggling children caught up and making the class more “even” in intelligence seem way more fair than giving extra help to those kids who show to already be ahead of the other. That will only make the gap of intelligence in the class room even bigger.

Why We Sleep

This interesting TED talk by Russell Foster talks about sleep and gives some background on how and why we view sleep the way we do in the world today. Foster stresses the importance of sleep and then points to how over the decades sleep has been viewed more and more negatively due to the lack of knowledge concerning what goes on while we are asleep. According to Foster, sleep is the “single most important behavioral experience” in humans. There are 3 big ideas about why we sleep that he mentions in his talk: restoration, energy conservation, and brain processing and memory consolidation. The restoration idea, first developed by Aristotle, is that everything we have burnt during the day is restored and rebuilt during the night. Science has proved that many genes only turned on during sleep so there is descent evidence for this theory. The second theory, energy consolidation, says that sleep is used to save calories. It is true that calories are saved during sleep but since this amount is only equivalent to a single hot dog bun, the idea is seen as unconvincing. Foster’s last and favorite idea was brain processing and memory consolidation. This one says that ability to learn a task while sleep deprived is much harder. Also, the ability to come up with solutions to significant and large problems is enhanced by a full nights rest by a three folds advantage. The important synaptic connections are linked together and strengthen during sleep while the less important ones just fade away.

Out of the three, I found the most convincing theory of why we sleep to be the memory consolidation and memory processing idea. In lecture we learned about study habits and sleep having effects on us. I remember going over how it would greatly benefit someone to study fairly close to when they go to sleep. The website showed me some more input on this particular idea. On this site, they talked about how sleep deprivation leads to reduced attention and limits on working memory. They state that sleep plays a huge part in memory consolidation after learning, like we learned in class, and also in getting ready for memory encoding before whatever learning experience is coming soon. It makes sense how people say that it’s best to get a good night sleep before classes, not only so you won’t be tired, but also so that you can encode and retain information easier. The information I got from the website all sounds and looks fairly legit, but at the end, there are no sources or proof of any true testing or knowledge. Luke Mastin is the head of this website and, according to further research, is a philosopher interested in anything that has to do with memory. This is a situation where, even though the author seems to most likely be credible, due to a lack of sources or references in the place we got the information there is no way we can declare this data valid.

Mind Reading

How could any one see a video with a title like “How We Read Each Other’s Minds” and not be instantly pulled into watching it? While scrolling through my options of TED talks I saw this one and immediately had questions forming in my mind. Questions like “I can read minds?” and “can other people read mine?” Seeing a title like that made me think that there’s was clearly something going on in the brain that I had no clue about, and that’s why I picked this talk. This “mind reading” talk comes from Rebecca Saxe, cognitive neuroscientist from MIT. Rebecca tells us about her study which focuses on how we think about other people’s thoughts. Her TED talk used information she gathered in the Saxe lab at MIT including a couple different experiments with children and adults. Rebecca Saxe’s whole “mind reading” topic refers to how we able to judge and interpret what another human mind is thinking. Rebecca leads this talk with one main question for the audience to think about: Why is it so easy for humans to interpret what other brains are thinking? She starts about with the physical location responsible for this specific brain function, the rTPJ. The right temporo-parietal junction is a very tiny small on our brain that has all the responsibility for judging what others are thinking.
The next thing Rebecca showed us was the development of the human brain being able to “mind read” along with the development of this particular region of the brain with age. In order to show us this, she used three little boys of different ages: 3, 5, and 7. In the experiment, they put each of the kids in the same situation where a pirate had a sandwich and sat it down on a treasure chest then left, then the wind knocked that sandwich on the ground and a second pirate came and replaced it with his sandwich then left. When the first pirate returned, he took the sandwich sitting on the chest, not realizing that his sandwich was on the ground. They asked each kid to predict which sandwich the pirate would take and then after seeing the results they asked them to say why they took the sandwich they took. The 3 year old predicted the pirate to take his original sandwich laying on the ground, and when he didn’t, his explanation was that he had to take the other sandwich because his was on the ground and it was dirty. The 3 year old was not yet able to understand how the boy didn’t know about what had occurred. The 5 and 7 year old boys both predicted the correct sandwich would be taken then we’re able to explain that the pirate didn’t know that his sandwich was on the ground. When they asked the two younger kids if it was the first pirate who should be punished for eating the wrong sandwich, they answered yes, unable to see how the boy had no consciousness intentional of wrongdoing. Only the 7 year old boy was able to understand and explain that this situation was caused by the wind, therefore the wind is to blame. This experiment showed what she called the standard disbelief task. Brain scans used to monitor kids brains during this time showed that the amount of activity in the corresponding brain region was much less in kids ages three to eight compared to adults. Rebecca used this to show us how over the course of child development, cognitive system and mind reading slowly forms and develop.  
Another question Rebecca had was could differences among adults in how they think about other people’s thoughts and can they be explained in terms of this brain region. So they gave the adult a test similar to the test given to the kids while monitoring their brain patterns for data comparison. The test group was given three scenarios. In one scenario, a girl named Grace poured what she thought was poison, but turned out to be sugar, into her friends coffee and gave it to her to drink, attempting to poison her friend. In the second case, Grace pored what she believed was sugar but turned out to be poison, accidentally poisoning her friend. Then the third case was just Grace pouring in actual sugar that she though was sugar. Then they asked “How much should Grace be blamed?” In the “attempted column, numbers were doubled compared to how much blame Grace should get for the “accidental” scenario. Then the third column labeled “fine” remained very low. When they looked in the brains, it showed that the more activity in the region, the more people paid attention to her innocent belief and thought she should receive little blame. This showed how more activity meant more ability to feel and think inside other people’s brains and use feelings and judgement to make decisions. The last thing Rebecca did was use a specific machine to turn off the rTPJ in the brain to see if they could change people’s moral judgements. Transcranial magnetic stimulation machines are used to disorganize small regions of the brain and was able to temporarily “turn off” this part of each individual in the group’s brain. Results showed that without a functioning rTPJ, the severity of blame people thought they should put on the “attempted” situation lowered significantly while the blame on the “accidental” test raised up, narrowing the gap between the two. The test showed how this region of the brain, in fully developed adults, is very important in how we perceive other people thoughts and feelings.

She showed us how her research was conducted and different steps she used, but didn’t give us a lot of important background information that would have helped establish more credibility in her research. We were only told about 3 young boys specifically that she did the experiment on for the child portion of her research. We don’t know how these boys were selected or what results and answers we could have gotten from female children. In the adult portion, she tells us that there was a group of adults tested, but nothing else. For all we know, this could be a group of 20 elderly women in a retirement home in Arkansas. She gave us no secure verification that this experiment was done through random selection, therefore hurting the credibility of this video’s research and results.

It’s a subject that I did find very interesting because we talk about a lot to the things that go on in the brain in class, but never really get in depth on this particular subject. Through my high school anatomy class and with the neuroscience section of college psychology, I thought I had the parts of the temporal and parietal regions on the brain figured out for the most part. But I had never heard of this part or its function. I think it’s very rare that humans realize that we can actually use our senses, knowledge of the world, and different brain functions to predict and determine someone else’s thoughts and actions. It may be a different version that we had in mind, but it is still mind reading none the less.

Parenting Differences 

With all the different ways people were raised, including how, when, and where they were raised, it comes as no surprise that people have many different ways that they choose to raise children. Many people, all around the world, find that however they were raised is the way they currently raise children also. Others thinks that the way they were brought up was completely wrong and go about parenting in a much different way. Psychologist, Diana Baumrind, is well known for her study of parenting and its effects on children. Her studies led her to a conclusion that there are two major important characteristics of parental behavior: how demanding a parent is to the child and how responsive the parent is to the child. Baumrind labeled four different styles according to her findings: authoritative, authorian, permissive, and uninvolved. In the world today, Baumrind’s four styles are found all over the place, in different homes, regions, and countries. Some more common and familiar names that have been given to some parenting styles are tiger moms, jellyfish dads, and helicopter dads. With all the different types around us today, one has to wonder: What is the best way to parent? 

Tiger moms are one of the well known parenting style in the world today, more popular in Asian culture. Tiger moms are described as extremely strict (particularly related to academics), showing tough love, and big on discipline in order to get children to succeed. A very popular stereotype is that Asian moms are mostly all tiger moms due to the very strict traditional Chinese way of raising children. Strict parenting like this has a positive outlook and perspective for the child’s future. Overall, it should help the child to grow into a self-disciplined and tough adult. The problems I see with this technique is that it risks damaging the current and future relationship between the child and the parent. There is a lot of risk for the child to have an unhappy childhood. This style of raising children fits hand in hand with Baumrind’s authorian style description. The authorian style is the high demand, low responsiveness approach to parenting. Baumrind’s study showed that the outcomes associated with this parenting style include low self-esteem, anger and aggression in the child.

 Two other popular types of parenting are jellyfish dads and helicopter parents. First, the jellyfish dad, who is the complete opposite of the tiger mom example. Jellyfish dads are more described as laid back, uncaring, not huge on discipline, and full of fun. These are the “pushover” parents who give children what they want and are there for their kids but don’t make their kids do the things they need to succeed in life such as chores, homework, etc. This parent’s only true advantage is that he has a good, loving relationship with his child. Some of the disadvantages include the possibility of disobedient and irresponsible children being an outcome of this type of parenting. Another effect this could have on the child is the risk of having a hard time doing things on their own in the future. Another closely related style of parenting to the jellyfish dad is the helicopter parent. This parent shares some of the advantage and disadvantages in jellyfish dads but is slightly different. Helicopter parents are defined as overprotective parents who are obsessive and “hover” over their child’s life at all times. These parent are always somewhere in the background watching their children. In contrast to jellyfish dad, these parents are not very highly favored by kids. These parents might know their kids pretty well and be able to keep a pretty tight leash on them, but like the jellyfish dads, they are putting the at risk of struggling out in the real world, on their own in the future. These two types of parenting relate closest to Baumrind’s permissive parent example, especially the helicopter parent. Permissive parents are Baumrind’s label for the low demand, high responsive parents in the world. Even though the most popular definition of a jellyfish dad is described as the permissive example, more lazy and unloving types of this style are more related to Baumrind’s uninvolved category.

 Tiger moms, jellyfish dads and helicopter parents are three popular ways of parenting today. They all show some of the different ways that Baumrind’s study has also showed we choose to raised children. The only style left, and in my opinion, the best way of parenting, is the authoritative style. This is the style that Baumrind defined as the high demand, high responsive approach to parenting. This is a way that, if done correctly, results in the best outcome for the child. Outcomes associated with this parenting style include high self-esteem, social maturity, and self-control. Closely related and more recent studies about parenting have labeled this as the “dolphin parenting” approach, it is often considered to be the combination of the tiger mom and jellyfish dad. In my opinion, this is the best way solely because there aren’t many disadvantages in this style but tons of advantages that lead to high chances of a successful future for the child.

Sometimes You Need A Jellyfish

The Tiger Mom Effect Is Real, Says Large Study

Psychology around Us. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013. Print.

Traffic Weaving Myth

 In one of the Mythbusters’ mini-myths labeled “Dream Weaver,” the group examines the myth that it is better to stay in one lane while driving in heavy traffic than to lane change because the driver will still get to his or her destination in the same amount of time. This experiment had two different drivers race 50 miles from the Mythbusters’ lab in San Fransisco down to San Jose Tech Museum using the freeway during rush hour traffic to test this myth. One driver, a male driver with no passenger, picked the middle lane to drive in and made no lane changes at all. The other driver, a female who had a passenger with her, constantly weaved through lanes trying to stay ahead by picking the “right lane” at the best times. 

This experiment had a great question and it was definitely a very testable experiment, using only a few vehicles, two drivers, and the freeway. The experimenters did a good job of getting the same or similar cars to drive, both were small SUVs. The cars left at the exact same time and we’re both on the same freeway at the same time, facing the same traffic; all needed for proper outcomes in this experiment. There were, however, multiple weaknesses found throughout this test that should be noted. The setting and environment, for example, was traffic at 7:30 in the morning on a freeway in San Fransisco. What if 5:00 traffic in the same location produced a different outcome than the 7:30 test? What if the experiment was done at that same time but in New York City instead, where there are many more people who walk instead of vehicle transportation? Would it have showed different outcomes there? The environment they chose was too specific to make such a broad and general conclusion. Another observation that could be made was the drivers chosen and the different possible ways they drive. They had two cars, one with a male and the other female. One car included a passenger, the other did not. How do we know that if both cars were to only pick one lane to stick to, that they would’ve arrived at the same time? It is very likely that these two drivers were different in how they drive and how the presence or absence of a passenger influenced them to drive. A way that could have improved this problem is perhaps using the same driver and conduction multiple tests.

 Mythbusters is an interesting show that does a great job of finding the questions or “myths” that people often wonder about in life. With some more careful consideration on their variables and how the go about these experiments, the show could be even more helpful and popular than it already is.

About Me Blog

Hey everyone! My name is Reggie and I am a freshman football player here at Austin College. I was born in Oklahoma City but have lived in the Carrollton/ Farmers Branch area for the last 15 years or so.

I chose to take this class because psychology was one of the few classes back in high school that really sparked a new interest for the brain and how it works. Psychology is one of the three minors I hope to pick from. I love biology and seeing how the body works and clearly the mind is a huge part of that.

When I hear the word “psychology” the main thing that pops in my head is “study of the mind and its functions to situations in life.”

The three topics I find the most interesting are “Drugs, Alcohol, and the Brain,” “Emotion,” and “Mental Illnesses” because they’re all things I wonder about concerning different members of my family.

The three that I’m not so excited about would probably be “Classical Conditioning,” “Operant Conditioning,” and “Observational Learning” because these are all things I have learned about throughout high school classes and college biology.

The big question that I plan to have answers at the end of this class is: Can I see Psychology as my minor for college?