background preloader

Psychology

Facebook Twitter

Robert Cialdini Influence%2C Science and Practice. 4 Steps to Help You Make Difficult Decisions Quickly. This story first appeared on The Muse, a Web destination with exciting job opportunities and expert career advice. Most people hate making decisions. Why is that? They overcomplicate it. Fear of picking the wrong option leads to a period of limbo where nothing gets done and the issue seems to grow bigger and bigger. That kind of procrastination hell is something I’ve gotten to know intimately through my work as a decision coach. (Yes, that’s a real job.) Here are four things I’ve learned that will help you make any tough choice better and faster (and without those knots in your stomach). 1. Decider, know thyself. So, when you find yourself stuck between possibilities, think about what you really want. If your answer is that your current work appeals to you, but the salary of the new field sounds awesome—your answer isn’t necessarily to choose between the two, but to ask your manager for a raise. 2. 3.

This is true 99% of the time. Now, picture an alternative scenario. 4. Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Developmet. How do people develop morality? This question has fascinated parents, religious leaders, and philosophers for ages, but moral development has also become a hot-button issue in both psychology and education. Do parental or societal influences play a greater role in moral development? Do all kids develop morality in similar ways? One of the best-known theories exploring some of these basic questions was developed by a psychologist named Lawrence Kohlberg.

His work modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's previous work to form a theory that explained how children develop moral reasoning. Piaget described a two-stage process of moral development while Kohlberg's theory of moral development outlined six stages within three different levels. In recent years, Kohlberg's theory has been criticized as being Western-centric with a bias toward men (he primarily used male research subjects) and with having a narrow worldview based on upper middle-class value systems and perspectives.

Level 1. Sources: Do_our_moral_judgements_need_to_be_guided_principles. Moral Reasoning. 1. The Philosophical Importance of Moral Reasoning 1.1 Defining “Moral Reasoning” This article takes up moral reasoning as a species of practical reasoning — that is, as a type of reasoning directed towards deciding what to do and, when successful, issuing in an intention (see entry on practical reason). Of course, we also reason theoretically about what morality requires of us; but the nature of purely theoretical reasoning about ethics is adequately addressed in the various articles on ethics. It is also true that, on some understandings, moral reasoning directed towards deciding what to do involves forming judgments about what one ought, morally, to do.

When we are faced with moral questions in daily life, just as when we are faced with child-rearing, agricultural, and business questions, sometimes we act impulsively or instinctively and sometimes we pause to reason, not just about what to do, but about what we ought to do. 1.2 Empirical Challenges to Moral Reasoning 2. The Righteous Mind. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion is a 2012 social psychology book by Jonathan Haidt. In the book, Haidt describes human morality as it relates to politics and religion.

Haidt attempts to reach common ground between liberals and conservatives. Haidt argues that people are too quick to denigrate other points of view without giving those views full consideration. Haidt himself acknowledges that while he has been a liberal all his life,[1] he is now more open to other points of view.[2] Reception[edit] The book received positive reviews[3] and was #6 on the New York Times' best seller list for non-fiction in April, 2012.[4] See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit] The Happiness Hypothesis. The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom is a 2006 psychology book by Jonathan Haidt written for a general audience. In it, Haidt poses several "Great Ideas" on happiness espoused by thinkers of the past - Plato, Buddha, Jesus and others - and examines them in the light of contemporary psychological research, extracting from them any lessons that still apply to our modern lives.

Central to the book are the concepts of virtue, happiness, fulfillment, and meaning. Summary of Chapters[edit] Ch.1: The divided self[edit] Haidt looks at a number of ways of dividing the self that have existed since ancient times: mind vs bodyleft brain vs. right brain: (lateralisation of brain function)old brain vs. new brain (frontal cortex)controlled vs. automatic Haidt focuses on this last division, between the conscious/reasoned processes and automatic/implicit processes. Ch.2: Changing your mind[edit] Ch.3: Reciprocity with a vengeance[edit] Ch.4: The faults of others[edit] See also[edit] Social psychology. Social psychologists therefore deal with the factors that lead us to behave in a given way in the presence of others, and look at the conditions under which certain behavior/actions and feelings occur.

Social psychology is concerned with the way these feelings, thoughts, beliefs, intentions and goals are constructed and how such psychological factors, in turn, influence our interactions with others. In addition to the split between psychology and sociology, there has been a somewhat less pronounced difference in emphasis between American social psychologists and European social psychologists. As a broad generalization, American researchers traditionally have focused more on the individual, whereas Europeans have paid more attention to group level phenomena (see group dynamics).[3][page needed] History[edit] Intrapersonal phenomena[edit] Attitudes[edit] Persuasion[edit] The topic of persuasion has received a great deal of attention in recent years. Social cognition[edit] Self-concept[edit] Jonathan Haidt. Education and career[edit] Haidt was born in New York City and raised in Scarsdale, New York.

He earned a BA in philosophy from Yale University in 1985, and a PhD in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992. He then studied cultural psychology at the University of Chicago as a post-doctoral fellow. His supervisors were Jonathan Baron and Alan Fiske (at the University of Pennsylvania,) and cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder (University of Chicago).

In 1999 Haidt became active in the new field of positive psychology, studying positive moral emotions. Research Contributions[edit] Haidt’s research on morality has led to publications and theoretical advances in four primary areas: The Social Intuitionist Model[edit] Haidt’s principle line of research since graduate school has been on the nature and mechanisms of moral judgment. Moral Disgust[edit] Moral Elevation[edit] Moral Foundations Theory[edit] Elephant and Rider Metaphor[edit] Criticism[edit] Selected publications[edit] Elliot Turiel. Elliot Turiel (born in 1938) is an American psychologist and Chancellor’s Professor at the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. He teaches courses on human development and its relation to education. Education[edit] Turiel completed his PhD in Psychology from Yale University and was a student of Lawrence Kohlberg, who had a strong influence on his work.[1] Research[edit] Turiel conducts research in the development of social judgments and action, the development of moral reasoning, children’s conceptions of authority and rules in school settings, as well as culture and social development.

He has also been a Guggenheim Fellow and a National Institute of Mental Health Fellow. His area of specialization includes cognitive development, Moral and ethical studies, and social and emotional development. Books and publications[edit] Following are the books and other publications by Turiel. Notes[edit] References[edit] Moral reasoning. Moral reasoning is a study in psychology that overlaps with moral philosophy. It is also called moral development. Prominent contributors to the theory include Lawrence Kohlberg and Elliot Turiel. The term is sometimes used in a different sense: reasoning under conditions of uncertainty, such as those commonly obtained in a court of law. It is this sense that gave rise to the phrase, "To a moral certainty;"[1] however, this sense is now seldom used outside of charges to juries. Moral reasoning can be defined as being the process in which an individual tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic.[2] This is an important and often daily process that people use in an attempt to do the right thing.

Every day for instance, people are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to lie in a given situation. People make this decision by reasoning the morality of the action and weighing that against its consequences. Lawrence Kohlberg. Lawrence Kohlberg (/ˈkoʊlbɜːrɡ/; October 25, 1927 – January 19, 1987) was an American psychologist best known for his theory of stages of moral development. He served as a professor in the Psychology Department at the University of Chicago and at the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University.

Even though it was considered unusual in his era, he decided to study the topic of moral judgment, extending Jean Piaget's account of children's moral development from twenty-five years earlier.[1] In fact, it took Kohlberg five years before he was able to publish an article based on his views.[1] Kohlberg's work reflected and extended not only Piaget's findings but also the theories of philosophers George Herbert Mead and James Mark Baldwin.[2] At the same time he was creating a new field within psychology: "moral development". In an empirical study using six criteria, such as citations and recognition, Kohlberg was found to be the 30th most eminent psychologist of the 20th century.[3] Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

Psychological theory describing the evolution of moral reasoning Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while being a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1958 and expanded upon the theory throughout his life.[1][2][3] The six stages of moral development occur in phases of pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional morality. For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas.

He analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion and classified it into one of six stages.[2][9][10][11] There have been critiques of the theory from several perspectives. A new field within psychology was created by Kohlberg's theory, and according to Haggbloom et al.' Stages[edit] 1. Jean Piaget. Jean Piaget (UK: /piˈæʒeɪ/, US: /ˌpiːəˈʒeɪ/;[13] French: [ʒɑ̃ pjaʒɛ]; 9 August 1896 – 16 September 1980) was a Swiss psychologist known for his work on child development. Piaget's theory of cognitive development and epistemological view are together called "genetic epistemology".

Piaget placed great importance on the education of children. As the Director of the International Bureau of Education, he declared in 1934 that "only education is capable of saving our societies from possible collapse, whether violent, or gradual. "[14] His theory of child development is studied in pre-service education programs. Piaget created the International Center for Genetic Epistemology in Geneva in 1955 while on the faculty of the University of Geneva and directed the Center until his death in 1980.[15] The number of collaborations that its founding made possible, and their impact, ultimately led to the Center being referred to in the scholarly literature as "Piaget's factory".[16] Personal life[edit] 1. Free Numerology Reading. Over ten years ago my fiancée Wendy dragged me out of the house to meet a master numerologist visiting our town, Christchurch, in New Zealand.

Back then I didn’t think much of numerology, and neither did my scientist colleagues, especially ‘Iron-head’ John. However, numbers always fascinated me so I decided to listen to what the mysterious numerologist had to say. Horacio, I was stunned! Listen to the story he told me: “Did you know a man named Wu of Hsia has discovered an ancient tortoise shell from China with very unusual writing on it?

The Oldest Piece Of Writing In The World Is About Numerology! Numerology is perhaps the oldest science known to man. Since then, there have been many more advancements in mathematics, and with it, in the science of numerology. And for the next hour, he did blow my mind. Since that day, my life, health, finances, and relationships have completely turned around… from being miserable… to everything I always dreamed them to be!

But this created a ‘problem’. Schumpeter: The holes in holacracy. The Mind's I. Chapter 2: On Having No Head. The best day of my life – my rebirthday, so the speak – was when I found I had no head. This is not a literary gambit, a witticism designed to arouse interest at any cost. I mean it in all seriousness: I have no head. It was about eighteen years ago, when I was thirty-three, that I mad the discovery. Though it certainly came out of the blue, it did so in response to an urgent enquiry; I had for several months been absorbed in the question: what am I? The fact that I happened to be walking in the Himalayas at the time probably had little to do with it; though in that country unusual states of minds are said to come more easily.

However that may be, a very still clear day, and a view from the ridge where I stood, over misty blue valleys to the highest mountain range in the world, with Kangchenjunga and Everest unprominent among its snow peaks, made a setting worthy of the grandest vision. What actually happened was something absurdly simple and unspectacular: I stopped thinking. D. Are Conservatives More Likely Than Liberals to Avoid Cognitive Dissonance?

Ever since Stanford psychologist Leon Festinger's pioneering work on doomsday cults in the 1950s, the concept of cognitive dissonance has been well established in psychology and even, to some extent, embedded in public consciousness. Basically, when the mind is faced with an idea that is threatening to one's identity or sense of self—an idea that induces unpleasant dissonance—one tends to try to either avoid the thought or, perhaps, reinterpret it into something unthreatening or positive. Thus, in Festinger's landmark work, a doomsday cult interpreted the failure of the world to end on the precise day they had predicted as evidence that their beliefs were right in the first place! But do liberals and conservatives differ in their tendency to avoid cognitive dissonance?

Suggestive evidence from past research suggests they might. In fact, some conservatives sounded rather miffed after taking the study, leaving comments like: "Not for all the tea in China would I write that. "