text:
User:Blackballoon86

Introduction: Being Social
''Interdependence is, and ought to be, as much the ideal of man as self-sufficiency. Man is a social being.''

- Mahatma Gandhi.

The part of the introductory lectures that struck me the most was the sheer expanse of topics that came under the umbrella of social psychology, and the number of behaviours and interactions that are considered 'social.'

I like to think of myself as a fairly 'social' person. I see my friends very regularly, enjoy spending time with others, going out on the weekend and meeting new people. I like people and (mostly!) enjoy their company. My friends (who have similar 'social' dispositions to myself) and I will often talk about people we view as 'antisocial.' In our circle, this is by no means a compliment. Consider this typical exchange at a party, for example:

Friend 1: God, have you guys met Kate's new boyfriend Tim?

Friend 2: Ugh, yes...he's hardly the life of the party, is he? I introduced myself to him and tried to make conversation but he made no effort!

Friend 3: He's barely said two words to anyone all night!! It's a party, after all...

Friend 1: Exactly...so antisocial, don't you think?

Poor old Tim, who was most probably just a bit shy and intimidated by our sometimes overbearing friends, was instantly branded with the dreaded 'antisocial' tag. We all know the type: the wallflowers, the slightly uncomfortable ones at parties who never seem to talk to anyone, the recluses, the loners. Even if it is just as a result of shyness or feeling uncomfortable, and despite any number of other positive characteristics, being 'antisocial' is not generally looked upon positively. Compare Tim with Hannah's older brother, another guest at our fictional party:

Friend 1: Oh my God, have you guys met Hannah's brother Matt? He's SO funny...

Friend 2: Oh I know!! He was talking to a group of us just before and he had us all in hysterics...we were hanging on his every word!

Friend 3: He's sooooo nice, too. He was asking me all about uni and work - he was just so friendly!

Friend 1: I wonder if he's single...

Matt, the 'more social' of the two, was clearly the winner in our books. As we're learning in this unit, humans are certainly social beings, and it seems that the more actively and effectively we interact with others and our environment, the better we fare and the more positively we are viewed by others. Of course, my examples here are quite simplistic and consider this...let's call it...social effectiveness...to be on some sort of continuum from 'antisocial' to 'very social.' Positive outcomes of course aren't always gained from being the most talkative or friendly (consider the last saccharine sweet, overly chatty person you were stuck with at a party!), but rather the most effective and appropriate use of social interactions. Cultural differences are also vital here.

Now what am I talking about here? I'm not really sure where I'm going with all of this. I suppose I'm interested in this idea that, as personality traits, 'antisocial' is negative and 'social' is positive. Is it just because we're perhaps more likely to like and get along with a friendly, outgoing ('social' characteristics) person than we are someone who is shy or reclusive ('antisocial')? Or does it say something more about social psychology and humans as social beings? Our textbook talks about people being 'social animals' - seeking connection to others and preferring to be with others than alone. Are people who have less of an inclination to seek such connections not looked upon as favourably as those who do, because of the nature of humans as 'social animals'?

This unit certainly seems fascinating, and I'm excited to learn more about social phenomena, particularly about attraction and close relationships, and social influence and persuasion.

A few further thoughts...
In today’s introductory tutorial we had to report things we already knew about social psychology, and things we didn’t know, but wanted to learn about. This was harder than it seemed – there is some difficulty in professing the things you already know (how can you possibly know all there is to know about any topic, especially in such a rapidly evolving science?) and those you don’t (it’s never easy to admit ignorance!). My ‘already know’ list looked mighty paltry in comparison to my overflowing ‘want to know’ list, but when I was reflecting on it later I remembered that there is one thing I do know, which might prove relevant in later weeks.

I first read about Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority in Lauren Slater’s book, ‘Opening Skinner’s Box.’ (see note) In 1961, Milgram, a young social psychologist (and student of Solomon Asch), recruited participants for what they were told was an experiment on memory. They were set up in front of the controls of a very real-looking ‘shock machine’ and instructed to deliver increasing shocks to another participant on the other side of a partition whenever a word-pair question was answered incorrectly. Milgram found that almost 65% of his subjects delivered shocks at maximum levels that they believed to be dangerous, despite the other participant’s increasingly disturbing cries of pain from the other side of the partition. The ‘shocks’ were not real, the ‘other participant’ just an actor, but the results were sobering: the majority of people obeyed the requests of the experimenter (who had a series of scripted ‘lines’ like ‘the experiment requires you to continue,’ or ‘the shocks do not cause any permanent damage’ for when the participants expressed hesitation) and delivered painful and possibly dangerous or lethal shocks to another human.

In the post-WWII climate, Milgram and other psychologists saw the implications for an understanding of Nazism and particularly the Holocaust – how could human beings knowingly inflict such pain on other human beings, just because they are ordered to? How would I have fared, had I, in the name of research participation marks, wandered along to a Milgram laboratory and been asked to shock someone sitting two metres away? How far would I have gone? Of course, I would like to think that I would have stood up to the experimenter; refused to continue with the shocks, took a stand because of some internal strength, morals, or concern for the welfare of others. But what Milgram showed was that sometimes, no matter how much we believe we are moral, caring, upstanding people, some other force makes us act in a way we never could have imagined had we taken only our personalities into account. I suppose this is where I’m going with all this (it was meant to be a short aside...oops) is the power of the social context – an issue at the heart of this unit.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CHs6xVq8GGA&feature=related - Terribly overdramatic at points but a somewhat effective re-enactment of the experiment process, with not-so-subtle implications for Nazi Germany.

Note: ‘Opening Skinner’s Box’ is a good read. It details ten classic psychological experiments (Skinner’s rats, Harlow’s monkeys, Elizabeth Loftus’s ‘Lost in the Mall’ false memory studies...) in an incredibly rich, interesting way. As Psych students, we’re so used to reading psychological research as numbers and figures and significances and so on, but Slater really delves into each of these and makes them in to stories – you really get an appreciation of the social context and implications for the results. It’s well-written but far from the stale writings of typical psychological readings (its main criticism in the reviews I’ve read was that Slater’s passion for each of the topics reads as emotionality and her writing can appear biased) – I found it very enjoyable!

Internal and External Attributions: 'Justifying The Food.'
''My play was a complete success. The audience was a failure.'' - Ashleigh Brilliant, English author and cartoonist.

Attribution theory, and particularly the actor-observer and self-serving biases discussed in lectures, is a very interesting and (I believe) real phenomena. I had never heard of self-serving bias (the tendency to attribute our own successes (and others' failures) to internal qualities or dispositions, and our failures (and others' successes) to external circumstances) before, and upon consideration of my own attribution tendencies, was hugely surprised at how much it rang true in my own life. Every good mark I get is a reflection of my intelligence, how hard I worked, my knowledge of the material, my flair for the subject, etc etc (modest, I know...). A not-so-good mark is immediately written off as the result of a hard-marking tutor, heavy workload in other subjects, the fact I was sick the week before, or that it was 'a stupid assignment/subject anyway.' It seems like such an arrogant, completely egotistical way of thinking when I put it in writing like that, and yet I can't escape the fact that I catch myself doing it in countless aspects of my life.

In an effort to convince myself I am not wholly egotistical, I remind myself that, for the most part, I also make these self-serving biases with my very close friends - that is, I treat them like I would treat myself - attributing their successes to their personal internal qualities and failures to whatever external constituents we choose to blame them on at the time. In fact, we spend a great deal of our time engaged in this process, which we have dubbed (the term's etymology is too hard to explain) Justifying The Food. 'The Food' can be just about anything: any recent event, action, conflict, drunken encounter, uni result...anything worth discussing. A break-up, for example, would be softened somewhat by some heavy Justification of The Food whereby the whole situation is collectively deemed to have occurred because of the innate faults and shortcomings of the other party, or bad timing, or the weather, or the phases of the moon...whatever we can think of to avoid attributing it to any innate characteristics or personality quirks of our dear friend. Sure, much of this is empathy and being good friends (it would hardly be wise to suggest to a fragile friend that their recent break-up was most probably due to their clinginess and neediness rather than any fault of their boyfriend or, indeed, the phases of the moon!), but our hallowed institution of Justifying The Food is certainly based on self-serving (and 'friend-serving'!) biases.

Too much Justification of The Food can undoubtedly be dangerous, (they are attributional errors and biases, after all) leading to people thinking of themselves as utterly perfect creatures who only fail as a result of completely uncontrollable external circumstances. But imagine if we held no self-serving biases at all? If every success was just the chance result of positive external phenomena or luck? If every failure was a direct reflection of a personality shortfall, a lack of skill or ability, or some other personal shortcoming? I am reminded of Seligman's work on learned helplessness, a condition where a person perceives themselves to have no control over a situation's outcome, leading to helplessness and often depression or other mental or learning difficulties. Seligman (drawing from Weiner's (and others') attribution theories) wrote on 'explanatory style' and suggested that internal attributions of negative events like 'I failed because I'm stupid' were suggestive of learned helplessness and could be a precursor to depression. He was a proponent of the use of cognitive behavioural therapy to 'correct' such negative 'explanatory styles.'

So perhaps I shouldn't feel so bad about being such an avid user of the self-serving bias? I can certainly do with the ego boost!

Aggression, ‘Ghosts of Rwanda,’ and Bystander Apathy
''Americans were allowed to be alive. My neighbours were allowed to be alive. We had to wait to be killed.'' - 'Ghosts of Rwanda' interviewee.

Ghosts of Rwanda was incredibly confronting, and one of the most shocking examples of what James refers to as ‘what can go wrong’ in our social world. Seeing images of lifeless, bloodied bodies piled high on roadsides, trucks and churches was a terrible reminder of the darker side of human beings. This was not a natural disaster – no earthquake, tsunami, famine or disease killed those people – people killed them. The sheer number of people that were slaughtered (a word used early on in the narrative that at first seemed like a colourful exaggeration, but after seeing the images and hearing the stories of the massacres was actually shockingly apt) – 800,000 is almost incomprehensible. 800,000 – that’s two Canberras.

Aside from my initial shock and disgust, the film and the genocide itself brings up two interesting issues relevant to social psychology.

1.	The aggression itself. How? How can human beings knowingly, consciously, inflict such damage on their own race? Looking through the textbook chapter on aggression and antisocial behaviour, none of their explanations (‘Being in a Bad Mood,’ alcohol, wounded pride etc) come close to explaining aggression on such a scale as the Rwandan genocide. Of course, the aggression must be considered in terms of its political context (which is not really covered in full in the film – we get the idea about Hutu extremists but little history of the Tutsi/Hutu conflict) and, importantly, as a function of prejudice. The situation in Rwanda is ultimately a product of extreme prejudice towards the Tutsi minority.

2.	The UN’s failure to act. I am reminded of the thing my mother told me when she was lecturing me on the benefits of ‘dobbing’ – that knowing someone is being hurt or mistreated by someone else and not doing anything about it is as bad as hurting or mistreating them yourself. ‘Ghosts of Rwanda’ is full of interviews with various people involved in UN intervention in one way or another, and all of them seem to be full of excuses. Madeleine Albright, for example, talked about the legalities of putting a ‘genocide’ label on the atrocities, and the bureaucratic difficulties associated with it. It seems there was a great deal of shifting of blame and failure to act that went on while the killings continued.

This idea of a failure to act is illustrated in Darley and Latane’s classic 1960s study entitled ‘Bystander Apathy.’ (see bystander effect The researchers were inspired by the murder of Kitty Genovese that took place in a New York apartment block. Despite Genovese’s loud cries for help over the almost half an hour of her brutal attack, and the fact that much of it was clearly visible to onlookers, none of the 38 (this number is disputed, some say closer to a dozen) bystanders took any action to help her. Darley and Latane proposed a five-stage model of helping behaviour:

 * You, the potential helper, must notice an event is occurring.
 * 1) You must interpret the event as one in which help is needed.
 * 2) You must assume personal responsibility.
 * 3) You must decide what action to take.
 * 4) You must take action.

If such a model is plausible, then number 3 is undoubtedly the trickiest step. ‘Ghosts of Rwanda’ highlighted the bureaucratic difficulties with the issue of responsibility for the genocide, and we see it happening worldwide. There seems to be a tendency towards apathy for events like Rwanda, and perhaps it is because assuming responsibility for such a massive atrocity is simply too much to comprehend or take on. There are also, of course, all sorts of political, personal, cultural (etc) ramifications for assuming responsibility for an injustice.

While the film was a prime example of ‘when things go wrong,’ there was a touching example of ‘when things go right’ in the story of the hotel owner (whose name escapes me – the guy from ‘Hotel Rwanda’) who took in Rwandans and provided them with shelter from the ongoing conflict. Here is an example of truly prosocial behaviour, and a solitary light in a very dark, sobering time.

Prejudice: The Eyes Have It
 ''I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks. - Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird.''

The original videos of Jane Elliott’s experiments on segregation and discrimination, both in her third grade classroom and her later replications with adults, are remarkable to watch. The speed with which the participants, when put in a situation with someone as charismatic and commanding as Elliott telling them the ‘facts’ about blue and brown eyed people, judge themselves and each other on the basis of eye colour is astounding. The idea seems ridiculous. As I watched the Elliott videos, I thought to myself that, had I been put in the participants’ places I certainly wouldn’t have accepted Elliott’s ridiculous rhetoric about judging other people over their eye colour, attributing any personal attribute to whether they were blue or brown eyed. Eye colour – what an utterly irrelevant and arbitrary way to judge a person! But then, of course, so is skin colour, sexuality, gender, race, religion, weight...any of the characteristics on which we base our prejudices.

I remember a previous lecturer with a passion for cultural issues in psychology speaking about ‘the unearned privilege’ of being in the (in this case, white) majority. I have lived in Australia all my life. I have a relatively culturally homogenous group of friends, all of whom are white and Australian-born. I went to a private Catholic all-girls school whose student body generally mirrored this homogeneity. Canberra, home of the middle class public servant family, offered little more diversity. While none of us were ever overtly racist, we had little real exposure to other cultures. We were white, Australian, Christian, straight, without disabilities, not overweight. Certainly, I did not, and still probably don’t, have any appreciation of what it means to be an outsider or not part of a majority. In Canberra, among my friends, my co-workers, at uni – I always fit in. I have always had the infamous ‘unearned privilege.’

Melisah Feeney’s comments in the lecture about how the nature of racism is changing – from the overt discriminations of ‘old-fashioned’ racism to the subtleties of ‘modern’ racism were very interesting, and true. They apply across minority groups to a more general view of prejudice in today’s society. There aren’t the gaping injustices that women or black people, for example, were subject to in the past. Biases and discriminatory attitudes are much more subtle.

My sister is currently completing her PhD which examines (and I am inevitably simplifying this because even its title is completely above me in terms of comprehension!) young women with intellectual disabilities and their attitudes and experiences with sex and their own sexualities. I was explaining this to my boss and her friend one night and they thought it was a terribly relevant topic, citing all sorts of situations where people with disabilities had become pregnant and were unable to care for their children. Like some sort of education program, or some family planning intervention was needed to stop them from breeding. They had assumed that this was the most pertinent issue in the research and completely dismissed the idea that people with intellectual disabilities should be allowed (and the use of this word alone brings up all sorts of implications for power and discrimination) to express their sexuality and act on their sexual urges in a loving and consensual context. They had essentially assumed sex as an in-group (for people without disabilities) privilege.

Love, Sex and Marriage
One concept that I identified with in the readings and lecture on relationships was the idea of the differences between passionate and companionate love. As we have learnt, passionate love refers to the strong feelings of fervour and infatuation with another person. Think butterflies in the stomach, nervous giggles, excitement and ardour that characterise the blissful early stages of relationships. Then there’s companionate love, which our textbook suggests is ‘calmer and more serene’ than passionate love. Think solidarity, caring, mutual concern, and a kind of overarching synchrony that comes with long-term togetherness.

I was lucky enough to grow up with parents who personified companionate love. They have now been together for 37 years, and their relationship is so incredible that it almost seems impossible – they have certainly set an impossibly high standard in terms of my own expectations in a mate. While they have each lead (and continue to lead) tremendously successful and rich lives separately and are completely independent in this regard, when they are together they are a remarkable team. Their relationship is characterised by an unflinching solidarity that is evident in even trivial activities like their nightly cup of tea together (8.30 sharp, and usually accompanied by The Bill or the better documentary of the non-commercial channels, he in his chair, she in hers, with matching hand-knitted knee rugs and few words spoken). Mutual understanding and care are certainly important in maintaining their relationship, but they supplement these things with a lovely, self-deprecating sense of humour, never taking themselves too seriously. Every year on their wedding anniversary, they jokingly ask one another ‘so, should we try for another year then?’

One other thing that stood out from this week was the theories of sexuality, and particularly evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory purports that men have ‘less to lose’ from sex than women, who risk pregnancy and its significant temporal and financial costs. Because of this, men would be more likely to recklessly engage in sex for sex’s sake, whereas women would tend to be more cautious because of its potential impact. I suppose this is true of many psychological theories based on an evolutionary approach, but this theory of sexuality seems much less relevant in a modern context. Today, the ease with which an endless range of contraception is available has markedly diminished a woman’s cautiousness because sex no longer has to end in pregnancy. The sexual revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s that saw the birth of ‘free love’ was partly heralded by the wider introduction of contraception, and particularly the ease and freedom of the oral contraceptive pill.

Groups: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
‘It is a well-known fact that although the public are fine when taken individually, when it forms itself into large groups, it tends to act as though it has one partially consumed Pez tablet for a brain.’ – Dave Barry, American writer and humourist.

The readings for this topic include both negative and positive aspects of groups and group involvement in a way that again lends support to James’s separation of social psychology topics into ‘what can go right,’ and ‘what can go wrong.’ As such, I will organise my musings on groups under these headings.

Groups: What can go right?

-	The social interaction, feeling ‘part’ of something that is united and shares common goals and interests. Being part of a sports team or a social group, for example, is a generally positive thing: you are part of a supportive network and you can depend on and share experiences with fellow group members.

-	Group membership can be involved in identity formation. Many of the ways I identify myself reflect the groups I belong to: I am a daughter and sister (family group); I am a friend (friendship group); I am a female (gender group). Group membership can become a heuristic for characterising ourselves and others.

-	Social facilitation. The textbook references early psychologist Triplett, who found that success in bicycle races was often bolstered by the presence of competitors (as opposed to racing alone). While the authors go on to dismiss the idea of competition as necessary for success, I find that I (either consciously or unconsciously) ‘compete’ with members of some of my groups and that such competition spurs me on to do better. In high school, for example, part of my motivation to do well on an assignment was because I was competing with others in my friendship group on that particular task. This seems to be less a function of the ‘evaluation apprehension’ that Baumeister and Bushman discuss and more like Triplett’s bicycle races. Either way, the presence of others certainly has some effects on performance.

-	Shared resources. The former can be both a positive and a negative aspect of groups. Belonging to a group means you have access to a much broader range of resources. Eastern societies, for example, place an emphasis on the community and group over the individual, so that an individual will often act for the good of the group, rather than for individual gain. On the flipside are Communist schools of thought, where the theoretical base of egalitarianism and common ownership had disastrous implications when applied practically.

Groups: What can go wrong?

-	Deindividuation. When an individual is a member of a group, there can be a tendency for their deeds to be ‘hidden’ under the group’s veil, leading to a loss of individual accountability. Obvious examples exist in the extremists of history: fascists, Nazis, and so on. It seems to me though, that deindividuation does not necessarily have to be negative. My mum is a very involved member of the St Vincent de Paul Society, a Catholic charity organisation. They have a policy where members are not allowed to receive recognition for their good works, instead they are recognised under the banner of the society. While this used to frustrate me because of the time and effort that went in to much of my mother’s initiatives in the society, she seemed very much at ease with the idea. She explained that nothing she achieved was done alone, always with the help of fellow members, and that she thought their policy reduced greed and fostered solidarity by encouraging members to work for the good of the society.

-	Social loafing and the reduction of productivity in an individual when working in a group. When reading about the social loafing phenomenon, my thoughts immediately turned to assignment group work. One of the main reasons most students dread working in groups is that there will inevitably be an uneven distribution of workload. I can’t count the number of times I have whinged with my friends and classmates about the token ‘loafer’ who gets away with doing very little and then freely rides on the group’s successes.

-	The aforementioned deindividuation and the associated lack of accountability can often mean that group membership can facilitate violence or other antisocial behaviours. Extreme examples of Nazi Germany, the Cronulla riots, or looting abound in the text. I also thought this could be relevant in less overtly violent contexts: think about the school-aged child who, when bolstered by a group of friends, is much more likely to tease and taunt an unpopular child than when he or she is without that group’s protection.

'We're All In This Together,' aren't we?
‘The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.’– Nelson Henderson.

Had I thought ahead, I would have saved my reflections on bystander apathy and the Darley and Latane studies that I included in the aggression/Ghosts of Rwanda subheading for this topic – but never mind.

I had been thinking about the topic of prosocial behaviour – and in particular, altruism – before beginning the readings for this week. The topic of altruism had come up in tutorial discussions in a couple of psychology classes and is one I find particularly interesting. The idea of selfless generosity, of helping others without reward (like the Henderson quote above), seems to me to be an almost impossible concept. Although there are certainly countless instances of people who help and care for others seemingly without any sort of selfish motivations or expectations of anything in return (from the ‘big names’ of do-gooders like Mother Theresa or Oskar Schindler to everyday ‘altruists’ like parents and carers), it seems that some form or other of positive reinforcement is inevitable.

When I think of ‘good deeds’ that I have performed in the past, (giving a donation to charity or spending hours comforting a distraught friend) despite how selfless they may seem, other forces are always at play (I may feel obligated to give to a charity, or enjoy the good feeling I get when I donate; friendships are reciprocal and I can expect the same comfort when I am upset). ‘Good deeds’ are just that – something good inevitably comes out of them. A big product of helping behaviour is the good feeling people get, knowing they have been of real assistance and seeing the positive outcomes of their help. Volunteer workers often talk about their work as ‘rewarding’ (check out some quotes from volunteers at Aid Camps International here: http://www.aidcamps.org/group-quotes.htm and notice the enjoyment and other rewards they mention). I suppose one issue here is whether these rewards come after the fact – volunteers (and other ‘altruists’) embark on their projects purely to help people and promote positive change, and any rewards they happen to get out of this are simply by-products – or whether the rewards themselves are incentives (all my Motivation and Emotion study is coming out here now – John Gross would be proud!) that motivate the behaviour in the first place. If it is the latter, then the behaviour is not selfless, and therefore not really altruistic.

Reading back on all of this, it looks like a very grim view I take of our world. If we delve too deeply into our motivations for any behaviour, then we inevitably come up selfish. I don’t mean to undermine the remarkable efforts of volunteers, mothers and other ‘altruists.’ Good deeds are good deeds, regardless of the motivations behind them. Humans should want to help each other – it should feel good, it should be rewarding. Helping others will undoubtedly benefit us in some way – like Ben Lee sang, ‘we’re all in this together’ after all, aren’t we?

An Apathetic Greenie Is Reformed!
At first glance, this was the topic I was least interested in. Although today’s ‘green is good’ mentality and the proliferation of environmental issues in the media makes this a bit of a taboo, I have to say that I simply have little interest in or passion for the environment. It’s a terrible reflection of Generation Y apathy and probably some amount of ignorance, but I’m afraid it’s the truth. I was pleasantly surprised when I realised that environmental psychology encompassed a range of issues that I had not considered, and perhaps contained a great deal more for me than I previously thought.

On first encounter, the Biophilia Hypothesis and its proposal that ‘humans have an instinctive affinity with life-like processes’ seems more like a wanky mantra one would find on the wall of a King Street candle shop than a serious psychological theory. Dismissing its wankiness (and as I type this, Microsoft Word is taking great pleasure in immediately underlining it in red, but I assure you that it is a legitimate adjective) for moment, I think about the places and things that I find beautiful and visually pleasing. Tree-lined streets in autumn, snow on mountains, that impossible green in Ireland’s rolling hills, bonfires, unspoilt beaches, waves crashing against high cliffs...Edward Wilson was right – that infamous affinity with nature is present even in this environmental cynic!

Baumeister and Bushman also make some interesting comments about the impact of overpopulation, and in particular, its effects on personal space. They comment that we control the effects of overcrowding by maintaining an invisible boundary around us – our own ‘personal’ space. The size of this personal bubble can vary depending on the type of social contact (from the closeness of lovers or best friends to the distance of acquaintances or strangers) but also on cultural differences – they mention the differences between ‘contact’ cultures and ‘noncontact’ cultures. I am reminded of comedian Carl Barron, who (and I have tried desperately to find a clip of this on YouTube, but no luck!) spoke about the differences between a ‘city’ greeting and a ‘country’ greeting. Barron jokes that a ‘city’ handshake involves torsos almost touching and a tiny handshake, whereas a ‘country’ handshake is approached from metres away and is broad and overemphasised. His imitation of each is very funny, but also illustrates the impact of population crowding on the size of one’s personal space. I knew comedy could be educational!

Final Thoughts
Some final reflections on this e-portfolio, assessment in general, and the unit as a whole.

E-Portfolio - I loved it. In Psychology there are so few opportunities to write freely, without the constraints of essay questions or APA style or endless citations or statistics. Psychology has a history of not being taken seriously in the scientific world, and so it takes great pains to present itself as a genuine science, with facts and figures and evidence to boot. While it does this though, I think some of the magic of its findings are lost. I wrote earlier on about Lauren Slater's book Opening Skinner's Box and how she took ten dry research articles and turned them in to stories. This is what we have been given the opportunity to do here. We are not answering an essay question, we are not reporting significance levels or F values or any other obscure, cold statistic. We can take the empirical underpinnings of each topic and talk about them in a meaningful way - see if they ring true in our own lives and experiences. It was inevitably a learning experience as well - I wrote about each topic with lecture notes and textbook open beside me to refer to, and was certainly a way of engaging with and solidifying the information in both. I love being able to write freely like I have here, and so without a doubt, this was my favourite assessment item of my degree!

Other assessment - Being able to choose our own essay topics was daunting but exciting. It made me feel less like a uni student, bound by the lecturer's choice of a couple of topics, and more like a real researcher or academic, free to pursue any research interest I would like.

Comments were made in another user's E-Portfolio about how they believed research participation should not be an assessable part of the unit. I can't say I agree - I think it gives an interesting insight into the way research projects are conducted, and valuable examples of successful (and not so successful!) designs. Besides, when I'm a fourth year student longing for a decent sample size to boost the power of my study, I think I'll be pretty grateful to have compulsory research participation in psychology units!

The Unit - I realise I'm sounding like some kind of unreasonably chirpy broken record, but again - I loved it. I found the topics to be the most interesting and relevant that I have studied thus far. It cemented my interest in the social psychology realm and made me consider pursuing research interests in this area. The only suggestion I would make is that there was a supplementary chapter in the textbook (Application Module A) involving the application of social psychology to consumer behaviour that would make an interesting lecture subject, particularly considering the number of students who take marketing, advertising or public relations units in conjunction with psychology.

Otherwise, a great unit. I'll miss it!

title: User:Blackballoon86


text:
User talk:Blackballoon86

Well done
Good job on setting up your account,. Let me know if I can do anything as you go along. 'Official' Wikiversity welcome below. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Social psychology (psychology)/Participants/Welcome, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 Woof! My name is Jack(Russell). I am a dog and a Wikiversity mascot. I am pretty new around Wikiversity. Perhaps we can learn together! Tail wag...

Social vs Antisocial
You posted: "I suppose I'm interested in this idea that, as personality traits, 'antisocial' is negative and 'social' is positive. Is it just because we're perhaps more likely to like and get along with a friendly, outgoing ('social' characteristics) person than we are someone who is shy or reclusive ('antisocial')? Or does it say something more about social psychology and humans as social beings?"

I think that you are ascribing values based on your own personal preferences, rather than any actual objective basis. Being 'antisocial' can be a positive if it helps you meet your goals more easily. Eg, if your goal is to get to know your friend's BF, a more antisocial approach may work better, say just you, Kate and him. Alex Topfer 10:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image frustration
Thanks for posting about your frustration with images. It's not easy stuff, at first, so this is understable. A few thoughts, which may or may not help:
 * Re: copyrights. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia Foundation (which hosts the site) is following correct legal procedure, whereas many sites, staff, and students, and "normal" people tend to violate copyright. And there is poor information available about this - i.e., its not commonly taught. So, its a bit of a bind.
 * 1) Wiki commons search is a bit frustrating - search in the top-right of the homepage commons: is better than the search in the left hand box.
 * 2) A better way perhaps to navigate for images on commons is via the social psychology category, commons:Category:Social psychology.
 * 3) Use of images per se is not part of the marking criteria, although well-selected and captioned/relevant images can help to demonstrate depth of understanding (but understanding can also be demonstrated in many other ways).
 * 4) Feel free to ask for help around any technical challenges (or content challenges). This is not meant to require much extra technical time (in theory) if you feel free to ask when hit a snag. Usually someone can help pretty fast. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Feel free to also re-use images I've used around the place, e.g., on pages like Prosocial behavior, Aggression, Prejudice, etc. That's a pretty easy way to start, because then you can just copy/adapt. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks James - this was really helpful, I'll try and have another go now that my frustration and rage have subsided! Blackballoon86 04:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Blackballoon86


text:
Wikimedia Ethics/Privatemusings' thoughts

Introduction
This is a sketchpad area which may grow into a more formal structure. At this stage it's really just intended to communicate the areas I am interested in, and where I see interesting issues.

My Story
It feels important to me to have my own experience and 'backstory' front and centre in a project like this. I'm hopeful that I might be able to offer thoughts greater than the sum of my experiences and biases, but I think openness is important. My particular experience, of late 2007 / early 2008 brings some of the issues below together, and I'm happy to explain / discuss any aspect further. Here's a version of events I made public a while ago.

Rules vs Principles
A culture focused on rules, without solid understanding of the principles which underpin them is chaotic, with good and bad unintended consequences.
 * "No Legal Threats" policy - recent case study
 * On-wiki vs. off-wiki action within dispute resolution - recent case study
 * In the BLP arena
 * "If a banned user reverts vandalism, what should a good wiki editor do?" - have some people felt that they should put the vandalism back? (I think so) - what sort of internal thought structure leads to this outcome, and why?
 * "If a banned user sees vandalism, what should s/he do?" - (personal experience) - I logged out and reverted it - was I right?

(Pseudo)anonymity and Psychology
I'd love to get expert advice on this one;
 * Game playing - Wikipedia as 'MMORPG'
 * Leveling up - become an admin / OTRS / crat / arb etc.
 * Form a group / guild to support - does this become defend / attack?
 * Responsibility to real people - is it fundamentally unethical to edit anonymously in some (all?) areas?
 * The 'Don Murhpy' question (paraphrase) "If people are so proud of their involvement at Wikipedia, why do they hide their identities?"
 * Caped Crusader Syndrome? - heroes in their mother's basements?
 * Issue here is the schism between reality and action, and the amount wiki editors invest in their encylcopedia 'characters'. Interesting to examine whether or not this leads to emotional (visceral?) reactions at times, and whether or not folk are tempted to 'choose the win' - ie. close the discussion by 'beating' the 'opponent'.

Dispute Resolution and ethics

 * Editor Privacy - sharing of information about 'problem editors', anger at information being shared?
 * What is an 'involved' editor?
 * Block your friends, never your enemies (Lar, I think) - doesn't seem to be universally understood or accepted?
 * Blind Spots + re-inforcement thereof - is this related?
 * Outcomes of blocking / banning - does it work? (see WAS' conundrum)

Power, Influence, Temper and Tantrum

 * Minefield of 'information management' - is wikipedia an 'alternate reality zone' in some ways? (if I know your name, can I call you by it? If I witnessed a conversation on IRC, can I mention it on-wiki? etc.) - transgression in the wrong 'zone' brings severe consequences!
 * Groupthink - friends are good.. but friends tell each other they're wrong sometimes.... discuss..!
 * several case studies possible

Where responsibility lies within Wiki-systems (internal editing, and external eg. OTRS)

 * Who is responsible for text when pressing save?
 * Ethically / Morally - should editors assume full responsibility for all text? just their changes?
 * Legally - external advice required.
 * Does OTRS have adequate training and support to match the responsibilities?
 * (happy for the answer to be 'yes'! - just not sure...!

Inertia

 * Flagged Revisions - why haven't we got them?
 * BLP - widely recognised problem, no action in many months (years?)
 * The 'Doc Glasgow' Problem (paraphrase) - it only takes a few editors to derail any discussion to the point where consensus is impossible.
 * (softer version) - 'Better Idea' - no action results from being unable to choose between many 'better ideas' - wiki culture seems to accept no action as appropriate problem solving in difficult areas!

Truth and Truthiness

 * What's true for you is true. (I think that's a Scientology belief?) - is Wikipedia a bit cultish in this department?
 * Is Lying unethical? - Essjay redux + other porky pies...

A Very Wiki World - funny goings on behind the edit button at the Encyclopedia anyone can edit
I wrote a piece intended for publication with this nominal title in late 2007... had a few nibbles, but it never got the green light. It still might, so I'm weighing up publishing it here too - I'll probably just distill the meat of it into 'My Story' (virtually synonymous anywhoo....)

That'll do for now! - Please do wiki edit away, or ask questions on the talk page, or just poke me to let me know which directions you think are the most productive... In due course I'll start sub-paging, adding meat, keeping on keeping on etc.!

Case Studies
I think I'm going to shift some of the above work into tangible examples at the above page/s - I think it could help with clarity in general at this project...


text:
User talk:Mitchacho

Well done
Good job on setting up your account,. Let me know if I can do anything as you go along. 'Official' Wikiversity welcome below. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Social psychology (psychology)/Participants/Welcome, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 Woof! My name is Jack(Russell). I am a dog and a Wikiversity mascot. I am pretty new around Wikiversity. Perhaps we can learn together! Tail wag...

Copyright problem with Image:Genocide.jpg

 * Mitchacho, basically, did you make this yourself and if so are you happy to put it into the public domain - or was it from somewhere else, and if so, where? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mitchacho


text:
Social psychology (psychology)/Assessment/Essay/Topics/Signup

{| width="85%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="border:solid 2px #cda76b; background:#faf5ff;"
 * style="padding-left:1em; padding-right:1em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:1em; font-color:black;" |

Essay topic registration is open!
What to do:
 * 1) Decide on your preferred topic.
 * 2) Then email the convener with your Wikiversity user name and your preferred topic → the convener will then add your Wikiversity name into the table of topics.
 * 3) If someone has already signed up for a topic you are interested in, you can still request that topic - but you should suggest an alternative, related question.
 * }


text:
User:Alex Topfer

Start
So as a component of my Social Psychology unit at University of Canberra I need a series of posts on here about the unit (or just Social Psychology probably). I'm not sure if this'll be any use, or if I'll stay a member after the unit ends, but I get marks for this. Considering the content that will probably be posted here I could probably just use my blog, but that would risk boring the few people who read it even more.

Second week
As I have no idea what to post here at the moment, I'm just going to stick up a couple of thoughts: Is the concept of the self an actual evolutionary adaptation, or is it the product of the collective averaging power of our neurons? So basically the self could be a result of the complexity of our brains, with our neurons averaging out their activity to lead to what seems like one train of thought. Or it could be that our society requires its members to be aware of themselves (and by extension each other) for it to exist. My guess is that it may have been both to a degree, with the early human society having to deal with animals which had a basic concept of the self due to neurological complexity, so it built on this. Once the society go going a sense of self became a requirement for existing in it, thus leading to a co-evolutionary cycle.

On the purposes of self mentioned in the lecture notes, it seems that this only applies to human (and maybe vertebrate) societies. Communal insects seem to be able to gain social acceptance and play social roles with no sense of self. Linking into the above bit, this is probably due to neurological complexity.

It was also interesting to note the division of groups in the tutorials. For the first tutorials we did an exercise where we divided up according to the groups we are members of (marital status, political, eye colour), and the result of the religion divide was quite interesting. We ended up with the six men standing in the atheist group, and a large group of women (10?) in the agnostic group. Objectively these groups seem the same, neither of us go to church or pray (I presume), so the divide seems rather strange.

From the welcome message: "Good job on setting up your account". Isn't setting this up just the basic technological ability that you need in society? It's not like it's ram overclocking or anything. It seems to me to be the equivalent of saying "congratulations, you can read".
 * Oops, I completely misunderstood all this. In the areas of the internet where I normally spend time this level of technological literacy is assumed, and so remarking that someone has signed up for an account is broadly similar to saying "congratulations, you managed to put on pants". Of course in this area of the internet it is entirely appropriate, at least judging from Erkan_Yilmaz's comment on my talk page, so what we have here are different schemas, to bring this back to social psych terms. Based on the schema I was working from the welcome message was condescending, however this is not a community of computer geeks and my schema was inappropriate instead of the message. This was just a cultural misunderstanding, albeit an embarrassing one.

Names
We did an exercise this week where we dissected peoples names to what they meant, and also talked about the grroups people saw themselves as members of. The name bit was not that interesting, as most people had their names chosen for them, thus limiting the scope of the names saying anything about them. For instance my name, Alex Topfer: my first name was chosen by my parents, I merely shortened it because I thought the full version was a mouthful. The Topfer is derived from the German Toepfer, which means potter, we lost an e somewhere. Neither of these really say much about me (I'm no good at pottery).

I think a more useful, though probably limited exercise, would be the use peoples screen names. My most common screen name is Dangerous Beans, which is the name of a Terry Pratchett character, so it already says more about me than my actual name. The character is effectively the shaman of the tribe, he is also weak, half blind and an albino. Despite this he is the smartest of the tribe, and because of that has huge political power and gets the most attractive woman in the tribe.

The fact that I would use this name says much more about my views, rather than my actual name that says where some of my ancestors came from, which to me is more useful information. I'm sure that some other peoples screen names would carry similar information, though some just make it up.

This is kind of like the names int he Iain Banks Culture series of novels: where the citizens, upon reaching adulthood, choose a name as part of their full name. As always there is a wiki article [].

The other part was the groups we identify with. This one seemed weird to in that I was the only one who said a political group, though that might have been a slight misunderstanding of the question (it's more a philosophical group than a cultural one). Still I was the only one who listed political idea, and also the only one who said a religious group (kind of, atheist), where as others were much more likely to list geographical or occupational labels. This just seems weird to me, I'm much more of a nerd than an Australian: I know what to do in a Zerg rush, have no idea about a rugby game. Though I never really did get the whole nationalism thing, and this is probably just a facet of that.

Essay
I now have an essay question: What is constructivism? Consider within the context of social psychology.

This is really confusing, large chunks of it make absolutely no sense.

For instance there is someone called Maturana, who said that reality is a construct of observers, there is no independently existing world for us to observe (Raskin, 2002). He does suggest that there may be a communal reality created by a network of observers via language, however this seems impossible to me. Lets say that we have observer A, who creates his own reality. Now in this reality there is an entity called B, which may or may not be an observer, but there is no shared language between A and B.

If B is an observer then B will construct its own reality, thus removing itself from A's reality. If B was both an observer and existant within A's reality then there would be a reality independent of B. According to Maturana's theory there is no independent reality (Raskin, 2002), so if B is an observer then it cannot be in A's reality.

Therefore no object in A's reality other than A can be an observer, everything other than A must be some type of philosophical zombie. As I am able to observe the world around me, I must be the sole observer in this reality (unless your the sole observer and I was just claim that I can observe), and thus the creator of this reality. Which prompts the question: why did I make republicans?

It might be argued that both A and B have created their own realities, and that via language these realities can come into contact. However if B ever observes part of A's reality, then A's reality is no longer purely dependent on A's observation. There is, for A, an independently existing reality, and as was already said that is not allowed.

Now it may be that reality is dependent on a primary observer, but it exists independent of all other observers; reality is created by one observer but contains other observers of which reality exists independently. This primary observer my be a group of observers united by language, as per Maturana's theory, but as there are multiple languages uniting different social groups not all observers are part of the primary observer (there is no requirement that we are even aware of the primary observer). So as we do not know who the primary observer is, this reality would be indistinguishable from a truly independent reality. All this bit is of course a complete mauling of what Maturana was saying, but I'm trying to be generous here.

So at best this theory predicts that reality will look like it does, whether or not it is true, and at worst it is solipsism. A theory that predicts that the world will look like the world cannot be disproved, and it thus a waste of time. If it is just solipsism then I cannot be bothered arguing about it, and I am going to go do something productive instead.

title: User:Alex Topfer


text:
Wikiversity community blog

There are several blogs of Wikiversity participants in Wikiversity itself (see Category:Blogs), as well as outside - but this page is to discuss whether it would be a reasonable idea to have a communal blog. Would it be desirable to have such a thing? How would it work? Ideas and comments are very welcome.

Is it desirable?
Even if we don't have an aggregated or centralised page for blog posts, I think it is a good idea to list individual blogs from a centralised page. For example, my own blog can never be picked up via a category, as it is on a external host. Cormaggio talk 10:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The RSS reader extension is now enabled on the sandbox server, so a proof-of-concept could be created. Maybe we can use Google Reader for now to burn a single feed of all related WV blogs. But I suspect we're not going to be seeing such an extension enabled on WM projects for some time. Maybe we can try doing this with Knol? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What would we blog about?
We might make an analogy with The Signpost - here we announce news items that are important to a lot of people on Wikiversity. However, blogs can be updated as frequently as necessary, so there is no constraint on regular publishing. --HappyCamper 11:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How would it work?
Would it be best as an aggregation of all posts to all blogs? Would it simply be a free-form editable page that people can post to directly? Would it be an aggregator for shorter ' micro-blogging' updates, such as Twitter or Facebook 'status'? Just some ideas to get the ball rolling... Cormaggio talk 10:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For it to fly here, now, I'd vote for "a free-form editable page that people can post to directly". Why not - let's try! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Where would it reside?
One idea would be to have some form of such a blog on the front page itself - it would probably have to be limited to a line or two maximum (though could possibly truncate, and give the option to "read more" on an expanded page). This might give the front page some sense of there being a community of learners and practitioners here - which is not so obviously apparent from our front page... Cormaggio talk 10:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe a summary of each blog post for inclusion; and the main blog post would be not included? Or just include the title. Or maybe each person blogs individually, and then posts a title (for inclusion; and which links to the individual blog post) and a summary (not included) to the community blog page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Wikiversity community blog


text:
User talk:Alex Topfer

Hello
Hello Alex,

 * > if I'll stay a member after the unit ends: hopefully you do :-) What can we do that you stay ?
 * >I could probably just use my blog, but that would risk boring the few people who read it even more.: Do you know that Wikiversity also has blogs ?
 * >congratulations, you can read: I assume that is just a friendly welcome msg and it might not be always clear that everybody has the same skills. So better to be safe than sorry - in any case at Wikiversity it is always best to assume good faith. In wikis communication has always losing info which in real life is always present (e.g. mimic, gesture) - it is easy to misunderstand things. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 09:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your right, the welcome message was just meant to be friendly. I guess I was just a bit grumpy with university people always assuming that I'm technologically illiterate. Alex Topfer 00:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have any more info. It was just an assumption. Btw: if you feel more comfortable, you can change the section at your user page and also remove my comment above, ok ? We are a wiki. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I can delete all this from the main page, but as it still hangs around in the history I can't see any point. Why try to bury what I've said? Anyway, it's actually an example of something that came up in the lecture. So I'll leave it there and try to get marks for an embarrassing mistake. Alex Topfer 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure your hope for the grade will fulfill. :-) Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 15:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi Alex, Just so you know, there's absolutely no problem from my point of view. This is a new experiment for "social psychology" (the unit) and my expectation for it is very open/broad. So, there can be no mistakes, really, by anyone. Only responses, ideas, conversations, etc. What's more, you're clearly applying understandings of social psychology to real situations. You're authentically engaging and from my point of view, that's the main purpose of this so-called "e-portfolio". From my point of view to make an observation or comment is far better (by and large) than to withold it. :) Sincerely, -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Geekness/Technical capacity
You have me wondering about the "spectrum" of geekness/technical capacity with respect to the "computer/internet". It seems that perhaps a new cultural shift which has introduced a new social dimension - in a very primitive way, ranging between those "comfortable and connected and able to pursue interests" online and those who are "uncomfortable, unfamiliar, lacking in confidence, and unable to pursue interests" online. It is also seems related to and interconnected with "class", but this is an interesting relationship because it also allows transcendence of class in many respects. Just wanted to share that. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Technological ability could be considered almost a social class, but instead of transcending class I would suggest that it exists on a different spectrum. You can imagine a class system whereby the technologically adept were in charge, ruling over those who had no idea (unlike now where technologically ignorant Labour politicians pass internet regulations that will never work). So it could be a class system, but not one related to money or birth. Alex Topfer 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Constructionism thoughts
You may find it helpful to narrow the focus to social constructionism (as opposed to constructionism per se). On e-reserve there is a gentle introduction: Burr, V. (1995). Introduction: What is social constructionism? In An introduction to social constructionism (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge (and I think this book is in the library). Plus see if you can track down Kenneth Gergen's 'social psychology as history' - if you do, can let me know, and I'll get it added to e-reserve. There are, it seems, as many critics as there are proponents of constructionism, so you shouldn't have too many problems finding critiques, so the essay could do well to present a balanced critique. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Social psychology as history. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just noticed that you actually requested the constructivism topic... and I'm replying about social constructionism, just to make things extra confusing . If you want to, I think it might be more rewarding to tackle social constructionism. The constructivism question probably shouldn't be up there come to think about it... - at least in that its not a particularly notable social psychology topic, it's pursued more in the field of educational psychology. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alex Topfer


text:
User talk:TheresaWilson

 Hello TheresaWilson, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --Cormaggio talk 10:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I've also left a note on Talk:Darwinism as religion. Cheers, Cormaggio talk 10:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this of of interest ?
I saw you were exploring the category layout. Perhaps this may be of help ? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 14:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

dissertation checking
I Theresa! Karibou here. Would you still have some time to check part of my dissertation? It shouldbe something like 9000 words. Give me your mail if you're ok! Yours, --Karibou 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheresaWilson


text: User:Plutonics

title: User:Plutonics


text:
User talk:Lauten

Well done
Good job on setting up your account,. Let me know if I can do anything as you go along. 'Official' Wikiversity welcome below. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Lauten, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may

 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random random project.
 * Browse everything on Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.

 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.

And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Hi , I am Percy. Nice to meet you. I love the beach, swimming, fishing, and I am currently doing some research at Wikiversity on oceanography. I am also learning to play piano. What do you like? Can I be your mascot?

Re:Weekend Benders
Who knows, you may be interested in this category ? The last time I blacked out by alcohol is a few years back - was at university. Since then I did not touch alcohol anymore :-) Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 19:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Headings
Hi Lauten. A quick wiki tip for you: See User talk:Tim Malysiak for some guidelines on a way to make even better headings on your page. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Lauten - FYI, I just added headings to your page - check them out; hope they help. Your e-portfolio is really coming along. Let me know if I can do anything else. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Essay
Hi Lauten. I see you've posted a draft essay!? Good on you Are you thinking of submitting as a Wikiversity essay (which is fine) or as a word processed document? Depending on which way you want to go, I can then tailor some feedback/suggestions. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs off the page
Hi Lauten, I t think that is probably happening when a paragraph starts with spaces. So edit and remove any blank spaces at the start of those paragraphs, and it should work. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Images
Hi Lauten, unfortunately I suspect there are copyright restrictions on the images you're uploading. A copyright license needs to be declared for each image and only those who open, free-to-use licensed can be uploaded. If you hold the copyright, this is OK, you can release it (but need to indicate, e.g., public domain). Otherwise, the copyright holder needs to have released the image under an open-license, or have given permission. So, this makes most images on the web not legally uploadable. The good news, however, is that you can find and use images from, e.g., see commons:Category:Social psychology. Most people do something like what you've done early on, unless it gets explained. So, I'll go through and delete the images, but feel free to re-upload if there are any you think that are appropriate; otherwise try replacing with an equivalent from. Sorry, about the hassle, but that's how the world of images and copyright works and Wikiversity respects this. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Women today
Hey Lauten, I was just reading your discussion of women in workplaces and how they've felt or how its changed. Obviously i haven't been in the work force long but i thought i'd try and give you another perspective. I too have worked in the dental field and although i've never had any serious issues being an assistant i was subjected to some rather chauvantistic comments from male dentists who acted like they where god-like. Unfortunately i think it seems to be a problem in that particular field because my experience in other work places has been vastly different. Although gender equality still exists i think we are incredibly lucky in this country. There are avenues of action that can be taken if women feel threatened in the work force. In fact in one instance i complained to the head dentist about one of the associates and he was subsequently asked to leave. The other side of the coin is that i've actually witnessed many men being "teased" in workplaces and i think any complaint by them may have been taken less seriously.

Cheers Nikki --Nikkihiggins

title: User talk:Lauten


text:
User:SiCoe

My (SiCoe)'s user page - will get round to editing when have more time

title: User:SiCoe