Oh man ... It's so cool to be in school
Topic: u01d2 Scientific Discipline Date: July 16, 2006 9:02 AMSubject: In long response to learner #1 and learner #2 from Ann Author: Garvey, Ann
Last edited on: July 16, 2006 9:09 AM
Learner #1 & #2,
I apologize for being late into this discussion. I've done my required comments, but would like to add this one more. In looking at some of the ideas you both have presented. I'm interested Learner #1 in how you approach the ideal of studying social psychology so that history not repeat. In this I refer to your statement on some throughout history as sowing the seeds of self destruction and destruction of others. You indicate that if we could predict an event on the basis of systematic theory and hypothesis, we could more meaningfully make sense of the contradictions and here I might think the contradictions are in looking at supposed versus actual reality, or perhaps the differences between "my reality" and "your reality." Please let me know if I'm too far off-base. You also comment on information overload in that because of the speed of events happening so quickly we need to become better at structuring, filtering, and making sense of the information in a coping manner so that it didn't overload us with its complexity. Learner #2 furthered this discussion by stating that having a "head start" and adding information on local conditions that we could better explain the course of human history. Learner #2 indicated through his work that "some cultures do not adapt to sudden overwhelming change." Through my paper, we'd discussed that a positive self-concept would allow "things to 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." Learner #2 introduced the concept of "tacit knowledge" as a skill in codifying knowledge as a transformation process in better understanding "patterns of information," which could be accomplished from learning. I would think an assumption could then be made that those people and countries who continue to learn from their mistakes and successes will better survive the rampant change that is evident in our society today and part of the acceptance or tolerance is in realizing the "pond is very big," which refers to the vast multi-cultural aspects of learning. Learner #2 last leaves the question of developing better strategies for processing change.
Whew … I hope I didn't mess that up too much … so, what are my conclusions? I agree that it would seem logical that if we could learn from our mistakes that we could better society. I am though wary of the thought that "history repeats" and history has included good and bad alongside each other. I agree that without being able to adjust to change, we become overwhelmed. It doesn't seem to necessarily follow that because we can understand the variables that things will always change for the better. In saying this, I mean that history does repeat and that not all people, countries, or cultures hold the same goals and objectives. We would also need to better understand "forces of good and evil" without complicating the picture with judgments and stereotypes. It would seem due to various fundamental believes, particularly religious and political, that even though we might gain better understanding, we might not conclude by all following the same course or path. The question would then become are we tolerant enough to accept others' differences? Does my reality have to match yours? And, is there such a thing as global truths? I think here now about the psychological concept of dissonance. Here in America we subscribe to liberty, justice, and freedom, and accordingly free choice. This would presume then that we can cope with ourselves as being different although dissonance would seem to indicate we struggle to not be confused or uncertain by conflicting concepts, and we do this by "changing one (the one that is easier to modify) to make it consonant with the other" (Corsini, 2002). Would this mean that because different is more difficult that we close down our borders and consider only being bigger fish in a small pond like in the case of the US being more protective in this century of its self-interests. It would seem as indicated in our paper this unit that US is tending toward a path, that is seemingly and more easily within our grasp as us taking care of us. This would of course mean that US could continue to be a Big fish by its maintenance of its world from the viewpoint of a small pond. It would stand to reason that our self-concept within the small pond would feel more reassuring than the self-concept we get as being a small imposing fish in the world's pond where our impact is much lesser. Perhaps a better strategy would include learning that different (change) is good. I believe to understand social psychology we need to include the entire world, which at the time being is overwhelming us. Not all the bigger world is at this point of time inviting us to lead.
Ann
Corsini, R. J. (2002). The psycholgoy dictionary. NY: Brunner Routledge.
Dear Student #2
Your welcome. Cool, we have a bridge to sell as well!
You couldn't have chosen a more favored subject then self-system. We're planning on banking our career on it. We've carried that term with us over this last year and have had little chance to test-drive her. I don't know enough about it yet to know if a healthy self-system is created by an internal self or modeled from an impressive parent. I love the concept of scaffolding. I figure we're still working on her. Our "system" has gone through some pretty heavy abuse when very young, and my understanding is that self-systems establish themselves beginning at about two. I value recreating positive adult self-schemas; as far as I see it there are a lot of negative "other-imposed" messages to let go. As someone with multiplicity … we're still working on self-concepts … I think we're winning with good "team" effort.
I haven't read Coleman's book, but we have our own take on intelligence. We read about 16 years ago, when diagnosed that multiples tend to be intelligent and creative. I've held onto that hope tightly. I think as a child it had worked against us, in that the more we tried to sparkle, the heavier-handed the consequences. It would be a matter of perception in this case whether "our minds" showed advance development, or severe damage. We tend to vote toward the former. We hold an understanding that our will to survive gave us what was necessary to get through the averse treatment of family. Emotionally, we spent years recovering from the anger, but in general emotions took a long time of psychiatric care to uncover and release. I don't believe all abuse survivors fare as well as us. We've had excellent adult supports. I don't know if we have stronger assets intellectually or emotionally, but I take great stock in personal development and hold the value of some others we've met on our way as lights along the path. Being able to control our behavior is much more critical toward self-regulation and goal-setting, whereas emotional work is a matter of self-acceptance, it is ok and safe to feel. Yes these tools can be channeled into life and career, but most importantly toward a burgeoning sense of self worth.
I hope its ok to talk openly. I know that not all psychology believes in dissociative identy disorder. Figure at this point that what we think counts too. Great questions … love to hear your feedback, maybe we can continue it over into the next unit. BTW left a combined note for you and Student #1 further down this unit's thread. Hope it makes sense!
Ann
posted by Ann Marie @ 7/16/2006 09:36:00 AM
Comments: 1
