QUOTE(yawn @ Mar 12 2008, 01:38 AM) [snapback]3559844[/snapback]
I hate it when mundane problems get in the way of following your passions. =/
Yep. It might be these mundane sorts of things that have caused me so much resentment of shrinks lately, and it might be about time I got over my gripes about it, or just keep them to myself, and try to focus on the good things about psycho electives.
It's a rather complex subject. Possibly because the human brain is rather complex. That maybe why there are so many different schools of thought, which was one of the drawbacks I noticed in the first year of my psycho major as compared to other studies where there is effectively one way to do something, or else a better way gets discovered. Simple in comparison to the many different and sometimes conflicting theories of psych.
Personally, I was never interested in abnormal psych, although that was the reason I chose that major over law, wanting to be part of the prevention more than the cure. If you can save someone from going crazy, then maybe they won't need a lawyer so often. That was the beginning argument.
However, not long into the course, the areas of psychology at the other end of the scale took precedence. Not what abnomalities might occur, and how to therapise or drug them out, but what might be the potential of the healthy mind? What are the highest goals we could hope to achieve and how to maintain the healthy mind throughout life? Stuff like that.
Developmental psych then became more interesting. Not only Piaget and his ducklings, and the ontogenic development from childhood through to senescence, but the evolution of mankind, and the things that we have developed over time. Colour vision being one obvious example.
What else was interesting about shrink school? The biology aspects. Just stuff like learning the names for the different lobes of the brain, and what they are believed to do. Stuff that can be helpful if you're about to have a big fall or a car accident or cop a smack in the head. Would you prefer to take it on the occipital lobe, or the temporal lobe? Speech or vision? That was interesting. I remember reading the entire 500 pages of the Biological Psychology textbook before the first semester even began.
One thing that might be wise to take into account is the precision of experiments run on a computer. You'll get unpredictable results and perhaps disprove known theories if you try to time experiments more precisely than around 55 milliseconds, for that is the speed of the clock-tick on a PC, (I know I keep going on about it but nobody ever bothers to agree). With things like distance, I believe that it is possible to halve the precison and estimate whether it is 10.0 mm or 10.5mm. Clock ticks on a PC are not quite like that though. When it is 54.9 ms for the sake of argument that I can't remember the exact number, it will still read at 54.0. The precision is around 1/18th of a second, but the tick is instantaneous. You can't really average it out to 27ms, and certainly can't do 10ms, even though the reading on the clock will display right down to thousandths of a second. It is actually still counting in multiples of 55ms and the eye cannot see that quickly with any reliability.
Other than that, psych school was interesting. Stuff like the difference between classical and operant conditioning. Best of all, of the 600 odd kids in the first year intake, 95% were girls. It was like being a kid in a candy store.