Final Exam

1. What is cognitive psychology?
2. List and explain 10 historical contributions to the rise of the cognitive revolution.
3. What is the IAT and hoe does it relate to Gladwell's theory in "Blink"?
4. What has been Pinker's contribution to cognitive psychology?
5. How do blind and sighted children differ in their spatial navigation?
6. Select and describe a Flashbulb memory study read in class. Make sure to explain the significance.
7. In the film "Secrets of the Mind" name and explain the 4 main phenomena. What was Dr. Ramachandran's explanation of each? What evidence did he provide?

Studying Tactics and Metacognition

I found an interesting article on Metacognition and study strategies here is an excerpt:

"Research shows that explicitly teaching study strategies in content courses improves learning. (Commander & Valeri-Gold, 2001; Ramp & Guffey, 1999; Chiang, 1998; El-Hindi, 1997; McKeachie, 1988). Research also shows that few instructors explicitly teach study strategies; they seem to assume that students have already learned them in high school—but they haven’t. (McKeachie, 1988). Rote memorization is the usual learning strategy—and often the only strategy—employed by high school students when they go to college (Nist, 1993).

Study strategies are diverse and don’t work in every context. For example, reading for information acquisition won’t work in a literature course and won’t work if students are supposed to critically evaluate an article. But students who have learned only the strategy of reading to pass a quiz on the information will not go beyond this strategy. Study strategies don’t necessarily transfer into other domains. Students need to know they have choices about which strategies to employ in different contexts. And students who learn study skills in one course need to apply study strategies in other contexts than where they first learned it.

Students need to monitor their application of study strategies. Metacognitive awareness of their learning processes is as important as their monitoring of their learning of the course content. Metacognition includes goal setting, monitoring, self-assessing, and regulating during thinking and writing processes; that is, when they’re studying and doing homework. An essential component of metacognition is employing study strategies to reach a goal, self-assessing one’s effectiveness in reaching that goal, and then self-regulating in response to the self-assessment."

Alright so I know that all of that sounds a little intense.. and you might find yourself thinking why bother? But I sat for a moment and tried to figure out how I learned to study ... and I sincerely wasn't sure how I had figured out how to make flash cards or create word tricks to remember an equation. I think it was my mom who taught me, but I wonder if that should be a part of a grammar or middle school students curriculum because it is possible that every teacher assumes that every other teacher has already taught such a basic and necessary skill.

go here

inattentional blindness and gorillas

link

What we see and what we perceive are two very different things. The richness of our visual perception does not translate over to memory recall of an event. Inattentional Blindness is a phenomena where one will witness an even overtime and something odd will happen, but the viewer more often then not will fail to recall the odd event in the series of said events.

In a study done by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris participants observed a video of teams of players passing a ball for a duration a little longer than a minute. During the video two unexpected events occur, a woman with an umbrella walks across the screen and the second being a woman dressed in a full gorilla suit walks across the screen. There were two showings, one where the people involved were all semi translucent and another opaque. The results were not what you might expect. Very few observers recalled either of the odd events, including the gorilla suited woman!

This is amazing to be how the memory works, how little we actually take in. But what I wonder is what differentiates the people who did notice the unexpected events vs those who did not? Are more observant people more likely to be smarter, more creative, more insightful?

Stroke Damage May Help Smokers Kick the Habit

The title of this article struck my interest because naturally, the truth of it is questionable. Could brain damage - an obvious negative thing to happen to someone - actually accidentally cause a positive effect ? However, it does make sense that you can accidentally kick an addiction as a result of damaging the part of the brain that craves addiction - the insula. Studies having to do with cognition, memory and motion were conducted on 69 previously smoking addicts that have had a stroke. Out f this, 19 of these patients underwent damage to their right or left insula. 12 of out these 19 patients claim their smoking urge has ended with no relapse. Although this is shoking, not everyone who underwent damage to their insula lost the urge. Furthermore, patients who underwent damage in places BESIDES their insula claim to have kicked the urge after their stroke. The differences in male and female also may influence this considering the brain of a female is wired than that of a male. Insula is still thought to be the influence on why some patients kicked the addiction. With this, possible conclusions can be made that damage to the insula may effect other addiction such as alcoholism or various different drug abuse. This theory allows therapists to come up with possible ways to help people kick a smoking addiction.

Overall I thought this was a pretty good article, although i'd like to know more about the studies that were conducted, this is definitely an interesting topic. It's ironic too, that there can be such a positive life-saving result of damaging your brain. I wonder, do people want to try and cause damage to their insula just so they can rid of an addiction ? Are doctors or therapists now going to start performing procedures or come up with ways to damage the insula in people suffering addictions ? I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, of course conquering an addiction is a good thing, but is it really a conquer if it's done this way ? Damaging your insula won't give a patient the self-satisfaction and pride one gets when they conquer an addiction on their own. It's almost like someone conquering the addiction for you, and there will be nothing cognitively involved for the patient to recall. You won't be able to mentally reflect on your success and have that reminder to stay strong for the future. It's almost the same thing as taking a pill for a quick fix so you don't need to deal with going through the steps of a recovery. Even though mentally you won't want a cigarette, there is still the physical habits that you need to get over, the cigarette breaks you used to take, and i feel like struggling to not take that cigarette break is a big part of recovery and the best way to prevent a future relapse. Won't someone still feel like they miss the act of smoking, and since they have nothing to remind them that it was a struggle to quick, won't they be more-so prone to relapse ? Or feel they should smoke anyway because that's what they're used to ? I think especially with something like smoking, recovery should be handled by making the person undergo a recovery journey. There is always a deep seeded reason behind every addiction, and a painful issue that causes a person to utilize whatever addiction they have. Therefore, I think these issues need to be dealt with and confronted, not just pushed away and masked, or else the person is just going to find something else to lash out on and of course still struggle with their internal pain. If they don't fix the issue behind the smoking, and their insula is damaged to stop smoking, naturally they may use a different substance to release their inner pain and it may be to use a drug way worse than cigarettes. Also, I think they may be prone to things such as depression and anxiety because they didn't recover by putting in hard work, they just had someone else deal with it for them. Overall I don't see how this would be a good thing to do, because I myself know how important it is to undergo a struggle or pain of some sort in order to come out on top in the end and never look back. However I would like to see if this theory gets further explored and utilized.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stroke-damage-may-help-sm

Creativity

Robert J. Sternberg's attempts to understand creativity lead my to questioning weather or not he considers himself a creative person. i ask this question, because creativity, does not seem hard to explain. it is projection of someones mental history or nature.

Please bring your Sternberg article to class

We'll be discussing it. Thanks, rw

Schizophrenia and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Thinking about the part of the Ramachandran documentary focusing on the man who had extremely vivid visions in epileptic attacks, I decided to read a little about the effects the intensity of these hallucinations can have on the people who experience them. Apparently, it can be quite severe. An epileptic seizure is generally not without any mental "build up" prior. For example, before having a seizure, many chronic patients experience various mental symptoms. The article lists these as including anger, irritability, depression, or even the complete opposite. These symptoms can last for either just hours or days.

The collective mental state that these symptoms create is called an "aura", which I always associated with religious meaning...I guess it's applicable because many leading religious figures are now said to have had some form of epilepsy, etc. Anyway, an aura results from "simple partial seizures" that are preceded by these mental symptoms, followed by convulsions. They produce a dream-like state in the sufferer, and are able to be remembered afterward. This can lead the patient to believe they experienced a religious or spiritual vision.

Furthermore, these symptoms are often mistaken for schiophrenia. The personality change is interesting. It was observed in the film as well, when the epileptic man's father spoke of his son, it was as if he was a completely different person sometimes.

Another article I read established another link between epilepsy and schizophrenia. It determined that those suffering from epilepsy are at an increased risk of schizophrenia, which makes sense, although it isn't determined whether this link is environmental or genetic.

http://www.epilepsy.dk/Handbook/Mental-complications-uk.asp

Blindsight

In last week's film, Dr. Ramachandran presented several cases of phenomenon. I thought blind sight was one of the more interesting ones and looked more into the subject. I found this link, http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindsight.html, which provides a little "game" to allow one to experience blindsight.

Blindsight is defined as the ability to respond to visual inputs while lacking the consciousness of having seen them, meaning one can detect an object, but is unaware of the object. So how is this possible? Something doesn't seem right here.

People who are blindsighted seem to claim that they see nothing. They are unable to react to stimuli quickly, cannot decide if the stimuli is present or not, and cannot tell what the object looks like. Though, they are able to correctly answer questions when asked about objects. Studies show that blindsighted people can guess reliably to objects that share certain features like movement, location, and direction of a given stimuli. They can also determine simple forms and still do show some sort of visual capacity (reflexes: pupil reacts to light changes). But are simply unconscious to the object itself. These people are known to suffer from cortical blindness, in which a person's brain receives sensory information but cannot process it correctly due to damage in the brain. The damage in blindsight patients usually show in the striate cortex, which is also the primary locus of visual processing. Destruction or any disconnection of the striate cortext produces a scotoma, a region of blindness, in part of the visual field that maps damaged area of the cortex. Thus, the sensory input to the striate cortex is unable to process the stimuli, leading the person unable to recognize the seen object.

But how can one know something about the stimulus he/she did not see? Studies have shown that neural pathways outside of the striate cortext can mediate voluntary responses about stimuli presented in the scotoma. The superior colliculus, the lateral geniculate nucleus, and the pulvinar and extrastriate visual cortext all seem to play important roles in the "seeing" aspect of blindsight. Studies of single neurons in extrastriate areas show that some neurons are activated by stimuli in the scotoma and that these neurons respond to motion and visual pattern recognition. When a lesion of the striate cortex occurs, many of the neurons are spared from damage or degeneration and thus, can be responsible for the ability to answer questions about stimuli in the scotoma.

There are other possibilities to explain this phonemenon as well. Some say that there is a conscious awareness of visual stimuli mediated by parts of the cortical and subcortical areas in the visual system that are not damaged from striate cortex lesions. These pathways can receive information from a direct pathway from the retina even when the striate cortex is damaged. Thus, theories have claimed that visual consciousness is somehow within the striate cortex. Another theory says that there are different parts of the brain that cater to consciousness, and maybe the striate cortex is just part of the parthway to pass information through. There are more theories explaining this phenomenon, but what I can see from this research is that, one needs to take into account many different sources of information to completely understand what is really going on in the striate cortex and in the brain entirely - these are all mini steps to understanding the bigger picture of consciousness.

link

Dostoyevsky and Epilepsy

After watching the video of Dr. Ramachandran and seeing the effects of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, I wanted to further look into this uncommon condition and examine what causes the associated delusions. I immediately thought of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who is probably one of the most famous epileptics and creates characters in his novels who exhibit autobiographic epileptic traits. Instead of reading some terribly boring scientific articles about epilepsy, I searched for a diagnosis of Fyodor Dostoyevsky to learn about the condition.

There is a great deal of first and second-hand information about his condition. He documented 102 seizures in his notebook, and there are specific accounts describing his episodes made by his wife, brother, and friends. There is much debate over which type of epilepsy Dostoyevsky possessed. However, all signs point to the conclusion that he did in fact suffer from TLE. His seizures are known as grandmal seizures, characterized by abnormal electrical activity in both hemispheres of the brain. This causes a spasm in which all muscles of the brain contract, and a loss on consciousness follows. For Dostoyevsky, they are thought to have been caused by traumatic childhood events, not brain injury, and throughout life increased with the onset of psychological stress. The part which is most interesting to me comes before the seizure, when a sort of 'ecstatic' aura takes over the body. It is associated with hyper-religiosity and transcendental experience. (The same type of thing we witnessed by the TLE patient in Dr. Ramachandran's video.) When the patient in the video claimed that if he could be cured of epilepsy he would opt not to, I did not understand it at all. Now, I sort of see how being able to enter this kind of transcendental state can be an unbelievable source of creativity. Not to say, obviously, that I want epilepsy. But there is something intriguing about its power to completely alter individuals minds. Here's an interesting quotation to ponder, in which Dostoyevsky describes his state preceding a seizure;

The air was filled with a big noise and I tried to move. I felt the heaven was going down upon the earth, and that it had engulfed me. I have really touched God. He came into me myself; yes, God exists, I cried, You all, healthy people, have no idea what joy that joy is which we epileptics experience the second before a seizure. Mahomet, in his Koran, said he had seen Paradise and had gone into it. All these stupid clever men are quite sure that he was a liar and a charlatan. But no, he did not lie, he really had been in Paradise during an attack of epilepsy; he was a victim of this disease as I am. I do not know whether this joy lasts for seconds or hours or months, but believe me, I would not exchange it for all the delights of this world.

You cannot deny that this sounds appealing.

>>>> l i n k

DAVID LYNCH, consciousness and creativity

This is what should have been my entry last week but I forgot to post it...

We had been discussing consciousness in detail, and I've been sort of stuck on the subject and how it can relate to creativity. While David Lynch holds no PhD and therefore cannot be called a "professional" in the world of psychology or neuroscience, he is a creative genius and I think his views on consciousness are completely valid.

The lecture was almost two hours long, but there were specific parts which held most relevance. For over thirty years, Lynch has been practicing Transcendental Meditation, a type of meditation introduced in India in the '50s which utilizes mantras (sounds) to center attention. Lynch believes that through meditation, individuals have the ability to expand consciousness and, ultimately, creativity, coherence, energy, power, etc. Seeing as we came up with our own definitions for what it means to be conscious during class, it was interesting to hear how David Lynch defines it. He used his own terms "I am-ness" and "knowingess," which I think encompass the idea of consciousness quite well. Rudimentarily, as human beings, we know that we are alive. How are we separated from other things that are not conscious? The prospect of animals being conscious was brought up during the lecture, and Lynch made the argument that humans are built for consciousness, that we can "unfold" it, whereas all other living things are not. We also have the potential to reach "pure" consciousness, which is the basis of enlightenment.

Of course, we are talking about David Lynch right now. He alludes to other aspects of consciousness, like the use of substances as a tool to reach higher levels of consciousness. Also, the notion that transcendental meditation allows for happiness to come about from within oneself, rather than having to constantly look outwards for sources of happiness. If nothing else, five minutes of watching David Lynch talk about consciousness is intriguing. What I find most interesting is that a creative like David Lynch literally fuels his artistry through cognitive principles. Not only is his work heavily influenced by psychology, what with his dreamlike narratives and unorthodox approaches, but Lynch meditates every day. Creativity is a relative term, but it appears to be affected by various factors. It makes me wonder, in which ways do we hold power to alter our creative selves?

you really should watch this

Seizures

After watching the film in class that talked about temporal lobe epilepsy I decided to look into seizures.. what causes them? can anyone have one? or is it mainly individuals who have epilepsy that have seizures? and how often is a seizure contained to one part of the brain?

Here is what I found:

During a seizure the brain's electrical activity is temporarily disturbed causing brain dysfunction. Seizures can happen for a number of reasons, not just epilepsy, although in that case individuals will generally have many seizures in their lifetime, whereas people who are not diagnosed with that might just have a situational seizure. High fever in children can bring about a seizure and brain infections, or structural damage to the brain (such as a brain tumor), or an accident that causes damage to a certain area of the brain can all set off a seizure. Fluid accumulation in the brain as well as lack of oxygen can also bring about seizures. People who have epilepsy will often have sensations beforehand that will signify the start of one like butterflies in their stomach, de ja vu, or tingling in their finger tips.

Their are partial seizures that only affect one side of the brain and simple partial seizures that remain contained to one area of the brain and may onl affect one area of the body. There are also Jacksonian seizures that start in one area of the body and travel other parts.

Another type of seizure is : "complex partial seizures, abnormal electrical discharges begin in a small area of the temporal lobe or frontal lobe and quickly spread to other nearby areas. The seizures usually begin with an aura that lasts 1 to 2 minutes. During the aura, people start to lose touch with the surroundings. During the seizure, consciousness is impaired but not completely lost.Some people can converse, but their conversation lacks spontaneity, and the content is somewhat sparse. They may be confused and disoriented. This state may last for several minutes. Most people do not remember what happened during the seizure (a condition called postictal amnesia). Some people then recover fully. In others, the abnormal electrical discharge spreads to adjacent areas and to the other side of the brain, resulting in a generalized tonic-clonic seizure. Generalized seizures that result from partial seizures are called secondarily generalized seizures."

One rare form of epilepsy is Epilepsia partialis continua in which seizures occur every few seconds or minutes for days to years at a time. This usually occurs when there is localized brain damage.

There is seizure medication as well as certain types of surgery that are used to lessen or dissolve the seizures all together, but epileptic patients have to be tested and cleared in order to be operated on, since every case is different. If there is a blockage that can be removed like a tumor that can sometimes result in the disappearance of seizures.

Another interesting type of seizure is absence seizures in which the individual doe snot fall down or convulse instead they stare off into space usually with fluttering eye lids for about 10 to 30 seconds.

There are a ton of different types of seizures and they last for different amounts of time anywhere from seconds to minutes. One of the most commonly recognized seizures is the grand mal seizure which affects the whole brain and body and they typically do not reoccur in an individual. Some people only have seizures when they sleep.

Typically speaking seizure patients have trouble obtaining a drivers license and have to acquire consent from their doctor. Injury can be cased from muscle contractions and falling down during a seizure, and sometimes even brain damage although that is less common and usually happens when a person has many reccuring seizures.

for more information click here and here

cognitive tests and driving

Whenever we are on the road we see the old man or woman driving at a snails pace, seemingly paying careful attention to the road until a a stop sign comes up and they roll right on through. When should we say they are not safe for the road? Doctors advise patients with sever to moderate dementia to stay out of the driver's seat, but there is a gray area for those with less severe symptoms. To start to determine the driving ability of the possibly unsafe driver doctors and psychologists are beginning to look into different areas that can be divided into six categories: general cognition, attention and concentration, visuospatial skills, memory, executive functions, and language. Hopefully in the future there will be more prevalent neuropsychological evaluations so we can all be safe on the road without discriminating on limits like age alone.

link here

brainstorming may discourage creativity

This article struck my interest because I never really thought about brainstorming having an effect on how creative someone is. However, after reading it I could see why that theory could hold water. It make sense when you think about what type of people are prone to brainstorming their ideas before commitment vs. the type of people that are easily inspired and can quickly come up with a new, unique idea. When thought about this way, the majority of people that outline or brainstorm and usually "black and white" people, while those who are more naturally creative and can easily come up with unique ideas are those who don't need to use methods such as brainstormed outlines, the "grey" people. When thought about this way I could definitely see how those individuals that don't come up with ideas very easily may need to pick their brain and brainstorm for a long period of time before they are able to come up with new ideas. But does this mean that the process of brainstorming actually hinders or deprives individuals of creativity ? Are they better off just thinking things up and going with it, rather then sitting, with a time limit and forcing themselves to come up with new ideas ? But what about those who think black and white and aren't easily inspired, wouldn't brainstorming be their only option ? I could also see how brainstorming in a group with other individuals can discourage one of their ideas when hearing others, and can make that individual shun their ideas and focus only on that persons. However, I can also see brainstorming in a group as a positive thing. For me, (the more creative or "grey" person) I prefer working individually, and being able to focus on my own ideas and projects. This may be due to the fact I am easily inspired and naturally creative. However, when I am working with other's that are creative and innovative, I can be very successful because I can take their ideas and add to it and use their idea's as inspiration to open my eyes to things I would have never thought of, and together come up with something that is great. I don't think it's fair to say brainstorming discourages creativity, I think it depends on the type of people that are put together and the situation at hand. If everyone thinks differently, wouldn't everyone's way of thinking and going about creating ideas must be different as well ?

Article:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201003/brainstorming-may-discourage-creativity

defining creativity

link here

One would think the idea of creativity is simple enough, but when we really look at it what is creativity? Is it a thought? a final product? Is it creativity or just expertise? Creativity is a process.
It all depends on how we view the world and our expericences. Is there a point at which computers will be capable of creativity? Possibly. There are programs out there that can create symphonies based on famous composers, determining their style. So maybe creativity is not even limited to humans any longer. Or maybe it can only be creative out of a living creature's head.

Emotional IQ

Trying to get through this week's reading on IQ levels, I couldn't helping thinking to myself how little I cared. Not so much about the content of the reading, but IQ levels in general. Sure, someone's intelligence score might mean that they have the capacity to think at a higher level than others, but it's never seemed to me that that's correlated to how successful and happy an person it. Psychologist Daniel Goleman suggests than an individual's emotional intelligence is just as if not more important that than their IQ. Emotional intelligence as one's ability to control impulses, social competence, self-motivation and empathy. I definitely think mentioned emotional intelligence is more important than conventional intelligence, especially in the my intended field of work, communications design. Here at Pratt, I often feel like my work is mediocre compared to other students. Nevertheless, I feel I would do much better on an emotional intelligence test than many of my peers (no offense to them, some are extremely talented). And whether or not it's fair, I'm confident that's what's going to matter when getting a job.

FUN INTELLIGENCE FACTS!

Since I am presenting on Intelligence this week, I wanted to include some additional interesting facts that I picked up from Richard Nisbett's, Intelligence and How To Get It: Why School and Cultures Count.

FUN FACTS::

-Even use of less than two ounces of alcohol by pregnant women has a negative effect on IQ.

-The professional parent speaks about 2,000 words per hour to the child, whereas the working-class parent speaks about 1,300. By the age of three , the child in the professional family has heard about 20 million words, and the child in the working class family has heard about 20 million.

-Studies have been taken to show that blacks have smaller brains then whites. Albert Einstein’s brain was decidedly smaller, at 1,230 grams, than the overall average found for blacks in studies by Rushton. So this proves no correlation between brain size and overall intelligence.

-Baby Einstien educational toys that move around and communicate with children may be as likely to induce passivity as to encourage exploration. There is no evidence that playing Mozart to your child—whether born or not—will increase intelligence. But research suggests that extra stimulation in the early years results in more growth of neurons and better problem solving ability.

-Women who exercise regularly while pregnant will have babies with larger brains that are more intelligent on average.

-You can start exercise in your sixties and reduce the likelihood of Alzheimer’s by half.

-It is a bad idea to praise children for being intelligent. Instead, praise hard work, which is under their direct control.

creativity is unpredictability

you know those times when you are twisting your brain left and right. thinking right side up and up side down and you come up with this fantastic idea with a big light bulb going off on top of your head, and you think you are a genius and you are going to kick ass in class with the most creative idea EVER ? ......... and then you go to class and like 5 other kids have the same idea as you, and it shoots you down and you think "damn i guess i am not not creative after all"

not to fear! you still are, because you came up with an idea or a thought that never has occurred to you before. you opened up the doors that were locked in your conceptual map in your head. many creative ideas are surprising to you bot because they involve some unusual mix of familiar ideas, but in a deeper way.  it was something that never existed before to you but you somehow made sense of it, made it clear, untangled a ball of yarn and found a treasure in the middle. and just because another person found that same treasure as you did, does not make you less of a creative person, you know, "great minds think alike ?" We cannot distinguish radical originality from mere "first-time" newness (of course unless it is already stated before...). Someone is creative in a sense that they have an idea which they could not have had before- no matter how many other people have already thought of it. creativity in this view can be defined as unpredictability. 

so how do we be creative?  knowing your conceptual space. like that phrase,  "rules are meant to be broken" you have to know the rules, in order to break them. you have to know your conceptual space in order to know to step out of it.  conceptual spaces are established styles of thinking (sonata form, chess, tonal harmony, pointillism, sonnets, limericks, etc.) different conceptual spaces have distinct structures, each with its own dimensions, and boundaries. the "mapping" of a conceptual space involves the representation, whether at conscious or unconscious levels. the more features are represented in the mind of a person concered, the more power they have to navigate and negotiate these spaces.

as everyone is different, we are all wired differently. and being a "creative" at this school and in our industry, we are often put down if we have the same ideas as others. we just simply opened the same door, it doesnt make us have less potential to excel. 

reading here

Creativity is one of those things I'm not really sure you can ever quantify, mostly because I feel it isn't a constant. The fact that things like writers block exists is a testament to that; that you can lose creativity and then regain it makes creativity beyond statistics. Thats not to say that everyone is inherently creative, but I do think that under certain circumstances a person who is regularly very conventional can be struck by it and those who are generally creative can experience be stuck in common ways of thinking. When I'm going through my paces of the everyday and taking care of routine, sometimes I can't help but think all too practically. Sometimes all it takes is a break from the normal to inspire a little open thinking, but it isn't always easy, or at least not the way it was when we're young. Something about responsibility and awareness makes creativity self conscious, or thats what I've found. Granted with those things my creativity is probably better informed and possibly more interesting, but its harder to come by, and I think thats the reason that, for at least right now, science won't be able to discern how it comes about, it is just one of those subjective things that depend largely on timing.

I came upon an article about a study that established the fact that rats have metacogitive powers and can recognize when they do or do not know the answer to a problem that they are presented with. The study gave rats the option of taking the test, which might reward them tremendously or leave them with no reward based on the difficulty of it, or opt out and get a minor prize. Metacognition is a tricky thing for humans- sometimes we don't think we know something, but we actually do. In other words, a lot of our competence especially in more subjective, creative realms depends upon a steadfast confidence and assurance in our abilities. What this has to do with is the mental machinations of fear- once our confidence is crushed, our ability is inhibited and we are less prone to put in a full effort (or what to one less self-assured would be an act of over-reaching). This domino effect can also happen to someone involved in sports (think someone charged with the responsibility of winning the game for the team- do they get overwhelmed by the situation or do they handle it the best they actually can? It depends largely on their subjective outlook on the situation.) Our minds are more self-aware than any other animal but there is still a higher echelon of thought that we cannot probe analytically. A pessimist can find him or herself in the position of seeing no hope in the present or future, but the next day that person can hypothetically have a completely different assessment of the world around them. It is interesting to know that even rats are capable of having more complex emotions than just fear and contentment.

Article here

Creative

Creative;Main Entry: ¹cre·a·tive

Pronunciation: \krē-ˈā-tiv, ˈkrē-ˌ\

Function: adjective

Date: 1678

1 : marked by the ability or power to create : given to creating
2 : having the quality of something created rather than imitated : imaginative arts>
3 : managed so as to get around legal or conventional limits financing>; also : deceptively arranged so as to conceal or defraud accounting>

-Webster

How many times does your friend say to you... "You're the creative one, I'm not creative at all." Well, have they ever thought about what creative means? It is simply the ability to create! Everybody is creative. Perhaps they don't have the craftsmanship skills, but every human has the ability to create. A basic property of a human being is the capability to create tools and use them to increase productivity and quality of life. Citing the 2nd definition of creative, the ability to create something that hasn't been done before is what most think when they hear "creative". In order to think outside the realm of creative imitation lies the realm of imaginative creativity. Imagination is the act or power of forming ideas outside of what is already known. For example; when reading a book that has no pictures, you use your imagination to create your personal image of a character's looks, a setting's environment, and so forth. The difference between imagining a situation or object that is not clearly defined and what we deem as being 'creative' seems to merely be a physical representation of one's imagination. So what do people have to be capable of to be "extra" creative? The only way 'creative' is defined in our modern cultural language is through the varying amounts of creativity found in a given person; if everyone was equally creative (had the same amount of physical representations {art, literature} coming from their own imagination), then the term would be unnecessary for our vocabulary. You could argue that someone who doesn't seem as 'creative' (again; having physical manifestations serving as examples of one's imagination), simply does not put their imagination down on paper. I would argue that the variables in life (maybe someone who is 'creative' does not have the time, means to produce) are endless; there is really no point in discussing such problems (even if you have NO MONEY, you can still draw a cartoon character in the sand with a stick while waiting for your break to end). I feel that there is no given difference between a 'creative' person and someone who is not broadly defined as being 'creative', only the means by which they were raised (I've been encouraged to draw and paint as far back as I remember). It is quite certain, then, that a 'creative' person is just someone who is trained to express imagination through production and physical manifestations of their thoughts.

Metacognition

One statement in particular in the article for this week caught my attention: knowledge can be more of a hinderance than help. While it wasn't necessarily the main point of the article, I found it to be thought-provoking. How does knowledge influence our thinking? Does it block out creative cognitive paths in our brain by outlining a specific correct one? Can it damage creativity? In researching, I came across something called metacognition. Basically, metacognition is thinking about thinking. It enables us to be aware and more efficient learners. For example, approaching a specific task by thinking about the best learning process to use would be a metacognitive activity. By controlling our cognitive processes, we are using metacognition.

While metacognition can obviously lead us to be more successful and efficient learners, could it have a negative impact, as well? Can we, by continuing to use what we determine to be "tried and true" methods, miss out on more creative avenues of learning or perhaps a perspective on the topic we would not otherwise observe? This reminds of the article's description of creatives as those who "buy low" and "sell high". Are we all missing out on the unexplored avenues that we could "buy low and sell high" by following these tried-and-true learning methods?

This also brings up another issue, mentioned in the article. If you have difficulty learning about something like, for example, physics, would the knowledge that you have this difficulty be metacognitive? If so, would it impact you ability to learn and cause a cycle of increased difficulty?

http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/CEP564/Metacog.htm

What does it mean?

This question of "what is consciousness?", really bothers me. Is self consciousness different from being conscious of the world around us? At what point in time are we no longer conscious: when we go to sleep or when we go brain dead? What are the terms of this arrangement? It seems very complex and I have only been able to find a few vague explanations. And why do people group animal consciousness as being completely separate from human consciousness? Is it because we understand that we are humans.. well in that case how are we ever to know that animals don't know that they are animals? And lastly what is the connection between the word soul and consciousness? Are they in fact one and the same and just one is scientific and the other religious?

I don't necessarily have any answers and I don't really expect to find a concrete one either. However I found an interesting article online that attempts to break this all down you can find it here.