review essay #3
Question 3 (10 marks)Much of human processing is below the level of conscious awareness:Explain with reference to the following:
· Insight: a sudden and often novel realization of the solution to a problem. We are unaware of the intermediate steps to the insight and inisight often occurs when one isn’t consciously thinking of the problem.
· Use of heuristics: rule of thumb strategies that often allow us to make judgments and solve problems efficiently. For example, with availability heuristic, where we judge the likelihood of an event based on how easily instances come to mind, an unconscious process is taking place. Say a person reads articles of crimes in New York; this information sinks into the person’s memory, and so when asked what he thought of the city he would say it is a dangerous place, but unable to give reasons for this judgment. Such heuristic-based judgments take place before we consciously think out the problem.
· Dreams: A dream is an altered state of consciousness that takes place during REM. We often do not remember our dreams, and so whether dreams be our brains’ method of reviewing important information, of forgetting unneccessary information, whatever takes place is below our level of consciousness.
· Perception: Perception is the process of organizing and interpreting sensory information, enabling us to recognize meaningful objects and events. This involves converting stimulus energy into neural messages that the brain processes without our awareness. Other processes such as the calculation of distance based on minute differences between the perceptions of either ear or eye take place without our awareness. Humans are aware of only the end products of perceptual processing.
· Motivated forgetting: the unknowing revision of one’s own memories to enhance self-image. One explanation for this would be Freud’s concept of repression in which we unconsciously repress our painful memories to protect our self concept and minimize anxiety.
Social Psychology - Key Questions
Why do we need others?
Our parents, who nourished and raised us, are others. Our friends, who we spend time with, entertain, and give and receive affection, are others. We have acceptance and stimulation and protection in others.
What do you find most frustrating in your dealing with others?
I find the fact that I cannot convey my thoughts clearly to others the most frustrating. Even though we share the same language, the same statement can be interpreted in entirely different ways, and finding the right way to put my feelings and opinions is no walk in the park either. It is so easy to misunderstand and be misuderstood.
One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
1) Identify the various dysfunctional behaviors depicted in the film
One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest depicts a mental ward and it’s inhabitants’ lives during McMurphy’s stay there. As can be expected in a mental ward, various patients exhibited odd or dysfunctional behaviors. The most obvious were the man who compulsively danced around in a circle continuously and the man who kept making mopping motions. Billy’s self-mutilation and suicide (as well as his past attempts at suicide) were also significantly dysfunctional behaviors. There was also a catatonic man who never moved. The chief’s social withdrawal, pretending to be deaf and dumb, is another example of dysfunctional behavior, brought about by fear of the world. More minor dysfunctional behaviors would perhaps include Taber’s belligerent attitude and Harding’s obsession over the possibility that his wife had been cheating on him.
2) What treatments do patients receive?
The mental institution in the film utilized various therapies. Chemotherapy was regularly administered at medication time. Group therapy also seemed to take place everyday, with Nurse Ratchet asking questions and attempting to get patients to talk about their problems. A few one-on-one sessions with a doctor and McMurphy were depicted, as well as on where several doctors interviewed him at once. Other treatments included restraints, ECT (electroconvulsive therapy), and a lobotomy,
3) What purposes do these treatments serve?
Chemotherapy perhaps serves to relieve certain symptoms or mood disorders, or even simply to bring about the placebo effect. Group therapy should have been a way for patients to reflect on themselves and their problems, as well as let other patients sympathize. (In the film, however, group therapy is a way for Nurse Ratchet to retain control over the patients.) The one-on-one sessions should have given the doctor personal insight into the patients’ condition, and the sessions of several psychologists interviewing one patient probably ensured a broader scope of opinions regarding the patients’ condition. The restraints perhaps served to keep patients from hurting themselves by wandering around at night. ECT is effective in treating depression, but in the movie it was used to calm down overly excited patients and as a punishment. The lobotomy in this film, the removal of parts of McMurphy’s brain tissue, served to stop him from challenging and disrupting the institution of the mental hospital.
4) Why is routine, order, schedules and rituals so important to the running of mental institutions?
These are all important to the institution for two major reasons. The first is the stability of the patients. The men in the ward mostly have some kind of problem, and the predictable routine of life in the mental institution supplies them with a certain sense of security, reducing anxiety. The second is control. The routine and order of the institution ensures that the patients conform and follow the rules, and enforce the authority of those who impose these routines.
5) Who are the victims of institutionalization?The patients are victims of institutionalization. They become conformed to the routine of the ward, and become further unable to face the world outside. None of the nurses or the doctors actually seem to want patients to get any better (as displayed in Nurse Ratchet’s deliberate destruction of Billy’s self-esteem) – they just want to keep control over them. Also, their position in the hospital as patients means that all their actions are seen through colored lenses; their actions are all interpreted in terms of mental illness, even though they seem no odder than many other people outside of mental institutions. (In McMurphy’s words: ‘As near as I can tell you’re not any crazier than the average asshole out in the street.’)
6) What is the film saying about madness and mental institutions?
That madness is not an absolute label and that perhaps the institution which labels people as ‘mad’ and treats them as subhuman is more insane than the patients in it.
7) If you were to reform the mental health services depicted in the film, what would you change? Justify your reforms.
The patients in the film received little personal attention from doctors and nurses. I would require doctors to spend more time with patients in order to get a more accurate assessment of their conditions. I would also train nurses and other personnel to treat patients as human – the nurses in the film, apart from Nurse Ratchet, were almost frightened of the patients. Treating patients as dangerous animals is not likely to help their recovery or raise their morale. Lastly, I would allow a flexible schedule according patients the responsibility of managing their own time. This would give patients a sense of control over their situations while still maintaining stability. It would also adjust them to responsibility and prepare them for life outside the ward.
My First Impressions on Psychotherapies
For now, the behavioral approach to therapy seems the most effective to me. Psychotherapy is too ambiguous and and time consuming, the humanist approach of concerned listening doesn't seem like therapy at all, and as for cognitive therapy - if rational thinking was the key to curing psychological disorders, then people with panic disorders, anorexia nervosa, depression etc who are aware of their conditions should not have these disorders at all. On a personal level, I don't react very well to anger, becoming sullen and resentful, so I don't think the cognitive method of directly challenging the patient would suit me very well. However, given the recovery rate of patients treated according to the cognitive perspective, perhaps there are other aspects I have yet to learn about which would make the cognitive approach the best.From the little information I have acquired now though, I would prefer the behavioral method, with it's visible, concrete results. I do have to admit that the behavioral approach seems to do little for disorders with few outward symptoms, however.
Unit 12 Abnormal Psychology
Studying the Psychopathology unit, it was interesting to note the diversity of psychological disorders, and that most did not fit the conventional image of how a 'crazy' person would be. Schizophrenia was perhaps the most dramatic and least comprehensible of the disorders. Schizophrenics, along with those who displayed psychotic symptoms, were the most disturbing because their normal behavior and reactions were so alien to my experience.
It was also interesting to note that most people with disorders are aware of their condition and yet unable to do anything about them. Psychological disorders are much more complex than most people might think. Because such disorders are of the mind, you would think that knowledge of them would relieve the symptoms, but the brain simply does not work that way. There are many different levels on which we function, not a neat division between brain and body.
What makes an intelligent person?
Nobody quite knows exactly what is meant by the term ‘intelligence.’ It is a quality ascribed to those with exceptional mental, conversational, or judgmental abilities, but we still do not know exactly what it is. Consider an idiot savant who cannot feed himself or make conversation but can instantaneously multiply numbers in the millions range or come up with the square root of say, 57686 without a calculator. The average person would be hard put to define whether this savant is intelligent or not.
The generally accepted definition for intelligence is ‘the capacity for goal-directed and adaptive behavior involving the abilities to profit from experience, solve problems, and reason effectively.’ In other words, it is defined as ‘a general mental capability that includes reasoning abilities, planning abilities, ability to think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, and learn from experiences, an ability to comprehend and react to one’s surroundings.’
A Sir Francis Galton came up with the concept of intelligence in the 19th century. He believed that intelligence was mainly inherited, and speculated about eugenics. He thought that if intellectually superior humans were the only ones allowed to breed, eventually the general mental capability of the human race would increase. A fellow called Binet came after him and thought that there should be a way to measure intelligence, so came up with a fairly limited test. Lewis Terman came along and adjusted the test to make the ‘Stanford-Binet Test’ and coined the term ‘IQ’ or ‘Intelligence Quotient.’ Evidently, he thought that intelligence should increase with age, so his intelligence quotient factored in age by dividing the general results by age. Certain discrepancies cropped up because of this.
Charles Spearman came up with factor analysis. He thought that there must be a general component to intelligence, and that if one had a lot of it, then one would be more intelligent than most others in most areas of intelligence. Professor Thurston, in contrast, thought of intelligence as emerging in eight different clusters.
People once used to think of this vague attribute called intelligence as a lump sum, a general quality that you could measure in total. Howard Gardner, an American psychologist, thought differently. He proposed a theory of multiple intelligences. He wasn’t the first, but his was comprehensive and definite. He viewed intelligence as having several components, each independent of the others, and that in order to assess a person’s intelligence you had to assess each part separately. The components, or categories, he proposed were spatial, musical, verbal, logical and mathematical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and bodily; he believed that each form has intrinsic value. Gardner thought that everyone had innate tendencies to excel in certain categories, and that we are all equally intelligent, just in different categories.
Robert Sternberg, came up with a similar idea, but his triarchic theory of intelligence focused mostly on cognitive abilities. His idea of intelligence was of three components that interact with each other; academic problem solving skills, practical intelligence, and creative intelligence. Academic problem solving skills are the skills that require logical thinking and the ability to solve problems that are well-defined and have only one answer. Practical intelligence is one’s aptitude in getting through everyday problems. Creative intelligence is the kind needed to react well to novel situations. His theory differs from Gardner’s because he believed that these categories were only sub-divisions that make up one general intelligence.
A somewhat recently popularized aspect of intelligence is EQ, the emotional quotient. EQ is the ability or the skill to detect, assess, and manage one’s own emotions and those of others. Hence, it is a social ability. As it is a relatively new concept, research is still being conducted on EQ. However, people are gradually accepting this concept as one that is as important as or more important than IQ. After all, what good is an IQ of 198 if one is unable to placate an irate client, get a deal from a company representative, or keep one’s employees happy?
There are many different views on that vague quality called intelligence, ranging from the general to the specific, and from academic to social. Personally, I believe that emotional intelligence is the most relevant aspect of intelligence. The most gifted individual can be defeated by his inability to manage his own emotions. We are social animals, and we live with each other. One’s success in this world hangs on both one’s personal abilities and one’s personal relationships. Emotional management is crucial to both; if one cannot keep oneself focused and motivated enough to acquire skills, or make connections and both give and receive help, one simply cannot live a successful or happy life.
Neo Freudians
Carl Jung, unlike other Neo-Freudians, regarded the unconscious as important, proposing his theory of a collective unconscious shared by all humans across both time and distance. His somewhat mystical view of the unconscious resembles that of Freud in that he too believed that the unconscious had much subtle influence over our lives.
Karen Horney devised 3 strategies for dealing with neurosis. She viewed the early, formative years in a person’s life as the factor that defined what the person would be like throughout their life. In placing such importance on childhood experiences, Horney’s views resemble that of Freud. However, she objected to the notion of the ‘Oedipus complex’ and, possibly in feminist retaliation to Freud’s proposed ‘penis envy,’ came up with ‘womb envy.’
Alfred Adler worked extensively with the idea of an ‘inferiority complex’ suffered by all children and most adults at various levels. Adler seems almost Humanist in assuming that our basic driving force is to better ourselves and that social concern is a part of any normal individual. Adler rejected Freud’s idea of a compartmentalized self.
Erik Erikson is famous for his proposed stages of development, or the different crises that individuals supposedly undergo at periodic points in their lifetime. Like Freud, he believed that one’s childhood has a great deal to do with one’s personality, but unlike Freud, believed that the ego is much more important than the other parts of self. Somewhat like Adler, he believed that overcoming problems drives us towards self-improvement.
The Neo-Freudians, as a group, are less extreme and less focused on sex than Freud. They each seem to focus on different aspects of Freud’s theories and expand and diverge from there. While their ideas are interesting, I really don’t think that any one theory can be applicable to humanity as a whole, or really encompass the depths of any individual’s psyche.
