text:
User:Chicco

Week Four: Aggression and Antisocial Behaviour
I've finally worked out how to use this thing!!!!! sigh, now I can begin!

I definately aggree with the definition of aggression on one of the lecture slides from today, "what counts as aggressive behaviour is determined by the social codes and conventions around the behaviour in question." Aggressive behaviour is different in every culture. The textbook gives the example of 'running amok' a malay term used for the havok that a young man may cause after being insulted in someway. In no way does it promote aggressive behaviour, I feel though it is justifying it, but of course these things are culturally relevant.

Anti-social behaviour, is also dependent on culture. In some asian cultures for example showing one's emotions is seen to be a severe lack of control and willpower. However, in our culture, not showing one's emotions is the driving force behind the breakdown of many relationships. I aggree with the frustration-aggression hypothesis, basically that frustration and aggression go hand in hand. I think that one can better understand aggression when looked at from this perspective: ie, what factors contributed to the behaviour? When you can identify some key factors, i.e, poverty, hunger, or even humiliation then the behaviour may not seem so unexpected. I think that when people hear of aggressive acts taking place the perpetrator is automatically labelled as a "bad person" or "angry person." However, I don't think that would always be the case, sure some people in the world must just naturally be more aggressive than others, but what about people who are pushed to commit aggressive acts that are usually out of character??? These days, the cost of living would be enough to prompt someone to steal to be able to make ends meet, is this person bad or are they merely following their gut instinct to survive? Or because the purpose of stealing was not to intentionally hurt  someone, was it then not aggressive?

Week One:Introduction
So why study social psychology? I guess, curiosity. I am curious to know what makes certain people tick. Not just those in my family (finally, I will understand my parents), not just my friends (girls can be so mean), I am curious about any individual really. If you're breathing, I'm curious, why are you breathing? What drives you to wake up everyday and go to work? Or not work? Perhaps in your culture working is not really such a big deal. So what does your culture value? Questions, questions, and more questions, all to be explored in good old social psychology.

From the lecture I feel that Allport's definition of social psychology as 'how thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others' sums it up perfectly. Think of how many times you have acted in a particular way because someone is near you, or you think someone is near you, or even there is no one around but you can still feel others' judgement over your actions. A social conscious is a very powerful weapon indeed. I can think of many times where (being the clumsy person that I am) have tripped or bumped into something and then given a little laugh afterwards to show anyone who is watching that 'yes i can laugh at myself." It can make us do and say things that we would not normally do and say, just to conform to the norms of our culture, or to fit in with the ingroup. I'm in aggreeance with evolutionary psychologists who suggest this to be survival instinct. Afterall where would we be if we were not part of a community? Humans are social creatures, we need to be part of a group as a form of protection from the unkown and pleasure. I like the idea of culture being this plastic system that never sits still. It is constantly changing and therefore so are we. This idea gives room for growth and diversity in all cultures, and also the accomodation of new cultures into one's own. There are four main advantages to culture: 1)Language - the development of language allows human beings to share and store information,and use logic and reasoning. More importantly, language requires a group of people, which, in turn promotes the unity of a particular culture by drawing people together through a common language. 2) Progress - because humans have language and the ability to store information that can then be recalled, we also have the potential for progress. This supports the idea of culture being an ever-changing system that never stops progressing. 3) Division of labour - humans realise the importance of specialising in a given area, rather than having limited knowledge in a few areas. This allows for a balance of jobs and roles, which creates balance within a community. 4) Exchanging Goods and Services - this, with the added bonus of possible gain, helps us to establish and exchange relationships with others, whilst also integrating and advancing the other main advantages of culture. The interaction of these four advantage As the semester goes on I would like to examine these advantages of culture in greater detail to better comprehend them.

Week two: The Social Self
I often find myself wondering "who am i?" Doesn't everyone do this though? Am I the happy thing my friends see when I'm out with them, the well-behaved young adult my extended family sees on a family outing???? OR am I really that irrate, irrational, stresshead my immediate family is subject to during exams?? So which is the real me? Perhaps the real me is one that no-one has even seen yet, a self unbeknwonst to myself as yet. My inner thoughts and feelings, my self as impulse.

It would seem that, first and foremost how we view OURselves is most crucial in understanding the self. Exploring our own selves, I think, educates a person in how to deal wtih other people and their selves, which will be different from our own selves. Therefore, it is important to be able to distinguish between ones interpersonal self, one's self-concept, and the agent self. One's self-concept refers to the sets of beliefs one has of themselves, this unfortunately is not always very accurate. For example one can have the self-concept of being environmentally conscious, but then that same person may litter or do other things that are essentially hazardous for the environment. The interpersonal or public self, or the image of self that we portray to others. Like the self-concept, the interpersonal self does not always give an accurate account of the person you are seeing. A person may very easily give the impression that they are calm, placid, and very easy going in the company of others, however behind closed doors they are a nervous wreck most of the time. The agent-self is the part of the self in control, think like the Freudian super-ego. Although the agent-self is not only involved in self-control, but also in controlling other people. Our textbook also names another self, the phenomenal self or the working self concept. This is meant to be the image of self that is currently active in one's thoughts. So, the phenomenal self, is the mix of the selves like the interpersonal or the agent-self that you are using right now to do whatever you are doing.

In every day life, all of our different intertwining selves help us to perform our specific roles, known as social roles. A person can have numerous social roles, you can be a mother, sister, friend, doctor, a social role is basically something that we can define ourselves by and determines our behaviour (i.e. "I am a doctor, therefore I need to be reliable for my patients.) Social roles are defined by the society in which we live, which give us guidelines as to how to live our lives in a manner that is socially acceptable. I do believe, however, that when are social roles become too many or too conflicting this is when problems can start to develop on a personal level such as stress, depression, mental health. However, I strongly believe this inevitably impacts society also. Conflicting social roles such as being a parent or a career person can force a person to choose between the two thus ignoring the other and leaving a gap in the community (for either role) to be filled, which may not always be possible. One's self awareness also plays a part in our social roles. Self-awareness is the capacity to direct your attention at the self. Self-awareness is then broken up into two subgroups, private self-awareness (emotions, thoughts, desires, and traits) and public self-awareness (outward qualities of self, that others can see.) I think that when a person has a high level of self-awareness, they are able to better fufill their social roles. I think that this is because when one is self-aware, they know their strengths and weaknesses and are able to adjust to situations where their idea of self may be challenged. I think of self-awareness as a reinforcer of one's self concept, which I think satisfies human beings' need to know themselves.

Week Three: Social Thinking
I constantly find myself thinking about my social surroundings. Those who walk by, my friends, my family, and the interactions I have with others. I wonder at how all these interactions make one big deposit of sociality, and in turn how it affects each individual. I agree that human beings are social animals, and I think we actually need to be social to survive the challenges of life. Having social interactions with others improves ones mood and also provides mental stimulation. I think that a lot of mental issues arise when there is little or no social interaction between people.

I found there is a name for my problem, a cognitive miser! Basically, someone who is reluctant to do any extra thinking than what they have to is a cognitive miser. I think that in such a technologically advanced society, such as our own, it is easy to be a cognitive miser. A lot of decision making is done for us, especially with things like satellite navigation systems and the internet. However, I also think this a by-product of the heuristics, or the mental shortcuts we use in day to day life. Yes, I do think that heuristics are important for when we need to make a quick decision in order to be prepared for the possible occurrence of an event. However, I think that our brain can become too reliant on them. Also, I think that it is these mental shortcuts that can also lead to prejudices and miscommunications between people. I believe that this is due to the fact that our brain has a particular way of systematically storing information. Step by step new schemas are assimilated into existing ones. When you recall that information, your brain goes through those steps again, by creating shortcuts you can miss out on some vital information. I definately think that there is a need to have mental shortcuts, otherwise our brains would be working over time. However, when it comes to social interactions (especially when meeting new people) mental shortcuts can lead to prejudice.

Since I was about seventeen years-old I have worked in retail casually. Therefore, when looking at the techniques of influence I found I could relate them to my work.I could especially relate to the foot-in-the-door technique and the bait-and-switch technique. The company for whom I work now places great stress on the importance of getting a person into a changeroom with more than one garment. In the company's eyes, this should not be too difficult if the customer has already picked out an item, all you have to do is keep suggesting and suggesting more. The customer is more likely to keep trying things on, because you are only adding on one item at a time (foot-in-the-door technique.) I think that this does lead to bigger sales, because psychologically the customer is tricked into thinking that they're not really buying that much (because you have gradually built up the 'yes' pile.)

A great example of the bait-and-switch technique is when a customer asks for a particular garment in a different size (the attractive unavailable option), but you no longer have it. You suggest to the customer to try their luck and try on the garment anyway, of course the garment is the wrong size and does not fit. However, as a salesperson, all hope is not lost! At this stage you can then offer the customer a garment in a "similar" style (the less-attractive available option.) The customer is more likely to try on the garment and possibly even buy it because A)they're already there, and B) they've found a happy medium.

I am quite sure I have been using the labelling technique for some time now, especially with my parents. "Mum, Dad, you're pretty cool, you're right with me going to that concert tonight? Right, and so I'll need to borrow $50 then - Thanks." It seems that human beings are too easily influence. I also think that we know, deep down when we are being influenced but a lot of the time we don't do anything about it. I wonder why this is...Any thoughts?

Week Five: Prejudice
Our reading this week describes prejudice as a negative feeling towards an individual based solely on their membership in a group. Racism stems from prejudice, although it is much more severe because it focuses on the prejudice of a particular racial group.

Humans have a need to group like things together, I think it helps our brain not to overwork by trying to remember millions and millions of pieces of information which are only distinguishable by minute facts. I think that it is just natural for our brains to look at something, see it as a whole, and associate it with a schema for that thing that we already have knowledge of, and put them together. This is how stereotyping occurs, when we pair people from certain groups with certain traits. For example "All Italians are good cooks." Stereotyping is not really the most accurate form of judgement around. Although stereotyping is not always a bad thing, such as the example I gave above, it's not a slanderous comment against a particular racial group, it's fairly neutral. Where I think stereotyping can go wrong (and I made mention of this in my "Week three" entry) is when we use stereotypes as heuristics. The stereotyping itself, forces a person to make generalisations, when you partner that up with mental shortcuts to information, it isn't any wonder that wires get crossed. As an example, if in the past you have experienced a negative incident with a person of a particular racial group, the next time you come accross a person of that racial group you may have reservations about interacting with them. Basically what has happened here is, you've logged this negative interaction into your brain, to save you making the same mistake twice when you meet with a person that displays similarities (racially or culturally) to the first person you met, your brain gives off a warning signal along the lines of "Hold up, remember the last time you spoke to someone of this group, chances are this one's the same." This may very well not be the case, but your brain does not want to waste time on taking chances. Therefore, as a result, you may avoid members of that group altogether.

Negative stereotyping, such as described above, can then lead onto discrimination. If a group of people have formed a negative stereotype of a particular group, they can then begin to exclude them from any number of things. This creates and ingroup (the group forming the negative stereotype) and the outgroup (the group being discriminated against.) When this occurs members of the ingroup risk being discriminated against if they so much as associate with the outgroup.

Allport's contact hypothesis is something that I have always believed in, in general terms. That is, the more you're exposed to something the more you like it. Although I think a crucial element of this hypothesis is that regular interactions between members of different group DOES reduce prejudice, IF it occurs under FAVOURABLE conditions. Which, of course makes sense! If these interactions occurred under unfavourable circumstances, the negative attitudes between the groups would only increase, and so too prejudice.

Week 10: Relationships
Sigh - yes the relationships week! You know the one where we all realise what we have been doing wrong and what we need to do to better our relationships. It had me asking, what is it that will draw another person to me? Attraction? And once they're there, how long will they stay for?

I think that when you are in a relationship you feel such a great deal of social acceptance from that one person, that it no longer matters if the rest of society accepts us. That is a massive amount of power over the human psyche, seeing as our need to belong would most likely only come second to basic needs such as food, shelter, and water. Human's need to belong is so strong, that it is understandable that we find it hard to deal with rejection or social exclusion. Moreover, this may be why it is so hard for humans to break off relationships, even when one knows that it is the right thing to do. Why is that? Maybe, from an evolutionary perspective, us humans find it hard to break off a relationship because it severs ties that might ultimately have lead to us starting a family, thus having a genes survive. By ending a relationship, we risk having our genes die with us...and who said social psychology wasn't romantic!

I thought the various acts of ingratiation were quite interesting. Especially praising people, our textbook mentioned that this is one of the most reliable ways to get people to like you. Obviously you cannot go around complimenting a person twenty-four hours of the day, they would probably turn around and hit you. Not only that, overdoing it in the praise department can sometimes seem ingenuine, and other people pick up on this. I think it is about finding a happy medium. If you like someone and you want them to know it, be ready to compliment them should the oppurtunity arise, but do not jump at every chance there may be to compliment them. (A bit of relationship advice there from the Love Dr. Chicco!)

I did not really agree with the matching hypothesis. The idea that people pair up with others who are equally attractive, I think is too general a hypothesis. It merely focuses on the physicality of a match. I much prefer the reinforcement theory as a way to understand relationships. This is the proposition that humans and animals will perform behaviours that have been rewarded more than they will perform other behaviours. Therefore in relationship terms, being with a significant other is the reward of certain behaviours, which produces good feelings, therefore reinforcing the cycle of a particular behaviour, and in turn keeps the relationship going.

I really like that there is a name for people's habits getting on your nerves after a while, the social allergy effect! I completely agree with it though. This rings true especially in long term intimate relationships, when you first meet a person the excitement is so overwhelming that you do not even realise that they snort when they laugh. As time goes on and the relationship suffers the hardships of time, the sound of that snorting laughter drives you up the wall!

I am a strong believer in love coming in all shapes and forms. I most definately believe that there are different types of love and that during the course of a relationship the type of love experienced can change. We have all experienced passionate love or romantic love, just like in the movies. You meet someone and they are just incredible, you can't stop thinking about them, and you can't wait to see them, and then when you finally do see them those little butterflies in your tummy start flittering. Yes, yes all been there, done that. However, a type of love surpasses the passion, that I don't think everyone is aware of, companionate love or affectionate love. I think this is the 'real' love that everyone aims to find in life. Companionate love is marked by a mutual understanding and caring to make the relationship succeed. This type of love goes far beyond the superficial reaches of desirability and attractiveness. I think that it is best described by one of my favourite authors, Paolo Coelho, he describes love as the soul's recognition of its counterpart in another. Of course social psychology is not so romantic, but I think something along the lines of companionate love satisfies our need to belong and quashes our feelings of rejection and loneliness. Companionate love encompasses a deeper level of intimacy than passionate love. Passionate love seems almost to be like the coolidge effect, the sexually arousing power of a new lover versus the appeal of a familiar one. Whereas passion can be satiated, initmacy being the evergrowing feeling of mutual understanding and concern for one another's welfare, cannot.

Week 11: Groups
Whether we like it or not, we are all part of at least one group, human beings. Being in a group means a collection of two or more people who are doing or being something together. This seems to be a running theme in social psychology, human beings are social creatures with the innate need to belong. Humans need groups. We need groups to survive, after all there is safety in numbers. We need to be apart of a group to fulfill our need to belong. I think this is because when you are part of a group you are surrounded by people who share your ideals, identity, and you are unified under a group name, this is comforting to humans.

A by-product of belonging to and having strong ties with a group is deindividuation. This is the loss of self-awareness and the loss of individual accountability in a group. In basic terms, when you are apart of a group you become less aware of what you are doing, more likely to partake in activities you would not normally take part in, and later feel a reduced sense of accountability for your own actions because you were acting as part of a group. A perfect example of this is Nazism during World War II. For many people, being a part of the Nazi party was a way of unifying a nation, as a part of this group, however, people did not pay attention to the suffering caused to millions of people of the ethnic minority. Later, after the war, many did not feel accountable for their actions because, in their minds, they were merely acting on orders for the greater good of the group.

Coming out of my teenage years, I find I can relate to the optimal distinctiveness theory. This theory suggests that when people feel very similar to others in a group, they seek a way to be different. However, when they feel different to those in a group, they look for ways to be more similar. This was very much evident going through six years of an all-girls catholic high-school. What I found though, was when a new girl came o the school, she was much more likely to try and be similar to the rest of the girls to fit in. I found that the girls who had been at the school for longer were more likely to try and be different to everyone else. It's a strange concept, but it makes sense. Those new girls just wanted to blend in, whereas the girls who had been at the school for a longer amount of time, just wanted to break free of the mass group and be distinguished.

Since I was a little girl I have had problems with dancing and stage fright. Social facilitation theory postulates that the presence of others increases one's dominant response tendency. The dominant response is the most common response in any given situation. My problem with dancing infront of other people, obviously was evaluation apprehension, the concern about how others would be evaluation my performance. This would evoke the dominant response of nervousness and straight out fear any time I had to dance. I think this may be due to the fact that, when you are a part of a group or team the fear of failure or embarrassment cannot only reflect on yourself but on the group also, therefore producing these nervous feelings.

Another problem with being part of a group and deindividuation is self-censorship. Not only do you loose a part of your individuality as a member of a group, but you aim to hide aspects that may differentiate you from the rest of the group. When one is a part of a group it can be very difficult to speak out against aspects of that group that you do not agree with. This may be due to the fear of being ostracised from that group, no longer having a sense of belonging. Therefore, a lot of the time, members of groups will not voice opinions that they think other group members will not approve of. This feeds a vicious cycle of no one stating their own opinion for fear of repucussions.

title: User:Chicco


text:
Talk:Lecture 2.0

Creating a solution for a self-invented problem?
While I find a lot of the ideas presented here as a great contribution to the development of e-learning, I don't entirely agree with the stereotyped concept of lecture 1.0. To me, lecture 1.0 is something of a straw man, a self-created problem designed to promote the solution - or at least, only one of many traditional lecture styles. For me, traditional lecture styles come in many flavours. At least one of these flavours is very audience-centered: the professor mainly ad libs on his heavily-prepared subject, detecting the weaknesses and strengths of his audience at every step and modifying the lecture to suit. Recording a lecture like this makes less sense, because it is so audience-specific. --McCormack 04:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * jtneill added the comment An engaging presenter may be able to "reach into audience" - e.g., some speakers are paid large sums and/or attract large crowds to hear them speak. These tend to be the exception, rather than the rule, however. --> perhaps added as a response to my comment above? I like the bit about "paid large sums". If we're talking about exceptions, though, surely what you call "lecture 2.0" is no less an exception than the impoverished ad-libbing audience-pleaser (what I will call "lecture 3.0")? And surely there is no greater and no lesser reason to revise "lecture 1.0" in the direction of "lecture 2.0" than in the direction of "lecture 3.0"? Perhaps we should simply be advocating greater training of university staff in all aspects of advanced pedagogy, both ancient and modern? --McCormack 10:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks later
Still thinking about this. Perhaps developing the same sceptical idea in a slightly different direction: whatever version of the "lecture" you take, it is the lecturer who counts. Just as a good lecturer can make traditional models shine, so a bad one can ruin the most sophisticated of media-supported networked models. I've rarely seen a good slideshow - yours was unusually good. Perhaps we should version lecture models by the lecturer name and year? As in "Lecture Model JTN08"? --McCormack 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For a rather unique combination of slideshow and lecturer (Hardt2005) see what you think of Dick Hardt's Identity 2.0 - maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but those to whom I've suggested it have generally been "wowed" into thinking new ideas about how we might do lectures differently. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Smooth. 5/10. --McCormack 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another idea
Reading through the current minute's version of this fast changing resource, it seems to me to be medium-centered rather than student-centered. The focus is currently on how you do it, rather than the end result. For me, it is the changed state of the student's mind which counts - which is a matter of art, luck and only a little science - perhaps? If "lecture 2.0" is to earn its name, it has to explain why it can deliver a greater percentage of changed, broadened minds. --McCormack 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from a famous mind
Years ago, someone told me, in a very witty fashion I will not try to copy, that it was actually the half-baked half-trained lecturers who produced the top minds. I never caught his reasoning. However if I had to choose between engendering either admiration or hunger among students, as an emotional stimulus to hard work, I would choose the latter. --McCormack 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the experiential learning principles we worked with in my earlier career as an Outward Bound instructor was that eventually the instructor would "disappear" or barely be seen or heard. That was "success". Initially the OB instructor is very busy, active, involved, teaching, coaching, providing feedback, supporting skill development, etc. but the goal is for this to be very temporary. A good instructor would eventually have sparked and kindled an ongoing learning process such that a group could journey and navigate, resolve issues, solve problems, etc. themselves. But this meant the instructor needed sufficient ego-development to not need attention, a good program, and sufficent training/coaching/confidence in the experiential style. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great reply! --McCormack 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

September thoughts
This is developing nicely. I didn't quite realise the relation between the two numbered lists under lecture 1.5 for a while (slow brain problem), and I wondered whether my EMAC project was really worth its mention (but thank you all the same!). The layout is better now as well - more interesting to look at. --McCormack 09:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi McCormack, thanks for the feedback - it has helped and continues to challenge/foster my lecture thinking and practice, so feel free to keep musing away. We had a live "lecture is (not) dead" session at the Uni of Canberra today, so have been stimulated by some new ideas which I'll gradually add. Can you tell me more about your EMAC project (maybe slow brain here) - I'm not sure what that is - a naming convention? - if so, this has been very helpful - I realise now that getting people to describe case-study style how and why they deliver lectures could make for valuable research. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * EMAC is the "Educational Media Awareness Campaign", to which you had already added a link in the lecture 1.5 section. It was kind to give a link, but I wondered about the relevance! The EMAC is mainly aimed at getting educators to make better use of Wikimedia Commons in creating Open Educational Resources (of which WV resources are an example). I suppose I can see a link if you regard lecture 1.5+ as a type of OER. Anyway, not a big deal! Minor point. --McCormack 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Lecture 2.0


text:
User:MichaelMaggs

This is the User page of Michael Maggs. You can contact me most easily via my talk page on Commons.

title: User:MichaelMaggs


text:
User talk:MichaelMaggs

 Hello MichaelMaggs, 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! --Gbaor 07:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hello , we are the Baah and Bahh twins and we'd both like to welcome you to Wikiversity. While you sit back and explore Wikiversity, enjoy some of our fresh goat milk. You can help us learn by creating new learning resources or help us by improving the guided tours and other exploration tools. We look forward to seeing you around. Baaaahbye for now.

title: User talk:MichaelMaggs


text:
User talk:Pfctdayelise

 Hello Pfctdayelise, 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! --Gbaor 07:45, 4 August 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...

title: User talk:Pfctdayelise


text:
User talk:Jodes~enwikiversity

WebCT
>but I really do prefer WebCT I am not sure, but isn't this also possible ? You could make a link here to that page there then. Where you feel comfortable there I would stay I'd say.

>sensory deprivation experiment I guess the listeners can also suggest what the team can do ? I wonder what crazy ideas will come from there then. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I added a link to WebCT for this unit for you. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hello Jodes, 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.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * 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 11:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Hi! My name is WikiversityJack. I am a pumpkin and a Wikiversity mascot. My aunt told me that fun + learning = Wikiversity. Let me know if I can help you out.

Re: amusing clip
I was wondering if the same reactions would happen in another place (village town, ...) with other people (primarily old aged, ...) - probably not - people their tend to take more interest than doing their business only. I found the part funny/interesting where the mother hastened to bring her kid out of the dangerous situation and the kid looks surprised to the mother and then back again at that "crazy" woman. Obviously it took the kiddo's interest - must not be seeing such things regularly. Who knows: we just see a short video - I am not sure if the "actor" could well portrait a crazy woman, somehow humans have an instinct for "seeing" actoring or being real. Or they just think it is a show where they get recorded. Perhaps there were even some people around who really helped, but these scenes are cut out of the video for the teaching effect :-) >this one reminds me of the woman that used to dance through one of the main streets in Florey around the time that school got out (minus the Walkman and fluro spandex): don't know this one, let me see if I can find it somewhere on the net, Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Jodes. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jodes~enwikiversity that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jodes~enwikiversity


text:
User:Jodes~enwikiversity

O-kay...A bit of a delayed start but here we go!
So, I'm doing Social Psych, and this is my grand attempt at a Wiki page. I'm finding this new set-up Wikiversity/UCSpace, etc, just a tad frustrating. I might be acting like a dinosaur, but I really do prefer WebCT. Just putting it out there.

Not sure what to write, so I'm just going to dive straight into it. I've been a bit slack in getting the textbook and doing the online readings so far - still getting myself in uni-mode again. However, the essay for this subject is about the only assessment I have this semester across all my subjects that I'm actually keen to do - may have something to do with the freedom to choose and research my own topic. On a broad scale, I'm thinking of looking into contributing factors to aggression, or perhaps to specific classes of criminal - still figuring out what I want to narrow mine down to. The bullying aspect has piqued my interest, but I have already done some research into juvenile aggression, so I don't really want to cover the same ground twice. Ho-hum!

While I'm on the topic of aggression, it never fails to annoy me (just a tad) that the general response when I voice that I am interested in studying aggression and criminal behaviour, is for people to say "Oh, I bet you watch all those crime shows on TV - SVU, CSI, NCIS?"

I only watch NCIS, and purely for the comedic value. And the brilliant role that Pauley Perrette plays.

Weeks 1 & 2: Lectures and tute
I really enjoyed last week's tute; it was certainly a different way to get to know one another. I was surprised at the amount of people in the tute - definitely the biggest one I've been in so far. Glad there are no presentations in this unit! It was nice to see some originality on the part of the lecturers/tutors. I did notice that some people seemed slightly offended by some of the topics, and categories that we were separated in to - from what I saw/heard; identifying relationship status seemed to ruffle a few feathers. I found it interesting that, while James selected the broad topic, it was the students that really defined the categories that we were fitting ourselves into, and yet a few people were still sniffy about the category that they put themselves in. I did enjoy collaborating with others on the 'what do you know/what don't you know/how would you define s.p' exercise, and I've come to these conclusions:

1. I don't know a lot.

2. I would like to know a lot. I would particularly like to look more into the mob mentality and the impact it can have on individual judgement.

3. I figure S.P as the study of behaviour and interactions relating to groups and individuals.

Also quite enjoyed discussing essay topics, simply due to the broad range of interests that people have. One man's trash is another one's treasure (not quite the best metaphor, but you get the idea).

I haven't been going to the lectures as I have a tutorial clash, but I have been listening to them online. I haven't really developed any strong opinions on the topic yet, but I've found what's been mentioned so far to be incredibly interesting, particularly the topics that discuss psychological and social abnormalities (Post-World War II atrocities, serial and violent offenders, etc). The statistics and background provided in the first lecture (which I did go to) on the planetary system and world population growth etc were really interesting - not quite what I was expecting to be discussed in a social psych lecture. I must admit that, being the first week, I wasn't really switched on enough to really enjoy the whole lecture - I did zone out a bit while we were going through all the basic, introductory stuff. Left a bit early to get to another class and missed out on the research participation bit, so I'm kicking myself for that. Just went up and check the psych board/office today for something and there's bugger all. Hoping I can get enough RRP to meet requirements between this and M&E (6hrs all up, grr. Thought I'd left RRP behind in first year).

Listened to the second lecture online during the week while I was getting ready for work, but I just had it playing as I was running around getting myself ready, so unfortunately I didn't really take in that much. I’ll have to sort something better out in the future. Did catch the bits about people overestimating their attributes and ability to control situations - isn't there some truth in that! I didn't have time to look at the slides whilst listening to the lecture recordings, but did go over them the next day at work, and I was a bit disappointed to find that nothing on the slides really jogged my memory.

Sensory deprivation on the radio
I don't know how many of you have heard of this yet, but it was news to me.

I was listening to fm104.7 last night (rare in itself, I'm normally a Triple J person) and was interested to learn that the fm104.7 crew are running a sort of sensory deprivation experiment all this week. Basically, they've put a 30-something mum in a white room that contains the bare neccessities, ie, a bed. The challenge is for this woman to last out 5 days and 4 nights in this room alone, with no stimulation, but with whatever crazy annoyances the radio team throws in. As of last night, when she entered the room, they had put 10 stick insects in the room, had a consistently flickering flurescent light and a 24-hr continuous looped recording of Richard Reid's hyena-laugh. Sounds pretty painful, and that was all just in the first twenty minutes of her being in there.

It's not a true set-up, as I'm pretty sure she will be giving updates on the radio at regular intervals, so there is going to be some form of human interaction, but it will certainly be interesting to keep tabs on her progress during the week, and it seems fairly reminiscent of the Big Brother "white room".

On the plus side, if she can last the week, she'll win $10,000, so there's a bit of incentive!

Ghosts of Rwanda, followed by an amusing clip
After having watched the Ghosts of Rwanda video, I have to admit that I wasn't shocked. For what is a generally considered a highly emotional topic, I experienced very little emotional response to the graphics and dialouge. I talked to a few people in the week 4 tute, and this seemed to be the common response as well. I questioned a few friends, family, and workmates about it a few days later as well, and from what I noticed, the younger generation (no disrespect intended) could discuss the genocide and politics of it without getting worked up, whereas older people were more opinionated, and generally just got more emotional and heated. And then there were some very unconcerned and unaware people...one person didn't even know where Rwanda was.

Generally, the younger people (I'll be honest, I know some of my friends and family are pretty uninterested in world events and current affairs, so for this purpose, I'm excluding them) were the who could discuss the ins and outs of the topic while remaining quite detached, whereas those a couple of generations up couldn't. Just goes to show how much technology has desensitised us.

...

And now for something lighter - a funny video!

I recently found this clip on YouTube - someone's got a great sense of humour! We all know there's some "type" of people that we go out of our way to avoid in public - this one reminds me of the woman that used to dance through one of the main streets in Florey around the time that school got out (minus the Walkman and fluro spandex).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nry3o98eH4M

The video I can't remember the name of...
But it was the Jane Elliot one. I don’t think there was much in this experiment that majorly surprised me, or challenged my perceptions, per se. It more confirmed the social roles that people adopt when in group and/or high-pressure environments. The intense emotional reactions were interesting, I think possibly more because they were so typically American (read: over the top), and I wasn't really expecting such a display of emotions in a televised experiment (oh, come on, who am I kidding?). I was mildly surprised that the guy at the start actually walked out – although my conclusion is that he did so out of sheer arrogance at being knocked down off his high horse, rather then opposing to the underlying theme of the experiment. I mean, honestly, surely they had an inkling of what they had agreed to participate in – if it’s not your cup of tea, why bother? And people scorn generation X and Y-ers from not committing…

I will look up her original "brown eyed, blue eyed" experiment (I wonder what they did to those poor green-eyed kids? They don't even get the privilege of being discriminated against, they just get ignored. Shunted off to another class, I imagine).

Week 12: Tute
Loved the Hugh MacKay audio. The jumps in the script kind of distracted me from listening, so I ended up giving up trying to follow the jumbled script to listen. The downside is that when something interesting, or important, came up, I had no idea where it was to mark it down. The comment on the falling marriage rate was spot on – that young Australians have grown up in an environment of constant change, as opposed to older generations where stability was the rule. Takes me back to my Family Law tutes a few years ago, when the tutor (not naming names) mentioned that approximately 49% of marriages end in divorce (that was current, in 2006). I haven’t forgotten the uproar that created in the tute – having grown up in a society where divorce doesn’t even rate as gossip, I was rather amazed at the scorn that statistic received from the older members of the tute, in particular, the few who were still married and never gone through divorce. I remember that camp blaming the younger generations, and someone (not sure who) said that “young ones (current 30’s and younger) didn’t appreciate commitment, and weren’t brought up to handle or commit to something long-term, apart from familial relationships” (or something along those lines). On the other hand, those that had a divorce or two under their belt were every bit as blasé as the young ‘uns. I remember that we had a couple of “young ‘uns” in the class who were very, very outspoken (completely opposite of me here), and one of the guys said that it wasn’t that younger generations were more reckless, or take things less seriously, it was that there wasn’t the societal pressure of having to stick something that was less than functional out, which was a totally fair call. Which caused a stink again. I’m fairly certain the class ended with a very uneasy “agree to disagree” treaty.

Anyway, Hugh MacKay, great lecture/audio/tute exercise, would like to hear it again, this time without a jumbled transcript to distract me. The concepts of social capital (being desireable) and social disengagement (being undesireable) were interesting. I beleive it was mentioned in the MacKay lecture that while humans have become quite socially disengaged in terms of, ie, living arrangements (one and two person households being incredibly common), we are actively seeking engagement and involvement as well, such as joining team activities (sports), and taking up group hobbies (say, cooking classes).

When I left class, I looked back on the poster that my little group had done up, on promoting personal responsibility by using recyclable/disposable shopping bags and realised how hard it was to come up with an original idea, that wasn’t at least based or inspired by something else. In the end, I ripped off the basis of the Commonwealth Bank’s rewards-for-dollars program and Aldi’s tough-love bag policy (which I completely and absolutely love). Anyway, the approach for our solution was derived from the theory on operant conditioning. Which, to my knowledge, didn't really come up in Social Psych.

As far as I’m aware, no group was awarded that fictitious “grant” either.

Aggression, Attitudes and Anti-Social Behaviour
I’ve spent the last fortnight reading the textbook, and I’m pleased to say I actually *gasp* enjoyed it (OK, not all of it, but most of it). I know I’m ratting myself out here, but for someone who hasn’t read anything more than the glossary in her textbooks for the last two years, I think that’s quite a compliment. Predictably, the chapter on Attitudes and Aggression ranked in at Number 1 on the interest scale. The top points of interest are:

1.	Armin Meiwes. I’d already heard about this case, but the difference in perspective and reporting style between the textbook and whatever late night, murder mystery show I was watching? To quote MasterCard, “priceless”. While I wasn’t initially sure if I’d have classed Miewes’ crime as an act of aggression or not (I tend to think of more spur of the moment crimes like assault and rape as acts of aggression), the definition of an act of aggression was rather enlightening. It helped me make sense why I was undecided on the nature of Miewes’ crime (but was it really a crime if it was entered into willingly? To my mind, it was a case of assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia. Was it not carrying out someone’ final wish, with their full consent and blessing?). I agreed with the authors definitions/features of aggression as a behaviour, not am emotion; that aggression is intentional and intended to inflict harm; and that the victim wants to avoid the harm, and in light of those definitions, then yes, Miewes’ crime doesn’t class as an act of aggression. Great example.

2.	The debate on whether aggression is innate or learned (the eternal battle, nature vs. nurture). As with N v N, I tend to go towards 50/50. The influences and drives co-exist. The whole theory and the surrounding debate are fascinating. The photos of the kids going psycho are something else. The look of unadulterated enjoyment on the girls face in the second picture, last row (p.298) is unbelievably creepy. She looks like one of those kids that pull the wings of flies for the fun of it.

3.	The inner causes of aggression, particularly frustration (which incidentally, goes hand in hand with being in a bad mood). As I work in a call centre (a government one too – everyone likes to bitch about the public servants when things go wrong, no matter what department they’re in, what their role is of the sheer relevance of their job to you, the callers, problem). I tentatively agree with those who believe that Miller et al.’s theory was overstated (key word: always) – there can be aggression without frustration (I mean, getting punched in the face doesn’t get you frustrated, but it sure does make you want to retaliate). The suggestion that there can be frustration without aggression is valid too, but this is where I have trouble translating. Frustration in me personally tends to bring on aggressive thoughts (but hang on, aggression wasn’t a cognitive process, say the authors!), whether it’s frustration having to repeat myself for the tenth time in two minutes on a call, or the frustration of having my computer spaz and delete my entire social psychology essay 38 hours before it was due (yes, this happened. I didn’t hand it in at 4am Monday morning without doing a final spell check for the hell of it). I may not act, or even talk, aggressively, but in my head, there is the teensiest bit of intention to inflict harm.

I'd also never considered cheating as an anti-social behaviour. I'd rather associated it with laziness, or lack of preparedness or confidence. Learn something new everyday.

Other favourite chapters included Attraction and Exclusion (jealousy and possessiveness), Prejudice and Inter-group Relations (stereotyping), and Groups (de-individualisation and mob violence, and punishing cheaters and free riders, or loafers, as I like to call them).

Reflections on Childhood Bullying, and Aggression in general
So, I did my essay on bullying, specifically what the causes and consequences of childhood bullying where/are. I originally started with bullying in general, but found 95% of the literature focused solely on bullying in the school yard. It seemed rather logical to narrow it down to this, as I think the initial question was far too broad for such a small essay, word count wise (would really have loved to be able to have thrown another 1,000 words in there, James). Of particular inters to me were the gender differences between the styles or types of bullying (in being a bully, not necessarily a victim, although it reinforced my belief that girls are just so incredibly devious), and the consequences that have on each gender. My favourite line was one broached in Milgram (1974), who stated that some children are just evil (hence why they bully). It was quite refreshing and uncensored, doubly so after trawling through tens of suffocatingly scholarly articles that seemed to be acting as a mediator between bully and victim.

I found the topic very interesting, but not much of a challenge. Information was readily available, and there were few discrepancies between findings, conclusions, observations, opinions. It did surprise me that bullies by proxy were mentioned relatively few times – I found this to be of special interest, probably because of the motivational and social influences that those around can have on someone who is perhaps weaker willed, compelling them to take part actively in something they fear or loathe. The one thing I am disappointed in with my essay is that I don’t believe I pulled it off as a review of the literature, when comparing to the style and language of other recent review articles I read. If there had been a higher word count allowance (say, 5,000) I would have liked to evolve from looking just at the causes and consequences of childhood bullying, to a more detailed insight into the incidence rates of children, adolescents and adults who had been involved in bullying and crime (both petty and serious).

I can’t honestly say one group interested me more than the others – I found victims, bullies, bully-victims, bullies by proxy and bystanders all equally fascinating, and would dearly have loved to have been able to explore them each in more depth. Being able to research topics I am genuinely interested in is a great reminder of why I came to uni – and has certainly helped keep me here!! I think every research assignment that has come as a pleasure to do, rather than a burden or chore, has had something to do with criminality and anti-social or aggressive behaviours or deeds. I think this topic is something I can link back to earlier research assignments dealing with aggressive and anti-social behaviour in children and teenagers, whether it’s restorative justice or mental capacity, and I fully intend to go back over my old stuff with this new knowledge in mind, and see if there isn’t something that I would perhaps change or query.

Just out of interest: finishing up on serial killers
I was a bit miffed that someone else appropriated my topic for the essay (that’ll teach me for voicing ideas aloud in class), so once I finished my essay on my second choice topic, I did a bit of reading for myself on topics of interest, while masquerading as help my friend’s kid sister with her year 12 presentation on Hannibal Lecter and relating it to theories appropriate for a college class (in the end, I got too technical and engrossed to be of any real use – I progressed from Wikipedia to EBSCOhost and Expanded Academic. Wikipedia is, by the way, my new favourite time-waster. You can’t stop just at one topic’s page.).

I hopped on to Expanded and was surprised by the amount of scholarly articles devoted top picking apart how serial killers are portrayed in the media – fictitious movies, in particular. For instance, Greenberg’s (2004) (short) critical essay documenting Aileen Wuornous’ killing spree of truckies in Florida, and the later representations of Wuornous-inspired characters in Monster and Thelma and Louise, and representations and theories on female serial killers in general. The theme of serial killers being represented in the media and in fiction are also discussed in Goldberg’s and Crespo (2003), with a focus on the movie Copycat. Sundelson (1993) focused entirely on The Silence of the Lambs.

EBSCO was a bit more helpful, in terms with theories and real-life cases, etc, as opposed to elaborate movie reviews. Clinicide came up as a form of serial killing, being the unnatural death of multiple patients by a doctor, which is really quite interesting. Kaplan (2007) is well worth a read. Dr Marcel Petiot (France) was the original clinicitition (I know that’s not a word), and incidentally the worst serial killer in French history. Doctors from Britain and the US also get a special mention. Kaplan’s theory was that many clinicians have highly narcissistic personalities (so do bullies!), and have a grandiose view of themselves, or a God-complex over wielding the power over life and death. Winter (2007) discussed tight construing; violence as “slot rattling” (a process constructed at the opposite pole to which it was assigned); violence as an absolution of guilt, shame avoidance, and a dedicated act; and aggressive and hostile violence, as pathways to violence and homicide. Personal construct theory was the focus here, and the offender’s perceptions of their actions when compared to the degree of consistency in the behaviours and their constructions of the self and the world.

Makes for good bedtime reading, really.

title: User:Jodes~enwikiversity


text:
Optimal classification/Application Examples

Flag Recognition
(A flag identification example from Neural Network Identification example.)

Although the following example lacks an intuitive sense of optimization it serves as a good example of how optimization can reduce the number of queries. While the method of optimal classification is highly beneficial for reducing the number of queries required for manual identification, automated identification may be better served by use of a neural network.

Flag overlay grid
Designated areas (characteristics) for sampling background colors (states) of all flags (elements).

The overlay is used to determine the color of each area for each flag and the color is recorded in the table as the logical state of the area. The table data is then submitted to the optimization program and processed until an optimal empirical separatory value is obtained.

Data set
FLAGS/LOC,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I BELGIUM,BLACK,YELLOW,ORANGE,BLACK,YELLOW,ORANGE,BLACK,YELLOW,ORANGE FRANCE,BLUE,WHITE,RED,BLUE,WHITE,RED,BLUE,WHITE,RED GERMANY,BLACK,BLACK,BLACK,RED,RED,RED,YELLOW,YELLOW,YELLOW IRELAND,GREEN,WHITE,ORANGE,GREEN,WHITE,ORANGE,GREEN,WHITE,ORANGE ITALY,GREEN,WHITE,RED,GREEN,WHITE,RED,GREEN,WHITE,RED JAPAN,WHITE,WHITE,WHITE,WHITE,RED,WHITE,WHITE,WHITE,WHITE LUXEMBOURG,RED,RED,RED,WHITE,WHITE,WHITE,BABY,BABY,BABY NETHERLANDS,RED,RED,RED,WHITE,WHITE,WHITE,BLUE,BLUE,BLUE SPAIN,RED,RED,RED,YELLOW,YELLOW,YELLOW,RED,RED,RED

Systematic query
Starting with area "A" the query begins by asking for the color in this area of the flag. Suppose we have in our possession the flag of the Netherlands. The answer to the first query in regard to area "A" is RED which would remove 2/3 of the flags from further consideration. The next query for the color in area "B" would be RED which would serve to eliminate none of the remaining flags. In fact, since the colors in columns "D", "E" and "F" are the same for each remaining flag, we would not be able to eliminate any remaining flags until column "G" where the color BLUE would provide a unique answer to the final necessary query. Here all remaining flags except the flag of the Netherlands would be eliminated from further consideration. It would therefore take a minimum of seven queries using the systematic query method to establish the identity of the flag in our possession as belonging to the Netherlands.

Minimized query
The results of optimization are shown above and include a listing of the theoretical and empirical percentages. The original characteristic sequence is indexed in the bottom row. Starting with area "G" the query begins by asking for the color in this area of the flag. Suppose we have in our possession the flag of Ireland. The answer to this first query would be GREEN. The next query is for the color in area "F" to which we would answer ORANGE. Since no other flags have this combination of GREEN and ORANGE in these areas our query can end here. The minimized query algorithm has optimized the order of characteristics and minimized the number of queries that are required to identify the flag. (Please note that there may be more than one optimal solution.)


text:
User:Freshman

Developing a Polychotomous Key

 * Decision table
 * Harvard Chart Method
 * Multi-valued Logical Equation Reduction

 * Optimization
 * Check sort

 * Polychotomous Key

title: User:Freshman