Recently in Emotional Motivation Category

My friend was actually the one who gave me the idea for this post, she told me (and subsequently gave me the link) about a documentary discussing the psychology of Batman and told me I had to watch it. This show, "Batman Unmasked", talks about many different types of motivation of Bruce Wayne and the villains of Batman; in the first ten minutes the commentators (usually psychologists) talked about fear and perceived choice. Wayne, as a child, was very fearful of bats which acted as a motivator for him, he wanted to avoid situations where bats or what he perceived as bats were involved. When Wayne was an adult he used a technique often used by psychologists, exposure, to overcome his fear. He stood in a room full of bats until he no longer felt fear and anxiety.

 

Another really interesting concept talked about was about identity. There is an argument about who is the real person: Bruce Wayne or Batman. Some believe that Batman is the real identity and Wayne is the identity used around others as a mask. Others believe that Batman is the true mask while Wayne is the true identity. Although the argument is not extremely relevant, it helps to show what Reeves talks about with roles in the textbook. Reeve states that a person holds many different roles and what role is chosen by a person is dependent upon the situation (p. 280). That is clearly seen with Wayne/Batman. While out in public Wayne acts a certain way, as a playboy and spoiled heir. When in his own house or around people who know the real him, Bruce acts very differently than he does in his public role. When in the role of Batman he is a protector and fighter, something that also very different from both his public and personal roles.

 

Other topics discussed included Jung and the unconscious/conscious mind, hero complex, anger, power, narcissism, and choice among many others. For me, the most interesting part was the discussion about the enemies of Batman, especially Harvey Dent or Two-Face. If you have about 45 minutes I strongly encourage you to watch the entire documentary, it is really fascinating. This is a link to the first part of the show (just ignore the subtitles): Batman Unmasked

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/15/health/la-he-marathon-20100315

This article is about different factors that motivate people to participate in marathons. Some of the information seems fairly obvious, especially to people in this class, but it is still interesting to consider these findings. I found it especially interesting that the reason a person runs can make a difference in if they finish the race. In short, it was the people with high intrinsic motivation who tended to finish the training and marathon itself. It said that "The 75 who did not finish were those most likely to have been motivated by the wish to lose weight or gain recognition from others."

This finding makes sense to me, and I think it fits rather well with our individualistic culture. Many of us feel that it should be up to each person how they want to live, we should not spend our lives trying to please others. It would be interesting to see if this finding holds up in collectivistic cultures. If it would, we could be more confident than intrinsic factors of motivation may be inherently more powerful in influencing whether or not a person ultimately finishes a marathon.

This article mentioned that more and more people are creating bucket lists on which they include marathons. The article said this was a form of extrinsic motivation because it is being done for recognition, but I would argue that it really depends on the person. There are undoubtedly some people who will do extreme activities just to brag about them, but there are others (using the bucket list) who simply enjoy the challenge.

I find it rather interesting that some people do it for loved ones, and I have heard that others still do it for Christ. From what we first read (that  the people with high intrinsic motivation tend to finish the marathons), it would seem that these motivations are extrinsic (being done for the approval of others). I think this certainly does seem true, but there are probably exceptions. If a Christian is doing the marathon as a type of self-imposed penance because they feel guilty about past wrongdoings or because they simply want to make a sacrifice for the Lord, that would probably be intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, if a Christian does the marathon as penance to avoid the fires of Hell, it seems that would probably be a form of extrinsic motivation. In retrospect, this past paragraph sounds somewhat like a bad joke, but I believe it is never the less very true.

Another point which merits attention is about endorphins. Over the past couple years I have read very contradictory "findings" on endorphins. You commonly hear that exercising and physical activities releases endorphins, and others have claimed that the level of physical exertion one must undertake to actually release significant levels of endorphins is dangerously high (with such physical activities doing actually more harm than good overall). I honestly do not know which view is objectively correct, so if anyone else might be able to shed light on this area, I would very much appreciate it.

One final point I would like to write about is that there obviously can be both primary and secondary motivations. The article also mentioned that specific reasons for making the commitment to a marathon may change over time. For example: physical health benefits may become dominant. Although raising money for charities seems to be partly be an extrinsic form of motivation, I really do not believe you can place it exclusively in a single category - there may be elements of both intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation present (recognition from others and feeling happy that you have helped others).   

This website is a common theme for my posts, but I really enjoy it's variety of topics about relationships and what not to do.

 

At www.askmen.com, I found an article about mistakes people make during their first conversations.  Everyone needs a source of intimacy and relatedness, and I feel that these are two very strong motivators for being in a relationship.  Also, sex can be a strong motivator.  How many people can look at a movie start like Megan Fox (or for the ladies, Channing Tatum) and not think, "Damn. Yes please!!!!"

 

I think that the intensity that these motivators create can be blamed for most mistakes with the awkward first conversation.  The drive to succeed with an opening conversation can lead to becoming nervous.  Your heart will rate, you'll begin to sweat, and then worry if you smell or not.  These nerves can lead to several of these "faux pas".

 

1)    Talking about exes.  They're in the past.  Let's leave them there. As the article says, the first conversation should be fun.  It should leave her interested in you.  Make a few corny jokes.  It will show her that you're light-hearted.

2)    Talking about money.  At this place in our lives, most of us are POOR! We're in college.  If you're both poor, great.  But if you're rich and they're poor, you'll create jealousy.  Not a good way to start something. Also, you'll seem arrogant, and she will be wondering why you're not on "Jersey Shore"

3)    Flirting too much.  Coming on too strong, by being too flirty, is just as bad as being standoffish.  By being sincere, you'll stand out by being original.  (Here's a tip: this is how you get the "okay" from her friends, too.) Just be real with her, and she's bound to be slightly interested in you.

4)    LISTEN!!! Ask her about herself - people generally enjoy talking about themselves - then just relate it back to yourself. Making a conversation with someone involves effort. If you're not going to put any into the first conversation, why would she expect you to put any into a relationship?  And how are you any different from the other hundred guys who have showed interest in her that same night?  Again, this will make you stand out.

5)    Leave her wanting more.  This will sound a little odd, but stop the conversation early.  Stop at a high of the conversation - not when you're looking for a new topic.  She will definitely be interested in talking to you again after this.

 

Obviously this article is geared as advice towards men.  But women, what do you think about this?  What do you agree with / disagree with.  Do you really think that any or all of this will lead to a fulfilling relationship or is this just a load of crap?

 

http://www.askmen.com/dating/heidi_300/378_5-first-conversation-mistakes.html

My roommates love watching horror/suspense movies. It almost seems like every time we have a movie night, a horror flick is on the list to watch. For my roommates, their top favorites include the Saw movies, the recent hit Paranormal Activity, and the Haunting in Connecticut. Myself on the other hand, I'm not a super huge fan like my roommates. I would actually prefer a comedy over a horror flick, yet I still enjoy watching horror movies sometimes. I'm the wuss that covers my face though when something too scary comes on the screen. Thinking about all this, I was wondering what would motivate people to endure the feelings of fear and suspense, especially for the very popular horror flicks. I came across several different theories on reasons why people enjoy feeling fear and suspense.

On Psychology Today, Why are there Horror Movies?, this article talked about the reason behind it is the fact that because it is fiction we are able to enjoy it rather than it being reality where we have to make a choice. This article didn't satisfy me however, so I kept searching.

On ScienceDaily.com, Why do People Love Horror Movies?, it argued that people enjoy being scared because they feel both negative and positive emotions at the same time. The sense of relief is not the only positive of the outcome of watching a scary movie, its more the the happiness of being scared.

On Live Science, Horror Movies: Why People Love Them., it talks about severaly different topics. First it talks about how people don't watch movies just like the Saw movies for the blood and gore, but because they experience a thrill of assessing threat levels. Next it talks about how people have the ability to control what effects their emotions and what does not while watching horror films. Lastly it talks about fear being more than just an emotion, and that it is a biological factor that starts with our amygdala.

As far as these three articles go, I'm not sure if my question was answered as to why people enjoy fear while watching horror/suspense films. Why do you like or dislike these types of movies? What are other factors that could be involved in developing the liking of horror films?

Why don't we complain?

 

http://www.smartercarter.com/Essays/Buckley%20-%20Why%20Dont%20We%20Complain.html

 

I found this article very interesting.  It discussed the reasons why humans do not complain.  One reason could be fear of negative repercussions from peers or the person in which you are complaining to.  Many people have a predisposition to think that complaining is worse than being uncomfortable and will therefore accept being uncomfortable.  I think that if you are nice about the problem no one will be able to say you were out of line, they might even be happy that someone had the nerve to say something.

 

Another reason why many people may not complain in an unpleasant situation is because of the by stander effect.  If they are uncomfortable or unhappy, at what point will they take it upon themselves to remedy the situation?  It would be at the point when they realized that no one else was going to do it.  Human kind is predisposed to believe that other people will take the lead in situations and therefore, much of the time nothing gets done. 

 

A third alternative could be because of sheer shyness.  This is the hardest to combat, because it is a trait of the person that is very hard to manipulate.  However, I shy person may be annoyed by a situation but never get to the point of thinking about doing something to change it, therefore avoiding the discomfort of compliance.

 

The author of this article states that at the point when humans no longer complain, we will become automatons, incapable of feeling.  I wonder what others think of this conclusion.  Does compliance lead to lifeless humans? Is it right to always complain when faced with imperfect situations? 

After reading Sadie's article on why having a puppy is a positive thing and her experience with it, I looked for an article that discussed some of the benefits of it and I came across this article. This article discusses how having a dog can physically and literally improve an indiviuals's physical health. People who own dogs generally have lower colesterol, lower blood pressure,and have reduced chances of cardiovascular diseases. These individuals also have faster recovery times and higher survival rates.These individuals also have fewer visits to the doctor because their physical health is over all better. The main thing in this article that relates to me is how having a dog can improve the emotional state of people. As I said in commenting on Sadie's article, I have been battling severe depression that almost cost me everything I had, including my college career. I have been in counseling, which my counselor suggested I should have some sort of pet even if just a fish. For Christmas this year, my sister and her family got me a female miniature weiner dog which  I named Lady. She has made a huge positive effect in my life and my depression has done a 180 since I got her. I am almost like a completely different person. She gives me a reason to smile each and everyday and something to look foward to going home to. She has made a huge difference in my life and in my emotional state of mind. She gives me a sense of unconditional love and acceptance, and feeling of being needed, which is most important. I couldn't agree with this article more that having a dog can improve a person's physical healtha and also their emotional helath.

I figured there is no time better than the present to touch of the drive and story of an Olympic athlete. I think we all know by now, being an Olympian takes much more than an occasional practice. Being an Olympian takes commitment, determination, drive, and natural ability. These athletes practice for hours on end. Then, when they are done, they go to sleep and wake up to do it all over again. Training is nothing less that extreme. Anything other than being the best is not acceptable, because no one goes to the Olympic games with out the desire to bring home gold. Every athlete dreams of being an Olympian, and every Olympian dreams of being recognized as the best... to be positively reinforces with a gold circle draped from their neck. 

I am taking a class this semester that deals a lot with relationships and how men and women communicate. We recently started talking about the famous "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" ideas. This term was coined by author John Gray and Mr. Gray has made a killing through his book and seminars that tell his listeners why their relationship may not be working. I was unfamiliar with the content of these books and was slightly horrified when I learned what they are teaching. Gray outlines ways in which to communicate with a man:
Only speak for two minutes
Speak only about one topic at a time
Provide few, if any, details
Be aware that revealing emotions may cause him to pull away
Appreciate him for listening
No eye contact
Expect interruptions
I was appalled by the way Gray says women should talk to men. It seems that Gray thinks that in order to communicate with a man you should treat him like a five year old. I was very confused by "Be aware of revealing emotions". How are we supposed to get close to anyone without revealing our emotions and thoughts? Another that bothered me was that women are supposed to reward men for listening. Should we reward him with sex just because he listened for two minutes? What kind of message is that sending to men? Do what I want and I'll put out? While sex is a huge motivational tool I do not think it should be used just to get your partner to listen to you. I know a lot of people follow John Gray and really connect with what he is preaching, but I think it is completely bogus.
What do you guys think? Should we use sex in relationships to get what we want? Is sharing emotions bad for your relationship? If a man is aloof and uncommunicative what would be the motivation for fixing a relationship if women just accept that "that's how men are"?

There have been a lot of different speculations as to why Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris committed the crimes at Columbine High School.  However, this is one of the first articles I have found outlining psychological reasoning behind their actions.  I actually wrote my book report on the motivation behind Columbine, however I did not focus on the boy's psychological problems.  I did find this very interesting, but I think it's important to remember that this is only one opinion and not necessarily fact. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119133519.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+(ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News)

I was rather intrigued by the research presented in this article. The main finding is alluded to in the title of the article - recent research suggests that those less motivated to achieve will excel on tasks seen as fun and those more motivated to achieve will not perform as well on tasks that are intended to be for fun. Obviously, this suggests that different students may need different types of motivation to excel. The students that are competitive and serious tend to be significantly less motivated when they think the task is just being performed for fun. Many other students do not take academics so seriously and work better when the task is fun.

Although these two groups are not all-inclusive (plenty of people lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes), I believe these differences do exist in the real world. As some individuals strive for excellence, they can become rather obsessed with perfection and get in the habit of avoiding anything fun-related to maximize their reputation of achievement. Given the incredible amount of time that many of these perfectionists put into their work, it is very hard for others to remain competitive without also putting a tremendous amount of effort into their academics. Because of this, I think many people stick to a more balanced (and perhaps more natural) life, in which they strive for excellence rather than perfection and are okay with not being labeled "the best."

Although I think many people are able to eventually find a balance between work and fun, there will always be those who are unable to achieve such a balance. I have not read much of the literature pertaining to this subject, but I wonder what the common causes of "overacheiving" are. It seems likely to me that some of these overly competitive individuals may be trying to compensate for low feelings of self-worth and others may be motivated by a need to feel superior. Whatever the reasons may be, I think most people realize is better for one's physical and mental health to not be overly competitive, but as people get older I think it becomes increasingly difficult for such people to change because the tendency to be that way has become a fundamental component of their personality. I think this research supports the idea that we can get too carried away and we can be overly motivated. Moderation is key in a great many areas of life.

 

Another questions that arises here is, "Does this research support the idea that people motivated by different approaches should be taught in separate groups (each given the learning style that works best for them)?" If we put more and more highly competitive people together into a single class though, would we also be creating the potential for even higher, even more unhealthy work ethics to arise? I suppose the questions I am posing here rest on the assumption that it can be unhealthy to be overly competitive, but I think this assumption is justified considering that those highly motivated become less able to do tasks that are supposed to be fun.