This started out as a rough draft about study habits (especially bad ones) during finals week back in May of 2017. Due to the weariness of the coinciding studies and final projects, I put it off. And put it off. And then a summer’s worth of craziness came and went, and this unfinished blog post slipped almost completely out of mind.

Therefore, I hastily reworked this musing on studying into one about procrastination:

Humans will procrastinate on various things for various reasons. Perhaps it is a boring assignment, perhaps it there is enough time that it does not need to be started right away, or perhaps they think something else requires their attention more. I think we all know about rationalizing a decision; question is, where does the underlying cause of that decision come from?

The Evolutionary and Biological Perspectives of Psychology focus on the possible causes of behavior rooted in genetics. We know that personality develops from a basic temperament that is probably rooted in genetics, and any behavior patterns we have that are genetic in origin are obviously derived from some behavior that was advantageous to survival. In fact, a lot of behaviors that are counterproductive in modern day humans can be easily viewed as genetic predispositions gone wrong (for instance, paranoia is probably advantageous for an environment full of predators, while an addiction to sweet and fatty food is probably due to the fact that such foods were both very rare for are ancestors and contained more nourishment than grain or seeds alone).

Perhaps procrastination is derived from a genetic predisposition that allowed for the conservation of energy. Perhaps this same genetic factor is basal for being able to think ahead and prioritize a hierarchy of tasks.  It is probably the former, since studies show that levels of mental difficulty for a task happen to have an actual intrinsic cost, which is partially why we prefer easy tasks to hard ones.

However, genetic predispositions don’t exist in isolation. The field of epigenetics shows that genetic information can be activated or deactivated depending on environmental factors (for example, the child of two tall parents may not grow a lot if he or she does not received enough nutrients). Also, predispositions aside, a lot of personality and behavioral tendencies are gained from interacting with the environment. If someone does something a certain way, it is because they learned over the course of their life that it was acceptable to do so.

How does one learn procrastination? How does one learn any behavior? Through reinforcement and punishment, of course. If a certain pattern of behavior produces positive results, then that behavior is going to be repeated more often than similar behavior that does not produce results. In theory, punishment discourages one repeating certain patterns of behavior (if punishment is ill-thought out or doesn’t explain why the subject is being punished, then the undesired behavior will persist and everyone will just get more stressed out). Therefore, if the results of procrastination produce something that is perceived as rewarding, then it is going to persist. Why would procrastination be rewarding? Well, the last minute rush of meeting a deadline is enjoyable for some, especially if the results are favorable.

There is more to learning than just reward and punishment, however. There is a physiological component that I think shouldn’t go overlooked.

The human brain is a complex mass of interconnected pathways, each associated with some process or another, all of them plastic enough that they can adjust to some degree in order to acclimate to changing circumstances. If a specific pathway or set of pathways is used often, then that pathway will gain new connections, and consequently gain strength as a neural process. Also, the more a thought pattern is repeated and strengthened, the greater the likelihood one will immediately default to that neural pattern instead of another one when making a decision.

Incidentally, the brains ability to strengthen and modify neural connections allows it to reassign skills to different parts of the brain, allowing stroke victims to relearn basic skills they might have otherwise lost. It also explains why people who “know” better develop substance dependencies.

For example, if someone usually plays video games rather than study for a class, their neural patterns concerning video games are going to be stronger than their patterns that concern studying, which means that they are more likely to make the decision to play video games first (perhaps they will come up with a good rationalization, but rationalization is usually just a person’s justifications for an emotional choice that they have already made).

The more reinforced a behavior is, the more one is motivated to choose it. For the most part, we are motivated by that which either fills a biological need or produces results that we find psychologically fulfilling. These involve the same parts of the brain, for the record, but the secondary psychological needs (such as money) are the results of classical conditioning (learning to associate a new stimulus with preexisting reactions). This is a gross oversimplification, by the way.

Social influences also are a major factor concerning human behavior. In general, humans learn what is proper behavior from the observation or the instruction of others. Being social animals, human behavior is often influenced by the real or imagined presence of other humans and what expectations one thinks they might have of them. In ambiguous situations, we follow the leads of those who seem to know what is going on. When among peers, we act in accord with them in order to fit in and avoid being ostracized.

Therefore, it is not uncommon for justifications of behavior (to oneself or others) to end with the phrase “–but everyone else does/is doing it.”

Now, back to the individualist point of view. A person’s behavior is often a mix-bag of inherent predispositions, environmental conditioning, learned attitudes, and various other influences. How well is able to overcome or adjust with this influences to change behavior depends on one’s mindset and views on personality.

If one believes a trait like intelligence to be inherent, then they are going to treat a task they cannot complete as proof that they are not smart enough to complete it, so they then move on to some other task that they can complete. Someone who views intelligence as a  constantly development trait, however, will treat an incomprehensible task as a challenge, so they will actively work on learning how to deal with the task. Neither is particularly wrong in the viewpoint, but certain perspectives on life can provide more opportunities for progress than others.

One’s overall emotional state also influences one’s decisiveness (obviosuly). Sometimes repeated behaviors result from a root issue; sometimes it is just the external influence of the weather messing up one’s mood. Either way, the issue is not going to be resolved unless the individual becomes consciously aware that an issue exists.

There are many reasons that a person might procrastinate, and none of them are mutually exclusive. Perhaps one is more predisposed towards it than someone else, but that does not mean that it is inherent to them; anyone can learn not to procrastinate if they can find the motivation and strength to do so. Instead of thinking about how hard a project is, think about how easy small parts of it would be. Instead of putting it off until later, start now and keep coming back to work on it. Do not think that you are stupid; think that you just don’t know something yet.

Of course, there are most likely people with better advice for this sort of thing. Even some of the stuff here might be of help.

In the mean time, I am going to work on some art history notes and communication exchanges that I have been putting off in favor of reading Silmarillion fanfiction.



Last year’s Psychology 101 textbook and notes


Isolationist Tendencies

While I probably enjoy a good party or hangout as much as the next guy, I am not a true extrovert, and I occasionally find myself seeking out solitude in order to relax or just be alone with my thoughts. Sometimes, you just need to get away from the excitement to really enjoy yourself. Of course, this sort of physical isolation is only temporary, and rather different from the sort of habitual environmental obliviousness (and conditioned social isolation) seen in people nowadays.

iPhones, computers, and web-based social networking are a major staple of the Twenty-first Century. They have really changed how people interact and connect with each other, and we’ve all grown used to it. Most communication is done via text-based messaging over distance, and it is not uncommon for pedestrians to walk about staring at their phones. Audio and video messaging are also not unheard of, and it can be quite disconcerting to hear someone wearing earbuds suddenly start speaking as if to thin air when in reality the other participant is just elsewhere.

Such electronic devices are very distracting, as every other PSA on texting while driving has probably mentioned. Contrary to what some might say, the human brain cannot multitask; it can only switch its focus one thing at a time, and rapidly switching focus between two different tasks means the amount of concentration on each task is reduced.

Therefore, it is stupid easy to sneak up on someone texting on their phone or listening to music, possibly more so than two people having a conversation (sneaking up on people is lots of fun).

However, there is more to digital communication than just obliviousness, some of which I find interesting, some of which I find scary. for example, in teenagers, a recent study showed that the number of likes an image got factored more into their own preference for the image that what it actually depicted. Apparently Twitter and Facebook make kids more susceptible to blindly conforming to the majority (not that their predecessors where much better). Also, personal self-esteem these days is often dependent on validation from peers, usually in the form of likes or responses to posted content.

And then there is social isolation. Social network technology is great for keeping up to date on who’s who and what’s where, but the attention given to it cuts us off from those around us. While what causes what is not exactly certain, studies show that there definitely is a link between use of social media and feelings of social isolation. Perhaps social media is the causes, perhaps it is just the retreat for those prone towards feeling loneliness. I suspect it is somewhat of the latter, but with the added addition of that it does nothing to effectively alleviate one’s loneliness.

With texting or online interaction, you have a great deal of control on what information you give about yourself, but the degree of separation needed for such also precludes the potential for intimacy. Of course, the amount of distraction and feelings of connection involved is enough to keep one from actively seeking to connect with somewhat in the physical world, especially when the internet can provide a safe retreat from in-person awkwardness, which otherwise would just be weathered and would allow for the strengthening of personal connection. This is probably a much more serious matter concerning parents and children; it is frustrating for a youngling to try to make eye contact with a parent who is too busy checking their email, or to feel like they are being dismissed when the parent is currently too busy online to interact with them.

Fun fact about loneliness; those who know how to handle being alone feel it less often. The problem with social media is that it helps promote a mindset where personal validation is directly tied to feedback from others, yet the degree of separation provided by the screen of pixels means that one is not getting the full-on experience of truly connecting to a person. At the same time, retreating into one’s phone is not going to foster any skills at handling conversation or social interaction.

Personally, I think most people could benefit from a decent walk in the woods, either alone or with a friend, just so they can easily detach themselves from their virtual lives. It is also a good idea to focus more on the other people around you when having a meal with family or just hanging out with friends. Chances are, if you are on your phone or computer, you are missing out at quite a bit of stuff happening around you (says the guy alone in his room, typing at a keyboard).

Granted, I do not find new media to be wholly evil or detrimental. I very much like social networking and the fast communication, resource sharing, and gossip gathering for which it allows. However, every seemingly good thing has a tradeoff, and the more you use it, the greater the tradeoff gets. Therefore, I would assume that it is best to use it in moderation, as well as to make sure it does not interfere too much with physical interactions.



Being Antisocial

When I was a teenager, I was somewhat of a loner; I kept to myself, rarely socialized, and was rather quiet and laconic. To some, I might have even seemed avoidant or unfriendly (although I did have a few friends with whom I would let my guard down). Unsurprisingly, I would occasionally be referred to as “antisocial” by my peers, which everyone ( including myself) generally used as a synonym for  words like “aloof”, “introverted”, and “shy”.

Turns out those words are only synonymous with the colloquial definition of the word. The proper definition of antisocial (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary) is “averse to the society of others” or “hostile or harmful to organized society”. In other words, it is used to designate disruptive or delinquent activities or entities (unorganized crime and the like, I guess).

Learning the dictionary’s definition of antisocial lead to a websearch of the term, which immediately lead me to Antisocial Personality Disorder.

ASPD is basically a mental condition where a person consistently exhibits a complete disregard for social taboos and the well-being of others. Symptoms include a lack of empathy and remorse, the manipulation of others for gain or pleasure, impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead, hostility and violent/aggressive behavior, an arrogant sense of superiority, irresponsible and deceitful behavior, and abusive relationships. Naturally, people with ASPD tend to engage in behavior such as theft, vandalism, assault, and the like. A person with ASPD will have likely been diagnosed with Conduct Disorder during childhood and early adolescence (in fact, evidence of CD is apparently required for an ASPD diagnosis).

While people who have ASPD often get called psychopaths or sociopaths, there apparently are definitive differences between these terms, although there is no reason why someone with psychopathy or sociopathy cannot have ASPD as well.

For the most part, all three conditions share similar symptoms (lack of empathy, manipulative behavior, etc.). As far as I can tell, the main difference between psychopathy and sociopathy is that the latter is the product of genetics and neurological abnormalities (part of their brain does not work) while sociopathy is apparently the result of environmental influences coupled with a possible predisposition towards antisocial behavior. Sociopathy is a somewhat informal term that used to be a synonym for psychopath, but these days is more likely to designate a non-psychopath with ASPD, which is apparently a relatively broad category in which psychopathy sits as a specific subset. At the same time, people with ASPD are defined as being unable to confirm to societal mores, whereas there are cases of people who fit the profile for psychopathy and are able to live rather normal, non-disruptive lives. Interestingly, a couple studies show that criminals with both psychopathy and ASPD tend to be worse offenders then those with just ASPD.

Psychopathy, being the result of genetic deviance, probably does not have a cure that does not involve brain surgery. There is very little information on whether or not Antisocial Personality Disorder by itself can be cured, since most people with it are not the type to seek out treatment.

There is still some debate on the differences between psychopathy and ASPD, as well as the proper numbers of people who have both or either.

What is certain is that shy, introverted people do not really fit the generally profile of someone with ASPD.

Note: ASPD is applied to someone who persistently engages in anti-social behavior, which is basically any activity that is considered (at the least) to be socially inappropriate, or that displays disregard for the well being of others. It still does not seem really applicable to quiet, background people (except from the point of view of those who consider loners to be freaks).




Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptoms

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Antisocial Personality Disorder – Brito and Hodgins

What is a Psychopath?

Anti Social Behavior