Phobias -- we know them as a fear of something times ten. They can range from anything: from the justified arachnophobia (fear of spiders) to the paradoxical phobophobia (fear of phobias) to the odd arachibutyrophobia (the fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth). It doesn't matter what you're afraid of -- phobias are debilitating to one's life. So, how do phobias start?
Well, most psychologists believe that phobias are caused due to an intense amount of stress, coupled with a genetic vulnerability. So if you have cyberphobia and can't read this blog post, blame your genes. But the amount of stress you have in your life is very important too. The trigger is usually a major kind of traumatic event, or a humiliating social experience. The trauma that you experience will determine what phobia you could get. Obviously, if you're trapped in an elevator for a long time, you're likely going to develop claustrophobia (fear of enclosed space), and if you're scared out of your mind by a clown at your 9th birthday party, you'll probably develop caulrophobia.
Luckily, there are plenty of ways to cure a phobia. Some techniques involve hypnosis and drug therapy, specifically with anti-anxiety drugs. One of the main ways is through exposure therapy, which basically means exposing the patient to what scares them until they aren't scared anymore. This process is called desensitization. The patient usually starts by making a list of potential fears, starting with things that aren't that bad, to things that frighten them by just thinking about it. Together, the patient and therapist will start at the bottom of the hierarchy and tackle the smaller fears until the patient isn't bothered by them anymore. Then, they will move up the ladder of their fears, until, hopefully, their phobia is gone for good.
An accurate (and hilarious) example of the entire phobia cycle, from conception to desensitization, can be found from this clip from the hit show "The Big Bang Theory". In it, Sheldon describes his ornithophobia (fear of birds) to have begun when a hummingbird attacked him as a child, and intensifying throughout his life as more and more fowl-related incidents occur. Eventually, his fear is dissipated when he first pets the bird, leading up to him allowing the bird to perch on his arm. While much more rapid than it would be in real life, this is more or less how the process of curing a phobia works: you basically face your fear.
So how do we prevent phobias? There isn't really much we can do, since it's partly genetics. The only things we have control over is trying to keep as much stress out of our lives. If you are trying to prevent a phobia from being passed on to your kids, don't let them know what scares you, because they will just believe they have to be scared by it too.
Here are my sources!
http://allpsych.com/journal/phobias.html
http://blog.oregonlive.com/themombeat/2009/04/how_to_prevent_your_child_from.html
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
The Problem with Power Rangers
Ever seen a really studly guy pick up an even hotter girl? Ever try to replicate his moves exactly to try and get the same result? Well, whether you get the girl or not is irrelevant. It's the fact that you tried to copy the guy that's important. As human beings, we learn by observing, which, in psychology, is called "observational learning" (we're an unimaginative lot when it comes to naming things -- just like pirates).
Observational learning is more prevalent when we're young, when we're still trying to figure out how things in the world work. Parents, this is why you have to be especially careful when raising your kids. Show them a bad habit one too many times, and they'll likely replicate it. Observational learning is linked to the social cognitive theory, which basically re-states what I've been saying: we learn from watching others, as well as through our own experiences.
Back in the 90s, shows like "Power Rangers" and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" were criticized for promoting violence as the main way to solve problems, arguing that the romanticism of fighting was causing children to become more violent themselves. Indeed, according to this article both shows were implicated in the death of a five-year-old Norwegian girl, back in 1994, which caused "Power Rangers" to be pulled from the air. As this fan video explains, the reason violence in "Power Rangers" was problematic was because the consequences of violence were never shown. As the fan put it, "they fought monsters and went home". This gives young children the impression that being violent holds no negative consequences, and that it is a socially acceptable thing to do: thus the increase in violent tendencies.
With the advent of parental controls, TV isn't that big a problem anymore. But the media still holds a plethora of unsavory things for kids to duplicate, such as foul language. Luckily for us, there is a very easy solution. We must simply explain to the children that what they see in the media is not necessarily good to do in real life . They must also learn not to copy somebody without fully understanding what they are doing. Once we explain this to the children, we can put them on their guard and hopefully prevent any negative implications.
Observational learning is more prevalent when we're young, when we're still trying to figure out how things in the world work. Parents, this is why you have to be especially careful when raising your kids. Show them a bad habit one too many times, and they'll likely replicate it. Observational learning is linked to the social cognitive theory, which basically re-states what I've been saying: we learn from watching others, as well as through our own experiences.
Back in the 90s, shows like "Power Rangers" and "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" were criticized for promoting violence as the main way to solve problems, arguing that the romanticism of fighting was causing children to become more violent themselves. Indeed, according to this article both shows were implicated in the death of a five-year-old Norwegian girl, back in 1994, which caused "Power Rangers" to be pulled from the air. As this fan video explains, the reason violence in "Power Rangers" was problematic was because the consequences of violence were never shown. As the fan put it, "they fought monsters and went home". This gives young children the impression that being violent holds no negative consequences, and that it is a socially acceptable thing to do: thus the increase in violent tendencies.
With the advent of parental controls, TV isn't that big a problem anymore. But the media still holds a plethora of unsavory things for kids to duplicate, such as foul language. Luckily for us, there is a very easy solution. We must simply explain to the children that what they see in the media is not necessarily good to do in real life . They must also learn not to copy somebody without fully understanding what they are doing. Once we explain this to the children, we can put them on their guard and hopefully prevent any negative implications.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Framing Bias -- How We See the Problem
In the abortion debate, there are two sides: pro-choice, and pro-life. Now, one of these two groups automatically has a way of making people feel guilty if they're not a part of it. Any guesses? Saying that you are "pro-life" essentially attacks all of the people who are "pro-choice" by suggesting that they are "against life". We may as well change the name of "pro-choice" to "pro-death", because that's what the framing bias of this debate is insinuating.
What is framing bias, you ask? Basically, it's how the wording of a something affects our response to it. This article by the New York Times is an excellent piece on how framing works in politics. For example, instead of using the term "drilling for oil" they use the term "exploring for energy" a far less invasive term than the destructive image one receives when one thinks of drilling anything. Instead of attacking the "government" they attack "Washington", which focuses all criticism to the President's side of things, pulling the rest of the government out of the cross-hairs.
You can see framing bias everywhere. Read anything even slightly political, and you can be sure that there is some aspect that is trying to make your mind change about something. In this article, the term "foreign aid" is used in an experiment to see whether people are more likely to donate if the term is included or not. They found that when "foreign aid" was excluded from the article, Democrats opted to keep their money in the States, while the support of women drastically decreased; including it did the opposite. Why? Because including the term "foreign aid" implies that your money is actually going to help somebody in need.
So, hopefully I've given you something to think about. The next time you hear the phrase "pro-life", think about what that definition implies, and what it actually means. Just because somebody is "pro-choice", it doesn't mean they want to kill babies -- it just means their group name is a bit more neutral than the others.
What is framing bias, you ask? Basically, it's how the wording of a something affects our response to it. This article by the New York Times is an excellent piece on how framing works in politics. For example, instead of using the term "drilling for oil" they use the term "exploring for energy" a far less invasive term than the destructive image one receives when one thinks of drilling anything. Instead of attacking the "government" they attack "Washington", which focuses all criticism to the President's side of things, pulling the rest of the government out of the cross-hairs.
You can see framing bias everywhere. Read anything even slightly political, and you can be sure that there is some aspect that is trying to make your mind change about something. In this article, the term "foreign aid" is used in an experiment to see whether people are more likely to donate if the term is included or not. They found that when "foreign aid" was excluded from the article, Democrats opted to keep their money in the States, while the support of women drastically decreased; including it did the opposite. Why? Because including the term "foreign aid" implies that your money is actually going to help somebody in need.
So, hopefully I've given you something to think about. The next time you hear the phrase "pro-life", think about what that definition implies, and what it actually means. Just because somebody is "pro-choice", it doesn't mean they want to kill babies -- it just means their group name is a bit more neutral than the others.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
How Classical Conditioning Works in Advertisements
You've heard the term before, but now you're wondering: what is classical conditioning? Let's try to put it in perspective. Say you go to a diner and order this really awesome burger -- a burger so delicious that your mouth starts to water at the mere sight of it. The burger is an example of an unconditioned stimulus and your mouth watering is an unconditioned response: in other words, you don't have to learn to make your mouth water -- it just happens naturally. Now, say you are always served by the same waitress, who, at this point, is considered a neutral stimulus. If you order the burger enough times, you will find that the mere sight of the waitress will make your mouth water, even if the burger is nowhere in sight. The waitress, once a neutral stimulus, has now become a conditioned stimulus, and your mouth watering is now a conditioned response, because the reflex now happens to a new stimulus. Congratulations, classical conditioning has forged an association between the waitress and your watering mouth! Try explaining that to her when she notices you drooling as she walks towards you.
The same concept is being used today, in advertisements. Watch these two commercials: one by Burger King, and the other by Axe.
Burger King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrRqDdWiQU
Axe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3IHmrJ9THY&feature=relmfu
In the Burger King commercial, which advertises "Burger Shots", the unassuming man is instantly surrounded by a bevy of gorgeous women. Thus, the commercial forges an association between the Burger Shots and hot girls. Similarly, in the Axe commercial, a connection is forged between "Axe Fever" and beautiful women. What's the point of these connections? Well, in the viewer's mind, if he (because these commercials are obviously targeting young men) buys Burger Shots from Burger King instead of a Big Mac from McDonald's, or if he uses Axe instead of another brand of soap, hot girls will find him irresistible, and lots of sex will follow. Whatever arousal a man might get from these commercials will spark up whenever he sees the product. So, you get the same feeling of euphoria when you see the Burger King sign because the commercial has forged a connection between Burger King and pretty girls, and your money is now theirs.
So, here's the question: how do we resist this psychological pull? Hopefully, reading this blog post will have made you more aware of how professional advertisements work. The way the world is, advertisements will always try to condition you. Honestly, it wouldn't be very effective advertising if they weren't trying to. But if it's a choice between McDonald's more family-friendly commercials and Burger King's raunchier ones, it may be worth thinking about what you would rather have: a warm connection between McDonalds and family, or a fake connection between Burger King and girls you are never going to get.
The same concept is being used today, in advertisements. Watch these two commercials: one by Burger King, and the other by Axe.
Burger King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrRqDdWiQU
Axe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3IHmrJ9THY&feature=relmfu
In the Burger King commercial, which advertises "Burger Shots", the unassuming man is instantly surrounded by a bevy of gorgeous women. Thus, the commercial forges an association between the Burger Shots and hot girls. Similarly, in the Axe commercial, a connection is forged between "Axe Fever" and beautiful women. What's the point of these connections? Well, in the viewer's mind, if he (because these commercials are obviously targeting young men) buys Burger Shots from Burger King instead of a Big Mac from McDonald's, or if he uses Axe instead of another brand of soap, hot girls will find him irresistible, and lots of sex will follow. Whatever arousal a man might get from these commercials will spark up whenever he sees the product. So, you get the same feeling of euphoria when you see the Burger King sign because the commercial has forged a connection between Burger King and pretty girls, and your money is now theirs.
So, here's the question: how do we resist this psychological pull? Hopefully, reading this blog post will have made you more aware of how professional advertisements work. The way the world is, advertisements will always try to condition you. Honestly, it wouldn't be very effective advertising if they weren't trying to. But if it's a choice between McDonald's more family-friendly commercials and Burger King's raunchier ones, it may be worth thinking about what you would rather have: a warm connection between McDonalds and family, or a fake connection between Burger King and girls you are never going to get.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories
"We never landed on the moon!”
"I saw an alien!"
"9/11 was planned by the US government!"
"Michael Jackson is still alive!"
We hear these sentences ten times a day. Conspiracy theories -- some of the most alienating (pun intended) things we will ever read. They are the gateway into a world that is so much more fantastic than the one we live in now. I mean, who wouldn't want to know the truth about all of these things -- to know whether aliens really exist or not, to know the truth behind 9/11, to know whether the King of Pop is indeed alive? I would! And I know you would.
But, conspiracy theories ultimately boil down to one thing: the Fallacy of Positive Instances.
See, in psychology, the Fallacy of Positive Instances is when we agree with information that fits our expectations, while discarding anything that could counteract these expectations. You see it all the time when you read a horoscope. For example, check this horoscope (from the aptly named Horoscope.com) out:
“Social events, especially those unrelated to business, could bring exciting new contacts. Relationships with partners should be mutually beneficial, particularly when the people you’re dealing with are friends. If you’ve been considering entering a new business partnership, this is the day to start discussing it seriously. Romantic partnerships begun or moved forward now should also go very well.”
So you're (probably) thinking to yourself, "Wow! I'm going to social events unrelated to business where I'll probably make some friends! I currently share mutually beneficial relationships with my friends! I'm not entering a new business partnership, and I'm not really focusing on romantic things right now, but aside from that, everything's right on the mark!"
That's cool! I mean, there's only .083% chance that this horoscope is for your sign (it was a Scorpio one) but if you found a bunch of similarities anyway, then maybe it was a happy accident! That, or you fell for the Fallacy of Positive Instances. The horoscope is worded in such a way (read: vaguely) that anybody who reads it can find something that is somewhat applicable to their lives.
Apply this reasoning to conspiracy theories, and you have the same story. For example, look at the whole 9/11 conspiracy. Popular Mechanics highlights one of the more blatant claims: the plane that hit the World Trade Center was not a commercial airline, and the hit was orchestrated to further an American war agenda. Never mind the massive amounts of forensic evidence found in the wreckage that proves the plane’s takeover -- it was all George Bush’s fault! Basically, if you want to believe something, you’re going to believe it, no matter how far-fetched it may be. Depending on your own personal beliefs, you could be more prone to believing certain conspiracy theories. People that really hate the government are obviously going to jump on the whole “the government orchestrated 9/11” ship. That is the whole point of the Fallacy of Positive Instances: you take the points that make sense to you, discard the ones that don’t, and you have a working conspiracy theory. You have to remember, however, that there are discrepancies in these theories, which are the points which conspiracy theorists stubbornly ignore, and therein lies the lack of credibility in their arguments. You have to see all aspects of the story, whether you agree with them or not, to discover the truth. Ignoring the counterarguments will get you nowhere.
So, no, 9/11 was not an inside job. America did land on the moon. MJ isn’t going to suddenly reappear. Like I said, it's the Fallacy of Positive Instances.
Check out some of the places I got my information from!
Popular Mechanics debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1230517
Horoscopes: http://www.horoscope.com/ (If you really want to see the Fallacy of Positive Instances, choose a random horoscope and see how well your friend responds to it, especially if it’s not from their sign!)
Oh, and one more thing. Never, I repeat, never doubt that Buzz Aldrin went to the moon. And please don’t call him a liar. He will tell you to get away from him punch you in the face. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)