Don't look we're in the middle of this post
Good morning … just me. AND, it’s a Saturday morning … That be the good part, right? Hehehe sorry, just a little down this morning … let’s just say I haven’t woked up yet, K?
I think V. signed off just before I could get to the computer. It’s already 6 am. And, there is soooooooo much to do today. The primary things are blogging, school, clean house, and have guests over. What? I know didn’t I just say that? Guests??!! Wow! That’s different.
We had got to talking with some friends from work and things went along and now they say their coming over? Hmm, that’s leads to the housework part. *Sigh* Oh yah … have to go to the bank and laundry today too. I went to the bank last night, but when I got there I found that my coffee had spilled and saturated my check … that wasn’t so good. I left it to dry and we’re hoping that we can still deposit it today. I never done that before. Not so sure Sr. is going to appreciate getting a returned check back in that condition. But, we’re pretty sure we need the money in the bank.
We had a so-so day yesterday … Did ok with most stuff, but we had a bad part. On Wednesday, we had met the new State person at both Annual meetings. She turned out to be like some of the other bad ones. Usually, this meant that she interfered, made assumptions and tore into our goals. So, we were like … ok, I see, I know what to expect. Her main thing was that the goals had to be simplified. So, I rewrote the goals … no problem I told her her input was good, because we were both working toward the same objectives. So then, yesterday. I got a copy of a fax in my mail box … it was from this lady and she wrote that she had found the goals to be unacceptable and that I had to rewrite them, and if that wasn’t bad enough, she sent me a copy of what she expected. I had considered both things a vie for power, because she placed herself in a commanding position both times instead of lets talk about it. Even though … we talked between meetings and I made sure she knew we weren’t upset and that changing the goals would be no problem. After we got the fax with her idea of a goal … we were infuriated. Whereas my goals are very good as to the clients real issues and psychological condition, her goal solution was “Have the client take the underarm deodorant and apply. Praise him for good work.” Except her goal wasn’t even written that well.
Oh man … that’s about the suckiest goal writing I’ve ever seen. I was pretty frustrated though … but I determined in my mind that I would continue writing my goals as we do and I’d put out a façade for her. BUT, then I had talked to Sister about some plans for next week while she’s gone, and she said, “By the way, I had to spend a good amount of time on the phone with this State worker as she complained about the goals and insisted that it be different.” Oh man … that put me over another ledge. We very seldom show our anger directly with Sr. but, that about tilted my little world. I couldn’t believe that she had overstepped her boundaries not only once, twice, but now again. She had gone over my head although I had given her no indication that I was going to be giving her trouble. I had spent the extra time working with her to assure the relationship was sound. Shoot, that was like way too much. I must have gone off in front of Sr. for a good 6-7 minutes about what an imbecile this person was and simple-minded blah blah blah … well, you get the idea. I was pretty direct. We were pretty angry. Fortunately, for me Sr. took the attitude that I had in that we’d continue making good goals and I would cover my tracks with her simple-sucky sh**********. But, it took another long while to calm down and about five other staff had heard my frustration before I could calm down. That was pretty silly. I told Sr. what the state person was asking was literally not only an insult to my intelligence, but darn near anyone in sights! Shoot, Chief is here now and he said it’s an insult to HIS intelligence too. See. That just goes to show you. It’s a given that some people at the State assume power positions, but this lady surely didn’t waste any time in establishing herself as untrustworthy. Oh man … Chief says though … she’s an imbecile … lets think of petting the kitty instead! Good thinking Chief.
Ahh Dr. V. is on! Ok, ok … we’re on a little brb break … V had to do something. I think I’m over for now the upset … not all the way, but its back burner. Just to catch you up in other happenings. I did get a chance to talk to sweetie pie last night and I got a chance to talk with my Grandma and I went to a meeting for multiples and a chat for survivors all before going to bed at 10 pm.
The talk with my Grandmother is always nice. We talked about her grocery’s and trip to the doctor and such … I always learn stuff when we’re talking to her. She said the temps up to the 100’s this weekend didn’t like that part. My Grandma always makes me feel like we can hardly wait for the next opportunity to call. She’s real good people. She makes me feel good. We had to let her go a little early though because her voice was getting dry … yup yup so that meant we talked about drinking enough water. She’s got a pretty good take on that, but I think the best solution was to just give her voice a break. Didn’t want to wear her out.
Afterward was the metting for Multiples already started. We’re trying to let people get used to us. I’m missing out on a lot of what they have going between them. It seems kind of like a check-in time. We’re not to the point where people ask about us … we’re still just trying to not be afraid to say stuff. A lot of times we’ll say something trivial and no one will respond back, so then we go another long period of time before we get the courage to say something again. Trust takes a long time.
Over at the Surveyors group … it had started off causal enough, but then someone that needed to talk came by. Within a couple of statements the leader of the group was already being heavy-handed with her. And, then a little later one of her good friends called her on personal stuff. I tried to stay out of it and did except at the very end … I had told her what I had thought the purpose of the room and I related what I thought of her reaction toward the first woman. I also added that I didn’t want to upset and would like to come by more often. Two times in one night, I was told “whatever!” Which, I take to mean my opinion isn’t work a bag of sh***, so I said ok guess I’ll leave then. I’ll try again, but if the main lady is at odds with us … just after a couple of sessions … it won’t be worth our time. From the sounds of what her friend was saying she’s been acting out of sorts with a lot of people and that isn’t the way it used to be. So there’s a chance she’ll get over whatever muck she’s in, or just like the lady last night and me … people will just keep coming in expecting support, get confronted with anger and judgments and leave feeling a little less trusting. After I’d come in I had noted that she wasn’t talking about the casual stuff and she ignored a couple of attempts for me to talk with her, but then she jumped right at the person “needing help.” That gave me a lot of information. Eh … letting that all go too. We’ll see.
So that puts us up to this morning. We’ve taken our medicine … gone over some time … and now need to focus on school AND cleaning. I think we’ll have to use our timer. At least we remembered to have put batteries in our bag, so we’d better start there. Ok … that’s all set up … it’s now 7:42. You all know the routine … though its been awhile since we tried it. Let’s say every 20 minutes we have to do something for at least 7-8 minutes or as long as our back holds up. We’ve set the timer for 17 minutes so we can do our first chore right at 8 am, which will have given the medicine a chance to relax the arthritis problems. THEN we’ll start at the desk, then the living room, then the kitchen, then the bathroom, then the back bedroom, then the front bedroom, and last the hallway with new kitty litter … and hopefully by then we’ll grab a shower and if there is time we’ll go to the bank and laundry, but until then it’s just a plan. We might take our afternoon friend out and run those few errands if we are running late. We’ll have to see how it goes by then. With this much activity … we’re likely to be pretty sore. BUT, it’s always nice to have the place picked up. I think our friend is planning to come over about 1 pm.
So there is only five hours … we’ll have to concentrate, because I want to have finished the second paper and comments by then too. Ok … better start thinking toward school then. I think we last left off with just the one paragraph. So, we’re going to pull that over here now. And then, we’ll have to work from there.
First paragraphs…
The article I chose to focus on was “Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect on Academic Self-Concept: A Cross-Cultural (26-Country) Test of the Negative Effects of Academically Selective Schools” by Marsh and Hau (2003). In answering the questions, “Is social psychology a scientific discipline?” And, “What makes it a scientific discipline?” I would answer affirmatively to the former especially due to social psychology’s primary interest in the scientific method and experimentation combined with attention to social consciousness and the social self (Morawski, 2000). In response to the latter, I would suggest that the system of testing hypothesis empirically allows us to build an objective and methodological knowledge-base that is very scientific. The development of social psychology following a pattern of hypothesis testing has been challenged by a few psychologists, such as Wallach and Wallach as noted by Schaller, Crandall, Stangor & Neuberg (1994). That position will be sketched shortly, but distinguished attention will be in response to the work of Marsh and Hau, which will illustrate the generalizability of empirical studies based on large multi-cultural samples. Last, we will summarize the effect on this particular study on the area of learning we are interested in toward adults with developmental disabilities.
The study of “Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect” (BFLPE) by Marsh and Hau was performed utilizing 103,558 15-year-olds from 26 countries to test the hypothesis of selective schools (private) in comparison to non-selective schools (public) as they relate to building “academic self-concepts” in adolescents. The study found that students in the selective schools did not fare as well in academic self-concepts as the students in public schools. This was measured by a self-concept instrument and achievement tests (Marsh and Hau, 2003). Marsh and Hau considered self-concept as “making things happen” such as positive thoughts and feelings leading to the students’ ability to make choices, self-motivate, plan and other subsequent accomplishments (2003) and that students with higher self-concepts could adapt to change better. The social comparison aspect contributes to theory development in that it assists individuals in forming a frame of reference as to where they stand in comparison to others in similar situations. In a sense, students compare themselves to other students and this assists them in developing a self-concept. In consideration of selective schools, these students were considered more likely to be small fish in a big pond in comparison of intellectually reaching “top of the class.” Therefore in public schools, students are bigger fish in a smaller pond comparing themselves upward toward higher feelings of self-concept because often the competition for intellectualism isn’t as great.
Research such as that of Marsh and Hau is unique in that it is a very comprehensive study undertaken from many different countries. It follows the American model of Empirical research, but it does not over-generalize that America is the center of all important research being completed in the field of social psychology. In a sense, America standing on its own becomes the big fish in a little pond, while in consideration of the larger world pond, it is still relatively a small fish. America has a world identity that seems to suggest that it is better or “more right” than most other countries, especially due to its influences through power, wealth, and education. In retrospect then we might look into the value of Marsh and Hau’s work in its work toward self-concepts. In the formation of an American identity in the 21rst century, we could generalize that a better self-concept would lead to better chances of “making things happen in the world.” Marsh and Hau contend that having a positive frame of reference leads to better social comparison and a higher self-concept. The self-concept that America holds for itself is most likely higher within itself (big fish small pond) than is held within the world’s view. Taken from the world view, America is making things happen in the world, but many things such as war are negative and not in concordance with a peaceful world collaborative effort. The United States stood apart from the world community in its war against Iraq when it quit its negotiations with the United Nations. Many people supported the present administration, because they hold the frame of reference that we are the world’s leader and in particular watchdogs in preventing internal abuse of its people by a corrupt government in Iraq. As tides change, it now seems that America is becoming more self protective. Indications of it becoming more inclusive is seen from its building priori in our sufferance (high gas prices), Homeland Security, and the enactment of stricter policies and procedures with foreigners, illegal aliens, border crossings, and less tolerance for foreign languages. It seems to be shutting the fortress doors, at the stake of losing the international scope of intelligence that would serve as a better safety toward world peace.
The importance of the scientific method is underscored by Brehm, Kassin & Fein (2005) who state:
[Indent] Social psychologists develop specific, quantifiable hypotheses that can be tested empirically. If these hypotheses are wrong, they can be proven wrong. In addition, social scientists report the details of how they conduct their tests so that others can try to replicate their findings. They integrate evidence from across time and place. And slowly but steadily, they build a consistent and more precise understanding of human nature [end indent].
As outlined in the previous history paper we can know that an American interest in social psychology was sparked approximately 125 years ago and that it was thought to be the formal beginning of social psychology because at that time social interest was combined with a scientific method. Morawski (2000) writes "America's dual interest in social welfare and practical science fueled the emergence of social psychology in the late 19th century. A French researchers at the beginning of the 21rst century complain of the world being overly enamored in the scientific discipline of psychology. Rodriguez and , Alcover de la Hera (2002) state “It is necessary to point out its [United States] excessive dependency in both theory and methodology on models and tools elaborated [or spread] throughout North America and Europe.” Their idea resulting from the concept of “excessive dependency” on the United States was to focus on a European curriculum where European psychologists could complete research work on its own and he further stated advancements had been made in Europe over the last 15 years in structuring social psychology into the university setting (2002). Part of the fall-out from the perspective of Rodriguez and alcover de la Hera might have come from Americans’ 20th century insistence on studying primarily white middle-class males from the United States. It has only been a recent development through globalization that psychology as a whole incorporated multi-cultural standards. And, it seems that America is still struggling with its identity according to world standards and further provoked by its military role in the Middle East. America, would do further harm if it assumed its concepts untested by a world census could affirm psychological truths to the entire scientific community and more specifically to the general world public or stage.
It would seem fair to present the field of social psychology as a developing structure and to note each year and century that it has improvements upon itself that are in accordance to time and space and could better serve people in general. Morawski (2000) is in accordance when he indicates a need for the psychology profession to produce knowledge that could be readily used to address current social problems and regulate social institutions.” Theres seems to be a question as to inclusion and exclusion. An important aspect of social psychology has always been in its immediate application. The solutions it develops need to work for all people. Not many people could afford the luxury of personal and private counseling, though through social psychology many could benefit generalized knowledge on how to get along better with others. It should be noted also the specific work being done in group psychology, which supports social psychology being a very useful practical science. Skipton & Freedman (2000) write,
[Indent] In development of a team theory, "The influence of important schools of social and organizational psychology as well as the political and social milieu of the times on the research and theory of teams is identified: scientific management in the 1920s, the emergence of social psychology in the 1930s, World War II, group dynamics in the 1950s, social action of the 1960s, team building in the 1970s, economic turmoil in the 1980s, and the ascendance of team-based organizations in the 1990s [End indent].
Pardon our Construction ... we're in mid-phase about here ...
Umm this is just us warming up our silly stuff
posted by Ann Marie @ 7/15/2006 01:25:00 PM
Comments: 2
