Two quotes from a first year, modern Psychology text book:

"Cognitive complexity- the intricacy of thoughts about different attitude objects" (this is the definition)

"Cognitive complexity varies with both gender and culture. Responses to self-report measures of cognitive complexity show females to be more cognitively complex than males, although the same research showed that men and woman in close relationships display similar levels of cognitive complexity. Thus, although there may be overall gender differences in cognitive complexity, we are drawn to those at our same level of complexity"

Does anybody have issues with this conclusion? Perhaps there was information that was omitted, but I say there's not enough information to conclude such a statement, as there could be multiple explanations for the phenomena that were simply ignored.

Explanations for phenomena:

1) Couples are more attracted towards those of similar cognitive complexity ratings (this is their conclusion, at least that's what I assume they mean when they say "drawn to those")

2) Couples have a greater chance of entering the "close" stage of a relationship if they have similar cognitive complexity ratings

3) By the time a couple enter the "close relationship" stage, they have typically conversed quite a lot. By doing so, many ideas of the world have been transferred, meaning that each individual "copies" to some extent the ideas of the other, and hence, their cognitive complexity levels become somewhat similar.


The first one seems unlikely due to Economic reasons. If this was true, the negative out liners of males in regards to cognitive complexity would not been in close relationships very often at all, and the same is to be said of positive out liners of females. This just seems wrong, I could be mistaken I suppose but. The standard deviation might not be equal amongst the two genders, which could create some funny graph that allows the two genders to mix, not sure. I can't remember the formal math term, but I suppose on the positive side of the bell curve it could drop dramatically, as in the graph is tilted towards one side(help with wording please)

Thoughts on this?

I don't think your economic argument is strong, and if I had to guess I would say that for males, anyway, the result you think is unlikely (negative outliers tend not to form long term relationships) is likely right to at least some extent.

fwiw as soon as I read their conclusion I immediately thought of explanation 3, though I wouldn't have put it in terms of when they enter the "close relationship stage", but rather during such relationships.

There are other possibilities as well. For example, if complexity increases over time (maybe) and close relationships tend to be between men and women of different ages, with the men older (known to be true to some extent), that could also contribute to it. I'm sure there are many others; that's just what came immediately to mind, after the drifting-together idea.

Bottom line: Yes, if they drew that conclusion only from the research results cited in that paragraph, it's total crap.


Edit to add: Also notice that implicit in their conclusion is the idea that the relationships that they were studying were entered into completely voluntarily. That may be true (probably is if they meant romantic relationships in the West, though they didn't say so), but it isn't stated. They're also assuming a (reasonable but again unstated) positive connection between being "drawn to" someone and entering a close relationship with them.

Oh, also notice that race could enter the calculations, and so could social structures and their effects — more likely the latter because of the potential for gender imbalances, but each is possible.

The more I think about it the more problems I come up with — there are several I've thought of that are weird enough I'm not putting them here, but they should have been ruled out for that conclusion to be valid.

Lol sloppy reasoning.

Skewness of data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewness


As a committed bibliophile it is somewhat painful to say this but that "first year, modern Psychology text book" should be tossed into a trash bin, or burned in the fireplace, or used as a doorstop. And I’m being kind. A much more valuable use of your time could be spent reading Spinoza or David Hume or Authur Schopenhauer, or even Kant.

-Zeno

FYP

I don't think it is either now I think about it, because it's assuming that 100% of the population forms close relationships at equal frequencies.

Agreed, that's better worded

aaaaah, I like your thinking

aaaaah, tyvm

In my great wisdom I decided to do one of my majors in Psychology, and I'm starting to see why people say stuff like, "lol Psychology" My other major, Economics, is full with so much more bs it's like they've forgotten it is supposed to be a science(since people get hangovers that's proof people are irrational ) Perhaps I should have done a math degree instead?

Just realised that this is probably incorrect due to the same Economic problem I outlined in the other example. Humans breed at a faster rate than they perish. Therefore, all else being equal, there will be more people in the younger generation than the older. Meaning that there's too many young woman to meet the demands of the older men(ofc there's more to it than that heh)

I only just realised how nitty my position is, but basically your statement can only be true if woman tend to form close relationships with older men frequently, and find it difficult to form said relationships with males their own age, or if one's cognitive complexity is greatly influenced by age even when one is an adult. I think it's fairly obvious this isn't the case. This could certainly be a variable that influences the phenomena positively, but unless I'm not seeing something, it cannot be solely responsible and needs other variables to explain the said phenomena.


Really this is a math problem, maybe I'll mathematically disprove the statement tomorrow(well, show what the variable inputs have to be for statement to be true).

I think it's moderately likely that coginitive complexity is "influenced" (actually, positively correlated with) a fair amount by age even when one is an adult, within some largish range of ages. Whether that's "greatly", I don't know.

Can it explain the whole phenomenon? We don't know... because they conveniently didn't say how strong the effects they're measuring are. Lol psych texts again.

They are still teaching this?!? It is from a theory of personality from the mid 1950s that never caught on because it was completely unworkable. I think that organizational psychologists (aka management consultants minus the math skills) might still use it because it allows them to fleece a bit of money for not a lot of work.

We had moved on decades before I even started in the field!!!

Are you sure you aren't taking a history of psychology class?

Feel free to tell your professor that I do not approve of his/her choice of textbooks. Such garbage belongs in a "Psychology of Adjustment"* class.

I agree. The books that they foist upon first year students in psychology are absolutely horrid. They should start with William James' Principals of Psychology to weed out the weaker students both physically and intellectually as it is 1200 pages in length and not available as an e-book. I personally prefer annotated versions, but only to add to the heft.

A first year should never read Schopenhauer. Reading his works before the age of 20 leads to all manner of nervous disorders. Those who tend towards ennui are particularly advised against partaking.

Kant should only be read in parts. And even then, not by a first year student. They will naturally gravitate towards his works on morality and they do not have the experience necessary to get the joke.

Spinoza really only needs read nowadays as a cure for Descartism. They symptoms of Descartism are well known to physicians of even the worst of training, and he would have already been described treatment if he were a sufferer.

Hume is good.*

I believe that Hegel, in particular, should be prescribed to OP, but only to cure him of his ideas surrounding cognitive dissonance. Obviously he will need to be watched over carefully as some of the side effects are quite severe.

Russell is also good.*

*Excellent imnsho, obviously.

Confirmed prescribed first year text book for the Bachelor of Psychological Science

eh, I've did that a bit in a much more humble manner in my Economic classes, and it's caused bit of a storm. madnak has advised that I should probably play dumb for two years, as questioning their premises is undermining their authority and will consequently cause a backlash. Even me asking questions to try and figure out the math behind the theories has been responded with basically, "You don't need to know that no math in first year, stop thinking!" I understand graphs better if I know the math but

Coincidentally enough, after I complete Superfreakonomics/The Republic I was gonna read some Schopenhauer material, and than probably Nietzsche, however your comment has steered me, Hume looks awesome btw =D

[/QUOTE]

Don't forget Russell.

Also, I made fun of it due to size of the volumes, but I do heartily recommend James. He was probably the smartest man who has ever lived.

1200 pages but? I'm having motivation issues getting through my current Psychology text book D:

You seem to have bit of a idea where my head's at, would you be able to recommend me a book? Never actually read a Philosophy book, and found All Quiet On The Western Front a bit difficult to read(old school English), although that was a few years back. I like Plato/Socrates and heard it was easy to read so figured it was a good idea to lose my Philosophy virginity to The Republic, solid decision?

The Republic is a bit of a stretch to just read. It isn't exactly dense, but I'd not attempt it without a guide.

Maybe just take a history of philosophy class and read the required readings would be a decent idea. You will get the gist of what the various important figures said at least.

I'm honestly at a loss if that doesn't fit well for you. Perhaps others have ideas.

Already used my one and only elective class for my 4 years of study, so won't be able to do a Philosophy class D: What is this guide you speak of anyway?

I don't understand the hate on cognitive complexity. It seems to make sense, maybe it has been revitalized? There's a wiki page on it.

To speculate, I don't think it is really useful information by itself, but is more of an indication that gives the researcher a heads up as to what sort of framework he's dealing with. In other words, it doesn't tell anything by itself, but it would have many correlations with other traits.

It was actually bought up in the attitudes section of the book, not up to personality yet. It doesn't seem to really relate at all, seems more a indication of attitudinal ambivalence than anything else.

It is generally allowed that you take extra classes. I highly recommend, in general, that students do.

I'm assuming that you are already a full-time student. At most universities it costs the same to take 12 credits as 18 per semester. Unless you are struggling (hope not, given your majors), you should be taking somewhere between 17.5 and 18 credits per semester, rounding up to the nearest whole number, of course.

Also, you should change one of your majors to math if possible. You never know when/if you will change your mind with what you want to do with your life. Math opens significantly more doors, careerwise.

Oh, and the guide would be an expert. Either a highly annotated version or a professor. Zeno would probably disagree, but I am correct here.

There is also a wiki page on Ampelmannchen.

No hate on it, just that it doesn't belong in a first year class. You need to learn a lot more about the basics before they start throwing stuff like this at you.

It has everything to do with Kelly's theories (he was actually one of the most important psychologists). His personal construct theory was the start of cognitive psychology. You will learn about it hopefully.

The easiest way of understanding cognitive complexity is that it is how many distinctions a person can use to make judgements about other people. So, a racist would be rather uncomplex, looking only at skin color to make judgements. A heterosexual male would be slightly more complex, looking at boobs, buttocks (and perhaps some small list of things to distinguish between friend or foe) to make judgements. A woman would have even more complexity, looking at everything from height to weight, what the person likes to eat, whether the person wears the right clothes, whether the person gives certain looks in her general direction, whether the person speaks in "that tone", whether the person is generally kind or mean, whether the person is specifically kind or mean to her best friend, whether the person etc. etc. etc.

The racist in this example would be capable of maybe two or three distinctions, the steriotypical hetero male maybe 6 or 7, and the steriotypical woman perhaps upwards of 100.

(this can be extended to other important attitudinal objects, such as food and drink)

Tell me, which one places the highest certainty on their particular distinctions. I hope that you get this one correct.

Then tell me which one places the most importance on their particular preference. I am nearly certain that you will get this one incorrect.