From the same textbook:
"According to Freud, although all dreams represent unfulfilled wishes, their contents are disguised. The latent content of the dream (from the Latin word for "hidden") is transformed into the manifest content (the actual storyline or plot). Taken at face value, the manifest content is innocuous, but a knowledgeable psychoanalyst can recognize unconscious desires disguised as symbols in the dream. For example, climbing a set of stairs might represent sexual intercourse. The problem with Freud's theory is that it is not disprovable; even if it is wrong, a psychoanalyst can always provide a plausible interpretation of a dream that reveals hidden conflicts, disguised in obscure symbols.
Many sleep researchers - especially those who are interested in the biological aspects of dreaming - disagree with Freud and suggest alternative explanations. For example, Hobson (1988) suggests that the brain activation that occurs during REM sleep leads to hallucinations that we try to make sense of by creating a more or less plausible story. As you learned in this chapter, REM sleep occurs when a circuit of acetylcholinergic neurons in the peribrachial region becomes active, stimulating rapid eye movements and cortical arousal. The visual system is especially active. So is the motor system - in fact, we have a mechanism that paralyzes and prevents activity of the motor system from causing us to get out of bed and doing something that might harm us. (As we saw, people who suffer from REM without atonia actually do act out their dreams and sometimes injure themselves. On occasion they have even attacked their spouses while dreaming that they were fighting with someone.)
Research indicates that the two systems of the brain that are most active, the visual system and the motor system, account for most of the sensations that occur during dreams. Many dreams are silent, but almost all are full of visual images. In addition, many dreams contain sensations of movements, which are probably caused by feedback from the activity of the motor system. Very few dreamers report tactile sensations, smells, or tastes. Hobson, a wine lover, reported that although he has drunk wine in his dreams, he has never experienced any taste or smell. Why are these sensations absent? Is it because our "hidden desires" involve only sight and movement, or is it because the neural activation that occurs during REM sleep simply does not involve other systems to a very great extent? Hobson suggests the latter, and I agree with him."
Carlson, Neil. Physiological Psychology. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
more on dreams...
I found this in a textbook on biological psychology:
"The fact that our brains contain an elaborate mechanism whose sole function is to keep us paralyzed while we dream - that is, to prevent us from acting out our dreams - suggests that the motor components of dreams are as important as the sensory components. Perhaps the practice our motor system gets during REM sleep helps us to improve our performance of behaviors we have learned that day. The inhibition of the motor neurons in the spinal cord prevents the movements being practiced from actually occurring, with the exception of a few harmless twitches of the hands and feet."
Carlson, Neil. Physiological Psychology. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
"The fact that our brains contain an elaborate mechanism whose sole function is to keep us paralyzed while we dream - that is, to prevent us from acting out our dreams - suggests that the motor components of dreams are as important as the sensory components. Perhaps the practice our motor system gets during REM sleep helps us to improve our performance of behaviors we have learned that day. The inhibition of the motor neurons in the spinal cord prevents the movements being practiced from actually occurring, with the exception of a few harmless twitches of the hands and feet."
Carlson, Neil. Physiological Psychology. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Book review
Shipler, David. The Working Poor: Invisible in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.
David Shipler, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his novel: “Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land,” turns his focus to “the working poor” in the United States in his new book: “The Working Poor: Invisible in America.” He examines the lives of the working class and the forces which keep these people living in poverty. The impoverished population is just as diverse as the entire nation. Shipler shatters our notion of two classes of the poor—the deserving poor who work full time jobs, but still cannot rise above the poverty line, and therefore, deserve government assistance; and the undeserving, who should not receive government assistance since their fate is due to personal failings. Distinctions between these two groups are truly nonexistent; the impoverished in each group suffer from poor health conditions, family sickness/death, inadequate housing, poor budgeting skills, and layoffs or terminations. These factors create a vicious circle in their lives that restrains them from rising above poverty.
Through case-studies, Shipler analyzes the lives of about a dozen individuals and their families. Their stories are depressing, yet poignant; however, their accurate representation of the population is sometimes questionable. He incorporates quotes from the interviews he has with these people, and in some cases purposely makes them seem ignorant and uneducated. By describing their demeanor and laugh, he presents an image of those in the working class. Another failing of Shipler’s, is his portrayal of economic law. In an interview with a garment factory employer, Shipler does not criticize the employer’s claim that if the wages of the working class were increased, prices would also increase. Economic law tells us that if wages increase, so would prices, but it would not offset the gain that people earning minimum wage would make. Shipler fails to make the point that there is not a one-to-one relationship between prices and wages.
Also disappointing is Shipler’s portrayal of a young, unaffectionate single-mother. He describes one woman and her situation: “…a nineteen-year-old who already had three children, one a boy who was three years and four months but weighed only twenty-two and a half pounds…Now she was working at McDonald’s at just above the minimum wage, supplemented by $72 a month in food stamps” (pgs. 211-212). Shipler expands on this by saying that while the young mother worked her mother would watch the youngsters, and her immature, defiant-looking boyfriend occasionally helped, as well. His goal is to convince the reader that teenage mothers who are forced to work at minimum-wage jobs cannot properly raise children. He also describes the woman’s disinterest in her children’s eating habits. Shipler places blame on the young woman for her disinterest, rather than calling for more help by the government.
With criticism aside, Shipler is loyal to his initial promise to keep the novel politically unbiased. He claims that neither Democrats nor Republicans know the solution to poverty in America. He also never portrays a hero versus villain dilemma; he simply describes the power of many employers and how they display such characteristics—sometimes in the interest of their employees, and sometimes not. He dismantles the American Myth, which tells people that if they work hard enough, they will someday achieve adequate financial status. Moreover, he alerts us to the American Anti-Myth, which claims: due to the system, it is impossible for the poor to rise. Through his writing, Shipler makes his reader feel admiration for “the working poor,” disgust for unsympathetic individuals who are uninterested in the plight of others, and disappointment in our government. It is by creating these reactions that he challenges us to change society.
David Shipler, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his novel: “Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land,” turns his focus to “the working poor” in the United States in his new book: “The Working Poor: Invisible in America.” He examines the lives of the working class and the forces which keep these people living in poverty. The impoverished population is just as diverse as the entire nation. Shipler shatters our notion of two classes of the poor—the deserving poor who work full time jobs, but still cannot rise above the poverty line, and therefore, deserve government assistance; and the undeserving, who should not receive government assistance since their fate is due to personal failings. Distinctions between these two groups are truly nonexistent; the impoverished in each group suffer from poor health conditions, family sickness/death, inadequate housing, poor budgeting skills, and layoffs or terminations. These factors create a vicious circle in their lives that restrains them from rising above poverty.
Through case-studies, Shipler analyzes the lives of about a dozen individuals and their families. Their stories are depressing, yet poignant; however, their accurate representation of the population is sometimes questionable. He incorporates quotes from the interviews he has with these people, and in some cases purposely makes them seem ignorant and uneducated. By describing their demeanor and laugh, he presents an image of those in the working class. Another failing of Shipler’s, is his portrayal of economic law. In an interview with a garment factory employer, Shipler does not criticize the employer’s claim that if the wages of the working class were increased, prices would also increase. Economic law tells us that if wages increase, so would prices, but it would not offset the gain that people earning minimum wage would make. Shipler fails to make the point that there is not a one-to-one relationship between prices and wages.
Also disappointing is Shipler’s portrayal of a young, unaffectionate single-mother. He describes one woman and her situation: “…a nineteen-year-old who already had three children, one a boy who was three years and four months but weighed only twenty-two and a half pounds…Now she was working at McDonald’s at just above the minimum wage, supplemented by $72 a month in food stamps” (pgs. 211-212). Shipler expands on this by saying that while the young mother worked her mother would watch the youngsters, and her immature, defiant-looking boyfriend occasionally helped, as well. His goal is to convince the reader that teenage mothers who are forced to work at minimum-wage jobs cannot properly raise children. He also describes the woman’s disinterest in her children’s eating habits. Shipler places blame on the young woman for her disinterest, rather than calling for more help by the government.
With criticism aside, Shipler is loyal to his initial promise to keep the novel politically unbiased. He claims that neither Democrats nor Republicans know the solution to poverty in America. He also never portrays a hero versus villain dilemma; he simply describes the power of many employers and how they display such characteristics—sometimes in the interest of their employees, and sometimes not. He dismantles the American Myth, which tells people that if they work hard enough, they will someday achieve adequate financial status. Moreover, he alerts us to the American Anti-Myth, which claims: due to the system, it is impossible for the poor to rise. Through his writing, Shipler makes his reader feel admiration for “the working poor,” disgust for unsympathetic individuals who are uninterested in the plight of others, and disappointment in our government. It is by creating these reactions that he challenges us to change society.
The Dream Debate
In this debate, Hobson is most convincing. I agree with Hobson in that Freud’s dream theory is not psychological theory since he did not follow the scientific method; Freud did not form a hypothesis nor collect data. Without doing this, justifiable theories cannot be made. Using one’s own dreams as the sole subject to be analyzed is not sufficient. Psychoanalysis is unscientific since many of its theories are incapable of being tested. Many individuals must realize that claims must be demonstrated to be valid and reliable before they are defended, published, or accepted by the public.
I agree with Hobson’s claim that the randomness of dreams is due to the level of activation of specific brain structures; during sleep, there is chaotic activation of various structures, such as the brain stem. This contributes to the unpredictable nature of dreams. Therefore, dreams are not representative of repressed childhood desires or emotions.
Furthermore, Soames discusses Freud’s dream theory as “proven” and goes on to defend it. Nothing can be proven. By conducting many experiments that have been tested and deemed valid and reliable, we are occasionally able to demonstrate causality between two variables. However, more often than not, it is impossible to establish causation. Many factors/variables are correlated but not cannot be said to cause one another. This is relevant to this debate because many brain structures were mentioned to be involved with dreams. The activation of these structures may be correlated with the occurrence and/or remembering of dreams but they are not causing dreams.
Discussion Questions:
How did Freud demonstrate that dreams are driven by basic motivational states?
Soames claims that the “dream-thought is turned into a concrete picture and this is one of the reasons why dreams require interpretation.” By “concrete picture” does he mean memory? If so, it is a common misconception that “memories” are constructs.
I agree with Hobson’s claim that the randomness of dreams is due to the level of activation of specific brain structures; during sleep, there is chaotic activation of various structures, such as the brain stem. This contributes to the unpredictable nature of dreams. Therefore, dreams are not representative of repressed childhood desires or emotions.
Furthermore, Soames discusses Freud’s dream theory as “proven” and goes on to defend it. Nothing can be proven. By conducting many experiments that have been tested and deemed valid and reliable, we are occasionally able to demonstrate causality between two variables. However, more often than not, it is impossible to establish causation. Many factors/variables are correlated but not cannot be said to cause one another. This is relevant to this debate because many brain structures were mentioned to be involved with dreams. The activation of these structures may be correlated with the occurrence and/or remembering of dreams but they are not causing dreams.
Discussion Questions:
How did Freud demonstrate that dreams are driven by basic motivational states?
Soames claims that the “dream-thought is turned into a concrete picture and this is one of the reasons why dreams require interpretation.” By “concrete picture” does he mean memory? If so, it is a common misconception that “memories” are constructs.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
repost: My stance on the moral status of nonhuman animals
Moral status is based on sentience, which refers to whether a being can neurologically and physiologically suffer or experience satisfaction. Most animals are sentient beings and, therefore, humans have direct moral obligations to them. We do not yet know if insects are sentient; however, we should first focus on the sentient animals that we exploit daily, which include cows, pigs, rodents, and chickens.
Not everything that is alive is sentient. For example, plants are alive but are not capable of feeling pain. Whereas in human and nonhuman sentient beings, pain serves as a signal that helps them to escape from the source of pain to avoid death, plants do not have such a signaling mechanism. Since plants cannot suffer or experience satisfaction, they do not deserve the same moral consideration as sentient beings such as cows or chickens.
We, as humans, have duties to all sentient beings and therefore, are morally required to end all unjust treatment of animals, which includes our use of them in scientific experiments and their lives on factory farms. By attributing moral status to all sentient animals, we are also recognizing their rights; all rights are more important than interests. When humans use animals for research and testing, they are pursuing their own interests and many sick and disabled people's interests. However, since animals have rights, their rights override our interests. Consequently, we are morally obliged to end vivisection and factory farming.
To many humans, the notion that unnecessary suffering should not be inflicted on animals is commonsensical. However, not all humans agree as to what constitutes unnecessary suffering. Undoubtedly, animals should not suffer for purposes of our amusement, pleasure, or convenience. Nonetheless, billions of animals are used for food merely because many humans derive pleasure from eating them.
Animal exploitation is common in agriculture, fashion, and science. Humans kill billions of animals each year, just in the United States. Sometimes these animals live in deplorable conditions before their intensely painful deaths. They usually die without ever fulfilling their most basic desires. By ignoring their desires and forcing them to live in dreadful conditions, we are disregarding these animals' rights. These acts are anthropocentric and immoral. In such an advanced society we should exhibit more concern for this issue and enlighten those who do not share such views to encourage global recognition and societal change.
Not everything that is alive is sentient. For example, plants are alive but are not capable of feeling pain. Whereas in human and nonhuman sentient beings, pain serves as a signal that helps them to escape from the source of pain to avoid death, plants do not have such a signaling mechanism. Since plants cannot suffer or experience satisfaction, they do not deserve the same moral consideration as sentient beings such as cows or chickens.
We, as humans, have duties to all sentient beings and therefore, are morally required to end all unjust treatment of animals, which includes our use of them in scientific experiments and their lives on factory farms. By attributing moral status to all sentient animals, we are also recognizing their rights; all rights are more important than interests. When humans use animals for research and testing, they are pursuing their own interests and many sick and disabled people's interests. However, since animals have rights, their rights override our interests. Consequently, we are morally obliged to end vivisection and factory farming.
To many humans, the notion that unnecessary suffering should not be inflicted on animals is commonsensical. However, not all humans agree as to what constitutes unnecessary suffering. Undoubtedly, animals should not suffer for purposes of our amusement, pleasure, or convenience. Nonetheless, billions of animals are used for food merely because many humans derive pleasure from eating them.
Animal exploitation is common in agriculture, fashion, and science. Humans kill billions of animals each year, just in the United States. Sometimes these animals live in deplorable conditions before their intensely painful deaths. They usually die without ever fulfilling their most basic desires. By ignoring their desires and forcing them to live in dreadful conditions, we are disregarding these animals' rights. These acts are anthropocentric and immoral. In such an advanced society we should exhibit more concern for this issue and enlighten those who do not share such views to encourage global recognition and societal change.
Are Zoos Pornographic?
Ralph Acampora describes our current means of cross-species encounters, specifically zoos, as pornographic in his essay Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices. I agree with his position for many reasons: first, many humans want to observe nonhuman animals behaving in their natural setting, or in an environment that closely approximates their natural habitat. However, these humans also wish to remain safe while observing these animals. In reality, if many animals encountered a human, they would attack, and possibly kill, it since the animals perceive the intruding human as a threat to its own safety. But in zoos, animals encounter humans everyday and they are restricted from exhibiting natural behaviors (i.e. protecting themselves by attacking the unknown being).
Furthermore, in zoos, animals are given food which they would typically consume in the natural environment. However, it is the means by which they obtain this food that they are deprived; they are restricted from searching and fighting for food. These natural and daily behaviors are denied because many humans wish not see predatory behaviors while visiting a zoo. Therefore, humans who work at zoos decide the events that the captive animals may encounter as well as the environment in which they live. Additionally, many humans are, above all else, consumers. Their desire for control and possession overrides many other aspects of their lives. Some individuals express this control through their interest in pornography, and others in their blatant denial of animal rights.
What are the implications of the creating such a zoo like Animal Kingdom? And what does its name imply? Who is the king/ruler of these animals?
Does the television channel Animal Planet promote accurate views of animals? What sorts of relationships do hosts of shows on Animal Planet create with the animals they encounter?
Furthermore, in zoos, animals are given food which they would typically consume in the natural environment. However, it is the means by which they obtain this food that they are deprived; they are restricted from searching and fighting for food. These natural and daily behaviors are denied because many humans wish not see predatory behaviors while visiting a zoo. Therefore, humans who work at zoos decide the events that the captive animals may encounter as well as the environment in which they live. Additionally, many humans are, above all else, consumers. Their desire for control and possession overrides many other aspects of their lives. Some individuals express this control through their interest in pornography, and others in their blatant denial of animal rights.
What are the implications of the creating such a zoo like Animal Kingdom? And what does its name imply? Who is the king/ruler of these animals?
Does the television channel Animal Planet promote accurate views of animals? What sorts of relationships do hosts of shows on Animal Planet create with the animals they encounter?
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Why Work?
After reading Sean Sayers article, entitled “Why Work? Marx and Human Nature,” my opinions on why people work have changed. I originally believed that most people are motivated to work; they have an internal drive to go work. Some people enjoy working and they might feel bored if they did not have a job. Therefore, they may be no such thing as “luxurious indolence” for many individuals.
This article made me realize the labor and work are not synonymous even though some individuals use them interchangeably. The words “labor” and “work” may be associated with one another since some people believe that work is laborious. However, this is not necessarily true. Some jobs may be physically intensive but the people in these fields may not describes their work as laborious.
Many people enjoy going to work each day if their coworkers are also their friends. Also, when people are at work, they are typically away from family; this daily break/distance from family is mentally beneficial. Working may give an individual a sense of worth and involvement in his/her community. Some individuals see themselves as working for the greater good of society while also earning money to provide for their families. In some workplaces, creativity and individuality are inspired and recognition is gained through accomplishments.
Going to work each day and working to one’s fullest potential is reinforced weekly or biweekly by receiving a paycheck, but it also receives long-term reinforcement. Retirement accounts and pensions are just a couple examples of long-term reinforcement. I agree with Marx in that for many individuals work is a fulfilling activity and for others it is simply a means to an end.
If work is always viewed as a means to an end, how would one describe community service? When someone participates in community service, he/she is working without being paid. Why do people volunteer their time if they are not being paid for it?
-According to Locke, how is working against our nature? I think very few people would enjoy “luxurious indolence.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)