Skip to main content

Home/ wicpsycho/ Group items tagged achievement.

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Daryl Bambic

Why Kids Care More About Achievement Than Helping Others - The Atlantic - 0 views

  • Empathy activates conscience and moral reasoning, improves happiness, curbs bullying and aggression, enhances kindness and peer inclusiveness, reduces prejudice and racism, promotes heroism and moral courage and boosts relationship satisfaction. Empathy is a key ingredient of resilience, the foundation to trust, the benchmark of humanity, and core to everything that makes a society civilized.
    • Daryl Bambic
       
      Do you agree that empathy is the key ingredient to the individual's happiness?
  • parents value achievement and happiness over empathy and caring.
  •  
    Why Kids Care More About Achievement Than Helping Others https://t.co/5EkY8AKFdv Empathy is core to civilized society #edwrdsb #wrdsblearns
Daryl Bambic

Nine Steps to Achieving Flow in Your Work | Greater Good - 0 views

  • Put simply, it’s a state of mind you achieve when you’re fully immersed in a task, forgetting about the outside world. It’s a concept proposed by positive psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, and these days you’re likely to read about it on blogs and in all kinds of magazines.
  • e the ability to single-task (as opposed to multi-task) is one of the keys to true productivity.
    • Daryl Bambic
       
      Why would "unitasking" as opposed to multitasking help produce more 'flow' experiences?  Answer in response to this sticky note and remember to bookmark it to the wicpsycho group.
    • Jordyn Shell
       
      I believe it would produced a flow in experience because your mind would be concentrated on one task at hand rather than trying to do a million little things at once. It also allows you to focus more and to have a better understanding of your work when you are doing one thing at a time.
    • Matthew Schaffer
       
      Uni-Tasking will produce more flow because when you focus on one task only, there are no distractions from other activities. While uni-tasking, you are able to focus on a single task, which then allows you to get it done without any stress. 
    • Chrissy Le
       
      Uni-tasking can help produce more "flow" because it means that your brain is concentrating on one single thing as opposed to being scattered everywhere. When you multitask your attention is cut short every time you switch over to your next activity, this will prevent you from completing your true ideas and will stop you from thinking them through.
    • Joe Inhaber
       
      Unitasking as opposed to multitasking would help produce more flow experience because when you are unitasking, you are focusing on only one thing, and you wouldnt be distracted by anything else. This would keep you on task making it more of a flow like experience
    • Emilie L
       
      Like this article suggests, "quality over quantity". When you're so focused on getting several things done, it becomes harder to focus because your main objective is to get it done-it doesn't matter to what degree or quality it is, just do it. What uni tasking allows is the utter focus on "doing" something, singular, without the hassle of trying to get one thing done after another. Unitasking allows your entire mind, and heart too, to go into this one task- hence, zen.
    • Marie-Lise Pagé
       
      Unitasking will help to produce the flow experience becaue you only focus on one thing so your mind will not be thinking about other things while you are working. When you focus on one thing it can be done faster.
    • mauromongiat
       
      It is because when unitasking your mind is focused on only a single task. So when you focus on a single task the brain does not need to think about other tasks as in the case of multitasking. We get more flow unitasking because we are not distracted by the other task in multitasking.
    • kelsey sazant
       
      Unitasking would be more productive and create flow because we can manage to concentrate on only that one thing. When we multitask, we cannot achieve flow because we are trying to concentrate on more than just one thing. Flow can only be centred around one thing at a time, not a multitude of things at once. 
    • vince chatigny-barbosa
       
      By focusing on one activity at a time, you not only produce better quality work, but it gives the illusion that your work load is not so great. When you try and multi-task, it seems as if the work is overwhelming. Doing one thing at a time seems more organized and realistic.
    • Lauren Ganze
       
      Unitasking allows the brain to focus on one thing, blocking out exterior noises and such. Concentrating on a single task would greatly reduce the number of things that successfully distract you, allowing you to achieve Flow and successfully completing a difficult task. Also, doing a single thing instead of switching between many the whole day will encourage actual important work.
    • Julian Pendenza
       
      I believe that unitasking helps produce more flow because it allows you to focus more on just one task. By doing this, you put more effort in that one task and it allows you to perform better. By focusing on just one task, its easier to block off everything around you and you are distracted as easily as you would be while multitasking.
    • Eli Michon
       
      When you focus on one thing, you can do that one thing better and not "half-assed" (pardon my french) As they say, Jack of all trades, master of none. If you are trying to do many things at once, each of those things is gonna be less well done than if you were just working towards one goal.
    • Giuliano Musacchio
       
      In my opinion unitasking would produce more flow because instead of focusing on many different situations, one will be more concentrated on a specific activity. It allows one to clear away from distractions, be satisfied with their work and helps us with our understanding
Emilie L

The Mind of the Narcissist - 0 views

    • Emilie L
       
      himself vs. reflection: major point
  • Some people explicitly state that they do not love themselves at all (they are ego-dystonic). Others confine their lack of self-love to certain of their traits, to their personal history, or to some of their behaviour patterns. Yet others feel content with who they are and with what they are doing (ego-syntonic). But one group of people seems distinct in its mental constitution – narcissists.
    • Emilie L
       
      * keyword: distinct mental constitution (that differs from all the different kinds of confidence kinda brain traits)
  • Some people explicitly state that they do not love themselves at all (they are ego-dystonic).
  • ...40 more annotations...
  • Narcissus is not in love with himself. He is in love with his reflection
  • Loving your True Self is healthy, adaptive, and functional. Loving a reflection has two major drawbacks: One depends on the existence and availability of the reflection to produce the emotion of self-love. The absence of a "compass", an "objective and realistic yardstick", by which to judge the authenticity of the reflection. In other words, it is impossible to tell whether the reflection is true to reality – and, if so, to what extent.
  • they direct their love to other people's impressions of them. He who loves only impressions is incapable of loving people, himself included.
  • If he cannot love himself – he must love his reflection
  • ut to love his reflection – it must be loveable
  • the narcissist is preoccupied with projecting a loveable image, albeit compatible with his self-image (the way he "sees" himself).
  • The more successful this projected image (or series of successive images) is in generating Narcissistic Supply (NS) – the more the narcissist becomes divorced from his True Self and married to the image.
    • Emilie L
       
      Meaning, the better he is capable of mentally creating better image for himself in the eyes of others (therefore his 'reflection') the more he becomes 'in love' with the idea of himself then who he truly is
  • he prefers his image
  • The narcissist, therefore, is not selfish – because his True Self is paralysed and subordinate
    • Emilie L
       
      * very good point
  • narcissist is not attuned exclusively to his needs. On the contrary: he ignores them because many of them conflict with his ostensible omnipotence and omniscience. He does not put himself first – he puts his self last. He caters to the needs and wishes of everyone around him – because he craves their love and admiration. It is through their reactions that he acquires a sense of distinct self. In many ways he annuls himself – only to re-invent himself through the look of others. He is the person most insensitive to his true needs.
  • rains himself of mental energy in this process. This is why he has none left to dedicate to others
    • Emilie L
       
      he is so focused in pleasing everyone else to this image that he has no time to dedicate himself to others = lack of empathy
  • Why should people indulge the narcissist, divert time and energy, give him attention, love and adulation? The narcissist's answer is simple: because he is entitled to it
  • Actually, he feels betrayed, discriminated against and underprivileged because he believes that he is not being treated fairly, that he should get more than he does
  • Clinical data show that there is rarely any realistic basis for these grandiose notions of greatness and uniqueness.
    • Emilie L
       
      meaning there is nothing really extravagant or particular about them that they should (or could even be really driven!!) to be narcissistic 
  • The narcissist is forced to use other people in order to feel that he exists
  • He is a habitual "people-junkie"
  • With time, he comes to regard those around him as mere instruments of gratification, as two-dimensional cartoon figures with negligible lines in the script of his magnificent life.
    • Emilie L
       
      bases his own happiness on what others are doing around him + their reflection of him
  • A personality whose very existence is a derivative of its reflection in other people's minds is perilously dependent on these people's perceptions. They are the Source of Narcissistic Supply (NSS). Criticism and disapproval are interpreted as a sadistic withholding of said supply and as a direct threat to the narcissist's mental house of cards.
  • The narcissist does not suffer from a faulty sense of causation. He is not oblivious to the likely outcomes of his actions and to the price he may have to pay. But he doesn't care.
  • he reacts to what he perceives to be a danger to the very cohesion of his self. Thus, every minor disagreement with a Source of Narcissistic Supply – another person – is interpreted as a threat to the narcissist's very self-worth.
    • Emilie L
       
      * big point
  • He would rather discern disapproval and unjustified criticism where there are none then face the consequences of being caught off-guard.
  • that the narcissist cannot take chances. He would rather be mistaken then remain without Narcissistic Supply
  • blames others for his behaviour
    • Emilie L
       
      again, lack of humility
  • The narcissist – wittingly or not – utilises people to buttress his self-image and to regulate his sense of self-worth. As long and in as much as they are instrumental in achieving these goals, he holds them in high regard, they are valuable to him
  • This is a result of his inability to love others: he lacks empathy, he thinks utility, and, thus, he reduces others to mere instruments
  • In 1977 the DSM-III criteria included: An inflated valuation of oneself (exaggeration of talents and achievements, demonstration of presumptuous self-confidence); Interpersonal exploitation (uses others to satisfy his needs and desires, expects preferential treatment without undertaking mutual commitments); Possesses expansive imagination (externalises immature and non-regimented fantasies, "prevaricates to redeem self-illusions"); Displays supercilious imperturbability (except when the narcissistic confidence is shaken), nonchalant, unimpressed and cold-blooded; Defective social conscience (rebels against the conventions of common social existence, does not value personal integrity and the rights of other people).
    • Emilie L
       
      1977 Criteria to Narcissistics * very interesting, gives personality traits + actions 
  • He sees them only through this lens.
  • The narcissist is portrayed as a monster, a ruthless and exploitative person. Yet, inside, the narcissist suffers from a chronic lack of confidence and is fundamentally dissatisfied. This applies to all narcissists. The distinction between "compensatory" and "classic" narcissists is spurious. All narcissists are walking scar tissue, the outcomes of various forms of abuse.
    • Emilie L
       
      strong on the outside, weak on the inside * contradicts with the other article I read earlier..
  • Freud (1915) offered a trilateral model of the human psyche, composed of the Id, the Ego, and the Superego.
    • Emilie L
       
      * find further research
  • According to Freud, narcissists are dominated by their Ego to such an extent that the Id and Superego are neutralised. Early in his career, Freud believed narcissism to be a normal developmental phase between autoeroticism and object-love. Later on, he concluded that linear development can be thwarted by the very efforts we all make in our infancy to evolve the capacity to love an object (another person).
  • The frustrated and abused child learns that the only "object" he can trust and that is always and reliably available, the only person he can love without being abandoned or hurt – is himself.
    • Emilie L
       
      ouuuu
  • This choice – to concentrate on the self – is the result of an unconscious decision to give up a consistently frustrating and unrewarding effort to love others and to trust them.
  • So, is pathological narcissism the outcome of verbal, sexual, physical, or psychological abuse (the overwhelming view) – or, on the contrary, the sad result of spoiling the child and idolising it (Millon, the late Freud)?
    • Emilie L
       
      What makes a narcissistic (i.e., triggers it?)
  • Overweening, smothering, spoiling, overvaluing, and idolising the child – are also forms of parental abuse.
    • Emilie L
       
      Too much love can apparently ruin a child
  • This is because, as Horney pointed out, the smothered and spoiled child is dehumanised and instrumentalised. His parents love him not for what he really is – but for what they wish and imagine him to be: the fulfilment of their dreams and frustrated wishes. The child becomes the vessel of his parents' discontented lives, a tool, the magic airbrush with which they seek to transform their failures into successes, their humiliation into victory, their frustrations into happiness. The child is taught to give up on reality and adopt the parental fantasies. Such an unfortunate child feels omnipotent and omniscient, perfect and brilliant, worthy of adoration and entitled to special treatment. The faculties that are honed by constantly brushing against bruising reality – empathy, compassion, a realistic assessment of one's abilities and limitations, realistic expectations of oneself and of others, personal boundaries, team work, social skills, perseverance and goal-orientation, not to mention the ability to postpone gratification and to work hard to achieve it – are all lacking or missing altogether. This kind of child turned adult sees no reason to invest resources in his skills and education, convinced that his inherent genius should suffice. He feels entitled for merely being, rather than for actually doing (rather as the nobility in days gone by felt entitled not by virtue of its merits but as the inevitable, foreordained outcome of its birth right). The narcissist is not meritocratic – but aristocratic.
    • Emilie L
       
      too much love explained: the child is smothered by love and thus thinks theres a reason for it nana the world revolves around me because mummy and Daddy think so I am there pride and joy, because I am in fact an angel... now look at me I am a narcissitic and it's like a legit mental disorder.
  • This is Millon's mistake. He makes a distinction between several types of narcissists. He wrongly assumes that the "classic" narcissist is the outcome of parental overvaluation, idolisation, and spoiling and, thus, is possessed of supreme, unchallenged, self-confidence, and is devoid of all self-doubt.
  • Yet, this distinction is both wrong and unnecessary. Psychodynamically, there is only one type of pathological narcissism – though there are two developmental paths to it. And all narcissists are besieged by deeply ingrained (though at times not conscious) feelings of inadequacy, fears of failure, masochistic desires to be penalised, a fluctuating sense of self-worth (regulated by NS), and an overwhelming sensation of fakeness.
    • Emilie L
       
      * much importanto: there is only reaaally one type of narcissism despite having two different paths to it i. too much love ii. not enough 
  • hey tend to ignore him – or actively abuse him – when these needs are no longer pressing or existent.
  • The narcissist's past of abuse teaches him to avoid deeper relationships in order to escape this painful approach-avoidance pendulum. Protecting himself from hurt and from abandonment, he insulates himself from people around him. He digs in – rather than spring out.
  • This shocking revelation deforms the budding Ego. The child forms a strong dependence (as opposed to attachment) on his parents. This dependence is really the outcome of fear, the mirror image of aggression. In Freud-speak (psychoanalysis) we say that the child is likely to develop accentuated oral fixations and regressions. In plain terms, we are likely to see a lost, phobic, helpless, raging child.
    • Emilie L
       
      child-like ego problems: strong dependence on parents creates a super vulnerable child
  •  
    "The World of the Narcissist (Essay)" - tons of information +lots to read through, primary resource! like a fountain of info on narcissists. Reliability: not many ads, written by a doctor (has his CV published online, http://samvak.tripod.com/cv.html), wrote two books- one of which is an "ebook"
Chrissy Le

Harvard Education Letter - 2 views

  • Behaviors like embracing novel experiences, supporting peers, even pestering parents for lessons can predict whether a child will emerge as a leader in adulthood, according to researchers who say they are the first to plot a pathway from childhood experiences to adult leadership.
  • new studies use longitudinal data
  • relative importance of factors such as the role of parents, inner motivational drive, intelligence, childhood social skills, and personality traits like extroversion
  • ...23 more annotations...
  • 106 subjects
  • one through age 29
  • everyday” leaders
  • “taking on the role of and engaging in the process of influencing others toward a common endeavor, goal or cause, regardless of designated formal position.
  • Researchers met with the children (and parents) twice a year for the first four years, then once a year through age 17 and once at 24 and again at 29.
  • 20 for each child
  • 18,000 variables
  • hat children as young as two reveal temperaments that predict for later leadership
  • novel situation
  • more extroverted, socially engaging and become everyday leaders.”
  • children who placed the most demands on teachers and parents to join or do activities were more likely to be leaders as adults.
  • quest to acquire new skills and knowledge
  • invested in and committed
  • parent’s support i
  • stronger motivation trumped higher IQ
  • She says the study offers a strong argument for schools “to do things fundamentally differently.
  • Carol S. Dweck
  • growth mindset
  • schools place such heavy emphasis on extrinsic rewards like test scores and classroom prizes that they risk stifling development of students’ inner drive.
    • Daryl Bambic
       
      What do you think?  Do you agree with this statement about schools reinforcing the extrinsic reward system?
    • Emilie L
       
      (after researching what "extrinsic" meant..) I agree with what Dweck and Adele Gottfriend observed- that we focus/reinforce exterior rewards like grades so greatly that students are at risk of losing their inner motivation. I think that especially in our youth we focus a lot numerical values like test scores and especially money (which, in the long run really do make up our future) so much, that we lack having motivation in what we truly want to do with ourselves. For example, at WIC, marks are a huge deal- however lets say, a top A student truly desires to become a photographer, yet, at school he or she is so convinced that they must do well within the 'extrinsic rewards' that they loose their passion. This isn't to say that it's a bad thing, but I think that often times who we are "meant to be" is diminished/over-shadowed by what society(SCHOOL) tells us we should do and focus on.
    • Julian Pendenza
       
      I do agree with this statement due to the fact that kids today have a lot of pressure and feel the need to get good marks, only because schools put heavy emphasis on it, and not because they are motivated. People have to realize that school is not just about getting good grades, but also it is about finding yourself and seeing what you would like to do in the future.
    • Marie-Lise Pagé
       
      I agree that teens focus a lot on their marks and that they don't take the time to get invovle in after school's activities. Because they need to have good marks to go to College, they have so much pressure to be one of the best students and that prevents them to show their leadership by being in charge of some activities in their school or in the community. Also, the marks give them an idea of how good they are at something and it makes them proud and they know it will help them for the future because it will be easier to get accepted in Cegep. However, when they get involve in an activity the reward is not numerical so they don't know that it will help them in the future.
    • Matthew Schaffer
       
      I do agree, I think schools want students to be academicaly knowledgable that they forget about the "street smarts" as we say. However, not all schools do this. Schools like WIC have a huge variety of E.C.A's that we can also get rewarded for. There is the new tie that shows how good of an athelete you are. SOme schools are taking the step up, however it is true that most schools look to closely into the academics of a child and not into their personality.
    • Ally Talarico
       
      I do not agree with this statement. I think that the reward system teaches discipline. It teaches that if you want good marks and you want to succeed, you must work hard by putting time and effort into your school books. Much of the time, we are graded on creativity but in some cases like Math class, a teacher cannot give a grade on the growth of one's mindset when the answer is not subjective. The grading system is not broken, so why are we trying to fix it? In my opinion, I think this is just another psychological fad like many. 
    • mauromongiat
       
      I do agree that schools put a lot of emphasis on grades and that our educational system is based on students getting better grades. Schools focus too much on the grades of each student. To be able to succeed in a career two things must be achieved the intelligence or knowledge and the ambition for success. In our schools we cannot only teach one part of the road to success, we must also encourage students to follow in what they want and to dedicate everything to it. With motivation and the drive to succeed people can achieve almost anything and we must teach that being motivated for a subject is better than having the smarts for it. Success comes with motivation and perseverance without them there is no way you can become successful. 
    • Camil Darwiche
       
      Personally, I don't agree with schools putting such emphasis on marks. But I can see where they are coming from. Later in life (cegep, university, etc.), students will be based on marks and not on enthusiasm or how they organize extra curricular activities. High school is supposed to prepare you for cegep and university. On the other hand, if all levels of schooling (from elementary school to university) were not based on extrinsic reward systems, there would be many more visionaries and independent workers coming out of school.
    • michelle tappert
       
      I agree with this statement because in my opinion, youth these days are focused on grades and numbers as motivation when we should be focusing on the reasons why we want to succeed. The reason why we focus on this is because of the influence for school but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are motivated. I believe that schools put too much emphasis on being "book smart" which is evidentially a good thing but they don't realize that that knowledge is only useful if they teach "street smarts" as well. It is important to be book smart and know all the facts but for kids to be motivated, they need to relate it to real life which is where the motivation should come from. 
    • Lauren Ganze
       
      I concur with the previous answers: schools tend to focus on pure knowledge and rewarding those who regurgitate memorized facts. The educational system usually ends up ignoring those who step up and try to use this knowledge, or dissuading them by giving them low marks and negative feedback until they conform to the system. We impress certain ideals and behaviours into children, and of this group of values, nourishing leadership is excluded in favour of teaching kids how to follow and how to work for immediate, physical rewards.
    • Julian Posteraro
       
      Yes I agree with this statement. The grading system holds back students from being open with their thoughts compared to what the teachers want them to think. Students should have freedom which would help them be more open minded. After school activities and natural intelligence are aspects that students can be good at outside of the classrooms. Success is based not only on grades, but on ambition, determination and perseverance also. 
    • Eli Michon
       
      I disagree. I believe that too much pressure on marks, awards, etc. leaves way too much pressure on the students. Being a student, I have experienced this many times and it can be quite unhealthy because stress is not a good thing for the mind or for the body.  -Eli Michon
    • Giuliano Musacchio
       
      I believe that this statement is true, we are free spirits, we should be able to think like free spirit students and have our own freedom! By taking initiative they are becoming leaders in their own way. Expressing yourself and following your thoughts is a huge part of today's society. What will our world be without students who can learn to eventually become leaders?
    • kelsey sazant
       
      I believe that schools rightfully put a large amount of emphasis on the academic results however this doesn't mean the other domains should be left behind. Grades and academic achievements are very important and schools should make this their main focus. This being said, I do feel as if most schools forget about the other aspects of an education. Schools should be able to cater to and identify with all of their students meaning that someone who isn't labeled as "smart" can still feel appreciated. Just because someone isn't academically gifted doesn't mean that they can not be successful. I think schools should reward their students for other things then just brain capacity. I think West Island College does a good job of that. Not only do we mark effort but we go as far as to commend students on various athletic skills, public speaking, helping the community (interact or green and grey). I think WIC does a good job of focusing on the well rounded student rather then just the one dimensional "genius" that most schools put up on a pedestal. As Albert Einstein once said "Everybody is  genius but if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing that it is stupid."
    • Chrissy Le
       
      I completely agree that this is the method that most schools use. A lot of emphasis is placed on extrinsic rewards in the educational system. I believe that this is a negative thing to do because students then lack inner motivation. They no longer want to do things for themselves, and more for the satisfaction of pleasing others, or receiving a high test score. Even though receiving a high test score might seem like a goal they want to pursue it's not truly for themselves, it is to please someone else.
  • rich variety of experiences and give students choices
  • take charge of their own learning
  • ‘make or break skills’ that come on top of the three Rs
    • Jordyn Shell
       
      I believe that the student is more likely to become a community leader because of the fact they they "choose" to do all this extra work, they're not being forced too. They're taking a choice to help others and inspire others. That's LEADERSHIP! When they say "children who placed the most demands on teachers and parents to join or do activities were more likely to be leaders as adults", that pretty much sums up my point exactly. I believe that those students are more likely to become leaders because they are taking such initiative now, it will only impact them positively in the future to do more!
    • Joe Inhaber
       
      I believe that a students desire to partake in schooling events, and acting as a leader is extriemly personal to the student. I think that students, as well as teenagers and children can develop leader ship skills, and the fact that it is to be rewarded in schools is in my opinion wrong. There is a variety of kids, that find themselfs in the role of "leader" in many situations other than in school. I think that in rewarding kids to become leaders, we are further removing their individuality, witch in my opinion is alredy being taken away through means adapted by our society.
    • vanessa parent
       
       I believe that leadership is not something that is taught but rather a personality trait that is developed by the individual themselves (as it said in the article, some children as young as two can have behaviours that may lead to the skills of a good leader). Some are born to be leaders, they have it in them to encourage, to motivate and positively influence others around them. People who demonstrate this features should definitely be encouraged by parents and by their school to develop these skills because if they start young and keep these habits they will most likely carry them through their whole lives. However i also think as jordyn said above, a good leader is someone who wants to take the initiative to partake in extra work or activities, not someone who is forced to do it. 
Anthony Baloukas

Is Genius Born or Can It Be Learned? - TIME - 0 views

  • geniuses are the result of both good genes and good surroundings.
    • Anthony Baloukas
       
      This answers the question to my TFAD project. 
  • Geniuses are those who "have the intelligence, enthusiasm, and endurance to acquire the needed expertise in a broadly valued domain of achievement" and who then make contributions to that field that are considered by peers to be both "original and highly exemplary."
    • Anthony Baloukas
       
      The definition of genius, and what it takes to actually be a special human being. 
  • How to produce genius is a very old question, one that has occupied philosophers since antiquity.
    • Anthony Baloukas
       
      It's interesting to see that this question has been asked for a long time. If it were possible to produce a genius, would we eventually all live in a society filled with gifted individuals?
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • There are IQ tests
    • Anthony Baloukas
       
      There is a procedure to determine whether someone is a genius or not. 
  • the debate over what leads to genius has been dominated by a bitter, binary argument: is it nature or is it nurture — is genius genetically inherited, or are geniuses the products of stimulating and supportive homes?
  • "open to experience, introverted, hostile, driven, and ambitious."
    • Anthony Baloukas
       
      This is aid to be the main characteristics of a genius. 
  • Personality traits also matter.
Daryl Bambic

How to Achieve the Creative State of Flow | PickTheBrain | Motivation and Self Improvement - 0 views

  •  
    Begin by reading this article.
vince chatigny-barbosa

Psychology of Success | Personal Development 'Gym' for Entrepreneurs - 0 views

  • Goals are key.
  • Highly successful people are intensely goal-oriented. 
  • that’s why having a goal toward which to work is so very important.  It gives our minds a focus and our lives direction.  When we concentrate our thinking it’s like taking a river that’s twisting and turning and meandering all over the countryside and putting it into a straight, smooth channel.
    • vince chatigny-barbosa
       
      Sometimes having a big goal can seem overwhelming. By setting smaller goals, it makes it more realistic.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • the ability to get yourself to take action.
  •  
    This website is great because it explains how people achieve and are successful and what characteristics their brain must possess. 
Zach Fenlon

The cognitive benefits of play: Effects on the learning brain - 0 views

  • In 1964, Marion Diamond and her colleagues published an exciting paper about brain growth in rats. The neuroscientists had conducted a landmark experiment, raising some rats in boring, solitary confinement and others in exciting, toy-filled colonies.
    • Zach Fenlon
       
      This is very interesting because it proves the research that i found for my project but with new studies. It is also amazing to see that this topic has been researched since the 60s.
  • the “enriched” rats had thicker cerebral cortices than did the “impoverished” rats (Diamond et al 1964).
  • rats raised stimulating environments had bigger brains.
    • Zach Fenlon
       
      I wasn't aware that play could affect even the size of the brain, even though it is rats and not humans. I was always under the impression that the brain doesn't change sizes once it has reached it's adult state.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • Several experimental studies show that school kids pay more attention to academics after they’ve had recess
  • Note that physical education classes are not effective substitutes for free playtime
    • Zach Fenlon
       
      This means that the affects of organized play are not as valuable as free play. 
  • To reap all the benefits of play, a play break must be truly playful.
  • when kids pretend together—“results in improved performances in both cognitive-linguistic and social affective domains.”
    • Zach Fenlon
       
      this is exactly what i discussed in my project. 
  • Some research suggests that the way kids play contributes to their ability to solve divergent problems.
  • The results? Kids given divergent play materials performed better on divergent problems. They also showed more creativity in their attempts to solve the problems (Pepler and Ross 1981).
  • Researchers found that the complexity of block play predicted kids’ mathematics achievements in high school.
    • Zach Fenlon
       
      I didn't realize that studies have identified what play affects what skills. 
  • The association between block play and math performance remained even after researchers controlled for a child’s IQ. It therefore seems plausible that block play itself influenced the cognitive development of these kids.
    • Daryl Bambic
       
      No site summary or evaluation of credibility.
  •  
    This link was very interesting because it specified new elements of how play affects the play, even what types of play.
alicia waid

The Man Who Shocked The World | Psychology Today - 4 views

    • alicia waid
       
      Brief summary of Stanley Milgram's life.
    • alicia waid
       
      Explanation of Stanley Milgram's experiment on Obedience to Authority.
  • try to expose the external social forces that, though subtle, have surprisingly powerful effects on our behavior.
  • ...10 more annotations...
    • alicia waid
       
      Under the pressure of having someone "superior" to you, tell you to do something, most of the time, you do it even if you don't necessarily want to. 
    • alicia waid
       
      Milgram's experiment left everyone, even today, shocked.  It makes you think who people really are when put in different types of situations, and what kind of a world we live in too.
    • alicia waid
       
      More brief information about Milgram's studies and his early life.
    • alicia waid
       
      *Dissertation: A long essay on a particular subject, esp. one written as a requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.
    • alicia waid
       
      Important to note Milgram's interests here.  He shows more and more interest in conformity.
    • alicia waid
       
      *Conformity: Behavior in accordance with socially accepted conventions or standards.
    • alicia waid
       
      More information on Milgram's studies and achievements. 
    • alicia waid
       
      Stanley was very interested in the Holocaust: How could people do such horrible things?  Because they were told?  The idea intrigued him which led to experiments.  These experiments consisted of how changing aspects of an experimental situation might alter subjects' willingness to obey.
    • alicia waid
       
      Milgram's marriage and more information about his life and studies.
    • alicia waid
       
      Milgram's experiment has opened so many of our eyes'.  Although we knew we have a tendency to obey orders, we did not know to what depth we would go in order to obey those orders.  His experiment has forever enlightened us with a disturbing and harsh truth.  
    • alicia waid
       
      People, such as the U.S. Army have taken Milgram's experiment and has learnt from it.  The U.S. Army are making sure that anyone who is apart of their leadership team are leaders that will be aware of their authority and also their responsibilities (to make good decisions).
Chrissy Le

Love and Addiction: 4. "Love" as an Addiction - 0 views

  • a human relationship can be equivalent psychologically to a drug addiction.
  • Chein, Winick, and other observers interpret drugs to be a kind of substitute for human ties. In this sense, addictive love is even more directly linked to what are recognized to be the sources of addiction than is drug dependency.
  • Freud noted important parallels between love and another psychologically compelling process—hypnotism.
  • ...25 more annotations...
  • From being in love to hypnosis is evidently only a short step.
  • Love is an ideal vehicle for addiction because it can so exclusively claim a person's consciousness.
  • Someone who is dissatisfied with himself or his situation can discover in such a relationship the most encompassing substitute for self-contentment and the effort required to attain it.
  • When a constant exposure to something as necessary in order to make life bearable, an addiction has been brought about, however romantic the trappings. The ever-present danger of withdrawal creates an ever-present craving.
  • Since the person who addicts himself to a lover has essentially the same feelings of inadequacy as the drug addict, why should such an individual choose another person, rather than a drug, for the object of his addiction
  • found that sexual relationships in the lower class tend not to involve as great a degree of life-sharing.
  • "The lower class person . . . is less dependent on people, and more oriented toward those gratifications which can be achieved without complicated cooperation of other human beings."
  • The latter can be defined as the need to cling to one human object for love and support. That object may not even be a true person, but only a conception of a person.
  • When people are economically comfortable but still sense a large deficiency in their lives, their yearnings are bound to be more existential than material. That is, these yearnings are tied into their basic conception of and feelings about themselves
  • A person feeling this inner emptiness must strive to fill it. In relationships, this can only be done by subsuming someone else's being inside yourself, or by allowing someone else to subsume you.
  • The result is a full-fledged addiction, where each partner draws the other back at any sign of a loosening of the bonds that hold them together.
  • The relationship was an addiction. F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham sealed themselves off from the outside world by neglecting their work and by dropping all their other personal relationships in Hollywood.
  • The belief which underlay this feeling—and all of the relationship—was expressed by Graham when she said that "my living began when he arrived." If there is a need to participate in every aspect of another's life, its conclusive form is the complete control of or reliance on another, so that one person does not exist without the other's being there, too. This is the essential similarity to drug addiction, where a person feels he is living only when he is on the drug. The ultimate statement of the desire to be consumed by love is in the last passage quoted from Graham, where she wanted to crawl into Scott's mind, lose her consciousness in his, and form one human entity out of two incomplete beings.
  • The sadistic person is as dependent on the submissive person as the latter is on the former;
  • The difference is only that the sadistic person commands, exploits, hurts, humiliates, and that the masochistic person is commanded, exploited, hurt, humiliated. This is a considerable difference in a realistic sense; in a deeper emotional sense, the difference is not so great as that which they both have in common: fusion without integrity.
  • Above all else, these extreme emotional reactions conclusively establish that the relationship was an addiction. All along, the lovers' actions toward each other were dictated by their own needs. Therefore, when their connection was severed—even temporarily—they had no basis on which to relate. Each was incapable of respecting, or even conceiving of, the other in his or her own terms, as continuing to live his or her own life. It was impossible for either to be concerned about the other's well-being; if the one lover wasn't there to satisfy the other's needs, then he or she ceased to exist.
  • Because an addiction is sought only for the total experience it provides, it can only be accepted emotionally in that form.
  • Love is the opposite of interpersonal addiction. A love relationship is based on a desire to grow and to expand oneself through living, and a desire for one's partner to do the same.
  • Anything which contributes positively to a loved one's experience is welcomed, partly because it enriches the loved one for his own sake, and partly because it makes him a more stimulating companion in life.
  • If two people hope to realize fully their potential as human beings—both together and apart—then they create an intimacy which includes, along with trust and sharing, hope, independence, openness, adventurousness, and love.
  • If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism.
  • the tendency to regard social partners as commodities. People who show this orientation "fall in love when they feel they have found the best object available on the market, considering the limitations of their own exchange values."
  • Fromm therefore stresses that the respect inherent in all love requires a lover to think, "I want the loved person to grow and unfold for his own sake, and in his own ways, and not for the purpose of serving me."
  • An independent, open person exploring life seriously will instinctively (if not consciously) consider whether someone has anything of substance to add to his or her existence.
  • Criteria For Love Vs. Addiction
Ally Talarico

01.28.98 - Of Men and Their Mothers: Challenging Freud's Theory - 0 views

    • Ally Talarico
       
      "Everyone must leave home andbecome their own person, but you don't have to over-react and reject the mother." said by Professor Emeritus Bob Blauner. Clearly, he does not agree with the book, nor Freud.
    • Ally Talarico
       
      This article introduces its thesis by stating that it's against Freud's theory that man attaches himself to his mother. "reject closeness with their mothers in order to achieve manhood."
    • Ally Talarico
       
      Great quote! Use this. 
vince chatigny-barbosa

The Psychology of Success, Leading Your Company Article - Inc. Article | Inc.com - 0 views

  • Why do some leaders thrive while others struggle? The answers might surprise you.
  • Today's Editor's Picks Tech Bubble? Why It’s Different This Time What Sleep Deprivation Is Doing to You What a 9-Year-Old Can Teach You About Selling Shaking Up Commercial Real Estate How to Pitch a CEO: 4 Tips They're hype
  • rconfident risk-takers
  • ...25 more annotations...
  • big decisions
  • often fail
  • to see the big picture.
  • Interpersonal
  • They're charismatic visionaries who don't play well with others
  • That's the stereotype of successful entrepreneurs.
  • on the fly but
  • They make
  • AIS--
  • Myth: They thrive on risk
  • the way they respond to stress
  • They score in the 83rd percentile on what TAIS calls "performance under pressure.
  • 5% higher than CEOs in general
  • Myth: They're control freaks
  • Myth: They're lousy at strategy
  • Myth: They're bullies
  • enjoy facing adversity
  • manage and mitigate their risk.
  • 91st percentile on their need to control things
  • ocus over time
  • essentially, willingness to sacrifice anything necessary to achieve a goal
  • quick on their feet
  • awareness
  • analysi
  • CEOs score higher than 82% of the population on their ability to express support and encouragement
  •  
    Here is an article (A research is included) on how the psychology of success is present in the business world. How do successful entrepreneurs differentiate themselves from others? The article speaks solely from a business standpoint. 
Daryl Bambic

A Senior Moment: Wisdom of the Aged? - Wisdom Research | The University of Chicago - 0 views

  • they agree that our brains have two complementary operating systems.
  • Automatic or Instinctual Brain
  • decision making
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • handles most of our emotions and “no brainer” decisions.
  • eflective or Analytical Brain, is a more aware thought process that requires effort. It is the purposeful, attentive check to the impulses of System
  • e automatic pilot brain does a good job of steering the ship of self.
  • First, it was designed to protect us from danger and it frequently overreacts without thinking with unnecessary fear or anxiety.
  • reates stories to explain informatio
  • umps to conclusions
  • ery egocentric view
  • strong attachments to money, material objects, and people that it is reluctant to let go of.
  • It takes the interaction of both System 1 and System 2 to achieve wisdom. It is necessary for people to train themselves to recognize when System 1 is overreacting, jumping to conclusions, or giving in to selfish impulses, and to call upon System 2
  • “Why?”
    • Daryl Bambic
       
      The 'why' question is the philosophical one.
  • owered dopamine levels might give us time to stop and think.
  • ast experience of similar patterns
  • willing to educate ourselves as new information becomes available
Daryl Bambic

The Secret of Self-Esteem | Psychology Today - 0 views

  • In the absence of confidence, courage takes over.
  • courage, on the other hand, operates in the realm of the unknown
  • Courage is more noble than confidence
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • it cannot offer a secure foundation for our self-esteem.
  • People with healthy self-esteem are able to take risks and to give their all to a project or ambition, because, although failure may hurt or upset them, it is not going to damage or diminish them.
  • It is instructive to compare healthy self-esteem with pride and also with arrogance. If self-confidence is “I can” and self-esteem is “I am”, then pride is “I did”. To feel proud is to take pleasure from the goodness of our past actions and achievements.
  • arrogance stems from hunger and emptiness.
  • so there can be no such thing as excessive self-esteem. Instead, it betrays all the opposite.
  • Whenever we live up to our dreams and promises, we can feel ourself growing. Whenever we fail but know that we have given our best, we can feel ourself growing. Whenever we stand up for our values and face the consequences, we can feel ourself growing. Whenever we come to terms with a difficult truth, we can feel ourself growing. Whenever we bravely live up to our ideals, we can feel ourself growing. That is what growth depends on. Growth depends on bravely living up to our ideals, not on the ideals of the bank that we work for, or our parents’ praise, or our children’s successes, or anything else that is not truly our own but, instead, a betrayal of ourself.
  • Nor is he someone who ever betrayed knowledge and integrity in favour of deception and unconsciousness.
  • More than a great philosopher, Socrates was the living embodiment of the dream that philosophy might one day set us free.
1 - 14 of 14
Showing 20 items per page