Practical Psychology

A few days ago I finished my Psych 101 course and I have a few things to share with Future Me.

The marshmallow test:
A simple test to measure, I dunno, a kid's ability to wait for shit. The point is that kids who are successful tend to be better at life, from school, to relationships, to professional success, whatever, they're better at it.
So here what you do: Give the kid a marshmallow. Tell them that you're going to leave the room for fifteen minutes. if the marshmallow is still there, they'll get a second one.
Anyway, if they fail the test, they will take it again later and again after that until they succeed. And probably again a few times after that just to make sure it isn't a fluke.

On conditioning:
Okay, so there's two types of conditioning: classical and operant. Classical conditioning associates a stimulus with a reflex. The stimulus has to come before whatever causes the reflex, so keep that in mind. Operant conditioning associates a behavior with a reward. Now, an important thing to note is that it's easier to condition people if you offer the reward every time they do the thing you want, but it's also easier to become unconditioned. If you don't give a reward every time, it encourages them to do it more and it takes longer for them to become unconditioned, even if takes longer for them to get conditioned in the first place. Strategize, Future Me!

You can also influence My Future Kids to change their attitudes. Condition them to associate ideas with either good or bad things. Influence their behavior by modeling it because they eat that shit up. Pysch Prof got his kid to wear a shirt by putting on the kid's shirt. They love that stuff. This is what advertisements are made of.

If there is one thing you didn't know that you know now and should make an effort to still know in the indeterminate future from Pysch, it's that thoughts follow from behavior, though you may perceive the contrary. Let me tell you what I mean. People do things. I don't think they know why. They may have reasons, but I don't think they know them. You get me? They do things and make up why after the fact. Maybe they're right, but who knows? Not them.
Let me walk you through an example, because I know you're a bit rusty, Future Me. Let's talk about feelings. You see a bear. Two things happen, you have the physiological response (adrenaline rush) and the emotion of fear. Common sense dictates that you see the bear and become frightened, which triggers the physiological response. False. I think current models say that seeing the bear triggers the physiological response before you ever get the feeling of being afraid. You then note the situation, conclude that you ought to be afraid and then become afraid. You don't need the physiological response, but it does help. It's like how biting a pencil makes you happier because it's kind of like smiling.
Now, before you start talking about false equivalences between behavior and physiological responses. let's talk about another study. It involved giving people a tedious task with either a large or small reward (money). People given the larger reward found the task to be more boring than those not given as much (I don't remember whether or not they were paid at all). It is thought that people who got the reward assessed the situation and assumed that they did the task even though it was tedious because of the reward whereas those who did not receive had no other reason to do it, so they must have enjoyed it.
I find this to be reminiscent of the difference between work that I have to do and work that I do not have to do. It's a lot more enjoyable when I don't have to do it even when it's the exact same work. Just keep this in mind when you're trying to get My Future Kids to do shit.

Also, it looks like, as long as you're rich enough (i.e. not poor), there isn't much you can do to make My Future Kids smarter except bang smart people. So good news there. And no need to worry! Thanks, science!

Oh, and if you feel like tricking My Future Kids when they are young (5ish), they really have no sense of conservation (except for numbers <= 5 or so). The point is that taller and more spread out is more. So guess who's getting 5 pieces of Halloween candy until they understand there are numbers greater than five? It's not you, Future Me. Reese's Cups are for people who can count them. Tough luck, My Future Kids.

Speaking of child development, apparently bilingual kids are better at some sorting game, indicating that they're better at switching modes or something. I don't really know what the study meant. Anyway they're better at it so I guess that's cool? I don't think that being bilingual makes them smarter, but it doesn't hurt, so why not?

That's all I can remember for now. Godspeed, Future Me.