Do you know your I.Q.?

Well, one thing that I learned very quickly when I started reading my psych books is that psychology uses I.Q. tests A LOT. I mean they test people like crazy to try and learn stuff. The funny thing is though, that know one knows what we're testing when we do I.Q. tests. Seriously, there is no sticking definition for "intelligence." In fact if you were to say that someone can do smart things because they have a high I.Q. is like saying Jeff Hornecek could hit 3 pointers because his stats for hitting 3 pointers are good. (Please forgive the 1990's Utah Jazz reference, but it is the last time I really followed basketball).

So anyway, after learning a whole bunch of interesting things about I.Q.'s I finally gave in to temptation and had an I.Q test done. So, for the first time in my life I actually know what my I.Q. is, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. Before any of you start to wonder, let me just say that it is nothing to be disappointed in, also I'm definitely not over 150 (which is the top 1% of 1% and the official point when someone is considered a genius).

I don't know why I feel so weird about this, but considering we don't really know what an I.Q. is, it feels weird to have a new label put on me that society considers to be so valid turn out to be something arbitrary.

For those of you who are not as conflicted about this issue as I am, here is the link to I.Q. test my class referred me too:

TEST CAFE

Another post titled: FINISHED!!

12:21 am Monday July 23, 2007

48 hours and 4 minutes after purchasing it

and

6 years, 11 months, and 5 days after reading the first one

I have finished it.


Now I can move on with my life and on to more important things.

FINISHED!

This is a rather sad this to admit, but yesterday for the first time in my life I finished reading a textbook cover to cover. However, I would like to point out that before I get labeled a slacker, most college courses never assign an entire textbook. They'll usually lessen the reading load a bit and cover some of the material in lectures, or supplement journal articles. No such luck in Independent Study--all reading, all the time.

The funny thing is though, that I actually enjoyed this book quite a bit. I guess that means I've picked a good discipline to devote the rest of my life to. At the same time this particular author has a weird sense of humor that occasionally popped up in the book. For example, from the chapter on schizophrenia: (not to be confused with dissociative identity disorder, schizophrenia is characterized by a disconnect between emotions and intellect)

However, it is hazardous to diagnose someone with schizophrenia if the only symptoms are delusions. For example, suppose someone constantly sees evidence of government conspiracies in everyday events. Is that belief a delusion of persecution, or merely an unusual opinion? Might it even be correct?

Schachter and Singer's Theory of Emotions

NOTE: if you haven't read my welcome yet, you might want to read that before reading this post.

When studying emotion recently I found an item of evidence for this theory to be rather amusing. The theory is the one stated in the title, and the official definition is that the intensity of the physiological state--that is, the degree of sympathetic nervous system arousal--determines the intensity of the emotion, but a cognitive appraisal of the situation identifies the type of the emotion. In other words, since how the body responds (sweating, heart-rate, etc.) to two very different emotions (i.e. fear & euphoria) it requires a mental analysis of the situation to decide which emotion you are experiencing. Then once your brain has decided which emotion it is experiencing, the degree to which heart is beating or you are sweating tells your brain how intense the emotion is. The main idea behind this is that emotions are fairly automatic.

Psychologists have actually done quite a few laboratory studies to show that this seems to be true to a degree.

Here is where the funny part comes in. This section in my reading ended with this review question: "you are going on a first date with someone you hope will find you exciting. According to Schachter and Singer's theory, should you plan a date walking through an art gallery or riding on roller coasters?"

(If you read the whole section out of my text, I'm sure you'd know the answer, but in case I didn't do a good job explaining it here is the answer: "according to Schachter and Singer's theory, you should plan a date riding roller coasters. If your date gets emotionally excited, he or she may attribute the arousal to you.")

So, my question to all of you is whether or not your early dates as a couple match the theory.

Welcome

I mentioned to Laura that I ran across something in my psychology book that I found amusing and that I thought I'd post on our blog to see what all of you thought of it. She mentioned that perhaps it would be better if I had my own blog specifically dedicated to my studies where I could post ideas like that any time I wanted to. As I thought about it I realized that having my own blog was a really good idea for several reasons.

First, by occasionally blogging my thoughts I am better utilizing the mind's natural methods of long-term memory storage and effective retrieval.

Second, I can survey my friends easily to see whether or not a psychological explanation for a specific phenomenon coincides with how people outside the discipline view that phenomenon.

And third, in a few years when I start trying to establish a private practice, I'll have an entire journal of thoughts to read through with comments and feedback from others that can help me develop approaches to helping clients.

With that in mind, I hope that you all enjoy my occasional thoughts and ramblings, and I look forward to any feedback you all may have.