This is less discussion-worthy subjects, just stuff I found kind of cool.
Research by Goldstein et. al focused on teaching video games to elderly people, aged 70 and up. They found interesting beneficial effects on cognitive abilities that have yet to be studied - while uncertain, it seems video games can actually be especially healthy for the elderly. Sadly, the study doesn't specify what video games they were, but it warms my heart to imagine 80+ Americans playing WWII-games and reliving old memories.
Furthermore, I found a scientific definition of "identity" - pretty fun to read about. It's defined, at least in the book I'm reading, as: 1) Social groups that we identify ourselves as members of. These include gender and ethnicity. 2) Personal characteristics in the form of adjectives, such as "smart" or "friendly" and 3) Goals and values.
They are, apparently, ranked in order of importance - and bear in mind that relationships count as "groups", so that "girlfriend" can be a very central part of your identity. If we're to define identity by this fashion, discrete categories seem to be a lot more important than what feels instinctively right - but there is an alluring simplicity in this way of treating identity. I can see how it works scientifically.
Finally, related to the daycare issue, in part 1 - some states of the US require parents who divorce to go to family therapy - not necessarily to mend their marriage, but to help the children get through this traumatic event. I think this is a law that should be applauded - why don't we have something like this? A law that requires parents to make sure the kid is more or less okay in a divorce situation? Or do we?
My source for all these snippets of trivia is called "Psychology - The Science of Mind and Behavior" by Michael Passer and Ronald Smith, International Edition.
Visar inlägg med etikett Triviabot. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Triviabot. Visa alla inlägg
tisdag 19 februari 2008
Trivia Time - Part 1
Filling the Internet with useless trivia since 1647.
I've been studying more psychology, and I've hit a veritable gold mine of things to discuss or just blurt out in conversation to appear clever and intelligent. Though I prefer the former, I don't mind the latter, and these issues definitely interest me.
The real issue I was going to discuss is actually an interesting cultural difference between the US and Sweden; I read an American study about the influence of daycare on pre-school children. A while back, this was a hot topic in Swedish politics - I dunno, it might still be. The interesting thing is that in Sweden, the focus was on how being reared in a "social environment", as in a "dagis", would help a child's development. The American study, au contraire, discussed how being raised in a daycare center may harm a child's development.
The study reached the conclusion that exposure to daycare centres is more or less harmless for a child, with a notable effect saying that there is a slightly larger risk to develop anxiety if there's no regular teacher to bond to - that is, public daycare causes anxiety if and only if the teachers are replaced "often" - I didn't find the operational definition of how often this would be, unfortunately.
What's interesting isn't the study in itself, but the cultural backdrop against which the questions occur. Swedes presume that daycare is good, the question is only how good it is. The American point of view was diametrically opposed, asking how bad it is. The American study found no beneficial effects of daycare - though of course, they weren't looking for it. Swedish studies might find something.
I'm not saying psychology is inherently flawed - but it's interesting to see how large a factor culture can be.
Which leads me to my second bit of trivia - research on gender identity. Now, children learn things in pretty odd ways, so this is in no way conclusive evidence that gender is "fluid" - but it turns out that many children are incapable of grasping the idea that gender is constant until the age of about 6. While they very quickly understand the difference between boys and girls, many believe it can change - boys want to grow up to become mothers, and can't understand why this is impossible. This study is pretty interesting; there are huge biological differences between men and women, but it is possible that it's hard for a "blank slate" individual to instinctively associate these differences with what's between your legs. Interesting evidence that gender roles may, in fact, be a social construct (though remember, children learn things in peculiar ways). Some children never fully adopt gender constancy - these are likely to keep viewing gender as relatively fluid all the way into adulthood.
I've been studying more psychology, and I've hit a veritable gold mine of things to discuss or just blurt out in conversation to appear clever and intelligent. Though I prefer the former, I don't mind the latter, and these issues definitely interest me.
The real issue I was going to discuss is actually an interesting cultural difference between the US and Sweden; I read an American study about the influence of daycare on pre-school children. A while back, this was a hot topic in Swedish politics - I dunno, it might still be. The interesting thing is that in Sweden, the focus was on how being reared in a "social environment", as in a "dagis", would help a child's development. The American study, au contraire, discussed how being raised in a daycare center may harm a child's development.
The study reached the conclusion that exposure to daycare centres is more or less harmless for a child, with a notable effect saying that there is a slightly larger risk to develop anxiety if there's no regular teacher to bond to - that is, public daycare causes anxiety if and only if the teachers are replaced "often" - I didn't find the operational definition of how often this would be, unfortunately.
What's interesting isn't the study in itself, but the cultural backdrop against which the questions occur. Swedes presume that daycare is good, the question is only how good it is. The American point of view was diametrically opposed, asking how bad it is. The American study found no beneficial effects of daycare - though of course, they weren't looking for it. Swedish studies might find something.
I'm not saying psychology is inherently flawed - but it's interesting to see how large a factor culture can be.
Which leads me to my second bit of trivia - research on gender identity. Now, children learn things in pretty odd ways, so this is in no way conclusive evidence that gender is "fluid" - but it turns out that many children are incapable of grasping the idea that gender is constant until the age of about 6. While they very quickly understand the difference between boys and girls, many believe it can change - boys want to grow up to become mothers, and can't understand why this is impossible. This study is pretty interesting; there are huge biological differences between men and women, but it is possible that it's hard for a "blank slate" individual to instinctively associate these differences with what's between your legs. Interesting evidence that gender roles may, in fact, be a social construct (though remember, children learn things in peculiar ways). Some children never fully adopt gender constancy - these are likely to keep viewing gender as relatively fluid all the way into adulthood.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)