Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this post.

Comments

• 6/18/2009 6:43 PM Mayola Pierro wrote:
  In listening to the song "Hey Jude"..."Take a Sad Song and Make It Better"....It reminded me of the adage... " Take Lemons and Make Lemonade"....This rendition had more of the flavor of tea than lemonade to me. There are those who prefer a more watered down less zestful version however my preference in song style is that which incorporates feelings and emotions.
  Reply to this
  1. 6/22/2009 12:58 PM Conrad Gill wrote:
     Its sad but it seems the majority of todays mainstreem music lacks the sincerety and sweat emotion of the hits of yester-year. although it may be that I have reached that age where I cant see the relevance of a younger generations musical evolution and taste. I have come to the realization in my later years that there is no bad music, its all a matter of tatse. And even those I at one time called posers and sell outs have some redeeming qualities.
     Reply to this
     1. 8/29/2009 10:40 AM Greg Anderstein wrote:
        Yes, however there are plenty of examples of modern music that lack anything but polished choreography, excessive digital processing and cleverly marketed visual aesthetics. If there be any candidate for the title of "bad music" tis they that have sowneth that descriptive seed... and by seed I do not mean penis.
        Reply to this
• 6/21/2009 11:37 AM Conrad Gill wrote:
  Is it possible to improve on perfection? perhaps not, but one can always reinterpret and pay homage by exhibiting their influences (musically in this case). speaking as a vocalist I must say that "Hey Jude" is not an easy song to sing, but Moriah and the good Dr. held their own and gave it a little Bakersfield flavor to boot.
  I can not think of a reasonable segue into the Psych part of this comment so I will just say "segue" and then look franticly for spell check.
  
  Cigar Envy
  
  Freud said that sometime a cigar is just a cigar, which if you are a bottle half empty type of person you might interpret this to mean sometimes a cigar is just a cigar because the rest of the time it represents a penis. Freud also theorized that at some point during a females psycho sexual development she comes to the realization that she does not have a penis which subsequently causes them a sort of emotional distress. Thus the female becomes obsesses with having a penis to the point of envy.
  Although Freud’s penis envy theory may have had some validity in a more male dominated time, in today’s society where women have won their right to equality and have proven themselves equal to men in the work place and most other areas, the idea of women wanting penises (with the exception of trans gendered individuals, i.e. Chastity/ Chaz Bono) seems quite absurd. Considering the irrelevance of Freud’s penis envy theory in today’s feminist oriented society (in the U.S., not everywhere, i.e. Iraq) I see no way it could be improved other than disregarding it altogether. Today, unlike Freud’s time and many decades following, women are independent, domineering individuals with the ability to do and be anything they choose, even the President of the United States (almost). Of course there will always be envy in both men and women, which I cannot say is completely negative, but I doubt it will be of anyone’s penis (in most circumstances).
  Reply to this
• 6/21/2009 11:47 PM Cendy Corona wrote:
  In the Anal stage of Freud's stages of psychosexual development, the child is learning to retain and eliminate fecal matter (potty training). In this stage Freud believed that if the child was shamed or disciplined too harshly, he/she would become fixated in this stage, which in turn would cause the individual to mature into an overly controlling person. The individual would try to control every aspect of his/hers life in any given situation (anal retentive) in order to avoid feelings of guilt and shame. This is a good theory considering the time period in which it was first developed. However, the cause of the obsessive need to control, seems over exaggerated in this theory. I would expect that it would take more than the negative experience while being potty trained to cause such an impact in an individual's personality. I would like to think that there would have to be other factors that would need to be taken into consideration, such as a constant negative environment with overzealous discipline that would cause such a shift in a person's personality.
  Reply to this
• 6/22/2009 1:49 AM Julie S. wrote:
  The theorist I have always had a bit of a problem with is B. F. Skinner, because his theory of behaviorism doesn't account enough for individual differences in emotions, temperament, and personality. I have always been more alomg the lines of humanist and I think it's important to realize that you can't completely predict someone's behavior. I am also against animal testing in psychology because every creature reacts differently and people are not going to have the same responses as the rats or pigeons he used. While I agree that most behavior is learned, I also think that different people will absorb things differently. Skinner's theory would need to be less cut-and-dry to make me happy.
  Reply to this
• 6/22/2009 4:07 PM Ileane Lew wrote:
  Take a personality and make it better, I would take the behaviorist theory and include thoughts and feelings to it. I don't agree with B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandera with their suggestion of a personality being the result of an interaction between the environment and an individual. How could a person write or enjoy listening to a song if that was the case?
  Reply to this
• 6/22/2009 5:55 PM Irene Soriano wrote:
  "Libido was Freud's word for psychic and sexual energy. How libido is expressed depends on the stage of development. But in each stage of development there are frustrations. If those frustrations are not successfully dealt with, then the libido will be tied to that stage of development more than it should. There is only so much libido for each person, and to develop successfully a person cannot use too much of their libido in one stage, because then there will less for the others. Such overuses will be reflected in later behavior in one of two ways." I had a bit of a problem with Freud when he stated that there is only so much libido for each person, and to develop successfully a person cannot use too much of their libido in one stage, because then there will less for the others that to me didn't really make sense to me. That theory doesn't account enough for the persons ways of dealing with frustrations and expressing themselves and not using too much of their libo. Its important to predict someone's behavior when dealing with frustrations but no one will ever know how much libo and how we will deal with frustrations, hope this was not too confusing to read i confused myself little bit trying to express myself the way i wanted to but hope it came out ok.
  Reply to this
• 6/23/2009 12:15 PM lindsey koopman wrote:
  So many of the personality theories, no matter how far fetched they are have contributed greatly to the field of psychology. Each theory is like a stepping stone. I have always questioned part of Skinner's behaviorism theory. In my field, working with children with autism, there are so many unknowns. However, today using behaviorism has been proven the most effective. This does not mean it is the BEST or the ONLY way to gain improvements with behaviors and disabilties present in autism. I have been trained and continue training throughout the past ten years in Discrete Trial or Applied Behavior Analysis which rely on various techniques found in the behaviorism theory to gain measureable results. The question I have always had is how to account for intrinsic motivation? How do you document a behavior response that is spurred by emotions or thoughts? I also don't agree with the same conviction as Skinner, that the environment is THE KEY to behavior, and that it is what needs to be changed in order for the person to make changes. I do believe that a person can re-learn using different stimuli/rewards in the same environment a new behavior pattern. I'm not sure if I know how to imporve upon Skinner's theory, just how to identify the areas I feel are weak.
  Reply to this
• 6/23/2009 3:40 PM Camarin P. wrote:
  I find Freud's psychosexual development theory very interesting. I feel as if the phallic stage is incomplete/lame. I really think it shouldn't be used. I don't think you could make it better because I disagree with it. I don't think any child can be soley categorized into this section of his theory. For instance, my boyfriend has a a little boy. He is almost four. His feelings for his dad are greater than for his mom. What does this mean for his future? Also remembering, my sister was not a daddy's girl at all during those years. I feel as if this part of the theory is incomplete and needs to be reproduced again in current times.
  Reply to this
• 6/23/2009 4:55 PM Ania McKinley wrote:
  Skinner's theories are very controversial but we have to keep in mind that skinner was a behavioral theorist. Many of his observations and studies were coming from a different perspective than other famous theorists. While I do agree that his theories have alot of assumptions that seem shallow I think several of his theories do regard consideration. Skinner is one of those theorists that make you go "huh" after you read his work. I think Skinner's theories are interesting because he actually tries to explain behavior without connecting an individual to their environment. This is just not what most of us witness today. Skinner's work his often compared to that of Maslow and Freud because it is completely opposite what Maslow and Freud were trying to prove.
  
  On another note, I enjoyed the song "Hey Jude". I found this version to be refreshing!
  Reply to this

Leave a comment