Johari- Bonus Blog

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

I very much enjoyed completing the Johari Window. Like the IAT tests that we took for the chapter 12 first impression post, it allows you to see if the perceptions you have about what you project to others are the same things that they see. The six words that I chose to  define myself through the Johari window were happy, independent, mature, spontaneous, sympathetic, and accepting. Aside from accepting, all of the words that I chose to describe myself were chosen at least two times. The words that people used the most to describe me however were caring and trustworthy, neither of which I chose for myself.

All of the people that I chose to take the quiz were friends, both from home and from here at school. I think it is important to chose people to take this test who you believe you are totally yourself with. For example, you may be more open and authentic with your best friends than with your parents or siblings.

I think this test is mostly reliable and accurate, but one fault I found with it is that it is nearly impossible to sum up a person in their entirety into five words. My best friend from home, for example, sent me a screenshot with over twenty words selected and asked me how she was supposed to narrow it down when, to her, I embodied all of these qualities. Other than that, I think the test was reliable and consistent and I greatly enjoyed doing it.

Chapter 12 First Impression

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

I highly enjoyed taking the tests. I chose to take the tests on race and sexuality, and my results were that I had a moderate preference of gay people over straight, and of black people over white. While this may seem interesting at first considering I am both straight and white, I was raised in a highly liberal and open environment (Boulder, Colorado) which had an affect on my home life, my social life and ultimately on my beliefs later in life. Being brought up in this type of environment means that white privilege and superiority were not tolerated in the slightest in any of the communities that I was a part of. This made it so that in a way I harbored a slight resentment for the stereotypical ‘privileged’ person (straight, white, financially stable, male), and because of this I began to more enjoy the company and views of those who did not fit that profile and express the views associated with white privilege.  I enjoyed the experience of taking the tests because it was interesting to see how similar my own perceptions of my views were to my actual results. I think this test could be extremely useful for college students in identifying and bringing underlying biases to the surface. I believe the only true way we are going to combat stereotypes and various ‘-isms’ (racism, sexism, ageism) is by educating others not only on the harm of stereotyping but  also by bringing to attention how many people truly posses these slight but harmful biases. I think this would also be helpful for my future career. As a social work major, it is going to be very important to be able to determine and get to the root of underlying biases to be able to eventually eliminate then.

Spotlight-Option 3

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

From what I found in my research, the DARE program was inherently unsuccessful, and often had the opposite result of what the proponents of the program were looking for. The DARE program, in a nutshell, uses fear tactics and preaches abstinence to middle and high school aged children. Instead of developing negative feelings towards drug and drug use after the program, many children in fact report developing a negative opinion towards the program leaders as well as the program itself. According to Dual Diagnosis, there are many studies that suggest that the DARE program did not in the slightest deter students from using drugs short or long term; in fact, drug use tended to increase within groups that went through the drug use program.

According to an article published by LiveScience, there are many reports that suggest that as the children that went through DARE got older, they became curious in regards to the drugs that they were told to, “just say no” to. The education of the drugs effects, consequences, and implications were lost in the abstinence approach and left students with questions that had not been touched upon by the program leaders. Because of the mass of evidence against it, DARE ended up losing their federal funding in 1998.

Other abstinence based programs in schools have been facing similar negative and often reversed results. Programs based around the “just say no” slogan tend to lack in the education aspect and excel in the fear mongering component. Abstinence based SexEd programs are not only unrealistic, but often set students up for failure by not providing them with the information and preparation to have a safe and healthy sex life. When teens from regions where this form of education is commonplace begin to have sex, they are often unprepared and uneducated, which leads to a higher rate of unwanted pregnancies and STIs. Laura Lindberberg, a research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute said it best when she compared SexEd to drunk driving. She said, “We tell people not to drink and drive. We don’t teach them not to drive. … We would never withhold information about seat belts because then they wouldn’t know how to protect themselves.” This is probably one of the best analogy I have heard on this topic; instead of seeing a danger and not educating people about it and letting them try and navigate it by themselves, teach people how to keep themselves and their partners safe in the long run.


Chapter 13

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

In taking these tests, I found some very interesting (and in most cases accurate) results. The Humanetrics Jung Typology Test told me that I was slightly more extroverted than introverted, slightly more intuitive over sensible, moderately more driven by emotion than thought, and slightly more perceptive than judgmental. I would say that all of these are accurate by my own perception of my personality. I would say this is one of the most accurate of the tests (out of the four we were given), mainly because of the depth and quantity of the questions.

The second test, the Jungian Personalty test, also had a wide variety of in depth and insightful questions, which is why I would say is the other test that was very accurate. The results I got from this test were that I am a ‘Questor,’ meaning I am supposedly idealistic, self-sacrificing, cool and reserved, family and home oriented, have a high capacity for caring, and have a high sense of honer derived from my own internal values. I would say that these results, much like the first, are very accurate. I definitely see myself as someone who cares deeply for people, as well as holding myself to a high standard and putting others before myself.

I do not think that the third test would be as accurate, because it simply measured for ‘the Big 5’ personality traits, being extroversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and intellect/imagination. I scored in the 54th percentile in extroversion, the 26th percentile in emotional stability, the 62nd percentile in  agreeableness, the 15th percentile in conscientiousness, and the 40th in intellect and imagination. I would say these results are less true than what I believe about myself.

The final test, the color test, was by far the least accurate in my mind. Anything, from the song you’re listening to to a conversation you are having could sway your mood to the point that it influences you to choose a different color than you originally would. My color test told me that I was sensitive and compassionate, but still feeling strain and pressure. It also told me that I felt trapped and powerless, that I am getting less than I deserve for my hard work, and I want something interesting or exciting to happen in my life. These results read more to me like a horoscope than an actual personality test, and the vague, ambiguous statements could possibly be applied to any person in any given situation.

First Impression-Chapter 9

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

I have been lucky enough to have a privileged, individualized education for most of my life. Since the second grade, I have moved from private school to private school. Though these schools spanned across different states, teaching philosophies, and grade levels, they all had one thing in common: every single teacher genuinely cared for you as an individual and as a student. In some ways, this was both a blessing and a curse. Though I didn’t always see it as such, it was incredibly helpful to constantly have teachers on your side, advocating for you, keeping you accountable for your assignments, and pushing you to constantly challenge yourself inside and outside of the classroom. Coming into college, it took a little bit of an adjustment phase to realize that teachers here don’t come to you (as they did in my previous schools), you have to go to them and initiate the first step. I think if high school teachers made themselves less responsible for the students own accountability mindset, it would help them be able to adjust to college more quickly in the future. I think another change the school system could make is teaching the students material, not memorization. Coming out of high school, I knew how to study for tests, cram for tests, and take tests. I couldn’t remember the physics or calculus that I had learned just months prior. I think that if the school system made their educative model more holistic and correlate success to knowledge rather than testing, the young adults leaving that system would be far more prepared to advance in the career of their choice.

Sleep-Option 2

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

My sleep habits are generally not very healthy. On weeknights, I usually go to bed between 1 am and 2 am every day, and on weekends I am rarely in bed before 4 am. I was very lucky with my class schedule, and do not have to wake up until either 9 am or 11:15 am unless there is a conflict with sports. Playing a sport, my free time as well as my time to do homework is very limited and because of this it can be hard to go to sleep before midnight. My roommate is in the same situation, and though she often goes to bed an hour or two before me, she hasn’t been able to be in bed before midnight since we started college. I don’t think that these sleep habits are healthy, because I am constantly tired throughout my day. I think that a realistic amount of sleep for a college student is between 8 and 9 hours of sleep per night. In order to improve my sleep habits, I could turn my TV or Netflix off and put my phone away earlier in order to try and relax more quickly. I could also set myself up with a routine before I go to bed (something like reading a chapter of a book or journaling about my day) so that my brain and body knows when it is time to relax and start shutting down.

Spotlight 1-Divorce

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

It is not divorce as an act that damages children, it is the toxic environment that is created when two parents no longer love or respect one another. At the same time, one child’s experience with having divorced parents is not going to be the same as the next, as every couple get divorced for different reasons, at different times, and with varying levels of maturity and tact. Regardless of whether or not it was the act of divorce that triggered the child’s emotional trauma, divorce is caused, amplified, and exaggerated by the parents.

This source argues that divorce is the worst thing you can do to a child and that divorce can be lethal to a developing child’s psyche and mental processing. The article cites The Longevity Project as cause for this argument, claiming that divorced children have a shorter lifespan by five years than children of families that are together. This article also states that children never recover from this trauma they endure from divorce, and that that trauma is comparable to an earthquake destroying one’s home. Another point the author makes is that boys coming from broken homes have difficulty managing their anger and aggression and will have trust issues their entire lives. Girls with divorced parents are hypothesized to have problems with self-esteem and intimacy, and also develop trust issues that they will carry with them throughout their lives. The final point that this article makes is that divorce is more damaging to a child than the death of a parent, because when a parent dies the child loses hope of ever having a whole family. With divorce, the child retains the fantasy that their parents will one day reconcile and come back together. Allan Bloom was an American philosopher, classicist and academician. He was a very credible man that taught at Cornell University, University of Toronto, and Yale University. The website this article was published on his site and under his name, so it leads the reader to believe that the article is written by someone educated and informed. I don’t think this article is correct, because I believe that two happy homes are far healthier that one disjointed family. Divorce can surely be damaging to a child if not handled in the right way but living in an unhappy or unhealthy home can be far worse.

In this article written by Jann Gumbiner, the author uses personal anecdotes and experience to detail the damaging effects of divorce on children. She claims that there is no such thing as an intelligent divorce; divorce is bad, plain and simple. The touches on the blame children place on themselves when parents get divorced and how they lose motivation and direction and quickly become ashamed of their family. She also argues that children with divorced parents see divorce as more of an option in their own marriages and are less likely to stick it out and work for a happy marriage. The article was written by a woman who was a child of divorce as well as a psychologist with a self-proclaimed ‘excellent education.’ It is also published on Psychology Today, which is a fairly reputable publication where psychologists with different specialties and backgrounds come together to share their insights and research. One problem I have with the way that this article was written is how much the author bases her findings off of her own personal experiences with divorce. I don’t think that this article is correct either. The author pulls far too much from her personal experience growing up in a broken home and uses little to no evidence aside from her own life to back her claims.

This article, written by Susan Pease Gadoua, argues that children are not damaged because of the act of divorce, they are damaged because of parental fighting and inconsistencies within their home life. She believes you can’t measure if divorce hurts children, because there is no way to compare the outcome of a family that gets divorced with a secondary outcome of the same exact family in a world where the parents stay together. She backs this with an argument that families differ by age of children, socio economic status, culture, degree of tension in the home, etc. Ms. Gadoua believes that divorce can provide relief for children because they do not have to endure the parents fighting any longer. This article is written by an author of multiple books on divorce, as well as a licensed therapist specializing in marriage and divorce. Like the previous article, this article is published on Psychology Today, which is a decently reputable source. I agree completely with this author’s point of view. She recognizes that an unhealthy home can be psychologically and physically damaging to children, and how divorce is sometimes the only option to keep parents and kids alike happy and healthy.

The final article I have chosen is written by Rachael Rettner. She too believes the idea of ‘staying together for the kids can do more harm than good and can be very harmful to children of any age. She believes children of parents who fight a lot yet stay married experience more conflict in their own adult relationships than children who do fight and get divorced. Rettner acknowledges the research that children who come from divorced families are more likely to be divorced, but questions whether or not this is due to the divorce itself or the fighting and drama that went on in the home leading up to the divorce. In her own words, “Constant exposure to their parent’s strife is likely what causes children’s future relationships to suffer.” Rachael Rettner is a health science writer for the website Live Science. Live Science is a science news website typically coordinated with major news outlets like Yahoo!, MSNBC, AOL, and Fox News. This source seems credible because it only publishes articles written by writers employed by the news source, so it does not receive or publish pieces written by nonprofessional writers. This specific author also has a degree in health sciences, making her specifically a credible source. I highly agree with all of the claims thus author makes. I appreciate that she acknowledges the evidence presented by the other side of the argument yet contrasts it with her own opinion and background.

Through my own personal experience as well as the claims made by the authors in the articles, I believe that divorce is not inherently harmful to children and they can come out the other side. I don’t believe that divorce as an act is what leads to the mental harm we see in children later on, but that it is the parent’s fighting and lack of respect for one another that hurts their kids.




Bloom, Allan. “Divorce Always Harms Children.” Allan Bloom PhD and Associates. 6 Oct. h      2018.

Divorce Hurts Children, Even Grown Ones. (n.d.). Retrieved from   children-even-grown-ones


Divorce Doesn’t Harm Children – Parents Fighting Harms Child. (n.d.). Retrieved from            doesnt-harm-children-parents-fighting-harms-child


Divorce Doesn’t Harm Children – Parents Fighting Harms Child. (n.d.). Retrieved from             doesnt-harm-children-parents-fighting-harms-child









Psychology Today-Jann Gumbiner


Psychology Today- Susan Pease Gadoua



Chapter 3-Prompt 1

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

In my opinion, use of both recreational and medicinal marijuana should be legal. Medicinal marijuana contains different proportions of THC and CBD than recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana allows for the pain relief offered by CBD with little to none of the ‘high’ provided by THC. Medicinal marijuana has been proven to provide pain and nausea relief for cancer patients, as well as reducing muscle spasms and increasing appetite in those with conditions such as cancer, HIV, and AIDS. Personally, my family uses CBD oil to help keep my dog’s epilepsy under control, and we have seen a marked difference in her appetite and the frequency and severity of her seizures. In places that medical cannabis has been legalized, people have an opportunity to obtain a medical marijuana card that allows them to purchase any number of cannabis products from dispensaries. I also believe that the legalization of medical marijuana could offer a solution to the opioid epidemic in America right now. Cannabis has had no proven long-term adverse effects on the user, unlike alternate pain relief medications such as Percocet or Vicodin. The cons to legalizing medical marijuana are nobody really knows yet if medical cannabis is safe for long term (or short term for that matter) use, and that young people with medical marijuana cards are more susceptible to side effects and potential addiction later on in life. It is also a concern that people will unnecessarily acquire a medical marijuana card in order to get around the system and use the product for recreational use. I believe however the pros far outweigh the cons, and benefits such as pain and nausea relief, enhanced appetite, helping with PTSD, and creating more jobs within the community are worth more than the minimal risks.

I believe that recreational marijuana should be legalized as well. There are many people that believe that marijuana is a gateway drug and has a high potential to be used and abused illegally, and that if it were to be made legal the situation would only get worse. After living in Colorado for six years, it is my opinion (and the opinion of many in the Colorado community) that the legalization of marijuana truly doesn’t hurt anyone. Marijuana is a relaxant, and unlike a hallucinogenic like LSD or peyote, does not cause the typical user to lose control of themselves and have manic episodes. Although tasks such as driving a car could be far more dangerous under the influence of marijuana, I argue that it’s affects are no more harmful than those of alcohol and in some cases poses even less of a risk. I believe that marijuana should be legalized everywhere in the United States for those above 21.

First Impression 8-Memory

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

I believe that memories are created more powerfully when they are associated with highly charged emotion. For example, when President Kennedy was assassinated, as well as when the 9/11 attacks occurred, Americans were shocked, upset, and scared. This blend of emotions resulted in memory that was more likely to imprint longterm on the human mind. Even on a smaller, more personal scale, events such as your first kiss or your wedding day are associated with emotions of love, happiness, and hope. This causes stronger memory cycles and allows association of the feelings with events, making them easier to recall.

I think one way to study the strength of memory would be to gather a test group of different ages and backgrounds, and ask each person to recall three different types of memory: one memory tied to a specific and impactful event (such as what they were doing during 9/11 or when the Sandy Hook shooting occurred), one tied to a memory that may have been attached to significant emotional stimulation, but not necessarily an event of national importance (such as ones wedding), and one completely random memory (like what a typical day in 5th grade looked like or your 9th birthday) and assign a one to ten scale of strength of detail recovery and the speed at which it is done.

First Impression-Chapter 2

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

I have always been interested in the topics of serial killers, and what goes behind the motivation of these killers to commit the crimes that they do. The implications of the genetic structure of the brain contributing to someone turning into a murderer is very compelling to me, so that is why I chose the talk Exploring the Mind of a Killer.

In the TED talk, neuroscientist Jim Fallon goes into detail about the mental structure of a serial killer and how genetics, early experiences, brain structure, and critical timing goes in to the making of a killer. In the talk, Fallon goes into depth about the structure of the orbital lobe, as well as the genetic significance of timing when one is examining what creates a serial killer. For example, the combination of early childhood exposure to violence as well as the MAO-A gene, as well as the overexposure to serotonin when your brain is developing, is what Fallon refers to as “a recipe for disaster.” Fallon also gets into the contributions a family tree has to serial killers, and details his own experiences with several of his own relatives (including Lizzy Borden and the Cornells) that committed gruesome murders.

I found the aspect of the family tree most interesting when watching the TED talk, because I had no idea that the concept of being a killer could run in the family. It does make sense after watching it, though, because if what Fallon claims about the MAO-A gene is correct, and if it keeps getting passed down from generation to generation, the gene would continue to have the same effects if the child was exposed to some sort of violent stimuli early on.

I find the presenter very trustworthy; Fallon is a neuroscientist as well as a professor at University of California, and has dedicated over 35 years to studying behavior as a result to brain and genetic structure. Though he has just recently gotten involved in studying killers, I believe that he has enough of a solid background in the subject to be able to apply it to this field. I also think that the consistencies he has found in the genetics and brain scans of more than 70 examples of violent killers are very sturdy proof of his claim.

If I were to do a research study based on the information presented on the talk, I would look more deeply into if there is a way to correct the damaged structure of the orbital region of the brain through sessions of therapy, or prescription medications. I would take previous offenders who displayed this type of behavior and brain structure, as well as people that had not yet committed a violent crime and split them into a control and experimental group. I would then submit the control group to sessions of talk therapy as well as pharmaceuticals. Finally, I would test and compare the way that both groups responded to various stressful and perhaps violence-inducing situations (in a controlled environment) and see if the drugs or therapy had made any difference. I would also preform repeat brain scans to see if the actual structure of the brain had been edited at all since the start of the correction attempts.