Psychology Articles

How do I start? It’s gonna be difficult to write this post in a way that everyone can ready it and at the same time don’t commit heresy by not being rigorous and awaken the wrath of my colleagues.

Also, I don’t want to get into the “politics” of Freudian Psychoanalysis and the “war” it’s into against other branches of Psychology such as cognitive sciences. The point I’m trying to prove is that Freudian Psychoanalysis and the people who study and has studied it (including me) have some points and miss some others.

I think Freud was dead right regarding the dynamics of the unconscious mind (the existence of unconscious processes is not arguable). (mental note: avoid being technical) Once you understand the theory and articulate it, you can trace behaviors back to its’ elemental state. It’s a tool to comprehend how the human (animal) mind functions while in contact with culture.

The error (I’m not being modest here, sorry) I often see, is that its’ application to our “real world” (I’m really using those two words very loosely) often fail. And why do I think so?

Because some people tend to extrapolate the exact Freudian Theory to current cases. I could say that studying Psychoanalysis during the 1900s was a lot easier. Today we need to make an extra effort. Why?

Because Freud wrote at the end of the XIX century and beginning of the XX in a much more different society. With no mass media, no internet, no cell phones, no cars… and let’s not start about the social differences of Victorian Europe. Spring Break could have killed half of the Old Continent’s population of heart attacks.

Today, the effort we have to make is to dismount that carpet of social fantasies put together. We have new ones 100 years in the future. Our society is a lot different than that of WWI. We see the world, we interpret it, in a different way. We can’t pretend that the world hasn’t changed. We have to put the new carpet of our post-modern world on top of the naked roots of Psychoanalysis. Same basic rules of cognitive functioning still apply, we just need to connect them to our current individual and collective fantasies, goals, desires.

Psychoanalysis was popular because it addressed the exigencies that that world posed. And that’s a criticism that many branches of Psychology are making. We could even find something new, something we haven’t been looking for.

I realize that if I keep writing, this post would reach an asymptotic line on the “Over” axis. I know I’m leaving a lot of loose ends, maybe one every 10 words. But my goal was to address a point and stick to it. Lots of ideas come to mind but it would make this post lose its purpose.

PS: Flak welcome

Fernando Tarnogol is an Argentinean psychologist, currently working as Program Coordinator at the Devereux Foundation in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Visit his blog at http://fernandotarnogol.com/

Here’s a short primer on Cognitive and Behavioral Learning Theories

Behavioral learning theories suggest that learning results from pleasant or unpleasant experiences in life while cognitive theories of learning suggest that learning is based upon mental processes. However, in an admonishment against being too closely guided by any one set of pedagogical principles, Johnson (2003) suggests that a fixation with process oriented educational theories among those in the politics of education has not served the education community well by aligning practitioners into separate camps.

A behavioral view in psychology has held that exploratory analysis of cognition must begin with an examination of human behavior (William & Beyers, 2001). Behavioral theory has benefited from the work of early researchers such as Pavlov, Thorndike, and later on the work of B.F. Skinner. Work relating to the development of behavioral theories in educational psychology has allowed theorists to explore ways in which human action could be controlled through manipulation of stimuli and patterns of reinforcement.

Cognitive theory as it relates to epistemological processes within the individual is based upon the idea that learning comes about as a result of processes related to experience, perception, memory, as well as overtly verbal thinking. Since the 1970s, information processing theory has been a dominant focus of study for cognitive theorists. Although the list of theories associated with cognitive theory is an expansive one to say the least, for the purposes of this paper, it is appropriate to mention several contemporary theories on cognition including: information processing theory, schema theory, and situated cognition theory.

Informational processing is based on a theory of learning that describes the processing of, storage, and retrieval of knowledge in the mind. Factors such as sensory register, attention, working memory, and long term memory play a significant part in this theory of cognition. Schema theory offers that human beings interpret the world around them based on categorical rules or scripts; information is processed according to how it fits into these rules or schemes. As an epistemology, schema theory focuses on meaningful learning and the construction of and modification of conceptual networks. Situated cognition theory postulates a social nature of learning situated within a community of practice in which knowledge is socially constructed.

An important component of this type learning, apprenticeship, is informed by social learning theory. Situational cognition as a theory posits that the individual is not a passive vessel, but rather, is an active self-reflective entity; as such, cognitive processes develop as a result of interaction between the self and others.

Another loosely related concept that relates to social cognition is the construct of reciprocal determinism. This is a behavioral theory under which it is theorized that the environment causes behavior and at the same time, behavior causes the environment Under this theory, personal factors in the form of (a) cognition, affect, and biological events, (b) behavior, and (c) environmental influences, create interactions that result in a triadic reciprocality (Pajares, 2002).

References

Johnson, B. (2003). Those nagging headaches: perennial issues and tensions in the politics of education field. Education Administration Quarterly, 39 (1), pp. 41-67.

Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy.

Williams, R. & Beyers, M. (2001). Personalism, social constructionalism, and the foundation of the ethical. Theory and Psychology, 11 (1), pp. 119-134.

Liston W. Bailey is an educator and training specialist living in Virginia.

A secret means information that you try to hide from others!

This definition contains important features of secrets:

1-Info: You are not considered crazy if you keep a secret. When you ask people what secrets are, then they often think of things like cheating, something stolen or a strange happening in youth period. Of course these issues are often kept secret, but other innocent subjects are kept as secrets too like your salary, smoking habits, your admired movie star and so on!

2- Unconsciously or intentionally: You keep secrets either accidentally or intentionally. You know exactly which secret you want to keep, and from whom. Sometimes you can even spend effort in order not to let the secret out! Having secrets is a conscious decision by itself. It costs too much mental energy to keep a secret. Secrets are a cognitive load.

3-Keep it hidden: Having secrets is certainly not without difficulty. You have to do your best not to tell it. So you must be careful that you talk about it, and you can set up a poker face when you come into a situation where your secret is in danger. You can not show that you caught or uncomfortable. These situations have to be judged in advance. Finally you can act quickly to repair any mistake if necessary: you must have therefore in advance ready excuses. In other words, having a secret is a socially conscious process where effort need to be done.

4-From others: Secrets are by definition social in nature. That means that there are always other people involved. No one has ever kept a secret from a stone, a table or water. We keep secrets from other people. This may be one person, or almost everyone. These people may be also already dead or even imaginary!
Tips

What can you do if you have a secret that is emotionally stressful for you? Do you share it with someone? It is important to realize that when you tell your secret to someone, you get a different relationship with the person to whom you tell. Sometimes this goes deeper and deeper. Sometimes however, the friendship or relationship undergoes serious pressure, and you may loose that person. In that case the result of sharing the secret is more emotionally stressful than having the secret!

It is recommended not to share your secret with others, sometimes it is better to hold something for you. The U.S. expert and psychologist Anita Kelly says for example that you have to think twice whether and to whom you tell your secret. You need to be sure that the person is reliable and is not going to tell your secret. Therefore, Kelly made the following decision tree:

1. Does the secret causes much load to you?
( For example because you get anxiety, depression, physical ailments like headaches or strange experience, or because you can not live your life because you see certain places or people affect you in a certain way) NO, then it is not necessary to share your secret. You can not then be damaged by telling it. YES, then you can ask the following question:

2. Is there a counselor in your immediate surroundings who is available that you tell discretely, a good listener, not judging and who can help you with new insights? NO? Then it is better not to share it with anyone in your immediate environment but rather share with a professional counselor such as a psychologist, social worker, counselor, a church man, imam or an agency. If you find it difficult to talk about your secrets with professionals, then you can write about it in a diary. You can also write a letter to yourself or the person of your secret, without ever sending the letter.

YES? Then talk about it with that person

In this short article I have made use of a very good book from the Netherlands about the subject but the most researchers are from the united states. From my practise I have been confronted with simple and difficult secrets and confessions from my clients. In deed I was busy for years with difficult cases. People wanted to tell about their deeply hidden secrets. In my position(together with a team), I managed to help many persons. When we used a certain approach and made a person speaks, he/she got great relief. In our situation there was a good degree of trust that made the people speak. A lot of cases were really suffering from extreme anxiety and suffering.

I recently built a website (a forum) where the visitor can tell about a secret or a confession. If you like you can try it too. You can leave your secret or confession anonymously. You will not only get relieved but you will meet people who will be ready to interact with you. It is sure not a therapy but I say give it a try. Good luck.

http://www.humansecretsonline.com

Back in the 1950s, Professor Jensen – a leading authority on intelligence – concluded that nothing could be done to improve our IQ level – that it was fixed from early childhood. This was the scientific consensus. Numerous studies investigating the effect of different types of cognitive training over the past 40 years have not done much to change this view – that is, until 2008 when a team of cognitive psychologists from Bern, Switzerland and Michigan, United States, demonstrated that a very specific type of cognitive training can improve IQ dramatically.

Why has it taken 40 years to discover how to improve IQ?

It is only thanks to recent insights from cognitive psychology about the nature of short term memory and its importance in cognitive functioning have at last enabled a training exercise to be engineered that improves IQ. As cognitive psychologists, we have now uncovered many underlying information processing systems of intelligence. It is this understanding that has enabled us to design the task to be effective to improve intelligence, regardless of starting IQ level. We will now look at how these mechanisms work.

We can improve IQ, but how does it work?

Our short term memory is a big part of the story. We use our short term memory all the time for any storage of information that is short term – perhaps over a matter of 10 or 20 seconds – for example, while remembering directions have have just heard while driving.

The Magical Number 7

The amount of information most people can hold in short term memory (numbers, food items, directions) is limited to around 7 items – plus or minus 2. This short term memory capacity or ‘memory span’ has been called the ‘magical number seven’ in one of the most famous papers in cognitive psychology, by George Miller at Princeton University.

Working memory

But more important than just remembering information by rote is being able to do mental operations on that information – to solve a problem, to figure something out, or reason through something to find an answer. For instance, while figuring out a 15% tip, or how much currency is worth while you are in another country. The ability to hold information in mind for brief periods, and manipulate it mentally is a type of short term memory called working memory. You have to do mental work on the information, not just store it. That is why it is called ‘working memory’.

The capacity of working memory

Most people have a working memory capacity of about 2 or 3 – much less than the memory span of the ‘magical number 7′ for just storing information without doing any cognitive operations on it.

The working memory-IQ link

People vary widely in their working memory capacity. Ä°t is now known that these differences predict IQ level. General intelligence – measured by standardized IQ tests – depends on working memory because working memory affects a wide range of complex cognitive tasks besides figuring out a tip, involving reasoning problem solving, and making sense of things. We use working memory every single time we reason, plan and problem solve. Even comprehending long sentences (like the ones in this article) requires working memory!

Working memory and the intelligence behind our IQ level both share the same brain circuitry – part of the frontal cortex of the brain called the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. (‘Dorsal’ means up, and ‘lateral’ means to the side – hence ‘dorsolateral’). This is one of the most recently evolved parts of the brain.

How to improve IQ – the logic

The logic is simple: If you can improve your working memory capacity by training it directly, you can therefore improve your intelligence level. There is, in technical terms, a ‘transfer effect’ from working memory training to gains in intelligence and IQ.

Intelligence can now be improved by 40% – as a side effect.

In 2008 cognitive psychologists at the University of Bern in Switzerland and the University of Michigan in the States, demonstrated that by training on a specifically designed working memory exercise you can increase working memory capacity by over 65% over just 19 days of training.

This improvement in this type of short term memory capacity had a remarkable side effect: a 40% gain in intelligence – as measured by a version of the time limited Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices IQ test – one of the most valid and highly regarded IQ tests for culture fair intelligence.

The author, Dr. Mark Ashton Smith, is a cognitive neuroscientist. Between 2000 and 2003 he was a Lecturer in the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Cambridge. His most recent position has been as Assistant Professor at Bilkent University, Turkey. His current research is in fluid intelligence and how it can be trained.

To find out more of what is known about intelligence and how to increase IQ, visit his website: http://www.highiqpro.com/about/how-to-improve-iq-working-memory

If your public service involves interviewing surviving victims of or eyewitnesses to violent events, you will want to learn more about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the Witness Memory Retrieval Technique and how each can impact your investigation.

Research proves there are two distinct human processes that prevent investigators and police personnel from conducting the most effective investigation when working with surviving victims of and eyewitnesses to violent crimes. Those processes have been identified as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Memory Retrieval (Recall).

What is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and how does it impact the Witness Memory Retrieval process?

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a reaction to a violent event that evokes intense fear, terror and helplessness. Many surviving victims of violent crimes…rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, terrorism, sexual abuse and physical assault, for example, are unable to recognize the signs of emotional stress they are experiencing. Traumatic events trigger feelings in victims from which they cannot easily recover, largely because they have not been helped to recognize and subsequently deal with their emotional and behavioral changes. These feelings impede an investigators’ ability to retrieve additional significant information paramount to solving a case.

As a police officer or investigator you are often the first contact victims have following a traumatic encounter. The importance of police interaction with victims cannot be underestimated. In many instances, victims suffer what is known as second injury in their interactions with police, judges, attorneys, physicians and other public authority figures. The term “second injury” refers specifically to a psychological injury, rather than a physical injury. The event will leave the victim in a vulnerable state of mind, causing them to perceive situations in a distorted and overly negative light.

Although it is natural to establish common perceptions about the kinds of behavior people exhibit, know that things are not always as they appear. The outcome of effective police-victim interviewing can have a positive dual impact, aiding you in retrieving pertinent and factual data relevant to your case, while protecting the immediate and potential future emotional well-being of the victim.

While you certainly are not expected to be an expert diagnostician or mental health professional, you are in an ideal position to help. Acquiring even basic information on PTSD combined with practical experience and cognitive interviewing skills can be a major benefit for eliciting more precise and vital investigative information.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder manifests itself in phases beginning with the initial impact or shock the victim suffers and ultimately resulting in a healthy recovery. Dr. Calvin J. Frederick, retired Chief of Psychological Services at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in West Los Angeles, California has spent a career researching PTSD and has developed a Table that lists the phases a victim moves through and the physiological and psychological symptoms a victim is likely to display following a violent event.

In addition to becoming more aware of the signs of PTSD, there are initial intervention responses available to you. According to Dr. Martin Symonds, retired New York City Police Department psychiatrist, the first moments of police contact with a victim/witness are the most critical moments.

It is essential that the victim be provided with a feeling of trust and support and a lessening of any external threat following the trauma of a violent crime. Police officers, especially non-uniformed officers, should immediately identify themselves as such to the victim/witness. It would be helpful to include basic opening conversation such as “I’m sorry this happened to you” “It wasn’t your fault” and/or “I’m glad you’re alright.” This combined with preliminary intervention techniques will reinforce the victims’ trust that they are dealing with law enforcement officers who are sensitive to and aware of the trauma being suffered.

Lastly, the method in which a victim/witness is interviewed for police report taking is not only crucial to his/her emotional healing but also to the type and amount of investigative information you are able to retrieve.

The most widely used ’standard’ method of interviewing is a series of questions beginning with a description of the suspect(s) – sex, age, race, height, weight, color of hair and eyes and the victim’s account of the event.

The second method of interviewing is hypnosis, generally performed by a specially trained forensic hypnotist. With the victim in a state of altered consciousness, the forensic hypnotist asks questions and solicits answers. This method is the least used because of the negative legal ramifications it poses within the judicial system.

The third method is the cognitive Witness Memory Retrieval Technique (WMRT), researched and developed by Dr. R. Edward Geiselman of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). WMRT is a collection of memory-jogging techniques designed to provide investigators with an organized series of focused memory retrieval ‘cues’ and steps that help victims/witnesses retrieve and elaborate on information stored in the memory.

The theoretical support of the research and development are based on two generally accepted principles of memory:

* A memory is comprised of several elements. The more elements a memory retrieval ‘cue’ has in common with the recall of an event, the more effective the ‘cue’ is in retrieving information.
* A memory has several access routes, so information that is not accessible with one retrieval ‘cue’ may be accessed with a different one.

The purpose of the Witness Memory Retrieval Technique, when used in conjunction with the standard interview method, maximizes the quantity and quality of information retrieved while minimizing the effects of misleading or inaccurate information.

Skillful incident-specific treatment is an absolute prerequisite for effective police-victim relations and problem resolution. Determining the most reliable and effective tools available is a concern for most law enforcement investigators. Any valid interviewing instrument should be designed to deduce the pertinent facts, identifications and recollection of the event that best assist you in the apprehension and conviction of the criminal suspect(s). Essential bits of information can make the difference between the time you spend on solid leads and the time you spend following up on weak ones.

As you well know violent events happen in a matter of seconds and yet it’s amazing what the memory can store. To test your own Memory Recall for FREE and for further information on the Witness Memory Retrieval Technique training video and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder go to http://www.GiveYourselfTheInvestigativeEdge.com.

Advanced methods of obtaining more accurate and detailed information becomes critical when it is time for a witness to make a suspect identification during a lineup or ’six-pack’ photospread or when called to testify in court. The cognitive interview method can enhance an eyewitness’s ability to recall events and provide solid investigative information. Test your own memory recall for FREE at: http://www.GiveYourselfTheInvestigativeEdge.com.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or CBT is a psychotherapeutic approach used by therapists to help to promote positive change in people by addressing their thought patterns, feelings and behavioural issues. Difficulties with irrational thinking, dysfunctional thoughts and faulty learning are identified and then treated using CBT. Therapy can be conducted with individuals, groups or families and the goals of CBT are to restructure one’s thoughts, perceptions and responses which facilitate changes in behaviours.

The earliest form of CBT was developed by an American Psychologist, Albert Ellis (1913-2007) in 1955, naming his approach Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT). Ellis (right) is looked on as ‘the grandfather of cognitive behavioural therapies’ Ellis credits Alfred Korzybski (who developed the theory of general semantics, which in turn influenced NLP) and his book ‘Science and Sanity’ for starting him on the path of founding REBT.

In the 1960s an American Psychiatrist, Aaron T Beck, (below) developed another CBT approach called ‘cognitive therapy’ which was originally developed for depression but rapidly became a favourite model to study because of the positive results it achieved. CBT therapists believe that clinical depression is typically associated with negatively biased thinking and irrational thoughts. CBT is now used to provide treatment in all psychiatric disorders and also increases medication compliance, resulting in a better outcome in mental illness. A major aid in CBT is the ABC technique of irrational beliefs, the three steps are:

A is the Activating event, the event that leads to a negative thought.

B is the Beliefs, the client’s belief around the event.

C is the Consequence, the dysfunctional behaviour that ensued from the thoughts and feelings originating from the event. An example would be: Susan is upset because she got a low mark in her math’s test, the Activating event A is that she failed her test, the Belief, B is that she must have good grades or she is worthless, the Consequence C is that Susan feels depressed. In the above example, the therapist would help Susan identify her irrational beliefs and challenge the negative thoughts based on the evidence from her experience and then reframe it, meaning, to re-interpretate it in a more realistic light. Another very useful aid in CBT is to help a client identify with the ten distorted thinking patterns:

1 All or nothing thinking – seeing things in black or white, if your performance falls short of perfect, you see yourself as a total failure.

2 Overgeneralization – seeing a single negative event as a never ending pattern of defeat.

3 Mental Filter – you pick out a single negative defeat and dwell on it so as your vision of reality becomes darkened.

4 Disqualifying the positive – you dismiss positive experiences by insisting that they ‘don’t count’ maintaining a negative belief.

5 Jumping to conclusions – you make a negative interpretation even though there are no definite facts that convincingly support your conclusion, this includes ‘mind reading’ and ‘fortune telling’ or ‘assuming.

6 Magnification (Catastrophising) minimization – exaggerating things or minimizing things, this is also called the ‘binocular trick’.

7 Emotional reasoning – assuming that your negative emotions reflect the way things really are, ‘I feel it, therefore, it must be true’.

8 Should statements – ’shoulds’, ‘musts’ and ‘oughts’ are offenders.

9 Labeling and mislabeling – instead of describing your error, you attach a negative label to it, ie ‘Im a loser’.

10 Personalisation – you see yourself as the cause of some negative external event which in fact you were not responsible for.

These are just some of the techniques used in CBT, others are, relaxation tecniques, communication skills training, assertiveness training, social skills training and giving the client homework assignments.

In a nutshell, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy aims to help a client to become aware of thought distortions which are causing psychological distress and of behavioural patterns which are reinforcing it, and to correct them.

Thomas Inglis Smith is a qualified counsellor, hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner and life coach specialising in addictions. He also produces audio hypnosis recordings. For a free ‘recession busting’ hypnosis download please visit http://www.selfhypnosisdownloads.co.uk

People start learning right from their childhood. They form concepts and then arrange those concepts, then store those concepts and then when called upon by the circumstances use those concepts. This processing of information and concepts is called cognition in Psychology. Such people who can make so many users of the Cognitive information and the concepts of cognition are called learned ones when they cross a minimum level of storage of such Cognitive informations.

When a child is born he has no concepts. Experience of The child which increases with his age teaches him more and more. At the time of birth the child has no name, religion or other particulars. After his birth all this adjectives are given to him. He is given a name. He is told about his religion. He is told about his parentage and other adjectives. All this information is injected into him as if this was an integral part of his existence.

A person hardly has an occasion to think if he were the same person without his name or parentage or religion etc. He is imbibed with a belief that all this information about him was an inseparable part of his personality.

As he grows he is given education. He is taught about the theories given by some predecessors. He is repeatedly told about and is made to believe in the sanctity of the theories. He is taught about the infallibility of the theories. In the same way, as he used to identify himself with the concepts of his name, parentage and religion etc. now he starts to identify himself with these theories. People feel proud in calling themselves democrat, pragmatic, revolutionary, extremist, communists and so on so forth. People have identified themselves with theories.

After theories people further go on adding to their acquired characteristics. They now start identifying them with values. They feel proud in such identification. They call themselves as honest, gallant, clever, beautiful, sharp and no one knows what more. People are conceited with their these acquired identities.

In the childhood a common story is usually recited. Several seekers went to a Guru to learn music. The Guru asked the first seeker his earlier qualifications. The seeker told that he knows nothing about music. The Guru told him that it would take him 6 months to learn music. The second seeker was a bit acquainted with the rules of music. And Guru told him that it would take him more than a year to learn music. The third seeker told that he had already earned degrees in music and knows a number of scriptures about music. The Guru asked him that it would take him for about 10 years to learn music. On being asked the Guru explained that the learning period of all three is the same i.e. 6 months, the remaining time will be used to cleanse the garbage they had accumulated in the name of knowledge. It is always easy to write on a clean slate then to write on a dirty slate. For a dirty slate is to be cleaned first and then it can be used for writing. If the slate of mind is dirty then it takes quite a long time to make it clean because the concepts are engraved on the surface of mind. They are not simply written with cleanable chalk.

A scripture is the experience of the past generations. It tells about the history. It tells about the past. But you have to prepare for the future. Making preparation for the future based on the accounts of past is useful only if the nature were to repeat itself again and again. But this does not happen. The nature is not found repeating itself. It does not repeat itself. Then why all those learned people have burdened themselves with the load of the past.

In the real life, when they are confronted with the circumstances where they have to have resort to values contrary to the values of truthfulness and honesty for winning a competition, it would create a tension in their personality. They find their deeds and beliefs standing poles apart with no consonance in them. They are at the verge of breaking. Whenever there is an inconsonance between the deeds and beliefs of a person, he is confronted with an internal turbulence and the psychology calls it Cognitive Dissonance.

You ask a communist to learn an essay on "The Advantages of Capitalism". It would be the toughest task for him. In India the followers of Jainism finish their dinner before the sunset. A test was given to several Jainese who followed this practice, to have a dinner late at night. About 72 times out of 100 they vomited and others felt very inconvenient after the dinner. It is Cognitive Dissonance.

This mind is full of beliefs. It feels inconvenience when any new value contrary to the earlier beliefs is encountered. The beliefs in your mind resist the new value. More beliefs you have more resistance they offer. More deep rooted beliefs you have, more resistances they would offer

This Cognitive Dissonance is nothing objective. It is purely subjective value confrontation. The same set of values may cause a great Cognitive Dissonance in one person while it may not do anything noticeable for a second one. It is a confrontation of values acquired and the values encountered. Values acquired are those values with which you start identifying yourself. These are those values which assume prominence even over you. You go in the background and the values come in the forefront. Gradually you are thrown overboard and the only values remain there. There are a lot of instances in the human history when people have sacrificed themselves for the sake of values they uphold. An honesty valued person would die rather than being dishonest. A gallant person would die rather than fleeing as a coward. It is the honesty and the gallantry which are prominent and not the person who possess them.

The aforesaid two values of honesty and gallantry may be appreciated by a lot of people so don’t be confused by the names of the values. A value if repeated in action frequently then it is called habit. The habit of drinking, the habit of consuming contraband drugs, the habit of adultery, the habit of gambling are other habit i.e. the values repeated again and again. It may be honesty, gallantry or drinking, smoking or gambling these are all values injected into you from outside. These were injected to improve you but these values overpowered you and thrown you out of you. It is something like a landlord being thrown out of his house by his tenant.

The learned ones are those who plead that a land lord cannot be homeless because it is inherent in his name – "Landlord" itself that he owns the land. How can he be landless? The learned ones argue that the tenant means who has got the right to live in the premises. Therefore it is all OK if the landlord is thrown on the road because he can never, as a meaning of his name, be landless. The learned ones, more often mix the reality with the definitions. They solve the problems of existence by using the syntax of syllogism.

The learned ones ask how to become more sharp? How to use more brain power? How to overtake others? They then hypothesize the answers also. They suggest more and more acquisition of theories, values so that a strong syllogistic base is prepared. Their followers obey them. And the result is more and more Cognitive Dissonance.

More and more Cognitive Dissonance prompts them to go more and more to the learned ones. They, in turn give more and more theories and more and more values. A vicious circle is forcibly generated by the leaned ones and their followers.

To avoid this problem of internal turbulence is to avoid this Dissonance. The better way to avoid Dissonance is to leave living in syntax. Live in the life. Don’t fill your mind with the garbage of theories. Those who gave theories, it was their experience. It is the least probable that the nature would repeat itself and take you to the same circumstances which were faced by the learned ones who gave that theory.

Having resort to the value is not bad. It ought not to be ousted. It is as a routine as it is to have a breakfast in the morning. If you find a value of any use then make use of it and then throw it away. Do not allow any value, may it be of this category or that category, to sit on your head. You are the master to choose a value and you should remain a master. Never be a slave of any value. So never be a learned one.

My website is psmalik.com

My Blogs can be reached by clicking Blogs

History:

Forensic psychology came in light in the twirl of the twentieth century. In 1901, William stern studied on recollection of memory course. He made his students to analyze a picture for few seconds and then asked questions to them relating to it. He then concluded from his research that memories which are recalled are in general not precise. Lead-in query are frequently use in police force cross-examination and in inquiring spectators. The first forensic psychologist is often said to be “Hugo Munster berg”. He wrote a book which was published in 1908 which was titled as “On the Witness Stand”. There were some other scientist who has created some test which is helpful for the legal proceeding is Sigmund Freud and Alfred Bi net. There studies suggested that the time taken by an individual to answer a question may possibly be an aspect in determining guiltiness or incorruptibility.

About forensic psychology:

It is the interface between psychology and the law, so all psychosomatic services offered for the official community is forensic psychological services. The services provided are both medical and forensic in nature. It is also known as the application of science and its answers to the queries relating to the rules and regulation of the legal system. The term “forensic” came from “forensic” which means the forum it is a Latin word. Presently it refers for the purpose of technical and scientific principles to carry out a challenging process which is possible with a well-educated and highly professional scientist.

Key terms:

Some key terms in forensic psychology are Insanity, Expert Witness, Competency, Jury Consulting and Criminal Profiling. Some motivating Sub fields contained by this Psychology are social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, criminal investigative psychology and clinical-forensic psychology.

Pros and cons in the field of forensic psychology:

Pros: Helping Others, Opportunities, Varying surroundings, acknowledgment and Personal Fulfillment, long-lasting Education, threat of Injury, no independent work it always teamwork, and Burnout Risk.

Cons: long-lasting Education, threat of Injury, no independent work it always teamwork, and Burnout Risk.

Qualities needed in Forensic Psychologist:

Desirable ability, aptitude, and acquaintance are the key qualities for forensic psychology. Those with an aspiration to work must be patient, flexible, at ease working with others, and take pleasure in doing research. One also have to be a good quality speaker for the reason that a lot of people who do work in this field work as specialist spectators at a few point through their career. An expertise in irregular, motivational, scientific, and social psychology is also main features to be victorious in this field. Additionally, working in this field requires continuing education throughout career, even after 5-7 years of graduate school. One cannot be a certified psychologist with out a doctoral degree.

Institutions for Master degree courses

A few Terminal Master Degree courses for practicing a profession in Forensic Psychology are Forensic Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the University of Melbourne.

George Anto is a Copywriter of Psychology, Forensic Psychology, Community Psychology. He written many articles in various topics such as sports Psychology. For more information visit: http://psychegames.com.

Abnormal behavior is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) with criterion that includes the following: unusualness, social deviance, faulty perceptions or interpretations of reality, significant personal distress, maladaptive self-defeating behavior, and dangerousness. Abnormal behavior has many definitions, but in most cases a combination of these criteria defines abnormality. Historically, it has been shown that people with abnormal behavior disorders can be very creative, making contributions to science, mathematics, arts, sports, and politics. However, given all the contributions these afflicted individuals make to society, they can still suffer greatly through the distress, pain, anger, and sadness mental disorders can cause.

Considering the stigma attached to mental disorders, society still benefits a great deal from these individuals. Scientists such as Einstein greatly enhanced our knowledge of the universe, Pythagoras improved mathematics, and Dickens authored many influential works of literature. All of these individuals endured from mental disorders. Although stigmatized, society values their abnormal behavior by supporting their invaluable contributions.

Consider a situation in which all abnormal behavior is removed from the individual. Would society still reap the benefit? This removal would affect both their creativity and their suffering. It would change cognitive and emotional processes including temperament and personality. This undeniably would affect the influence made to society.

Removal of abnormal behavior would eliminate suffering. The effects are innumerable but would certainly decrease individuals’ distress, pain, anger, and sadness. In addition, it could lessen violent and aggressive behavior, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and incarceration. Societal stigma would disappear and in its place acceptance, enhanced coping and a more balanced mood. It would have many positive implications for society.

However, removal would also devastate creativity. Removal of creativity would decrease societal contributions and advances made by those with mental disorders. Independent thinkers would vanish along with knowledge about those disorders, and consequently change what society refers to as abnormal. As creativity diminishes, conformity and indifference would undoubtedly increase.

Eliminating all suffering from the world would certainly be ideal. Sufferers would not be subjected to the misery a mental disorder may cause. However, removal of a mental disorder, abnormal behavior, or illness changes individuals. Irregardless of societal contributions, I would not want to change my cognitive and emotional processes, nor my temperament and personality. I do not suffer from a mental disorder, but I have endured from a chronic illness my entire life. I would not change that. I believe that despite all the intolerable cruelty associated with illness, those who suffer would not change to have the illness removed, no matter how society does or does not benefit.

When people talk about a person’s ‘intelligence’ it is not generally clear what underlying ability or abilities this term refers to. This article is intended to clarify in layman’s terms what psychologists and brain scientists can mean by intelligence. Basically, there are two good theories–and scientists are divided on which is the best theory–and one bad one which all scientists I know of reject. A good theory is one that is supported by the evidence; a bad theory is one that is not.

Official IQ tests such as the WAIS-IV claim to measure individual differences in an underlying ‘ level of cognitive ability given by a single number–your IQ or intelligence quotient. But is it true that there is a single underlying mental ability that we differ in and that explains what makes us different in our cognitive abilities? If someone is good at maths, are they also likely to be good at language comprehension, reasoning, thinking analogically, learning languages and general knowledge, due to their underlying ‘intelligence level’, as this theory implies?

Or are there ‘multiple intelligences’ underlying out abilities–perhaps dozens or even hundreds of them–each independent from each other, and measured by different types of test. If you have an ability in mathematics, is this ability completely unrelated to your ability in learning languages or play general knowledge games like trivial pursuit? If this is the case, is the idea of having a single IQ score quite meaningless? Or alternatively, are there a small number of underlying cognitive abilities (perhaps two or three) that we differ in, which are relatively independent from each other–and which together explain most the differences in our cognitive abilities?

1. The theory of general intelligence (g)–a good theory

A long standing an influential theory for our cognitive abilities states that underlying all our cognitive abilities (math, language comprehension, general knowledge) is a single factor–called general intelligence (also known as unitary intelligence, general cognitive ability, or simply ‘g’ ) that individuals differ on and which explains those differences.

Spearman (1923) proposed that underlying all cognitive abilities a ‘general ability’ factor (g) that all the abilities draw on. Individuals differ in g according to a bell curve distribution on this theory. g can be thought of in terms of information processing power. Some people –those with higher g–can process more information, more efficiently than others. Using a computer analogy, they have more RAM. The more RAM a computer has, the more complex and information-intensive the programs that can be run on it. If you have an IQ of 160 like Quentin Tarantino has, you have lots of RAM, large ‘bandwidth’ for processing information. If you have an IQ of 78 like Muhammad Ali as a young man (whose IQ was measured by the army), then you have less RAM. Muhammad Ali had many talents, but according to the unitary intelligence theory, intelligence wasn’t one of them.

The evidence for this theory is the same evidence that allows us to reject the theory of multiple intelligences. All standardized tests of cognitive ability (and there are dozens of them, measuring a wide range of different abilities) are positively correlated–not perfectly, but to a large degree. This means that if someone scores higher than average on one of those tests, they are likely to score higher than average on all the other tests–even ones that appear totally unrelated. Scoring higher in an arithmetic test means you will probably also score higher in a vocabulary test. This remains true, even when you take other factors like educational background, or family socioeconomic status into account. This is compelling evidence that there is a single underlying level of cognitive ability that is applied to each of the tests and that performance on one test is not independent from performance on another as the multiple intelligence theory claims.

Spearman (1904)–the psychologist who first proposed the g theory–argued that the variance (the person to person variation) of performance between individuals on ANY cognitive task can be attributed to just two underlying factors: g (general intelligence) and s –the skill unique to that particular task. A person could invest relatively more time into developing a specific skill such as arithmetic, and this will raise their score on an arithmetic test relative to another test such as vocabulary that they didn’t train or practice on, but their general intelligence g will still account for most of their performance on the arithmetic test. G is still the most important factor in explaining levels of performance, whatever the test.

2. The theory of multiple intelligences-a bad theory Spearman’s ‘g’ theory is the opposite of the theory of multiple intelligences. The theory of multiple intelligence is an appealing one because it gives some room for everyone to have their own unique strengths in ‘intelligence’. But as we have seen it turns out that our cognitive strengths and weaknesses are best explained by how much time and effort is we have invested into particular skills or types of knowledge. If I take up a technical trade and become good at it, and find that I am struggling with reading fiction, this doesn’t necessarily mean that I have a special ‘intelligence’ for technical thinking and have no ability for reading or language. The fact I struggle with fiction is better explained by the fact that I have invested my intelligence into building up this particular type of expertise and thus see more of a return on that investment in technical modes of cognition. If I had spent as much time reading fiction as I have applying myself to technical problems, chances are I’d be good at that.

3. The theory of fluid intelligence (gF) and crystallized intelligence (gC)–another good theory

This theory builds on the general intelligence theory, and was originally proposed by the psychologist Raymond Cattell back in 1943. It holds that g is meaningful–that we each have a different general intelligence level– but contributing to g are two different types of intelligence: fluid intelligence (gF) and crystallized intelligence (gC ). Fluid g is the ability to reason and problem solve with novel tasks or in unfamiliar contexts (measured reasoning tasks), while crystallized g is defined as acquired knowledge and is measured using tests of general knowledge, mathematics, and vocabulary. This dual way of understanding intelligence allows for knowledge that you have built up in particular areas to compensate for limitations in overall reasoning and problem solving ability– our ‘raw intelligence’. You may succeed due to knowledge about a task or domain (crystallized g), or due to sheer mental ‘horsepower’ (fluid g).

Where the idea of ‘multiple intelligences’ makes sense: as crystallized intelligence that we invest in

Our crystallized intelligence allows for ‘multiple intelligences’. You could have a high level of crystallized intelligence in graphic design, for example, while having only an average level of fluid intelligence. But you will only be able to use your crystallized intelligence for graphic design in situations in which you are familiar and have built up expertise. Unless you have a high level of fluid intelligence when you are confronted with an unfamiliar problem in graphic design–something ‘out of context’, requiring some difficult figuring out-then you are likely to have difficulties. On the flip side, if you have a high level of fluid intelligence, it will take you less time to pick up graphic design (or whatever) skills as you learn your basic skill set. Your learning will be more efficient, and you will find it easier. In general, the more fluid intelligence you have the more you will be able to ‘invest’ it into crystallized intelligence skills and knowledge–the more ‘multiple intelligences’ you will be able to develop if you so wish. In the context of work, the more gF you have the more quickly and efficiently you can be trained. One study showed that it took people in the 110 to 130 IQ range about 1 to 2 years to catch up with the super-charged performance of those with IQs of 130+ who had only 3 months’ experience on the job.

Summary

Looking at all the evidence, both the general intelligence (g) theory, and the fluid intelligence (gF) and crystallized intelligence (gC) are well supported and useful in explaining how we differ in our cognitive abilities. In my view, the fluid and crystallized theory is the more insightful and useful. It helps me understand intelligence-and how we can improve it-better. For instance, research shows that you can do a specific type of ‘working memory’ brain training to increase your fluid intelligence level substantially–but this training does not directly affect your crystallized intelligence.

The author, Dr Mark A. Smith, is a cognitive neuroscientist, author and entrepreneur. Between 2000 and 2003 he was a Lecturer in the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Cambridge. His most recent position has been as Assistant Professor at Bilkent University, Turkey. His current research is in fluid intelligence and its evolution in human cognition. He has recently set up a cognitive interventions laboratory for experimental research into brain training tools and brain nutrition.

To find out more of what is known about intelligence and how to increase IQ, visit his website: http://www.iqlift.com/.