Alyssa Bowyer's Archive

I was very intrigued by our previous class where each group represented a theory and explained how their theory saw results to each experiment. There are very distinct theories that make up the psychology field. Each has opposite views from the other. But how do you choose which theory to support? Yes you shuffle through your own beliefs and see what fits; but, at least from my experience, there is never just one theory that all my beliefs fall under. I agree with a lot of what the existential theory says, but I also agree with a little bit from behaviorism and psychoanalysis. Does that mean I should support existential as my theory of choice. Another thought I occasionally think about is: since each theory is so different, do many people solely represent one theory any more? In each of the psychology class I have been in since I started college, each professor has said that they use techniques and theories from each major theory. They tend to have one theory that they lean towards, but they pull from other theories, as well. In a sense, it is as if they are making their views “complete” by combining theories to form one. One therapists cannot necessarily be completely successful with every client they see unless they use bits and pieces from other theories besides the one they mainly support. Since it is becoming more common to “complete” one’s beliefs by combining thoughts and techniques from multiple theories, how many people are left who solely represent one theory?

Many people in our class are posting on artificial intelligence (AI). Technology is quickly advancing, and the human race is becoming more and more reliant on it. Personally, it is exciting but makes me a little nervous as the human race becomes more and more dependent on it. It is cool what we are able to create, such as the self driving car. Eventually AI products may seem as humanistic as possible. However, what makes me nervous is the reliance we may soon have on AI. I guess it kind of lines up with the movie I, Robot when the robot picks Will Smith over the child to save in the car accident due to a calculated survival rate. I don’t want to reach a point when I’m faced with a critical, life changing situation and the only thing in control is an AI device that only has calculated responses and no emotional or complex (logic and emotion) response possibilities. Another movie is Disney Channel’s Smart House. I always wanted a house growing up just like that. It could make whatever I wanted and do all my chores. It knew what the characters wanted before they did. However, it soon calculated how dangerous the outside world can be and trapped them all in the house. Smart House said it could give the characters all they wanted until the characters realized it could never physically love, care, or protect them. It was a cool house but the technology ended up out smarting its creator and began reeking havoc on the family. That seems more and more realistic to me as different AI products are developed, like that self driving car. I’m all for the advancement of technology and making life a little easier, but I doubt I will ever be able to complete give up any control to a machine whether its just driving down the street or its running my house hold.

In class we watched the video of Dr. Jill Taylor where she discussed the sensation of having the left hemisphere of her brain go completely silent during her stroke. As a research scientist, she mainly used her left brain. When that logical part of her brain was gone she felt as if she had reached nirvana. Now she described the main functions of both hemispheres of the brain. The left is the logical, organized, critical thinker of the two. The right being the artsy, abstract side. When she was in the middle of her stroke, she saw no boundaries between herself and everything around her. She saw beyond the limitations the left side of the brain had set for her.

When we refer to philosophers and those who see beyond the limitations of our perceptions, which side of the brain do you think they have put most in to use? With the explanation Dr. Taylor gave, it is very possible that they where able to use more right hemisphere than left hemisphere. Philosophers and great psychologists are able to think outside the box, see past stereotypes and common perceptions. The logic and common sense that the left hemisphere controls must be somewhat moved aside in order to see beyond to something new. The right hemisphere is needed to see more abstractly and beyond the boundaries made by the left hemisphere. So can it be said that a sign of a great philosopher is found in a person with a more dominant right hemisphere?

I was very interested in the discussion we had last class on the evolution of laughter and its connection with pain. Laughter does seem to come about far too often when we watch someone get hurt. The television show America’s Funniest Home Videos is a prime example of this. It is one of the most popular tv shows in America and has been airing for 20 years. However, even with a TV PG rating, it is one of the most, if not the most, violent show on television. The whole show is centered on people getting injured whether it was an accident or some stupid choice. Why is this so funny to us? Is it because we have no personal attachment to the people we see getting hurt? Is it because we empathize with them, yet since they sent in the tape we know assume they are ok and “laugh with them”? Or is it because of their stupidity? There are many different theories people from our class have stated on why laughter is found after an injury. I think a big part of it is to show a mutual agreement between the observer and the person getting hurt that everything is all right. Yes you just got hurt, and I am concerned for you. However, it was not bad enough to cause any prolonged injury, so we laugh in agreement that something bad could have just happened and didn’t. Thus relieving some of the stress and discomfort from the situation.

John Stuart Mill believed psychology could be studied as a science. Psychology can be tested, hypothesized, and analyzed. If you are in counseling with a client you have gotten to know very well, you can predicted fairly well how they will react to different circumstances. Human beings have been found to react similarly in many situations, which is seen in primary laws. Psychologists can recognize these things and apply them to each of their clients to better understand and help those they work with. However, there are always those few exceptions. People whom react poorly to everything in their life that is out of the ordinary, good or bad. Or those who show little emotion as if they just don’t seem to care. Or there could be something randomly impacting the client that was completely unexpected.

Also, look back to all of the experiments done over the past centuries in psychology. Each one looking in to how the mind works and reacts in different situation. The mind can adapt to anything. It is how we prove our theories. Many psychologists today refer to different experiments performed to support their theories or arguments. These scientific experiments are what have allowed us to learn so much about what goes on in the mind of each person. Yes, the philosophers were brilliant and able to come up with many ideas that gave us insight in to the way human beings think. But it is the experiments that made these things clear and more defined.

It all can be explained and studied. People can talk about how they feel and how they react. There are many tests that can be done to observe and analyze the way the mind works. Though there are no absolutes, most of the things discovered work for the vast majority of people. That is why I agree that psychology can be studied as a science.

After discussing the different views on happiness in class, it is strange to think of how these views have changed over the years. The views used to be so strict. Happiness was only found when you have reached a specific point, total harmony or complete virtue or total freedom from pain and anxiety. There were many different criterion that a person had to meet in order attain the right to say he or she had reached happiness. Rules consisted of living a life of little to no mistakes or injustice; or a lifetime of learning and attaining as much knowledge and reason as possible; or reaching the highest levels in each state of virtue. Nowadays, reaching happiness in life does not have strict rules. Happiness can be found by giving or receiving a gift, a positive experience, having time for a nap, a cancelled class, etc. Happiness can be found at a young or old age. It no longer requires an entire lifetime of attempting to fulfill one’s purpose. However, I do believe that, even in this day and age, in order to attain happiness over an extended period of time, you must take pieces from each of these older views and apply them to your life. For example, fulfilling a goal, the need for friendship, and being passionate about life are important in finding happiness.