Don't be "A-Freud" of Psychology

YES! We finally get to talk about psychology in class! Today's lesson will be a more in-depth lecture about Freud, his ideas about development, and subconscious defense mechanisms.

First of all, Freud believed in the Psychosexual stages of child development, asserting that children were unconsciously sexual with various kinds of stimulation. Freud believed that if a child received too much or too little stimulation in an area of the psychosexual stages, they could become fixated, permanently trying to satisfy their urge for stimulation.

The Psychosexual Stages:

Stage	Focus	Fixation
Oral (0-18 months)	Pleasure centers of the mouth such as biting, nursing, or sucking.	Pleasure seeking activities involving the mouth such as smoking, binge-eating, or chewing gum obsessively.
Anal (18-36 months)	Pleasure focuses on bowel and bladder elimination; coping with demands for control.	Anal Retentive- Child becomes controlled and organized. Anal Expulsive- Child becomes disorderly and hoarded.
Phallic (3-6 years)	Pleasure zone is the genitals; coping with incestuous sexual feelings. When girls and boys first realize that they have different genitals and that arousal creates pleasure.	Fixation causes the child to seek a partner that reminds them of their mother or father (Reminiscent Oedipus/Electra Complex)
Latency (6 to puberty)	Dormant sexual feelings. Girls and boys self-segregate by gender. Cooties!	Fixation causes homosexuality.
Genital (Puberty into adulthood)	Maturation of sexual interests	Fixation can cause sex addiction-like tendencies, or lack thereof.

Freud also believed in Defense Mechanisms, unconscious behaviors that our brain does to protect us from something that we don't want to face or don't know how to handle. While the psychosexual stages are really debatable to their validity/accuracy, I definitely see these defense mechanisms in my everyday life. I frequently see these with myself and others around me. It's quite fascinating. 

Defense Mechanisms:

Mechanism	Definition	Example
Repression	Banishes anxiety-arousing thoughts, feelings, and memories from consciousness.	Avoiding anxiety-arousing queues that provoke a traumatic memory.
Regression	Individuals retreat, when faced with anxiety, to a more infantile stage	Looking for something that provides comfort, like a parent, sibling, or something that reminds that person of childhood.
Reaction Formation	Ego switches and expresses unacceptable, anxiety-arousing impulses as its opposite.	Being a homophobe or being overtly sexual towards the opposite sex to cope with their homosexual urges.
Projection	People disguise their own threatening impulses by attributing them to others. Hypocritical reasoning.	A criminal and pervert criticizes and accuses an entire ethnicity of being rapists and murderers.
Rationalization	Self-justifying explanations in place of real, more threatening, unconscious reasons for one’s actions.	An alcoholic claiming that they only drink to be social.
Displacement	Person shifts aggressive or sexual impulses toward a more acceptable or less threatening object or person	A husband beating his wife or kids because he can't take out his anger at work with his boss or co-workers.
Sublimation	Person channels their unacceptable impulses into socially approved activities	Smoking to calm down instead of becoming hostile.

Reflection Post #6

I don't really have much to say in this post. Since what we've been discussing- Marxism, Darwinism, Psychoanalysis- we've largely talked about in other classes and this was information that was already known. I knew about evolution coming into this class, and I already knew about Ken Ham and his "interesting" ideas about creationism (I type this trying to be as polite as possible); talk about ignorance being bliss: who spends over 100 million dollars to re-create a giant wooden boat in the middle of Kentucky? 64 million of those dollars were paid for by Grant County in taxes (Because that's a secular use of tax dollars). His logic simply profounds me with his arguments such as, "Were you there?" I don't even know what to say to that. His dogma is the epitome of the psychological principle of Belief Perseverance. The best example of this is global warming: It's when someone has a claim, and even when their argument has been disproved, that person with the false claim still holds onto it as being the truth (Such as when Senator Jim Inhofe brought a snowball onto the congressional floor as a testimony against climate change).
I already knew about Marxism because I've witnessed the re-emergence of some of its ideas in modern political discussion; socialist ideas like income equality and government intervention in various parts of society and our economy. There's really not much to talk about because these topics which we've been discussing, this truly is living philosophy. We're still actively having debates over these controversial ideas.
Anyways, it's sort of difficult to really analyze these ideas because they're still hot topic claims today. It's like trying to rate a president when they're still in office. Only time will tell what the ultimate verdict will be.

Psychology "Marx" the Spot

Soon enough you'll be your own psych wizard!

First of all, on page 393, Alberto talks about Marx's ideas about the value of work; that without work we feel an emptiness. He's absolutely right! According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, employment of some sort is needed to feel self-actualization. It fits under the categories of self-perception and environmental approval. We seek for some sort of appraisal or recognition from our peers. One way to do that is to build up a repertoire within our occupation; establish something that we can hang our hats on. Having an occupation where you're valued and respected by your colleagues is crucial. Also, having something significant, such as a job with purpose, helps fulfill our need for self-esteem. This goes along with Erik Erikson's stages of development, more specifically the middle-age crisis of Generativity vs. Stagnation. In this stage of life, around the age of 35-60, people begin to question whether or not they have a purpose in life. It's this seek to be a part of something greater than ourselves that many middle-aged adults have midlife crises. In short, having a meaningful job helps fulfill approval from our environment and approval from ourselves. 

Secondly, on page 391, Alberto claims that the ruling class sets the norms. This is also true! As it was found in Asch's experiment in conformity, people tend to conform based off of social norms of those they perceive to be in a position of authority [refer to Milgram's study of obedience]. Thus, people like the political elites have more influence over public views on public policy, or why celebrities have influence over social trends and culture; they're in positions of authority. In the case that Marx refers to specifically, this has to do with what is called "Normative Social Influence". This is a type of conformity that occurs when someone submits to the majority opinion. It's a logical fallacy as it's a bandwagon tactic, but people do it nonetheless to prevent social conflict among their peers. "Why cause a dispute when you can just blend in?" This is not to be confused with "Informative Social Influence" where the person in the minority can't form an opinion on something, and thus believes that the majority must be right if they all concur. "If they all believe it's right, then there must be some validity in their thoughts, right?"

Here's a cool video explaining Asch's discovery, narrated by Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, the mastermind behind the Stanford Prison Experiment.
https://youtu.be/NyDDyT1lDhA

Analysis #5

First of all, I guess I'm slightly confused about Kierkegaard. We talked about how he was raised on a strict policy by his father who believed wielded the "Wrath of God"; does this mean Soren was abused growing up? I mean, I know it was a different time period and attitudes were different but abuse is abuse. I suppose, just from my personal perspective, I don't understand how someone could be tormented as a child, yet still uphold such a devout faith in Christianity. Unless of course he was so loyal out of fear. Also, his idea of existentialism has strengths and weaknesses, as we discussed in class. For instance, it is good to understand the nitty-gritty details of stuff. I should know, being anal retentive with my need for control on every little thing. However, I do also see where Hegel comes from with his more panoramic view of the world. It's important that we remind ourselves to still be able to see the forest through the trees.
And then there's Marx... The dude is pretty interesting. He is really the first philosopher that we've discussed that had a radical emphasis on political and economic structure. Sure, there was Plato with the Ideal Society (not to be confused with LBJ's Great Society) and there was Locke with natural rights, but Marx really proposes a major change in the way we talk about economics and politics. Obviously raw Communism and Marxist ideals don't work, but I do think some socialist tendencies are fine and even good for a society. For example, consider the issue of healthcare. As it currently stands, it is a largely privatized business, that will become exponentially more privatized if Trump"care" passes. This, I believe, is not good for society. By promoting an open market with health insurance, it'll derail the regulations on coverage and the pharmaceutical industry. More despicable acts like Martin Shkreli's price hike on AIDs medication or the hyperinflation of Epi-pens would occur. It's better to have government involvement in large businesses like the financial sector, so as to prevent another global meltdown like what was witnessed in 2008. While a complete command economy doesn't work, a mixed economy where the government controls or at least influences some aspects of the economy is crucial in providing a fair balance (at least in a perfect world, that is. Then again, there's lobbying- basically a legal form of bribery- but that's a completely different matter).

I "Kant" Wait to Talk About Psychology

Imagine that: another psychology lesson because #PsychIsEverywhere

Kant is essentially the precursor to what we now know about sensation and perception. When Kant talks about the material of knowledge and the form of knowledge, he is basically talking about the two forms of sensory processing. The material of knowledge is what is known as "Bottom-up" processing. Bottom-up processing is the basic form of sensory analysis that relies strictly on the senses. This uses various sensory cues.
For instance, consider visual cues while looking at this painting below:

At first, the cones in your retinas may notice the different colors like the greens and browns and white. The feature detectors of your fovea discern the lines and shapes of objects. You may pick up on monocular cues such as linear perspective and interposition, allowing you to gauge a sense of depth perception. This basic processing allows your brain to easily recognize that there is a forest with what looks like a rancher and some horses passing through. All of this information was picked up from basic sensory information or the material of knowledge.

However, your brain may not have noticed a crucial aspect of this unique painting. The title of this painting is called "The Forest has Eyes". Look through the painting again and see how many faces you can find with this new information. For most people, they don't immediately notice the faces hidden in the scenery. This is because they're not expecting to see such things in the painting. This is called "Inattentive Blindness" (For a fun example, watch the video below). It's a sometimes fatal mistake that our brain can't effectively mutli-task, so if we're not expecting something to happen, we might not notice some stimuli. This is where reason or the form of knowledge comes into play. This type of analysis is called "Top-down" processing and it utilizes the complex cognition and reasoning areas of the brain to interpret and ultimately decide our perceptions. This is like the example that Alberto gave to Sophie with the glasses. Though she may have seen the world with a tint of red, she knows that logically her senses are being deceived and it is only the result of those glasses. When our brain reaches stimuli that don't logically make sense, our brain tries to decipher and fill in the gaps in order to make sense.

Awareness Tests:
Basketball-          https://youtu.be/Ahg6qcgoay4
Who Dunnit?-       https://youtu.be/ubNF9QNEQLA

Analysis #4

Just when I thought this book was getting weird, it really dropped me on my head. This whole thing with Hilde is just madness. I am curious to see how these two worlds are linked because if Sophie and Alberto really are just characters, how do Hilde's possessions wind up into a story? How come Sophie and Alberto at least appear to have the capability to think for themselves? Is this simply an illusion? If so, what implications does this have? That we are not independent beings with no free-will and instead are the toys of some over-watcher? That possibility simply doesn't seem fathomable to me. Then again, I suppose that's the basis of Kant's argument regarding the possible infinity of the universe. That we are simply too insignificant to really comprehend and grasp the magnitude of the universe. That really is a terrifying thought when you allow it to seize your attention. If Kant is indeed accurate in this assertion, then it heightens the absolute awe regarding this entire topic of reality. 

Also, how is Alberto Knag orchestrating all of this? It's all just very weird and it brings a completely new meaning to Descartes' idea of an evil genius and whether or not reality actually exists. It's really a melting pot of different philosophical ideas that are being discussed. For instance, Berkely's idea of the "Ultimate Perceiver" is coming into play as Sophie's world doesn't actually seem to exist except in the mind of this mysterious puppet-master Alberto Knag; the idea that nothing actually exist unless someone perceives it (In this case, Hilde and her father are the perceivers) is exemplified through this odd plot. 

Lastly, what is Alberto Knag's purpose in doing all of this? He continues to become more obscure and random in his mischief. It's one thing to send postcards, it's a completely different thing to have a sea serpent and a fable character appear out of nowhere. Hopefully there really is a point to these preposterous acts, otherwise it simply seems like none-sensible filler on the author's behalf.