1) Answer to this question 250 words.
There is considerable debate over whether or not repressed memories, or recollections of shocking events that are pushed into the unconscious, are real or unreal. Given what you have learned about the psychoanalytic view concerning unconscious influences on behavior and the emotional influences on memory, do you feel that repressed memories are real or unreal? Support your reasoning with information from the text and other course materials.
2) 1 comment to this (like answering to classmate’s post).
I believe that a certain extent of repressed memories are real and a certain extent of them are unreal. As our textbook mentioned in the priming experiment, you can be shown a very specific word and have no recollection about that word existing until you see most or even some of its spelling again at a future time, and then all of a sudden you know exactly what that word is and what it means. On the other hand when it comes to having recollection regarding shocking events, or flashbulb memories, I believe that the initial remembrance of it is real, but there are facts about it that your mind makes up about how it wishes the event occurred. I have memories from when I was a child regarding when I tripped and cut my lip open, or playing with my dogs in the backyard of the house I was born in, or going to certain events at a young age and even though I remember who was there and the location of it and the specific event that I’m trying to recall, whenever I talk with my dad about them there are always certain details that I get wrong. I always forget how I tripped or what my first backyard looked like or the decorations that were up at these certain events. I do believe that memories of the events existing are real, but I also believe that our mind makes up certain details about how we wish it went to either make for a better story, or so that it is more enjoyable of a memory, or fit the theme that we are trying to remember.
3) 1 comment to this (like answering to classmate’s post).
Hello everyone, when discussing about repressed memories I believe that they are real but maybe the whole recollection is not completely right or exact. Wondering the case of the catholic priest that was accused of sexual abuse from a man that did not remember until his adulthood about the abuse he encounter. In our textbook they define repressed memories as recollections that are so shocking that our mind starts by pushing them into our unconscious. (Fieldman, pg. 219) Considering what I have learn about repressed memories I believe that the man that accused the priest of sexual abuse did actually encounter this but since it was a very traumatizing thing, for protection his mind probably pushed back that memory into the unconscious for a while until his adulthood. Many people might argue that he is having “false memory” but like I stated before people that go though very traumatizing events can repressed the memory for their own protection. I believe the man that accused the priest, the memory might not be 100% recollected but the “big picture” of the traumatizing event will still be in his memories.
4) Answer to this question 250 words.
Describe how the familiarity heuristic (familiar items are seen as superior to those that are unfamiliar) in conjunction with mental set can contribute to errors in perception when it comes to solving social conflicts. Do you feel there is a way to reduce or prevent these errors? Explain and give specific examples. Support your reasoning with information from the text and other course materials.
5) 1 comment to this (like answering to classmate’s post).
The familiarity heuristic tricks our mind into placing familiar items, places and things into a higher position of importance and superiority simply due to the fact that we are familiar with it (Module 23, pg. 238). Mental set is the familiarity of problem-solving and applying the exact strategy used in previous problems to solve similar problems (Module 24, pg 248). Both of these mental rhetorics can grant errors when practiced in conjunction for problem solving in social conflicts because it does not allow for our way of thinking to broaden. It also limits the problem-solving attitude we bring forth with everyday tasks. In a way, we can think of these two terms as ‘conditioned’ mental restraints. A way in which we can prevent these errors would be by being more open minded and taking criticism as an opportunity for growth and enlightenment. We should always listen to others’ way of thinking and explanation so we can learn a different way of viewing certain problems and life in general. Being empathetic towards others can also help avoid falling in the mental set and familiarity heuristic impairment.
Feldman, R. S. (2019). Understanding psychology (13th ed.). Dubuque: McGraw-Hill Education.
6) 1 comment to this (like answering to classmate’s post).
Familiarity heuristic leads us to believe that familiar items are superior to those that are unfamiliar(Feldman,2017). While mental set is the tendency to approach a problem in a certain way because that method has worked in the past in a similar situation. Thus, mental set is a framework for thinking about a problem. For example: We always tend to take the same route to a destination we have taken before instead of a new route.Another example is a group of friends trying to figure to go to eat but one will pick up a restaurant she tried before because she familiar to the place without even considering other friends idea or preference. This will lead to social conflict. I believe to reduce or prevent these errors is to look at the whole picture and check every details before making a decision. If we take time to step back and examine the situation before making a conclusion we are less like to make mistake.
Feldman, R. S. (2017). Understanding psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.