It just dissappears so fast! I’m taking a winter intensive course right now, basically 1 course, everyday, over a 2 week period. It from 9 to 1230, so 3.5hrs which isn’t too bad but its really just tiring me out. I am not a morning person. I’m not grumpy or anything, I just don’t like to wake up that early. And its not that I’m a late riser either. Its just…say…..45mins too early for me. Oh well, when I return to the working world I’ll have to deal with it there anyways.
But yeah, so I have that course. Then I’ve been going to the gym again (yay!) afterwards. Come home do my readings, prepare for cases, write my papers, study, etc. Try and find time for a job hunting, emailing, food, sleep, friends, tv, blogging, course selection, and I don’t know. Its like everyday I’m adding more stuff to my todo list and not getting as much as I’d like done. I think I’m just trying to take on too many outside things right now while not mentally allocating enough time for them.
Its also probably really effected by my being tired. And thats not just the 9am thing. Its really my fault. I’m not sleeping enough, I’m adjusting to do what will hopefully be a regular workout routine again, but at the same time I’m not eating enough. I’m skipping breakfast. Eating after working out and some other chores. So not till like 5ish. And then before I know it, its the middle of the night and I realize I’ve only ate 1 meal today. Of course by blogging now at 1230 instead of doing other work and trying to go to bed earlier I’m just continuing the cycle…but I miss blogging and I need to make more time for it.
Anyhow, you want to hear some cool random stuff I learned in class? The class is Advanced Negotiations btw which is really really cool and fun. But I won’t get into that b/c its more than i wish to try and explain on here. I’ll just hit a few pysch things I found cool.
1) Do you think knowing a person’s personality or the situation a person is in, is a better predictor of their behaviour? Apparently its the situation. This is particularly true for strong situations. Strong situations being situations where there exists social norms (being quiet in a movie theatre or classroom) or there is certain expected behaviour (posturing during a negotiation).
2) Adults were given smarties and told they could share or keep as many as they wanted with their friends/peers. Typically a 50/50 split was common. I forget the age, either 5 or 8 year olds, were given smarties and told they could share or keep as many as they wanted with their friends. Typically, the children shared more and kept less for themselves.
3) Say you have pictures of 100 different people. You are told 50 of them are liars and 50 of them are honest. You are then asked to categorize them. How well would you do? You’d think its chance right? 50/50. What if it was a generally low trusting individual categorizing, how would they do? What if it was a generally high-trusting person? Well the study found the low-trusting person performed on par with chance 50/50. While the high-trusting person before statistically significantly better than chance! The same test done with videos of individuals instead of simply pictures had the same results! Interesting eh? While they aren’t sure exactly why this is, one theory is that low-trust people are not as hurt or offended as much when the trust is broken. High-trust people on the other hand are deeply offended and if you ruin the trust there will trust you less than the low-trust person does if you break trust with that person. And since they take it as a greater offense they are more aware of signals that point towards a possible breaking of trust.
Should you take this as a sign to trust people or not? hmm…..well generally I believe most ppl are good ppl and I think I tend to trust easily. And theres another study that shows that might be good in another way.
In a business trading computer simulation different strategies were submitted and tested against each other. One strategy is the tit-for-tat. You cheat on me, I will immediately punish you, if you co-operate, I will co-operate. This strategy did roughly well finishing in the top 5 out of 20 I think it was. But then they thought, this system is not perfect….ppl share information. Lets try it again with ppl sharing information. Ie. the different ‘players’ will share information with any other player it interacts with. Letting know who was fair and who cheated. In this scenario the tit-for-tat scenario fell to the bottom half. The tit-tit-tit-for-tat ie. forgive 3x before punishing finished in the top 1/3rd and the strategy of actually always co-operating no matter what also finished higher. And as the simulation ran its course what happened was any dishonest (cheaters) started falling to the bottom as less and less players would do business with them and the honest players all did significantly better. So the moral of the story? Honesty is the best policy haha 🙂
The above is my recollection of class discussion and material stated by my professor, but I’m not referring to any notes as I write this so….yeah.