Terms of my knowledge Essay Example for Free

Terms of my knowledge Essay In answering to handout 6, I would like to begin with stating that cognitive is private, yet I believe it is psychologys job investigate the phenomenon. To that extent I will use all my acquired knowledge from this class to discuss my interpretations and doubts with handout 6. For the most part I agree that we have set boundaries on what is me or you, although I am having trouble understanding the concept in terms of my knowledge. But I am aware that in order for me to identify me as a self then the other people must have selfs too, yet I do not know if this is was the handout is trying to explain. I believe this is like the idea that if there is good, there must be evil, for one cannot exist without the other. For example, Watson believed the mind was associated with the idea of a soul, which did not fit into science. He wanted scientific results and reactions all of which the mind had no power over and could not do. For Watson the mind could not think because thinking was not observable, therefore he did not accept the mind in this theory. In addition, Watson despised the notion of mind because it gave meaning to self , which also had no place in science. In this sense, Watson wanted to use matter and energy that were useful to him and produced visible results. He had no use for spirits and ideas because those were nothing, and consisted of conjugated notions that people had identities. For this matter he did not like the self set boundaries because they too were not visible. Like in Dr. Wapners story is cognitive because it is based on one individual personal experience. His feelings and emotions for scientific proposes in the story were not observable which means that Watson, would have rejected the story from any psychology class. The story is an example of desire, which can only be felt by the self/ mind and is identifiable by human cognition. The story was written in with a certain identity and acknowledgment of self that became evident in Dr. Wapners need to diet and skip desserts. In addition to the emotions of anticipation, shock, nerves, and anxiety transpired throughout the story are all synonymous to the mind. The cravings observed by the fact that the Eskimo Pie had been secretly hidden for emergencies gave the notion that the self needed comfort in knowing it had support. Whereas behaviorist would have dismissed the cravings in the story because they are unattainable, like the mind and have no scientific base. In addition to Dr. Wapner feeling pressure of not having dessert was building up inside him. The ice cream was needed to function and Dr. Wapners awareness of his need for ice cream was cognitive privacy. I will use Dr. Wapner story because I can really distort it apart and it works well in my paper. But Dr. Wapners need for dessert was private from all the members of his family, and although there was an advantage to his cognitive privacy this can back fire. It is important to note that have is ability because it first, allows us to have selfs. Second it gives people the opportunity to be individuals, or like the handout stated; have more than meets the eye. If people had no boundaries then we as humans would be all part of one gigantic identity, and that as we all know cannot be true. Psychologists in fact dig into those deep thoughts that are not visible to help people with various problems. I have a hard time believing that things and objects have identities separate for what humans are. In fact, I agree that our ( human) identity is more complex than that of a pencil, who is to say what degree of identity an object can have without being it. Form my perspective a pencil is a writing tool that I use, but the pencil might say it is a tool that uses me. I can very simply identify myself as having an identity and be able to distinguish a pencil from a pen, but who is to say that is was not the pencil who distinguishes it self. I am trying to agree that just because we as people have selfs and identities that does not make other objects lesser than us. I believe that in psychology, although it is the study of the mind, we are very self centered and concentrate too much on the small things. As people we are so ego centric that we many time fail to see beyond was our perception and eyes show us, but that topic is for a different paper. Moving on to our self identity and how we define it, I will use my one year old son as an example since he is on the verge of defining his persona. Although it is true that he still has not fully developed a sense of time or space, and that many times he will act on his impulse without regard to the world around him. He is slowly learning how not to do certain things which may have a bad result. For example, I have been teaching him to eat fruit and he has caught on well and likes most fruits accept for oranges. He is very good at eating very thing I give him but he has now learned to differentiate the orange when he looks at it. And every time he see it, hell make a funny face like if I had given him lemon. Now I realized this is something small, but he is developing self identity and he is now telling me what he likes and does not like. I think it is important for psychology to be aware a notion of the self and identity. I do not know if I am right on the spot which is what Dr. Wapner wanted me to understand. I would really like to know if I am on the right track, because it is important for me understand this so that I can incorporate it into my life. I am a strong believer of self identity and believe it is the essence of psychology, and I believe it because I see in my of son. In the last few papers I have written, I really bashed on Watson but I will admit he did try to make psychology real and honest. In all I have learned in this class self-identification as been the most valuable to me in my life. I am also aware that this is Dr. Wapners last quarter teaching and I would like to say that in the few classes I have been in it has been a pleasure.